Pre-U.S. Open rant: Telling women what to do

My big takeway from the Serena Williams/Simona Halep Cincinnati final wasn't necessarily Williams' dominance and her continued ability to pull victory from inconsistent play. We already knew about that.
More than anything, the match made me realize just how ridiculous on-court coaching is -- on at least three levels. Let's review them now:

Level One
So Darren Cahill is the Adidas player development couch, and he was available to Halep during changeovers for on-court coaching. Cahill is also a commentator for ESPN at times, along with Brad Gilbert and Mary Jo Fernandez. Gilbert says something about how surprised he is that Serena's opponents never change where they stand to receive, which is a valid point. But he and Fernandez discuss this for about a minute. Set ends (to Serena), at which time Halep calls Cahill down for a chat. Among the advice he gives her? Vary your return position during the Williams serve.
OK, so that's not conspiracy level or anything like that. And it could be a coincidence -- that's a good piece of advice I've heard before. But it illustrates one problem with this on-court coaching. In theory, Cahill can use his years of expertise, and tap Gilbert, and maybe throw in a McEnroe. He could even have complete access to instant stats online OF THE VERY MATCH THEY'RE PLAYING. One of the things that's special about tennis is that it's like a mental puzzle that the player has to figure out. Obviously, on-court coaching takes away from this and even allows a coach to walk a player through the match using all kinds of tools. You can't call it cheating, because now it's part of the rules, but it does beg another level of questions such as

Level Two
'Why just women?' And why not the majors? Here's why. It's not really a part of tennis, and shouldn't be a part of tennis. And the fact that it's only done for women is insulting. It says, "Oh, lord, look at these poor girls out there. How can anyone expect these girls to figure any of this out by themselves?" (insert sad-face emoji)
If the answer is that it's to draw fans to tennis, that's nonsense. In sports, watching someone being coached is usually not the memorable part. Unless you're Alison Riske and your boyfriend/coach tells you to STFU. (Quick aside: That's why that dynamic almost never works.) Otherwise, not entertaining at all. So the only reason left to limit this to women players is the idea that they need it the most. Nice. Nice.

Level Three
On-court coaching illegal in your average league play. Some kid's mother yelled at me one day when I was playing against her daughter because I was using my phone during a changeover. I was calling my job to tell them I was running late (because tennis, you guys), but she said, and I quote, based on my memory from probably six to eight years ago, "You could be calling your coach."
!??
That was laughable on some other sublevels, but the fact is that I can't get coached, or phone a friend, or get any other lifelines outside of my own head during a match in my league tennis. And rec players need help more than anyone else! Some real talk: The only things rec players know for sure is how to blow $200 on a racquet because it's Roger Federer's stick.
Look, if Maria Sharapova, a professional who has been playing her whole life, has more need of a coach on court than us hacks, we got a problem. Oh, what? The stakes are higher for her? True. The stakes are also higher for professional male players, but they don't get to flag their coaches. Heck, Boris Becker makes a gesture in Novak Djokovic's general direction, and everyone loses their damn mind. I bust out my cell phone, and my opponent's mother is ready to brain me with the backup racquet. Halep calls Cahill over, and everyone's like, "Good call. Solid advice."
Yah. Totally makes sense.

So, Wimbledon has been a little entertaining ...

First, ESPN, thank you for derailing my "workout routine." Now I wake up in the morning and watch every tennis match I want online. If you actually have things to do, this is not as good as it sounds. Who am I kidding. This is awesome!
Before I fang some tennis players by picking them to win matches, how about (1) Serena v. Vika, (2) Agz v. Madison and (3) all the doubles anyone could possibly want!! Even though Serena has come back from a set down a lot lately, it is still just jaw-dropping to watch her as she reasserts herself mid-match. It's not a rope-a-dope, it's a tennis player completely comfortable with her tools, and who doesn't panic because she knows she's going to work it out. It's nuts -- and I've never seen anyone do this before. She goes from zero to making you feel sorry for her opponent in eight seconds. I'm just done picking against Serena was the point of all of that. And although I think Maria Sharapova might be exercising some type of mind control to get out of some of the situations she gets into, but it will not be enough on Thursday. Pray for rain, lady. If it pours through Friday, you can say you made it to the final weekend.
The men:
1. Vasek Pospisil v. Andy Murray: Much has been made of Pospisil playing 10 sets on Monday. Congratulations, buddy! You won only half of them! Man up, would you?
I think Murray's over the hometown pressure nonsense, but he is still susceptible to listing during matches. But even if the Canadian could mount a challenge, he has more miles on the legs in this tournament, and Murray's looking fairly spry out there, so he gets it in three, I think.
2. Novak Djokovic v. Marin Cilic: I don't know, man. I'm worried about Novak right now. He's got more of the same that he got from Kevin Anderson coming up from Cilic, except Cilic is better. At this point, I'll just say this has five-set potential, man.
3. Gilles Simon v. Roger Federer: I really really really really really really want Simon to win. But Federer.
4. Stan Wawrinka v. Richard Gasquet: This is gonna be Shotmaker Central tomorrow. Wawrinka, yeah, but some beautiful tennis coming our way. Too bad I won't be able to watch it -- I'll be working out.
lol

A testosterone-infused Ladies Day

Kevin Anderson. That would be the guy I gave zero props to in advance of his match with world No. 1 Novak Djokovic. Right -- the same guy who is tied at two sets apiece with Djokovic. Anyone know any good crystal-ball repairmen?
Anyway, tomorrow is ladies' quarterfinal day at Wimby. Let's run 'em down:

1. Maria Sharapova v. Coco Vandeweghe: Coco's another one who got no props from me yesterday. She'd get them today if she were playing almost anyone else. Although I am intrigued by the idea of Sharapova getting outhit by someone who in her press conference makes reference to "making her feel my presence." That just scared me, and she wasn't even talking about me. I mean damn. But Sharapova in three, in case anyone still cares what I think for the purpose of making fun of what I think.

2. Serena Williams v. Victoria Azarenka: HO LEE CRAP. Azarenka's had Serena on the ropes the last couple times they played, and I'm not saying Azarenka's gonna win, because probably not, but this is gonna be so good.

3. Garbine Muguruza v. Timea Bacsinszky: I didn't have to cut-and-paste any of those names. Go me.
This is gonna be interesting. I'ma give an edge to Timea, here, though. Although both of these women have big games, I think Bacsinszky's head is in a better place right now. She really had to figure her way out of that Monica Niculescu match, and she did it. Muguruza's still young, and this will be one of those matches that teaches her about mental toughness -- and how far she still might have to go to stay consistent through a match.

4. Madison Keys v. Agz Radwanska: Considering Keys' form of late, it's gonna be hard to pick against her, but ... I will do just that now. Nothing personal -- it just seems like Radwanska's finding her groove this year finally, and it's on grass. She's crafty and Keys is young. You always want to go with smarts in a pick like this. Although Radwanska ditched Martina Navratilova as a coach, so, maybe not so smarts?

Just another Manic Monday ... at Wimbledon

Let's just run down the Wimbledon schedule tomorrow by way of a preview:

1. Serena Williams v. Venus Williams: OK, like almost everyone else, I want Venus to win. Here are the cold hard facts that kinda refute that outcome:
     a. They are not playing dubs together. Some might consider this a sign that Serena is not in top shape, which is not hard to sell after her French form. But it makes more sense that it's Venus trying to save her energy. She's looked OK during her matches so far, but one thing she has never shaken is this idea that she has to swing for the fences no matter what. I've never seen anyone go for more crazy shots with an open court except Gael Monfils. Can she stay consistent during a match with the best player possibly ever? Even at Wimbledon? Like I said, I wish she could.
     b. Serena is basically not going to lose until she passes out on the court. Look, she really should have lost to Heather Watson. Aaaand she should have lost to that Friedlander chick at the French. Also Bacsinszky. Yet, here she is, walking into Wimbledon with allll the Grand Slam swag. Someone on Twitter shared this today and it really says why I don't see Serena getting all sentimental tomorrow:
From Wimbledon 2008 final press conference (Serena lost to Venus, 7-5, 6-4)
Q. Have you talked at all?
SERENA WILLIAMS: Yeah, I saw her. I mean, we weren't involved in a big conversation. 

Q. You don't look happy at all. 
SERENA WILLIAMS: I don't? I wonder why. 

2. Ivo Karlovic v. Andy Murray: I know rants aren't very ladylike. And I know this is Wimbledon. So let's just commence with the rant. I don't think you should be allowed to play tennis if your primary (read:only) weapon/shot is your serve. Nothing against Karlovic (OK, that's not true), but damn if Jo-Jo Tsonga shouldn't be playing this match instead. I mean damn. Tsonga played great, and he loses to the serving machine. NOT FAIR
Andy in three. Also, Amelie Mauresmo's "Make Your Own Luck" shirt makes her the most bad-ass pregnant lady EVer.

3. Roberto Bautista Agut v. Roger Federer: Fun fact: Roger Federer doesn't appear to have a middle name. Any ideas out there for a good middle name for Federer? It's the only thing he's lacking. He's got looks. He's got game. He's got two sets of twins. He's got Nadal out of the tournament. Let's get Roger a middle name by the time he wins his match tomorrow, 'k?

4. Maria Sharapova v. Zarina Diyas: Haven't really had opportunity to see/hear Sharapova play yet this tournament. Don't know much about her opponent either, but she has beaten Andrea Petkovic AND Flavia Pennetta already. The Pennetta win is particularly troubling if you're a Sharapova fan. Pennetta is basically a backboard, and if you beat her, it probably means you can run down shots for diyas, er, days. On the other hand, there almost isn't anyone else who wills herself to victory the way Sharapova does. So I guess I'm gonna go with her in three.

