The Sharapova announcement was not about candy.

The last thing I did last night was watch Maria Sharapova's press conference. Of course, by then, I knew the gist -- that she had failed a drug test in Australia -- but I wanted to see what she had to say and how she said it. I forgot my pen and pad to take notes, so instead I sent myself emails with the questions I had in the subject line. Here they are:

12:57 a.m.: Remember to compare effects of Sharap drug to steroids
Looks like a few people have considered this one already. Duh. Based on what I've read so far, it looks like mildronate is taken by athletes to increase blood flow, which gives you the ability to work out more, gives you endurance. According to online medical guru WebMD:
Anabolic steroids are used to build up muscle. Corticosteroids are used to dampen overactive immune responses and reduce swelling.

1:04 a.m.: What are today's athletes on anyway?
There are a certified megaton of various vitamins and supplements out there, and sure, it makes sense that athletes have doctors who keep them informed about anything that could give them an edge. If it was so hard for Sharapova to realize a drug she was taking had been banned, was it because she takes so many meds that it was hard to keep track? Are the bodies of all modern athletes manufactured somehow?

1:05 a.m.: Why does Sharapova get special drugs for flu and I don't?
I suppose this one could have been bitterness talking. In the presser, Sharapova said her family doctor prescribed mildronate because she was getting sick a lot, and because of a family history of diabetes. I've read a few descriptions and listings for this drug so far, and I haven't seen anything about beating back the flu or diabetes with it. You can buy it online, although it isn't approved by the USDA. (Which is a little surprising to me. Have you seen the drug commercials on American television? The stuff they give you for minor maladies can have side effects such as depression and sleep deprivation. So this mildronate stuff must be pretty bad. Or no one here has figured out how to make money on it yet.) One listing someone tweeted yesterday actually suggests a dosage for athletes.

Some people, including Sharapova, have cast this as an innocent mistake -- she failed to look at the updated list of banned drugs, and so, apparently, did her highly paid training team. I buy that because it doesn't seem to me that you would continue to take a banned substance with no fear of a failed test. What I don't buy is that this is some supplement that she took to ward off illness. She took it to get an edge. On its face, that sounds really bad, and it is.
But again, are all our athletes manufactured now?

No, those shoes don't match the pants. Goodbye, Bud.

I don't remember which major it was, but it had to have been the first I watched as a tennis fan. During a break, this guy whose outfit hurt my eyes was introduced as a commentator. I'm thinking: "OK, what could this weirdo have to say?" Then he opened his mouth and fluent tennis knowledge came out of it. Humor and a love of the game came out of it.
When someone such as Bud Collins becomes an ambassador for a game like tennis, it might be difficult for the longtime fan to understand the effect. Tennis is not baseball or football. Everyone does not love tennis. When new tennis fans come along and turn on the TV and Collins waxes about tennis history in an accessible and non-snobby way that even I can understand, that's important to growing the game.
Collins died on Friday and of course, those who worked with him paid tribute. Having only watched him on television, I have no personal memories like that. I'm only grateful that when I was starting to watch the game, I had Collins to tell me why Martina Hingis' next major victory would be historic, or whether the Sisters Sledgehammer (otherwise known as Venus and Serena Williams) had potential to make and break records.
In reading Collins' obit, it would seem his passion for the game actually cost him broadcasting duties at NBC back in the day. He lost the play-by-play job for "Breakfast at Wimbledon" because he was "overwhelming," according to the executive producer back in 1983. That guy said he thought less was more. Some people would have taken that as a sign to rein in the passion a little bit, to wear more beige and white, to please his bosses.
Collins? Well, Collins remained Collins, and became an ambassador for the game to millions of fans.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Ugh ugh ugh

So this tournament has been interesting so far, and it's only been three days. You know what this tournament makes me feel like I'm watching? The Blair Witch Project. Every time I go to sleep, I wake up and one of the top seeds has disappeared. Who's next? Only the Melbourne Devil knows.
There's still plenty of tournament left, but let's go over some of the highlights so far:

1. This match-fixing scandal: I forgot the air quotes. Listen, I'ma need some names here. Not just for the sake of salaciousness, but we've been here before, haven't we? Back when everyone made a stink about Nicolai Davydenko and his alleged part in odd betting patterns in tennis? Remember what that turned up? Nothing. I want to take this seriously, but when the Daily News can't even keep track of their Grand Slam champs, (THERE'S A MAJOR IN YOUR BACK YARD EVERY YEAR!!), you just wonder if we'll ever get to the hard facts. OR MAYBE CAROLINE WOZNIACKI IS THE GUILTY ONE!

