Now That Was a Wrap! (Australian Open 2022)

As I was saying, the Australian Open didn't need Novak Djokovic, which is what made their decision to try to accommodate his mess made no sense at all. 

Just look at how this tournament turned out. The women's side had some great matches in the fourth round on and the reemergence of familiar faces (Amanda Anisimova, Alize Cornet and Simona Halep). Plus Kaia Kanepi. I don't know how she does it. She picks a slam, shows up, and as the kids say, chooses violence on seeded players for a good week. The women's game is full of solid players who can win a point in any variety of ways and we're lucky to witness it. And this is mostly without two of the young stars who have already made their presence felt -- Naomi Osaka (who did come to the Open) and Bianca Andreescu (who didn't). So who knows what will happen when/if they are at the top of their games again. But what we have now is Ash Barty. With the early-morning match times here in the States, I didn't get to see much of her because she was wiping her opponents off the court in straight sets and with little consideration for mercy. Surely, you think, she'll have trouble with Jessica Pegula, who upset Maria Sakkari. Surely. (6-2, 6-0). OK, but Madison Keys, who racked up a warmup tournament title and had been serving well and hitting terrifying groundstrokes all over the place? Surely this matchup would be concerning to Barty. (6-1, 6-3). The last American standing was Danielle Collins, whose cackle went viral during the tournament while her game carried her through a few three-set tussles in the last two weeks. Even that was more of a challenge borne more of Barty's nerves, I think. And I've never seen her more fired up after a win. 

And don't get me started on that men's final. Seriously. I had an errand to run and left just before Rafael Nadal was broken for the first time. When I came back, he was in real trouble in the third set and I was glad I'd missed most of it because I didn't want to see him go out like that. And I didn't see him go out in any way. That was an unbelievable final and I hope it shuts down the five-set haters forever. No, not every five-setter is this good, this dramatic, but there's nothing like it in all of sports. I see matches like that, and consider that I'm old enough to remember that tennis commentators predicted that Nadal would not be able to have a lengthy career due to his hard-charging style. Listen, that ass is built to last. But we'll get back to that ass in a second.

First, Daniil Medvedev. Have I mentioned he's like watching Gumby play? The swings, the body contortions. Gumby used to slide around pretty fast, and that tracks too because he can run everything down. He's a tough guy to beat and Nadal had to do take the scenic route to take Medvedev down -- just by wearing him out. Even worn out, I was worried at 5-all in the fifth. So was Nadal. 

Second, of course, it was tough to listen to his takeaway after the match. He was really disappointed by the crowd response to him, which is ... confusing? I don't know how familiar Medvedev is with the guy he played against, but he is actually pretty popular and a fan favorite. So getting mad about people supporting Nadal over him is probably understandable in the moment, but not something to take personally. The other piece of this is how much energy Medvedev puts into trolling the crowd. He makes a real effort at it. Does that translate into making yourself a crowd favorite? I'm trying to think of a situation where that happened and am failing. John McEnroe, maybe? But he didn't seem to need the crowd on his side and it was never clear that Medvedev did either. His post-match comments were just a lot. 

I didn't even get to Nick Kyrgios winning a major on his home soil and being a bigger audience troll than Medvedev in the process. Congrats to him and Thanasi Kokkinakis for prevailing in the all-Aussie final. 

So it was a great tournament, and no one needed you-know-who to make it memorable. I often wonder what I would do if I got a chance to travel to the Australian Open. It's obviously be great to be in a crowd and feel that energy. But sometimes, I dream bigger. What would I do if I were on a post-match stage with a man who just made tennis history and has a world-renowned backside? I'd probably be fine and be able to hold it together. Or I'd have to just take a small 

OK, she wins. She wins!

If You Win A Slam With a Gutted Draw In an Empty Stadium, Does it Make a Sound?

When Nick Kyrgios is the adult in the room, you know we have really lost the plot.
While Novak Djokovic was hosting the Corona Open and Alexander Zverev, Borna Coric and Grigor Dimitrov then got infected with the virus, there was one person saying that playing tennis tournaments was a bad idea at the moment. We got Danielle Collins leaving the World Team Tennis bubble to go into West Virginia of all places and getting kicked out of the tournament. The baseball season started like 10 minutes ago and half a team has coronavirus already. And it wasn't even unexpected. Playing any big-scale event in a country where folks are actually debating whether masks are a violation of their rights (spoiler: um, no) is not going to work. No one really wanted to say it -- to say that professional tennis right now is a bad idea. No one except Nick Kyrgios. He announced his plan to skip the U.S. Open in what felt like a hostage video, but it was actually a sensible message.
I think we have to give him a pass now for his next tantrum. Sorry, new rule.
No one wants to be cooped up all day in their homes, even those of us who thought it might be kind of nice before. It's not nice. I want to play tennis and it's possible to play tennis safely while practicing social distancing, but that's like playing with a friend, not going to a major. It's so crazy right now to see people just pretending this virus is over. It's stupid to play a Grand Slam right now, even though I need to see a Grand Slam right now. Let's bypass the logistics of keeping everyone safe for now (which includes electronic line-calling and at some point, I'm going to need to know why this wasn't the standard if it's a thing that works), and consider the value of winning the 2020 U.S. Open* held in the country that's the most overrun by this virus. Most countries won't let Americans in because it's clearly out of control here. We're asking Simona Halep, Bianca Andreescu, Garbine Muguruza to come here for a tennis tournament? Ash Barty, who already said heck no? Do you really want a player who lives and trains in Florida coming to New York right now? I live here, and you don't. We still have cities thinking about mask ordinances.
OK, let's assume the answer is no. What if you're Serena Williams and you win this gutted tournament? What does it mean? Serena's a bad example because she has nothing left to prove. I only use her because as far as I know, she is the first big-name player to commit. Whoever "wins" this tournament will have that asterisk next to it, which will suck if the person is a first-time winner.

