U.S. Open From the Couch: We Don't Have to Encase Naomi Osaka in Bubble Wrap, OK?

Man, who told me to go onto Tennis Twitter (TT) yesterday during the Naomi Osaka and Leylah Fernandez match? To be fair, I think it surprised a lot of us in at least two ways. First, as talented as Fernandez is, I was not really expecting her to take a set off Osaka, let alone two. Careful observers pointed out that Osaka has had a lot of difficulty with left-handed players, and ... OK, that tracks. Still, Osaka looked like she was playing herself into form, and in her second-round match against Marie Bouzkova, she was making devastating shots and angles. She was looking good! 

The second thing that surprised me is how Osaka reacted to the second set getting competitive. I think I literally gasped when she threw her racquet for the first time. And then I rolled my eyes because I knew what was coming on TT, and yeah. Actually, the commentators beat them to it by pointing out that it was this vaunted court where Osaka won her first major and a reminder that it was, uh, a tense situation. It took 10 seconds for people to start the comparisons to Serena Williams' racquet abuse in the 2018 final. So let's take this on first, because I have a lot of thoughts and am trying to weave them into one piece because I don't feel like separating it into two or three, and also Twitter is not the place for the nuanced situation that this is. So.

Yes, Osaka maybe should have gotten a warning. But she didn't. The only reason she didn't is because there were two different match umpires in 2018 and last night. I wrote about this in 2018 and was accused of gaslighting, of being a racist, a sexist, and I'm sure I'm missing something. I left a Facebook group over that piece. But anyway. Here we are. Two umpires saw the same violation and reacted differently. As I said in 2018, I don't care a lot about racquet abuse. It's a racquet, and what's more, it's your racquet. If you took your opponent's racquet and smashed it into oblivion, well, sure, now you have a point. 

It's also worth noting that the 2018 debacle unraveled a bit more differently. I won't waste digital ink here, but the first thing that happened there was that Carlos Ramos called Serena's coach for match coaching, which is not allowed, and I feel a little more strongly about this one, because it's what sets tennis apart from other sports. I'm going to leave a pin in that one for today. Then things went more and more sideways from there. Her coach was, by the way, signaling. That's a fact. But that doesn't matter as much either because there is one other factor that made those matches different, and that is how Naomi Osaka managed her own anger.

The reason that Fernandez was able to truly enjoy the fact that she had just beaten the third-ranked player in the world on a large stage is because of the way Osaka managed her anger. Fernandez deserved to enjoy her moment because she earned it -- she played well and didn't quit when she was down. The reason we, as fans, could really get to appreciate her performance is because of the way Osaka managed her anger. We're going to get to the anger, but the management make the comparisons moot in my mind. Meaning, I don't want to hear the comparison because it's not there. I don't want to see the footage of Serena talking about how her situation in 2018 might make it easier for women to be angry on court. The comparison is not there. 

Listen, you have to take responsibility for your actions in general. If you're a functioning adult who is accountable to others, you do. Anger does not have to be a train you hop on whose destination is unknown, but you are along for the ride and oh, well, who knows where it will take us. Anger (at least about a tennis match) is manageable and Osaka did unto others as she would have probably liked it done unto her. I don't want to give her cookie over this or anything, because functioning adults do things like this all the time. They blow off steam, realize they messed up and apologize and try to correct. Now, Osaka did look at times like she was not going to throw her racquet but that she was going to throw that match. I mean the first couple games in that third set, I was like, whoa, this is worse, Naomi! But she corrected and she might not have fully recovered, but she held on to play a match I feel she'll be proud of later, even though she didn't win.

The last thing here is how her anger was discussed by the commentators, on TT and on TV.  Something nipped at me about this last night, the way the commentators linked her outburst to her mental health struggles. Today, I know what it is, even though I'm not sure I can give it the best words. Anger, and throwing a racquet (that belongs to you) is not indicative of a mental health problem! What the hell, people? Conflating these things makes it harder to talk about mental health, because now a (fairly) normal reaction to frustration, performed by a person who was brave enough to share her mental health struggles with the world, becomes something truly, like, gross. It's like coddling to do this. It's like treating Osaka like a fragile baby who can't handle life. That's not what the racquet toss was. It was a legitimate show of emotion. It would be one if Rafael Nadal had done it and it's one in this case. Full stop. 

This actually reminds me of how the commentators talked about Osaka's commitment to talk about black people being targeted by the police last year. Some insisted on tying her stellar play then to her social stance, which to me felt like, welp, OK, weird. But this is very similar and this one bothers me more. The thing is that those things are separate and a racquet toss isn't a sign of a mental breakdown and everything she does does not have to be seen through the prism of mental health struggles.

Naomi Osaka is more than her mental health. Maybe respect her enough to treat her as the whole individual she is. How about we try that? I guess that's what I'm saying.

Having said all of that, Osaka did indicate that she is struggling mentally on the court in the post-match conference. To my ear, it sounds like she needs to find/rediscover her love of tennis and for our sake, I hope she does. Her sister has already retired from the game and I could see her doing it, too. If she decides she'd rather climb Mt. Everest, then teach high-school biology for the rest of her life, I mean, I'll personally be crushed, but if that's where the love is, that's where she has to go. I do think she'd be a really good teacher.

Wimbledon '21: It's True, Tho

At the risk of inciting hate, I'm going to posit that the best Wimbledon final was the women's doubles. Not only did it feature one of my favorite unorthodox players, Hsieh Su-Wei, but it was against one of the best doubles players around, Elena Vesnina. And it had drama! We're talking match points saved, then a third no-tiebreak (yes!) set where Hseih and her partner Elise Mertens were having to break at 6-7 to continue the match. Just amazing stuff. Whew. Just the all-court points of it all? I remember when I was starting out playing tennis, and even in pro tennis, it was all about all four players getting to the net. Now, everyone's scrambling all over the court, working all the angles. It's one of those progress moments that make you proud.

