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.

French Open: Saving up my thoughts for a rainy day

The rain has played some serious havoc on the schedule for the tournament. Andy Murray, for example, has advanced to the quarterfinals of the tournament while Novak Djokovic has yet to begin his fourth-round match. It's not as backed-up in the women's draw, but even if it were, best-of-three matches are a bit easier to knock out. The weather forecast in Paris is calling for a 90 percent chance of rain on Tuesday, according to The Weather Channel, and the rest of the week isn't looking great either.
This has led to some inspired conversation about what to do in order to insure a scheduled Sunday ending to the tournament, including switching some of the men's matches to best-of-three sets. Other suggestions are: a sudden death Rock/Paper/Scissors lightning round to determine the remaining quarterfinalists, a vegan hot-dog eating contest, allowing the player with the best Instagram account to advance through the draw and limiting each tennis match to one hour.
There is another idea floating around out there, and because it makes perfect sense, it isn't very popular: Finish the tournament late! It's a Grand Slam, for heaven's sakes. You don't rush majors. Or, sure, let's rush a major and whoever wins it can get that beloved asterisk next to his name. And then you scroll down to see what it means and it'll say:
* advanced to quarterfinals by finishing the "Miss Mary Mack" clapping game the fastest without making errors
If I recall correctly, the years that the U.S. Open has finished on a Monday did not cause some type of seismic shift in the tennis world. In fact, the break from tradition can bring a fresh breath of air and also this other thing called a quality match. I would much rather see players who have been allowed an opportunity to rest after their previous match take to the court than someone who is tired and is making a ton of errors because he can't move. If I were a fan who paid for that ticket, I'd be pissed. If it takes until Monday to get the cream rising to the top and playing great tennis, that's OK to me. Best of three? What about the women? Do they get pro sets? Or a spirited game of 'Odds and Evens'?

French Open: Cornet-porte

Let's just start with this, in case you haven't seen it yet:

https://twitter.com/rolandgarros/status/735895536658612225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

When considering the controversy surrounding Alize Cornet, there's really just one question: Is $42,000 really all it takes to take leave of your reputation?

That's the difference in the prize money had Cornet lost in her second-round battle on Thursday against Tatjana Maria. Most tennis fans know that wherever Cornet is, drama cannot be far behind. This time, when Cornet began cramping late in the match, she colored outside the lines a bit to get treatment for her legs. 

Now, for some reason, you can't get treatment during a match for cramping, which is something I don't really get, but OK. Fine. The rule is no treatment if you're cramping. So Cornet is accused of getting treatment when she shouldn't have been and taking significant time out of the match.

Anyone who's been reading this blog knows how I feel about this kind of behavior. It's pretty lame, although some would argue that if you can get away with it, why not? And she did get away with it and most of that is on her opponent. Sucks, but it's true.

I gotta say that $42,000 is a lot of money for me, but not to Alize Cornet. For a pro tennis player who is actually pretty good, that doesn't seem enough money to sacrifice your reputation. Only Alize Cornet would feel good (very good -- I mean, for heaven's sake. You're not Guga. You don't just get to make clay angels after any match) about winning a match in that way. That's pretty shameless, and I don't root against people very often, but I sure was today, when Maria beat her in doubles. Haven't seen it yet, but here's hoping there was a weak lob floating around the net with Cornet on the other side. 

In other news, Rafa is out of the French Open with an injured left wrist. JUST PLAY WITH THE RIGHT HAND, RAFA!

Seriously, I'm bummed. That's all I got on that right now. (sad emoji row here)

Frenchy 2016: Bracket bonfire

There seems no better time to look back at the first round of the French Open then now, as I watch Andy Murray fight off some other guy no one ever heard of. He's down 5-3 in the second set to ... wait, lemme Google his first name ... oh, here we are -- Mathias Bourgue. So this should be fun.

But besides what might be about to happen to Murray, there have been some surprising results so far. Let's discuss!

1. It really is not right that Victoria Azarenka cannot avoid injury. She had to quit her first round match yesterday against Karin Knapp in the first round with another knee issue. Now, Azarenka has only three Slams, but consider the major tournaments she hasn't been able to play. She's a legit contender to Serena Williams and the other top players, and it must be frustrating as hell for her. So down goes Azarenka.

2. Down goes world No. 3 Angelique Kerber. Kerber is new to the top echelon, so perhaps we should lower the expectations. Having said that, guys, she has no weapons! Like any lefty, she has a tricky serve, but it's not that tricky. She can run anything down, but you have to be able to finish the point some time. I just don't know about that one.

3. Discuss amongst yourselves: The concept of 32 seeded players is completely and utterly lost on the women's draw due to its current lack of depth.