2. I can't decide whether it's better for the person who loses a match to come sulking into a press conference and mumbling one-word answers or to be rude and skip it altogether. What's Venus hiding? MAYBE VENUS WILLIAMS IS THE GUILTY ONE!

3. With all the crazy upsets going on right now, it could be time for Gael Monfils to finally make some real noise at a Grand Slam. I watched him beat Nicolas Mahut, and he's looking pretty relaxed. But can he stay that way in later rounds?

4. OK, if you're reading this, you have some type of computer advice. So watch the doubles! Or watch Victoria Azarenka beat up on some poor soul.

Aussie preview: The women

Lots of symbols on this draw. A legend:

star: match to watch. 

?: Why does Dominika Cibulkova always knock off a couple seeds in every Slam, but is never seeded herself?

* next to Venus' name: Dude, it depends.

?: Something tells me that any match Alize Cornet is in will take roughly six hours and she'll yell at the umpire. I guess that's not a question.

Overall, Serena Williams obviously is the dominant player on the WTA Tour. Yeah, that U.S. Open thing. It was a fluke. Not to say she'll never lose another major tournament, but it sure seems to me that any real challenge to her path to another title in Australia is on the bottom half of the draw. If Serena doesn't win the title, I predict she'll lose it to either Victoria Azarenka or Garbine Muguruza. Later!

Aussie preview: The men

I gotta go watch tennis! But first, my draw, for posterity, and some thoughts:

1. Baghdatis v. Tsonga: At least it will be entertaining.
2. If -- BIG IF -- Nadal gets past Verdasco, he could play himself into form. He seems to be at the place right now where he's beating the guys he's supposed to beat, but withering at the feet of the Big Four.
3. Yes, I know that you think I spelled "Djokovic" wrong in the semi slot. I'm living on the edge!

Some early thoughts on the AO draw

I will be releasing my singles draws to the public as per usual sometime this weekend. Here are some points to ponder in the meantime:

1. Hoo boy does Rafa really need some of that injury pox to hit his chunk of the draw. I mean damn: "Hot Truth" Verdasco in round one, with names such as Jeremy Chardy and Gael Monfils lurking in the nearer future and Stan Wawrinka beyond that? I believe in Nadal, but I don't know man ...
2. I did not realize Dmitry Tursunov was still playing tennis.
3. Gilles Simon v. Vasek Pospisil is going to be too good a match for round one.
4. Genie Bouchard is apparently playing really well right now, and draws Agz Radwanska in the second round if they both advance. Good luck with that.
5. Oh, lord: Alize Cornet v. Simona Halep in round two. *trying to come up with the mystery illness that will keep me home from work on this day*
6. At an early glance, it sure looks good for Victoria Azarenka to advance to the semis. Lemme check with my sources.
7. Prediction: Injury is going to be the third man for this tournament, which really sucks. Hell-like temperatures will likely be the fourth. Would it kill the powers that be to push this tournament back?

Ready for the 2016 season? No? Too bad.

Yes, of course as a tennis fan, having the new season start roughly fifteen minutes after the last season is great. Look, it's the first week of January and Simona Halep and Victoria Azarenka are going to face off at the Brisbane tournament in Melbourne. Sounds good to me!

