If you had told me that moving to Florida would hamper my league play instead of opening all kinds of doors, I would have been like
via GIPHY
and kept packing my bags.
But it's been true, for a couple of reasons. First, my rating is a problem. I'm a 4.0 and for the first year or so of living in Florida, I definitely did not play like one. In Pittsburgh, being a 4.0 woman meant a world of league-play activity -- a 4.0 team and the ability to play 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 tennis. And I played it all! I've only lost one 9.0 mixed match. Did I ever tell you that? What? You said that's because I played with 5.0 men?
Hm.
Maybe.
But here in central Florida, being a 4.0 woman of a certain (working) age means I can't play women's league matches at this level because they're all on weekdays at 9 a.m. And as far as mixed doubles, well, I'm not exactly an asset here. Why? Well, my results have been terrible. And now that I'm actually playing more tennis and playing better tennis, it still doesn't matter because there's no 9.0 league here. The 8.0 league had two teams this year. Two. The captain of one of the teams was like, oh yeah, I'll send you the team number and then never did. This leaves the 7.0 team, which really underscores, I think, my weaknesses. It's easy to win matches when you have a partner who can take over a match and reduce the pressure on you. It's difficult to win matches when you have to be that partner and you are nowhere near as aggressive as that requires.
I've been working on that, though. And instead of lopsided losses, my partner and I are now able to lose in a third-set tiebreaker, which is not what I want, but it's progress.
The only way to get better at league tennis is to play more league tennis. You know, get familiar with the pressure and learn to perform while the rest of your team is waiting for you to seal a group win. But if there aren't a lot of league options available to me, what am I supposed to do?
I actually know the answer. The problem is that I don't like it. I could appeal my rating. If I dropped back to 3.5, I would be able to play in a weekend or evening women's league and I'd be (maybe I think) a good pick for mixed doubles. My partners would be stronger so it wouldn't fall so much on me. There's no 9.0 teams out here, so I won't miss out on that.
But my pride.
When I started playing tennis, I was a 3.0 in North Carolina, trying to figure out how to keep the rules straight in doubles. I took my lumps as I advanced to 3.5 and my goal was 4.0. I knew I was good enough for that -- if I could get my backhand under control, could figure out how to volley, could stop getting impatient during rallies and make a high-percentage play. (Some things never change.) I had a 3.5 season where I lost one match and I was sure that was the year I'd get bumped. But I didn't. The next season, I won only half my matches, but when I checked the TennisLink site the day ratings were updated (otherwise known as the tennis player's Christmas Day), I was so proud I had gotten there.
I've never in my life worked hard for something, got it, and then tried to get rid of that thing. So this is perhaps harder than it should be. It's probably the correct and sensible thing to do if I want to play more league tennis. But I'm better than 3.5!
Am I though?
You can see I'm struggling here. My plan is to wait until the end of this current league (about two matches away) and then officially appeal my rating. This has quote been my plan unquote for about a year now. It seems like a good plan. I should do it.
I should set in motion the train that's going to take me to the land of waking up one morning and finding the number 3.5 next to my name when I check TennisLink. Do you know how long it took for me to get to 4.0?!!!???!?!!!
Do I appeal my USTA rating so I can play more tennis? Definitely ... not ...?
...
Someone send help.
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018
Wimbledon for Breakfast: This One We Can't Blame on Isner
Things were going well at Wimbledon throughout the tournament. Their website was *chef's kiss* beautiful. Their app worked. The matches (especially in the women's draw) were competitive. And then came Friday.
When Kevin Anderson began his semifinal match with John Isner that day, I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for work. When it ended, I was picking up a late lunch and missed it. I actually had to concede about four hours in that the only reason I was watching it was to root against Isner, whose MAGA-headedness is a non-starter in this TWA house. I legit had to ask myself: Do you actually care about this match or just the result? I had to move on with my life.
But this marathon match kept things others from continuing on with their lives, namely Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. They started their match on Centre Court after Anderson/Isner (problem No. 1) and were only able to play three sets which they split (problem No. 2) and therefore had to finish the following day (problem No. 3), the same day as the women's final, traditionally played on Centre Court as the showpiece match of the day (problem No. 4).
