U.S. Open: Greatly exaggerated

Yes, I know Angelique Kerber is the new world No. 1 and the new U.S. Open champion. It still bugs me a little, but I think I realize why.

This.

(Who hits a forehand like that?)
And this.

Also this.

Kerber wins ugly. It definitely isn't pretty. But she won the point in these freeze frames. No effortless power on one or both wings. No shut-it-down serve to get out a tight spot. (That lefty swinger out wide is not bad, though. But it's ugly. Just saying.) Commentators keep going on about Kerber and Agz Radwanska's ability to hit a tennis ball almost in a sitting position. That baffles me. Do they teach that in tennis class now? That's ugly and there's a more economic way to blunt power and keep yourself in a point, a fact that former professionals ought to be aware of. Hi!
Here's my coping problem. I want my world number ones to be dominant and indisputable. Not invincible, but able to withstand an attack. Like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Steffi Graf, or even early Martina Hingis. Justine Henin. Like Serena Williams, who, despite her age is still a No. 1 contender for maybe the next couple of years in my book. She's still a force. You can discard anyone who has such a deep bag of tricks, plus sheer power.
Is Kerber a force? No. Can she consistently withstand various challengers? Sure, she edged Karolina Pliskova yesterday, but could she do that again next month?
The work ethic is why you can't argue with Kerber's new ranking. She wins ugly. But she wins. She does this because she works hard. Here's a portion of a story from the WTA website about what Andrea Petkovic had to say about Kerber in 2011:

Fifteen of 18 matches lost. There aren't a lot of pro players that could survive that type of drought with their confidence anywhere in shouting distance. What kind of fortitude must it take to come out and take beating after beating before coming out of that tailspin? These paragraphs right here says all that you need to know about why Kerber is the highest-ranked player in the world now.
And yet, she doesn't excite me about the future of women's tennis. Sorry -- she just doesn't. Kerber is post-Serena, but she's 28. There's the likes of Pliskova and Garbine Muguruza waiting in the wings. Some players have a work ethic and ridiculous natural talent.
At best, I would consider Kerber a stopgap No. 1, between Serena and either Serena again or the next dominant player. She isn't likely to have a long reign, or add the spark that women's tennis desperately needs right now outside of Germany. (Kerber v. Pliskova was a great final, but I'd watch a men's match any day still.)
So to dramatically appropriate a line from "The Dark Knight," Kerber isn't the world No. 1 that we need right now. 

But she's the No. 1 she deserves.

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

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

U.S. Open: One long night

True confession time: Shortly after sending this tweet

I remember nothing else. I wouldn't call it falling asleep as much as losing consciousness, but I did not ride and/or die. I still don't know what happened between Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin del Potro. No spoilers! Kidding. I'm sure I'll find out momentarily when I check out today's schedule.
What I do remember is watching Serena Williams take out Simona Halep under circumstances we've seen before, and it doesn't always go her way. There she was, cruising, and then suddenly in the second set, she was not cruising. Big ups to Halep for offering a stiff challenge in that set. Now, social media went a little nuts last night after a commentator said Halep smiled too much after winning the second set. It's not the smiling that lost her the match, but she obviously let up off the gas after the second set, as though it was more than she expected just winning a set. That is the head thing I'm talking about. Halep obviously showed she can hang with Serena, physically. Mentally, too, for a set. You need two sets, though.
There was one minor development during the day session. Andy Murray got beat! By Kei Nishikori! The guy I said would win majors, just not now! I believe I might have been mistaken. Still awaiting a block of time to watch this one, so I can't say much but !!
Alrighty. Women's semis tonight. Serena and Karolina Pliskova. Hmmmmm. This is tricky because Pliskova has a great serve. Serena is a pretty good returner, though. Still, Serena is showing that she can dig deep in this tournament, even in tight spots, so I'll give her a 60 percent chance of winning. Pliskova clearly also has balls of steel (see Williams, Venus, fourth round, U.S. Open 2016). I think it'll be a great match.
I'm not gonna call Caroline Wozniacki and Angelique Kerber. Sometimes, you just have to pop some popcorn and watch some tennis and hope they're done by midnight because I'm clearly now an old lady who can't stay up much past the ending of The Tonight Show. Sigh.

U.S. Open: Well, that tennis was (not) special

You got all amped after you saw the Rafael Nadal and Venus Williams matches over the weekend, right? You were probably like, "It just can't get any better than this! We got Lucas Pouille, Gael Monfils, Angelique Kerber, Roberta Vinci, Novak Djokovic and Jo-Jo Tsonga! This is gonna be ...
... the biggest tennis letdown ever. Here's hoping Vinci, Tsonga and Ana Sevastova heal up, which is most important. Second most important is griping about such a balloon-popper of a tennis day at the U.S. Open. Obviously, it's not the fault of the players that their bodies cannot hold up consistently over a 17 1/2-month season. I'm gonna take the higher road here and not rant about the silliness of how the tennis season is set up, but there is likely a TWA therapy session coming up on this very topic.
Let's instead take a look at what's ahead, and hope for better days and also hope that all banana peels are promptly picked up in the players' quarters. The last thing we need is another injury.
Ana Konjuh and Karolina Pliskova: A TV commentator pointed out that you don't see a lot of young guns advancing deep into tournaments anymore, so Konjuh is a complete anomaly right now. Pliskova's had a good summer, and at 24, she's basically a spring chicken compared to just about anyone in the top 10. I'd give the nod to experience, but Konjuh seems to offer more variety in her game, which can defuse power well. So I'm going to live on the edge here and pick no one. (See what I did there?)
Kei Nishikori v. Andy Murray: Way back in the day, I predicted that Murray would win majors. It took a lot longer than many people thought, but here he is, a favorite to win the tournament, even as the second seed. I believe Nishikori also has the game to win majors, and as with Murray, it's going to take a little longer than most people think. Nishikori has been impressive, especially in handling Ivo Karlovic's serve in the previous round. But Murray's on a different level right now and he'd have to take quite the dip for Nishikori to even pick up a set here.
NIGHT SESSION!
We got Serena Williams v. Simona Halep: I'm going Serena unless some emotional self-sabotage takes place during this match. Everyone's talking about how great Halep's playing right now. I don't see anything different. She's always had a solid game. The problem is her head, and if she really believes she can beat Serena, well, then, we have a problem. I don't think she has the weaponry, so this one is up to Serena.
Oh my god Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin del Potro: I want you two to drop and give me five sets and a tiebreaker, stat!