However, if I'm honest, I'd rather see that matchup at the year-end championships in November as the culmination of a competitive season. You know, when it means something.
I've never understood this insistence that the Australian Open has to start in mid-January. It's about 1,000 degrees in Australia at this time and players drop like flies. Every. Year. So combine that with about 1.5 months to recover from the previous season and you're asking for trouble.
What kind of trouble? The kind of trouble when you think you're gonna watch Serena Williams play Hopman Cup, but she's injured. The kind where you get all geeked up about watching Halep and Azarenka play and Halep gets injured. When Maria Sharapova doesn't even make it onto the court. Even if this is athletes playing lame to get more rest time, and I don't think it is (check out Pam Shriver's Twitter feed for video of Serena trying to serve today), it points to a larger issue.
This might sound like a player problem, but I'm completely selfish here. If quality suffers, fans get to become fans of cribbage.
What? It could happen.

Serena Williams: Apparently three out of four is pretty bad

This week, Serena Williams was named Sportsperson of the Year by Sports Illustrated like the boss that she is. Which is utter nonsense, of course.
Some horse enthusiasts are a bit perturbed about SI's announcement. Apparently, some horse named American Pharaoh won some horse races (man, I hope he doesn't blow all that money on apples), and that's more impressive than Serena winning three majors. She did this playing some of her worse tennis on her least-favorite surface while ill (French Open), against some inspired opponents (Heather Watson, Venus Williams) and against opponents who were sometimes at least a decade younger than her (Garbine Muguruza, who arguably has shown the most potential to next dominate the women's game is 22.)
So I don't know anything about what this horse has done, but I think that horses should be disqualified from winning Sportsperson for the year for a couple reasons. I'd like to outline them here:
a. A horse is an animal, not a person. And I don't think this one even talks, like Mr. Ed.
b. You know what would happen to Serena Williams if she broke her leg? Some doctor puts her leg in a cast, she doesn't play for six months, and knowing Serena Williams, she'd come back and win another Slam or four. You know what would happen to American Pharaoh if he broke his leg? Yep, you guessed it -- the shotgun.
So I'm good with the human winning the award.

LEAGUE WATCH: Serving up disappointment

Mercifully, the fall season is over for our women's team. The mission was simple if we wanted to keep it going: Beat the other team in our division more than once. We came up a bit short, and my mid-match flake-outs are a big reason why in my book. You can't just play tennis once a week, and have that match be your competitive match. Well, at least I can't do that.
In the meantime, I've had the opportunity to work on my game with a group that picks up doubles matches four days a week. For the most part, I've been able to knock off a good chunk of the rust, but there's still a part of my game that's bothering me, and that's the serve. I think -- I think -- I have all the ingredients of a good serve, but very rarely do they all come together to create the booming serve I want. I'm not a big person, but if Justine Henin showed me anything, it's that if you have a good serve technique and you're four feet tall, you can have a strong serve. That's all I want, but I can't pinpoint what the problem is. My husband thinks I'm tucking my arm in and not getting off the ground enough, but I think the bigger problem is the toss and that it might be too low.
So I had a thought. I would record my serve practice and post it so you guys could help me! I had this thought about three weeks ago, and that's about the time it took to actually find a simple way to edit this short video. This is probably because I am not as technologically advanced as I had led myself to believe. As a result, this post is the fruit of about three weeks' labor, so enjoy it and feel free to offer any tips! If you do, you get a free subscription to Tennis With Attitude!

LEAGUE WATCH: Actually, don't watch.

It's a tennis player's dream to move to a place where the weather allows you to play as often as you can. You think: "What could be better? I can play all day!"

So one of the first things I did in Florida was to join a USTA mixed doubles team, and I was underwhelmed by the competition. The 8.0 matches felt like Allegheny 7.0-level skill, so naturally I wasn't very worried about anyone. But you know who else is underwhelming? Me.

I joined the women's 7.5 fall team and thought once again that it should be a cakewalk. These players have nothing I've never seen before, right? You should try telling that to my game, because all of a sudden, league tennis is like uncharted waters.

Take my last match. Now back in the day, I was used to playing my way into form during a match and improving as I went along. I'd shank balls all over the place in the first set and if I was playing with a new partner, I'd just tell them to give me a minute. Lately, though, I've been stuck in first gear.