5. Stan Wawrinka v. David Goffin: I'll eat this terrible dinner I made for myself if Goffin even wins a set.

6. Novak Djokovic v. Kev: NEXT.

7. Richard Gasquet v. Nick Kyrgios: So someone needs to educate me here. Is there a reason Kyrgios is wearing the koozie on his nondominant arm? At first, I thought he was wearing it to mock Milos Raonic, but then he wore it in doubles, too. Like, whaaa?
Boy, I have no idea how this match is going to shake out. Kyrgios is definitely a shotmaker, moreso than the aforementioned Monfils, but he is not terribly disciplined on when to go for these shots. If you have problems picking your moments to go for shots, Gasquet is not the guy you really want to mix with. Their last encounter went five with Kyrgios coming back from behind. My thought, though, is that Gasquet actually would have been the one to come away from that match having learned something. We'll see.

8. Caroline Wozniacki v. Garbine Mugaruza: Wozniacki can beat almost anybody, but she can also lose to anybody because she has no other real weapons other than her fitness. It's crazy, but it's true. I'm actually thinking an upset here -- Muguruza's young, a big hitter, and seems real comfortable so far on the grass. Mugu in three.

9. Tomas Berdych v. Gilles Simon: I hope Simon wins because I love watching that guy play. He looks like a werewolf with that facial hair, but whatever. I would just say the closer to the evening they play, the better for Simon. Kidding. Kinda. I really think he's going to win, but not because he's really a werewolf, but because his retrieval skills will probably irritate the crap out of Berdych. It's easy to hit through that in set one. Set two? Set four??

10. Coco Vandeweghe v. Lucie Safarova: I'm not buying Vandeweghe. She hasn't really had a challenge yet. Sam Stosur played terribly, so that doesn't count. Safarova, on the other hand, is pretty much killin' it right now unless she's playing Serena Williams. She'll keep that up here, too.

11. Agz Radwanska v. Jelena Jankovic: I can't say at all where this one is going, but I'll be setting the alarm clock for this sucker. This is just gonna be pure tennis, people. No big serving, no crushing forehands. Just four and three-quarter hours of straight shotmaking, everybody

12. Marin Cilic v. Denis Kudla: As long as Cilic plays the way he finished against Isner, not seeing any real problems for him here.

13. Vasek Pospisil v. Victor Troicki: Who wins the battle of the 'I-can't say-that-name-can-you? players'? I have to give the edge to the Serb (that's Troicki). I mean, James Ward isn't bad (and I'm only saying that because it's Wimbledon and he's British), but why did Pospisil have such a hard time with him? So maybe a more seasoned player will expose that wishy-washiness. Troicki in four.

14. Victoria Azarenka v. Belinda Bencic: I'ma go with Azarenka here. Since returning from injury, her game has been on the slow track to the upswing. Sure, she's seeded 23, but how many women ranked above her can at least approach controlling her own destiny against Serena like she can? Like, two or three, that's how many. Vika in two.

15. Olga Govortsova v. Madison Keys: Just the slightest of edges to Govortsova. Beating Alize "Rope A Dope" Cornet in three sets is a big deal to me.

16.  Timea Bacsinszky v. Monica Niculescu: It's a little surprising to see Niculescu this far in a major, although someone who relies so heavily upon slice probably should do well at a place such as this. It probably is enough to annoy some players, but I don't know if Bacsinszky is one of them. She's big and strong, and smart and will cruise here. Also, incidentally, helluva backstory: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/sports/tennis/timea-bacsinszky-reaches-her-first-french-open-semifinal.html

Shaking off a bad Attitude

I'm not gonna lie – part of the reason my husband and I decided to uproot our family southbound was so that the kids could be outside more (that's code for “we could be outside more playing tennis!”). We're considerate parents like that.

None of us envisioned that when the chance to move finally came, it would be piecemeal. We wouldn't be together, not right away. But even then, I thought it'd be a couple weeks only, not that long. Long enough for a working mom to take a breather from the family that always needed something, am I right?

Haha. No. Of course not. Nearly two months ago now, I packed up my car, interviewed a real estate agent with my husband, said goodbye to my distracted children as they watched Chuggington (and then again during Octonauts), surrendered my house keys to my very best friend in life, told him I'd see him soon, and drove to Florida. I would say half of that drive on the first day was done pretty artfully, considering my eyes were just randomly filling with tears. I think my husband and I always figured that when we finally made it to perpetually sunny skies, we would do it together. It just wasn't the same to get there without him, or them.

Regardless, as soon after I arrived here, life went on for everyone else. The French Open came and went, and watching on TV as Serena won it from her knees was craaaazy fun and even before nude Stan Wawrinka came along, watching him play solidly throughout the tournament was kind of a tennis turn-on. (I can't be the only one who thought Nadal's injury in last year's Australian Open final was the ONLY reason he won. Well, I sit corrected.) But still, something was missing. Naturally, it was my tennis spirit-twin who knew it.

“Why don't you go out to the courts and play some tennis?” my husband nagged me over the phone (because that's how men roll).

“OK, maybe after work one day.”

Which I of course didn't do. In retrospect, a lot can be said for my frame of mind when you realize that I preferred leaving my new job and going back to my dark room at the local Travelodge and watching Penny freakin' Dreadful on three Showtime channels throughout the night rather to going to the nearby tennis courts. (Also watched 'Boyhood' at least three different time. Do you understand now?)

An even better commentary on my relationship with my racquets at this time, which had now been untouched for two months – the day I finally went over to the tennis courts, I got out of my car and walked over to the office to find out about the leagues in the area. A man yells over at me, “We need a fourth!” And I say – wait for it – “Oh, I can't right now!”

Yes, of course I could have. It was Saturday for heaven's sake. In theory, the reason I went to those courts was to play tennis. Someone offered to play tennis, and I said no.

Yeah. Exactly.

The only thing that broke me of whatever the hell this was was my spirit-twin, as usual. He told me he was signing up for a tournament for one last go-round with his partner. And finally, it hit me: If he can still want tennis, even with two small children hanging around his neck at all hours and the stresses of moving and selling a house constantly clawing at his sanity, then what the what was my problem?

And if you wanna hear something hilarious, it was that guy I turned down for tennis who still got me back into it. I've been playing with his Saturday morning group (horribly, but that's what you get for not playing for two months – there ARE NO SHORTCUTS) and doing my backboard penance for about three weeks now. Maybe I thought I would punish myself for not having what I really want right now by depriving myself of the other constant in my life for nearly 14 years. Or of the other habit of mine that's been with me forever – writing. Well, I guess my punishment's over. It's about time for some Attitude to start flowing around here again. The good-bad kind. Not the bad-bad kind. You understand. 

Yessssss!! Finally. Some Tennis With Attitude!

OK, it's been pretty hectic over here lately. Been busy quitting a job, acquiring another job and moving my personal tennis team across (several) state lines. So the blog's been on hold, and although there has been a lot to blog about (Nadal, Davis Cup, Azarenka stealing Serena's hitting partner, Indian Wells, Miami, and how Serena pulled out injured from one and then won the other and does anyone else think that's weird at allll, and NADAL, etc.), there just hasn't been time. BUT. I just saw something that made me realize why I started this blog. And for that, I have to thank Genie Bouchard, she of the decent forehand, but perhaps even the better backhand(ed aside) for this:



(Yeah, I coulda picked the English one, but attitude sounds so much classier in a foreign language. It also needs no interpretation.)
Couple thoughts on this. First, while I believe that Genie Bouchard is not all of that, it is also about time that someone challenged this "tennis is polite" norm nonsense. Because as all of us who actually play tennis know, there is not a whole lot polite about the grind of the game. When you shake hands with your opponent and you say "good match," do you not mentally add "for ME!" Why is tennis the only sport where you have to be quiet and polite to your opponent when you certainly don't want to be? Bouchard's refusal to bow to the polite quo (just made that up, thanks) hopefully will open the door to tennis being like other sports, where you're allowed to want to win. Now, if we could just get rid of players walking into a big match hand-in-hand with a little kid, that would be good.
I said couple thoughts. The other one is that if you're going to create a maelstrom by not shaking an opponent's hand, it would be helpful to go ahead and also win the match. Otherwise, this happens:

*facepalm*

Whaa? Serena's doing what where now?

Considering the occasional theatrics of Richard Williams, I'd admit that there was a time I thought he blew the incident at Indian Wells in 2001 out of proportion. Not that he was lying, but maybe that it wasn't as bad as it seemed. There are a lot of people who might have thought that no one actually says those types of racist things "anymore." Over the years, I've realized that people do say those things, and they probably did that day at that tournament. So Serena Williams' decision to go back there makes her a lot stronger than I already thought she was.
Of course, at first, I was like, "Whatnow? Whaaa??" She said she'd never go back, right? Why go back?
Two reasons, and I'm speculating:
1. Because she'll probably win the thing, and that would really piss off the racist element. I mean, let's not forget she won the tournament that year with those dimwits in the stands.
2. So there's this part of the Lion King where Mufasa is showing Simba their kingdom, but then shows him a part that's way out and shrouded in darkness. Mufasa basically says to Simba, "Everything else is yours, except that shadowy place. You must never go there."
Yeah, I busted out the Lion King on you. But there's a point. See, maybe Indian Wells is that part of the kingdom for Serena, and maybe she's enough of a rebel to say, "Well, really, what could be there now that could hurt me?" That is basically her home tournament. If there's anyone who should feel out of place when they go there, it should be the idiots who shouted at her and her family in the stands.
If Venus never goes back, as she has also said, that's understandable, and her world, and her call. But Simba's, er, Serena's move, is pretty bad-ass.

The Armchair Line Judge's return to a normal sleep pattern

I am sorry, but it's difficult to be a tennis fan during the Aussie Open and a normally functioning adult. I mean, here's Madison Keys mixing it up with Venus Williams, and my kid needs a new diaper. Come on! Change yourself, kid! And then there's the finals happening at 3 a.m. my time. And then my boss wants me at work before 1 p.m.! Outrageous!