This led to the Nadal/Djokovic semi taking precedence over the women's final (in which Serena Williams was competing for a record-breaking Slam title, but no big). At first, this irked myself and a lot of other fans, but in the end, letting the men go first was the best thing to do in a situation that is far from optimal. One of them would still have a match the next day. But this proved to be a train wreck situation. It really could have been solved with two tweaks:
Tweak 1
Nadal/Djokovic on Centre Court while Anderson/Isner play Court 1, or Court 13 or wherever else. There's no reason not to play both of these at the same time. Wimbledon is literally full of tennis courts. If Roger Federer was a factor here, this might be a tougher call, but still the call to make. People make plans, buy their tickets (travel and match) based on the schedule. Try to stick to it.
Tweak 2
A fifth-set tiebreaker. The U.S. Open has one, and I've actually been to the U.S. Open and felt the excitement in the air over a tiebreaker. It doesn't hurt anything. It actually amps up the excitement. Watching two guys ace each other for nearly seven hours is maybe not the thrill the other three Slams think it is.
Having said all of that, I have seen some truly ridiculous takes on this. Yes, I mean Ben Rothenberg, who said
I know. I got a headache reading that again just now. All I'll say at this point is that if he really believes this, the New York Times should just run the last 3/5th of his stories. What the hell do you need the beginning for? I get that this is just another way for him to make his best-of-three case. Still dumb.
And then this 12-12 tiebreak idea? It's a five-set match, not six! That's the equivalent of a sixth set! No, a regular tiebreak is just fine here. Yeesh, guys.
Anyway. Huge damn disaster that probably led to a lackluster men's final. What will Wimbledon do? LOL the same thing they did this year!
The hell happened to Nadal in that last game?!?? Like, what? Seriously, that was a semifinal where I didn't miss a point. He and Djokovic played some truly spectacular points, and I'm really sorry to say this, but it was the de facto Wimbledon final. I don't want to minimize Anderson's achievements here (he beat the one guy I couldn't bear to see win Wimbledon), but the quality of Nadal/Djokovic was pretty high. Heck, Nadal/delP was of better quality than the final. In the semis, though, Nadal made some uncharacteristic mistakes when he had an open chance to win the point. And those misses were really the difference. Djokovic showed some shakiness at the end, and Nadal didn't take advantage. Of course, Djokovic was also really good at opening the door, and then closing it back with a strong serve or groundies. I know a popular question now will be whether Djokovic can pass Nadal or Federer in Slam wins. He's got age on his side, but as long as Nadal has two legs, he'll secure at least one Slam a year. Fed probably, too. Also, by the way, Nadal is a great grass court player, so we can stop acting like he only excels on one surface now.
When Kevin Anderson began his semifinal match with John Isner that day, I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for work. When it ended, I was picking up a late lunch and missed it. I actually had to concede about four hours in that the only reason I was watching it was to root against Isner, whose MAGA-headedness is a non-starter in this TWA house. I legit had to ask myself: Do you actually care about this match or just the result? I had to move on with my life.
But this marathon match kept things others from continuing on with their lives, namely Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. They started their match on Centre Court after Anderson/Isner (problem No. 1) and were only able to play three sets which they split (problem No. 2) and therefore had to finish the following day (problem No. 3), the same day as the women's final, traditionally played on Centre Court as the showpiece match of the day (problem No. 4).
This led to the Nadal/Djokovic semi taking precedence over the women's final (in which Serena Williams was competing for a record-breaking Slam title, but no big). At first, this irked myself and a lot of other fans, but in the end, letting the men go first was the best thing to do in a situation that is far from optimal. One of them would still have a match the next day. But this proved to be a train wreck situation. It really could have been solved with two tweaks:
Tweak 1
Nadal/Djokovic on Centre Court while Anderson/Isner play Court 1, or Court 13 or wherever else. There's no reason not to play both of these at the same time. Wimbledon is literally full of tennis courts. If Roger Federer was a factor here, this might be a tougher call, but still the call to make. People make plans, buy their tickets (travel and match) based on the schedule. Try to stick to it.
Tweak 2
A fifth-set tiebreaker. The U.S. Open has one, and I've actually been to the U.S. Open and felt the excitement in the air over a tiebreaker. It doesn't hurt anything. It actually amps up the excitement. Watching two guys ace each other for nearly seven hours is maybe not the thrill the other three Slams think it is.