U.S. Open in Coronavision: OK, So, It Wasn't Bad

Before this tournament began, I questioned the wisdom of holding this tournament in one of the few countries that do not yet have this pandemic under control. I wasn't sure if I'd watch it with the same vigor as I would in normal times and I wasn't convinced it would last the full two weeks, especially with the early hullabaloo with Benoit Paire.
My willingness to watch started slowly, even with Venus Williams losing at the first hurdle (I mean, gurl). But as the draw shook out, there were some great match-ups and before I knew it, I was in -- checking scoreboards at work, firing up the laptop at home (including once eschewing a writer's group Zoom call that I still kinda feel guilty about) and genuinely entertained by the few late-night matches this tournament had to offer.
I wondered, and still do, what this tournament would have looked like with the full and capable cast -- Nadal, Halep, Andreescu, Federer. I thought that whoever won would have an asterisk next to their name. I don't think that's true now and it was actually unfair to suggest this.
Those who sat this one out did it for good reason and those who chose to negotiate the risks to play the U.S. Open did it for good reason. These decisions really are reflective of what we're all navigating every day, right? We're trying to protect ourselves and our loved ones and trying to be responsible and also trying not to go insane in our living quarters. That good reason looks different to all of us and nowhere was that more clear than the draws we got at the U.S. Open. This is as true-to-life a scenario we'll see in professional tennis, where even millionaires are left making the same choices as you and me -- do I go back to work? How? Is it safe? Is everyone else being safe? It's kind of wild when you think about it.
Anyway, sorry. About the tennis. It was good! It was great for young Americans. I once saw Shelby Rogers play live at a Fed Cup match (warning: if you're missing crowds, don't click this link) and I was underwhelmed. Well, she has completely revamped her game, cracking the hell out of her groundstrokes and mixing up her shots. I always thought her forehand swing looked a little funky, but as with any tennis swing, you do it long enough and it will begin to work for you. I actually missed that she'd beaten Serena Williams this summer already as well. And there was Jennifer Brady who seemed to me to always be on the precipice of a breakthrough in Slams. I mean, she beat the sauce out of Angelique Kerber and I was really concerned for Naomi Osaka during their semifinal for a minute.
That Victoria Azarenka v. Serena match? Did not see that result coming, but this is 2020 and we can say that about everything at this point. Seriously, that was some great tennis, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it was an injury to Serena that lost her that match. I really think she's got a mental block around this 24th slam title. Because I didn't think Azarenka did anything much different to turn the match around -- Serena gave an inch and Azarenka took a mile. It's not like she doesn't remember how to win.
(MINI RANT COMING) I would like everyone to stop talking about women who are mothers playing each other now, please, NOW. Neither of these amazing athletes referenced about, and not Tsvetana Pironkova, either. I have never heard any commentator on any channel anywhere ever say that a Federer vs. Djokovic match was a battle of the dads. And I wouldn't care. Listen, I'm a mother. I get that we do it all. This isn't news. We are not gathered around our computer screens to observe them giving out tips for diaper rash. They are there to work and we are watching them work. So stop it. Just NO MORE (end of MINI RANT)
Whew. I feel better. Anyway, Naomi Osaka is the bomb and is still socially super awkward and I love it. I know I just mentioned Serena giving an inch, and I think the same happened with Azarenka in the final against Osaka, but the difference in the final was that Osaka's level went way up. Azarenka didn't tank, she just leveled out. She wasn't this solid when she won the U.S. Open in 2018 and she was never even really in trouble in that final. She has matured and what I personally am waiting for is to see her at her best against Bianca Andreescu at hers because that rivalry is the future of women's tennis and it's going to be amaze-balls.
Speaking of the future of tennis and why that phrase is overused, let's move on to the men's final, in which one of the participants, Alexander Zverev, noted that it would be a great match because it would be a showdown of the two best players in the world.



So Zverev has a history of his mouth writing checks that he can't cash. But. He came out on Sunday and quickly took two sets off Dominic Thiem, who I was rooting for, but I wasn't feeling invested. (I mean, if we're speaking freely, it has been a while since I've seen a legitimate ass on a white guy. Thiem's ass is, like, solid.) The thing is, I was watching and thinking, what is Zverev really doing here that is so special? I felt like I've seen Thiem play that well, and even better, before. Sure, a lot of it can be the heaviness of the moment -- both were playing for their first major title. Well, that question got answered when Thiem came back and forced a fifth set.
OK, so, if you're a tennis player or are playing league tennis, this fifth set might have been particularly gratifying. You know how you start decelerating through your shots as you approach the end of a close match? How your legs stop moving and you're mentally shouting at yourself to come on, just get the second serve anywhere, anywhere in the box? That was the fifth set of the men's final and it's just good to know that even when you become a professional, you are still prone to figuring out how to finish a match with your racquet wrapped around your neck. So, in that sense, knowing that anyone can and will choke makes me feel better in general.
But really, Thiem did come back and earned that win. He got a lot of help from Zverev, but he did it. And I did not expect to feel bad for Zverev, but when he gave his speech, I may have teared up.
Having said all of this, yes, this is a nice preview of the future of men's tennis and once both of them have mastered their nerves, we'll be in for treats. However, I could not believe my ears listening to commentators actually talking about the future being now and openly asking if this is the beginning of a shift. Hi. Two-thirds of the most dominant men in tennis right now did not play this tournament. When they do play tournaments, they usually win them. One of those men won this same tournament last year! What? No, it's not a shift yet. It'll be a shift when Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are legitimately standing in their way of a Slam -- and they bypass them. Just to clear that up because there appears to have been some amnesia happening.
OK, so that was more than I expected to have to say. It was good. I'm glad the players who came were able to bring back some semblance of normalcy to their lives. (Except for Kristina Mladenovic. Is she ... still sheltered in place?)

U.S. Open in Coronavision: I Got Nothing Right Now

This is supposed to be my last-minute U.S. Open preview post. But true-confession time: It's been hard to watch tennis and I sure as hell have not seen the draws yet. This disinterest isn't just for the obvious reasons, I'm starting to realize.
Chadwick Boseman died the other day, on top of this dumpster fire that is 2020. It's hard to watch this country tear itself from the inside because that's a better option for some than properly valuing the lives of black people. It's also hard to look away. And it makes sense to look at something else, and I thought that thing would be tennis for me. But I've not been able to watch more than five minutes of this rebooted season. Not even Venus v. Serena XXXXXVIII or whichever one this was. As I watch athletes do the work that our government won't in demanding justice and fairness, I realized why sports isn't doing it for me right now.
It's because we're asking athletes to put their safety on the line for our amusement/distraction when we know it isn't necessarily safe. It's not just that -- it's that other countries are well underway living their best post-pandemic-wave-1 lives, while so many Americans were willing to ignore facts and get mad about masks, yet many of those same people demand that these athletes come to New York and entertain them. Or suit up in Alabama for college football. No one should be in this position, and most importantly, I should be in New York enjoying my rainy day make-up ticket from last year.
That was a joke. I used to have a ton of them.
The fact is that they're there now, ready to play and I have almost no interest in tuning in. I want to try, though. This is mainly because I've finished binging Schitt's Creek. Also, theoe players are there, doing their jobs, for better or for worse, and if they're OK with it, then I guess I'll get OK with it, too.
I don't think, however, I'll be OK with this Novak Djokovic-led union for men only. Sounds ... er, promising. Just about as promising as anything involving John Isner would. (I'm including that whack-ass Wimbledon match.)