Tennis With Notions
The dress is going well, although I've not cut the pattern yet. I made the bodice template and am on to the skirt. Then I merge and cut and poof? I don't know. Despite my earlier ranting, I'm playing a league match this week but we have a uniform of sorts, which means I'll have time to debut the dress. I might finish the skirt template today. I'll post if I do. Otherwise, here's the front and back bodice pieces:

Pretty right? Well, it will be is what I'm saying.

Last Slam on the Left: U.S. Open 2019 -- The Men

Before we go on, I stand by this draw. Maybe it's crazy. I'm going with my heart!
The hardcourt season on the men's side feels different. It's been fairly unpredictable and mostly, that's because of a guy named Daniil Medvedev, who has collected some impressive wins this summer, including Novak Djokovic in the semifinals of the Cincinnati Open, Dominic Thiem (who, I guess doesn't do tennis except clay?) and Karen Khachanov. It's August and Rafael Nadal is still healthy and Roger Federer has played one U.S. Open warmup -- and it didn't go well. So it's weird. And then this draw has a fairly loaded top half and a bottom half that is very friendly for Nadal. I'm not buying that John Millman will be an early problem. But there are a few fun early matchups worth checking out:

Early Rounds to Watch

Denis Shapovalov v. Felix Auger-Aliassime: This is almost as bonkers as that other first-round matchup everyone is talking about. Actually, it's worse. This matchup this early is not really fair and I am not sure who will win. Unlike the other matchup. Patience, kiddies. We'll get there.

Vasek Pospisil v. Karen Khachanov: I'm picking Khachanov, but that's a pretty stiff first-round challenge.

Djokovic v. Sam Querrey: ... if they both win their first round. Hmm.

Frances Tiafoe v. Alexander Zverev: Hear that, Frankie? That's opportunity calling if you can beat Ivo Karlovic in the first round.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?

Right, right. Sacrilege. I know. But hear me out.
Besides Tiafoe/Zverev, there is some space in this draw for weird things to happen. Like Federer/David Goffin. We haven't seen much of him this summer, but Federer does not seem to be at his sharpest and this could be a chance for someone who is a bit more in-form, such as Goffin. And with Medvedev in Djokovic's quarter? Djokovic has lost twice to him this year, including already this month.
In the bottom half, I know it's not popular, but I think that even for someone struggling like Stefanos Tsitsipas, there are worse draws. Nick Kyrgios' head is halfway into the next NBA season. Thiem? I don't know. What time do you have? Is the moon in retrograde? Did I really pick him for the quarters? Ay dios mio.

Who's Going to Win?

It's not just because of his sexy ass, but I'm tipping Rafa. The draw's looking good for him, he's healthy (for now) and no Djokovic before the final. I think the biggest potential issue in his half could be Khachanov, who's playing well right now and kinda reminds me of Marat Safin's game, except clearly much less sexy.

So You Say There's a Hard Court Season Going On

Lots to catch up on over from the last few weeks. Let's stream-of-conscience right in:

1. Things Sofia Kenin Thinks About As She Avoids Eye Contact With the Ball She is About to Strike:

• Did I turn off the coffee maker this morning?
• Was the ending of Interstellar literal?
• How will I know if my toss is bad?
• How did Black Widow and Hawkeye, despite all the research that went into the Avengers' plan, not realize that one of them was going to have to be sacrificed for the Soul Stone before they got to Vormir?
• I definitely forgot to turn off the coffee maker. Let me call the fire department real quick before I hit this serve

2. Venus Williams calling her coach down so he could fetch her a coffee is truly the best use of on-court coaching I have ever seen.

