What's Up Down Under with the Gentlemen?

Sometimes, you see something happening for a long time. Like, you see it, but you don't see it. I'm referring, of course, to the evolution of the men's tennis landscape. It has changed. Did you know that? Let's take a look at the men's draw:

Some things worth noting:
1. Roger Federer is ranked 17th in the world. Right, right. I know he's been out with injury and while he's been gone, other men have climbed the ladder, the one he used to occupy alone (with occasional company by Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic). But there is a 17 next to Federer's name at this tournament. Like, what. What does this mean, in relatable terms? It means that Federer's quarter is not really his. It's Kei Nishikori's. It means that Federer's third round opponent is Tomas Berdych, not some tomato can who's wandered in off the street. It means that if Federer wants to get into the semis here, he has to possibly beat Berdych, Niskikori and the world No. 1, Andy Murray. So. The landscape is changing.
2. Have you ever seen "The Dark Knight?" You know that part where the Joker is talking about how he and Batman are destined to lock horns forever?



Damn, that is a good movie.
Anyway, after watching Murray and Djokovic face off in that Brisbane final, I think that they are destined (this season, anyway) to rumble for a lot of titles. Murray lost their most recent match, but not other recent matches. I used to get the sense that Murray didn't really believe he could beat Djokovic before, and now he absolutely believes it. Djokovic acknowledged how important it was for him to win that match, because if anyone is wanting to blink here, it would be Djokovic. This is like watching Federer/Nadal all over again -- one proven dominant player, one dogged aggressive challenger who says really nice things once the match is over, but is not nearly as deferential on the court. I don't know how everything before the final will pan out, but I do believe Murray and Djokovic will be the last ones standing. And there are plenty of obstacles for both men, but it's safe to say they're watching each other closely.

3. There are a couple other players that could bring some ruckus to this party. One of them is Milos Raonic. I still cannot believe he has shed himself of Carlos Moya after the best season of his career. (And it's not like Moya hasn't found himself some other work.) Raonic is now working with Richard Krajicek, who could probably help young Milos take it another step this year at Wimbledon. Raonic has a pretty tender draw. Sort of. There's Nadal, who is an unknown quantity at this point. Gael Monfils? Really, who knows with that guy? Alexander Zverev has promise, too. But this looks like Raonic's table to run. I'd really be interested to see him face off with Djokovic.

4. The other ruckus person is Nick Kyrgios. I have a crazy theory about Little Nicky. Now his season didn't end in the best way last year, and he's not exactly what you would call a fan favorite. If I were going to characterize his status in the eyes of tennis fans, I would say he is basically the opposite of fan favorite. But this is why I think he could pull something off here. It seems to me that he is fueled by haters. There are no more passionate haters of Nick Kyrgios than Australian tennis fans. They think he's a rude punk -- he's no Pat Rafter, and he shows no signs of mellowing into what Lleyton Hewitt has become. And Australians are almost as delusional and desperate as Americans these days for their next big hope. Bernard Tomic ... er, no. Sam Stosur? Hm. Sam Groth? Thumbs way down. Kyrgios is the next big hope and they hate him. So how to really get under haters' skin? Win the home slam and make sure they never forget you. Kyrgios can beat anyone in his quarter and maybe the top half. The operative word is "can." But will he? Is he interested enough? These are things we don't know.

First-round matches to watch:
1. Ryan Harrison v. Nicholas Mahut: Mahut versus a big-serving American? What could go wrong?
2. Mikhail Youzhny v. Marcos Baghdatis: Hello, everyone! Welcome to the 2008 Australian Open!
3. Tommy Haas v. Benoit Paire: TOMMY M&@^(*@(F(#***# HAAS.
4. Dmitry Tursunov v. Radek Stepanek: Hello everyone! Welcome to the 2006 Australian Open!
5. Novak Djokovic v. Fernando Verdasco: Well. This is a nice, easy match to start.

The Official 2016 TWA Yearbook

I know what you're thinking. You read that post title and think: "Why on earth would I want to remember anything about 2016?"

