In other Olympic news, the IOC's executive board expressed concern Sunday that the United States Olympic Committee's recent restructuring violates the Olympic Charter. (The USOC's new structure does not give each American IOC member a full vote on the board of directors.) Someone I know suggested a couple of months ago that the USOC's proposed reforms probably would not meet with the IOC's approval.

CNN has this appreciation of Hepburn, whose long career saw her go from "box office poison" to being the grand dame of American film.

That may mean it'll be awhile before we see New Zealand or Australia in the World Cup again. I don't doubt that South America's fifth best will—for the foreseeable future—be better than anything Oceania has to offer, but it is supposed to be a World Cup, isn't it?

And, hey, I'm pretty delighted to have five of my projected women's quarterfinalists in the running.

With 16 players left in the men's draw, I'm pretty proud to still have five of my eight quarterfinalists going.

(And how dare the silly columnist in the linked article suggest that Mole was "a cheesy reality show." She obviously never watched it. It was a game show for smart people....)

How 'bout that Andy Roddick? How 'bout that Greg Rusedski's potty mouth?

On the men's side, all of my projected quarterfinalists (who played)—David Nalbandian, James Blake, Jiri Novak, and Andre Agassi—advanced. Agassi, interestingly, dropped a set to the British wild card that he faced. (My wild card pick, Alex Bogdanovic, fizzled.) So, of my eight picks for the quarterfinals, only top-seeded Lleyton Hewitt let me down. I'll take that, that's for sure.

As for my upset picks today, well—damn—I'm good. Just as I predicted, Olivier Rochus took out #7 Guillermo Coria, and Dutchman Raemon Sluiter defeated #20 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (in a long, long five-setter). Those results have done wonders for my self-esteem. Upsets I didn't pick: Karol Kucera's victory over veteran Wayne Ferreira (#28); qualifier Robin Soderling's upset of French Open finalist Martin Verkerk (#21); qualifier Frederic Niemeyer's victory over clay-courter Felix Mantilla (#22); and qualifer Cyril Saulnier's win over last year's semifinalist Xavier Malisse (#14). Those qualifiers did awfully well in the first round, huh? (That practice on the grass can't hurt.) And contributing to my swelling ego, I had a couple of those qualifiers' matches listed as "tasty" first-round contests. (As my father would say, every once in awhile, even the ol' blind sow finds an acorn....)

Of the remaining two matches that I thought might be tasty, only one was actually all that interesting. That was the victory of Wayne Moodie, another qualifier, over former top player Marc Rosset. I like Moodie's chances in the next round, too.

Of the 62 first-round men's matches that have been completed, I correctly picked 41 of them. That's just about two-thirds exactly. I guess I'll take that. One of the first-round matches that I correctly picked was evil Tim Henman's win over "lucky loser" Thomas Zib. Amusingly, Zib managed to take Henman to four sets. I sort of wish I'd been wrong about that result.... Speaking of Henman: With Verkerk's loss, every strong player in his part of the draw is now gone. If Henman plays as he did today, though, he may still make me look prescient by losing in the first week.

I better be off to bed. If I don't go now, I won't be able to appreciate tomorrow's big match: #5 Andy Roddick vs. big-serving Greg Rusedski. It's all been good so far, huh?

The women's tour is going to "stress[] femininity." Ugh.

Wertheim, like me, thinks the men's boycott of the Slams is going nowhere fast.

Brad Gilbert is overheard saying that evil Tim Henman "has the all-time Betty Crocker draw. We're talking Easy Bake Oven."

Everyone is talking about Daniela Hantuchova's weight, and Wertheim has some good suggestions for the Tour. (Maybe the Tour should reconsider that "stress[ing] femininity" project.)

Kim Clijsters is truly nice. Wow.