U.S. Open: Finally! A women's barnburner

Well, I'm not going to feign surprise about Venus Williams' loss in the fourth round yesterday. My draw had her bowing out to Karolina Pliskova from the beginning. One thing that did surprise me was the quality of the match -- on Venus' part. She has a tendency to go off the rails in an effort to go for her shots, but lately she's been able to do that and keep the ball in the court. In my estimation, even when she was destroying everyone on tour, her game wasn't as strong as it is now. She and Pliskova both played unbelievable tennis, especially when things got tight for both of them. OK, that backhand crosscourt by Venus on her third match point down? And the forehand up the line by Pliskova in the same spot? WHAT?! That was finally our high-level women's match of the tournament.
I thought there was a chance Agz Radwanska/Ana Konjuh would reach that level, but Konjuh apparently had to get back to the hotel and watch some Degrassi because she handled Radwanska with the quickness. This is one situation where the score (6-4, 6-4) did not reflect the match, because it seemed that Konjuh ran away with the thing. So it looks like Konjuh's going to be a handful for the next person playing her -- Pliskova. That should be fun.
There are a couple of good day matches lined up today, along with Caroline Wozniacki v. Ana Sevastova and Novak Djokovic v. Jo-Jo Tsonga at night. I know we just had a holiday weekend, but I am wondering if it would be low-class to take another day off with sickness. Because:
Angelique Kerber v. Roberta Vinci: This has No. 1-ranking implications for Kerber. Basically, all she has to do is win the U.S. Open and she'll be the best player in the world! So easy! And against Vinci? Oh please. Of course she'll roll against her. I mean, last year, Vinci just ... oh. Hm. Hmmmm.
I definitely feel a fever coming on.
Lucas Pouille v. Gael Monfils: Now I have the chills and a slight cough. Achy throat. Reaching for my cell phone.

U.S. Open 2016: So, about last night ...

OK, let's just start right away with the Rafa Nadal v. Lucas Pouille throwdown in the fourth round. I suppose we just have to deal with the fact that we are now at that place that whenever Nadal or Roger Federer lose, people feel the need to hasten their retirement. Because anyone who played the way Nadal did last night needs a walker, right? Wrong, of course.
Nadal did not give away that match, or choke, or anything else of the sort. Although at 6-6 in the fifth-set tiebreak, I would argue that he blinked. He had an easy forehand to roll up the line for a 7-6 lead and some breathing room and he missed it, to the surprise of everyone. I mean, my eyes followed where the ball was supposed to go and when it didn't get there, I thought he must have hit it so fast I missed it. Literally the last thing I thought was that he missed it.
But anyway, blinking and choking are different to me. Nadal played one of hist best matches of the year. Obviously, I don't follow Pouille very closely (who does unless you're French?), but I'd have to wager he played one of the best matches of his year last night as well. There is really nothing in the way of weakness that I could see. Now one thing that will happen naturally with a hard hitter like him is that his shots will go off the rails, and they did at times, which was when Nadal was able to capitalize. It seems to me that he would struggle against a flatter ball striker who would give him less to rally with than Nadal's topspinny shots would. For example, I could see why Pouille went down to a Tomas Berdych-type at Wimbledon. But man, Pouille gave very little away yesterday and as a result, it was a great match to watch. It looks like we've got a lot more to see from him -- he's only 22.
Also in the "What a match!" category but in an entirely different way was the Petra Kvitova/Angelique Kerber match. Anyone who has ever watched Kvitova play well must wonder how she isn't in the top 3 in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, last night's match was your answer. Forty-three unforced errors in under 90 minutes. Mistakes strewn about the court like discarded beer cans in the stands at the end of the night. Thumping forehands followed up by shots that were several feet wide of the court. Double faulting on match point. I pointed out on the Twitter last night that whether Kerber won the match had precious little to do with her, but Kvitova and it turned out to be true. When Kvitova's shots were good, they were very good, and when they were bad, there was Kerber waiting. I sometimes wonder if Kvitova doesn't still suffer from the expectations that I think is plaguing Garbine Muguruza after winning an unexpected first slam. But women's tennis needs her to pull it together. Right now, it needs some serious depth in order to avoid the Serena-Kerber monotony. So pull it together, woman! I need to be entertained.
I think it's funny now in retrospect that people actually thought Novak Djokovic had a chance to lose to Kyle Edmund, the young Brit. Did anyone else happen to notice Djokovic's "interview" on the way into Ashe Stadium? Here it is in a nutshell:
Interviewer: And here's Novak Djokovic. What's your strategy going into the match?
Novak: It's good to be here. I'm ready to play.
Interviewer: How do you feel? How's your arm?
Novak: I'm looking forward to the match. Goodbye, Felicia.
He was about his business and it showed. Time to settle in for a nice deep Djokovic run at the Open.
We have a little time before play starts again on this, the most laborious of days. Let's look at some of the matchups, with a rating from 1-5, five being the most likely to produce an upset:
Dominic Thiem v. Juan Martin del Potro: 5. Thiem is the seed here, at eight. Nope. Not gonna hold.
Karolina Plishkova v. Venus Williams: 4.2. Venus is playing well, but still subject to the mid-match errors, so I think the 10th-seeded Plishkova could take advantage.
Grigor Dmitrov v. Andy Murray: 1. Move the traffic along, fellas. Nothing to see here.
Agz Radwanska v. Ana Konjuh: 2. I just tend to give Radwanska the advantage against anyone under the age of 21. They just don't have the patience to deal with the cat-and-mouse stuff, although I personally love watching it.
Carla Suarez Navarro v. Simona Halep: 4. Navarro is also tricky as hell.
Ilya Marchenko v. Stan Wawrinka: 2. I forgot to mention the circumstances around this match, so *time out* Everyone needs to calm down about Nick Kyrgios. He was hurt. Yes, he can be petulant and immature and flighty and all of that, but he is also a kid. He also quit the match against Marchenko injured, so now isn't the time to pile on, unless there's some indication that he faked it, and there is not. We need to do a TWA therapy session about Nicky, but it'll wait. Let's talk about how Stan Wawrinka fought like a man to beat back a match point against Daniel Evans. DAT BACKHAND DOWN THE LINE, THO. That was the single sexiest tennis shot I've ever seen. *time in* I think Wawrinka is going to win.
Serena Williams v. Yaroslava Shvedova: 2.2. I don't know about this one. I sense rumblings.
Kei Nishikori v. Ivo Karlovic: 2, but I will be reserving my spot on my couch for this one.

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

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

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

Better watch yo' mouth! (But I'm talkin' about French tennis!)

Here's a little something for the Today I Learned file. Today, I learned that if you're a French tennis player, you should not express an opinion. Three such brazen players -- Kristina Mladenovic, Benoit Paire and Caroline Garcia -- were suspended by the French tennis federation for complaining about some aspect of the Rio Olympics. Apparently, Paire complained about the lack of ranking points (a sentiment expressed by several other players and one that's not exactly wrong). Mladenovic and Garcia complained because they didn't know that they needed to be wearing the same colors because they were playing doubles. Mladenovic went on a Twitter rant after they lost, seeming to blame officials for not letting them know about the clothing requirement. Two things: How is it that every other team appeared to know about this? Either that, or they didn't take it to Twitter. Also, I wondered when I first read these tweets if I'd be reading them if Mladenovic and Garcia had won. In other words, did it seem that Mladenovic venting because she lost? (Yeap. Pretty much.)
Still, suspending players for saying bad things? Naturally, the royal "we" here at Tennis With Attitude does not like this. It's one thing if you're saying something racist, sexist or untrue about another player. But blowing off steam after a loss should not bring down such a heavy punishment. The same has happened to Hope Solo, the U.S. soccer player, for calling the Swedish players cowards because they didn't play to win at the Olympics. Yes, boneheaded thing to say. But Solo has been accused of much worse and has not incurred this level of punishment. These guys are about to get more heavily penalized for poppin' off by their respective governing agencies than supergenius Ryan Lochte is for stirring up an international incident while he was drunk.
Let's just let that marinate for a second, and then calm down and stop suspending people because they said silly things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my bottom half of the draw 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Open 2016: The women's draw (or What You Get for Being a Top Seed These Days)

The most bizarre things seem to happen to Serena Williams at the U.S. Open, am I right? There was the Kim Clijsters incident, the Sam Stosur incident, the Roberta Vinci incident. And now, coming off a shaky appearance at the Olympics and a lingering shoulder problem, Serena gets Ekaterina Makarova in the first round this year. That would be the same Makarova who beat Serena at the Australian Open a few years back.