Last night, while I laid awake thinking about how I should have gotten into lacrosse as a child, it occurred to me what the problem is. I've lost my swagger. See, back in the day, I had more swagger than game. I'd walk up to the service line late in a set and get real focused. The other night, I walked up to serve at 4-5 in the second set and I was so nervous that I briefly considered just throwing down the racquet and having a good Zvonareva-esque cry on the baseline. It was really that serious -- I just could not deal.

My game's not perfect, but I used to feel like I knew it and could trust it. I would get into a weird place during matches where I would rely heavily on instinct and the game just flowed for me. I never got rattled at losing the first set because I always thought I'd get stronger. Even after a loss in the old days, I always felt like I at least finished the match stronger than I had started. Now everything feels forced. I'm never fully relaxed anymore. I'm thinking about the mechanics of almost every shot I hit, especially the weaker shots in my game. I want my swagger back.

Probably the only way to get it back is to play a lot. That's much easier said than done, especially when you have to hand off 45-plus hours to the man every week. Maybe my game just needs to get adjusted to a different climate? Or my brain does? I have no idea. All I know is that I'm tired of playing poorly and I want to stop. Like I've always said, tennis is 99.4503827 percent mental, so whatever is happening concerns the hamster cage in my head. I mean, I can hit a thousand forehands in practice, but what's the point if I can't make myself hit them with authority while under pressure?

If you have any ideas about getting my head on straight again, I'm not too proud to beg. I'll take 'em. But make it quick, because I have another league match this week. #gulp

Vacation musings

Been very busy lately. The last week and change has been full of a daily regimen of laying at a beach, or a pool, or taking in island views. But something weird still ended up in my luggage for vacation:

And there have been some pro developments worth noting between my light afternoon hit and the hot tub. I know, rubbing this in is not classy at all. Which reminds me of my massage at noon:

1. I haven't seen the Rafael Nadal/Novak Djokovic China Open final yet, but I have seen the scoreline -- 6-2, 6-2. Yowsuh. Because of his recent struggles, Rafael Nadal is the subject of much speculation. Does he still have it? Can he still compete with the best? Is it finally time to consider a haircut? But his response to these trouncings he's getting from Djokovic will be interesting to see. It's not the first time Nadal has found himself struggling in a rivalry. For a couple years, he came up short to Roger Federer at Wimbledon especially, and he tweaked his game to change that. He might have to do a bit more than tweak in this situation, because Djokovic seems to be getting better and better. He is a fluke French Open loss away from holding all the Grand Slam cards for 2015. Of course, in the middle of a year, that's not an accomplishment that can be fully realized, but here we are. So what can Nadal do to reverse this? Let's ask Djokovic:

"I knew that he's going to make mistakes and he's going to give me shorter balls so I can dominate the rallies, which happened."

That from his post-match press conference, according to tennis writer Carole Bouchard. So can Nadal flatten out his shots? Is he going to man up that serve at all?

Oh, sorry. I was just asking the questions. I don't have the answer.

2. Serena Williams decided to shut it down for the year and everybody lost their mind. Me? It's like, "meh." Frankly, this nonsense about her being engaged to Drake is a bit more unsettling. I mean, he was on Degrassi, guys. Does this bother anyone else but me?!

3. However, whatever happened to all this talk of a shorter calendar for ATP and WTA tournaments? Is pushing back the Australian Open by a couple weeks supposed to make everything better? I just realized that even though it's October and there are still seven tournaments left, not including Shanghai, which starts this week. With Serena out of the WTA year-ending event, and other good players (Victoria Azarenka, Maria Sharapova, Garbine Mugaruza) pulling up lame, here's another question: Who wants to see a year-ending tournament without the players who made the regular season interesting?

I think I got this answer: No one, that's who.

To Roger and Serena, with "love"

Hey, guys:

Just wanted to say congrats to both of you on a great U.S. Open! Roger, your form was incredible throughout the tournament. If you think that tennis is waning in viewership and popularity, you should know that at least four people I've played against this week have tried the SABR return approach. No, none of them have done it with a 90 square inch racquet or against a serve over 50 mph. And Serena, coming into this tournament, you held all four majors at one time. Actually, of all the majors this year, your form looked the best here.