How else did I do on Day 1? Not bad, if I say so myself. Of the 31 men's matches completed today, I correctly picked 21 of them. My other (i.e., non-Hewitt) projected quarterfinalists who were on-court today—Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, and Sjeng Schlaken—all advanced. Andy Roddick looked particularly good. Either he or, perhaps, Frenchman Arnaud Clement seems likely to benefit from Hewitt's early departure. In fact, I'll put Roddick into the semifinal spot vacated by Hewitt.

How'd I do with the upsets? Well, I correctly picked Mardy Fish's win over #29 Gaston Gaudio, but—despite my pick—#23 Augstin Calleri managed to advance over Adrian Voinea, who retired in the third set. And, dang it, after all my vacillation, I failed to predict Max Mirnyi's upset of #31 Vince Spadea. Why didn't I just stick with my original feeling? I also didn't foresee upsets of #19 Fernando Gonzalez and #33 (don't ask) Nikolay Davydenko. Davydenko lost to a British wild-card. (My wildcard pick, Alex Bogdanovic, plays tomorrow.)

Other matches? Several of the "tasty" matches I was watching actually turned out to be good ones. Ivan Ljubicic took out American Taylor Dent in four sets; Rainer Schuettler also needed four sets to advance over Michel Kratochvil; and, best of all, veteran Todd Martin needed all five sets to get past Spaniard Fernando Vicente. I want some credit for giving Vicente a chance, ok? Ok. Thanks.

On the women's side, it was a dull, dull day. The only noteworthy result at all was American Samantha Reeves's upset of #25 seed Anna Pistolesi (née Smashnova). In some respects, the women's tournament probably won't get too interesting before Wednesday or Thursday at the earliest. Unless you really enjoy all that according-to-Hoyle stuff. Blame the seeding of 32 players. Yawn.

Serena Williams (seeded #1) - Serena isn't going to lose in the early rounds. Or even in the later rounds. Look to see how many games she loses in the second round against either Els Callens or Barbara Rittner. If it's less than four, Serena probably won't lose a set to anyone during the entire fortnight. (Elena Dementieva could conceivably put up a fight in the round of 16.)

Conchita Martinez (#18) - I know what you're thinking. You're thinking Conchita Martinez must have retired from tennis years ago. The former Wimbledon champ is still at it, though. And she just made the final at Eastbourne. I even like her chances in the round of 16 over Jennifer Capriati. Really.

Justine Henin-Hardenne (#3) - I wonder, of course, how badly her fingers were sprained on Saturday. Assuming she's fit, no one can stop her before the quarterfinals. The interesting question is whether she'll beat #14 Eleni Daniilidou or #23 Lisa Raymond in the round of 16. (I'm taking Raymond.)

Alexandra Stevenson (#26) - With Amelie Mauresmo's withdrawal from this section of the draw, the likely quarterfinalist is either former semifinalist Stevenson or #11 Elena Dokic. These women are so inconsistent that it's silly to choose between them. I'm thinking that Stevenson may be able to get her big serve going for awhile.

Lindsay Davenport (#5) - Again the question is her health (she has some kind of nerve injury in her foot), but she says she's game. If not, I like veteran Amanda Coetzer's chances over even #9 Daniela Hantuchova.

Vera Zvonareva (#16) - This is where Venus Williams ought to be in the draw, but I fully expect her—sadly—to continue to struggle. If Zvonareva isn't the benenficiary, it'll be her Russian compatriot Nadia Petrova (#29).

Chanda Rubin (#7) - There is simply no one else in this section of the draw that I can even imagine in the quarters (Silvia Farina Elia? Please. Maggie Maleeva? Um, no.) Plus, Rubin is coming off a win on the grass at Eastbourne. Look for unseeded Paola Suarez to be her opponent in the round of 16.

Kim Clijsters (#2) - I can imagine her losing to Ai Sugiyama in the round of 16, but I'm thinking that form will hold.

Semifinals: S. Williams over Henin-Hardenne; Rubin over Davenport.

Final: Serena over Rubin.