About a month ago, it all got to be too much.
It was the fears over the coronavirus. It was the pressures from my full-time job. It was my husband getting on my nerves. My kids asking all the questions. And then George Floyd was killed.
About four years ago, I published a post about sports fans getting their jockey straps in a bunch over Colin Kaepernick and Serena Williams talking about police violence. I remember when I tweeted out the post and one of my favorite followers replied, in essence, "Yeah, but you should keep sports and politics separate."
But here is the thing. If you are black in America, it is not so easy to focus on your job. Because your skin color informs the way you are treated everywhere. Even at work. If you spend your entire life watching police do terrible things to black people, then explain it away with shady-ass police reports, it's hard to stay focused on your job. But you have to, right? It's like every black parent has said to their child: You have to be twice as good to get anywhere. That's also true. So there is this additional burden that you always carry. And Floyd's death really brought that into sharp relief. At least for me.
Kaepernick hasn't been able to get a job in football in those four years because he silently protested racism every week on the field. And I've been thinking a lot about what would have happened if people had listened. Because it wasn't just Kaepernick eloquently stating his cause -- there was case evidence happening around him and around us the whole time. What if the NFL had chosen to get behind Kaepernick when he first started talking about police brutality and racism? That was in 2016, before George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, before Sandra Bland, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Elijah McClain, the list, this tragic list goes on. Now, when even the NFL is trying to make amends, everyone is catching up to this ongoing problem of police brutality. You want to be grateful that people are finally starting to understand what it means when you say "Black Lives Matter." At the same time, it took an awful lot of terrible things to happen before people realized that racism was a thing. And there's progress happening in important places, like newsrooms. But the president is retweeting people who are shouting "white power" in golf carts.
I don't really have a point. I guess I'm saying these weeks have been a lot for me. And it's been hard to think about tennis. Our league coordinator says it's safe to start league play again. Sure. Florida's down to over 5,000 cases a day from 8,000-9,000 a day. I don't know. I'm still working on my dress and I'll have plenty of time before I get to debut it at this point. And I did play for the first time since March a couple weeks ago. I was actually much worse than I thought I'd be. What do you call it when you don't have rust to knock off your game, but your racquet is a complete block of rust?
OK, one more thing. We are really having the U.S. Open this summer? And are we really inviting Novak Djokovic and Alexander Zverev? So Zverev tested positive for virus that has caused a global pandemic after playing in an ill-advised tournament that Djokovic put on, no masks, everyone all up in each other's faces. Then Zverev goes out partying and breathing on everyone? This is why we'll all be housebound until 2025. And he seriously shouldn't be invited to play in New York. We don't know anything really about the coronavirus -- it's too new. We don't know why it doesn't bother some people too much and why it lands others on ventilators. And it sounds like the plan is to ... allow infected players to come to a tournament with at least 127 other people, especially ones who are refusing to self-isolate?
That's it for now. Stop breathing all over each other, OKAY!

We Really Having the Aussie Open, Huh: No, I'm Not Watching Venus v. Gauff Live

Does anyone else remember that movie, "The Day Before Tomorrow?" I remember watching it and finding it a bit unrealistic, even for a sci-fi movie. It starts with everything going sideways, right out the chute. (Also starts and ends with Jake Gyllenhaal, but that's not the point, which is rare from me.) Anyway, the thing that seemed ridiculous was that all of a sudden, the world was melting down and yet, everyone seemed off guard. I just mention this now because we're playing the Australian Open and people having trouble breathing because of these raging wildfires and we're ... just playing the Australian Open. Maybe this is what we're going to do before everything goes truly sideways.

So, yeah, switching gears. Here are the draws. 

Some notes:

1. If Coco Gauff can beat Venus Williams at Wimbledon, what will she do at the Slam where Venus routinely underperforms? I don't want to know, not right away. 

2. Philipp Kohlschreiber is still out here, fam.

3. I am fascinated by this Ernests Gulbis/ Felix Auger-Aliassime matchup in the first round. 

4. Same with Daniil Medvedev v. Frances Tiafoe. I am picking Medvedev, but barely. 

5. It was funny, filling out the men's draw. I'd gone through it, thinking Nadal has shockingly little pushback to get to the semis and wondering who was missing. Then I went to the next page, and all of a sudden, there's Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Denis Shapovalov, Stefanos Tsitsipas, heck, even Grigor Dimitrov. Back half loaded much?

6. Whatever happened to Daria Kasatkina?

7. I think Petra Kvitova has a nice shot at a deep run here, but her first round against Katerina Siniakova could be a rough one. 

8. Aryna Sabalenka v. Carla Suarez Navarro?! 

9. It's nice to see Serena Williams break the title drought. But yikeys, does she have a bad draw. Johanna Konta. Dayana Yastremka, old nemesis Sofia Kenin and other old nemesis Sloane Stephens? 

10. Why can you never print a normal-sized draw for the Australian Open?

2019: So Long Hastavista Sayonara Peace-Out and the Like

I'm coming in under the limbo broom -- might ... hit ... send ... before ... midnight ...

via GIPHY

So before I get into the 2019 yearbook, let's take a quick look at the 2018 yearbook, in which I, for the first time, attempted to predict the winners of the majors this year. How did I do?

Who Will Win in 2019? This is a new feature in which I will attempt to predict all the Slam champions right now! Stop laughing. This is hard! OK, here I go:

Australia: Kiki Bertens, Novak Djokovic
French Open: Sloane Stephens, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon: Aryna Sabalenka, Roger Federer
U.S. Open: Serena Williams (unless she retired because she was pregnant), Djokovic

Hard indeed. In real life:
Australia: Naomi Osaka, Djokovic
French Open: Ash Barty, Nadal
Wimbledon: Simona Halep, Djokovic
U.S. Open: Bianca Andreescu, Nadal

Will I try this again later in this post? Absolutely!

Now, from the top:

Head of the Class: For the men, I'm going with Nadal. It was a minor miracle that he finished the season uninjured (well, for him -- just the one hip injury). But then he messed around and won two majors, the summer and Davis Cup, plus a major final and semifinal showing. I'm not just saying this because of his ass -- he had an awesome season.
The women? Not as easy to choose just one. So I won't! I will say that I look forward to another decade of watching Barty, Halep, Petra Kvitova (please?), Andreescu and Osaka duking it out on court. I'm expecting two decades from the last two. (Do y'all think Pliskova can win a slam? Because I'm thinking no these days ...)

Most Inspiring Player: I have to go with Hsieh Su-wei. For this category, I'm thinking about players who are not loaded with all the standard tools you'd expect for success, and yet. I'm thinking about a player who makes me want to go rent out the ball machine at my courts. That's Hseih for me. She is everything I wish I were as a player -- patient, strategic, able to use a full court, confident. Think I'm kidding? Watch this, then drop and give me 20:



Most Popular: Coco Gauff, and man, I wish it wasn't so. I get it. When you're good, you're good. People talk about the players who are good, the ones who beat Venus Williams in the first round of Wimbledon and then makes a nice run at the Open, where Osaka thrust her into the spotlight after a devastating loss. I'm not blaming Osaka, or anyone else. I just think about Jennifer Capriati and even about how Venus herself was treated when she was Coco's age ... and it makes me anxious. It makes me hope the media have actually learned something, that her family remains vigilant against, well, life. She's 15. I just worry about her. I'm glad she's popular. Really. But I'm anxious over here.

Most Likely to Succeed: I'm going to live on the edge and say Daniil Medvedev. I don't know how tennis' answer to Gumby does it, but damned if he doesn't keep doing it. I thought he was pretty close to success at the U.S. Open final but openly admit I was rooting hard against him. But in 2020? Hard for me to see him come out of it without a major title.

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: Caroline Wozniacki, I guess. Y'all think she's coming back Down Under to wipe the smile off Halep's face again?

Nah, but still. We'll miss Wozniacki retrieving ball after ball after ball, only to win a match and you, the spectator, are sitting there asking yourself how she actually did that. (Just me? OK.)

That Student Who Snoozes Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: I'm sorry, but Djokovic. Please explain how he managed to win that final against Federer at Wimbledon. He almost ended the year at No. 1, and his year overall was, well, scratchy.