I'm with you, sister. (Or brother.) Still, 2016 actually was pretty good to the sport of tennis and to some of its stars. Let's take a look back at the best and worst of the year that we shall speak not of after this post.

Head of the Class: Inspired by Serena Williams' recent essay, I am not going to pick a male or female head of the class. But we have male and female co-winners for this category because both of these athletes achieved Sisyphean feats. I'm speaking, of course, about Angelique Kerber and Andy Murray. Kerber started out the year by winning the Australian Open. She won the Australian Open by beating Serena Williams. Despite a slight nosedive in results after that, she rebounded nicely to make the Wimbledon final and then win the U.S. Open. The other interesting thing she did this year was to start the season ranked No. 10 and end it ranked No. 1. Not bad, not bad.
Murray has spent the last several years as the runt of the Big 4 litter. "Is he at the top of game?" "Where at the top of the game?" "Is he ever going to be the Big 3?" "Is he going to get soft after having a kid?" These sorts of questions. Some people don't really dig questions about the value of their successes and they tank under pressure. Andy Murray won Wimbledon, a gold medal at the Olympics, the U.S. Open and the year-end championships. After losing to Novak Djokovic in Australia and France, he came back to exorcise that demon in London last month and became the world No. 1 in the process. Not really how runts act, right?

Most Inspiring Player: Juan Martin del Potro. His is the ultimate rise, fall, and rise again story they make sports movies about. If they made a movie about del Potro's career, non-tennis fans would roll their eyes and say, "Come on, now. Really?" Yes, really. del Potro really shook the tennis world in 2011 when he beat Roger Federer in the final to win the U.S. Open and had been sidelined with injuries ever since. He really did emerge again at the Olympics, beating Novak Djokovic in the first round, and Rafael Nadal to advance to the gold-medal round. Then he just won the Davis Cup for Argentina by winning an epic match, coming back from a 2-set deficit against Marin Cilic. And that was just 2016. So really the only question left is: "Who's gonna play del Potro?"

Most Popular: Maria Sharapova. Very popular these days. She's been all over my Twitter feed lately because SHE'S BACK! WOO!! Despite a drug ban that sidelined her for a year, everyone is so excited for her return. I am not that excited because I think she caught a break for gaming the system, but, hey. That's not a very popular opinion. 

Most Likely to Succeed: I am still putting my paper on Garbine Muguruza, who won the French Open this year, and then sort of lost her way. Like, she left the map. Should she find her way back, though, I think she's a more likely candidate than Karolina Pliskova because she can mix up her game a little better. In June, I might have added Lucas Pouille to this list, but talk about leaving the map. It's harder to make a dent in the men's game with inconsistency, a lesson young Milos Raonic has learned. He managed to clean up his game this season and almost snagged Wimbledon. Even though he lost, he showed that he is capable of kicking up much chaos. The only question I'd have is about his coaching situation. He retains John McEnroe, kicks him to the curb. He retains Carlos Moya, kicks him to the curb. After his best season ever. OK ...

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: We're lookin' at you, Little Nicky Kyrgios. After receiving some behavioral warnings throughout 2016, the ATP placed Krygios on the sideline, but not before giving an interview declaring that he's prefer basketball. Kyrgios is a special talent, no doubt, but it's clear he's not happy on a tennis court. It's pretty unlikely he took the ATP's suggestion of therapy, so that begs the question: How long would you do a job that made you miserable?

Fifth-Year Seniors: One of the biggest questions of 2016 will undoubtedly be "What about Roger and Rafa?" Both are a bit long in the letterman jacket if you understand my meaning, and both are struggling with injuries. Maybe a better question is: "Will the Big 4 involve both of these men in 2017?" I think the answer is no. Top 10 maybe. And maybe just Federer. He's always had the most economical style and even though he's older than Nadal, he's physically the fresher of the two. Now, Nadal's own run at the Olympics shows that he can still be a serious threat. Plus, I feel that his loss of dominance against Murray and especially Djokovic, has messed with his confidence. 