Lleyton Hewitt (seeded #1) - I see him advancing, despite early tests (a) in the third round against Taylor Dent (my choice), Ivan Ljubicic, or Vince Spadea and (b) in the round of 16 against, probably, Arnaud Clement. Hewitt's form hasn't been stellar lately, but I'd be surprised to see him out before the quarters.

Andy Roddick (#5) - Roddick fans should worry about a possible encounter in the second round with big server Greg Rusedski. I see Roddick surviving that match and a round of 16 match against Paradorn Srichaphan.

Roger Federer (#4) - Federer's route to the quarters won't be easy, as he could face Mardy Fish or Jan-Michael Gambill before seeing Russian Mikhail Youzhny—the recipient these days of big-time buzz.

Sjeng Schalken (#8) - Schalken defended his grass-court title today at 's-Hertogenbosch, and I don't see anyone—including either Gustavo Kuerten or Rainer Schuettler in the round of 16—who can keep him from advancing.

David Nalbandian (#6) - I don't have a lot of confidence in my predictions in the entire quarter of the draw that contains Nalbandian. (You should see the white-out on my copy.) Still, my gut instinct today is that last year's finalist will survive matches against veteran Wayne Ferreira (in the third round) and French Open finalist Martin Verkerk (in the round of 16). As much as I hate to say it, this part of the draw is so wide open that even someone playing as badly as evil Tim Henman could make the quarters. (I have Henman losing to Verkerk.)

James Blake (#26) - We're still in the difficult quarter of the draw. When I first looked at the draw, I thought Sebastien Grosjean was the likely quarterfinalist from this section. But his poor results at 's-Hertogenbosch left me doubtful. I really don't think Blake is ready for the Wimbledon quarters, but I don't see anyone else in this section, including French Open champ Juan Carlos Ferrero, who's any more likely to be there. (Don't bet the rent money on this one.)

Jiri Novak (#11) - When I'd finished filling out my photocopy of the draw, I was truly puzzled to see that I had Novak in the quarters. I don't think it's so nuts, though. Other contenders for the spot: Jarkko Nieminen (#30) and, incredibly, Dutchman Raemon Sluiter.

Andre Agassi (#2) - He could face some tough guys enroute—Lars Burgsmuller, Younes El Aynaoui, Xavier Malisse—but I see Andre in the quarters (and beyond).

Semifinals: Hewitt vs. Federer; Nalbandian vs. Agassi.

Final: Federer vs. Agassi.

Champion: Agassi.

First-round upsets: I did this a few days ago, but I've refined my choices a little bit. I'm picking Mardy Fish over #29 Gaston Gaudio; Adrian Voinea over #23 Agustin Calleri; Olivier Rochus over #7 Guillermo Coria; and Raemon Sluiter (yes, him again) over #20 Yevgeny Kafelnikov. (I've reconsidered my prediction that Vince Spadea will lose to Max Mirnyi, but it should be a great first-round match.)

Other tasty first-round matches: Dent-Ljubicic; Rainer Schuettler vs. Michel Kratochvil; Fernando Vicente vs. Todd Martin; Alberto Martin vs. Wayne Arthurs; qualifier Wesley Moodie vs. Marc Rosset; qualifier Frederic Niemeyer vs. #22 Felix Mantilla; and #14 Malisse vs. qualifier Cyril Saulnier.

Wild card most likely to earn a win: Alex Bogdanovic, whose chances I like in the first round against Sargis Sargsian.

Is a variation of the 1973 boycott of Wimbledon likely? It's hard for me to imagine. There is already a lot of money available at the Slams, and the top players—the players who might win a Slam—may well be reluctant to pass up one of their few opportunities to take a title. I think, and hope, that this is just a negotiating posture.

Calmer and more staunchly independent than almost all those around you, you have a long history of rising above adversity. Recent adversity has led to questions about your sexual promiscuity and the threat of disease, but you still manage to attract a number of tourists and admirers. And despite any setbacks, you can really cook a good meal whenever it's called for. Good enough to make people cry.

