Justin Gimelstob and the Fine Art of Failing Up

When I read the first story about Justin Gimelstob being accused of viciously beating someone on Halloween night, the thing that surprised me the most is that he was being groomed for ATP leadership.
Because Gimelstob has been trash for some time. He was an entertaining player to watch in his day, but I never really stopped what I was doing to watch his matches. I tried to remember the first time I heard something about Gimelstob that made me realize he was not a cool person and that took me all the way back to disparaging comments he had made about women's tennis right around the time that Lindsay Davenport was world No. 1. How long ago was that, ESPN?

Yeah. At least.
But it turns out I had been paying such little attention to Gimelstob that I missed most of the terrible things he has been saying over the years. This story has a good rundown of his many issues. Before his arrest, Gimelstob was safely on the ATP board of directors (which, again, WOW), an ATP player's coach AND a Tennis Channel talking head. I do not know how no one before had raised some conflicts-of-interest problems here along with his trash-ness, but OK!
The ATP thing in particular is just mind-blowing. These are people who get to make important decisions about the direction of the men's game. So why -- why -- would anyone groom him for anything leadership-related?
I like to call this phenomenon "failing up." And no one is better at failing up than bro-dudes. In fact, they are the only ones capable of failing up, with a few exceptions. Still, it's not easy. If you want to fail up, you need a few things.
Obviously money.
But at a close second, you need to be uniquely unqualified to do the job you're trying to get. When I saw that Gimelstob was already part of ATP leadership, I wondered if he had some qualifications I didn't know about that would offset his terrible demonstrated human skills. Maybe he had an MBA? Nah. He never even finished college as far as I can find. So what is it about Gimelstob that makes him leadership material? That's right, nothing! That's the point. It has to be obvious that the only reason you're at the table is money and friends. And hey, to be fair, it isn't just him. I mean, in case you hadn't noticed, the current president of the United States had no qualifications to run an entire country and he did just fine. It's kind of disturbing how many of these fail-uppers end up on a tennis court.

Anyway, this guy has money (maybe ...?) and friends.
The friends thing is important. You can't do failing-up without well-placed people who can help you when your appalling lack of qualifications becomes clear, which will happen. For Gimelstob, it appears that those friends will include John Isner (I know, right? Shocked!), who is a member of the ATP players' council and who will vote on whether Gimelstob, HIS COACH, should be off the ATP board of directors. Just as I was about to press play on this post, this story featuring Isner being a friend to his bro-dude popped up! (This story is a trip. It includes Isner pretending that this is a case of he-said/he-said and throwing shade at Lleyton Hewitt for saying something racist. Isner is getting so good at deflection that he might run for office one day!) It's helpful if these friends are in good standing themselves, so that their words for you carries the extra weight you most definitely need when everyone else understands how bad you are for the position of power you are seeking. Again, this is a pattern that can't be limited to ol' Justin. I mean, every fail-upper

needs friends in high places

.
Without friends, you never get an entire country mocking your country's president because he thinks that cleaning the forest floors will eliminate the problem of wildfires. See, it's really harmless!
All of these guys are really harmless! It is totally fine to have men like Gimelstob ascend up a leadership ladder when he has been rude to women, black presidents and gay people his entire public life. As soon as he gets real power and authority, he'll suddenly mature into the position. Ri-ight.
Listen. Maybe you're reading this and thinking it isn't fair that a guy like Justin Gimelstob gets to do and say whatever he wants and still advance to the higher rungs of tennis leadership. At least, it shouldn't be easy, right? But this is what failing up is all about! Where would Justin, and Brett, and Donny be without failing up? We can't as a society have everyone having to *gasp* face the consequences of their actions! I mean, be serious!

The Season Is Slowing Down, They Said. Take the Week off Blogging, They Said.

Here are some things that happened this month so far that I haven't had a chance to discuss yet. We're doing it live!

via GIPHY

1. Agz Radwanska retiring: I don't want to say I saw it coming, because I didn't. I noticed the decline in the ranking and the marriage and the increasing number of K-tape with each match. And some things are just not fair. It's not fair that she never got to snag at least one Slam. Over her career, Radwanska has flummoxed the best of the WTA stars on the big stage. Serena Williams. Garbine Muguruza. Victoria Azarenka. Caroline Wozniacki. But she never did it at a major. That stinks, but that also suggests that there is one way to measure tennis greatness. That's not true. There hasn't been a player as creative as Radwanska since Martina Hingis. And people are going to fight me here, but she was more creative! She was able to pull her opponents all over the court, varying depth and width with what seemed to be sleight-of-hand. Oh, so you're a power player? She had speed to chase it down and then use your power against you. Counter-puncher? Yeah, well, her too. Until she pulled the trigger and you likely stood there wondering why you just went through that 27-shot rally.
The problem with this style, of course, is that it takes a toll on your body. Relying on guile means you're not relying on one or two weapons to slide you out of trouble. And so, for the sake of all her sore muscles and tendons, I'm relieved for her. But there aren't a lot of others waiting in the wings to entertain us the way Agnieszka Radwanska has for the last decade. I know Ana Sevastova will be one, but with Radwanska's retirement, we have the end of a fun era.

2. Now that Alexander Zverev's acceptance speech from the ATP Finals is finished, we can talk about his performance. I have to say, I didn't really see Alexander Zverev winning this. It seems like the second he announced his premature arrival to the ascendency of tennis

"Let's go, c'mon, it's my fucking time," says Zverev as he breaks (or, rather, Khachanov breaks himself) for 4-2.

— Tumaini Carayol (@tumcarayol) June 3, 2018

it turned out it wasn't his time.
(Incidentally, do you have any idea how hard it is to find the actual video of this moment on the Internet? Every clip of it has been disabled. Kinda weird.)
I think it goes without saying that Zverev's masterful performances against Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic speaks for themselves. (Mini-rant: Can we have a little class control, crowds whose favorite player loses to a young, insurgent force on the tour? First there's Naomi Osaka, looking miserable after beating Serena, in some part due to a booing crowd. Now we have Zverev explaining how he stopped a point because he was following the rules of tennis, and a clearly uneducated crowd raining down jeers on him. Now, I should note that I posted this video on Facebook and someone couldn't even see why Zverev stopped play. But from where Zverev was hitting, he clearly would have. No need to blame the ballkid either. Let's just ... like not boo people unless they deserve it?) I'd say the thing I noticed most about Zverev was his control. He was willing to rally, especially with Djokovic, which seems dangerous. But he handled it well. I actually think that next year will be his time. But I have to think about that some more.

3. The Davis Cup just ended. Like, forever. You know, as we knew it. Now, when the changes to this tournament were announced this year, folks weren't happy, for a lot of fair reasons. There aren't going to be a lot of stops like the one I made for Fed Cup in Sarasota, so less access for fans. It might limit player availability. (Another mini-rant: This is actually the part of the criticism that cracks me up the most. Players were not generally interested in Davis Cup to begin with! Because if they were, we wouldn't be changing Davis Cup. If Federer, Djokovic and Rafa Nadal were making this part of their schedule, guess who would also be doing that? Yes. Fans. Just saying.) There's the question of who came up with the plan -- a soccer player coming up with a tennis format? (Well, actually, soccer is way more popular than tennis worldwide, so maybe ... yeah?)  But here's one thing that we have known for a long time about Davis Cup. It needed to change. No one cared about it. The fans never knew when it was happening, not even when their country was in it. It seemed like an afterthought. These changes, in brief, make it more of a tournament, and that's as it should have been. You have a dedicated spot on the calendar and sustained fan interest.
So these changes seem promising for the Davis Cup. The same changes have not been introduced for Fed Cup yet. One change that has been announced: The addition of an additional team player (so, five now) and third-set tiebreakers. Got it. So the men's tournament gets a new format that could boost its popularity and the women ... get ushered off the court faster. Sweet!