Who Will Win in 2020? I ain't scared!
Australia: Andreescu, Medvedev
Roland Garros: Halep, Nadal
Wimbledon: Serena (!), Federer (!!)
U.S. Open: Andreescu, Tsitsipas

Least Likely to Post Regularly in 2020: Yeah, that'd be me. I love tennis and everything about it. I love writing about tennis. This post was going to be short, and then I just got sucked in. But I've been thinking a lot about the goals I want to accomplish next year (tomorrow) and most of it involves getting paid to write. I, uh, do this for free. I know, shocking. But the reality is that I don't have the time or energy to do both well. I'll still post for majors and whenever I have anything else to say. But I'll always be watching. Feel free to hit me up on Facebook and Twitter between posts!

Last Slam on the Left: #SheoftheNorth > #ThisMama

I am relieved to be past this current Slam without trauma. I hesitate to point out how crazy last year's U.S. Open was (do y'all remember that a court umpire gave Nick Kyrgios a pep talk during a changeover last year?), because this one was the complete opposite. It was unpredictable but only on court, and both singles finals were worth the (exorbitant) price of admission.
Let's start with the women's final, which featured the two finalists from the Canadian Open -- Serena Williams and Bianca Andreescu. Andreescu won that one because Serena had to quit with a back injury. But it seemed that Serena got stronger as the tournament went on, and she started pretty strong. Her footwork seemed to be back, her serve cracking. Everything was working. Meanwhile, Andreescu was on the other side of the draw, in trouble basically the entire time. I still am not sure how she beat Belinda Bencic, but even before that, she got out of two three-setters, a Wozniacki and a Flipkens (and I don't know where I was for that one, but given the variety of both players, it must have been a thing to behold). So I didn't know what to expect, but it wasn't the match we got. Andreescu was dominant, but Serena wasn't exactly offering up a stiff challenge, not until the end.
So what's the takeaway? Serena has lost in four Slam finals since her return and I believe that with the exception of Naomi Osaka, is the only person in that span of time to have made it to multiple Slam finals. No one at the Slams has been more consistent in the last couple of years than Serena. It's almost undeniable that she is feeling some pressure to deliver Slam title No. 24. I can't think of another thing that would explain her performance in that final. All of the wheels came off.
If she didn't win another major, it wouldn't make her less of a dominant force in women's tennis. In paper and in fact, she doesn't need this, but it means something to her. Winning a Slam after having taken time off from having a baby might be more important to her because it would signal a full return to pre-baby form, and maybe her most significant physical endeavor. It's a lot of pressure and I wish she didn't feel it, but she does. You can't keep putting yourself in a position to win and never win. So she'll get it. Like, at some point.
Now for Andreescu, who -- I mean, it is wild to be 19 years old and have a run composed of matches like the ones she had and to bear down to win all of them, including unnerving Serena Williams from the first game on Saturday. Her game is just fun to watch. Obviously, she can slug, but she is a rare young person who uses the whole court and is comfortable changing the pace of a rally. I think she and Osaka are destined to run the tables the next few years.
The men's final also featured the same finalists from the Canadian Open -- Rafa Nadal and Daniil Medvedev. Have you ever watched a match thinking that you'd like to see more tennis due to the high quality of play and then watched in horror as the thing you wanted actually comes to pass? Yeah, that was me. First of all, who expected Nadal to be the most fit of the Big Three by the end of the summer? Any summer. Second of all, watching Medvedev play tennis is like watching a stick figure made of plastic, though, and not sticks. So I don't know how he did it, but he did it and he did it provoking almost-certainly a drunk New York crowd. Medvedev didn't start this tournament well, because mistreating ballkids and sneaking in a middle finger at the crowd is not a good look. But he finished with class and honestly showed more growth in two weeks than most players do over a whole career. (Course I'm not thinking of Krygios. Mind your tongue.) Also, if Medvedev is going to play so many tournaments in a row, he might want to eat something.
Back to Nadal. Now that he is breathing down the neck of Roger Federer's Slam record, which seemed safe just two years ago to me, questions are being asked. Novak Djokovic is still third in that race, but is the youngest and in theory, most likely to add to his total and also make a push for that record. So what does it mean for the GOAT debate? For decades the Slam titles have been the determining factor for greatness. But this time next year, there is a really good chance that race could look differently. What if they all end up with, say, 22 majors? Who's the best? Let's be real. There's only one good answer and it's whoever your favorite is, and that is Rafael Nadal in this TWA house.  I'm willing to entertain discussion because I'm nothing if not polite, but yeah.
It's Nadal.

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

Well, looks like another boring women's draw, with nothing to look out for until the quarters. Ho hum.
OK, you know I'm just playing. Before we continue, I am declaring this blog a Serena 2018-free zone for the next two weeks after this paragraph. ESPN made a documentary about last year's women's final. Like, last week. Guys. All of us had something to say about it in the moment (including me), but that was last year. And now, everyone's crying "rigged draw," presumably some sort of payback for last year? The last thing I'll say is the other reporting out of this situation suggested that Carlos Ramos will no longer be allowed to chair Serena's matches. This bothered me for a moment -- he called a code violation that later was on the up-and-up, so why is he being penalized? But then, it occurred to me that perhaps the person most excited about the prospect of never having to call a Serena Williams match again might be ... Carlos Ramos.
OK! Let's get into it!

Early Rounds to Watch

Serena Williams v. Maria Sharapova: OK, Serena stans who think this draw is rigged. Who here thinks Maria Sharapova can beat Serena Williams? I wanna see hands. No hands. Exactly. I will be watching this of course because there's history here, and off-court drama but this will be a straightforward match and there's no previous recent history to suggest otherwise. If Serena's back is still a problem, y'all do know she'd quit before she went out and had to lose or retire to Sharapova, right?

Aryna Sabalenka v. Victoria Azarenka: Now here is a match that is a tough call. I like Sabalenka, but Azarenka is starting to play some good early-round tennis in recent tournaments. I think this will be the second-most entertaining first-round match we'll see, close behind

Garbine Muguruza v. Alison Riske: See, Serena stans? It could have been a LOT worse. Like, how the heck is Muguruza, in her current form, supposed to beat Alison Riske, who had a way better Wimbledon than most would have expected, and is probably feeling pretty good about herself?

Angelique Kerber v. Kristina Mladenovic: Kerber has also been shaky this summer. Good thing Mladenovic has been shaky for about a year and a half.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?

Why is Sabalenka in red? I kinda like this draw for her, even with Osaka in her quarter. I kinda think she could win the whole tournament. But it's crazy to think that because she does not have an easy draw. My spidey sense says that Sabalenka is waiting for people to stop tipping her for winning tournaments so she can play with less pressure again. But I could be wrong, so why not highlight a horrendous calculation for the world to see?
Man, Serena has a tough quarter down there at the bottom. There's Kerber, who has no problem beating Serena at a major and Ash Barty. Let's not forget Su-Wei Hseih -- that's a three-hour match right there.

Who's Going to Win?