As it turns out, I'm still employed and my kids and spouse are still around (I think). What's left? Coupla thoughts:

1. It took this tournament for me to figure out why I root for Venus Williams. She was at the helm of women's tennis when I first became a real fan. And then when there's someone who looks like you doing something that no one who looks like you really ever did before, there's an emotional thing there. When she would lose, it was like, "How could you?" for me back in the day. Seeing her decline over the years made me over-correct the other way -- "She's got nothing." But deep down, you don't want to believe that. You still hold out hope. Not enough hope to put it down on paper. You have to be realistic. "Of course Venus isn't going to make the quarters of the Australian Open. Of course I'm not going to turn on my television at 5 a.m. in time to watch her finish off Ags Radwanska and mix it up with arguable the next big American tennis star for three sets in the next round. Of course I'm not going to see her finish that match with good tennis, not unforced errors strewn about the court, even though she lost." 

Is Venus actually back? I don't know. Who cares? That was just too much fun to watch. 

2. Well, well, well, Tomas Berdych. Lays the beat down to Rafa Nadal and then fighting Andy Murray tooth-and-nail in the semis? (Much has been said about Murray's girlfriend cursing out the Berdych camp in the stands of the match. As far as the basic rules of tennis go, I am a traditionalist, but if there's a situation where a tennis match could get all soccer on a fan or observers, that is a good thing. Let's just leave the riots out of it, but trash-talking your opponent -- that's pretty great. Sorry if that's not classy.) Anyway, Nadal crashed out early (as he expected, and for once, he was right), but Berdych finally manning up is good for men's tennis. Nadal and Roger Federer ain't gonna be around forever, people.

3. Oh, and by the way: Andreas Seppi?!? I have an old tennis friend somewhere on the West Coast who called that years ago. Whazzup, Morgan!

4. The women? Not much to say there. I wish Ekaterina Makarova believed in herself a little more. Because she would have given Serena Williams a better run for her money than Maria Sharapova did. Watching someone scrap so hard and come up short for the latest time in a decade is almost enough to make you feel bad for that person. Almost.

5. OK, the last time I saw Madison Keys play was a long time ago, I'll concede that, but does anyone else think that she all of a sudden that her game style is a lot like Lindsay Davenport? I know Davenport's her coach, and maybe it was watching Keys play against the sisters Williams, but the heavy ball, the huge forehand – it was like, it was like, when a thing has happened before that seems familiar but you can't place your finger on it? What's that called?

6. This deciding-point nonsense in mixed doubles: #fail. So now, we're going to take the best part of a tennis match out -- the constant battle. Good. Good.

7. BETHANIE MATTEK-SANDS

8. Why don't Nestor and Leander Paes play dubs together? Did I miss that experiment?

I gotta go watch the mens final. Separate post coming on what the (*&#$#^ happened to Murray.

Armchair Line Judge: Aussie thoughts so far

1. I mean, look at the ass on Rafa Nadal. If anyone should be asked to give a twirl, it should be that sexy bastard.
But this is a life lesson we can all apply to ourselves, and not just the young Genie Bouchard: If some random dude asks you to twirl for him in front of a stadium full of people, and he's using a microphone to do this, kindly direct him to the orifice that would house that microphone in the most painful way.
2. However, I will give any onsite Aussie Open reporters a dollar if they start asking the male players about their thoughts on "altered balls."
3. I freakin' knew Nenad Zimonjic and Danny Nestor were going to separate again. Dammit!
4. To anyone who disputes my contention that tennis is 99.94389237 percent mental, let me direct your attention to one Maria Sharapova, who just straight bludgeoned a serve match point down to come back in her second-round match. I mean damn.
5. So let me understand this: The Williams sisters pull out of the doubles tournament just before their first round match, and then make it clear that they read the rules about withdrawal, know they don't have to give a reason and then act all cutesy about not giving a reason? That is ... interesting.
6. Marcos Baghdatis just went five sets with Grigor Dmitrov. #throwbackthursday

Armchair Line Judge: My decimated draws before I burn them

Because why not have a good laugh over picking Donna Vekic for the quarterfinals?

The Armchair Line Judge's guide to the Aussie Open 2015

It's mid-January, and only about eight weeks since the year-end championships, so it must be time for another major! This lengthy layover only tends to ensure erratic results, so with that in mind, let's predict what's going to happen!  

For this preview, we're gonna do the Armchair Line Judge's call for the Top 10 on both sides for players' chances to advance to the semifinals:

The Women

1. Serena Williams: In. Yeah, Hopman Cup was kind of a disaster, but she's usually most dangerous right after a bad patch. Hmm, though. Vera Zvonareva looming in round 2. Hmm.
2, Maria Sharapova: In. What a sweet draw for her. If seeds hold, she would get Genie Bouchard in the semis, which might be tough, but I'm not on the Bouchard bus yet. That might be because I'm not a teenage boy, though.
3. Simona Halep: In. Definitely for the semis, and perhaps beyond …
4. Petra Kvitova: You know what they say about Petra. There's no kvit in her. (Get it?) But she still gets the 'out' call here. Even if she were in, could she beat Venus Williams or Ags Radwanska in the semis? I'm not even sure she can beat rising star Donna Vekic in round 2. Just too inconsistent.
5. Ana Ivanovic: Out. Ekaterina Makarova is like kryptonite to top players Down Under.
6. Agnieszka Radwanska: In. Big win against Serena at Hopman Cup, which, yes, is just a warmup, but she's come close before against the big players, and that win is a big deal. Plus, I love the Navratilova hire. Not saying we're talking instant results, but this will be interesting. And I'ma live on the edge here and say that this coaching change is going to bring a major this year, but I decline comment on which one.
7. Genie Bouchard: Out. Yeah, I know, she beat Serena at Hopman, too. But still, I say next year for her, because she doesn't have a complete game and thereby doesn't have the tools to do that consistently. Radwanska? She does, except for that serve. And is it just me whose shoulder area aches every time I see her hit a forehand?
8. Caroline Wozniacki: Good job, Caroline Wozniacki! You're rebounding from a tumble from world No. 1, only to return stronger and more confident about taking on the heavy hitters on the big stages – and beating the likes of Maria Sharapova. So … ladies and gentlemen, let's see Woz's prize for a solid 2014! Drumroll … Young American Taylor Townsend in Round One and probably Victoria Azarenka in Round 2! What? Why'd everyone get so quiet? Out.
9. Angelique Kerber: Whaaa?!?? What's she still doing in the top 10? OUT!
10. Ekaterina Makarova: Out, but like just outside the line. Or could she beat Halep for a semi spot? Might need a ShotSpot for this one.

First round special: Sloane Stephens against Victoria Azarenka. Both unseeded and back on the stage where Azarenka lost a lot of respect for that “oh, my sore brain” stunt. But this one is interesting in name only. Stephens is kinda in the wind right now, and Azarenka, even returning from injury, still looks like a threat in this draw. A higher-quality match might be Dominika Cibulkova and Kristen Flipkens. Ooorrrr, Wozniacki and Townsend. Maybe.

Upset comin': Camilla Giorgi over No. 12 Flavia Pennetta in the first round.

The Men


1. Novak Djokovic: In. But that's a loaded portion of the draw. Lleyton Hewitt? Jerzy Janowicz? Juan Martin del Potro was in it, too, until he backed out with an ongoing wrist issue. And then there's Gael Monfils, whose face should accompany the dictionary definition of “wild card.” All interesting, but all those guys are a bigger potential problem for Milos Raonic.
2. Roger Federer: In. I think that's in. I'm just wondering about Andy Murray and Grigor Dimitrov, who has a ton of potential, but hasn't done anything yet.
3. Rafael Nadal: Oh. Here's Rafa Nadal again, like he is every year at the Australian Open. Folks ask him how he's gonna do, and he shakes his head, buries it in his hand and mumbles that he's terrible, that he has no shot. Which means that he's gonna win the whole damn thing. Ooh. Lukas Rosol as a possible third round opponent? Yeesh. If – big 'if' – Nadal can survive the first couple rounds, it could be enough for him to recover his form and then opponents like Richard Gasquet and Tomas Berdych won't seem like much. But if he's still that much out of sync, then, yeah, he could lose to Mikhail Youzhny right away. So, the line call? In, but right on the line. Which means that any old line judge could call it out.
4. Stan Wawrinka: Not a bad draw for Stan, the defending-champion man. Not until he would get to Kei Nishikori. Talk about a popcorn match – that Wawrinka won't win. Out.
5. Kei Nishikori: In. See above.
6. Andy Murray: Apparently, Murray just cleaned house in his camp and got rid of all the Amelie Mauresmo haters, and he's ready to go. Good, because his ranking is not Big Four-worthy, because it's six. To change that, he's gonna need to win another major. To do that, he's going to have to take down Dimitrov and Federer just to get to the semis. Sorry, but out.
7. Tomas Berdych: You know, if the wind blew the right way for him – meaning that Nadal loses early and that No. 11 Ernests Gulbis can't mount much of a challenge, this could be Berdych's chance for the semis – and beyond. But if it is just the regular wind, then no, he's not going to beat Nadal. Out. Probably.
8. Milos Raonic: I get it. He's big. He's talented. Big serve. Big forehand. Wears that koozie on his arm. Seems to be settling into his role in the top 10. Yes, he'll go far, but it will be the most boring tennis you'll ever see, especially in the early rounds. It's just hard for me to get excited about Raonic. Even if I were, it'd be difficult to get amped up about his chances against Djokovic, because he's not going to beat Djokovic, unless he's not really over the flu. A relieved 'out' call here.
9. David Ferrer: And then there's David Ferrer, who is like a Labrador retriever. He will go after every ball, and make his opponent do one more thing, and it's often enough to win a match. Now that is some tennis that I want to watch. He's entertaining, determined … and a bit long in the tooth … and hair. (Someone needs to say it – Davey. Get a haircut!!!) He's slated to run into Nishikori in the fourth round, and I don't know if that's going to go well for him. Out. Moo.
10. Grigor Dimitrov: In all likelihood, out. Whenever I see him play, though, I wonder why he hasn't yet made his move at a major. Like a real move. He's got all the tools, but he seems to be mentally inconsistent. He could be humming along in a match, and then try a drop shot when he should have hit a groundstroke up the line. But you know who also used to do that? Andy Murray. So there's hope?