4. Speaking of Fed Cup, Barbora Strycova is retiring from the event and managed to get it done with a win for her team. I'm not sure if I've said it before, but Strycova is about as bad-ass a doubles player as I've ever seen and I'll miss her when she presumably soon retires altogether. Now, much has been made of Lucie Safarova's retirement, because she was very nice. I will miss Strycova because she was a straight-up bi-yotch on court. I mean who can forget

The Fed Treatment

Some people choose to retire, and they retreat to their home on the hills, read a lot of books, take up bingo and studio dancing. And some people scorch some earth on the way out.
Julien Benneteau chose the latter and his target? Roger Federer. Yeah. He did this interview on French radio that kinda lit up tennis Twitter this week. You should read it.
What Benneteau is talking about isn't necessarily breaking news. Federer is a top-ranked player and top players get all types of perks -- above and below board. And some of this, to be honest, amounts to not much more than spilled tea. Complaining about Fed not wanting to get involved in Davis Cup changes until a decision had been made about the scheduling? Quibbling over Federer's Laver Cup exhibition tournament disrupting the calendar year? Meh.
But Federer apparently paying Nick Kyrgios three-quarters of a million dollars to play the Laver Cup? That is a chunk of change. Still, though. Tea. And the exorbitant fees that Federer nabs? That doesn't bother me so much, either.
Where Benneteau's commentary gets interesting is when he talks about Craig Tiley's involvement in Laver Cup -- and how that can benefit Federer. Tiley is the head of Tennis Australia and the chief organizer of the Australian Open.

The Australian Open, in terms of outdoor conditions, is easily the most brutal among Slams. If Federer is using his relationship with Tiley to get night matches while others are subject to the luck of the draw, that's not cool. And it almost has to be that he's using their relationship, because there isn't another player in any other tournament that I can think of who enjoys such consistently comfortable match conditions and placement. Not Serena or Venus Williams at Wimbledon. Not even Rafa in France. Either Tiley shouldn't be involved in Laver Cup or Federer should quit his involvement in Laver Cup until he retires.

The Frenchman also alleges that Federer's agent, Tony Godsick (and also Mary Jo Fernandez' husband, I believe) put his foot down on Fed playing on Louis Armstrong court at the U.S. Open -- and they listened. I'm pretty sure agents aren't supposed to go around ensuring his player's complete comfort at the expense of everything else. I thought it was to make sure he got paid. 

It's also alleged that the main reason the ATP doesn't do on-court coaching is because of Federer. That one sounds a bit fishy -- I'm pretty sure I've heard Rafael Nadal and others reject the idea, too. Was it because of Federer's influence? Good question. 

So, yes, some of these revelations are troublesome. But here's the thing about tennis. Even if you get the best court and the best time slot and more money under the table than everyone else, the individual player still has to deliver results. Federer hasn't done much of that this year, apart from Australia. Still, the preference-for-treatment issue with Tiley is, to say the least, a problem they might want to fix. 

Of course, Federer is pretty nonchalant about all of this. He was asked about it during the ATP Finals, and basically was like, meh: "I don't really feel in the mood during a World Tour Finals to discuss that topic, to be honest."
Guessing that mood won't change anytime soon.

It's Election Day in the U.S. and I Need to Think About Something Else

Yeah, so I've been on Twitter all day trying to figure out what's going to happen tonight. I've flipped off a tweet featuring that *@#*(##@)(#* stinkin' New York Times needle (seriously, eff that guy) and watched videos of hundreds of people waiting to vote because one station has only three functioning voting booths. We've literally been talking about this election for nearly two years, and it seems that the entire country's boards of elections just somehow didn't know about it? We're teetering on the edge of real Handmaid's Tale-level crap shower here. Right now, we're like in Betty Draper in season one of Mad Men territory.
It's time to think about something else. It's time for you to read about something else. We are going to talk about something else.
I'LL START.
Like, honestly, what happened to Novak Djokovic? One second, he's losing to Marco Cecchinato in the French Open quarters, and the next, we're giving Roger Federer the old "college try" applause for taking one set off of Djokovic. He's No. 1 in the world again, just like that. I gotta say, I'm not happy about it. Maybe it's my mood. Maybe it's because I miss Rafa Nadal. I'm not saying he's not deserving. I don't have to like it, do I? Sheesh.
Speaking of things I don't have to like, let's talk about this Coman tiebreaker that you have to do now in USTA matches. Because that's what I want to rant about next, that's why. I have enough trouble switching in an old-school tiebreaker on every six points. Math is just not my thing and I'll apologize to no one for that. But anyway, so this Coman tiebreaker was created so that everyone can keep serving on the side you had been serving on for the whole match. So the first server serves once, then after every four points you switch again. And I just have to say we need to (wo)man up here. Is it worth it, really? To see the same sky for the whole set while you serve? If you've ever played a league match, you know that your biggest fear isn't losing. It's playing doubles with three other people who want to taLK ABOUT THE WEATHER AND GRANDSONS ON EVERY CHANGEOVER. Now, we are giving Nancy more changeover chatter time. And god forbid that you're the person who breaks it up because you want to ... oh, I don't know, play tennis, which is the whole reason we are there to begin with. The rest of them give each other that look, that "we'll talk about her later" look. I don't know who this Coman woman is, but I sure hope she's happy.
Because I am not happy. I haven't seen Venus Williams on a tennis court in about four years now. What the hell, Venus.
And we're gonna put Serena Williams in the WWE now?! Tennis is a real sport and wrestling is fake. Que?!
Why can't Garbine Muguruza ever have a whole entire good season? I need a manager.
Karen Khachanov's forehand looks like a bird in flight and he's one of the best young players out there anyway. Honestly. He played such a smart match against Djokovic in Paris. Why does Paris need two big tennis events? Whatever.
What exactly is the point of Daylight Savings Time, if not to throw off everyone's biological clock? I'm waking up at 4 a.m. now for no earthly reason. And I'm supposed to then function? WTF? Florida voted down Daylight Savings Time LAST YEAR and here we are. It's 5:30 p.m. and I can barely see outside. Whose day is really being saved here?
Why won't Rafa marry his girlfriend?
Why does Wim Fissette keep getting fired?
The more I think about this Coman situation, the angrier it makes me. More than on-court coaching for women. But only women. This is actually making me more anxious than Election Day. I have to go.

Here We Don't Go Again

I've been ranting about a lot of stuff that I can't change, so why not go back to one of my favorite ranting topics of all time?
I am watching Daria Kasatkina's match versus Ons Jabeur. I had seen Kasatkina's coach's inspirational mid-match pep talk, and it was very good. Where was Jabeur's coach, though, to tell her to stop challenging? Just stop, sis.
Anyway, if you're a regular reader of this blog, then you know what's coming. Kind of.
You know, I feel like I've been on this anti-on-court-coaching train all by myself, and I was sure that the controversial U.S. Open women's final would have continued on to this issue, and I would finally have some company. And I was here for it. Waiting to get past this Serena/sexism stuff which has been annoying on about 40 levels, and then we ... got to on-court coaching! Yay! We got to the part where Serena Williams' coach Patrick Mouratoglou said there should be on-court coaching at majors. (Whoops. We got a mid-rant rant coming: Serena Williams has never used on-court coaching and maintained she didn't receive it during the U.S. Open final. She has never, to date, seen the need for this and has done just OK so far. So it would appear that his own student does not agree with him on a fairly major point that helped launch an insane debacle at one of my favorite tournaments, but OK THEN. My personal favorite part of Mouratoglou's manifesto (say that three times fast) is when he says that on-court coaching is good for social media. I saw Kasatkina's coach's pep talk on social media, but when Coach MacGyver over there can turn social media traffic into tennis fans for life, I will be there watching. Do you think all the authors of those hot-take think pieces after the U.S. Open are still watching tennis?