Even with an injury, it is still difficult not to pick Serena, but her draw is very, very hard. 

It's full of dangerous people. Well, OK, to  be honest -- these people who wouldn't be so dangerous for Serena, but given the venue, it's now dangerous. It will take the world's best sports psychologist to figure out how it is that the place where you won your first major becomes the biggest minefield of your career, but that is what we have here. There's possibly Ana Ivanovic in the third round, Stosur in the fourth, or Yaroslava Shvedova. That's before the quarterfinals. I think she'll beat Makarova, but if her shoulder is still a concern, then a deep run could be a problem for her.

Here's the bottom half:

This is a really big opportunity for Madison Keys. She is in a doable section of the draw, and if she's able to take advantage and have a deep run, that would set her clear apart from the rest of the U.S. female hopefuls. She'd potentially be playing almost every single one of them if she wants to advance -- Alison Riske in round 1, Madison Brengle in round 2 and Coco Vandeweghe in round 3. Keys has blinked in big matches, but she is getting close to being a consistent challenger, and maybe beyond. This tournament could be big for her. 

Now Angelique Kerber? It really does depend on whether she can survive the drama onslaught she'd face against Alize Cornet if they both win their first-round matches. Seriously, though, if Petra Kvitova is playing well (one never knows), she'd be the most likely to advance out of that draw, not Kerber. 

Another dangerous player here is French Open champion Garbine Muguruza, whose head is clearly heavier, having earned a crown. She's flamed out of most tournaments early since her win. If she can stop the nosedive, she could go very far in this tournament, too. Or she could go ahead and get her clock cleaned by Monica Puig again. 

There are a few first rounds matches that should be good: Williams/Makarova and Keys/Riske, but also Johanna Konta vs. Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Svetlana Kuznetsova vs. Francesca Schiavone. And then there's what I'll call the Battle of the What-Could-Have-Beens between Julia Georges and Yanina Wickmayer. Like, two or three years ago, that would have been a popcorn semifinal. 

TWA's Cincy wrap

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but is anyone as surprised as I am that Angelique Kerber had a shot at being the No. 1 player in the world this weekend? 

Kerber is a fine player, no doubt. But her lack of one fallback weapon was her downfall in Cincinnati on Sunday. *Time out: Yes, I also recognize that she just won the silver medal in Brazil and might be a tad tired, and I recognize that she played that match under the weight of knowing that all she had to do was win it and she would be the best player in the world. What I am about to note is still true regardless of all of that. Time in.* It's clear that Karolina Pliskova, at least this week, had some huge groundstrokes that Kerber was literally fighting off on her knees. A valiant effort, but when Kerber faces off against power players who are hitting their targets, it totally takes away her game, which is the ball-machine approach -- get everything back. She's very good at that. It's why she beat Serena Williams in Australia. Serena wasn't ready to work that hard, but when your opponent plays the way Plishkova did, and you don't have a backup plan, well, you get handled pretty efficiently. 

Having said all of that, big-ups to Kerber for showing up after the Olympics and advancing to the final. Same to Andy Murray. There are times in pro tennis when the dominant player of the time stumbles, even briefly, and leaves a small window of opportunity. Many times, there isn't anyone able to step in and take advantage. With Novak Djokovic on the sidelines right now, the opportunist is Murray. He has made himself the player to beat right now, and although he also lost in the Cincinnati final Sunday, to Marin Cilic, he should feel very good about his chances at the U.S. Open (in less than a week!). 

Another major development in Cincinnati was the first tournament for Martina Hingis and Sania Mirza -- with new partners. Hingis had Coco Vandeweghe and Mirza's new partner is Barbora Strycova. (Now, sizing up these new partners is a push. Both Coco and Strycova have huge chips on their backs, but due to sheer age, I'll say Strycova's is bigger.) Naturally, they both ended up in the final, and if you were lucky enough to be in Cincinnati, you saw what seemed to be a tight match with Mirza/Strycova taking the title. If you weren't, you had to follow some live-score website to find out who won. 

Which is going to bring me head-on into my rant-o-the-week. Again. Most tennis fans who play play doubles. Why is it so hard to get doubles on TV? I'd watch it. The folks on Twitter on Sunday moaning about not being able to see this match anywhere would watch it. What's it going to take to get doubles the love it deserves. Rafael Nadal just won Olympic gold, if your answer is "big names." Martina Hingis is one of the best doubles players around, if your answer is "dubs is boring." If you're reading this, I am about to embark on a crusade to get doubles on TV more often. All I need is a good hashtag, because everyone knows that nothing gets done anymore without a good hashtag. So let's brainstorm bombard the networks with some pressure, all right?! Seriously, though, I'm gonna need some help because all I got right now is #makedoublesgreatagain, which is obviously a nonstarter.

The Rio wrap: Waxing on sauerkraut, socks and why the Olympics matter

It’s more than three days after the conclusion of the Rafael Nadal/Juan Martin del Potro throwdown classic, and I am still laid out on the floor in sheer ecstasy and exhaustion. Not literally, but wow, did the Olympics offer up some great matches. It was a little scary for those of us who saw the early exits of Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic and thought

via GIPHY

I know I said that the fact that many of the guys decided to bail on Rio made the men’s draw boring. But, for the first time in TWA history, I must admit that I was wrong. It’s because of the likes of Nadal and del Potro mostly. Nadal, who is still struggling with his wrist, came to the Olympics anyway. (There is a decent chance that this is because he might call it a day before 2020, due to his issues with injury.) He left with a gold medal in doubles (with dream dubs partner Marc Lopez.). Del Potro is also finding his way back after a long layoff, and I would say he did just OK. Seriously, I hope he keeps up the fine form.

It’s important to play for your country, even though it’s just sports. Do you wonder why Venus Williams, even though she was sick with a virus, still threw her hat in the ring for mixed doubles? Just because she was hanging around anyway? No. She in all likelihood had no idea who Rajeev Ram was (although she probably knew he was no Jack Sock), but it was important, so she tried one more time and became one of the most decorated tennis players in Olympic history, earning a silver medal.

Their attendance at the Games illustrates one thing. The Olympics still matter. It sure as hell matters more than your average tournament. Oh, jeez, nice job, John Isner, winning Atlanta or whatever he played instead of the Olympics. And I know it’s poor form or just outright rude to point this out, but Isner is not going to win the U.S. Open. If he wins the U.S. Open, I’ll eat my writing hat and top it with mustard, sauerkraut and baked beans. And I will Snapchat that thing like nobody’s business.