Having said all of that, I have seen some truly ridiculous takes on this. Yes, I mean Ben Rothenberg, who said
Only ~10% of this match, timewise, was after 6-6 in the fifth. It was the best, most exciting part of it all, when both guys were on the cusp of winning.— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) July 14, 2018
Abbreviating that part, instead of the extraneous two sets at the beginning of the best-of-five match, seems so misguided.
I know. I got a headache reading that again just now. All I'll say at this point is that if he really believes this, the New York Times should just run the last 3/5th of his stories. What the hell do you need the beginning for? I get that this is just another way for him to make his best-of-three case. Still dumb.
And then this 12-12 tiebreak idea? It's a five-set match, not six! That's the equivalent of a sixth set! No, a regular tiebreak is just fine here. Yeesh, guys.
Anyway. Huge damn disaster that probably led to a lackluster men's final. What will Wimbledon do? LOL the same thing they did this year!
Quick hits
Back to Serena. She came up short in the final against Angelique Kerber in a win some consider an upset. OK, it's huge that Serena was able to reach the final, and it would have been amazing if she had won. But Kerber is No. 9 in the world, and had previously won Slams! Anyway, movement was Serena's biggest hurdle this tournament and her groundstrokes and serve had been enough to bail her out, but Kerber is basically a ball machine, so yeah. I honestly would have been more surprised if Serena had won.The hell happened to Nadal in that last game?!?? Like, what? Seriously, that was a semifinal where I didn't miss a point. He and Djokovic played some truly spectacular points, and I'm really sorry to say this, but it was the de facto Wimbledon final. I don't want to minimize Anderson's achievements here (he beat the one guy I couldn't bear to see win Wimbledon), but the quality of Nadal/Djokovic was pretty high. Heck, Nadal/delP was of better quality than the final. In the semis, though, Nadal made some uncharacteristic mistakes when he had an open chance to win the point. And those misses were really the difference. Djokovic showed some shakiness at the end, and Nadal didn't take advantage. Of course, Djokovic was also really good at opening the door, and then closing it back with a strong serve or groundies. I know a popular question now will be whether Djokovic can pass Nadal or Federer in Slam wins. He's got age on his side, but as long as Nadal has two legs, he'll secure at least one Slam a year. Fed probably, too. Also, by the way, Nadal is a great grass court player, so we can stop acting like he only excels on one surface now.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Wimbledon for Breakfast: Today Was a Day
I'm just sitting here watching the Rafa Nadal/Juan Martin del Potro replay and I'm told that apparently that isn't the end of the tournament? That there are ... more matches tomorrow?
Crazier still, I'm told that some woman had a chance to grab at least one of Rafa's butt cheeks and ... did not do that?!
None of them made a grab. That's control I know I don't have.
Yes, yes. Today was a day. Roger Federer going out to Kevin Anderson. Kevin Anderson. Here's all I had to say about that one earlier:
My boy Milos Raonic losing to definitely-not-my-boy John Isner. (Refer to my post about why I will be busting out the rosaries for Anderson on Friday.)
But first, we have some semifinals tomorrow, for the ladies. Who. Do. We. Got.
Jelena Ostapenko v. Angelique Kerber: I've been watching Kerber's matches and not been overly thrilled by her play. What she's doing is scrapping -- playing awesome defense and if you can run down shots that are supposed to be winners, that is probably going to help. I only saw Ostapenko's most recent match against Dominika Cibulkova -- an alleged slugfest, you'll recall. It was not. Ostapenko was out there hitting balls with little wisps of smoke trailing from them and Cibulkova watched them pass. I'm concerned for Kerber should she consider a net approach. Don't do it, girl. I would give Ostapenko the edge, and I would go even further and suggest that whoever wins will win the whole tournament.
What? you say? But what about the other match? You have
Serena Williams v. Julia Goerges: (Germany, holla!) There aren't a lot of players out there who propel themselves through match after match, though far from their perfect form, but Serena is doing it again. She was moving horribly in the early rounds and has only cleaned that up a bit. Her serve and her stationary groundstrokes are keeping her alive. Which has been enough. Goerges has been having quite a year and thus far had no mobility issues. Betting against Serena at Wimbledon is hard, so I won't. I don't have the money to bet. But I will say I see a three-setter and I could see it not going Serena's way. But if it did? If she ended up against Kerber or Ostapenko -- two players who are in form and less intimidated by Serena? It would take a miracle.