via GIPHY

)
And I got really excited because I thought, "Here we go! We are now going to get into how this has only been advanced for women's tennis and not for men. Now people will start asking why that is. They'll call it for what it is -- a sexist policy because it implies that only women need help pulling themselves together during matches, which is, uh, NOT TRUE. Here comes the sexism debate in tennis we've (I've) been waiting for."
Naturally, though, Mouratoglou managed to sidestep this truth in his little statement. Of course, because he is not interested in equality or anything that is "big picture." Unless that big picture is of him.
I think on-court coaching is stupid. But I would almost like to see it instituted for both men and women because there's something I'd like to check out. I would like to know if when Roger Federer comes from behind to win a match after on-court coaching if Ivan Ljubicic will get the credit. Because Kasatkina's coach sure is right now. (Sidebar: She didn't really observe his technical advice and she won anyway. Weird.) Mouratoglou says in his essay that coaching is front-and-center in every sport, and he might be right. I guess he thinks that people don't realize that tennis players are coached when they are not playing matches. But we all know who Bill Belichick is, so yeah. There is that. But does Belichick get the credit for Tom Brady's many come-from-behind wins? Yeah, no. Kasatkina, though? Thank goodness for her coach, who pulled her from the brink of defeat.

via GIPHY

Therapy with TWA: This Moment Right Here

"They say African Americans have to be twice as good, especially women. I'm perfectly OK with having to be twice as good."

Serena Williams said that. I've been thinking about it a lot this month, and it's part of the reason I got mad with her at the U.S. Open. You don't set your standards that high, and then lower them to act like John McEnroe. Yuck.
I've been thinking about it for the last few weeks because we're about to get an irresponsible, dishonest frat boy who likes beer for a Supreme Court justice. That's just the stuff we know about him for sure. He's about to get this job because we lower the bar for privilege so low in this country that all he has to do is have a tantrum, and poof! He has what he wants.
I would suspect that if you're a woman, this week has been tough. If you're a black woman, it's been even harder. It's not just the light treatment of sexual assault accusations by our political leaders. I once had an internship at Family Circle, and the girl I interned with showed up to work one day severely hung over. I'm not exaggerating. She asked me to smell her breath to make sure it didn't smell like liquor. It did. I told her it didn't. Her grandfather owned a printing press. She couldn't even turn on the computer. I'm not exaggerating.
So yeah, this has been a lot. It will continue to be a lot. It's not fair to watch someone get a job they don't deserve because of their privilege.
Still, there is something to having to work for what you've gotten. So maybe he becomes a justice. The career I've had, I worked for it. I endured comments about my race, my clothes, my smile -- and that was before we even got to the quality of my work.
I had to be twice as good. It's not fair. But it's OK. I'd rather be twice as good than half anyway.

HOMELAND SLAM: The Definitive Wrap

Fourteen years ago, on Aug. 26, 2018, I tweeted the following:

I didn't mean to be prophetic. (but I did ask it for a reason ...)

Man, I've never been so glad to bear witness to the end of a tournament as I was with this year's U.S. Open. It was full of great tennis moments, but also some of the most insane moments -- and that was before the Williams/Osaka final. Questionable umpire conduct took a front seat quite a few times. There were stories that emerged from this tournament that might change the structure of tennis forever. I wrote about some of those possibilities for the, er, WASHINGTON POST. Like I said, crazy two weeks.

That piece, its fallout and other things I had going on caused me to step back a little from the pro tennis scene and although I watched the rest of the tournament, I was mentally fried. I don't have much to say, but here is the last definitive wrap of the U.S. Open you will find:

1. I don't know what happened to Novak Djokovic between Marco Cecchinato and now, but it happened fast. When he came back from injury this year, it was hard to see anything technically wrong with his game -- same dependable groundstrokes, especially on the backhand. But obviously, the confidence wasn't there, and now it is. Maybe it's just as simple as him returning to his original coach. But what we do know for sure now is that Djokovic has as many Slams as Pete Sampras (and I'm old enough to remember when that was the unattainable benchmark) and that just when we thought the order of things was set, Djokovic looks ready to make an all-out assault on both Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer's records.
(Addendum: What happened to that forehand, Juan Martin del Potro? So tentative! Gah!!)

2. The doubles at this tournament was great. Coco Vandeweghe is not my cup of tea. Having said that the women's doubles final was a nice palate-cleanser on Sunday afternoon. Along with most recreational players, I end up playing more doubles and I wish I better at it. So these doubles matches are always so informative, but this one? I am seriously wondering if Kiki Mladenovich ever plays with Timea Babos again. Yes, they had Slam success this year, but this loss is gonna leave a mark. They held match points in the second and third sets and choked each time, especially Babos, whose level took a severe drop right around the time they should have closed out the match the first time. If you've played tennis, it's happened to you and even as you observe it happening to other people, you alternate between "Timea, how are you letting this happen to you?" and "Well, that dumped forehand looks familiar." You never want to see good players choke a match away, and you definitely don't want to see it them do it against Vandeweghe. 

3. I know that mixed doubles is sort of an exhibition event at Slams, but once again, can we NOT do tiebreakers in lieu of a third set? Especially at a major? Especially in the final match? Please?? Please???? 

Bethanie Mattek-Sands and Jamie Murray defeated a team I had never heard of, Alicja Rosolska and Nicola Mektic, but will always remember now for (1) Mektic getting blasted out of his shoes at net by Mattek-Sands and (2) Rosolska's really scrappy play. I shall cheer for you, Pole and Croatian. 

So let's get back into the swing of things here at TWA with Mattek-Sands' acceptance speech (after a bad knee injury at Wimbledon last year):

Last summer, @matteksands suffered a gruesome knee injury at Wimbledon.

Today, she returned and won the US Open doubles title. Her victory speech will give you chills. pic.twitter.com/EIB9JdpG72

— espnW (@espnW) September 8, 2018

HOMELAND SLAM: Serena, Osaka and the Fact that Many Things Can Be True at Once

So here I sit, a few hours removed from the U.S. Open women's final, and I am not going to be able to sleep unless I write this, so here we are. I want to say that there are many things that can be true at once without canceling each other out. Let us talk about those things now, please:

1. Naomi Osaka played some typa match: Six aces -- five more than her opponent, who has won 23 Grand Slam titles. Fourteen unforced errors, seven fewer than her opponent. Seventy-three percent of points won on her first serve. That's a full ten percent more than her opponent. When Serena Williams unleashed her first (only) "KAMANNNNN!" Osaka kept her head down and kept making her shots. When the histrionics started, and continued, she was able to keep her head and remain unbowed by the sideshow. She closed the match on her serve without blinking. She's 20. Naomi Osaka's first grand slam win got sidetracked by another incident, as did Amelie Mauresmo's against Justine Henin (Also bs nonsense, but strictly by Henin) Mauresmo won another, and was able to celebrate -- take in her moment. Osaka will, too, one day. She's 20. Here's hoping we get her for another 16-18 years, and that they are as successful as Williams'.

2. This isn't about women's rights: When an umpire says, "Code violation -- [ insert violation here], that is a code violation. Carlos Ramos doesn't call a coaching violation and then just say, "Oh, my bad!" unless of course, he was wrong. He was not wrong. Patrick Mouratoglou made hand signals to his player, which is known as coaching. It's just as possible that Serena only saw his thumbs, and not his indication to move into the court, or to move Osaka into the court. But he did it, Ramos saw, and it was a violation on her. This might be a thing she talks about with her coach. At any rate, she knew that because he said, "CODE VIOLATION, WILLIAMS." Good god, woman. Ramos did not compel her to smash her racquet. He also was sitting there minding his business when she decided to call him a thief and demand an apology multiple times. Had Serena kept her head down and focused on the task at hand (she was down a set and break), nothing else would have happened. Maybe she loses. Maybe she comes back to win the second set. But if Serena had said nothing, it is clear that Ramos would have been a non-factor in this match. To suggest, as Serena did, that this "struggle" for equal standing in the quest to say whatever she wants to an umpire, and that it will work out for others although it didn't for her? S-T-R-E-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H

3. This is about fair play: We've seen this for years. Some umps are rule sticklers, others aren't. Some give a code violation for racquet abuse, and others don't. Some will give a code violation for backtalk from players (see: Federer v. del Potro at the U.S. Open in 2009) and others let it slide. Others still get down from their chairs and give the trailing player a pep talk. You see what I'm saying, yes? It's like boxing or figure skating. One judge's point-docking would cause another to say nothing. Umpires in tennis need to follow uniform rules. Even the serve clock this year (and indeed, in this match) was observed case-by-case. You shouldn't do that. It's either a rule or it isn't.