Take the Country Quiz.

Hulk not happy at all! Hulk smash Hulk bio-pic! Hulk have such high hopes at first: top-notch director, Oscar- winning actress, drug-free Nick Nolte: Hulk not think anything can go wrong. Let Hulk tell you something: bigshot Hollywood producers tell lies for living! Hulk feel violated.

That's the kind of nonsense we get, though, with 32 seeds in both the men's and the women's draw. (This isn't just a Wimbledon thing. All the Grand Slams agreed to this a few years ago.) In general, of course, seeding the field makes sense. It prevents the best players from being bunched up into a single section or two of the draw, and it ensures—generally—that the later rounds will be populated with good matches. But the drawbacks are many. Worst of all, we get a raft of putrid first- and second-round matches—especially in the women's tournament, where the field is often a bit shallow. We need go no further than Ms. Chladkova for an example. In her first round at Wimbledon, she faces Klara Koukalova, someone I've never heard of. In the next round, if the rankings hold, she'd see Cara Black (who's a good doubles player, by the way). I'm guessing you don't want tickets to matches like that. I don't.

Many of these lower seeds just don't deserve any protection from the rest of the field. Does it do anyone any good for Juan Ignacio Chela to have a clear road into the third round? He's played at Wimbledon twice, and he's never made it out of the first round. His seeding sure improves his chances this year. The first round would be a little bit more exciting if he'd been drawn to face a legitimate seed in the first round (someone like David Nalbandian or Sjeng Schalken), wouldn't it?

In the end, isn't the likely effect of this excessive seeding that many not-that-accomplished players will maintain artificially high rankings? After all, if Elena Bovina successfuly makes it into the third-round of the Slams—and her seeding should help ensure that—she'll likely be back in a good position at next year's Wimbledon. And we won't have any idea at all whether she deserves to be there or not.

And don't get me started, please, on why Wimbledon seeds even its qualifying tournaments with 32 seeds. Did it make the qualifying any more interesting to have someone named Vadim Kutsenko as the 32d seed? I doubt it. He lost in his first match—to someone else I've never heard of, Andy Ram (clicking on this link helps make my point for me, I think).

Seeding is a good thing, in moderation. Both the first and the second weeks would be a lot more interesting if the Slams returned to seeding only 16 players in each draw.

The evil Tim Henman got a break, too. Alex Corretja, the veteran set to face Henman in the first round, has also withdrawn. I'm still sticking with my prediction that we won't see Henman in the second week, though.

In terms of the top players, it's interesting to see that world No. 1 Serena Williams could face Jennifer Capriati in a quarterfinal. No other top player faces such a potentially difficult quarterfinal. Second seed Kim Clijsters looks to have a clear path into the semis; only Rubin seems to be any kind of obstacle. Similarly, third-seeded Justine Henin-Hardenne—fresh off her triumph at the French Open—should find her way to the semis; only Amelie Mauresmo might stand in her way.

The remaining quarter of the draw is quite interesting. No. 4 Venus Williams is seeded to advance to the semis, but her form has been abysmal of late. Normally, fifth seed Lindsay Davenport would be a threat; she, however, is coming off yet another injury and says she lacks motivation. Perhaps all this is an opening for one of the super Russian players in that quarter—Vera Zvonareva (#16) or Nadia Petrova (#29). And I shouldn't overlook Daniela Hantuchova (#10) (but is she healthy enough to win?) or even the veteran Amanda Coetzer (#17). We'll all be watching this quarter very closely, I think.

Tomorrow, if I have a chance, I want to blog some about the epidemic of seeding at Wimbledon (and the other Slams).

Update: Albert Costa, whom I rooted for so strongly at this year's French Open, has withdrawn from Wimbledon. He was the 24th seed. His departure should aid another lucky loser. Maybe he's still tired from all those five-setters at Roland Garros.

Afternoon baseball seems so luxurious.... Update: Hey, look who else was there.