The more I think about this Sabalenka pick, the more I wonder if there's loose glue around here I might have been sniffing. But it could happen. Maybe? I think I might need a backup pick

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: We're Gonna Need More Coffee

My favorite form of delusionary thinking is believing that I will simply do housework while I am watching tennis. I can play Pokemon (?) with the kids, work on a writing project. Every year, four times a year, I say this to myself. And every year, the Monday after a Slam, I wake up with sore knees and I can't figure out why. Oh, I realize. It's because I've spent the last three days on them willing somebody to do something, be it Serena, or Roger, or Rafa, or Barbora.
Whoo-whee, where to start. Of course with

Serena Williams
I don't want to harp at the lackluster performance from Serena in the final. I do want to point out that Simona Halep earned that like a mofo.

via GIPHY

She ran down everything and did not give up, did not make mistakes, did not blink. Obviously, Halep knew what she needed to do to win, and it's not often your plan goes ... well, according to plan.
Having said all of that, one thing that seemed obvious from that final was that Serena did not really expect someone to fetch every ball she hit. She wasn't match-tough, and the women she played before Halep did not have the speed, accuracy or quick recognition of an attack opportunity. Serena's played long, grinding matches before and won them. She just didn't have it at this time and she got outplayed at every turn.
Two takeaways from this for me: I really hope she gets a different coach and I am still hoping that Amelie Mauresmo gets the call. She needs more women on her team. Yes, Patrick Mouratoglou did a great job with her, but they can't be on the same page with some of the stuff he says. It's a new season for her, and to take that extra step, maybe it's time for a change. Now seems good!
Second takeway: This doom-and-gloom nonsense about how motherhood has permanently limited Serena. She might never win again! OK, slow down. She had a baby and then came back to advance to Slam finals almost immediately. That's a big deal and there aren't a lot of people showing that kind of consistency right now.
Should she play more? I guess that's a good question, but when I can advance to a Grand Slam final with no warmup, I would feel more comfortable asking that question of a Serena Williams.

The Men's Final
Bahmahgawd was that a match. I don't know what to say beyond that. Well, there's one thing. Novak Djokovic is a fine player. Very good. On Sunday, he won his 16th major, his fifth Wimbledon title. He won it playing the guy who will maybe go down as the greatest men's tennis player of all time (Djokovic is still young) in Roger Federer, who has eight Wimbledon titles. And yet that crowd was pretty firmly pro-Roger. And I was pretty pro-Roger, and I had literally no skin in this game (Dammit, Rafa). My kids were watching with me and they were rooting for Djokovic. Their reasons were better than mine: his name sounds cool and they've seen funny clips of him on YouTube. My reason is just like, I just don't know. When he won, my first thought was, "Crap." I'm sorry! It was. And hearing Djokovic present himself as a potential inspiration, like Federer, made me wince on his behalf. He knows he doesn't get the love of a Rafa and Roger, and that might be a misfortune of timing. If he had a solid decade to himself with his backstory, heck, he would be on every cereal box -- not just Wheaties. But he is not, and he is painfully aware of this and I'm sad that he is. That reaction from the crowd when he said that was also weak.
Also, I think it's safe to say that Djokovic was a lot more fun to like when he had some personality, as he did in those YouTube videos my kids have seen. But he wasn't winning majors then, not at this clip. Is there a correlation? If you clown around too much, does it cause a lack of focus? Roger and Rafa don't imitate other players, but they win slams and they have the love of a crowd. Novak doesn't. I think he needs a foil. A previously unengaged foil. Someone young and able to meet him toe-to-toe. I'm thinking of an Alexander Zverev. Maybe Milos Raonic. Someone who the crowd can feel comfortable about getting behind Djokovic. Yeah, so Novak's problem is coming up with legends. That's what I'm getting at. It's not the worst problem to have, but you don't unlock beloved status like that, either.
Also, less groveling. That would be a better look, too.


Barbora Strycova
BARBORA STRYCOVA BARBORA STRYCOVA BARBORA STRYCOVA

I know I've shared this before, but no one deserved this fine Wimbledon run like she did. She's just automatic in doubles and watching her play is an exercise in grit and court intelligence I loved in Kim Clijsters and Li Na. I just -- man. Because of Strycova, I watched Wimbledon to the very end of the tournament today. Have you ever done that? They like, make an announcement and everything. Very dignified. But back to Strycova. She's just great. OK, that's it.
(Also Su-wei Hsieh is great.)

Is Jelena Ostapenko Going to Have to Paralyze a Bitch?

Friendly fire 😂🤕#Wimbledon | @JelenaOstapenk8 pic.twitter.com/36wfwKLFFV

— Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) July 8, 2019

Yes, she and Robert Lindstedt made the mixed doubles final but I've got five bucks saying he never plays with her again.

The Men's Doubles Final

How do you get hit by an overhead on a bounce in the face while you're at the baseline and have it cause injury? How are you then the same person and get hit later in the neck by the same person? And then how do you, again, the same person -- Nicolas Mahut -- then get a ball straight in the business sack in the very same game? And then how do you then lose a match in five sets? Everyone feels bad about the Mahut/John Isner match, but you know what they say about adding insult to injury? This feels like a very illustrative version of that.

Plus also
And I had missed this previously: Johanna Konta being the first Brit to stand up to British press for trash behavior:



This is why they can't have nice things. Exactly why.
New rule for tennis pressers at Wimbledon: I want a camera on the person asking stupid questions because they need to be known and I personally would like to know if they have even ever held a tennis racquet before.

Coffee at Wimbledon: The Bonfire of my Wimbledon Draws

Welp, I had planned to take the middle Sunday off to update the ol' blog, reacquaint myself with my family and maybe do some laundry. But then I ended up spending the weekend teaching my son about rankings, seedings and women's soccer. Yes, of course we watched the U.S. team bring it home, which led to an awkward question from my son: What about the men's team?
Well, yeah, they play too ...?
I digress. I just finished watching Venus Williams and Francis Tiafoe stand around as groundstrokes and volleys whizzed by them in a second-round mixed doubles match. So while I'm wallowing in disappointment, let's talk about the trash that some of my predictions turned out to be.
But where to start with this first week? I think a countdown-styled approach is the right call!

No. 5 Moment that Torched My Wimbledon Draw:
Serena Williams making the quarterfinals: Yes, it is a bad idea to bet against Serena, no matter how jacked her footwork looks and how lackluster she looked at the French. But sure enough, as the other seeds toppled around her, she looks a little better with each match, although the surface has been giving her a little trouble:

You okay there, @serenawilliams 🤣#Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/Z4JgZEdRt1

— Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) July 6, 2019

I could watch that 100 times.
And to say the draw has opened up for her is an understatement. No more Angelique Kerber, no more Ash Barty and beyond, no more Petra Kvitova. Still, Alison Riske accounted for two of those seeds, which means she's a little dangerous, too. Am I picking against Serena again? My draw is still singed on the sides. No!

No. 4:
BARBORA STRYCOVA BARBORA STRYCOVA BARBORA STRYCOVA: (Does anyone remember how Kenny Smith used to say "Manu Ginobli" on the NBA pre- and post-game shows?)  She's got that me energy on a tennis court and I hope she wins a major in singles one day.

What do you think she said to Kristina Mladenovic after she hit that overhead at her? You know it was saucy.
Did not quite see her taking out Kiki Bertens and Elise Mertens, but whatever. Draw's ruined. It's fine. Really.

No. 3:
Naomi Osaka out in the first round: It is hard to believe that there is more pressure to be had out there than winning her first Grand Slam over a legend in some heated circumstances, or to back up that first Slam with a second one right away. But obviously there is, and Osaka isn't coping with it well. It's hard to watch her break down post-match. I also think she'll adjust and will figure it out.