4. This is Serena Williams' fault: Listen, when you get a code violation, you don't then smash the living crap out of your racquet in plain view. You don't go ahead to call the ump names and give him a chance to call you out. No one would know this better than Serena Williams because THIS EXACT THING HAPPENED TO HER BEFORE. If anyone knows about violation penalties and poor timing, all she would need to do is take ONE LOOK at Mrs. Kim Clijsters. I mean, damn ... For Serena to suggest that it just seems to always happens to her here is completely neglecting the fact that she has been at fault at almost all those times. Clijsters. Stosur. Osaka. Dammit, woman

5. The fallout from the debacle is the USTA's fault: What the hell, Katrina Adams?! You've got a contentious ending to a match and a first-time Slam winner who is a kid and is already not enjoying the moment on account of the soap opera that unfolded en route, and what does Katrina Adams do? The first thing out of her mouth is, essentially, "You are a GOAT, Serena!" Which is true, but this is not the best time to point this out. After all, she did NOT win the match. Adams is tone-deaf AF on many things, and she should have done better here. This is why Serena Williams, who created this disaster, had to then calm the crowd before it turned into the background of the "This is America" music video. Because Adams, and post-match interviewer Tom Rinaldi, were not the adults in the room and by dint of their inability to read the moment could have led to Osaka having a breakdown after the biggest moment of her tennis life. (Rinaldi to Serena and Osaka during the postmatch, in essence: "So ... how about all of that?" God, man. Good god.)

6. This is not a time when Serena gets to change the game of tennis: I love me some Chris McKendry, but if she, Mary Joe Fernandez and Chrissie Evert didn't just fall in line with Serena's "women's rights" trope ... Now, Serena has had a history at the U.S. Open. Maybe you remember the time when she got screwed over during her match against Jennifer Capriati (you remember. This was the denim and boots outfit, which was as badass as one has gotten at any major. HANDS DOWN DON'T @ME. Definitely better than that tutu.) The horrible line calls against Serena in that match were ... wow, they were bad. Anyway, a few obviously bad line calls went against Serena and really did cost her in that 2004 quarterfinal match. Many people point to this as the birth of the challenge system. This turned out to be good for the game. Now, the ESPN cast is calling for on-court coaching because it happens anyway. What?! Even Serena doesn't want on-court coaching. In what world are we now attributing this disaster to a flaw in the rules as opposed to a flaw in Serena? She needs to cool out when she comes to play in Flushing. FULL DAMN STOP. Plenty of players get code violations, then move on in their lives. We're going to allow on-court coaching at Slams now for everyone (which, by the way, will probably just mean the women which is another injustice unto itself) because Serena lost her temper? What?!

7. Naomi Osaka. I just want to end on her. My god. Keeping your head through Nos. 2-6 to serve your way to a final? What maturity and poise. Most of us can't even stay that calm during a USTA league match. I hope they replay this match without the tantrums, so they can see what I saw early on -- that Osaka was ready. She came ready to play and snatched that title. Also, she's half-West Indian, so you're fam, sis, on these tennis streets. 😉

HOMELAND SLAM: A Sea of Red

I had a lot of fun filling out the women's draw. Was feeling pretty good about my choices. And then the tournament started.

Anyway, this year's U.S. Open has had a lot going on, which is something of an understatement. On the first day, Simona Halep lost and it turned out that there wasn't a heat rule for men, which is ... something. On the second day, Alize Cornet changed her shirt on court and an umpire, upon viewing a sports bra, was more offended by that than the bare-chested men he no-doubt sees at least twice a week.
We all know about Mo Lahyani's free coaching session by now. This whole episode, which -- don't get me wrong -- is wild, still illustrates something I've been trying to point out for a while. For much of the tennis calendar, women are encouraged to get coaching -- it's actually a feature that is apparently a fan pleaser. (?) But if a man gets a whiff of coaching (also this week, Andy Murray reported to his match ump that his opponent that day, Fernando Verdasco, had been getting advice during the 10-minute break due to heat), this is viewed as very bad.
Yes, I understand that the coaching they were receiving was against the rules, while the women being coached during the year is a rule. But the existence of this rule suggests this notion that women somehow need it, which sort of flies in the face of the idea of equality in the sport. I think on-court coaching is a crutch, but if both men and women were allowed access to it, it would be just another thing I didn't like about tennis, and you wouldn't have Twitter exchanges like this between a male and female pro

where I would be in the unenviable position of agreeing with Nick Kyrgios. (Yes, this is that Donna Vekic. Yikeys.)

Predictions. I hate to embarrass myself and keep making very wrong picks, but I also cannot resist offering thoughts. First, Maria Sharapova's advancement through this draw has been behind some of the ugliest tennis I've ever seen. But maybe also behind some of the luckiest. Sure, when she beat Jelena Ostapenko yesterday, her winners/unforced errors ratio was 11/18, which isn't great. But Ostapenko's was 10/41. Also not great.
Second, I am still unsure of what to make of Serena Williams. But the way she took down her own sister the other day was savage and if she's willing to do that to her own sister, the other players in the draw should be at least aware of that. Now pardon me while I go make some popcorn to watch Williams/Kanepi.

HOMELAND SLAM: The Women

The draw gods were very kind to tennis fans. I am not sure if the actual players feel the same way, but here we go!

Seeds

1. Simona Halep: The one to beat. And it won't be easy. So good luck, ladies listed below. Here stands one of the most mentally tough players the tour has seen since Serena and Maria. I know a lot has been made of the logjam in her quarter, but what she did this summer turned me into a convert. Her match against Sloane Stephens, and even Kiki Bertens, were just awesome displays of tenacious tennis. When you consider that she was doing two-a-days in her last two tournaments. And all of that extra tennis played could come back and bite her in the form of exhaustion. But I don't think she gets tired, y'all.

2. Caroline Wozniacki: Ever since she won Australia, she's been all over the place. Her first round is against Sam Stosur, and if/when she comes up against Bertens, she's probably going to go to the low end of that "place."

3. Sloane Stephens: I have to admit that I thought that her title here last year was a blip, a lucky bounce here and there. That semi against Venus literally hung on a couple of tough rallies. But Sloane has backed it up with a French Open final appearance and a couple of really strong showings against Halep. I wish she had a real weapon, something that could end a point in under 15 minutes, but here we are.

4. Angelique Kerber: Hey, when's she's not No. 1, she's killing the competition. Her Wimbledon final performance was just stellar. She's got a good draw and I can see her making the semis, easy.

5. Petra Kvitova: She's had a strong summer, but there are some floaters in this draw she needs to look out for -- Aryna Sabalenka and Naomi Osaka.  

6. Caroline Garcia: Garcia has had an up-and-down season, not a lot of consistency. And her first round is against a resurgent Johanna Konta, so that's not great. Then possibly Monica Puig, who beat her last week in Connecticut, and as someone who watched that match, I have no idea how Garcia managed to lose. So not much hope for her here.