4. Right now, Andy Murray is down 2 sets to 1 against this guy. Bourgue is walking around the court with his chest puffed out, clearly in his IDGAF stance. Murray almost lost in the first round to Radek Stepanek, who I can barely believe is even still playing tennis. Is it the coaching maelstrom? Not sure yet. Even though I've never heard of this Bourgue guy, he obviously is not a pushover. Seems Murray just got a crappy draw to me. For now.

Finally, there is this, which is hilarious to me: http://kdwn.com/2016/05/24/the-latest-reports-of-schiavones-retirement-premature/

Apparently, tournament officials have decided that if you're over the age of 30 and you lose a match there, you should hang it up. Hear that, Serena and Venus Williams and Stan Wawrinka? Probably not, because they're old. 

French Open Preview, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Tossup Tennis

There are 128 players in the French Open draw in each singles division this year. But let's talk about the people who aren't playing for a second, because that list is really interesting.
Because we've got:

• Roger Federer out: He's been plagued by an injury apparently caused by his toddler. He recently had a knee surgery and his tentative attempts at a clay warmup were discouraging. Too bad, because it could be argued that Federer could have been the favorite here, what with Rafael Nadal still trying to find his sea legs, Novak Djokovic taking an early loss on clay, Andy Murray playing it solo and defending champion Stan Wawrinka meeting mediocrity at every turn. 
• Gael Monfil out: A virus was his undoing, only days after he released proof that he is as close to Superman that we have on this planet.
• Maria Sharapova out: On, um, medical leave? Never one to draw attention to himself, Russian Fed Cup Shamil Tarpischev called the situation 'bad' for Sharapova. But anyway, this is a big loss on the women's side, because Sharapova actually has won this thing before, and her absence leaves a massive void in the women's draw.
• Caroline Wozniacki out: Bad ankle. Another big hole in the women's draw. 
• Belinda Bencic out: although she's out hitting the next day on social media. OKkkkkkkkaaayyyyy. 

Now with that out of the way, let's deliberate on the players who are left and what obstacles they face. Let's start with the men's draw:

• This was a first for me -- finding a seeded player I had literally never heard of: Lucas Pouille at No. 29. 
• Also had some Throwback Thursday moments when I realized, based on this draw, is that the following people are still playing professional tennis: Viktor Troicki, Mikhail Youzhny and Dmitry Tursunov. So you're saying they have a chance? No. Not really. No.
• Tomas Berdych is playing Vasek Pospisil in the first round. Ernests Gulbis and Andreas Seppi. Troicki is playing Grigor Dmitrov.

The ladies?

• This was a second for me -- finding a seeded player (or two) I had literally never heard of: Daria Kasatkina at No. 29 and Jelena Ostapenko at No. 32.
• Let me just say now that this tournament is gonna be a free-for-all for the women. We've got Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka in the mix in the same part of the draw, but pure chaos everywhere without some solid seeded players.  
• Two first-rounders that could be fun: Francesca Schiavone v. Kristina Mladenovic and Mirjana Lucic-Baroni v. Daniela Hantucova

The breakup heard 'round the courts

The clay-encrusted buildup to the French Open continued last week with Simona Halep winning the Madrid tournament. She was really happy about this, as you can see here. With that low number in front of her name, it appears she was quite lucky to advance. Other favorites, such as Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova, sputtered out of the tournament pretty quickly. It was the first big tournament win for Halep in a while, so ... wait, what? She lost already this week in Rome, in the second round?
Speaking of stalled momentum, Rafael Nadal, who's been looking more like himself on clay this season, lost in the semis of Madrid to Andy Murray. Makes you wonder if Nadal's ready for the big boys yet, even on the clay. Last week, I thought he was. This week ...
Murray, though, had a pretty good week (he lost in the final to Novak Djokovic), but most of the Murray-centered chatter was about his coaching situation. He announced that he was breaking up with Amelie Mauresmo because of time constraints that limited her travel.
Whatever the reason for the end of this coaching relationship, let's just consider that even women don't hire women coaches. And the second this partnership was announced, critics said things like, "Hmm, that was a weird choice," they meant, "Dude. You're a dude. Hire a dude." Even I must concede that I thought the pairing was odd, but because of Mauresmo's issues as a pro.
Now this partnership didn't yield Murray a bunch of major titles, but under Mauresmo's watch, Murray settled into a steadiness on court. He still had his infantile bursts, but he was at his most consistent so far with Mauresmo, winning the matches he should have won, and even claiming big-deal victories (Rafa on clay, for one). I still think it's ironic as hell that a player who was known for a long time for losing her mind in high-pressure situations became a coach who could instill peace into another player.
But the best thing about this partnership is that it broke with status quo and in a way, allowed Murray to say something about women players that old-school tennis tournament organizers are obviously unwilling to say. Murray hired a woman to do a traditional man's job because he looked at what she could offer as a coach.
That's a big deal in a sport that clearly still struggles with gender equality.