Was pretty disappointed to hear Venus was calling for a coach mid-match until I heard why. #likeasap https://t.co/W1z0faln2O

— NewRacquetWhoDis (@TWA_tennis_blog) August 16, 2019

Venus made the quarters at Cincinnati, losing in the quarters to Madison Keys. Despite the scoreline (3 and 4), it was pretty tight. Still, Venus is not really herself anymore.
It will always remain an injustice that she had the season she had in 2017 -- had an edge on Muguruza in the Wimbledon final -- and didn't get one Slam title out of it. On days like these, I feel like that was her last, best chance. Some have speculated that she's still playing for the 2020 Olympics, to which I would say, "why?" (If she were trying to get on the team, she'd have a hard time qualifying, especially because there are three women who right now would be named to the team over her, no question. You almost have to choose Bethanie Mattek-Sands for doubles, and that leaves two spots. Would either Williams sister get one?) I really try to never be that person to second-guess someone's career and how long it should last, but I don't know why she's still doing this, especially playing singles. She obviously isn't moving the way she used to, and you can still set a clock to her double faulting in tight moments, such as last night late in the second set. If I saw some improvement in her game, I'd feel differently, because it would be a sign of her working to tweak it, even if it didn't always work. Maybe this doesn't feel like the right time for this conversation -- she did just have the best run of her season. But that run was winning three matches in a row. Against a couple of quality opponents, but still. I hope I'm wrong. I hope she's got another 2017-like run in her.

3. Am I the only one who can't spell Cincinnati correctly the first time?

4. I got a question over on Facebook about Nick Kyrgios. I was running around like crazy this week, and didn't get to see his latest antics until after his match. Here you go!



I don't understand Nick Kyrgios. I think he tries. He's even playing doubles with the only guy on tour with rainbows coming out his ass and I thought he was trying to have more fun, be more positive. Then this type of nasty display comes and I think about that New York Times profile about him in 2016, in which his lack of passion for tennis was on display. It would be a shame to lose one of the most naturally talented and entertaining tennis players of this latest crop, but I don't think tennis makes him happy, so why is he doing it?
If you want to get to the nuts and bolts of what started this -- a serve-clock violation -- I'll say this: You can be right in an argument and still be wronged, but being wronged does not give you free reign to do whatever it is you want in response. Things you don't deserve happen to you more than they should, which is never, as you don't deserve them. But they happen. Your response is directly tied to your level of maturity. If you've watched enough tennis, you've seen a player get a penalty they didn't (or think they didn't) deserve. It's not as likely that you saw that player drag this injustice around with them for the remainder of the match like a soaking wet rag doll. I mean, at the end there, it looked like he spat in Fergus Murphy's direction. That is, um, yeah ... extra.
(Why did he give away a busted racquet?)

Coffee at Wimbledon: The Men

I'm sure that nobody but me remembers this, but back in the day, people who won the French Open, or did well at that tournament, used to go into hibernation until just before the summer hardcourt season. The conversation around who had the upper hand from the French to Wimbledon used to feature two entirely different sets of players, and now? Well, things have changed, meaning that Rafael Nadal is as much a contender as Roger Federer. Yet, there are still the specialists. For example, this is the only time of year you hear the name Dustin Brown. Then there are the newbies still trying to prove themselves (not looking at you at all, Alexander Zverev. I wouldn't want you to double fault). So let's dig in (which you should never really do on grass unless you're some kind of barbarian)!

Early Rounds to Watch:
Novak Djokovic v. Phillipp Kohlschrieber: I mean, just because. Rolex has all those great commercials featuring tennis players from the past, and I'm not sure why Kohlschrieber isn't in those commercials because if anyone can tell time and history, it's the guy who's been on tour for 38 years.

Dominic Thiem v. Sam Querrey: What? I mean, what? How are you the No. 5 seed and end up having to play Sam Querrey at Wimbledon in round 1?

Frances Tiafoe v. Fabio Fognini: Fognini's been en fuego lately, but Tiafoe's having a decent year, too. Interested to see how these styles match up.

Rafa Nadal v. Nick Kyrgios: This is a potential second-round match-up and I don't know what to say really, except that they talk about women being moody and unpredictable, and they never once mention Nick Kyrgios.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?
Ah, fine. Let's dust off this heavy crystal ball:

I don't understand how you're the top seed and you get a harder draw than the No. 2 seed. I mean, I do, so don't @ me. But man, Federer, barring some wild circumstances, could handle this draw blindfolded up to the quarters. I think Djokovic will get there, too, but there's Gael Monfils, there's Grigor Dimitrov, there's young Canadian Felix Auger-Aliassime (what a name, amirite?) and also Ernests Gulbis, who is another one who will show up when he is good and ready.
Nadal has got a lot going on, too. If he can get past Krygios, there's Denis Shapovalov and Marin Cilic to think about.
Regular readers of this corner of the Internet know that if I pick Isner for anything, it's got to be a virtual lock and impossible to deny, but I still hope against hope I'm wrong here.

Who's Going to Win?
I do think we're looking at a Federer/Djokovic final, with a chance for Zverev in the top half. He really has a good game for grass, but he's got some head things going on, too. I also think there's some space for Thiem. He doesn't get great results on grass (and didn't even bother with warmups this time around, so) but his game also would seem to translate well. Maybe taking a set off Nadal at Roland Garros will lift his confidence?
Anyway, I'm going with Djokovic. He's just been too much for Fed lately. OK, gonna do the same for the women and then find my strawberries. I don't have cream. Is milk an acceptable alternative, or ...