First-round special: It was gonna be del Potro vs. Janowicz, but no del Potro now. Without that, I'm gonna say Nadal v. Youzhny will be a good one, assuming Youzhny doesn't brain himself before the conclusion. Nicholas Almagro vs. Nishikori – Nishikori better be ready right away for this one. Also Sam Querrey v. Vasek Pospisil.

Upset comin': Borna Coric over No. 29 Jeremy Chardy in five, methinks.

The coaching floodgates are finally open!

For as long as I've been a tennis fan, I've wondered why pro players never seem to hire female coaches. It's not like there's no shortage of legendary women players who would fit the bill. Last year, it was a male player, Andy Murray, who hired Amelie Mauresmo on, and naturally, the choice has been under scrutiny ever since, with whispers about her effectiveness. Now, I'm not gonna lie. If I were going to choose a woman coach for a tennis pro, it probably wouldn't be the person who had some moments of mental weak in big moments(coughcoughFRENCHOPENcough), especially if you have had a similar issue. But technically, Mauresmo is a good choice. She always had great form, and even if they didn't always result in winning a Slam, she did have some great results on the big stage. After years of disappointment at majors, she did finally break through -- twice.
And Madison Keys is picking up Lindsay Davenport. That's a good pick. But am I the only person who thinks that Davenport probably still had a slam in her?
No, if I were going to choose a female tennis coach, it'd be someone who has a record of success and has shown an ability to grow and change her game. Maybe someone who actually changed the trajectory of the women's game with her own training habits and by bringing an element of power (which by now is about the same "power" Chris Evert had, but still). I wish there were one or two women like that.
Apparently, so did Aggie Radwanska, because she just hired MARTINA NAVRATILOVA to her coaching team this year. Two things: Has anyone ever asked Martina to be their coach and she's just been saying no all these years? Because she is a perfect coaching candidate -- for any player.
Also, this is awesome! These two are the perfect match. Radwanska is already a very smart player with a ton of variety, but her problem is -- OK, there's no nice way to say this, so here it is -- she needs to work out. No, she's not out of shape, but you can't be a stick figure in the 2015 WTA tour. The serve has to go, and she needs to be able to mix some power with the variety. If she could do that, she'd be top 3 through her whole career. And her willingness to hire Navratilova says that she's willing to work on all of that. At least, I hope she is, because Navratilova doesn't strike me as the type of coach who would be sipping her coffee on the bench, watching her charge practicing a terrible serve. No, what I see in that scenario is Navratilova taking her coffee mug in one hand, her racquet in the other, and standing on the other side to receive that terrible serve and crushing it every time.
Pleasepleaseplease let this work out. Yeah, I get power tennis, and love it for the most part, but man, wouldn't it be great to see the likes of Radwanska tweak her game and become the Martina Hingis 2.0 in 2015?

On-court antics: Season on the brink

Sometimes, you can spend weeks, or even months, talking about something -- something that might or might not happen. But then it happens. And you are so tired of talking about it that now, you're just over it.

That's what our playoffs were like for 8.0 mixed. Once our league coordinator decided it wasn't a good idea to restart the season the day after the regular season ended, it was time to get the wheels of inevitability going. Our team made it through the first round last weekend with nary a bump, except that everyone on our court had some form of Ebola swine flu. It wasn't so bad, except the constant pressure on my chest and feeling like I couldn't breathe after some points. But we're all OK now. 

Our next opponent: Team Shenanigans. You know how some people are competitive at tennis while still recognizing that this is still really recreational, while others give people free club membership for their facility to lure them off of another team? Yeah. Team Shenanigans. So for the last two weeks, knowing that the members of this team were also largely on the 9.0 mixed team and that both of those teams were scheduled to play at the same time, we speculated about who would show up where and if that could help us. Especially because we're talking about some very dominant male players here. One of them is a former D-1 all-star and HE IS RATED A 4.0. I am rated a 4.0 and I just started playing tennis about a decade ago. About three days before the match, I checked out. I couldn't talk about it anymore. I just wanted to play. 

I'm not gonna lie -- I felt great during warm-ups. My whole team looked great. Even as one of their biggest dogs walked into our building, I thought: "Whichever one of us gets him, we can swing it. I mean, look at us!"

And then, during the match, I looked at them. By the time my court had finished warmups, that 4.0 college guy? He was up 5-0 on our teammates on line three. On line two, where the best teams from each side met, they were locked in a tight first set, but it looked like Team Shenanigan's big dog was starting to find his game. And on my court? We were down 5-1 in about four and a half minutes. And we drew the easiest team, which was still pretty effing tough. I'd played them both before and had a good record against the guy and not so good against the woman, although the one time I had beaten her was in mixed dubs. So I felt OK about our chances, even though we were down. We made a couple of adjustments, including pulling me off the net, and we got it back to 5-4. So I'm standing at the service line and I thought: "OK. All I have to do is hold serve here and we've got ourselves a set here."

Can I give you some advice? NEVER THINK THAT THOUGHT. NEVER DO IT!!!! I double-faulted three straight times. Three!!! I don't even remember being nervous. But I don't know what I was thinking, either. 

In an effort to avoid my own body after it malfunctioned on me, I looked around again, hoping for a sign. And I got one. The third line was already playing a fun set. In the next court over, Big Dog and his "3.5" partner were cruising. In fact, within minutes, our team was down 5-0 on both courts within minutes. I stood at the line again, this time, just hoping to avoid a bagel. I told my partner, "Four aces right here, and then let's get into it." He was like, "OK." He probably thought I was drinking cold medicine straight again.

It wasn't four aces, but we did get that game, but it was all over very soon after that. What a bummer. The worse part about the matches where there's a chance to win is going over all the stuff you did wrong as you're trying to fall asleep that night. 

Who double faults three times in a game, you stupid idiot? This isn't singles -- keep the ball low! Slicing? Are you nuts? You have to learn to volley. Why's my partner in no-man's land, and why am I letting him live there? This skirt is old and needs to go in the trash. 

So, it's over until next fall. There's a chance I can play another 9.0 match, and 7.0 still rages on for a few more weeks. It'll be that and a ton of net practice between now and the spring. 

So what's the takeaway here? Welp, no sectionals for us. My husband's team lost in a heartbreaker the next day, and unfortunately, it looks like all roads go through Team Shenanigans, which goes to show you that all you have to do is buy some club memberships for college players, and you can run rec tennis in your region. I have some talent I'm lining up, and I feel like the offer for the public courts and the port-o-potty next to it (free of charge and no wait for the potty) is going to draw the guys in like, well, like stink bugs to a port-o-potty in the summer.

On-court antics: How I learned to stop worrying and love 8.0 playoffs

The 8.0 mixed doubles season out here has been ... interesting. There has been a lack of urgency because all eight teams make the playoffs. At the same time, it's also a good idea to jockey for position in some way -- because if you can grab home court advantage, well, that's ideal.
That's what my team had in mind for the last regular season match. Win, and you move into the second slot and have at least two playoff matches at your house. (The final is at a neutral location.) Lose, and you drop to fourth, and what would be a very tough first-round match against a team we barely beat during the regular season.
In situations like this, then, you hate to have to play an important match with someone you've never played with before. UNLESS you ended up with my partner. I had the talk with him, you know, about me. And the net. And our complicated relationship. I ask him: "So, how do you feel at the net? If I start with the serve, you're probably better off up there than I am."
He says: "I feel OK up there. You can serve."
I often wonder if people have different meanings for words than I do. Because when someone says, "I feel OK," I think, "So not great." But this guy was not OK at the net. He was pretty great up there. For a big guy, he moved quickly at the net and intercepted stuff I figured I'd have to get for him. I actually had time to learn a lot about volley preparation back there.
So, besides for a temporary hiccup I had in the second set, during which time I had a bout with nerves that I had to literally curse myself out to shake, we won in straight sets.
That made the whole match score 1-1, with our team down a set and a break by the time we were done. We held on, though, and our team won the match, 7-5 in the third.
So yay! We secured one home-court slot on the last night of the regular season! (My husband's team had the other. I know what you're going to say. It's what everyone says. "Why aren't you playing on the same team as your husband?" If you're very good, one day I will explain it. But we have to focus.) Time to plan for being in the driver's seat during the playoffs! Right? Right! Wait, what? Not right??
Everything was awesome until around 9 a.m. the next morning, a Sunday, when our league coordinator dropped something of a bomb: A proposal to extend the season by three matches, so that we could play more and give captains an opportunity to qualify more players for sectionals, should they advance. He put it to a vote by the team captains that would be tallied in five days.
Now naturally, this would be a vote that would run something like 6-2, then, with the 'no' votes belonging to my husband and my team captain. Well, who else wouldn't jump at the chance to improve their playoff position, right? Heck, if this was proposed before the season started, or maybe two matches in, I might have supported it. But the fact that it surfaced the morning after the season had officially ended (according to our apparently archaic online schedule set back in September), smelled like shenanigans. And in league tennis in these parts, when you smell shenanigans, there's this one team captain who is usually cooking it.
He shall remain nameless here, but through some sleuthing, it was discovered that this guy had told another team captain he intended to ask the league coordinator to help him out by changing match dates so he could get his best lineups out there. Many of his players also play for the 9.0 team, and he needed some accommodations so he could send beefed-up lines to both places.
Well, once this was discovered and made known to the other captains, it got real "Dynasty" up in here. While emailed accusations of just about anything tennis-related you could think of were being hurled about, there was one person who was mysteriously absent -- the league coordinator. Finally, on Monday night, he materialized to tell us that the plan was off the table.
So, for now, until the next insane proposal, my team will play at home this weekend, as will my husband's. What's the lesson here? Twofold: 1. Look, you don't mess with USTA people and their league tennis. You just don't. 2. If you are hired to do a job, do the job. Don't put stupid ideas up for a vote. Squash them, because that is your job.
That said, here's to an all-TWA face-off for sectionals!