Andre Agassi, by contrast, should have a relatively placid first week. Oh, he might face someone like Younes El Aynaoui in third round. But, really, his first big obstacle to another Wimbledon title would seem to be last year's semifinalist Xavier Malisse, a possible foe in the round of 16. And I sure don't think Agassi would lose to Malisse.

The draw also presents several intriguing first-round matches. Among them: Dent vs. Ljubicic; Roger Federer vs. Hyung-Taik Lee; Karel Kucera vs. Wayne Ferreira; and Sebastien Grosjean vs. Thomas Enqvist.

My top picks for seeded players who might lose in the first round: American Vince Spadea (#31), who plays Max Mirnyi; clay-courter Gaston Gaudio (#29), who faces Mardy Fish; and, perhaps, Guillermo Coria (#7), who plays Olivier Rochus.

Let me make one more fearless prediction, ok? Despite his generous seeding, Tim Henman will not see Wimbledon's second week. If he doesn't lose in the very first round to wily veteran Alex Corretja, someone like Martin Verkerk or Nicolas Kiefer will get him by week's end.

Tomorrow night, I'll look at the women's draw.

Gay men have more feminine traits than straight men, he writes, including their interests in fashion and show tunes and their choice of occupations, including florist, waiter, and hair stylist. If a man is feminine, says Mr. Bailey, it is a key sign that he is gay. And if a man is gay, Mr. Bailey says he can tell a lot about what that man's childhood was like. He "played with dolls and loathed football" and "his best friends were girls," he writes in the book.

(But thanks to The Beallsvonian for the kind remarks.)

Sadly, I've never had the pleasure of enjoying sugar cane jelly. Maybe I can rectify that serious omission soon. Update: The Opelousas Daily World had this article on the, um, controversy. The article provides some good background on sugar cane jelly.

Earlier in the month, How Appealing put forth another "attractive" candidate, Entergy La., Inc. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, also a preemption case. Entergy dealt with something called the "filed rate doctrine," which prevents state utilities regulators from reevaluating cost allocations between energy companies when they've already been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As I understand it (I've successfully blocked most of it out now), Entergy held that state ratemaking proceedings are also barred even when FERC simply delegates to the energy companies the discretion to determine the precise cost allocations. No, I have no idea what that means. As How Appealing said, the Court's opinion is a "potent . . . mix of complexity and boringness." Testify, Brother Bashman.

Those are two worthy candidates, to be sure. But I think the class of the field has to be Boeing Co. v. United States. I had occasion to summarize this one for a group of lawyers and nearly had a breakdown while doing so. Really. I was close to actual tears. Suffice it to say, please, that the case involved the proper interpretation of a tax regulation detailing how something called a "domestic international sales corporation" (for all I know, Boeing may be the only one in the country) must allocate its research and development costs. (In case you're dying to know, the answer is that the costs must be allocated against a range of related products, not just against the sales of that particular product. I think.) Anyway, in my humble opinion, Justice Stevens's opinion reached new heights (depths?) in parsing dense, jargon-laden legal text and applying it to fact patterns that no reasonable person could have any interest in whatsoever. Congratulations to Justice Stevens, Boeing, Treasury regulators, and—well—tax lawyers everywhere. Good work, indeed.

If you made it through this whole post, you deserve a treat. How about this Washington Post story (link via How Appealing), which has Chief Justice Rehnquist saying this to Justice O'Connor: Sandra, we don't have to be in every shot. Oh, and there are shovels, too.

This isn't the first time, of course, that Eastern European water polo has had geopolitical ramifications.