No. 2:
Alexander Zverev out in the first round: This looks bad to begin with. But the idea that he is right now having to deal with a dispute with his former agent while he has a veteran -- Ivan Lendl -- as a coach? What?! Lendl can't be cheap, and he's got no advice, no people who can put a layer between Zverev and this drama during a major? What?!

No. 1:
Venus Williams out in the first round: Now, if you look at my draw, it's clear that I had some denial issues about what was going to happen for Venus at this tournament.

And I picked her winning over Cori "Coco" Gauff, but, well, it wasn't to be. I want to spend a little tiny amount of time on Gauff, because for a 15-year-old, it is obvious that she (1) grew up watching Venus and (2) that she's only going to get better. Yes, I saw her lose to Simona Halep already today, and it wasn't pretty, but she needs some legit weapons. She'll get there. But before that, she beat three very experienced players, and that win against Polona Hercog was more impressive to me than anything else she did. I say I'm going to spend a little time on Gauff because as excited as she makes me for the future of women's tennis, I hope we let her live. I hope that we remember that Jennifer Capriati was young, and talented -- and unprotected from fame and its pitfalls. I hope she gets to 18 or 19 at least before she's shackled with unreasonable expectations. But man, she's gonna be good! But everybody cool it, OK?

Coffee at Wimbledon: The Women

I look at this draw and a few questions come to mind: Whatever happened to Garbine Muguruza? What if Venus loses to her clone? Does Maria Sharapova have one more good run in her -- at, like, any event? What if Ash Barty and Naomi Osaka begin a legendary rivalry that starts right here at Wimbledon? Andy Murray wants to play mixed with which sister? The one who has never been that great a volleyer? Oh, OK, got it.
Anyway, let's check out this draw before I smack Murray upside the head with Venus' racquet:

Early Rounds to Watch:
Svetlana Kuznetsova v. Alison Van Uytvanck: I try to make it a rule to never miss Svetlana Kuznetsova play, or to type her name into my blog.

Donna Vekic v. Alison Riske: Should be interesting. Riske just won a warm-up tournament on grass.

Kaia Kanepi v. Stephanie Voegele: I think the Kanepi Upset Effect only works when she's playing a top seed in the first round, but worth keeping an eye on.

Belinda Bencic v. Ana Pavlyuchenkova: I did have to cut-and-paste that one. So Pavly is a tough competitor and although Bencic looks like she has rediscovered her court legs, this will be a test right out the gate.

Carla Suarez-Navarro v. Sam Stosur: I just like their game styles.

Ons Jabeur v. Petra Kvitova: Jabeur looked good in Eastbourne and Kvitova's getting over injury. Just saying.

Su-Wei Hsieh v. Jelena Ostapenko: What a world. Ostapenko won the French Open, like, two years ago and is now unseeded. Hsieh has one of the most entertaining games out there right now. So this should be ... something.

Victoria Azarenka v. Aliza Cornet: This one's gonna take a while and will involve at least four impassioned entreaties from Cornet to the court umpire with very dramatic hand gestures.

Venus Williams v. Coco Gauff: So in preparation for this post, and this entry, I did go ahead and watch the most recent match I could find of Gauff and it happened to be the one in Wimbledon qualifying where she beat the top seed. She's 15. And I hate to be that person, but watching her reminded me of Venus' game. Didn't see much of her at net, which is where Venus might consider going to win this match. Yes, the similarities are compelling, but this is Venus' best Slam, and even now, in a sort of lull, I don't think this will be a big brawl for her. That'll probably come later, against Aryna Sabalenka.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?

Some of these are obvious. Based on what we've seen this year from Serena Williams, it is just hard to see her beating an in-form Angelique Kerber. I mean, Julia Goerges could beat her in the third round. And Kvitova is always good on grass, but Johanna Konta has actually been doing well on it over the last couple of weeks, so she gets a very slight edge.
Hsieh's my fun pick. I know Pliskova just won a grass warmup, but she doesn't bend her knees. Don't any of you find that odd?

Who's Going to Win?
I am not sure! I would give Barty and Kerber the best odds. Osaka has a good draw through to the semis, but she has not been consistent lately. But she's a kid, too, and is the holder of two Slams. I also think this conversation really hinges on the health of Kvitova. If she's ready to go, she is going to be hard to beat. I guess what I'm saying is we'll see.

So You Say There Was a Slam Going On: French Open 2019

For people who have been watching tennis for a long time, Slam seasons can be a little annoying. Slam stans (a term I just made up) are usually not there for the tennis, but for their favorite players. The good thing is that once their player is gone, they are too, so they can't muddy any further the conversations around the great tennis usually being played around a major. Because there are plenty of good things happening during a major tournament on the court, so we don't have to harp on things happening off the court, like Interview-gate, in which two tennis news cycles were spent on whether Dominic Thiem owes Serena Williams an apology or vice versa.
Again, there's plenty of good things that happened on court in the last couple of weeks that deserve more air, so here they are:

1. Rafa Nadal: And no, it's not just him and his sexy ass, although that is a big part of it. Nadal won the French Open for the 12th time on Sunday. Sometime during Nadal's thorough shellacking of Thiem in the fourth set, I began to wonder if there were any other players whose dominance of a surface was more entertaining or ironclad than Nadal's. There was Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, but between us, that was boring. A big swing serve out wide, a volley, another grass title. Gustavo Kuerten on clay? Entertaining, absolutely, but he clearly didn't have that longevity. There's nothing in tennis that can compare to Nadal's performance on clay that I can think of, and I'm willing to take contenders.
It's not just that Nadal always wins on clay. It's that he shows off a new strength in his game each time, especially recently. This year, Nadal's net game was the added dimension. This is impressive when you consider that he starts most return games essentially standing in the first row of spectator seats, but when he got there, he ended points on these delicate volleys that flew in the face of the brutality of the rest of his game. Remember that year he beat Stan Wawrinka in the final? That year, it was his down-the-line forehand when he was stretched wide. That's why he's so entertaining -- it's something new each time. Here is someone who is still working on his game on the surface on which he performs the best. It's quite something to witness.

2. Ashleigh Barty: So Barty's game is just as devastating as Nadal's, and transferrable to different surfaces and the reason I never realized it was because she is not a showman about it. I've been watching her in clay warmups, and in Paris, and I wondered why players had so much trouble with her -- without denying that she has a nice game. But it isn't nice. It's overpowering and it can throw an opponent off-balance. I also did not know her backstory -- that she quit tennis for a while to deal with her personal health and to play cricket. This is a great profile by the way, h/t Courtney Nguyen. Her first Slam title happened in a rather lopsided fashion, but I think Marketa Vondrousova will be better prepared in her next major final.

3. The heavy mantle Serena Williams places upon herself: I wasn't going to say anything about this because there is no way to say anything that isn't high praise about Serena these days without sounding as if you just hate her. I'm going to take a crack at this now, though, because what she's presenting right now is something familiar to a lot of us women who are, er, multitasking. Serena wore a jacket at the French Open that read "Mother, Champion, Queen, Goddess" A reader on my Facebook page raised this and even though I responded, I thought there was more there, and it was hard to get to what that "more" was.