On-court antics: The 9.0 experiment

So what had happened was, we were sitting at home, just minding our own business, and my husband gets a text.
"Would you play 9.0 if you got asked?"
I shrugged. "Sure," I said, but seriously. Who would ask me? My USTA records are out there for the world to see. Let's be for real.
An hour later, as I was getting the kids ready for bed, he peeks his head. "You need to sign up tonight. They sent you a team number."
And that's how I ended up on a 9.0 team this season, people. Basically, they had a 5.0 player and needed a 4.0 woman to play with him, so they were in a pinch. The match was in two days. As soon as I signed up, I went from psyched to panicked in less than a minute. Here's someone (me) who just played a 7.0 and struggled to figure out how to win it. Now, not only am I playing a 8.0 match in the afternoon, but am also now playing a 9.0 match three hours after that. Yes, that is utterly ridiculous. But you never underestimate the power of a tennis junkie to place themselves in ridiculous situations just to play tennis.
As I was about to leave the house, my three-year-old asked me where I was going. Any mother who also endeavors to do things for herself knows that question and the guilt trip forthcoming. I told him I had to play tennis but I would be right back. (... in six hours.)
Instead of the usual clinging-to-the-leg that usually happens next, my son turns, grabs something and gives it to me. "I want you to take this with you."

I don't consider myself an emotional person, so feeling an alternate rush of love, guilt and a desire to stay with this kid and never let him go was unexpected. But because I am ultimately a terrible person, I thanked him, kissed him and ran out the door before I busted out crying. (That's a Rescue Hero, an action figure from the 1990s. I'm naming this one Joe.)
So, with Joe in my bag, I head out to my first match of the day against the team I played for last year. No bad blood (pun alert) or anything like that -- it just ended up being the farthest facility from my house. It's a dangerous team, with a bunch of solid 4.5 guys, but the pressure isn't much right now. In the 8.0 league, everyone makes the playoffs. The regular season is pretty much jockeying for position so you don't have to play the really tough teams right away. My partner and I won our match pretty easily, and what could have been a tussle on line two ended when the guy on the opposing team pulled out of the match with a bad hamstring. I was feeling pretty good because at least I'd won one match that day.
But, alas, I couldn't bask for long -- I had to get in the car and drive an hour to get to the 9.0 match. And I knew going in that I would be the worst player in the entire facility, but when I walked in and saw a bunch of former college players warming up, I felt like a fraud. Fortunately, though, one of those former college players was my partner. Our opponents were two solid 4.5s, so I was far and away the weakest link. I told my partner after the warmup, "Look, I'm not comfortable at the net. I can be there, but I'd rather not be there. So if I'm doing badly up there, feel free to pull me off." He was not really concerned by this comment. "Well, we'll start you up there for now and see what happens," he said.
Of course, it took about a minute for me to realize why he wasn't too worried about me -- that's about how long it took for him to hold his serve. I felt like I should have gotten a bowl of popcorn, because all I did was watch this guy rain down these awesome serves, rush in and put the volley wherever he wanted and with whatever pace he needed.
But that was the first game. I couldn't return the guy's serve for the entire first set and his partner was able to put away anything at the net. She wasn't powerful, but very smart and patient. I hate that.
I was most worried about my serve, because at the level I'm used to, it holds up and isn't easily attackable, and the great thing about this match was that it stayed that way. I was still able to use it to set up my partner with easy putaways. My groundstrokes and returns, though, were terrible. They always are in the first set. I am a notorious bad match starter. I need, like, two and a half hours to really start killing groundstrokes. (Most doubles matches are over in 90 minutes.)
As the first set wore on, we were at 4-all, and I was serving. Maybe you've never been the worst player on a court before, but I knew that if I didn't serve well enough to win that game, we would lose the set. But I felt good -- my partner was up there holding it down at the net, and as long as I kept getting weak returns off my serve, we could hold easily and maybe focus on the opposing woman's serve. So it's 15-30 and as I'm walking to the other side to serve, I noticed there was some dark substance on my fingers, and on my grip:

Blood. I still don't know how I cut myself, but two figures were bleeding. I had to stop in the middle of the game to find some Band-Aids in my bag. While I was going through my bag, there was Joe. I saw it as a sign, and after I cleaned myself up, I moved Joe to the top of my bag so I could see him at every changeover.
I rode the Joe momentum all the way ... to dropping that serve game for us to go down 4-5 in the set. The next game, we lost the set. I was about to start moping and kick Joe out of the facility, but my partner turned to me, smiling after we lost that last game. "This is good. I wanted to play three sets tonight." OK, I thought. I like this guy!
We won the second set 6-2 and the third set was a lot like the first -- a grind. By now, the other matches had concluded and everyone from both teams are now watching. Normally, when other people are watching, it makes me focus better, but that day, with a bunch of 4.5 players watching me from the sidelines, it was weird. That might have contributed to me getting into another 15-40 hole on my serve late in the third set. We lose this game, and we're under the gun to win the next. We win, and we'd be at 6-5 with the girl's serve coming up, and I had loosened up enough that I was starting to find my range on those returns. But with her partner moving at net, it was still difficult to break her. Anyway, me at 15-40. I had a mini-revelation here. I realized that my partner is incredible, and it was mostly because he doesn't try to do more than he can in any given position on the court. He's not trying to kill every volley. Sometimes, touch is the best solution. Sometimes blasting at the feet. So by now at 30-40, and serving to the woman, I realized I needed to do what I can and nothing more. I served conservatively to her backhand, and let my partner take care of the reply. At deuce, against the man, I put more on it, as best I could, and also to his backhand. Weak reply, easy putaway. Rinse, repeat. Game, us.
Joe and I had made up by now, so I gave him a rub during the last changeover and lined up to receive serve. I did what I could do and nothing more. I hit two returns that were crosscourt enough to keep the guy from poaching and with enough topspin to make her hit tough volleys and it worked. Needless to say, the 5.0 guy was also able to win his points. Four points later, I had actually been a part of a winning 9.0 effort! Holy #(*#$^&*@, Batman!!
What did I learn? Once again, do what you can and nothing more. It sounds easy, but how many times have you found yourself trying a shot you don't have in a tense situation? No, of course, it isn't going to work. And no, your serve isn't going to miraculously find another 35-40 mph. So you do what you can as best as you can, and nothing more. That doesn't mean you're going to win all the time. It means you're playing smart tennis all the time. This, granted, isn't easy, but tennis isn't easy. Which is why we love it. Right? Right?
Riiiight.

State of the Fed Cup

The Fed Cup, once again, came and went with nary a murmur on ESPN or most anywhere else. Well, except for this one small detail that the court it was played on was illegal.
New York Times tennis writer Ben Rothenberg tweeted over the weekend that the ITF ruled the courts was just over the measured limit for speed, but that it was too late to do anything about it, so they would just play the FED CUP FINAL ON AN ILLEGAL COURT.
I know, I know. You've sold the tickets. The people are there, the players are there, the show must go on. But I guess the main question is: Why is checking the court the last thing you do? It's only the stage for the event. And what's the backup plan if something were to go wrong -- if the court were actually unsafe? All good questions, but no one cares too much about this small detail. The main takeaway from this weekend, according to most media, is that the home Czech team dominated Germany. I wonder why.
(Just unrelated FYI: Did you know that Petra Kvitova has her best results on fast courts with low bounces? The two majors she has won? Both Wimbledon. Lucie Safarova has never won a Slam, but she's come closest at Wimbledon this year with a semifinal showing. She has never gone past the fourth round at the French Open, which is, shall we say, a slower court.)
And why would the German team not even complain? At last check, they haven't even filed a grievance. Granted, the court surface speed (CSR) should be 50 at the maximum, This court was at 52. If it didn't make a difference, why measure it?
It's enough of a problem that penalties are apparently forthcoming. I am sure the winning team will have learned its lesson.