7. Elina Svitolina: If this were a tournament that wasn't a major, I'd say, sure. Let's go with Svitolina. But it's a major, so Agz Radwanska will likely be the first and last person Svitolina sees on a tennis court in New York. 

8. Karolina Pliskova: I have concerns. She's got some coaching changes going on -- she just snagged Conchita Martinez, so maybe she can help Pliskova figure out how to win this summer. She's had losses to Sabalenka and Bertens, and even Ekaterina Makarova the last few tournaments, so we will see.

9. Julia Goerges: It's great to see Goerges having great results again and she's in Svitolina's quarter, so maybe things will work out for a run to the quarters? 

10. Jelena Ostapenko: Given her high-risk game, you just have to wait until the match with her. Andrea Petkovic is going to be a tough first round because Petkovic can handle the power, so should be fun!

11. Daria Kasatkina: Gonna have to do a hard pass here.

12. Garbine Muguruza: We just gotta see what kind of mood Muguruza is in right now. If she's in a good mood, this draw is here for her. If she's in a bad mood, Maria Sakkari or Pliskova will be waiting to see her out of Queens.

13. Kiki Bertens: It has a heckuva year for Bertens. I really love her game. The thing that had been missing until this year was the mental toughness. She'd have players in a corner and then she'd blink. Not this year. The way she handled that Halep match in the Rogers Cup final was really impressive. Quarters at the least for her.

14. Madison Keys: On the whole, it's been a pretty meh year for Keys. So I'm not expecting another run to the final from her. 

15. Elise Mertens: Nah.

16: Venus Williams: It's not been a great year for Venus, and if she wants to replicate her semifinal run from last year, she'd have to bypass her sister, Simona Halep, and probably Muguruza and Pliskova. That's just her quarter. I don't know is all I'm saying.

The Stragglers

Serena Williams: Yes, it is completely possible she wins the whole thing. What's more likely, though, is that her lackluster court movement will be exposed early on by some quality opponents -- there are many in her quarter alone -- including her own sister.

Aryna Sabalenka: I still want to know if what she was sniffing during the Fed Cup last year was legal. Whatever it is might have taught her how to volley, because her game is locked and loaded right now. I just watched her win the Connecticut Open and her game is BIG. It's also INCONSISTENT. She is also as MOODY as the average teenager.

Magdalena Rybarikova: She's in Svitolina's quarter and I see her as the main beneficiary when Svitolina flames out for some ridiculous reason.

First Round Matches to Watch

These first round matches could be very consequential to the way this tournament shakes out. Not even hyperbol-ing right now.

Patty Schnyder v. Maria Sharapova: I don't give her more than six games, but you gotta love Patty Schnyder out here talking trash on the Tennis Twitter streets like she never left the game. 

Maybe someone know this, but I think in 18 years I never loose a first round @usopen ...

— Patty Schnyder (@pattyschnyder) August 21, 2018

Simona Halep v. Kaia Kanepi: Picking Halep, but should be entertaining at least.

Venus v. Svetlana Kuznetsova: The sad part is that if Venus gets out of this match, it just gets worse for her.

Sachia Vickery v. Svitolina: Many opportunities for Svitolina flame-outs. This will be just the first.

Johanna Konta v. Caroline Garcia: Konta needs to get her ranking up. Because this is cruel.

Jelena Ostapenko v. Andrea Petkovic: Petkovic has retired that dance by now, right?

Sabalenka v. Danielle Collins: Collins has cooled a bit since the spring, but this still could be entertaining. 

Laura Siegemund v. Naomi Osaka: Fully expecting Osaka to make it through this one, but should be a good match. 

Wozniacki v. Stosur: Sam Stosur won the U.S. Open once. Let that one marinate.

HOMELAND SLAM: The Men

I did a U.S. Open preview 10 years ago. Which makes this blog the thing I've been most committed to in my whole life. Which, yes, is a little depressing. But the point was to mention that here is that this is how my preview began 10 YEARS AGO:

Nadal and Federer are astounding tennis specimens is what I'm getting at. OK, let's get back to the future:

1. Rafael Nadal: So far, Nadal has had a strong year, and stayed fairly free from serious injuries. His draw here is better than most, although Karen Khachanov could end up being a situation. But his hardcourt warm-up was judicious and sharp, and when he's fit, as it appears he is now, you gotta tag him for at least the semis.
2. Roger Federer: Federer's looked good too, this summer. No hardware like Nadal, but pretty sharp until he came across Novak Djokovic. His quarter here is full of minefields. Nick Kyrgios in the third round, which ... well, you know. It depends on which Kyrgios shows up, if he's in a good mood, if he brought his tennis kicks instead of his basketball shoes. Djokovic is also in his quarter, so he's going to have to get a bit sharper than he was in Cincinnati.
3. Juan Martin del Potro: Any major with del Potro in form is better for it. He'd face a group of tough competitors on the way to the semis -- Andy Murray, the Greek Stefanos Tsitsipas and maybe John Isner or Wawrinka. But as long as his wrist is feeling good and he's able to spank forehands all over the place, it could be a good tournament for him.
4. Alexander Zverev: If Zverev should again determine that this is his time, it's actually a decent time! He could run the table up to the semis if he wanted. His main obstacles could be Kei Nishikori, who is pretty steady and Marin Cilic.
5. Kevin Anderson: I tell you what, I thought Anderson was pretty lucky to get to the U.S. Open final a couple years ago, but it would appear it wasn't luck. If he hadn't been screwed over at Wimbledon with the schedule and the twelve-week match against Isner, he might have won the tournament.
6. Novak Djokovic: The way he's been playing the last couple of months, it's hard not to imagine him in the final. Of course, this is also the same person who lost to Taro Daniel, Marco Cecchinato and Bernard Paire this year.
7. Marin Cilic: Is it me, or does Cilic look like he plays with a chip on his shoulder these days? He's just been fired up lately. I'm picking him for the semis, too.
8. Grigor Dmitrov: I wonder if there's ever been a player -- any player, no one specifically -- who wouldl ever show up to a tournament feeling good and then looking at the draw and then just feels like packing up his gear and going home. Just a random thought I had. Oh, and by the way, Dmitrov's opening round opponent is Stan Wawrinka.
9. Dominic Thiem: Who even knows. Dude basically fell off the map after the French.
10. David Goffin: Kind of surprised he's in the draw. He's apparently struggling with a shoulder injury, so not expecting too much.
11. John Isner: He's in the Wawrinka quarter (sorry Dimitrov), so he's got a chance for a good run.
12. Pablo Carreno Busta: I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how is Carreno Busta seeded this high?! I'm really not, but ...
13. Diego Schwartzman: I really like his game, but he's stuck in Zverev quarter and there's a lot of talent in there. I don't know about this year, buddy.
14. Fabio Fognini: See. No. 12.
15. Stefanos Tsitsipas: This kid is crushing it lately. This summer, he's beaten Djokovic, Thiem, Zverev and Goffin. He's obviously having a lot of fun doing it, too. Do yourself a favor and follow him on Twitter. He's living that life right now. As for this tournament? If he touches a hair on del Potro's head, he's dead to me.
16. Kyle Edmund: He's got a pretty meat-and-potatoes type game, not real flashy, but effective. Not sure he'll be able to get past Nadal in the fourth round, though. Side-note: If I told you Edmund was only 23, would you believe me? I wouldn't have pegged him for a day under 40. Just saying.

First round matches to watch:
Wawrinka v. Dimitrov: As noted, I'd be stunned if Dimitrov got out of this match.
Nadal v. Ferrer: So long, David!
Shapavalov v. Felix Auger-Aliassime: I've not seen this Felix guy yet, so I'm excited to see what the hype is about.
Fernando Verdasco v. Feliciano Lopez: One of the great disappointments of this blog will be that my nickname for Verdasco, Hot Truth, never really took off.
Adrian Mannarino v. Frances Tiafoe: UPSET WATCH
Marcos Baghdatis v. Mikhail Youzhny: I hear they're giving out free walkers after this match. To the players! (rim shot)
Isner v. Bradley Klahn: I was going to make some tasteless joke about Isner playing his first round against someone whose last name is Klahn, but then I decided not to.