When I had my first child, I was in awe of the ability my body had to bear such a miracle. That kid changed me in ways I can't explain. Before I was a mother, I was a newspaper editor and writer and naturally I took time off after the birth. When it was time to go back to work, I stuffed myself into one of my favorite pre-pregnancy dresses and marched myself into the office. Why? No one told me to do that. I did it because I wanted to signal that I was back, that I was the same old professional and motherhood hadn't affected my ability to be a kick-ass editor. It was pressure placed on me by extension -- women are expected to be all things at all times. That meant never admitting I was tired because I was up feeding the baby at 3:30 in the morning. It meant wearing clothes that barely fit and sitting in abject discomfort because I was not only a mother, but I was here doing my job as I always did with the same dedication and commitment to work excellence and nothing -- nothing -- had changed. I could be all of it at all times. And without making it look hard. That's important.
People, and society, put pressure on you whenever they get a chance. Have you ever worked with someone who waited until the last minute to do something? And then, faced with failure, you get a call from said person asking you for help to fast-track their project because now they're in trouble. There's the attempt to foist their pressure on you. What do you do? Do you accept it and begin also running around like a chicken whose head has been cut off? Or do you tell them that you have a lot going on already, and that their project will be fit in between the things you were already under pressure to do?
Do you see what I mean?
Mercifully, after I had my second child, I realized that that was nonsense. I wore my maternity clothes for as long as I needed. I went to work and I did my job to the best of my ability. I came home and spent time and energy on my family. When I was able to play tennis, I did it as well as I could. The difference was that I was not trying to be everything at all times. Serena Williams is a tennis player and she should be the best tennis player on court that she can be. Everything else can take a back seat on court. It's really OK. Not that the outfit caused her to lose -- I'd say it was that suspect footwork. Still, I believe she wears this mantle all the time. I still think about her U.S. Open loss, how her first defense to the umpire was, "I'm a mother!" What? The pressure of being an active legendary tennis player is plenty for the tennis courts. Let Alexis treat you like the queen and goddess that you are at home, off court. I guess that what I'm hoping for is that Serena Williams is kinder to herself. Serena being Serena is enough. That's a lesson a lot of us can take home.

4. I thought Stan Wawrinka v. Grigor Dimitrov was one of the best matches of the tournament. For a long time, I thought it was a matter of time before Dimitrov stepped up to claim a major, but does it seem to anyone else that the window that might have been his has closed?

5. If Novak Djokovic and Thiem had finished their semifinal match in one day, which was completely possible, does the final have a different ending? Just a thought I've been thinking since Sunday.

6. Whatever happened to Garbine Muguruza?

So You Say There's A Slam Going On: French Open 2019

Of course I knew the French Open started today.
Kinda.
Well, I knew it would start on Memorial Day weekend. I just didn't realize this was actually Memorial Day weekend?
Seriously, I've been stretched thin, more so than I realized, so for the first time in a while, I unfortunately didn't have my draw breakfast party in my office. Unfortunate also, though, is that I did pick up on the fact that I was missing a major in time to watch Venus Williams flame out to Elina Svitolina. I've said many times that Svitolina's game is utterly boring and it is, but she didn't need much today. I don't think there'd be any shame in sitting out of your least successful major. I mean, Roger Federer did it for, like three years, right?
Also could not help but notice that Nicolas Mahut is playing this tournament in singles. Did he not say he was retiring last year? Uh ...
OK, so true fact -- I was on YouTube looking for writing music when I noticed a clip of Garbine Muguruza's match against Taylor Townsend. And that's when I realized today was kind of a big deal. So I watched the highlights. Yes, Townsend lost, but she played a really good match! But once Muguruza decided to step into the court, she didn't have much of a chance. But still.
Oh, and Kerber got her butt kicked too. We all caught up on the important stuff? All right, let's do some first-round predictions (for the ones that haven't been played yet):

Jeremy Chardy v. Kyle Edmund: This is the only match on the men's side that looks like it could be remotely interesting. But you never know. Maybe Yannick Hanfmann pulls off a miracle against Rafa Nadal?
(Time out)
OK, time in. I just watched some clips with Hanfmann and he is a big, strong dude with big groundstrokes. He also appears to be error-prone. Here's hoping big-confidence Rafa shows up tomorrow instead of early clay-season 2019 Rafa.

Kaia Kanepi v. Julia Goerges: I do not believe Kanepi has ever met a seeded opponent in the first round of a major that she didn't beat. After that, yeah, nothing, but she lives for those first-round upsets!

Sorana Cirstea v. Petra Kvitova: Kvitova, but should be at least entertaining ...

Luksika Kumkhum v. Ana Sevastova: I'd give the edge to Sevastova, but this is almost definitely going three sets, right?

Barbora Strycova v. Sam Stosur: YASSSSSS

Serena Williams v. : Yeah, against whoever. Look, we all have questions about Serena Williams right now. She had a strong 2018, and this year, in Australia, she snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory and let Karolina Pliskova, who was just playing OK, back into the match. She's played one clay court match. Keeps backing out of matches with some injury. Like, what is going on?!

AO'19: Some Things that Surprised Me at the Australian Open

Some things about the Australian Open were fairly easy to guess: Novak Djokovic bringing home the men's title, the flaming-out of all the Australian men at their home tournament, very hot weather. Others were not, and it's a good time to re-examine those things now:

1. The sudden confrontation with the end of Andy Murray's career: Before he took the court for his first-round match, Murray had a hit with Djokovic that ended with him in physical and emotional pain. At a press conference, Murray said the Aussie Open might be his last tournament, although he was hoping to end it all at Wimbledon. Now, at this moment, Murray is recovering from a last-ditch surgery that hopefully can help his hip heal so he can play without pain. But just in case it doesn't, we should let the record show that, yes, he finally brought the Wimbledon crown to the home crowd. Back in the day, Murray hired Amelie Mauresmo to be his coach and everyone clutched the pearls. Since then, there has not been a more vocal pro-woman male player than Murray. Women appreciate this. Men claim to appreciate this, and then make the claim that because men attract larger ratings, they should be paid more than women. (Hi, Rafa. Still loving that sexy ass, but that's foul.) These days, Mauresmo is working another male pro, Lucas Pouille, and she will have her work cut out for her. After a recent win, Pouille was asked about the decision to have a (gasp) female coach. His response -- that Mauresmo's gender shouldn't matter -- is the mark of Andy Murray, whether he returns to court or not.

2. Serena Williams: Now, I didn't have her advancing past Simona Halep -- her footwork has been shoddy since she returned to the tour. But her footwork has improved quite a bit and she was able to advance to the brink of the semifinals. But what happened when she was up 5-1 in the third set is basically unheard of when it comes to Serena. True confession time: I was watching the match on mute, so I didn't hear the chatter about her injury until the next day. Sure, they showed close-ups of her stumble, but it didn't register at that point that it hampered her play. And frankly, it never looked as though it did. She had plenty of opportunities to close that match and she didn't. Whether it was tentativeness or injury or whatever, she didn't finish it out. A lot has been made of the fact that she didn't call for a trainer. Maybe she didn't need one? Now her coach is out in the world saying that she didn't call for a trainer because she knew the tournament was over for her. He got that out of his own head, having acknowledged that he never spoke to her. Look, I've said since the breastfeeding thing that she needed to cut bait on Patrick Mouratoglou. He is clearly a great tennis mind, but the man is really mostly interested in himself. And then there's the business of the foot fault on match point. Was it a foot fault? I have no idea. But it was one point of a match with many points (and three other match points ...) and to blame her loss on that call, even if it was wrong, is crazy. But yet, there was that groundswell. I'll just never get over the crowd that wants to paint Serena Williams as a perpetual victim, even when Serena isn't doing that.