Anyway, the Olympics are important. Let’s resume that conversation in four years, when the American No. 1 dodges Tokyo. In other very important Olympic business:

1.       Gold medalist Bethanie Mattek-Sands, I would like a pair of your socks.

2.       Gold medalist Usain Bolt, I would like your warmup shirt.

3.       Gold medalist Andy Murray, I still think your attitude stinks sometimes, but you are earning quite the reputation lately of performing under pressure. Remember, I believed in you when nobody did!

4.       OK, I threw the slightest bit of shade – it was just a shadow really -- on Monica Puig the other day. She deflected that shade with her new piece of jewelry. Seriously, what a gutsy tournament. She took every scalp she encountered and earned Puerto Rico its first gold medal. Ever.

Sometimes you play the Olympics. Sometimes the Olympics play you.

It's a good thing it rained in Rio yesterday -- it put the brakes on the seemingly neverending beatdown on the top players in the world. OK, Novak Djokovic's loss was a big deal, but he lost to a sleeping giant. Serena Williams losing to Elina Svitolina? Say what now? Five double faults in one game?! Pardon? A basic inability to return serve down the stretch?!!! A colossal upset for sure, but unlike the folks over at ESPN Tennis, I don't think we're talking about a sea change in women's tennis, unless we really think that Svitolina or Monica Puig (who beat the living crap out of Garbine Muguruza, by the way) are going to win the U.S. Open and bundle Williams into retirement. I mean, come on. Really.
One unexpected benefit to this rash of upsets is a repopulation of the mixed doubles draw. Venus Williams is back in, with Rajeev Ram, Nadal is pairing up with Muguruza and Bethanie Mattek-Sands has got Jack Sock. Heck, if you don't have to play a third set, but a tiebreaker, why not, right?
But anyway, who the heck knows what's going to happen in this tournament now. Nobody would have believed that Rafael Nadal has more of a chance to win the Olympic gold (in singles and doubles) than Djokovic at the beginning of this tournament, or that Madison Keys has a better shot now than Serena, but here we are. And no complaints, because we have some great matchups in the works: Nadal is playing Gilles Simon, Juan Martin del Potro is playing Daniel Taro, who took out Sock in the first round of singles, and Andy Murray against Fabio Fognini, Svitolina v. Petra Kvitova, and Angelique Kerber v. Johanna Konta, just to name a few highlights. And no, I would not even pretend to know how this all shakes out.

All aboard the Rio Olympics struggle bus!

So many ridiculous things have happened since the Olympic tennis tournament began that it's like, "Where do you start?" Let's start in reverse chronological order, I guess:

1. Juan Martin del Potro, everybody. OK, like everyone else, I am blown away that he beat Novak Djokovic in the first round in Rio, but I am struck by something else. If not for injury, what would we be saying about del Potro right now? Three slams? Four? From my couch, Djokovic played well, but del Potro was thumping winners from everywhere and he was moving great for a big guy.
This just goes to show that being stuck in an elevator with no contact with the outside world for 40 minutes is also not bad match prep.
2. Does goes the Williams sisters. The first inclination here is to blame Venus for this, because she's not well. But she didn't look that bad in the Williams sisters defeat at the hands of Lucie Safarova and Barbora Strycova. But based on my (yes, limited) knowledge of doubles, I wonder two things about the sisters and their doubles game: (a) Why wouldn't Serena play the ad side? I always thought the better player takes the ad side for the advantage in big points. No offense to Venus, but Serena's returns are far more reliable in general. (b) Why are we letting Serena play the net? Her volleys and movements up there are often stilted. Lots of men's teams have both players starting deep and maybe that's something they ought to consider.
3. That's not all for Venus. If you follow me on Twitter, then you know how I feel about the game of Kirsten Flipkens. To summarize: I once played in the USTA sectionals for my team up north. My second match was against this person who hit moonballs left and right. It was annoying, and as I would say later (making sure she was in earshot of course) "not tennis." Well, of course, it is tennis, and of course, she did beat me, and of course Flipkens is crafty as hell and that's annoying and maybe not considered to be "fair" in some circles. But she did win and she did it on guile. Not to minimize Venus' role in all of this -- she had almost one thousand opportunities to end games in that match and failed about half the time. I didn't know she had been ill until after match, which might explain why she didn't bring her current form to Brazil. Considering her physical limited, she has to get props for bringing it as she did, but yeah, not enough.

The women's journey to gold

OK, so the women's draw actually has people I've heard of in it. I know that a lot of people think that women are the drama queens in tennis, but this might be a good time to point out that they're not the ones dodging the Olympics because of mosquitoes. They pack their deet and move on. Just sayin'.
So (rubbing hands together enthusiastically), let's see our draw possibilities!

That arrow toward the bottom of the draw is the 'Are You Kidding Me?' match of the first round. I mean, how are you supposed to pick a winner between Genie Bouchard and Sloane Stephens? It's like a battle between dashed hopes and low expectations.
But anyway. Obviously, Serena looks to be the favorite in almost every tournament she plays. But. Her second-round match is probably against the reigning drama queen of tennis (unless Jelena Jankovic is around) Alize Cornet. Cornet has had some big-time success against Serena, so this is not a gimme. And she is likely to pitch a fit about something, so definitely should be entertaining.
Other possible matchups of note: Caroline Wozniacki v. Petra Kvitova. I would normally expect a straightforward win by Kvitova, but she's been shaky lately. Wozniacki hasn't been playing either, so who knows? I picked Kvitova, but who knows. Then there's Venus Williams v. Lucie Safarova. This will be a good match and although Venus has been dropping philosophical science and kicking butt, I think this could be tricky for her because Safarova is capable of stringing wins together. She hasn't done it much lately, but as much as Venus has been playing, this could be a situation.
The bottom draw has a ton of possibilities for the finals, but Johanna Konta and Agz Radwanska are my picks for navigating it. Radwanska is likely to advance on guile and in watching Konta against Venus a couple weeks back, she has got a lot of game -- big serve, big groundstrokes, good brain. So we'll see.
The doubles should be good, too. Martina Hingis has Timea Bacsinszky as her partner and they've got a good shot at the semis against Caroline Garcia and Kristine Mdladenovic, two really strong dubs players. Top half: the Williams sisters (as the top seed some sixteen years after they first played in the Olympics, by the way. Crazy) look to have a good chance to advance to see Russians Elena Vesnina and Ekaterina Makarava.