We Got Some Salty Tennis Players in Miami

I am regularly surprised by things that happen in pro tennis. I couldn't have told you that Naomi Osaka would win two Slams in a row by the time she was 21. Or that Serena Williams would back out of both Indian Wells and Miami. (Well. That's not as surprising.)
But if you were going to ask me if there was one top player I could think of who would say something mean to her opponent at the handshake, it would not be Angelique Kerber. And yet, here we are.
In case you missed it (and some people are apparently hoping you missed it), Kerber, who lost last week's IW final to Bianca Andreescu, played in the second round in Miami against ... Andreescu. During the match, Andreescu called twice for a medical time out with an arm problem. At the end of each time-out, she went back to the court. It was a great match. Full disclosure: It was nearly 1 a.m. when it ended in my corner of the world and I was drifting in and out of sleep, and when the final ball was struck, I snapped awake to see the two players meeting at the net. Kerber said something and she looked irritated, but it didn't register and I went to sleep because I was tired. It was the next day before I saw the clip while fully awake:

Canada kept it of course, eh. (h/t @omess)pic.twitter.com/lH6jMPLGjI

— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) March 25, 2019

OK!
First, Kerber is not Miss Shade Academy, so this is wild to see from her. Second, there are players who are very dramatic where I wouldn't be surprised to hear them getting called out

.
Andreescu was not playing that card. So, what on earth was Kerber talking about?
Third is this apparent effort by Kerber and the WTA to pretend that the whole thing ... never happened? The WTA scraped it off their website and the next day, Kerber makes this nice Twitter post in tribute of the teenager.

Tough battle out there last night @miamiopen! Congrats to Bianca @Bandreescu_ for a great performance and a well deserved win. 👍 pic.twitter.com/IpXzAJRNpi

— Angelique Kerber (@AngeliqueKerber) March 24, 2019

Here is a crazy idea. Maybe just (wo)man up and say sorry if you did something wrong. Because it's not a good look when you are a tour veteran and you pitch a fit after a talented teenager beats you for the second time in some days. Calling someone a drama queen in a huff after you lose to this person is a pretty drama-queen thing to do. Mainly, I just want to know what she meant. And another thing: When did the WTA get into public relations? You know what I can find at this moment on the WTA website? Full accounting of Serena Williams going postal at the U.S. Open. But we're protecting Kerber?

Speaking of drama queens, on to the next tennis controversy in Miami. Apparently, Nick Kyrgios won a crucial point in his match Monday by serving underhand. And well, social media thought that was (wait for it ...) underhanded. Look, serving underhand is annoying and tricky, but it is an acceptable tennis play. I play with some people who do that. Yes, they're 70-80 years old. It is legit, though. It's exactly like a drop shot. Tennis, as I've said, is 99.9948278 percent mental. Part of that means being ready for anything. I mean, as a player, no one likes when someone does this. But is that what we're doing now? We're playing nice? I hope that's not true because I'm working on my underhand serve after I hit publish.

Hot Takes About Indian Wells

Shame to see that Sloane Stephens didn't play Indian Wells this year. I was wondering about her form, especially considering her rough start to the year. Maybe she took some time ... what? Did you say she did play this tournament and won just three games against Stephanie Vogele, a player who has made nary a peep on the tour for some time? Ah, OK. I want to say something snarky, but Stephens is streaky and could just as easily pull off the French Open before another severe swing in the opposite direction.

BREAKING: Phillip Kohlschreiber has a nickname on tour that's easier to spell than Phillip Kohlschreiber! That was my biggest takeaway from the response from this tweet from yesterday:

Kholi! I love it. It's mine now.
Oh, and so, Nick. There's not a nice way to say this, but there's a difference between an inconsistent player producing inconsistent results versus a consistent No. 1 player losing to an unseeded opponent. Kyrgios has a ways to go before he can call out comments like these.

One day, I am going to do a longer post about the Venus Williams of the early aughts and the player she is today. She's having a good run at IW -- that win over Petra Kvitova was peak vintage Venus, only in the grit she showed. But to suggest that we're seeing a vintage Venus in regards to her game? No. She was never this good in her "heyday." Her court awareness, her willingness to take the net IN SINGLES and the way she uses her backhand is all present-day. She has been working on her game. It didn't leave her in 2008, only to return in 2017. She is better now than she ever was, regardless of her age. Full stinkin' stop.

I honestly don't know how Elina Svitolina does it. I probably would if I took a bit more time to watch her play, but, man. Her game is boring. I don't know. Is it just me?

Here is my current salvo in the war I am waging against on-court coaching for women only:

That's it. That's the whole salvo.

Alright, gotta go to work. Or ... do I? ...

This is quite the slate for today and I definitely feel like I have the sniffles all of a sudden. 

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.

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.