And we all know they don't happen at Wimbledon. Sarcastic h/t to Kevin Anderson.
Crazier still, I'm told that some woman had a chance to grab at least one of Rafa's butt cheeks and ... did not do that?!
#wimbledon2018— Dora Hon (@Rana060325) July 11, 2018
After 4hrs...
I knew you wouldn’t let go.
Proud of you no matter what.
Keep calm and #VamosRafa 🤜🏻🤛🏻@RafaelNadal pic.twitter.com/7UFTV69geM
None of them made a grab. That's control I know I don't have.
Yes, yes. Today was a day. Roger Federer going out to Kevin Anderson. Kevin Anderson. Here's all I had to say about that one earlier:
When you think about all the legit great stories that happen just at Wimbledon, how the hell did we end up with that crappy movie? https://t.co/d1UdnTQCXW— AndyRoddicksNetGame (@TWA_tennis_blog) July 11, 2018
My boy Milos Raonic losing to definitely-not-my-boy John Isner. (Refer to my post about why I will be busting out the rosaries for Anderson on Friday.)
But first, we have some semifinals tomorrow, for the ladies. Who. Do. We. Got.
Jelena Ostapenko v. Angelique Kerber: I've been watching Kerber's matches and not been overly thrilled by her play. What she's doing is scrapping -- playing awesome defense and if you can run down shots that are supposed to be winners, that is probably going to help. I only saw Ostapenko's most recent match against Dominika Cibulkova -- an alleged slugfest, you'll recall. It was not. Ostapenko was out there hitting balls with little wisps of smoke trailing from them and Cibulkova watched them pass. I'm concerned for Kerber should she consider a net approach. Don't do it, girl. I would give Ostapenko the edge, and I would go even further and suggest that whoever wins will win the whole tournament.
What? you say? But what about the other match? You have
Serena Williams v. Julia Goerges: (Germany, holla!) There aren't a lot of players out there who propel themselves through match after match, though far from their perfect form, but Serena is doing it again. She was moving horribly in the early rounds and has only cleaned that up a bit. Her serve and her stationary groundstrokes are keeping her alive. Which has been enough. Goerges has been having quite a year and thus far had no mobility issues. Betting against Serena at Wimbledon is hard, so I won't. I don't have the money to bet. But I will say I see a three-setter and I could see it not going Serena's way. But if it did? If she ended up against Kerber or Ostapenko -- two players who are in form and less intimidated by Serena? It would take a miracle.
And we all know they don't happen at Wimbledon. Sarcastic h/t to Kevin Anderson.
Sunday, July 08, 2018
Wimbledon for Breakfast: On the Menu? Nothing Involving Seeds, Apparently.
Dominika Cibulkova and Serena Williams have advanced to the second week of Wimbledon and almost none of the top 10 seeded women can say the same. This is just the top half:
It's probably redder than that -- this was just off the top of my head. It's exhausting. Having said that, what a tournament! Let's not forget the resurgence of Ernests Gulbis and the early upset of Grigor Dimitrov by Stan Wawrinka (while his girlfriend Donna Vekic beat Sloane Stephens in the first round). Kei Nishikori's takedown of Nick Kyrgios is also of note. And it would hardly be a Grand Slam tournament without Caroline Wozniacki whining about something really inconsequential. We can talk about seeds and whether they matter, and who should have been seeded and who shouldn't have. Or we can just take a look at the best moments of Wimbledon so far, according to me. We're gonna do the latter.
No. 5:
Bad call(s)
Kyle Edmund got about three levels of lucky here. He got credit for a double bounce, hitting the net early AND for hitting an out ball. I feel as though he was aware of at least one of these factors, as he surgically removed himself from the discussion between Novak Djokovic and the line judge. Perhaps if he had owned up on that point, Edmund would have saved some luck for later in the match.
No. 4:
"Minority Report" tennis
No. 3:
Venus v. Bertens
If you're a Venus fan, it's torturous watching her in these titanic battles. At the same time, she is still in these matches, still a factor and still able to win. After the French Open, her coach said something about Venus not really picking up on opponent weakness
David Witt shared his thoughts about Venus' 1st-round loss at the French Open with @HowardFendrich yesterday. Worth a read. 👇🏽 https://t.co/KHD7QMxM6w pic.twitter.com/cpUzPop8qM— Chad (@CCSMOOTH13) May 28, 2018
and in watching her against Bertens, I kept wondering why Venus was staying back when she had such success at net.