On-court antics: 7.0 mixed

I'm not much of a tennis snob. It's more like being a tennis whore.
I will do anything to play more tennis, especially in the winter. Still, joining a 7.0 team as a 4.0 player might be considered going too far by some.
But here is why I did it:
1. The 7.0 season out here is twice the length of the 8.0 season. There are roughly a million teams, compared to eight for the 8.0 division.
2. I thought it'd be easy. "I'm pretty good," I told myself. "I can carry a 3.0 player. So this will be just like practice for me -- you know, for 8.0 tennis. For the big dogs."
What has happened since is not exactly what I thought would happen. Let's just say it like that. Or we can say that the most certain thing I can carry in a match is my tennis bag. Not that my partner needed to be carried. During the first set of our first match together, I realized he was putting things away at the net, keeping serve returns deep and hustling to short balls. You might ask yourself what I was doing during that time. That is a good question.
We lost our first match in a third-set tiebreak, and three days later, while I was driving to work, I realized that if I had changed strategy, we could have won. That led to my first tennis revelation in some time: I have 4.0 strokes and a 2.5 brain. How many times have you heard someone say that tennis is like chess? No one ever says tennis is like whack-a-mole. But I play tennis like it's whack-a-mole.
So after sitting on the bench for a week, trying to get my head right, my partner and I got the call again. This time, I told myself, it's going to be different. This time, it's going to be ...
3-6 in the first set. For the bad guys. So we changed some things. I took the ad side and served first. We jumped out to a 5-2 lead, and things are going well. Then I noticed my partner looking a bit, well, tired. I'm standing at the net while he's serving and if I hadn't known any better, I would have thought I was playing with Darth Vader.
My partner took to the baseline to serve at 5-3, and I figured Darth wasn't going to make it if we didn't end this set and get him some bench time. So I had an idea. I decided to stand at the baseline while my partner served. I had tried being aggressive at the net, but as he was getting weaker, his serve was making me more of a target up there. Another advantage to being back there was that he now didn't have to run around for balls that had passed me. And because it's 7.0 tennis, it either never occurred to our opponents to hit a drop shot or it wasn't in their arsenal, so we just traded ground strokes until I hustled in to put away a short ball. This, I am proud to say, was all my idea.
We finished out the second set there, and after addressing my toddler's meltdown in the club's restroom, I returned to find my partner looking pretty much the way I had left him. Except now, he began cramping. We started out 1-2 in the third set. Back to the baseline with Darth, who is looking worse than ever. Having said this, he also refused to quit. In fact, he eliminated a lot of errors. I'm not saying he turned into a pro, but he kept the points going and kept putting me in good positions to do what he was doing early -- finish at the net.
But even though he was somehow keeping it together, even while grimacing in pain between each point, we finally had a hiccup, and it was after we had broken the guy's serve to get to 4-all in the third. And I was serving. This was a good thing. I don't want to brag, but my serve is pretty good. OK, it's not easy to attack -- that's fair to say. So this was a good thing. First point: double fault. Three points after that, it's 4-5. This sucked, yes. But it was the woman's serve(, and let me say something right here about you short people who hit flat balls. You are all terrible people. There ought to be a law against people who refuse to put some spin on their ball. Am I right? Am I?? Right???).
Anyway, it was her turn, and I had struggled with her serve, but we made another adjustment -- we got in closer and hit high and deep returns to the baseline, because we realized that it's hard to hit the kind of ball she wants to hit when it's bouncing in your face. Also, she helped us out a little by double-faulting and making mistakes she wasn't making before. Translation: 5-all.
Out comes the team captain to tell us that our match is suddenly timed and that we have to play a match tiebreaker. Now. It was almost 7 p.m., and the match had now been going on for nearly three hours and now it was time for the club to close. Those of you familiar with TWA know how I feel about tiebreakers. But considering that my partner was basically taking a knee between each point, I decided to embrace it for once.
As with the rest of the match, we had a slow start, 1-2, to begin. But once again, my partner surprised me -- he summoned just enough energy to run after a couple balls and keep things going, and boom! A little after 7:15, we won a third-set tiebreaker for a change.
"So what?" you might be asking. "Settle down -- it's 7.0 tennis."
I get it, but I played tennis like it was chess for perhaps the first time in my life! Yes, I got into tennis to hit the bajeezus out of a ball for an hour-and-a-half, but in the time since I started out, I thought it might be nice to also win a match every now and again.
What I learned from 7.0? That I can change the outcome of a match by thinking about what is happening while it is happening. Crazy, right?

Top of the heap

Before I get into how great Serena Williams is, let's give the WTA a huge big-ups for FINALLY reworking the WTA Championships doubles draw. It's not perfect. "Perfect" is the way the men do it with a round-robin for doubles as well as singles. But it was a giant step for womankind to expand the draw from four to eight teams. See, that right there is a tournament, OK? And how about Sania Mirza and Cara Black bringing home the trophy? What an interesting team -- built basically around Mirza dictating play with her forehand and Black just cleaning up on Aisle Loser. Very impressive stuff. Now, about Serena Williams. No, she is not an elegant player. She's not even the most brilliant and creative player. Yes, her thigh has more strength in it than my entire body. But this is not what will cause her to go down as the greatest female ever. Some years ago, after, oh, about eight years of playing tennis, it occurred to me that tennis is mostly mental. Like 97.9998992 percent mental. You can have all the pieces, but if your head isn't right, then your game isn't right. And when I say "right," I'm not sure what's right, because I'm almost completely certain that my head's not right most of the time. And I sure don't know what Serena is thinking when she plays, but we can agree that her mind is the rightest thing about her entire game. Sure, she has her hiccups as she did in the round-robin against Simona Halep, but when was the last time you said to yourself, "She's never gonna beat me again," and then was able to make that happen? Did anyone else see what she did to Halep in the final? That was not a brutal show of power or excellent shotmaking. That was Serena's head being right. She had a plan (WIN!!!!), and she executed. Makes you realize that when someone says "It's all in your head," it ain't always pie-in-the-sky.

Farewell, Li Na

The reason I really liked Li Na is the same reason I really liked Mary Pierce. I can't remember who she was playing (Conchita Martinez?) the year she won the French Open, but Pierce was serving, and the camera zoomed in on her. As part of her serve motion preparation, Pierce held the ball closer to her face as she surveyed her opponent, and her hand was shaking. That's it. That's why I liked her – because she showed that even as she was en route to doing something huge in her career, she was nervous. Just like I would be, or anyone else. You never saw the shakes in Li Na – not like that. It would show more in her game. She'd be using her deep groundstrokes to hold off Victoria Azarenka or Serena Williams, and then it was like she realized how close she was to winning, and then all the wheels would fall off. This isn't to minimize the greatness of her career, which she ended last month after enduring years of worsening knee problems. She is the first Asian ever to advance to a grand slam quarterfinal, and the first to win a Grand Slam. Li is known for her independent streak – she left the Chinese national team to gather her own training team. It wasn't popular then, but when you come home with a French and Australian Open trophy in your hand, that'll sway the public opinion pretty decisively. She finishes her career with more than $24 million in winnings and endorsement money and nine pro titles. This year, her last year, she won the Australian and became No. 2 in the world. But the show of humanity even as she pursued the heights of her career is what tends to move a fan base. Sure, Serena will go down as one of the greats of the game, but she never shows that humanity on court, that thing about her that makes you realize she's just like you on the court sometimes. And she doesn't have to – there's a place in history already for her, and for Pete Sampras. But when someone like Li Na retires, there tends to be a sentimental place, too. The other thing about Li and Pierce is that they did what they did long after they were supposed to have been able to do it. Maybe it's getting older, or having kids, but when you see Li Na snagging majors into her thirties, it becomes far more impressive in a personal way than, say, the Eugenie Bouchards of the world. Not that there's anything wrong with them. But the Bouchards are for the kids. The Lis are for the grown-ups.

Here come the boys!

First, let me say this: Why didn't anyone stop that assault on Chatrier today? Don't they have tournament organizers out there? Just because she's Serena Williams doesn't mean she gets to just bludgeon nice people like Sara Errani like that. Heavens. I know I said Errani had no chance, but I didn't mean she didn't have a chance at winning more than one game. I am sure Maria Sharapova is really liking her chances now because she has had no luck against Serena already. I need a sarcasm font. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Serena wins in two, and that Sharapova will hold serve exactly twice. I've been saying this for years, but this is what's great about men's tennis. The top is so deep and talented, and the semifinals have an added element of suspense because only two of the big "four" (I don't think Murray counts yet. Do you?) are here. Who doesn't love Roger Federer but we know that if he had advanced, the second semi would barely be worth watching. The point is that both of these matches are up in the air. Especially the one between Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Djokovic actually has a clay-court win over Rafa this season, and Nadal was looking pretty rough in his first few matches, but now looks like he's in cruise control. Djokovic hasn't had an easy path himself, even from the beginning. I mean, I like Philipp Kohlschreiber, but Djokovic losing a set to the journeyman with the sourpuss is not a show of dominance. So I don't know. I'm still leaning toward Nadal because this is his playground. And then there's Jo-Jo Tsonga and David Ferrer. Ferrer in four. If this were an event other than the French Open, I'd think Tsonga would take it, but having that added pressure of playing in front of his home crowd might tighten him up a bit. We shall see.

The main course ... is coming

You have to hope that Sara Errani doesn't read her own press. Here she is, in the semifinals of the French Open, the tournament in which she made the final last year. And not one person in the know, or out of the know, is picking her to win today's match against Serena Williams, even though the world No. 1 looked a bit spotty in her quarterfinal match. (Basically, she took a set and a half off from her match against Svetlana Kuznetsova and still won.) And even if she herself is brimming with confidence, it is true that it would take a truly unusual event for Errani to win even a set in this semi. There's just nothing she can do. Actually, there is, but when all is said and done, I don't think that even Tonya Harding would recommend it. The real match of the day figures to be between Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova, which will be viewed on mute in my house because I have an infant and a two-year-old, and I value their sleep far more than they do. It's one of those matchups that the women's game sorely lacks -- one where the opponents are equally matched. Almost. At the beginning of the tournament, I chose Sharapova to win this match. But now I'm not so sure. There are three things about Azarenka that are intangibles. One is her stubborn refusal to lose, a quality that Sharapova and Serena both have. The other is Azarenka's understanding of the injury time-out. And lastly, there is her very own good-luck troll is the stands -- Redfoot Bluefoot Right Foot Left Foot. Sorry. Something about that Redfoo guy puts me in Seuss mode. Seriously, I'm thinking of going with Azarenka after all because her game has a variety that Sharapova's lacks. Normally, Maria can hit through almost anybody, but it's going to be tougher when you face someone who can match your power and also change the pace on you. But Sharapova has handled those attempts by opponents well. At least she did in sets two and three of her quarterfinal against Jelena Jankovic (is that a comeback brewing? Hope so ...). I'm torn. At the beginning of this paragraph, I was going Azarenka, but now I don't know. Should be a great match at least. Now Friday. Rafa v. Nole. Now THAT will be a match not to miss. Still trying to figure how that one will go. More on that one later. P.S.: Leonardo DiCaprio is at the French Open. I swear, nothing is hotter than a hot guy who likes tennis. If he shows up to a doubles match, I am leaving my husband.