What's not defensible is Wimbledon's decision to seed local boy Tim Henman, currently the No. 29 player in the world, at a startling No. 10. A bump of 19 places is a bit breathtaking. Yes, Henman is a fine player on the grass, but he's played like hell lately. And he's a huge crybaby. Wimbledon didn't owe Henman any favors, and he didn't deserve any. (Henman certainly didn't deserve to be bumped ahead of Sebastien Grosjean, who just beat him at Queen's Club.) Other beneficiaries of the seeding committee's goodwill: Xavier Malisse (bumped up 17 places—from world No. 31 to a position as the 14th seed), Arnaud Clement (bumped up 15 places from 30 to 15), Mikhail Youzhny (bumped up nine places from 25 to 16), and last year's runner-up David Nalbandian (bumped up three places from 9 to 6). Objects of the seeding committee's scorn: several clay-court players and, a bit surprisingly, French Open finalist Martin Verkerk (nudged down five places from 16 to 21). In my opinion, Verkerk has the kind of game that could do some damage on the grass.

The seeding committee didn't even bother to tinker with the women's draw. It simply followed the world rankings, skipping the injured Monica Seles. What's up with that? Can't the seeding committee even pretend to be as interested in the women's draw as it obviously is in the men's? Would it have been a different story if there'd been a British woman to favor with a Henman-esque bump to the top of the seedings? Hmph.

Tomorrow, Wimbledon unveils the men's and women's draws.

In the other semifinal, Sebastien Grosjean ended Tim Henman's hopes, 6-3, 6-4. (Good riddance.) I like Grosjean's chances in the final.

While I'm on a semi-related topic, I'll also mention that JMB—who just completed his first year of law school at Oklahoma City University—is on a bit of an existential quest himself. His permalinks don't seem to be working either, but other spiritual seekers should look at his entries of May 28, June 2 (1:10 a.m.), and June 9.

Q: When you envision your audience, whom do you picture?
A: Well, I know who it is: it’s about 70 percent college-educated white women. That’s not necessarily who I write to, but I know that’s who’s reading me.
Q: Why do you think your audience is who it is?
A: College-educated white women are the most adventurous and artistic group of people in the country.

I have this sneaking suspicion and worry that our country should actually be socially liberal and internationally conservative. So I think what’s going to happen is you’re going to see a democrat, a socially liberal democrat, with strong military backing. Perhaps a general. I mean, ironically, and logically, there is no more democratic place, probably there is no place more revealing and indicative of the greatness of democracy than the US military. So perhaps it does take a general to lead the country. I mean, when we talk about the great presidents of the past, most of them have been generals. So despite my pacifist stance, I’m thinking it might be a democratic military officer who would be the best president.

Still, this brings back memories of my bar exam, which took place at the Myriad in Oklahoma City. (The Myriad, by the way, now has a ridiculous new name, but it'll always be the Myriad in my bar exam memories, won't it?) The facility was set up in basketball-game configuration, and the examinees sat at several hundred tables (each, by the way, about six inches too tall for people of normal height) on what would, on game night, have been the court. Happily, the several thousand seats surrounding the floor were empty. The concession stand, however, was open. I don't remember anymore what I ordered at the concession stand (not nachos, I'd guess), probably because I couldn't get any sleep at all at the hotel across the street where I was staying. Sure, I was wired from the stress, but I'm pretty sure I was also absorbing stress from the other sleepless bar examinees whose rooms were near mine. I heard people coming and going for two nights straight, as I fretted in the dark about securities hypotheticals and that inevitable essay question that only someone who went to law school in-state could answer correctly. That was seven years ago, and it still seems—sometimes—like seven days ago.

I wore jeans, by the way. If I'd been in a tie, I might have stopped breathing on Day 2.

And, to think, I'd been using old-fashioned fast forward all this time. Update: Having tried this out for awhile, I think I'll stick with my antediluvian fast-forward button. It's just as efficient, and it doesn't take over a button that is actually useful....

Meanwhile, the good professor continues to "relentlessly plug[]" his new book. Hee.

Like any good tennis fan, my mind has now turned to the beautiful turf.

I should have had Belgian waffles for breakfast, I think.

It'd be more fun if Albert Costa were playing this weekend. We already covered that, though, didn't we?