The men's journey to Olympic gold (with way fewer passengers)

So, I just finished filling out the men's draw for the Rio Games, and let me tell you, that was one big bag of subparsomeness. Going through the first round was so boring that I had to abandon the coffee mug in favor of shoveling spoonfuls of coffee grounds into my mouth just to stay awake. That's what happens when many of the game's best decide to stay home for the Olympics.
The good news is that there's just enough left to be interesting in the later rounds. Let's take a look at what we've got:

You know, one thing that's unbelievable to me is the idea that you can have so few heavy hitters in an Olympic draw and still find Novak Djokovic playing Juan Martin del Potro in the first round. Pardon? I get it -- it's random. But talk about a tough draw for both guys. My heart roots for the injury- and talent-laden del Potro, but reality is trending toward Djokovic.
Another interesting first-round match is Marin Cilic v. Grigor Dimitrov. I don't doubt that Cilic will win, but it should be pretty entertaining at least.
Man, didn't Rafael Nadal look so cute, cheesing away as the Spanish flag-bearer during the opening ceremony last night? He decided last-minute to come to Rio, but with lingering injury issues, I'm not sure he can repeat his gold-medal run from 2008. I've got him in the semis, but Borna Coric or David "Pocket Rocket" Goffin could easily change that. But at least it's good to know that the best player in his country is proud to represent in the biggest sports gathering in the world. (Oh, hey, not talking to you at all, John Isner.)
Assuming Djokovic actually does get out of the first round, it's hard to see him losing to anyone but Andy Murray, who just regulated throughout Wimbledon. Murray has a much easier draw as well. Cilic or Kei Nishikori could be a challenge, too.
The men's doubles draw is out, too. This is really where you miss a team like Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka. Still, this is an entertaining draw. I could see Nicolas Mahut and Pierre-Hugues Herbert squaring off in the semis against Djokovic and Nenad Zimonjic and in the bottom half, Nadal and Marc Lopez (who is an awesome doubles player) against Vasek Pospisil and Danny Nestor.
Next post up: the women, who unlike the men, actually showed up to Rio in good number.

Team No-Olympics checks out!

Well, the hits keep coming for the Rio Olympics, don't they. Has there ever been a Games in history in which people were falling all over each other to miss the plane?
Even though tennis is fairly new to the Olympics, it seemed to start taking more of a priority among the game's stars. "Seemed" is the operative word here. Because this time, it's taking a back seat to the likes of the Zika virus, a smattering of injuries and the U.S. Open. That's right, a tournament they have every year is taking priority over THE OLYMPICS.
Quick disclaimer: There is every chance the Rio Olympics are going to be a giant disaster. We've got a mosquito-borne illness that leads to birth defects in babies. We've got the threat of terrorism. We've got reports that athletes are staying in the Motel 6 instead of the Olympic village because the place has plumbing that is leaking like a sieve.
Having said all of that, there are still enough athletes willing to take the chance because it is THE OLYMPICS. But some of the people who are missing it might surprise you. Let's discuss them now:

1. Roger Federer: Federer announced this week that he just can't, guys. He's actually sitting out the rest of the year because of this nagging knee injury. I just read a Rolling Stone story about how Federer is in the twilight of his career and I can't help but be amused by this talk. Mark me: Federer is still a legit threat in men's tennis -- when he's healthy. And he is usually healthy. But, anyway.
2. Belinda Bencic: She would have joined Federer on the Swiss team, but she has decided to focus on the U.S. Open. Yes, the U.S. Open begins, like, two weeks after the tennis event in Rio. That's a tight turnaround. But here's what's blowing my mind here. Bencic's doubles partner would have been Martina Hingis. MAR. TINA. HINGIS. You would basically be guaranteed a medal, and probably the gold, assuming Hingis doesn't have the same lackluster results she did at Wimbledon. With a huge advantage like that, you walk away?
3. Nick Krygios and Bernard Tomic: Of course. Of course. Rebels gonna rebel.
4. Dominic Thiem: How about this for a fun fact: The country of Austria is essentially begging Thiem to go to the Olympics. The editor of one of the country's largest newspapers wrote an open letter asking Theim to change his mind, but the kid won't do it. Theim says his priority is also winning a major. Kids today. No respect for the Olympics.
5. John Isner: I'm not sure if you knew this -- I'm not quite sure I realized it -- but John Isner is the highest-ranked American male in the world right now. He's saying he won't play the Olympics because it doesn't offer ranking points, so he's focusing on events in the U.S. leading up to the last Slam of the year. Right hand: 100 points. Left hand: Gold, silver or bronze medal. Ohhhhhkay, then.
OK, fine. Yes, players should get ranking points for playing in the Olympics. But to choose to play some average warm-up events instead of attending the most anticipated athletic events in the world is questionable. Ranking points are great, but where exactly do you keep those on your mantle when your career is over?

LEAGUE WATCH: Crisis of confidence

There was a time when high-pressure mixed-doubles matches geeked me out. I used to get on the court in 9.0-level matches knowing I was the worst player on the court AND I LOVED THAT FEELING. I knew I'd get the most shots and I was ready for it. I was like Scrappy Doo. Remember him?

That was me. And most of the time, I did well enough to pull out the win. It was usually quite close, but yeah, we'd win.
Last weekend was a different story. I played my second 8.0 match of the season, and unlike most of the recent lopsided losses I've taken, I actually ended up in a close match. My partner and I jumped out to a 4-1 lead in the first set, only to have our opponents pull even at 4-4. There was a minor development that happened at 4-1, though. When I say minor, I mean that my son, who had decided to go hit some tennis balls on the wall on a 98-degree afternoon in Florida, developed a case of heat sickness. My husband, who was playing on the other court tended to him, and I checked on him in the bathroom at the first changeover chance I got. He had a serious case of diarrhea, but otherwise was more coherent than he apparently was a few minutes earlier. He told me to come check on him in 5 or 10 minutes. That boy. What a sweetie.
Anyway, if I'm honest, the biggest problem wasn't my son getting sick. I knew he was OK. But remember what I said about knowing I was the worst player on the court and loving that pressure? I literally did not want to hit a ball for fear of messing up. I have never had that feeling while playing tennis. Have you? I doubted every swing of my racquet, and kept hoping for double faults, or for my partner to jump in front of me to hit a ball coming right at me.
We lost, of course. That'll happen when your inconsistent opponent gives you an easy sitter midcourt that the old Naf would have hit right at the net person, but that this Naf returns the favor with a spinny forehand that lands about four feet long.
What's happened to me? Good question. Sure, I haven't been playing much. My work schedule has limited my tennis considerably. And if my husband and kids aren't at the courts, then I don't want to be, either. That's how strapped for time I am these days. So maybe I just need to play more. What I do know is that I've lost all belief in my game. I don't know how to get it back. I guess I'll keep hitting the courts, waiting for my swagger to return.
Any ideas from anybody? I am open to the idea of hypnosis at this point.

Vika and the nine-month virus

I have to admit that my first impression of the news that Victoria Azarenka is not competing for the rest of the year because she's having a baby instead sort of blew my mind.

However, upon further reflection, I have to induct Mama Vika into the Tennis With Attitude Hall of Fame. But this required research. Honestly, my first thought was: "Please tell me she's not still dating that Redfoo dude." I don't think she is, so this kid should be all right. Phew.
But anyway, before we get into her TWAHOF qualifications, let's talk about her announcement. This line right here: "While recovering from the knee injury that I sustained at Roland Garros, I received news from my doctor that my boyfriend and I are going to become parents at the end of this year." This line is hilarious to me, because it suggests a certain level of detachment, probably due to shock. Bringing the doctor into this shows she hasn't fully wrapped her head around this yet. But she will. Fer sure.
The rest of her announcement, though, is pretty kick-ass and although she's a rich tennis player, she's right: There are lots of women who have families and successful careers. Being an athlete, of course, adds a bit of a twist. A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about the equal pay issue. I'd found a quote from Svetlana Kuznetsova, saying in essence that it's not as easy for women to choose to have a career and a family. It's true. But it's not impossible. 
Did you know that Kim Clijsters won the U.S. Open after having a baby? She beat both Williams sisters to do this. Not exactly luck of the draw, you see. The last time a mother won a Grand Slam before that was in 1980. So it's definitely difficult. It's so hard that even Clijsters didn't think she could do it. At first, she announced her retirement from the sport to start her family.
So Azarenka deciding right away that she can do both is a big deal. It's not a slight to women who choose to put all their eggs in either a career or a family basket. Believe it or not, there's no right way to do this life thing. Azarenka's choice to have a baby and stay in the game requires boldness, confidence and thumbing her nose at convention. 
Welcome to the club, Vika. 