And another thing. Watching Venus press conferences (at the end of the ESPN clip) is now worse than having a root canal. Here's what I propose:
1. Venus walks in.
2. Enterprising journalist says, "You got anything to say?"
3. Venus says, "Nope" in no particular type of tone.
4. She stares at room. Room stares back.
5. Venus leaves. Everyone feels less awkward now.
This isn't hard.
No. 2:
Bahmahgawd Ernests Gulbis is back
First, it seems as though ever since Alexander Zverev yelled "It's my f***ing time!" at Roland Garros for the world to hear, it has indeed been a time for him. A fifth-set-bagel-to-a-player-ranked-outside-the-top-100 kind of time.
Second, Gulbis' forehand prep now looks like a bird in flight, and I don't think it's supposed to be like that, but (shrug emoji).
No. 1:
Serena Williams
I asked Serena Williams if she minded always being the one to beat.— Jamie Johnson (@JamieoJohnson) July 7, 2018
Her answer blew me away. #Wimbledon @serenawilliams @Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/XsHI26FSi4
So here's the thing. Serena Williams has been saying stuff like this for years (as has her sister). And for years, everyone has thumbed their noses, wondered who exactly she thinks she is. Maybe a few years ago, I would have thought it was a bit much.
But it appears that the sisters Williams, as always, were ahead of the curve. In the intervening years, we -- meaning women -- have come to understand that it's OK to acknowledge your talents. That's because in general, no one else will acknowledge them for you. Recently, I discovered a tic in myself at work to apologize for other people's mistakes, and to shoot down any compliments. I've done it for years. No one taught me to do it. It's society's default position for women and we tend to fall in unconsciously. But that's ridiculous, isn't it? What the hell is the point of doing anything if you don't think you do it well? Why crawl out of bed in the morning in the name of mediocrity? You don't. That thing you're good at? You know you're good at it and you acknowledge that to yourself. Acknowledge it to others, too.
Sunday, July 01, 2018
Wimbledon for Breakfast: Men's Preview
Don't get me wrong. The men's draw still has its promising first-round matches (Richard Gasquet v. Gael Monfils, Taro Daniel v. Fabio Fognini and of course Stan Wawrinka against Grigor Dimitrov -- which I still say Wawrinka will win), but it just doesn't rise to the promise of the women's draw this year. Not right away, anyway.
And here, I have to make a confession. I really just had Andy Murray losing to Jeremy Chardy in the first round. I am woman enough to admit when I've made a mistake, and that was a mistake. Murray's going to lose in the second round, to Denis Shapovalov. My bad.
Despite Roger Federer's, er, collapse in the Halle final last week, and even though Borna Coric is actually in Federer's quarter, I still think he'll advance. Unless of course, Ivo Karlovic serves his way past him (which is possible and which is what sucks the most about men's tennis at Wimbledon). By far, though, the bottom half is the tougher one, and although I've picked Rafa Nadal to get to the quarters, I don't have a ton of faith in that pick. It really says a lot about Nadal that he managed to win Wimbledon, because it is not his surface. I think it's OK to say that. I think it's OK to suggest that things might not go Nadal's way this time if he ends up facing Diego Schwartzman on grass. Heck, even Mischa Zverev might give Nadal trouble. Even still, this is just the beginning for him. Juan Martin del Potro and Shapovalov are also in this quarter. So that's tough enough. But Nadal is Nadal, so it's also hard to believe he isn't up to this battle.
Then there's French Open finalist Dominic Thiem's quarter. There's Alexander Zverev, Novak Djokovic, Nick Kyrgios and Kei Nishikori. Whoa. If Wimbledon didn't reward a big server so disproportionately, I'd be more excited about these matchups.
Oh, what am I saying? I'm excited. I am! Just not Vera Zvonareva excited.
Aye. The reality of this Wawrinka upset pick is really starting to sink in. I'm staying with it, though. I guess. Yeah. Hm. OK. Yeah. I'm staying with it.
And here, I have to make a confession. I really just had Andy Murray losing to Jeremy Chardy in the first round. I am woman enough to admit when I've made a mistake, and that was a mistake. Murray's going to lose in the second round, to Denis Shapovalov. My bad.