3. How ineffective Nadal's game can be: Watching Nadal get picked apart by Djokovic, it became clear to me why Nadal's best results come at the French Open. He is a grinder, a physical player who works points until he can seize an advantage. Unfortunately for him, Djokovic is not a patient man. Djokovic is able to cut points short in his favor and the whole cat-and-mouse approach isn't going to work on him at his current level. Nadal's game can grind down most of the field -- he advanced to the final, after all. But against Djokovic, it didn't work. If Nadal wants to truly challenge Djokovic in his current form, he's going to need a first-strike sort of approach himself.

4. Maria Sharapova's results: Double bagel in the first round, beating Caroline Wozniacki, taking Ash Barty to three sets? What has happened here?

5. Ana Pavlyuchenkova's results: Every time I fill out a draw with Pavly in it, I hover over her match and think the same thing every time: "She could win that. But will she?" And again she showed flashes of what she can do. Taking down Sloane Stephens is a big deal and normally I'd have something to say for her bowing out to Danielle Collins, but Angelique Kerber also lost to Collins which is still blowing my mind.

6. Naomi Osaka winning the Australian Open: She's a kid. She's not supposed to win two Slams in a row, both under extreme duress against wily veterans who are Slam champs themselves. I don't know what keeps Osaka calm in closing out these matches, but I need some of it just so I can get through most days without chucking items at people.

AO'19: Random Thoughts

It's been a while. Still with the personal stuff, but that doesn't mean I haven't been watching tennis. I have thoughts. Here they are:

Frances Tiafoe: I come from a long line of West Indians who believe that working hard would lead to great success. Because of this, there is this steady line of progression through my family line as far as I can trace it. My grandfather would leave his country of origin to come work citrus fields in Florida, paying steadily for the entry of each of his children, then his wife. His children came, saw, got a job and showed their children how to make something of nothing. It really is the ultimate Houdini trick. When you grow up seeing each generation pushing for the coming crop and it's your turn, what do you do? You go above and beyond. Someone's got to set the bar for whoever is next. So when I read about Frances Tiafoe beating Kevin Anderson, then advancing into the quarterfinals of a Slam and making comments like this: "It means the world. I worked my ass off, man. I told my parents 10 years ago I was going to be a pro and change their life and my life," well, you get it. It makes sense. All he saw growing up was pushing boundaries. Why not keep pushing boundaries?

Serena v. Pliskova: It really is an insult to make excuses for Serena at this point. So let's not do it. If she sprained her ankle and never tried to get it checked, that's a decision she made. The foot fault call was important, and perhaps unwise and incorrect, but let's not forget she was up 5-1. When you are leading like that, you can create as many opportunities than you need. One foot fault does not make a match. Having said all of that, I was stunned watching the second half of the third set play itself out. Serena had hit the gas towards the end of the second set and all the way up to 5-1, so it was crazy! Even at the end, there was no one clear reason for the plot twist, well, besides Serena having an injury.

Federer losing to Tsitsipas: I haven't written about Stephanos Tsitsipas before. I will rectify this now. He's pretty good. I haven't seen what happened against Nadal yet, but in his match against Roger Federer, he showed a maturity that suggests to me that he will win a Slam, and probably before Alexander Zverev. One thing I personally look for when I see up-and-comers playing straight legends is how they react to victory. Usually, if they're all excited they hit an ace, or won one set, it doesn't bode well. But Tsitsipas kept his head down against Federer for the most part. He's almost ready.

People Coming Out of Nowhere: Danielle Collins had a nice stretch of success last summer, then went away. As I write, she's playing Petra Kvitova in the semifinals. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova has been flirting with success for a long time now. Beats Sloane Stephens and Kiki Bertens and makes the quarters. Amanda Anisimova taking out a title favorite in Aryna Sabalenka. My point is to make your draw with your gut, not your brain. Also that we are in for a heckuva ride this year, and the newbies are at the wheel.

Rafael Nadal: and his sexy ass hopefully will win the Australian Open, glistering in sweat.

The Official 2018 Yearbook

This post has been in the cards for some time now. But real life intervened and I had to handle some things. Still handling it. No, I don't want to talk about it. But it is time to re-enter that tennis life. Because tennis has always been therapy for me, like writing. Also, I just realized the Australian Open is about to begin, so, uh, time to say goodbye to 2018. It might have been a trash year in every other way, but I gotta say that tennis had a solid year. So what are we waiting for? Let's do the thing!

Head of the Class: Who had the most impressive year in 2018? This is a tough one, but I'm going with Novak Djokovic. It would have been pretty easy to sulk after the start that Djokovic had. I mean, you just know that his French Open loss to Marco Cecchinato is destined to be a Jeopardy! answer one day. He went back to his original coaching team and I guess started the donkey milk again? Whatever it was, he then won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open -- the only person, man or woman, to win more than one major this year. He wasn't beating tin cans either -- his match against Rafa Nadal in the Wimbledon semis was an instant classic. And he also outplayed his other major rival, Roger Federer, this year on a couple different occasions.

Most Inspiring Player: Gonna go with Simona Halep. Last year, at the Australian Open, she was denied a major title once again after being right there on the verge. For that to happen once is probably tough to take. For it to happen twice (and to perennial whiner Caroline Wozniacki to boot) has to be crushing. And when she finally did win the French Open, it was in another battle, where it would have been easy to determine this wasn't her time. Honestly, I don't even know how she did it, because Sloane Stephens was actually playing a hell of a match. But she did it.

Most Popular: Serena Williams, naturally. I'd love to see her win in Australia, but then I would just assume she was pregnant, which would make me selfishly unhappy.

Most Likely to Succeed: I actually thought Aryna Sabalenka was about to win the U.S. Open this year, and if she doesn't somehow win at least one slam this year, I'll be stunned. When she's on, there are a lot of players who have trouble dealing with her power. She's even learned how to volley. In a way. I'm going to throw Alexander Zverev in here, too. I feel like the only thing missing with him is his head. His focus seems all over the place sometimes. Ooh, and Kiki Bertens. 

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: I want to say Agz Radwanska, but I really want her to come back to tennis and win her major, dammit. Same with Lucie Safarova. I definitely see a future in MMA for Mikhail Youzhny, who also retired this year. One player who I have determined will never succeed at anything other than tennis is Philipp Kohlschreiber. That's because he'll never stop. Nev-URRRR 

That Student Who Skates Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: Naomi Osaka. She had a very, very, very uneven year and then showed the poise of someone twice her age (most people twice her age) in winning her first major in, uh, a dicey situation. If she can do that, she can have a more stable season in 2019.

Who Will Win in 2019? This is a new feature in which I will attempt to predict all the Slam champions right now! Stop laughing. This is hard! OK, here I go:

Australia: Kiki Bertens, Novak Djokovic
French Open: Sloane Stephens, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon: Aryna Sabalenka, Roger Federer
U.S. Open: Serena Williams (unless she retired because she was pregnant), Djokovic

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

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. 😉