It's a Wimbledon wrap

The men's draw of Wimbledon didn't go anywhere near as expected. Probably not even for Andy Murray, who won the thing. You have to think that given the current form of Novak Djokovic, most of the top men probably think they'd be lucky to snag a Slam anytime soon. Still, it turned out well for fans that it didn't go as planned. We got to see Milos Raonic. I have to say, his game is starting to grow on me. I will concede that it's not fair to judge a book by its cover. But the Koozie? The too-perfect hair? It's been hard. Having said all of that, Raonic's game is coming along well. He followed his big serve beautifully for most of the tournament and executed with efficiency at the net. He is becoming a player who is more than his serve, and it's entertaining to watch. He should be able to do the same at the U.S. Open. Which young gun will follow him toward the top of the game?

Other things I had noticed:

1. I can just hear the Williams sisters now: Serena: "Man, we really should try to play a warmup tournament before the Olympics. That's pretty soon, you know." Venus: "Wimbledon, maybe?" As a warmup. For most, no. For them, they made it look pretty easy in winning the women's doubles title, a few hours after Serena won in singles. But where was Martina Hingis in all of this? She was nowhere to be found in any doubles final, having lost early in the women's draw (to eventual finalists Yaroslava Shvedova and Timea Babos). Bummer. 

b. NICOLAS MAHUT, Y'ALL! Look, that guy deserved a trophy at Wimbledon, and dang it, he finally did it in the men's doubles. Big ups to he and Pierre-Hugues Herbert for playing an entertaining final.

a1. Some people had some things to say about the idea that it's not generally a great idea to be a coach and do commentary on your player this weekend (ahemJohnMcEnroeandMilosRaonic). I've discussed this before regarding the way the women's game kicks that nonsense up a notch.

Gotta go play hooky from work to work on my volleys. Later! 

How to make history

Here is a picture of Serena Williams the first time she won a major tournament:

You can't possibly know, can you? You're 19, and you've spent your whole young life saying you want to win a Grand Slam, that you want to be No. 1, this and that. And you win one, and you still don't know what happens next. You still struggle against the likes of Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin,, your sister. And then before you know it, you've done everything you said you would when you were a kid. Your rivals fade and new ones crop up. You plateau and people question your commitment. You struggle with illness and injury. All along, you keep winning, although your consistency is not there. You leave your emotions on the court, which gets you in trouble sometimes. You keep winning, and it's not always pretty. People stop questioning your commitment and someone notes that you could make history. And you? You just keep doing what you're doing. To the casual observer, event to the most fervent fan, you are extraordinary. It's easy to overlook the path to history and remember the highlights. But if you're the one doing it, you're still just doing what you've always done -- you keep playing.
Here's a picture of Serena yesterday, after winning a record-tying 22nd Grand Slam at Wimbledon:

PHOTOS/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Top down! Gentleman's quarterfinals at Wimbledon

Yeah, we'll do that. But how about those ladies quarterfinals? There's still that thing we'll speak not of. But you know what I mean. We'll discuss that thing we'll speak not of on Friday. Or not.
So, without Novak Djokovic in the draw, there is some potential for some things to happen. Let's consider those things:

1. Sam Querrey could win Wimbledon. Yeah. If he can be Milos Raonic, yeah. They face off in the quarters tomorrow. The temptation is to pick the guy who beat Djokovic, but, Raonic came down from two sets down against David "Pocket Rocket" Goffin to advance in the previous round. There are things about Raonic that make me not want to take him seriously -- his hair, that Koozie -- but his game is starting to emerge as multidimensional, which makes me think that Kooz, er, Raonic, is more likely to win that match.
2. Roger Federer could win Wimbledon. He can! Right?! Right!?? Then why is everyone talking about Andy Murray? Oh, right. Because Murray's a Brit. But Federer could totally take down Marin Cilic and advance. Yes, Cilic has had some major success against Federer, but there's no one left in the draw who has won Wimbledon more than anyone else remaining in the draw. Now, we start pooling coach trophies (McEnroe, Becker, etc.) and then we can start catching up.
3. Tomas Berdych v. this French guy: named Lucas Pouille. Because I am not currently on the grounds at Wimbledon, I am not familiar with Pouille because I rely on American television. I probably blinked and missed the two-shot highlight of Pouille beating Juan Martin del Potro, who beat Stan Wawrinka. You maybe heard of some of one of those guys. He also beat Bernard Tomic, who has skills, despite, well, everything else. I guess I say all of that to say that this match right here could be fun.
4. Murray v. Jo-Willie Tsonga!: This has the feeling of a heavyweight fight. It's not Tsonga Murray will be fighting here. It's the expectations of his country (which he has overcome before) as they expect him to step up in Djokovic's stead. But Tsonga's playing well here so far. He played some gritty tennis against John Isner, who is perfectly willing to play on grass 23/7 (time for potty and nap) at Wimbledon, serving up ace after ace. Plus, he played six games to advance to the quarters, due to Kei Nishikori's injury. Advantage: Tsonga? I think maybe. Sorry, Britain!

A quarter for your Wimbledon thoughts?

Before we speak of the thing we should speak not of, let's address Dominika Cibulkova. If she should happen to end her career without one Slam title, that would be bad. If she were another foot taller, she might have at least one Slam title, because what she doesn't have in stature, she makes up for in stature. If her dust-up with Agz Radwanska doesn't tell you that, then nothing will. And if she weren't in the same half as the machine otherwise known as Serena Williams, I'd give her a real shot at the final at Wimbledon.
But she is. And watching Serena take on Svetlana Kuznetsova, you remember: "Oh, yeah, the girl with more Slams than just about anyone in history? Oh, yeah. Her." Kuznetsova is no slouch. And it's not like she played badly. It's just that Serena leveled her in the second set after a tight first set, as though she went on automatic or something.
You wouldn't say the same about Venus Williams. She's not the 'automatic' type. She's the winner/double-fault/winner/winner/bad backhand/winner type. But her flashes of awesome at Wimbledon so far are showing up at the right times, when she's down and out. For the oldest woman in the draw, she is showing some indications that she might be the very same Venus Williams who has won this thing once or twice before. Or five. Whichever.
Which brings us to the thing we should speak not of, because Venus and Serena are in different halves of the draw. Both of them are two matches from the final. Should they both make the final, it will be the oldest woman in the draw up against the woman trying to tie Steffi Graf's Grand Slam tournament win. But we're not going to talk about it, because it's too good to be true and the stuff they make bad tennis movies out of, so we'll look at the quarterfinals and just that for now:

Serena Williams v. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova: Serena.
Cibulkova v. Elena Vesnina: Another sneaky one, that Vesnina. She beat the other other sneaky one, Ekaterina Makarova in another seesaw three-setter. I think you have to give the edge to the person who took Radwanska out, because Radwanska was playing pretty well here, and looked ready for another final run. I don't know how with that serve, but there it is. Or was.
Simona Halep v. Angelique Kerber: I don't know how Kerber wins matches, nay Slams without weapons, but she does. Halep has weapons, but no Slams. No earthly idea how this one's going to go, but guessing it will be the best of the four matches of the day.
Venus v. Yaroslava Shvedova: I just think that doubles players on grass tend to be a nuisance for doubles players. Venus will probably take it, but it will take a while, as her matches here have.