The Attitudimeter: Taking the Pre-Wimbledon Temperature

Let's get right to it. There's a lot happening.

Who's Up

Serena Williams

Serena Williams was unseeded when she returned to Grand Slam tennis. Has been since her return. Serena's not the first woman to come back from having a baby to play tennis, but you sure would think that. I bet you Victoria Azarenka is feeling pretty unloved right now as everyone rallies around the idea of a protected ranking for new mom Serena. Serena doesn't even have baby daddy drama and she's getting the help. Sorry, Vika. We shoulda been there for you. Because, yeah, new moms should get a protected ranking.
I don't understand why it isn't the same as an injury protection, because a woman's body gets beat to hell for it. But you shouldn't be protected forever, and you wouldn't be with an injury protective ranking, either. And as Katrina Adams pointed out in this New York Times story, doing anything other than protecting the ranking is like asking a female CEO to come back from maternity leave to start in the mail room. And yes, I heard Barbora Strycova saying it isn't fair to everyone else, and Dominika Cibulkova crowing about losing her seeding, but ... wait. I gotta address Cibulkova first:

1. Win a Slam first, sis!
2. Giving Serena a seed at a major is a favor to YOU!

Now, to Strycova's point that pregnancy isn't the same as an injury, as it is a choice to become pregnant. It is true. Choosing to have a family should not ever negatively affect your career. Nothing you do outside your job (except being a criminal and a racist) should change your employment status. I hate to get New York Times-heavy in this post, but The Daily podcast did two incredible episodes about pregnancy discrimination in the workplace this week, which might add some nuance to the way we think about this.

Aryna Sabalenka

Sabalenka could be Andy Roddick's twin sister, and we don't talk about that enough.

 


Also, she does have a hell of a game ... and a hell of a penchant for giving up leads and winning matches in dramatic third sets, does she not? And her backhand is better than Roddick's.
So, does she have a shot at Wimbledon? You need at least a bit of a net game for that ... and Sabalenka's net game looks about the same as it did during the Fed Cup tie against the U.S. We'll see about Wimby. We'll see.

Who's Down

Serena Williams

You're not seeing double.
So Deadspin actually did a real tennis story about Serena apparently refusing to take a drug test and the headline is gold:

An anti-doping agent occupied Serena Williams’s property and everyone is being squirrelly about it: https://t.co/XRqERzGqmp pic.twitter.com/mNQWonYbul

— Deadspin (@Deadspin) June 27, 2018

There's a lot here. Mainly, I have to say that when the airport eavesdropper heard some guy named Steve leave Serena a message, I just knew it was that dim bulb Steve Simon. Y'all know how I feel about him. Who the hell walks around a public place fielding private calls? Oh, that's right. Everybody. I guess he could have put it on speaker, like most people do in the grocery store.
Second, someone really should answer why Serena is getting tested at twice the rate of other Americans -- having played, what, three tournaments this year?
Third, I have a hard time buying that Serena was dodging this test, judging how vocal she is on social media about these tests. And then there is the small detail that she wasn't actually home. I would have liked to know what the policy is in that case. Are you supposed to wait around for her to come home? And sorry, why is she being tested so much?!
Fourth, I will definitely have my popcorn ready for Serena's first presser when someone asks her
about this.

Roger Federer

Happens, I guess. Your main rival to date takes a break and affords you the opportunity to run the table. Perfect set-up to win the warm-up in Halle and then Wimbledon maybe -- making it Federer's 100th tournament win. But there comes Borna Coric, deciding after years of prospect talk about him, that he is going to go ahead and beat Roger Federer on his best surface. Surely, this is just a blip for Federer, which hopefully will lead to better decision-making. After all, the wheels pretty much fell off for Roger after THREE FAILED CHALLENGES IN A ROW. As I recall, Federer was super resistant to the challenge system in the first place and it looks like he should have really stayed away from it.

Novak Djokovic

Actually, Djokovic is progressing in his comeback. He's not at the top of his game yet -- he lost a tough final at Queen's Club against Marin Cilic. But how about John McEnroe comparing him to Tiger Woods and his, uh, family troubles? McEnroe took the locker room talk to the mic! Woo. I bet Djokovic was ticked off about that one!

Is this sarcastic?

Nick Kyrgios

Nick Kyrgios got fined €15,000 for pretending to jerk off with a water bottle: https://t.co/FkhOKWvOAD pic.twitter.com/vjDCWHIDcL

— Deadspin (@Deadspin) June 24, 2018

Someone just answer me this: What did the person say to elicit this reaction?

The Attitudimeter: The Grass is Greener than the Clay

Well, it's the end of the clay court season. That means Roger Federer came out of his hole and did not see his shadow, so he'll be sticking around for a while. Rafael Nadal? Well, who knows really. But there were plenty of players happy to return to the grass courts. Let's check in with them now!