Alas, neither of you won the tournament, and that's led to you being a victim of your own success. The second the match was over, you both faced some tough questions that you shouldn't face because you are basically legendary. But you know how they say 'Love means nothing in tennis?' 

Anyway, I thought I'd offer you a few stock responses to commonly heard comments after your losses. Free of charge. Don't worry, it's no trouble at all. We'll start with Serena, because she's losing patience:

Question: "You don't seem happy." No, that's not a question. Variations of this theme: "Why did you leave so quickly after losing in the semifinals?" or "You're not saying much," or "Let's discuss how bad you feel about losing." This is unlikely, but in the event that someone actually gets to the root of these questions and finally says straight out: "Women aren't allowed to brood. How about you buck up and do a twirl for us?"

Your answer, should you choose to accept it: "I know you guys watch tennis for fun, but it's my career. I work at it, 40 plus hours a week, even when I don't want to. When you work that hard, you expect to be successful, and if you're not, it's not a great feeling. Maybe you take it better than I do when you fail at something. Sorry I'm not smiling. It doesn't mean I don't respect my opponent. I'm kinda pissed is all."

Question for Roger? Sadly, yes.

Question: So you lost again. Are you going to retire?

Your answer: Sure. I'm thinking about it. Let's face it -- I'm old. I made the final of the U.S. Open, and am one of the best players of my generation -- and of the game. I just beat the world no. 1 in a tournament a few weeks back, but what does that really mean? I'm not gonna lie -- I miss winning the titles, and clearly that's never going to happen for me again. I mean, I just don't have what it takes anymore. I was thinking of playing the Old Man Tennis Tour that Jim Courier's got going on. Why grind it out with Djokovic and Andy Murray when I can whup up on Pat Cash? It's working for Andy Roddick and Mark Phillippoussis. That doesn't look lopsided at all. So it's decided then? Let me just knock out this Davis Cup obligation, and I'll see you guys next year in Salt Lake City in the first PowerShares tournament!

So ... about yesterday.

Just your average run-of-the-mill matches Friday at the U.S. Open. Couple thoughts on them:

1. OK, I expected an upset with Flavia Pennetta and Simona Halep, but geez. Halep said in her press conference she felt out of gas by the time she got to Pennetta, but she kinda looked out of gas against Sabine Lisicki. And she was lucky to get out the Victorial Azarenka tussle. You could say she had a tough draw. You could also say that if you're the No. 2 player in the world, you and your body has to be ready for that tough draw. Of course, Pennetta also took out the in-form Petra Kvitova in the quarters. Who knows. Strange things have happened at this tournament. Very strange things.

2. For example Novak Djokovic barely broke a sweat against defending champ Marin Cilic. Djokovic is like a buzz saw right now. Cilic didn't exactly luck out to get this far, but you know what they say. Sometimes, you take the bull by the horns, and sometimes the bull takes you by somewhere else. The other thing they also say is that Djokovic was destined for a dream final to face 

3. Roger Federer. If any match on Friday's docket seemed destined to go five sets, it was Federer's match against Stan Wawrinka. But Roger's really popular these days, and you don't just leave Bradley Cooper waiting backstage. Seriously, Federer looks vintage right now. When you come to a major talking about trick moves you're working on, and then bust that move out in the third game against a quality opponent in the semis, well, then. I will make one prediction about Sunday's final. You're not gonna see any SABR attacks. It's not about fun anymore. 

Well, that's all I got. Happy finals weekend, guys!

Kidding. Of course.