It's dirt season!

It's not been the friendliest of stretches for Rafael Nadal, but he has somehow found his groove again. Naturally, it's on clay. Nadal's about to go into the Madrid Masters tournament this week with three straight tournament wins, including this last one in Barcelona. I finally had a chance to check it out and wow, is Kei Nishikori looking good right now. 

But so is Nadal. He's hitting the ball with authority and not hanging back in the first row of stadium seats to return serve. One other thing: Nadal is still a great defender, but it looks like he's being more judicious about the balls he tries to run down. This isn't a bad thing. It's probably going to be better on his body, but the other advantage is saving your strength to keep yourself in points you can actually win. 

The draw is out for Madrid and right now, Roger Federer is at home thinking, "Of course. Of course, I'm the one coming back from injury and I'm the one who probably will get Nadal in the quarters while he's playing better than he has in a year. Of course." Now, Nadal has been showing some real improvement in his last three tournaments, sure, but I'd like to see what happens if he gets a chance to play Novak Djokovic here. (He's the top seed and in the other half of the draw.)

Other stuff worth mentioning:

• So Nadal's been in the news for other reasons lately, too. Of course, with the recent buzz around Maria Sharapova and her failed drug test, (her hearing is in June annnddd she's still training pretty hard according to her social media accounts, so ...)  talk about doping always seems to circle back to Nadal and he's actually asking for his doping results to be made public. It probably is a pain in the ass to fall under suspicion when you've never failed a drug test. What I would like to see, though, is a list of every supplement Nadal and all the other players are taking, because there are probably certain meds out there that aren't on the banned list, but still offer some advantage. I, unlike this dimwitted former French sporting official, would never accuse anyone of anything without proof, but as a fan, I'm curious.
  How about that lady, though? There are some cases in which using the word "probably" is OK. "It's probably going to rain." "I'll probably be home in time for dinner." Et cetera. However, "Rafa Nadal probably got busted for doping and that's why he took so much time off back in 2012," during a TV interview? Not a great idea. Not. Just not. 
• Serena Williams is not playing Ma-- ... OK, but more importantly, I need someone to explain the twerking scene to me in that Beyonce video. I'm not saying that she is not legit working it, but, like, what does it mean? Like, what does Beyonce's album mean? Does it not mean anything? Am I overanalyzing this? Probably, right?

State of the game

Back up north, I played this one clay-court tournament a lot. Because there were never many women in the singles draw, all I basically had to do was win one match before I came up against the top seed. Let's call her Emma, because that was her name. Anyway, she was a pretty big girl, a lefty. So we're playing and I send yet another cream puff across the net and the next thing I saw was her closing in and unfurling into this forehand she hits for a winner past me. This image is forever stamped into my brain because it kind of scared me a little bit. Maybe it was her sheer size and that she was moving toward me, or maybe it was the knowledge that I couldn't do that. Now, I have played, and still play, against big dudes who hit ground strokes right at my face at the net and are imposing in other ways and generally nothing scares me. I don't know what it was about that forehand, but it was the only time I felt like a deer in headlights on a tennis court.
I only mention this because I can imagine it's how Svetlana Kuznetsova felt this weekend playing in the Miami Open final against Victoria Azarenka. I mean, good god. It's pretty safe to say she's back to pre-injury form and then some. I certainly expected Azarenka to come back and pick up immediately where she left off when she returned from that long layoff last year. But it took her a while to rediscover her confidence, but obviously, she has. It's great for the game. I'm gonna whisper this because I don't want to offend anyone, but she's a ... a better all-around player than Serena Williams. Better ball striker, better variety, better tactics. Movement? Push. Even if you don't agree with that assessment, you have to agree that it's about time that a strong and consistent foil to Serena emerged. There have to be contenders to make the game interesting (not totally sold on Angelique Kerber. Does she ever play only two sets? Why does everything have to take forever with her?), and Azarenka looks like she's gonna settle in to that role well.
Speaking of making the game interesting, a brief word about Novak Djokovic. To borrow a term from a longtime womens tennis sponsor (which I'm sure he'd love), he's come a long way, baby. Like, I still remember when he was pulling out of matches left and right and everyone was calling him soft. Now he is the undisputed king of mens tennis. Everybody's getting caught in the buzz saw, including Kei Nishikori this weekend in the Miami final. And this is someone who is thought to be a major contender. Oy. These men need to step up their game against Novak, or they'll be up for a pay cut.