Who's Up

Andy Murray

He's back! Woo! I really didn't realize how much I missed his game until he played against Nick Kyrgios this week (who we will discuss). He has a real workman-like game, and it's good to have his variety back. Sure, he's still rusty, but this is plenty of preparation to win Wimbledon in a couple weeks, right? No pressure whatsoever.

Roger Federer

This might be a good time to note that back in the day, some people couldn't get away with having the schedule Federer currently enjoys, which is: "Play whenever I like!" I only say this because of Serena and Venus Williams, who took on a lighter schedule to go to school, to start a business, to do "play whenever they liked!" They were greeted with haughty looks, upturned noses, lectures about how unserious they were about tennis. Federer is doing what the sisters did a decade ago and I have heard hardly a cross word about it. And I'm not looking to pick a whataboutism fight. I'm just saying, I guess. Anyway, Federer came back out and utterly dominated to win his 18th grass court title, and 98 overall. Some pundits have pointed out that if Federer plays his schedule right, he could win his 100th title at Wimbledon. Let's hope he doesn't run into ...

Who's Down

Nick Kyrgios

First of all, to answer your question, Nick, yes. Yes, the between-the-legs shot can be overplayed. And yes, it loses its brilliance when you are doing it standing still.
Kyrgios is a strange character. You might know this already. So there he is in Stuttgart, playing the semis against Federer. They're playing their per-usual tiebreaker, and Kyrgios, for once, wins a set against Federer. And then he put his head down and focused on the task and grinded his way through a challenging second set. LOL no. Actually, what he did was treat the second set as some type of proving ground for all his trick shots, and missed nearly all of them. By the time he reconciled himself to the fact that Fed wasn't going to sabotage himself, he tried to refocus for the third set, which he did, but still lost because it was Federer he was playing against. I have advocated for giving Nick a bit of space before writing him off completely. I still am, but I also am losing a bit of patience for someone who apparently is so bored out there that he's taken to hitting trick shots just to keep himself amused. If the thrill of competition doesn't do it for him, then what will?

There *Might* Be a Theme Here

Did you know that Caroline Wozniacki has been to five WTA Tour finals this year? Not bad. Not bad.
Did you know she hasn't won one of them?
Although Wozniacki has been No. 1 before, recall that she has done this without having won a major. She has been to a couple of finals and come up short there, too.
Five finals in a season without winning one of them? That's nuts. Especially with a lot of the usual suspects on maternity leave or struggling with a return to form. She's lost to Johanna Konta, Karolina Plishkova (x2), Katerina Siniakova and Elina Svitolina. With the exception of Siniakova, all these women are in the top 10 --- and she's not so much snagged one set. Not a tiebreak.
Still. Wozniacki is No. 6 in the world. That's mainly because there's never been a tournament she won't play. "On the moon, you say? OK. I'll give it a shot."

I'm just wondering out loud whether Wozniacki has missed her window to take a major title. What do you guys think?

In other news, Maria Sharapova has pulled out of her last two tournaments with injuries.
And I don't even know why I mention this, because it's completely unrelated, but did you know that one of the benefits of meldonium is physical endurance due to increased blood flow? Oh, also a heart medicine.
Uh-huh.

The Aussie young guns are under fire. First Bernard Tomic admits he's not really feeling tennis right now, and then Nick Kyrgios defaults a match against a guy named Tennys. He didn't even win a game on Thursday in his first-round match against Sandgren, and the crowd was not impressed. He was booed out of the stadium.
I have been a proponent of giving Kyrgios a chance to be young and figure out what he wants. I'm also about tennis-ing with attitude (see top of page). I wonder, though, if these guys might not benefit from some type of ATP mentorship program. I'm serious. You can't tell me all the top pros didn't go through bouts like this. So why do some go on to be Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal, Andy Murray  (who probably could also benefit from some real talk), etc. and others are chronic underachievers with talent and no patience to stick it out? Is it a millennial thing? Or are fans too hard on these players (and they paid good money for tickets -- they have the right), only to find no support in the locker room or close by?
Just a thought.

Sometimes, I think Jim Courier doesn't want to be Davis Cup captain.

Yes, Davis Cup was a bit ago, but I refuse to address it in a timely manner on account of that I hate the format. So there.
But I was a bit curious about how it is that the U.S. took such a lopsided loss, so I started watching the matches I had recorded. I though I could try to figure out how some guy ranked 79th in the world beat Jack Sock, who has been playing well as of late. Is Thompson the new hot Aussie talent?
I'm not going to say all of that. But I did notice something about the weekend that made me wonder if Jim Courier had to be compelled by force to take this Davis Cup captain job.
I'm just going to say the following, and then offer video evidence to support my thoughts: OK. You're in Australia and it's Davis Cup. You're not in America for Davis Cup, so the crowd is jacked. Their faces are painted. They're screaming at the top of their lungs. And, you, as the opposition captain, is like:

This isn't a random snapshot. Here is the thing. Davis Cup is the one event where it's OK for the captain to coach the player, and it's the only time I'm cool with that, because it happens for Fed Cup, too. But the really fun thing about it is that the captain isn't really coaching per se. He (or she, Conchita) is a cheerleader. When you're on the road, you're that friendly face that isn't painted yellow and green for your player. You're the energy! You're