4. If you've played tennis long enough, what happened to Serena Williams yesterday in her semifinal loss to Roberta Vinci has happened to you, too, and your stakes were likely nowhere near as high. Serena had never lost a set to Vinci before Friday. At no point on any surface had Vinci gotten closer than four games in a set. Vinci doesn't have a SABR move -- she was just playing her game. (Although am I wrong in thinking she actually looks more fit than in recent years?) That game usually isn't a problem for Serena. But as I said, and as many others noted, there's one person who's going to prevent Serena from making history, and it sure as hell wasn't Roberta Vinci. And if anything weird was going to happen, it was going to happen in the place where she may or may not have threatened to assault a linesperson, the place where an ill-timed yell led to her getting derailed against Sam Stosur, the place where the blind umpire began overruling calls against Serena. Watching her begin to play not to lose is a familiar feeling for many of us, but it's unfortunate for her that it happened so close to the finish line. But we are talking about a woman who still at this moment is holding four major tournament titles at once. Limited time only, but you see the point. 

If you've played long enough, what happened to Roberta Vinci yesterday has also happened to you. You've been across the net from someone with much better tools, and many more accomplishments than you. You assess your skills.
Power? Nope.
Speed? Ahh ... nope.
Familiarity with the stage and situation? Oh, wait, ... no, no exactly, unless my girl Sara Errani's nearby.
But Vinci took her tools and went to work, and stayed on task while Serena was over there yelling "Yes, bitch!" (??!?) It is the mark of the underdog and that is what's great about sports. You know what's more likely to happen -- this is where you get rankings -- but no matter your reputation, you still have to go out there at get it. Today's women's final is merely a testament to the ones who went out there and got it.
It is also true-life anecdotal evidence about why you don't buy your tickets for the women's final in mid-August. 

Friday picks

I still can't decide if it's OK for us to actually live life normally on any Sept. 11. Every time I see things occurring on that date, it seems weird. I don't think anyone who was really around during that time will actually ever forget the lives lost or the general panic we felt on that day and the days that followed. The fact is, though, that we are still here and life still goes on, even under a different pall. Babies are born on Sept. 11. Others go to work on Sept. 11. People do good things for other people on Sept. 11. And, I guess, we play and watch tennis because life goes on, even if your heart is a bit more heavy today. Peace to all the survivors and families of victims today.
It is really going to be difficult to segue into tennis now, but awkwardly, that is what I will do, but it will be quick and painless.
Because I think at least one of these matches will be very short. It is really hard to see Roberta Vinci mounting much of a challenge to Serena Williams, who hopefully finally got some sleep. (Shout out to the tennis that Venus Williams has been playing lately. She still overpulls the trigger at key points, sacrificing her form in the process, but man, was she spanking that ball on Tuesday.) But Simona Halep against Flavia Pennetta could get interesting. Like, upset interesting.
The men? Yes, it is perfectly fine to salivate at the thought of a Novak Djokovic/Roger Federer final. But this won't be easy for either guy. Stan Wawrinka is looking pretty strong this tournament and Marin Cilic has already won it, so there is that small detail. Welp, better get going so I can reserve my spot on the couch ... for the mixed doubles final! Hingis/Paes v. Mattek-Sands/Querrey. Any other questions?

I got some things to say.