Therapy with TWA: Equal pay

Whoo boy. Now that the air has cleared a bit, let's attempt to unpack this debate over equal pay on the pro tennis tour. We've got some old-man tennis organizer Raymond Moore talking about women being on their knees, we got Serena Williams saying in essence, "Excuse me?" We also got Novak Djokovic saying that old man is kind of right because a lot of people love watching men's tennis, and we got Serena again reminding him that the women's' U.S. Open final sold out before the tournament started because Serena, and we got Andy Murray holding his newborn daughter and saying to Novak, "C'mon mate ...," then we got Djokovic kind of apologizing. We got Roger Federer saying that we have to consider a tournament's history (??) but yeah, equal pay, yay!
So ... what's the right answer here? I've written about this before, but given the context of how this round of the equal-pay debate started, it's worth restating and expanding. As your average American woman who works a regular job, I'm a bit more concerned about the fact that in this country, women make 79 percent of what men make. In Florida, that number is up to 85 percent -- and that's regardless of men and women handling the same workload on the same job. Now that is nonsense.
With that in mind, it's hard for me to really outraged about this particular debate for the reason I've referenced before. Women don't play best-of-five-set matches. I believe that only Billie Jean King and Venus Williams are the only players I've heard of who are in support of this. Svetlana Kuznetsova, who beat Serena in three tough sets this week in Miami, says it's impossible, that a woman's body can't hold up to five sets. But she's in favor of equal pay because male players can get married, have kids. She can't. That's a interesting argument I hadn't thought about. If you are a woman player and you want to get married and have a child, you need to take a year off -- at least. If you wanted to breastfeed your child, that's a change in lifestyle, basically, that would fly in the face of your training. (Incidentally, this is why those in the equal-pay debate outside of tennis say that women should be paid less, because they take time off to have children.)
Kuznetsova is proposing compensation for making that sacrifice, which I can't agree with. It's a choice she made. Maybe no one laid bare the lifestyle she was going to take on when she was 13, 14 years old. But she knew it by 19, by 20. What she's suggesting is a sort of hazard pay for being a woman, and while that sounds great just because I'm a woman, in principle, it makes me cringe a little bit. I know I don't want to be treated special because I'm a woman. I want to be treated the same.
So I have to stay with my original thoughts from almost a decade ago (whoa, I've been doing this for a decade?!!!?). It's great that the Slams are offering equal pay, as are a lot of the top-tier tournaments. But if women aren't willing to go five sets, then I'm not very passionate about this particular debate. I've got my own equal-pay issues.

IW review: That Nadal celebration

Admittedly, I didn't get to catch the entire Rafael Nadal/Alexander Zverev match last night. When I turned it on, Nadal was down 5-3 and it was deuce and I was like, "Oh, here we go with the next round of 'Is Rafa done?' stories on my Yahoo page ..."
I guess I just missed this epic miss on Zverev's match point, but his eyes were in full saucer mode by the time I turned it on. As much as I root for Rafa, I felt bad for the kid. Anyone who plays tennis would. It's one of those things -- losing a match while standing at the precipice of victory -- that stings like a mofo for a while, but it can focus you. True story: I once lost a league match in which I was up 5-1 in all three sets. True damn story. I also didn't lose another league match that season. So not the end of the world for young Alexander.
That was probably also a pretty big win for Nadal. He's been on the struggle bus lately, but to his credit, when Zverev began flagging, Nadal stepped up and made him play. I am perplexed by the new celebration mode by Nadal. Is that a buzz saw or squeezing out of a tight spot?

Family reunion

If you haven't read Venus Williams' essay about why she's taking the court today at Indian Wells for the first time in 15 years, do it.







You done? OK, let's talk.
There's actually not much more to say. She says it pretty well, doesn't she? What she gives right now to the Indian Wells debacle is perspective. Even I, at some point, have at least thought to myself: "Oh, come on. Get over it already."
But Venus was 20 years old when grown-ass adults began yelling at her in the stands, watching her sister's match. Serena's on the court, winning the tournament, hearing the same thing, at 19 years old.
The average person might not have recovered from that incident at that age by having a successful career. Folks have wilted under a lot less than that. But somehow, it would appear that the both of them managed to use this incident to make them stronger. And now, having processed through that day to now release that hurt and rejection to come back to the same tournament?
For years, the likes of Chris Evert and other big-name pros have encouraged Venus and Serena to come back, effectively placing the onus on them for bringing the ugliness to a close. In a way, today will do that, but let's be clear: They had every right to take exactly however long it took to get past this. If they never went back, it was their right. If this were a false narrative, you wouldn't stay away for so long ... and then go back. It's been a process for them and fortunately, they had each other throughout.
Venus says in her essay that for her, it's all about the tennis. OK, but when her career is over, this essay will be evidence that she and Serena are giants in the sport for other reasons that actually are bigger than tennis.
Play at IW starts at 11 a.m. and Venus has got the day session against Kurumi Nara and Serena's got the night match against Laura Siegemund.