Did you know that Jim Courier once just started reading a book during changeovers during a match he was playing? Doesn't that seem like something someone would do if they weren't really into the match? Speaking of not being into a match, here's Courier and Isner during a changeover on day one of the tie:

I deliberately muted the volume because really you don't need it.
I'm not really saying Courier is a poor coach. It might just be that he's not a team coach guy. He probably could drop some serious knowledge on a player one-on-one. Kind of like a Lindsay Davenport. And maybe the only reason this yoga-styled coaching stands out is because of who he was coaching against: Lleyton "C'mon Rock!" Hewitt, who probably pumps himself up just to go to sleep at night. Here he is coaching young Thompson, who has just placed match favorite Sock onto the ropes:

Here is Courier after Sock pulls to 5-5 in the third set against Thompson:

He looks like someone has issued a dire threat against his family pet! What is up with this reaction?!! Here is Hewitt coaching Kyrgios.

After Kyrios won the first set on a drop shot winner, and in the presence of Hewitt, he did this:

He's ... smiling. This guy just gave an interview last fall saying he'd rather be playing basketball and Pokemon Go.
And we got a coach with this going on:

I gotta say, he sets the phrase "hands-off" into a whole new stratosphere in terms of definition.

That's an Indian Wells wrap

So my last post was a little heated. I had to unload a bit about on-court coaching, and because I am often overtaken by my mini-rages, I lose sight of the good things. I mentioned a few of them early in my last post. Let us hit the way-back button to revisit Indian Wells, shall we? OK!

1. Roger Freakin' Federer. You might recall Federer taking some time off before, needing to rest his bad knee. It was at that moment that the Rolex-sponsored Retirement Watch began ticking in the minds of many. He sat on the sideline watching Rafa Nadal do damage at the Rio Olympics, Andy Murray become knighted and Novak Djokovic assert himself (kinda) as the world No. 1. Ol' Grandpa Roger must have really been motivated by what he was seeing. Even after the man won the Australian Open with his fishing buddy Rafa, commentators said, "Well, this is it for these guys. This might be the last time ..." And then Roger played Rafa in the fourth round here and beat him so bad I was wincing. Now I'm a big fan of Rafa and his sexy ass. So it was a tough one to watch:

Still, Federer looks unbeatable right now. He's running around tagging backhands like a teenager while Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray are pulling out of Miami. And let's give Stan Wawrinka a good amount of props, too. He made the final entertaining and had a couple key points gone his way, it might have gone to three. He also gave possibly the most memorable runner-up speech. So memorable that Mirka is probably gonna find him and wallop him upside the head with her purse.



2. I just don't even know what to say about Elena Vesnina.

3. Do you know what Maria Sharapova has done since she was ordered to serve an 15-month drug ban from tennis? She has:

a. gone to HARVARD UNIVERSITY for a specialized business program (that has a no-drug policy but whatever am I right?)
b. written and secured a publisher for her memoir
c. retained many of her sponsors, including Head, which congratulated her for getting time taken off her ban
d. appeared on the cover of Vogue magazine
e. received a wildcard into the Stuttgard tournament, which begins before her ban ends, but barely. That means organizers held a spot for her and set it up so she can start as soon as her ban is over, two days after the starting bell.

This should be obvious.
If you're someone, like me, who thinks she violated the rules and did it with some intention, then you're wondering how a drug cheat like Maria Sharapova ends up with the world on a string. Cheaters aren't supposed to win. But here Maria is, running the tables. Like big time. Even the WTA is embracing her with open arms. Well, at least the WTA's social media manager is. Er, was:

Good thing the WTA deleted this tweet. Wise move. Heck, Dominika Cibulkova probably hadn't even seen that yet.
I don't say this every day, but Alize is so many of us right now.

4. The secret plot to make Bernard Tomic and Nick Kyrgios love tennis and stop being babies: I'm gonna start with acknowledging that this is some real conspiracy-theory stuff I'm about to drop. That's not me usually, but I want this to be true so badly. So you know how Rafa Nadal usually plays doubles (when he plays doubles) with fellow Spaniard and gold-medal champ Marc Lopez? So this time, he took on Tomic. And then Nenad Zimonjic who usually plays with someone who will help him win a title, played with Kyrgios. And frankly, I have never either sourpuss happier on a tennis court. Also, if you're a sourpuss, you're less likely to be one while playing against legit Grand Slam winners. You will be on your best behavior. But still, this is odd for major champions to choose such unlikely partners. Even Nadal's countrymen had no idea why he was playing with Tomic. Now Nadal says it was because they were supposed to play together in Australia, but couldn't. OK, fine. But I think Nadal and Zimonjic did this for the good of the game. They might have even hatched this plot together. They know that Tomic and Kyrgios have the potential to be the future of the game, and because they're thinking big-picture, they're taking them under their more-experienced wing to show them that instead of murdering your racquet, you might consider taking a deep breath instead. So that's my theory. Rafa and Zimonij are geniuses, and not the evil variety, either,

