Yeah, sure, Andy Roddick won the Washington DC final. In straight sets, no less. Did anyone expect any other ending to this match? What would we be saying about Roddick had he lost to the newest big man of tennis?

That's no hyperbole. At 6ft 9in, John Isner is certainly a big man. So much so that Tommy Haas, after losing to Isner, wants the ATP to come up with some rule excluding exceptionally tall players from competing on the tour. "I made one poor mistake in the tiebreak and that cost me the match," Haas said. "He served quite well. I think the tour should come up with a system where if you're over 6ft 6in, you shouldn't be allowed to play."

Presumably Haas doesn't have a problem with smaller players like Olivier Rochus, at all of 5ft 5in, being allowed to play. The question is, can Tommy take advantage of the smaller man because Rochus can hold his own against any player, regardless of size. In my opinion, Haas is overrated and is a bit of a whiner. But that's another story.

'In an era when almost all other players want to stay on the baseline and impress everyone with how hard they hit the ball, serve-and-volley play got this young man to the final in only his second outing'


It makes me wonder if  I'd be writing a similar story had Roddick lost that final at Washington DC. No matter the outcome of that match, Isner won.

The Legg Mason, US Open Series event was Isner's second ATP tournament.  Along the way he took out Haas (2), Benjamin Becker (8) and Gael Monfils (9)  to reach the final against top-seed Roddick, one of the game's heavies.

Isner did well. He held his own, he tested the better, more experienced player. All that has been said about many other players. I am saying it about this young man as well.

What is most significant about this is that Isner is not afraid to come to the net against more-seasoned players. And in an era when almost all other players want to stay on the baseline and impress everyone with how hard they hit the ball, serve-and-volley play got this young man to the final in only his second outing. He came to the net, attempted to finish the points early whenever possible and was not fearful, did not back up and never really changed his game plan. That was a  great thing to see.

I believe that many things go in cycles. Serve-and-volley play is certainly one of those things. After all the baseline action that has been the norm for so long, players are once again starting to see the value in coming to net.

This is evidenced by how much more often the best player in the game, Roger Federer, is coming to the net, though he doesn't do it enough against his nemesis, Rafael Nadal.

Also, Roddick is making forays to the net and he is becoming more comfortable up there, though he still has a lot to do to be able to win with this strategy. Still, I would encourage him and will continue to support Andy in his game.

Isner did all the right things. But or his lack of experience and match fitness, I think he could have won the trophy. As I write this, though, I am hopeful that John is not a one-trick pony. He should continue to come to the net and continue to win in three sets with a tie breaker at the end, as he did four out of five matches this past week. Why? Well, it's exciting to see.

The underdog coming from behind to take out the favourite makes for great tennis. Makes for great drama. And for John, it gives him the opportunity to play many more games on the tour with the big boys. The experience and play time can only help to improve his game in the long run.

John, congratulation to you! I, for one,  hope to see you at the US Open - in the second week.