News And Articles Gates

One of the best and cruelest aspects of tennis is that there is nowhere to hide. You might be an all-time great, even the all-time great, and yet you are only as effective as the forehands, backhands and decisions you are making on any given day.

Soccer and rugby stars in a funk or in decline can rely on teammates. Golfers, unless they are Tiger Woods, aren’t expected to win or even shine every week. Stars in judged sports can lean on the judges’ memories and inclinations.

A tennis star like Roger Federer stands exposed — in all his brilliance or all his disarray — in every match. And while it might take a while to know that a seminal athlete in another sport is vulnerable, tennis provides an abundance of evidence in a hurry.

It is piling high for Federer as he continues to devolve from a ruthless closer with a killer forehand into an edgy mortal with performance anxiety. He has won one tournament since the U.S. Open last year and has not won an event in four attempts so far this year, with the clay-court season — never part of his kingdom — now under way.

So far, the studied Swiss with the acquired cool has not left us guessing how much it hurts. There were the uncontrollable tears in defeat at the Australian Open, where he faded in the fifth set against his nemesis-in-chief Rafael Nadal. There was the racket smashing in Miami last week early in the third set of his error-strewn semifinal loss to one of his nemeses-in-waiting, Novak Djokovic.

Federer hardly lost the plot altogether. He simply reached down slowly to pick up the crumpled frame and then flicked it in the direction of his courtside chair. But for an understated champion for whom appearances matter (greatly), it was as if he had begun yanking out his hair and shrieking “Why me!?” to the world.

It required great effort for Federer to cure himself of the on-court tantrums of his youth. To see him resume breaking rackets now, after all these years of self-control, was like watching the owner of a health food store start fumbling through his desk drawer for a long-lost pack of cigarettes.

But perhaps we exaggerate for effect, and are all getting elegiac about Federer, the tennis genius, too soon.

With his 28th birthday looming in August, his days of Slam-in, tournament-out dominance are clearly over. His body is also beginning to betray him more regularly. But it would be both unfair and unwise to write him off just yet.

Yes, the game he once ruled with so few hints of rebellion from the serfs is now governed by Nadal, with Djokovic and, above all, Andy Murray quickly acquiring territory and treasure.

Yes, Federer’s level under the greatest pressure has dropped. He has lost five straight times to Nadal and four straight times to the counterpunching Murray. But he has beaten other quality players convincingly this year, including Fernando Verdasco and Andy Roddick. The range of Federer’s ball-striking ability and world view is such that some meaningful midcareer adjustments are possible.

His appetite for traveling and playing the game appears undiminished, which is due to his intelligent scheduling and also to the fact that his longtime companion Mirka Vavrinec was a globe-trotting tennis professional herself.

Pete Sampras, the modern champion whose career most closely parallels Federer’s, was already growing weary of the grind in his late 20s. But it is Sampras who should provide Federer with some inspiration at this vulnerable stage. After years of dominance on fast surfaces, Sampras also hit an extended rough patch, only to emerge with his 14th Grand Slam singles title.

Sampras did it at age 31 at the 2002 U.S. Open, well aware that big life changes were coming, with his wife Bridgette Wilson pregnant with their first child. Though slightly younger, Federer finds himself chasing No. 14 and a share of Sampras’s all-time record with Vavrinec also expecting their first.

“There are definitely some parallels,” said Paul Annacone, Sampras’s longtime coach, in an interview this week. “Just as it was for Pete, it’s a particularly interesting, challenging time in Roger’s career. But I would look at it with Roger in the same way as for Pete. For guys like that, it is daunting but not that daunting. They are so skilled, they can adjust, but a lot of the adjustment is mental.”

Annacone thinks Roger grew accustomed to overwhelming opponents from the back court: to being the better athlete and hitting a more, consistent and heavier ball.
Source

admin Sports tennis

Like the old competition to have the world’s tallest building, New York can’t resist having the nation’s highest taxes. So after California raised its top income tax rate to 10.55% last month, Albany’s politicians leapt into action to reclaim high-tax honors. Maybe C-Span can make this tax competition a new reality TV series; Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, could host.

They can invite politicians from the at least 10 other states that are also considering major tax hikes, including Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington, Arizona and New Jersey. One explicit argument for the $787 billion “stimulus” bill was to help states avoid these tax increases that even Keynesians understand are contractionary. Instead, the state politicians are pocketing the federal cash to maintain spending, and raising taxes anyway. Just another spend-and-tax bait and switch.

In New York, Assembly Speaker (and de facto Governor) Sheldon Silver and other Democrats will impose a two percentage point “millionaire tax” on New Yorkers who earn more than $200,000 a year ($300,000 for couples). This will lift the top state tax rate to 8.97% and the New York City rate to 12.62%. Since capital gains and dividends are taxed as ordinary income, New York will impose the nation’s highest taxes on investment income — at a time when Wall Street is in jeopardy of losing its status as the world’s financial capital.

But who and where are all these millionaires to pluck? More than any other state, New York has been hurt by the financial meltdown, and its $132 billion budget is now $17.7 billion in deficit. The days of high-roller Wall Street bonuses that finance 20% of the New York budget are long gone. The richest 1% of New Yorkers already pay almost 40% of the income tax, and the top 0.5% pay 30%.

Mr. Silver thinks he can squeeze more from these folks without any economic harm, arguing that recent income tax hikes didn’t hurt New Jersey. (Yes, the pols in New York actually hold up New Jersey, whose economy and budget are also in shambles, as their role model.) The tax hike lobby in Albany points to a paper by Princeton researchers reporting that the number of “half-millionaires,” those with incomes above $500,000, increased by 60% from 2003-2006 after New Jersey taxes rose (the top rate is now 8.98%). But this was a boom time for the national economy, especially in the financial industry where many New Jerseyites work, or at least used to work.

The better comparison is how New Jersey compared to the rest of the nation. According to the study’s own data, over the same period the U.S. saw an increase of 76% in half-millionaire households. E.J. McMahon, a budget expert at the Manhattan Institute, calculates that New Jersey lost more than 4,000 high-income taxpayers after the tax increase.

Mr. Silver says of the coming tax hikes: “We’ve done it before. There hasn’t been a catastrophe.” Oh, really? According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures — the biggest exodus of any state. New York City has lost more than 75,000 jobs since last August, and many industrial areas upstate are as rundown as Detroit. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently said New York had the worst economic outlook of all 50 states, including Michigan. And that analysis was done before these $4 billion in new taxes. How does Mr. Silver define “catastrophe”?

Oh, and it isn’t just high earners who get smacked. The new budget raises another $2 billion or so on top of the $4 billion in income taxes with some 100 new taxes, fees, fines, surcharges and penalties to be paid by all New York residents. There are new charges for cell phone usage, fishing permits, health insurance (the “sick tax”), electric bills, and on bottled water, cigars, beer and wine. A New York Post analysis found that a typical family of four with an income below $100,000 would pay more than $800 a year in higher taxes and fees.

This is advertised as a plan of “shared sacrifice,” but the group that is most responsible for New York’s budget woes, the all-powerful public employee unions, somehow walk out of this with a 3% pay increase. The state is receiving an estimated $10 billion in federal stimulus money, and Democrats are spending every cent while raising the state budget by 9%. Then they insist with a straight face that taxes are the only way to close the budget deficit.

And so Albany is about to make a gigantic gamble on New York’s economic future. The gamble is that the state with the highest cost of doing business can raise taxes on everyone who lives, works, breathes, eats or drinks in the state and not pay a heavy price for it. If they’re wrong, New York will enhance its reputation as the Empire in Decline State.
Source

admin Finance taxes