Coach Swap: Serena Williams and .. the French Davis Cup team?!

It's been a long time since my last "Coach Swap." It's been so long that it involved Venus Williams and another player whose whereabouts are now unknown to me.

But this one's important because Serena Williams needs some help, STAT.

Now, unlike most tennis fans, I do have a memory and I do recall that Serena advanced to the Wimbledon last month. But I've been reading her interviews lately, and the Time magazine piece confirmed the thing I've been thinking.

Serena Williams needs Amelie Mauresmo to join her team -- temporarily. I'd say through the end of 2018. This isn't to suggest that Patrick Mouratoglou (one day, I will spell this name correctly without consulting the Google) is flawed in some way. But he's been bugging me a little bit. When he tells Serena she needed to stop nursing, my knee-jerk was to ask why, because he's a man. It bothered Serena and we know that at least another mom who was a pro had some questions, too.

Yeah, so I didn't like that.
As someone who changed her diet to keep up nursing my kids, I didn't understand the health-related concerns Mouratoglou might have had. The foods you consume to keep your body producing breast milk (such as oats and barley) doesn't fly in the face of healthy foods. And I also know that many women haven't had the pounds drop off from breastfeeding. It happened with my first child. The second one, not so much. But there are no health reasons that I can think of that would make nursing a problem for an athlete. Unless you're worried about the time investment, and it is that. You do need to change your schedule.
Now, Serena has said that she decided to stop nursing on her own because she wasn't losing weight fast enough. But it is clear she struggles with this because she talks about it ALL THE TIME. If I'm a coach, I'd prefer to deal with a player who is mentally free to focus on tennis when she's at practice, but maybe that's just me.
The main thing Mouratoglou can't understand with any depth is that the body of any woman who has delivered a child has changed. Literally, parts of you that were in one place have settled into another. The way Serena moves on the court now, it occurs to me that perhaps it wouldn't hurt to have someone on the team who plays tennis -- and who has given birth and is fully aware of what that means, which is where Mauresmo comes in.
Mauresmo is obviously a good coach -- she worked with Andy Murray. She's the coach of the Davis Cup team for France and helmed the Fed Cup team for a time. The last guy who did that was, yeah, a guy. She's also a mom. As a player, she struggled mentally, and overcame it. Sounds like insight Serena might need right now.
Before her pregnancy, Serena's movement was catlike. Her flexibility? I don't know too many women in their mid-thirties who could do a full split. And sometimes, watching her play now, it seems as though she's trying to do the same things. And it's not to say that she'll never be a good mover on court. It is just to say that her body has changed and it might be necessary to move in a different way. I am not a pro (obviously), but I'll use myself as an example. After my first child was born, my hips felt weird. They felt like they were still shifting whenever I laid down to go to sleep.
One time, I became convinced that my hips were dislocated. They didn't hurt, but they weren't the same and every time I woke up, I'd take my first steps and they didn't feel reliable. It's hard to explain. I still sleep with a pillow between my legs for this reason.
I can't wear the jeans I used to wear, because my hips are wider apart now. After I had two babies, suddenly, I had boobs. I needed a solid sports bra to keep them out of the way.
I played league tennis throughout my first pregnancy with no problem (and the approval of my ob-gyn), all the way up to what I thought was my final month of pregnancy. (The kid was a little early ...) My second pregnancy, I had to stop at five months. I reached for a ball during one match and felt a sharp pain in my lower abdomen. It turned out to be nothing involving my daughter, but I stopped anyway. But by that time, I understood that this baby was carrying differently and I had to move differently because my natural movements weren't as ... well, natural, anymore.
Is Serena's coach aware of these types of changes? Like, really aware? And can he make Serena really aware of these changes, and watch her movement with this in mind? Like, say, perhaps a woman who has been pregnant?
No, Mauresmo didn't play on the tour while she was pregnant. She was pregnant while she was coaching Andy Murray and it's hard to believe she never played while she was expecting. Even if she didn't pick up a racquet during that time, Mauresmo is not only a fine coach, captain and motivator, she understands what has happened to Serena's body and that is what Serena needs right now.
She needs someone to tell her it's OK and that she's not a crappy mom because she wants other things. She needs (needed) someone to tell her, "You want to keep nursing. OK. When do you feed your baby? When do you need to pump? We will practice during those free times." She needs someone to tell her that she doesn't have her old body and it's not coming back and it's totally fine. It's a different body and it's going to have more weight for a while, and we (Serena and Mauresmo, because in my head, this has already happened) are going to get you moving in a more efficient way for your new body. It occurs to me that Serena thinks that if she can't do the same things she used to, that she can't be great any more. But there are many ways to achieve greatness.
Mouratoglou knows a lot about tennis. Something tells me he doesn't know much about the female body and how it recovers after giving birth. Having someone on the team who can understand what Serena's body is dealing with right now would probably help.

LEAGUE WATCH: To Appeal or Not to Appeal?

If you had told me that moving to Florida would hamper my league play instead of opening all kinds of doors, I would have been like

via GIPHY

and kept packing my bags.
But it's been true, for a couple of reasons. First, my rating is a problem. I'm a 4.0 and for the first year or so of living in Florida, I definitely did not play like one. In Pittsburgh, being a 4.0 woman meant a world of league-play activity -- a 4.0 team and the ability to play 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 tennis. And I played it all! I've only lost one 9.0 mixed match. Did I ever tell you that? What? You said that's because I played with 5.0 men?
Hm.
Maybe.
But here in central Florida, being a 4.0 woman of a certain (working) age means I can't play women's league matches at this level because they're all on weekdays at 9 a.m. And as far as mixed doubles, well, I'm not exactly an asset here. Why? Well, my results have been terrible. And now that I'm actually playing more tennis and playing better tennis, it still doesn't matter because there's no 9.0 league here. The 8.0 league had two teams this year. Two. The captain of one of the teams was like, oh yeah, I'll send you the team number and then never did. This leaves the 7.0 team, which really underscores, I think, my weaknesses. It's easy to win matches when you have a partner who can take over a match and reduce the pressure on you. It's difficult to win matches when you have to be that partner and you are nowhere near as aggressive as that requires.
I've been working on that, though. And instead of lopsided losses, my partner and I are now able to lose in a third-set tiebreaker, which is not what I want, but it's progress.
The only way to get better at league tennis is to play more league tennis. You know, get familiar with the pressure and learn to perform while the rest of your team is waiting for you to seal a group win. But if there aren't a lot of league options available to me, what am I supposed to do?
I actually know the answer. The problem is that I don't like it. I could appeal my rating. If I dropped back to 3.5, I would be able to play in a weekend or evening women's league and I'd be (maybe I think) a good pick for mixed doubles. My partners would be stronger so it wouldn't fall so much on me. There's no 9.0 teams out here, so I won't miss out on that.
But my pride.
When I started playing tennis, I was a 3.0 in North Carolina, trying to figure out how to keep the rules straight in doubles. I took my lumps as I advanced to 3.5 and my goal was 4.0. I knew I was good enough for that -- if I could get my backhand under control, could figure out how to volley, could stop getting impatient during rallies and make a high-percentage play. (Some things never change.) I had a 3.5 season where I lost one match and I was sure that was the year I'd get bumped. But I didn't. The next season, I won only half my matches, but when I checked the TennisLink site the day ratings were updated (otherwise known as the tennis player's Christmas Day), I was so proud I had gotten there.
I've never in my life worked hard for something, got it, and then tried to get rid of that thing. So this is perhaps harder than it should be. It's probably the correct and sensible thing to do if I want to play more league tennis. But I'm better than 3.5!
Am I though?
You can see I'm struggling here. My plan is to wait until the end of this current league (about two matches away) and then officially appeal my rating. This has quote been my plan unquote for about a year now. It seems like a good plan. I should do it.
I should set in motion the train that's going to take me to the land of waking up one morning and finding the number 3.5 next to my name when I check TennisLink. Do you know how long it took for me to get to 4.0?!!!???!?!!!
Do I appeal my USTA rating so I can play more tennis? Definitely ... not ...?
...
Someone send help.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: This One We Can't Blame on Isner