Your guessz is as good as mine. Nay, better!

This year was supposed to be my year. I was going to win a Racquet Bracket draw and win a trip to a Grand Slam. And I learned some things from the travesty that was my NCAA bracket. This time, no research. No looking up head-to-heads. No checking records on clay. None of that. The plan was to fill out each match with no more than ten seconds of thought. Couldn't do any worse, right? Ri-ight. It all started with Venus Williams. Now I'm not blind. I certainly wasn't picking her to go very far in this tournament (or in her career, but more on that later) -- I figured she'd go down to Agnieszka Radwanska in the third round, but I thought she had a round or two in her. Yeah. No. She put up a heckuva fight, as many have noted, even with her back problem, along with the autoimmune disease she's dealing with. But at the end of the day, she dropped yet another first-round French Open match to Radwanska's sister, Urszula. (It's funny, because most people if given the opportunity would drop the silent 'z' from a name. Nuh-uh. Not the Radwanskas.) The question is how long Venus is willing to go on with these sorts of results. I keep hearing talk about her trying to hang in there for the 2016 Olympics. That's insane. She shouldn't have gotten the singles spot last time and she really thinks that in three years, she'll be able to make a case against the likes of Madison Keys, Sloane Stephens and Jamie Hampton? Nope. She can't really believe that either. And the fact that Serena Williams, who will win this event unless she gets injured, is still willing to play doubles with Venus here says to me that Venus is going to quit soon, and she wants to end her career with her sister by her side. If Venus is playing the French Open next year, I will drink this nail polish sitting on my desk. No chaser. Still, not a draw breaker. I was still feeling pretty good about my brackets and France. Even took some French lessons from Serena's last couple winner's speeches. The women are always in flux, but my men's picks were solid, I thought, even if I didn't follow the seeding all the way. Perfectly conceivable, I figured, that Nadal could squeak by Djokovic in the semis and face Tomas Berdych in the final, because Berdych can beat Roger Federer. Right? Absolutely. The problem is that Tomas Berdych CAN'T BEAT GAEL MONFILS! Seriously, the last time Monfils did anything of consequence was like five years ago. Out of nowhere, he takes down the tournament's fifth seed? And I have to say, for a change, Monfils showed some control and managed to keep his athleticism on display without doing anything stupid. Well, he had some dunce cap moments (I'm thinking set point in the third set), but just not as many as usual. Although I'm probably not going to France on this bracket, it's nice to see Monfils playing well again. But is it too late for him? Tommy Haas would probably say no. As would Rafa Nadal, who basically came up with the goods today at the very last second against Daniel Brands. Why is it that certain players have huge matches at a major out of nowhere, then return to nowhere after showing just how good they can be? Here's hoping that doesn't happen to Brands, because he's got game. One more thing: Did anyone else not even give Caroline Wozniacki a chance in France to make it past the in-form Laura Robson? OK, I hesitated for, like two seconds before I picked Robson. Then Woz loses just five games in an annihilation? Nah, she won't make it past Kuznetsova, but still. Maybe all is not lost with this one.

I'm just saying ...

1. If you're the Tennis Channel and you're going to insist on hiring Ashley Harkleroad to do your match commentary, don't put her with someone equally weak, like Brett Haber. It's bad enough I have to watch Victoria Azarenka win another title, but I have to also have to do it to the soundtrack of those two tennis-gossiping like Sophia and Dorothy from The Golden Girls. And let's just say it. What on earth does Ashley Harkleroad know about top-level women's tennis competition? I'm being serious. Basically, her claim to fame (besides Playboy, which is another diatribe entirely) is almost beating Maria Sharapova that one time. Apparently, all of her knowledge comes from reading Yahoo! stories, because she doesn't talk much about tennis. Well, I have an idea. Why not hire me? I can read the Internet, too, and rehash the Williams sisters' Indian Wells controversy from A DECADE AGO. For heaven's sake. 2. Speaking of rehash, I am still a little bitter over Azarenka's antics in Australia, but damn, is her game holding up. See, Victoria, you don't have to resort to gamemanship to win matches. She managed to hold her nerve, and her serve, quite nicely against an erratic Serena Williams. One thing Azarenka has that no one else in the women's game seems to have anymore is variety, and in time, I will come to appreciate this fully after I get over this "medical time-out" nonsense. 3. Speaking of medical time-outs, Juan Martin del Potro served out a win at Rotterdam with a piece of tissue stuck up his nose due to a nosebleed. I'm not saying that a lot of other players couldn't take a lesson from this and man the hell up sometimes. Yes, I am. 4. Rafael Nadal's back in tennis. He's had some struggles against a couple of (way) lower-ranked players. Roger Federer noted as much when discussing his nemesis' comeback. I believe his exact quote was: "I was surprised he lost a final against a player ranked outside the top 50." This was, to be fair, before Federer lost to Julien Benneteau. But Benneteau is #39 in the world, so ... 5. The last time Esther Vergeer lost a match was 2003. That's ten years. Vergeer announced her retirement from tennis this week. I'm not a close follower of wheelchair tennis, but it's hard to believe that no one else could even challenge her in all those years. I'm going to go with the idea that she was just that dominant. That sort of win streak has got to take an amount of mental strength that I'm not even familiar with. Good luck to her -- and anyone else in the field in which she chooses next.

Who's rooting hard for Li Na right now? THIS GIRL!

So it's been about 14 hours since the conclusion of the Victoria Azarenka/Sloane Stephens match, and I gotta say, I'm still a little pissed off. In case you didn't see it, Azarenka had a little trouble closing out the American teen, and when she failed to serve it out at 5-3, she called a medical timeout for a troublesome rib and left knee. Because it was a double injury, she got nearly ten minutes off-court, effectively icing Stephens, who was to serve next and was broken. In that final game, she showed no signs of problems with movement and in her on-court interview, never even mentioned being hurt. Or in her ESPN interview after that. In fact, the first thing she said was that she almost choked that set away and implied she needed a minute (or 10) to settle her nervous ass down. Which leads us to the question: WTF? Now, immediately after, some analysts seemed willing to consider the idea that Azarenka didn't know exactly that what she did was abuse of the rules. How to say this best? Um, that's crap. Mary Jo Fernandez diplomatically called it a "veteran move." Later, in her press conference, she tried to tell reporters she had a legit rib injury that made it hard to breathe, and just didn't understand reporters' questions. Oh come on now. All of a sudden, fifteen minutes before you're in front of a mic, you have not one, but two injuries flare up on you just as you're serving for a Grand Slam final and it doesn't spring to mind immediately after, when you're interviewed? Everyone knows that injury time outs are for injuries, not mental lapses. Foosball is for people with mental lapses. (And let's get this out of the way: Even despite Azarenka's stunt, you have to be mentally strong enough to overcome your opponent, no matter what they pull. Stephens is young, and this experience, along with many others, will make her stronger. It's not Azarenka's fault she couldn't hold serve there. It was Stephens'.) Now this doesn't rise to Justine Henin's retirement in the Aussie final against Amelie Mauresmo to me, but I lost a good deal of respect for Azarenka last night. She's so ridiculously talented that she could have taken care of that match on skill alone. And I don't even think her goal was to get Stephens off-balance -- that timeout was strictly taken for her mental benefit. But champions don't pull cheap stunts like that. Not the ones we can't forget 50 years later. Speaking of 50 years later, hopefully, this will lead to a rule change that keeps players from pulling bush-league stunts like this at will. Just off the top of my head, I'd suggest taking a challenge review from a player for every timeout they call in a set. It's not perfect, but give me time. I can come up with something better. Bottom line: The beauty of tennis is that it's a thinking man's game. It's not like football -- which involves strategy, don't get me wrong -- where you can blow a whistle and try to ice a kicker. It's in the rules in that sport, and that's fine. In tennis, there is no sideline coaching (ahemWTAahem) and there are no time outs permitted because your racquet suddenly weighs 50 pounds. You're nervous? You have to either figure it out yourself or suffer the consequences. Oh, I forgot the third option. You can fake two injuries that no one will ever be able to prove you do not have while you regroup. Not cool, Azarenka. And neither is that sidekick of yours. Am I the only one genuinely annoyed by this Reddoof character? (That was intentional.)

Live Twittering for Women's Semis!

That's really all there is to say at this second, except this: I'm picking Li Na and Victoria Azarenka (but am rooting hard for Sloane Stephens!).

AO'13: 'Probably a bit of a choke?' Probably?

That's from Sam Stosur, after her second-loss loss to Jie Zheng last night. A couple years back, Stosur apparently hired a sports psychiatrist to help her overcome the nerves she would have in tight matches -- especially the ones in her native Australia. The only other thing I'm going to say about this is that I hope it was covered by her health insurance. Sigh. Anyway, back to the people who are still in the tournament. The best matches of the day are the night games on Laver. Which start around 3 a.m. on the East Coast. Am I man enough to watch Federer vs. Davydenko, then Robson vs. Kvitova live? Or save the all-nighter for Venus v. Maria? Perhaps the better question is: How much sleep does one need to function? Anyway. Back to the matches tonight. Federer's looking good here so far, but he's not exactly been tested. Davydenko had a good warmup to the Aussie Open, but he wasn't playing top 5 players in the process. Federer in three, and maybe we'll get a 7-5 set in there. Now, I'm not gonna lie. I never really thought much of Laura Robson, even after she beat Kim Clijsters at the U.S. Open last year. It turns out she's kind of good, though. Meanwhile, Petra Kvitova is only 2-2 on the year and she hasn't even played anyone in the top 10 yet. Tough call, because Robson has game, but no experience while Kvitova has game and experience, but still gets the Stosurs sometimes. I'm going to pick Robson in three. Now, to make a pot of coffee.