That Student Who Skates Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: Dominika Cibulkova. Yes, I made a category just for her, but come on -- you all know/knew that student. It's almost not fair, is it. Some people put in the hard yards, gain a reputation, come to expect certain things of themselves. And then they play Cibulkova in the year-end championships and she beats you.
Seriously, I hope Cibulkova can win a major next year. It's going to be a lot harder now, though. I mean, she's short, but everyone sees her now.

U.S. Open 2016: Well, this week has been interesting.

Indeed. This week has been real interesting. Where to start? I'll figure something out, I suppose:
1. Why not Rafa Nadal? So when I posted my men's preview, a fellow tennis fan questioned picking Nadal to advance to the quarterfinals. "You got a dog going too far," he told me. I defended my pick, but it's not like I was gonna offer up my firstborn over it. Nadal has been a bit spotty and seemingly short on confidence lately. But at the Olympics, there was a spark. And at the Open, we've got a legitimate spark shower. (Let's not get too crazy yet.) But he's stalking the court again and hitting tweener lobs and pushing people around with his forehand again, guys. Plus, the favored guy in his quarter, Milos Raonic (who basically jogged through his second-round loss in discomfort), is already out of the tournament. I'm not going to advance this dog yet because of this dude

2. (courtesy ESPN) who benefits most directly from Raonic's loss. First of all, it's insane that Gael Monfils has never truly focused his athletic ability to pull in a Slam. It might never happen, but if it were to happen, this is a great opportunity for him to harness his talent for a deep run. It's the end of the season, the top seed of the tournament is looking dicey, and Monfils is apparently feeling good enough to practice in the rain on his birthday. You know what else is interesting? It just seems that players who share Monfils' birthday are really just the smartest and best at whatever they do. Just an unbiased observation over here.
3. We were all worried about Novak Djokovic after the first round, were we not? He was literally showing signs of injury and spent a good chunk of his match against Jerzy Janowicz on the ropes. But he has had a couple of strokes of luck at the expense of Jiri Vesely and Mikhail Youzhny, who were both too injured to play against Djokovic. So he's had some time to rest, which is good because up next, he has
4. Kyle Edmund. You know, the Kyle Edmund. He's ranked 84 and has won about $3.50 in prize money this year, but came to the Open and beat Richard Gasquet and ... wait for it ... John Isner. **mini-rant begins here: This is exactly what I figured was going to happen when Isner came up with this 'I'm staying home from the Olympics so I can focus on winning the U.S. Open.' nonsense. The third round. The. THIRD. ROUND. Who gives up his probable last chance to go to the Olympics, just to flame out of his home Slam anyway? That guy, everybody. That guy. end of mini-rant** This Edmund guy might be a bit of a problem for Djokovic, who faces him next. Hope he's been icing that wrist.
5. It's fairly common to see young guns win their first major and then wander the wilderness for a while, but it would be nice for tennis Garbine Muguruza could finish her odyssey sometime soon. She also flamed out of the second round to this person, Anastasija Sevastova, whose name I had to Google and then cut-and-paste. Muguruza's gonna be fine eventually, I think. It must be extremely difficult to perform under the expectation that you're going to win all the time because you won a big one already. But she wouldn't be the only one to find herself derailed in such a situation. After Serena Williams won her first major in New York in 1999, she didn't win another until the French Open in 2002. Pete Sampras' gap was from the U.S. Open in 1990 to Wimbledon 1993. So it happens. She'll probably be fine. Probably.
6. One of my predictions (of, like, three) that are holding up is the progress of Madison Keys through this draw. She barely held on yesterday to beat Naomi Osaka, who has got a big bag of game herself, excuse you. But as I said, if Keys has a big opportunity in this tournament, and her next test is Caroline Wozniacki, who appears ready to play tennis again, and not Svetlana Kuznetsova. Plus Muguruza is already gone. It's not teen spirit Keys should be smelling, it's her chance at her major semifinal run of the season.
7. Lastly, let's talk about what's coming up and then go spend the rest of the day flipping between tennis and college football, which is The American Way, OK? Best matches on the docket: Agz Radwanska v. Caroline Garcia, Juan Martin del Potro v. David Ferrer, Carla Suarez Navarro v. Elena Vesnina, Kei Nishikori v. Nicolas Mahut and Venus Williams v. Laura Siegemund. And then there's really just the best decision yet for U.S. Open officials: putting Nick Kyrgios up as the last night match on Ashe against Ilya Marchenko. What do you get when you cross a drinky late-night New York crowd with TWA card-carrying member Kyrgios?
Magic, everybody. Magic.