Things were going well at Wimbledon throughout the tournament. Their website was *chef's kiss* beautiful. Their app worked. The matches (especially in the women's draw) were competitive. And then came Friday.
When Kevin Anderson began his semifinal match with John Isner that day, I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for work. When it ended, I was picking up a late lunch and missed it. I actually had to concede about four hours in that the only reason I was watching it was to root against Isner, whose MAGA-headedness is a non-starter in this TWA house. I legit had to ask myself: Do you actually care about this match or just the result? I had to move on with my life.
But this marathon match kept things others from continuing on with their lives, namely Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. They started their match on Centre Court after Anderson/Isner (problem No. 1) and were only able to play three sets which they split (problem No. 2) and therefore had to finish the following day (problem No. 3), the same day as the women's final, traditionally played on Centre Court as the showpiece match of the day (problem No. 4).
This led to the Nadal/Djokovic semi taking precedence over the women's final (in which Serena Williams was competing for a record-breaking Slam title, but no big). At first, this irked myself and a lot of other fans, but in the end, letting the men go first was the best thing to do in a situation that is far from optimal. One of them would still have a match the next day. But this proved to be a train wreck situation. It really could have been solved with two tweaks:

Tweak 1
Nadal/Djokovic on Centre Court while Anderson/Isner play Court 1, or Court 13 or wherever else. There's no reason not to play both of these at the same time. Wimbledon is literally full of tennis courts. If Roger Federer was a factor here, this might be a tougher call, but still the call to make. People make plans, buy their tickets (travel and match) based on the schedule. Try to stick to it.

Tweak 2
A fifth-set tiebreaker. The U.S. Open has one, and I've actually been to the U.S. Open and felt the excitement in the air over a tiebreaker. It doesn't hurt anything. It actually amps up the excitement. Watching two guys ace each other for nearly seven hours is maybe not the thrill the other three Slams think it is.
Having said all of that, I have seen some truly ridiculous takes on this. Yes, I mean Ben Rothenberg, who said

Only ~10% of this match, timewise, was after 6-6 in the fifth. It was the best, most exciting part of it all, when both guys were on the cusp of winning.

Abbreviating that part, instead of the extraneous two sets at the beginning of the best-of-five match, seems so misguided.

— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) July 14, 2018

I know. I got a headache reading that again just now. All I'll say at this point is that if he really believes this, the New York Times should just run the last 3/5th of his stories. What the hell do you need the beginning for? I get that this is just another way for him to make his best-of-three case. Still dumb.
And then this 12-12 tiebreak idea? It's a five-set match, not six! That's the equivalent of a sixth set! No, a regular tiebreak is just fine here. Yeesh, guys.
Anyway. Huge damn disaster that probably led to a lackluster men's final. What will Wimbledon do? LOL the same thing they did this year!

Quick hits

Back to Serena. She came up short in the final against Angelique Kerber in a win some consider an upset. OK, it's huge that Serena was able to reach the final, and it would have been amazing if she had won. But Kerber is No. 9 in the world, and had previously won Slams! Anyway, movement was Serena's biggest hurdle this tournament and her groundstrokes and serve had been enough to bail her out, but Kerber is basically a ball machine, so yeah. I honestly would have been more surprised if Serena had won.

The hell happened to Nadal in that last game?!?? Like, what? Seriously, that was a semifinal where I didn't miss a point. He and Djokovic played some truly spectacular points, and I'm really sorry to say this, but it was the de facto Wimbledon final. I don't want to minimize Anderson's achievements here (he beat the one guy I couldn't bear to see win Wimbledon), but the quality of Nadal/Djokovic was pretty high. Heck, Nadal/delP was of better quality than the final. In the semis, though, Nadal made some uncharacteristic mistakes when he had an open chance to win the point. And those misses were really the difference. Djokovic showed some shakiness at the end, and Nadal didn't take advantage. Of course, Djokovic was also really good at opening the door, and then closing it back with a strong serve or groundies. I know a popular question now will be whether Djokovic can pass Nadal or Federer in Slam wins. He's got age on his side, but as long as Nadal has two legs, he'll secure at least one Slam a year. Fed probably, too. Also, by the way, Nadal is a great grass court player, so we can stop acting like he only excels on one surface now.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: Today Was a Day

I'm just sitting here watching the Rafa Nadal/Juan Martin del Potro replay and I'm told that apparently that isn't the end of the tournament? That there are ... more matches tomorrow?
Crazier still, I'm told that some woman had a chance to grab at least one of Rafa's butt cheeks and ... did not do that?!

#wimbledon2018
After 4hrs...
I knew you wouldn’t let go.
Proud of you no matter what.
Keep calm and #VamosRafa 🤜🏻🤛🏻@RafaelNadal pic.twitter.com/7UFTV69geM

— Dora Hon (@Rana060325) July 11, 2018

None of them made a grab. That's control I know I don't have.

Yes, yes. Today was a day. Roger Federer going out to Kevin Anderson. Kevin Anderson. Here's all I had to say about that one earlier:

When you think about all the legit great stories that happen just at Wimbledon, how the hell did we end up with that crappy movie? https://t.co/d1UdnTQCXW

— AndyRoddicksNetGame (@TWA_tennis_blog) July 11, 2018

My boy Milos Raonic losing to definitely-not-my-boy John Isner. (Refer to my post about why I will be busting out the rosaries for Anderson on Friday.)
But first, we have some semifinals tomorrow, for the ladies. Who. Do. We. Got.

Jelena Ostapenko v. Angelique Kerber: I've been watching Kerber's matches and not been overly thrilled by her play. What she's doing is scrapping -- playing awesome defense and if you can run down shots that are supposed to be winners, that is probably going to help. I only saw Ostapenko's most recent match against Dominika Cibulkova -- an alleged slugfest, you'll recall. It was not. Ostapenko was out there hitting balls with little wisps of smoke trailing from them and Cibulkova watched them pass. I'm concerned for Kerber should she consider a net approach. Don't do it, girl. I would give Ostapenko the edge, and I would go even further and suggest that whoever wins will win the whole tournament.
What? you say? But what about the other match? You have

Serena Williams v. Julia Goerges: (Germany, holla!) There aren't a lot of players out there who propel themselves through match after match, though far from their perfect form, but Serena is doing it again. She was moving horribly in the early rounds and has only cleaned that up a bit. Her serve and her stationary groundstrokes are keeping her alive. Which has been enough. Goerges has been having quite a year and thus far had no mobility issues. Betting against Serena at Wimbledon is hard, so I won't. I don't have the money to bet. But I will say I see a three-setter and I could see it not going Serena's way. But if it did? If she ended up against Kerber or Ostapenko -- two players who are in form and less intimidated by Serena? It would take a miracle.
And we all know they don't happen at Wimbledon. Sarcastic h/t to Kevin Anderson.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: On the Menu? Nothing Involving Seeds, Apparently.

Dominika Cibulkova and Serena Williams have advanced to the second week of Wimbledon and almost none of the top 10 seeded women can say the same. This is just the top half:

It's probably redder than that -- this was just off the top of my head. It's exhausting. Having said that, what a tournament! Let's not forget the resurgence of Ernests Gulbis and the early upset of Grigor Dimitrov by Stan Wawrinka (while his girlfriend Donna Vekic beat Sloane Stephens in the first round). Kei Nishikori's takedown of Nick Kyrgios is also of note. And it would hardly be a Grand Slam tournament without Caroline Wozniacki whining about something really inconsequential. We can talk about seeds and whether they matter, and who should have been seeded and who shouldn't have. Or we can just take a look at the best moments of Wimbledon so far, according to me. We're gonna do the latter.

