In defense of variety

I just happened to catch the Agz Radwanda/Caroline Wozniacki match in Tokyo last week and for some reason, I had a delayed reaction to something I've known for a while. It's the lack of variety in the pro tennis game.  It's hard to play the way Radwanska does, which is probably why you don't see too much variety in the game right now. It's especially hard on the body -- every time I see Radwanska play, she's got tape somewhere else on her body. (Once again, this

doesn't really help.)
This isn't rocket science, but it is kind of sad. Think about the young guns, both men and women, who can legitimately say they rely on more than power. Coming up empty, aren't you?
But, for one shining moment, there was Justine Henin. She could match Serena Williams in power, and was a great shotmaker and point plotter. She also didn't last long. There was (is) Martina Hingis, whose guile was enough to drive her opponents crazy -- until they figured out all they had to do was hit through it.
I'm not minimizing their success -- but the actual reign of that success, and the career longevity -- is certainly shorter than power players. It could be that Radwanska is now finding that as well. Even though she was able to win the first set against Wozniacki, she started getting pushed around by Woz, who is something of a tactician on the court as well, but can also flatten out her strokes and seems to be working on her serve.
Seeing the lack of variety is a bad thing for tennis, for the record. It's not because I don't like watching power players, because, like, who doesn't? But it sure does make for boring tennis, watching players do the same thing against each other over and over again.
At least there is still a small place for variety in tennis -- doubles, where Hingis continues to dominate.

U.S. Open 2016: The future is ... now?

Look. Don't play the injury card. Worse yet, tell your coach not to play the injury card. Tell him to not speak of it ever. (OK, maybe for the tell-all at the end of your career) You're out there, aren't you?
I'm not saying Serena Williams wasn't really injured throughout a good chunk of this tournament. Doesn't make much sense to lie about something like that. But that is straight-up whack to bring that up after a huge upset against an inspired Karolina Pliskova (or any other player) who just played her ass off. Just don't. I remember when Justine Henin pulled that nonsense when Amelie Mauresmo beat her to win Wimbledon back in the day, and it was just as weak then. You lost. It's fine, it really is. Just move on. Don't try to asterisk your opponent's win.
OK. Got that off my chest. Let's move on.
One of the most impressive things about Pliskova's win is that she struggled with her nerves and somehow overcame them. It was pretty obvious -- all those double-faults she tossed up at key moments was a good indication. But then she swallowed it and hit her way through it. That type of mental game is the difference between her and someone like Petra Kvitova or Garbine Muguruza. And I kinda think she's going to win the U.S. Open.
That's not shade on Angelique Kerber, who made me revise my opinion of her game a bit. I thought she and Caroline Wozniacki would have a much closer match because neither of them have any big weapons that will win them easy points. What they do both have is stamina and the ability to run down any ball, which they did. But Kerber was able to unfurl that forehand down the line a bit more than Wozniacki did with her backhand (and she waited until she was down in the second set to start busting that out for some reason).
Kerber's the new world No. 1, and most of me still finds that a little fluke-y. (Nope, not a word. Already checked.) But you cannot deny that woman's work ethic. She works her ass off on the tennis court and although I still wonder if she can maintain the top ranking until, say, mid-2017, she does deserve it now.