Aussie Oy Oy Oy 2013! The Women's Draw

More now than ever before is this true: What happens at this major depends on Serena Williams. She is unstoppable right now, and even someone as tough-as-nails as Victoria Azarenka is left crying on the sidelines after an encounter with her. And only one of them can get to the final. So the question becomes: Who is the next victim? Let's find out with a look at early matches: Wozniacki vs. Lisicki: So 2012 wasn't kind to Caroline Wozniacki. Professionally, that is. Rumor has it she's engaged to Rory McIlvoy, whose career is just taking off. Either Caroline has added some umph to her game and learned to adjust to the power possessed by others, such as Sabine Lisicki. Could be an early exit for the former world No. 1. Kvitova vs. Schiavone: Holy hell. If you're trying to work some kinks out of your game, as Petra Kvitova is these days, the last person you want to see in the first round is Francesca Schiavone. Of course, another way to look at it for Kvitova is that at least she might get the chance to grind out a match right out of the gates. Schiavone. Straight sets. Sam Stosur: Appears to have the Aussie yips again. She might make it through the first couple rounds, but will likely crack at the first application of pressure, especially if she really ends up playing Julia Georges in the third round. Maria Sharapova: Sure she's the second seed. She also allegedly has an injury that hampers the serve. Because that's what Sharapova needs is another serve obstacle. Anyway, in addition to that, she also tends to have trouble with Venus Williams, who doesn't exactly inspire the fear that her sister does these days. So this is a tossup. I'm going with Venus, but I'd like the option to review this choice should the two of them actually play in the third round. The breakdown: Quarterfinals: Azarenka vs. Lisicki, Serena vs. Schiavone, Li vs. Radwanska, Kerber vs. Venus Semifinals: Azarenka vs. Serena, Radwanska vs. Kerber Final: Serena vs. Radwanska Winner: Duh.

Australian Open Men's Draw

This just doesn't feel right without Rafa Nadal. (Also, the illness story doesn't feel right, either.) Without Nadal, the top four becomes the top three, and that leaves Novak Djokovic without a major rival until the final. Still, it's the beginning of the year, and anything can happen. A look at some potentially interesting matchups: Djokovic vs. Mathieu: While Paul-Henri Mathieu is indeed a tough customer, it's hard to see Djokovic struggling much. It could still be good first-round tennis, which would be a rarity for a match involving the top four. Then he'd have rising American Ryan Harrison to contend with after that. So that's what you get for being a top seed, huh? You know who Fed's first round opponent is? Benoit Paire of France. Yeah, that Benoit Paire. Hewitt vs. Tipsarevic: Just when you think it's about time for Lleyton Hewitt to turn in the ATP card, he shows up to a tournament and beats Juan Martin del Potro in the final. Monfils vs. Dolgopolov: Gael Monfils is unseeded. That's all I really wanted to say, really. The breakdown: Quarterfinals: Djokovic vs. Berdych, Ferrer vs. Tipseravic, del Potro vs. Murray and Federer vs. Gasquet Semifinals: Djokovic vs. Ferrer, Murray vs. Federer Final: Djokovic vs. Murray Winner: Djokovic (barely)

TWA -- here we go again!

When you haven't even checked your blog in nearly a year, you wonder what has happened since you were gone. You wonder if someone has hijacked it or sprayed it with some sort of cybergraffiti. But it's still here, well-ignored and guilt-inducing. Waiting to for someone to dust her (yes, her) off and do something with her. She has a point. It's not as though I've cut off tennis in the past several months. I've sat on the couch and said aloud to myself and waxed about how Venus Williams shouldn't have wasted her time with a singles slot at the Olympics; wondered where in the world is Dinara Safina; hoped that Rafael Nadal's career isn't really over but deeply concerned; given up hope officially on Andy Murray winning a major, only to have him finally come through (only three or four years after I called it here first). I just haven't written any of that down, that's all. Until now. The blog is back, but there's more! This time, I'm also throwing in Twitter! If you've ever read this blog, follow me at TWA_tennis_blog, especially as the Australian Open gets underway. Oh, and I'll throw out some draw picks presently. Stay tuned. I will try to do the same.

Thoughts from (watching) Indian Wells

Good to know that ATP officials are cracking down on racist chatter from players. Michael Llodra was fined -- now, wait for it -- $2,500 for calling a spectator either a "Chinese whore" or a "f***king Chinese," depending on the translator. Llodra didn't like that the, um, Korean woman was cheering for his opponent, Ernests Gulbis (dude, would you play to your potential already?) He doesn't deny it -- he said it was said in the heat of competition. And that he's not racist. According to the Los Angeles Times, he said later: "I love Chinese – I can totally make love with a Chinese girl."
Well. On behalf of women everywhere, Chinese or no, let me say "no thank you." It's one thing to say something you don't mean in the heat of the moment. It happens to all of us. But to initially refuse to apologize for it shows that he's not really any kind of man, and certainly not the kind of man any woman would want to "make love with." Li Na, who had nothing to do with this at all, is even woman enough to apologize on behalf of all players for his language. For the record, he finally did apologize three days later, which tells me it finally occurred to him that this could go badly for him if he didn't.
Oh, and to the ATP: Really? $2,500? Really? I have a question: If Llodra had busted out the 'N' word, would you think that fine was enough? Here's a sport that doles out warnings for slamming down an inanimate object on the court and yet you basically say in the face of a racist comment, "Don't let that happen again, OK? Now here's a slap on the wrist." You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for being accessories after the fact, you pansy-assed punks.
**
Note to Aggie Radwanska: Next time, you might want to keep your criticisms of Victoria Azarenka faking an injury (which turned out to be real) to yourself. Then, she might give you a few games in the first set next time you play. Seriously, think Azarenka was a little motivated to stick it her good friend after that comment in Dubai.
**
Every time I watch Andy Roddick play, I think: "He sure wasted a lot of time when he was being coached by Tarik Benhabiles." Nothing against Benhabiles, but obviously Roddick's backhand wasn't a focus when he was starting out. If it had – if he had a more rounded game as he does now, maybe he would have more than one Slam to his name. Now, he's playing OK, but it's too late. I'll eat my cell phone if Andy Roddick wins another major.
**
I am not Caroline Wozniacki, but I get deeply embarrassed for her when she gets overpowered on the court by players ranked outside of the top 30. Sofia Arvidsson? Really?

Lost in translation? Ri-ight.

So the biggest tennis news of the weekend is the U.S. rout of Switzerland (read: Roger Federer) in Davis Cup action. This one's surprising for a couple reasons, mainly that it was played on clay. That's some clay when Americans can play on it. That's a strategy fail right there.
And then there's this tidbit. After their doubles loss, Federer said all the right things about how they fought the good fight, the Americans were better that day, blah, blah, blah. But apparently, the French version of the presser was much more interesting. According to the Associated Press, Federer said he played well in dubs, but that partner Stan Wawrinka didn't. That's a nice thing to say about the guy you won the OLYMPICS with. Guess he's some sort of hack. Fed also faulted Stan for not winning his match against Mardy Fish in singles, because the loss failed to put pressure on the U.S. Interesting theory, but last I checked, the tie score was 5-0. One might deduce that Federer's loss to John Isner might also have failed to put pressure on the U.S. What, it's Wawrinka's fault that Federer lost, too?
Actually, I like seeing Federer like this. He's a sore loser, and that's what makes a great champion, not all that business about losing gracefully. The man hates to lose, and as long as he reacts so adversely to loss, his head's in the game, and as long as his head's in the game, he'll be around contesting for majors and the like. Still, though, Fed, that was cold blooded.

If you're snoozing, you're watching Fed Cup ...

Watching the Serena Williams-Anastasiya Yakimova match now. Asking myself why. Well, I have already picked all the lint out of my belly button. And the paint in the living room is dry, although it was fun watching that. So here I sit.
Did anyone else know the U.S. wasn't in the World Group anymore? I guess I should be ashamed of myself, not being able to (or having the interest to) keep up with this "format" they insist upon. Sure, I could go into my specific issues about the Fed and Davis format again. Or I could just point you here and here. Does anyone else have another idea about the world competition formats?
Here's another issue I don't believe I've addressed. The Fed Cup needs to get with the times. The doubles should not be the fifth rubber. It should be the third, just like in Davis Cup. It needs to be in the mix. Now it's great when you actually play a tie that goes to 2-2 and it comes down to doubles. But how often does that happen? Doubles should count for something in every tie. The International Tennis Federation is also ignoring that tennis viewers want to see doubles because most of them play doubles. Duh! And we don't want to see Sloane Stephens playing doubles after the match has been decided and everyone else doesn't care. We want to the best possible doubles match on the court. That rarely happens when it's the fifth match.
My goodness, is this match ugly. I think it's fair to say that Serena is no longer in her heyday. Now it's just "Hey!" As in, hey, what they hey was that?!" Now, I'm starting to ask myself if Serena deserves a spot on the Olympic team. Which begs the question: If you take the Williams sisters out of the picture, what's the best Olympic team the U.S. can send, rankings be damned? I suppose I will accept sentimental answers such as Melanie Oudin, but keep in mind, I'm looking for the team that could do some damage.
OK, so a few games back, Serena comes to the changeover chair and smashes her racquet. You could literally see Mary Joe Fernandez jump a foot off the bench. So after Serena lost the first set, Fernandez, wisely, is not sitting there. Now, who says she's not a good and smart captain? Oh, I did? Kidding!