Scenes from Heathrow Airport

Garbine Muguruza sulks through Heathrow Airport, head down. It feels as though everyone was staring at her. They're always staring. They stare at the airport. They stare at Wimbledon while she gets outgunned by some kid no one ever heard of. Why are they staring at her? Don't they have smartphones or something?
She approaches the desk. "I'd like the first flight out of here, please."
The kindly woman smiles and rolls her eyes. "Wouldn't we all?" she says, and chuckles.
Mugu looks back at her blankly.
"Oh, it's a Brexit thing -- you wouldn't understand," the airline ticket agent says. "Never mind. Well, anyway, the next flight out is booked."
"OK," Mugu says. "I normally don't like pulling this, but do you know who I am? I won the French Open last month."
"Oh, I do!" the woman says. "It's just that the flight is booked." She gestures with a little head tilt and Mugu looks behind her. An ocean of tennis players stare back. Everyone with the staring.
"Don't expect me to give up my flight out of here," Petra Kvitova says. She's sitting in a chair. Next to her, there's a tennis bag in the trash can. "I don't even know why I come to this place every year. It's always raining!"
"Probably because you win it," Genie Bouchard says. "Lemme ask you guys: Does Cibulkova play a full schedule or does she just go to Slams to screw with the seeded players?"
"Oh. Do not even get me started," Kvitova says. "I coulda told you when the draws came out that Makarova was gonna be a problem. But everyone's all like, "Upset, upset! Whatever."
"Boy, you women. Always whining, whining," Stan Wawrinka pipes in from the other set of seats.
"The heck are you doing here already?" says Mugu.
"I just think it's illegal to play on grass, and if you have to play on grass, then you can't be allowed to ace everywhere," Wawrinka answers, gesturing wildly with his hands. "It's outrageous. And all that crowing from del Potro about wrist injuries. Yeah, right!"
"Dude," says David Ferrer. "Seriously?" Everyone mumbles agreement and Wawrinka begins absently reading his tattoo.
Muguruza settles into the second row of chairs and they fall silent. For a second.
"You know what I don't get," Grigor Dmitrov says. "Every year, they play this tournament at the rainiest time of the year, and are always surprised when we have delays. And instead of pushing it back, they just make us play more without rest. What do they expect? Don't the Americans have a saying about people doing the same thing and expecting different results?"
"They do," Ferrer says. "But are you referring to the organizers putting it on or the players who come?"
The ticket agent clears her throat. "Kvitova? Kvitova?"
"Yeah," she answers.
"Sorry, I need to put you on the next flight."
"What?" She shoots up from her chair.
The ticket agent shrugs. "We have another priority customer." The man in front of her turns around. It's Novak Djokovic.
The whole section of tennis players recoil.
"I don't want to talk about it!" he shouts.
The agent interrupts again. "I'm sorry -- I just heard that the flight has been delayed due to weather."
"Of course," Djokovic mutters. "Of course."

Wimbledon: Taking the scenic route through early rounds

Surprisingly, Wimbledon has begun with just a touch of rain. At least there is a roof at Wimbledon, so there's a hope of the tournament ending sometime soon. Today, they're going to try to play 60 singles matches to get the schedule caught up. I'm sure I've said this before, but why do most major tournaments continue to hold their tournaments at exactly the worst times? Australia: Heat wave every year. French Open: Cold. No roof. Wimbledon: Rain. U.S. Open: Well, the U.S. Open is perfect and they have night matches.
But I digress. As the draw gets caught up, let's take a look at some of the matches we know are coming. There aren't many so far:

Novak Djokovic v. Sam Querrey: If this weren't Wimbledon, it'd be a whitewash. But the serve means a lot here, so Querrey should win about 4-6 games.

Roger Federer v. Daniel Evans: I only mention this because the Brits will be wont to do what they do every year, which is act like they have up-and-comers who are giant slayers. This Evans guy can't be bad, having beating Alexandr Dolgopolov, but I'm going to go ahead and give the tiny edge to the guy who's basically won Evan's age in slams.

Serena Williams v. Christina McHale: She's only played one round so far, but Serena's looking very no-nonsense so far.

Timea Bacsinszky v. Monica Niculescu: Still think this could be really interesting with the combating styles.

Petra Kvitova v. Ekaterina Makarova: Talk about interesting. I don't think this going to go well for Petra. Just not.

OK, fine, I'll say it.

I'm not normally one to hold on to irritation (and that's what this is), but this one really gets me. This tweet right here:

While it is good to do something useful with your time as you wait out an appeal process for a drug suspension from your sport, it is also a bit perplexing that Maria Sharapova is not sure how she got into Harvard Business School. Maybe it was the turn of phrase that caught my eye in reaction to this news. Did you know that most people who go to Harvard go through corporate sponsorship? Does this mean that her candy company, Sugarpova, is paying for this program? Or is Nike paying for this? Just curious.
The application process for this is normally four months. Did Sharapova have to wait that long? Just curious.
Harvard Business School's website says it looks to pick high potential global leaders (check) and it has a pretty lengthy and detailed drug policy (push).
Look, I'll be honest. It really irritates me that you can be banned from your sport for breaking the rules -- for cheating -- and have your major endorsers fall over backward to keep supporting you. It's definitely true that Sharapova was ordered to up her meldonium dosage before matches and practice, which sort of flies in the face of this being some type of heart medication, or flu medication, or whatever she's claiming. Yeah, she's a very smart businesswoman, and in that sense, this is a good fit, but unless I'm missing something, she's been banned from her sport for being a drug cheat. Aaaand she just got into Harvard Business School.
Just curious about that is all.

Up to (Wimbledon) code?

One of my favorite pre-Wimbledon story so far has been the Nike dress recall. In case you've missed this one, the "dress" was approved by the All-England Club, but not approved by players, who apparently found it very difficult to play tennis while almost naked.

Nike has asked those wearing the dress to bring it by the shop for alterations. "Whoops, we forgot half your dress!"
It's surprising that so many players wore the dress as-was to begin with, but some made adjustments, though. One player used a headband as a belt to keep the dress from flying up and showing off the ol' underoos. Another player had to WEAR A PAIR OF PANTS UNDER THIS DRESS.

So what that this dress subjects match spectators to a player's rear end for an hour or so per match? At least there's no lavender in it.

Brexit, er, Breakfast, at Wimbledon: The Gentlemen

OK, so I am angst-ing so hard over this men's draw. The beginning stages involve some legit popcorn tennis, and I need to come up with some type of illness that can keep me out of work. Zika? Brex-regret? I don't know yet. I'll accept any ideas on that front.
We're gonna switch up the format a bit and just go into the matches to watch. For once, they are more important than what I think. (Just this one time. Don't go getting ideas.)