I never thought I'd be a person who was happy with a rain out during a Slam, but dammit, there's too much good tennis going on! How are you supposed to watch it, write about it and hopefully play a little bit yourself, along with other, more minor concerns, such as work and family obligations? So let's take a breath and catch up on what's happened in the last couple days, and look at what's on deck as long as there are no more monsoons in New York ... in another post.
But first, it's not often that tennis collides with Big World Issues, but it did this week when James Blake, a Harvard grad and a pretty decent tennis player in his time, was tackled by police while he was standing outside his hotel. There are a couple of things about this incident I would like to discuss:
1. "Whoa," you might have been thinking when you first heard this. "That other guy must have done something really bad to get straight-up tackled on the street." If James Blake had been the guy the police were looking for, he would have been guilty of buying shoes with a stolen credit card. Which is a crime, yes, but it doesn't sound like there's a weapon involved ... so why are you showing physical force on a guy just standing there? Well, having grown up in New York, I have a theory. If you grew up in New York when I did, there are names you know, such as Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo (look them up). The NYPD has a reputation for going a bit overboard and honestly, it's a good thing this didn't get worse. The record shows that it definitely could have.
2.  I really like how everyone's crediting Blake for handling this situation so well. Gah -- the sarcasm font doesn't work very well on this keyboard. He said what he had to say. Some people are saying he didn't say enough. He really didn't have to say anything, but he did, and he really needed to. He was direct and honest and then he was done with it. But all of this "handling this with grace" or "not doing enough" talk is putting the onus on the victim, as though if he had gone on a Twitter rant about it, he wouldn't have been justified. James Blake handled this the way you would expect James Blake to handle this, and he didn't take leave of himself or his values to do that. Now, if this had happened to Lleyton Hewitt or Nick Kyrgios, well, let's just say you would have had a different pony show.
3. This wasn't necessarily a race thing for me because I think the police would have sadly done this to anybody. But how about this nonsense? I mean, really? Putting the other suspect's picture out there is just saying in effect, "Come on, look how much alike they are! You would have done it, too!" But here's the two-headed kicker: (a) they really don't look that much alike. Both are darker skinned and are smiling ... (b) the guy on the right is also not the right guy. Finally, though Blake got an apology from police commissioner William Bratton. But that even brings up another question:
4. Here's a scary thought: We heard about this one because Blake is kind of a big deal. How often does this happen? And are you OK with that happening to every SUSPECT in a crime? Do they get public apologies? Private apologies?

Draw demolition derby

It's the editor in me. I can't help pointing out the (multiple and numerous) errors, even in my own draw.
But who cares? This tournament has been insane in the best ways. Even in a match I could barely bring myself to care about offers up a woman doing a between-the-legs shot that worked! (Yes, I stayed up until 1 a.m. to watch a match I did not care about. smh)
Anyway, a look at some of the highlights of what's coming up today -- dare I say right now:
Victoria Azarenka v. Vavara Lepchenko: I think we all know that the player who has the best chance to beat Serena here is Azarenka. She also keeps it classy at all times when "consulting" with umpires. I don't want to say Lepchenko has no chance at all, so I won't say anything else.
Stan Wawrinka v. Donald Young: In some ways, Stan is a much different player than he was when Young managed to beat him in 2011. He's got majors and he's beaten the best in the world on the big stages. He also seems to think this improved play gives him license to wear some truly horrible clothing throughout the year. In other ways, he's not so different (Wimbledon 2015, where he just kinda went 'meh' in the quarters against Richard Gasquet and let him back in the match). Young is also playing some inspired tennis right now. He hasn't done it yet against the elite. Gilles Simon is a pretty good win, but it doesn't spell an upset here. I'm going with Stan.
John Isner v. Roger Federer: I haven't seen a Federer match yet, but have heard so much about this SABR attack. I like how Roger is now just trying to keep himself amused by coming up with new tactics, just for kicks. Roger, sneak attack or no.
Sabine Lisicki v. Simona Halep: Halep, although she hasn't had a real solid Grand Slam year, and she is susceptible to an upset. Oh did anyone by chance see her mixed dubs match last night, when he ripped a forehand past Nenad Zimonjic for match point. That's very boss-like. Very boss-like indeed.
Tomas Berdych v. Gasquet: I don't know, but nobody bother me while this match is on.

What's in an underdog?