OK, I finally figured out something to say about Vesnina. You know how people say, "Youth is wasted on the young?" It's meant to say that young people squander their physical assets or their time and when they're older they have less time and limited physical abilities. Vesnina is 30. She and her fellow Russian Indian Wells finalist Svetlana Kuznetsova (31) have been around for a long time. It's probably easy to think, even to yourself, that you have the ability to go through a murderer's row to earn your first tier 1 WTA singles title, especially when you see folks like Garbine Muguruza blow by and win a major before she's 20. But look at how Muguruza struggles to be consistent now. I think Vesnina, Kuznetsova, the Williams sisters, Nadal and Federer are living in tennis' sweet spot right now. They have age, but they also have experience, and as Eminem would probably say, their feet aren't failing them now. Youth is nice. Thinking young is impressive, too.

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.

Therapy with TWA: Nick Kyrgios

OK. You might have heard a little bit about Nick Kyrgios' performance at last week's tournament in Shanghai. If you haven't, here's a video highlighting his "level" of "play."
At first, those in the tennis know felt that the $16,500 fine first levied on him was a bit weak, but then yesterday, the ATP brought the hammer down. It fined him an additional $25,000 ... and ended his season. Kind of. Kyrgios was banned from the sport for eight weeks. He will be allowed to return one day before the Australian Open. This is the ATP saying to Nick:

Even more merciful still, the ATP has offered to reduce the ban to three weeks if he would submit to psychiatric care. Nick's statement is like, "See y'all in 2017," so I guess that's a no.
So it's time for us to talk about Nick. In a profile the New York Times did about Kyrgios, he tells the writer that he doesn't know his racquet head size, and it appears he knows little about the strings he uses. The best tennis players in the world are almost always students of the game and its history. Roger Federer. Rafa Nadal. Serena Williams (and she wasn't always). But if you want to do something well, you learn about how to do it, and who before you has done it.
Kyrgios has said he doesn't like tennis, that he'd rather be playing basketball. Why doesn't he just play basketball? Seriously, I'm asking. I have no idea.
The temper doesn't bother me so much. First, it sort of flies in the face of the idea he doesn't care. Also, we loved John McEnroe for being a jerk on the court. It gave tennis an extra dimension. For some reason, tennis has this reputation of being a "gentleman's" sport. We wave off our accidental winning shots. We shake hands when it's over. But most people I know don't feel very gentlemanly about tennis when they're playing. They are trying to win. And unless you're dealing with a complete jerk, it's almost universally understood that any anger displayed is meant inwardly, not at your opponent. (Unless you think Novak Djokovic was really mad at Roberto Bautista Agut over the weekend in Shanghai.) Yelling at fans is wrong, though, and inexcusable. They literally have paid to sit there and listen to you yell at them.
The larger sin for most, including me, is this nonsense about not giving it a good effort during a match. There are two things that irritate the hell out of me when I see it on a tennis court I am occupying. 1. Cheating. Because just don't even bother if you're going to cheat. 2. Showing a lack of effort, or showing that you're just not interested in our match. Then leave. I've got other things to do, you've got other things to do, and I think I'm decent enough that you could stop looking at your cell phone for a second. On the pro level, this sentiment must be emphasized by a thousand. People are paying good money to watch you play. Your opponent wants to play well and likely is trying to improve his lot in the rankings. This is not a situation where your laziness/lack of concern/whatever your problem is is affecting only yourself.
Kyrgios is uneducated about his sport. He's rude. He bails out of matches and says terrible things to people. All of that is true. Here's why I'm willing to give him a few minutes to settle down: He's a kid. He's 21. And he's a male, so it's a given that mentally, he's really, like, 15. For some reason, we expect our athletes, even the young ones, to be fully formed when they emerge onto the scene. This is probably because they are physically strong and most likely able to do things that we can't do and that's something we can see plainly. So when they show an incomplete or malformed personality, we just can't believe it. But they are undergoing a maturation process, like any other human. Among the things he needs to assess -- the main thing really -- is whether he wants to play tennis. If the answer is no, well then, That probably would solve about 100 percent of his problems.
There's hope for Nick. Back in the day (like seven years ago), there was this player. Let's call him Novak Djokovic, because that is who I am talking about. He was tagged by top analysts of the game as an up-and-comer, with a megaton of talent. There was one problem, though: He bailed out of matches faster than I dodge mowing the lawn, even after he won a major. He was known for showing little effort, or just quitting, claiming some niggling injury. A lot of people wondered if it was going to be his lack of effort that kept him from realizing his full potential. We know the answer to that question now.
Ultimately, this suspension will be good for everyone. Tennis fans want to see blood for Kyrgios' behavior and Kyrgios needs to do some thinking. I'm genuinely curious to see what a couple months off will do for him.

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.