No. 5: 

Bad call(s)

Kyle Edmund got about three levels of lucky here. He got credit for a double bounce, hitting the net early AND for hitting an out ball. I feel as though he was aware of at least one of these factors, as he surgically removed himself from the discussion between Novak Djokovic and the line judge. Perhaps if he had owned up on that point, Edmund would have saved some luck for later in the match. 

No. 4:

"Minority Report" tennis

No. 3:

Venus v. Bertens

If you're a Venus fan, it's torturous watching her in these titanic battles. At the same time, she is still in these matches, still a factor and still able to win. After the French Open, her coach said something about Venus not really picking up on opponent weakness 

David Witt shared his thoughts about Venus' 1st-round loss at the French Open with @HowardFendrich yesterday. Worth a read. 👇🏽  https://t.co/KHD7QMxM6w pic.twitter.com/cpUzPop8qM

— Chad (@CCSMOOTH13) May 28, 2018

and in watching her against Bertens, I kept wondering why Venus was staying back when she had such success at net.

And another thing. Watching Venus press conferences (at the end of the ESPN clip) is now worse than having a root canal. Here's what I propose: 

1. Venus walks in.

2. Enterprising journalist says, "You got anything to say?"

3. Venus says, "Nope" in no particular type of tone.

4. She stares at room. Room stares back.

5. Venus leaves. Everyone feels less awkward now.

This isn't hard.

No. 2:

Bahmahgawd Ernests Gulbis is back

First, it seems as though ever since Alexander Zverev yelled "It's my f***ing time!" at Roland Garros for the world to hear, it has indeed been a time for him. A fifth-set-bagel-to-a-player-ranked-outside-the-top-100 kind of time.

Second, Gulbis' forehand prep now looks like a bird in flight, and I don't think it's supposed to be like that, but (shrug emoji).

No. 1:

Serena Williams

I asked Serena Williams if she minded always being the one to beat.
Her answer blew me away. #Wimbledon @serenawilliams @Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/XsHI26FSi4

— Jamie Johnson (@JamieoJohnson) July 7, 2018

So here's the thing. Serena Williams has been saying stuff like this for years (as has her sister). And for years, everyone has thumbed their noses, wondered who exactly she thinks she is. Maybe a few years ago, I would have thought it was a bit much. 

But it appears that the sisters Williams, as always, were ahead of the curve. In the intervening years, we -- meaning women -- have come to understand that it's OK to acknowledge your talents. That's because in general, no one else will acknowledge them for you. Recently, I discovered a tic in myself at work to apologize for other people's mistakes, and to shoot down any compliments. I've done it for years. No one taught me to do it. It's society's default position for women and we tend to fall in unconsciously. But that's ridiculous, isn't it? What the hell is the point of doing anything if you don't think you do it well? Why crawl out of bed in the morning in the name of mediocrity? You don't. That thing you're good at? You know you're good at it and you acknowledge that to yourself. Acknowledge it to others, too.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: Men's Preview

Don't get me wrong. The men's draw still has its promising first-round matches (Richard Gasquet v. Gael Monfils, Taro Daniel v. Fabio Fognini and of course Stan Wawrinka against Grigor Dimitrov -- which I still say Wawrinka will win), but it just doesn't rise to the promise of the women's draw this year. Not right away, anyway.

And here, I have to make a confession. I really just had Andy Murray losing to Jeremy Chardy in the first round. I am woman enough to admit when I've made a mistake, and that was a mistake. Murray's going to lose in the second round, to Denis Shapovalov. My bad.
Despite Roger Federer's, er, collapse in the Halle final last week, and even though Borna Coric is actually in Federer's quarter, I still think he'll advance. Unless of course, Ivo Karlovic serves his way past him (which is possible and which is what sucks the most about men's tennis at Wimbledon). By far, though, the bottom half is the tougher one, and although I've picked Rafa Nadal to get to the quarters, I don't have a ton of faith in that pick. It really says a lot about Nadal that he managed to win Wimbledon, because it is not his surface. I think it's OK to say that. I think it's OK to suggest that things might not go Nadal's way this time if he ends up facing Diego Schwartzman on grass. Heck, even Mischa Zverev might give Nadal trouble. Even still, this is just the beginning for him. Juan Martin del Potro and Shapovalov are also in this quarter. So that's tough enough. But Nadal is Nadal, so it's also hard to believe he isn't up to this battle.
Then there's French Open finalist Dominic Thiem's quarter. There's Alexander Zverev, Novak Djokovic, Nick Kyrgios and Kei Nishikori. Whoa. If Wimbledon didn't reward a big server so disproportionately, I'd be more excited about these matchups.
Oh, what am I saying? I'm excited. I am! Just not Vera Zvonareva excited.
Aye. The reality of this Wawrinka upset pick is really starting to sink in. I'm staying with it, though. I guess. Yeah. Hm. OK. Yeah. I'm staying with it.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: The Ladies Preview

Listen, this women's draw is full of intrigue and great matchups right out of the chute, and I'm not even going to pretend that I feel as strongly about the men's draw.
Here's what I'm talking about:

Apologies for the crooked and cutoff draw at the edges. I think it might be time to do an "Office Space" on my printer.
Now, let's talk about some of these first-round matchups. Danielle Collins v. Elise Mertens. Heather Watson and Kirsten Flipkens. Naomi Osaka and Monica Niculescu. Belinda Bencic v. Caroline Garcia. Barbora Strycova and Svetlana Kuznetsova. But I really can't wait to see this Vera Zvonareva/Angelique Kerber match. I can't even cope with how excited I am to see Zvonareva again at a major. She was one of my favorite players to watch, because she struck a clean ball and her meltdowns were *chef's kiss* epic. I mean



It's always the racquet's fault.
Seriously, it's great to see older players coming back and redefining what a career looks like, especially after having a child. I wouldn't miss this one for anything. What time do they play now? Oh, 6:30 tomorrow morning? OK. Cool. Always fun when a Slam comes around and ruins your whole life for two weeks.
Anyway, on to the rest of the draw. For all the talk about whether Serena Williams should be seeded, it turns out that in the end, you still have to beat your opponent. For her 25th seeding, she gets a probable second-round match with Magdalena Rybarikova, who I believe just made the finals of a grass-court warm-up. And then fifth-seed Elina Svitolina. Let's say Serena advances through those matches. There's still Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe, Ana Sevastova, and Caroline Wozniacki just in her quarter. (Just for grins, Dominika Cibulkova, who complained about Serena potentially pushing her out of seeding range, opens against Alize Cornet and is in Simona Halep's quarter, which is also occupied by Elise Mertens and Petra Kvitova. No one won here.)
Venus. OK, I have her advancing to the semis. Venus does tend to come to life at Wimbledon, and if she can avoid donating entire games in double faults, then I think she has a friendly-enough draw to accommodate a nice run. If there's a quarter without a clear favorite, it's this one. Karolina Pliskova has had a pretty rough grass run. Sloane Stephens has had no grass run. So there's that.
The Garbine Muguruza/Kerber/Garcia quarter will be really interesting, too. You have to think Muguruza, having won Wimbledon last year (I can't believe that crazy final against Venus was just last year!) has an edge, but man, there's also Daria Kasatkina, and Osaka and Ash Barty, and Anett Kontaveit. Also Genie Bouchard, who advanced through qualifying. Big props to Bouchard, by the way, who played qualifying to get into the main draw, unlike some people who said last year that they would qualify to fight for her place ... and then didn't. Definitely not looking at you, Maria Sharapova. This has nothing to do with you. AT ALL.