As you can see, I had some trouble filling this out, which has, like, never happened to me before. I thought I'd have some clarity after a good night's sleep, but nope. Not at all. (Wait until you see the bottom half.)
Jack Sock v. Ernests Gulbis: See what I mean? Some of these wouldn't be so difficult to call if it weren't Wimbledon. Here we have two solid servers with big ground games, and a resurgent but typically salty Gulbis, speaking his mind and playing well. The thing is that whoever wins this match can ride that pretty far, until they get to Milos Raonic. So yeah, no idea still.
Gael Monfils v. Jeremy Chardy: I went with Monfils here, but I think it'll be an interesting tussle. Monfils is coming back off an injury, and he doesn't normally do well here, so ...
Gilles Simon v. Janko Tipsaarevic: Simon, but this is fitting to be another grinder.
Borna Coric v. Ivo Karlovic: Again, this is almost impossible to pick because it's grass. If Karlovic wins this match, he has the potential to end up in the quarterfinals, just on his serve alone. Although Coric hasn't had the Grand Slam results yet, he shows a megaton of promise. If he gets out of this one, it could give him a chance to really make some noise at a major. Again, no idea here.

Bottom half:

OK, I know what you're thinking. "Geez, Naf, this isn't rocket science, or even picking an outfit for work. Pull it together and pick something!" So here's the thing. Let's say Alexander Zverev advances as he should, and Tomas Berdych advances as he should? Who wins that third-round match? Whoever wins that match has to play Dominic Thiem in the fourth round. Who wins that?
Now that I'm looking at this in the morning, that's actually the biggest toss-up in the half. Sure, Stan Wawrinka can beat Fernando Verdasco and probably Thiem, Berdych or Zverev.
As far as Andy Murray goes, he could have his hands full with the likes of Nick Kyrgios, assuming he can get past Radek Stepanek in the first round. That's going to be hard. Murray's path to the semifinals is more complicated than Wawrinka's. Richard Gasquet's a problem. John Isner on grass is a problem. Either newlywed Fabio Fognini or Feliciano Lopez is a problem. Very complicated.
So what cream will rise to the top at this tournament? In the top half, you can't overlook Roger Federer. The only real question mark is the back problem. It caused him to pull out of a tournament last month. You might have heard of it -- the French Open? That's a big deal and so if he's still struggling, can he overcome Kei Nishikori in his quarter, or Novak Djokovic or Raonic in his half? And speaking of Raonic, he of the Koozi arm, I think he's a lot more dangerous now than he was before he started listening to John McEnroe. That's straight trouble with a capital 'T.'
I'm sitting here trying to press myself into committing into a Final Four. I can't. I've decided to call in with a low-grade fever and just enjoy the tournament. Also, these half-draws will probably be my most successful ever.

Brexit, er, Breakfast at Wimbledon: Ladies preview

Here is the harsh reality as Wimbledon approaches in the wake of a vote in Britain that basically affected the entire world: Reporters will ask tennis players about it and they will try, but fail, to answer intelligently. BREAKING: Most of them do not live in Britain, and even those who do are still just tennis players. Then sound bites will emerge that make them look stupid. This is unfair, and very mean, even too mean for the executive board of directors here at Tennis With Attitude. So let's not.
Instead, let's have a look at this women's draw. It's sort of interesting. (Not as interesting as the men's draw, but we will get to that.)

Despite her recent late-stage stumbles, Serena Williams is still obviously the favorite at Wimbledon. If she's of sound mind and body, there's not much in her half of the draw that could bother her. Maybe Agz Radwanska. Maybe Petra Kvitova, but she's not exactly brimming with confidence lately. The bottom half could get crazy. There's Simona Halep, new Grand Slam champ Garbine Muguruza, Angelique Kerber, Venus Williams, and Madison Keys, who is starting to look like the real deal. Annnd Sabine Lisicki, who came to Wimbledon a couple years back and almost won the thing. She hasn't done much since, but still, it's Wimbledon. As my draw indicates, I can definitely see Keys and Muguruza advancing the farthest, and I'd give Muguruza the edge if that did happen.

Some intriguing opening-round matches:
Daniela Hantuchova v. Christina McHale: Because Hantuchova still plays tennis?!!
Caroline Wozniacki v. Svetlana Kuznetsova: This is a first-round matchup that is utterly unfair. This should be a very good match, even though Woz is coming back from injury. I picked Kuznetsova, but this is a toss-up. No idea how this one's gonna go.
Alison Riske v. Roberta Vinci: It'll be fun to watch dueling game styles in this one. Thinkin' Gramma Serena-slayer will just drive Riske crazy with all the slices on grass.
Belinda Bencic v. Tsvetana Pironkova: I spelled that one out myself -- no cut-and-paste here. How ya like me now!?? So basically, Pironkova actually plays tennis all year round, but truly thrives when given the opportunity to torment Venus Williams at Wimbledon. She also did nicely this year at Roland Garros. I bet on Bencic, but this will be tricky match, methinks.
Victoria Duval v. Daria Kasatkina: Because it's just nice to have Duval back after her health issues. She's so cute, like little chipmunk!
Lucie Safarova v. Bethanie Mattek-Sands: Another really unfair draw for the players involved. Since they play doubles together, they probably are a bit familiar with each other's game. Great for fans, not so good for these guys.

The prediction I made that I am most doubtful about:
Monica Niculescu v. Timea Bacsinszky: I still kinda think that Niculescu's slice could give lots of trouble on grass. And Timea's kind of a big girl -- can she handle that reallllly low ball. Oh, the angst!

Serena + history + opponents + time =

Another French Open, another major that concludes with Serena Williams holding flatware. (Did anyone see the way she was waving that second-place plate, like she was asking around her house about who wanted seconds?)
Many reasons have been offered up for reasons Serena has yet to snatch that 22nd Slam title, tying her all-time with Steffi Graf. Among them: Drake, Roberta Vinci, hidden injuries, the shoes, the hair, et al. In my most desperate times, I attend the school of thought that many others are trending toward: nerves. The older she gets, she might be thinking, the fewer chances she'll have, right?
In fact, I believe there is another reason Serena Williams isn't getting over the hump these days -- because winning majors is hard? Crazy thought, but stay with me.
There aren't a lot of women who have won as many Slams as Serena does right now. There are two who have won more than her: Margaret Court and Graf. Court has 24, and didn't win a major between 1966 and 1968, because she had retired. When she came back, she lost in a Wimbledon final in 1969 WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT, had her baby, and then won all four slams the next calendar year. Then she didn't win any majors between early 1971 and 1972. In 1973, she won three of the four majors.
Graf won the Golden Slam in 1988 and after she won the Australian Open in 1990, she didn't win another major until Wimbledon in 1991. After she won the U.S. Open in 1996, she didn't even advance to a semifinal in a major in the following year -- she took time off to have knee surgery, But in 1999, she won the French Open, her last slam.
And then there's Serena Williams, who is stuck at 21 majors and everyone is naturally losing their minds. There is one thing about Serena's quest that makes it more difficult than what Graf and Court did. She'll be 35 in September. Graf was done with tennis when she was 30. Court was 33, although her Slam-snagging was over at 31.
I guess what I'm saying is that everyone needs to settle down about Serena Williams.