"Something in Red" by Lorrie Morgan (#94)

"Fancy" by Reba McEntire (#27)

"Boot Scootin' Boogie" by Brooks & Dunn (#48)

"Friends in Low Places" by Garth Brooks (#6)

"It's Your Love" by Tim McGraw with Faith Hill (#67)

As The Minor Fall, The Major Lift noted, it's baffling to confront a list of the 100 greatest country songs that doesn't include anything at all by Jimmie Rodgers or Roy Acuff. And where's Bob Wills? Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against Reba McEntire or Garth Brooks or even Lorrie Morgan (but, ok, I might have something against Brooks & Dunn). I've got CDs by all of them. "Fancy," though, isn't even close to being Reba's best work. (I could easily put "Whoever's in New England" on the list, but "Fancy?" Um, no.) And, hey, I'm not ashamed to like Garth Brooks. I think "The Dance" should actually have been ranked higher than #14. It's brilliant. But I could pick 100 drinking songs alone that are more interesting than "Friends in Low Places." Gary Stewart, anyone?

I want to be fair. Although my taste in country music runs to the traditional—to the Ernest Tubbs and Kitty Wellses of the world—I think there's quite a bit of recent music on the list that actually deserves to be there. I was absolutely thrilled to see Doug Stone's "I'd Be Better Off in a Pine Box" (#96) on the list. It's one of my all-time favorites (I'm a sucker for any song about loneliness and unrequited love). Also justified: "Independence Day" by Martina McBride (#50); "Wide Open Spaces" by the Dixie Chicks (#22); and "The Dance."

In the end, the list is generally a good one. In fact, it's a shame that country radio doesn't play songs like (most of) these anymore. I just can't resist debating any list like this one....

Anyway, how 'bout that Costa winning another five-set match, huh (free New York Times registration required)? He has won five matches in the tournament, and—incredibly—four of them were in five-set matches. If I had played 23 sets in a 10-day stretch, I'd be, well, someone else (and in the hospital). Costa must be exhausted. Unsurprisingly, he's the first player ever to win four five-set matches at the French Open (and it's only been done once in any Grand Slam event). I don't know how he'll be able to cope tomorrow against Juan Carlos Ferrero's younger and better-rested legs, but I'll be rooting for him.

In many ways, the most interesting part of the tournament for me is still the Lleyton Hewitt-less quarter of the men's draw, which I talked about a couple of days ago. Since I wrote, Spain's Tommy Robredo took out yet another top seed—this time, three-time champion Gustavo Kuerten. And in a match I stayed up much too late to watch last night (thanks, TiVo), defending champion Albert Costa defeated the hometown favorite, Arnaud Clement, 6-2, 7-5, 7-5. Given my performance to date, I think I'll give up on the prognostication and focus, instead, on simply rooting for Costa. Every one of his matches has been an emotional thriller, and winning the title would—I think—mean a lot to him. For one thing, it would make his unexpected victory last year seem a lot less flukey. And Costa strikes me as a very proud man.

Hewitt's departure has, in any event, left us with a very interesting quarter of the draw, now consisting of Robredo, former French Open champion Gustavo Kuerten, defending champion Albert Costa, and Frenchman Arnaud Clement. Kuerten, who has regained his form of late, took out my favorite dark horse, Gaston Gaudio, making the Brazilian the likely semifinalist here, I guess. I still like Clement's chances, though, especially if he can harness the hometown crowd. I'll be pulling for Costa, though, who has shown a lot of heart in winning his first three matches in a total of 15 sets (ouch!). He surely can't keep that up.

Jennifer Capriati, one of my picks in the women's draw, lost today to Russian Nadia Petrova. It was an awfully entertaining match. Petrova, who upset Monica Seles in the first round, played dreamily. She'll now play countrywoman Vera Zvonareva for a place in the semis. Zvonareva took out Venus Williams today. And, ahem, you may recall that I called an early exit for Venus. I should end on that note, shouldn't I?