Before we talk about Fabio Fognini, Petra Cetkovska and Bethanie Mattek-Sands -- NIGHT TENNIS AT THE OPEN, Y'ALL! It is, hands-down, the best part of any Slam. You've got general rowdiness, dancing fans, alcohol, two opponents slugging away under the lights and celebrities all happening at the same time in the same place and if the tennis is good, this is all happening usually waaaay after midnight. For the people who think that tennis is boring and has no personality, you can step off.
Segue: HolyhellRafaNadalandFabioFognini! That was just a ridiculous display of tennis. There are far too many highlights to rehash, but two quick things:
1. Everyone's going to say that this is the proof that Nadal is over. Yeah, maybe he took his foot off the pedal just a bit when he was up in the third -- maybe thinking he'd conserve his energies for the next match. But he really was playing great tennis throughout the night. He was fast, his groundstrokes were imposing and accurate, his defensive and offensive game was on fleek, and plus his ass looked great in those shorts. Maybe on another day, with another opponent, that match would have been one-sided. So he's still got game. But
2. This guy. Fognini has a bit of a reputation for sometimes not putting forth his best effort at all times. He also has a reputation for being a hothead, so maybe it was the night atmosphere that fueled him. Because there he was, playing against one of the best in the world, smacking winners all over the place, and he almost never looked off-balance in doing this. Maybe Nadal needs to flatten out his ball a bit, or maybe Fognini just knows him too well.  Either way, it takes a lot to keep yourself composed in a situation like this, and Fognini did it.
Fabio Fognini is 28 years old. In tennis years, that's like, 46. Petra Cetkovska, who took out Caroline Wozniacki in another night-tennis thriller, is 30. So, 48. Bethanie Mattek-Sands, who had better never retire, is also 30. How old are you? How's your career going? Ever think that you're past the age to do what you always wanted to do, that you missed something? Have you ever said to yourself, "Gah, I coulda been a contender if it weren't for XXXXX?" Have you ever looked at your contemporaries and wondered why they are so much more advanced than you? You don't need to answer any of that, especially not to me, but this is why watching underdogs come out on top is so fulfilling. It's like lower-case everyman taking on Superman. Of course they don't have a shot. Right? Did anyone see that wide-eyed look in Cetkovska's eyes the other night when Wozniacki was staging her comeback? If you did, you know that feeling -- "You're going to let it slip away again, aren't you?" And that is not just a tennis feeling. That's a life thing, dawg. And watching the physical battle on any athletic stage, and actually seeing someone overcome it in public to seize victory is empowering and awe-inspiring. Not everyone can take that ball of nerves and just swallow it. There's something in that for all of us, something very big-picture that you can take away from the underdogs at the Open this year.
It's also just great entertainment and we could leave it right there. Whichever.

U.S. Open preview: The women

Really, the only thing left here to discuss is Serena and predicting if she can pull off a true-life calendar Slam. Obviously, no one can say with any certainty. Who knows? Maybe at this very moment, she and Drake have decided to elope and get married. (Although it is probably not a good idea to marry anyone who was on "Degrassi." Hello, drama!) Or she could get injured, or she could fall at the first hurdle this year, some woman named Vitala Diatchenko. Or even Bethanie Mattek-Sands. Or she could have another end-of-year meltdown (which does always seem to happen at the U.S. Open for her ...)
So, let's take a page out Sarah Koenig's book, and consider the "most logical" conclusion. At the French Open, Serena was far from her best and won. One of her "main rivals," Maria Sharapova, is out of the tournament. Another one, Victoria Azarenka, is still ranked 20. There really isn't anyone who has posed a stiff-enough and consistent challenge to Serena. She's seen their best, and she knows she can beat it. She's had pressure all year, and she's dealt with it. So the real question is how she deals with this pressure, because no one outside of Serena can decide this. She's answered the question already. I would just say that as long as she's not called for a phantom foot fault, she should be good to go.

But on the other side of the draw, I have drawn myself into a corner. I still can't decide who advances to the semis on that side. Obviously, I don't think it matters a ton. But any thoughts?

U.S. Open preview: The fellas

How do I think the U.S. Open's men's draw will play out this year? Well, take a look:

A lot of this speaks for itself, but a few things to note:
1. Kei Nishikori over Novak Djokovic in the semis? Yeah. I think Nishikori is special. Last year, he made it to the final, and surprisingly did not bring home the title. That stumble might be enough to trigger disbelief for many others, but I think he'll be back. He's got the game to take down Federer in the final. He got Djokovic last year, right? Also, I hope Nishikori v. Monfils is a night match. Pleasepleaseplease
2. COME ON TOMMY HAAS
3. COME ON MARDY FISH
4. Hewitt v. Tomic. Now that should be fun. Sometimes Hewitt got on my nerves when he was a kid, but now it's really fun to watch him still scrapping away.
5. No, Nadal is in no condition to beat the top few players right now, but he is also not in the place where he's losing to Borna Coria.

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.