U.S. Open 2016: The men's draw (or Why Not Be Seeded Fourth?)

Must be nice to be Novak Djokovic. You work hard, become a post-Federer/Nadal machine and then just when there's the slightest vulnerability (a bad wrist, for example) that might be at the heart of you being bundled out of the Olympics early, you end up in this top-heavy draw and you have what appears to be a very hard path just to the semifinals. Even Rafael Nadal, seeded fourth has got a smoother-looking draw than you. And on top all of that, there's a donkey cheese shortage that has severely curtailed your training.

Just kidding about the last part, although someone should really make sure Djokovic's supply remains secure. He's going to need it over the next two weeks. 

First up is Jerzy Janowicz, who has a nice game but his head game is a touch sensitive. But then you get perhaps Martin Klizan. SEED. Low seed, but still. Then maybe John Isner or Richard Gasquet. SEED. Marin Cilic. SEED. Jo-Jo Tsonga. SEED.  That's just through the quarterfinals. Djokovic will see a megaton of potential landmines just to advance through the first week. 

Having said all of that, I believe he will do that. Maybe only that. Curious to see how he looks after that first round. 

At the bottom half of this half is Milos Raonic. This weekend, one of his coaches, John McEnroe, said he would not be working with Raonic during the Open, and it must have been in part because of the criticism he took on because of his concurrent duties as commentator for ESPN during Wimbledon. It was a distraction. I'm not a fan of this arrangement either, but honestly, I think it's a worse offense when it involves coaches of female players during non-Slam events. I have gone there before, so I will digress. But it was a good call on Mac's part, and also, it appears that Raonic is a quick study. He's taken all of that net advice to heart and between McEnroe and Carlos Moya, Raonic is on track to be a threat. With a shaky Djokovic looming, this could be his chance to strike.

Here's my bottom half of the draw 

and I know what you're thinking. You might even be right. Yeah, I'm still thinking of Juan Martin del Potro's fine performance in Brazil and yes, that came virtually out of nowhere. There is no real evidence to back up a semifinal showing from him at the U.S. Open. But I will say it again -- if del Potro had been remotely healthy since he upset Roger Federer in the U.S. Open final in 2009, the men's tennis landscape would have more of a South American flair to it. And it looks like he's healthy again. He's unseeded here, but do I think he can beat Diego Schwartzman, Steve Johnson, David Ferrer, Dominic Thiem and Stan Wawrinka or Nicolas Kyrgios? Um, yeah. Yep. This could totally backfire, but I'm putting some eggs in the del Potro basket. 

I will also be leaving some of those eggs for Andy Murray, of course, because I believe he will win the U.S. Open. He is the steadiest of the Big Four right now (one, Roger Federer, is missing). 

First round matches worth blocking out some time at work for: 

Fernando Verdasco v. Stan Wawrinka: Like, really? I guess really, then. Unfair draw for both guys.

Feliciano Lopez v. Borna Coric: A wily veteran vs. an upstart kid who just beat Nadal. Hm. Hmm.

Radek Stepanek v. Gilles Simon: Just because Stepanek reminds me of Dracula. Will his tennis career never die? Does he have a reflection? Are you sure??

Dustin Brown v. Milos Raonic: Should be entertaining. One-sided, but entertaining. 

Djokovic v. Janowicz: For Djokovic's sake, here's hoping that wrist is at least serviceable.