Despite Roger Federer's, er, collapse in the Halle final last week, and even though Borna Coric is actually in Federer's quarter, I still think he'll advance. Unless of course, Ivo Karlovic serves his way past him (which is possible and which is what sucks the most about men's tennis at Wimbledon). By far, though, the bottom half is the tougher one, and although I've picked Rafa Nadal to get to the quarters, I don't have a ton of faith in that pick. It really says a lot about Nadal that he managed to win Wimbledon, because it is not his surface. I think it's OK to say that. I think it's OK to suggest that things might not go Nadal's way this time if he ends up facing Diego Schwartzman on grass. Heck, even Mischa Zverev might give Nadal trouble. Even still, this is just the beginning for him. Juan Martin del Potro and Shapovalov are also in this quarter. So that's tough enough. But Nadal is Nadal, so it's also hard to believe he isn't up to this battle.
Then there's French Open finalist Dominic Thiem's quarter. There's Alexander Zverev, Novak Djokovic, Nick Kyrgios and Kei Nishikori. Whoa. If Wimbledon didn't reward a big server so disproportionately, I'd be more excited about these matchups.
Oh, what am I saying? I'm excited. I am! Just not Vera Zvonareva excited.
Aye. The reality of this Wawrinka upset pick is really starting to sink in. I'm staying with it, though. I guess. Yeah. Hm. OK. Yeah. I'm staying with it.
Wimbledon for Breakfast: The Ladies Preview
Listen, this women's draw is full of intrigue and great matchups right out of the chute, and I'm not even going to pretend that I feel as strongly about the men's draw.
Here's what I'm talking about:
Apologies for the crooked and cutoff draw at the edges. I think it might be time to do an "Office Space" on my printer.
Now, let's talk about some of these first-round matchups. Danielle Collins v. Elise Mertens. Heather Watson and Kirsten Flipkens. Naomi Osaka and Monica Niculescu. Belinda Bencic v. Caroline Garcia. Barbora Strycova and Svetlana Kuznetsova. But I really can't wait to see this Vera Zvonareva/Angelique Kerber match. I can't even cope with how excited I am to see Zvonareva again at a major. She was one of my favorite players to watch, because she struck a clean ball and her meltdowns were *chef's kiss* epic. I mean
It's always the racquet's fault.
Seriously, it's great to see older players coming back and redefining what a career looks like, especially after having a child. I wouldn't miss this one for anything. What time do they play now? Oh, 6:30 tomorrow morning? OK. Cool. Always fun when a Slam comes around and ruins your whole life for two weeks.
Anyway, on to the rest of the draw. For all the talk about whether Serena Williams should be seeded, it turns out that in the end, you still have to beat your opponent. For her 25th seeding, she gets a probable second-round match with Magdalena Rybarikova, who I believe just made the finals of a grass-court warm-up. And then fifth-seed Elina Svitolina. Let's say Serena advances through those matches. There's still Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe, Ana Sevastova, and Caroline Wozniacki just in her quarter. (Just for grins, Dominika Cibulkova, who complained about Serena potentially pushing her out of seeding range, opens against Alize Cornet and is in Simona Halep's quarter, which is also occupied by Elise Mertens and Petra Kvitova. No one won here.)
Venus. OK, I have her advancing to the semis. Venus does tend to come to life at Wimbledon, and if she can avoid donating entire games in double faults, then I think she has a friendly-enough draw to accommodate a nice run. If there's a quarter without a clear favorite, it's this one. Karolina Pliskova has had a pretty rough grass run. Sloane Stephens has had no grass run. So there's that.
The Garbine Muguruza/Kerber/Garcia quarter will be really interesting, too. You have to think Muguruza, having won Wimbledon last year (I can't believe that crazy final against Venus was just last year!) has an edge, but man, there's also Daria Kasatkina, and Osaka and Ash Barty, and Anett Kontaveit. Also Genie Bouchard, who advanced through qualifying. Big props to Bouchard, by the way, who played qualifying to get into the main draw, unlike some people who said last year that they would qualify to fight for her place ... and then didn't. Definitely not looking at you, Maria Sharapova. This has nothing to do with you. AT ALL.
Here's what I'm talking about:
Now, let's talk about some of these first-round matchups. Danielle Collins v. Elise Mertens. Heather Watson and Kirsten Flipkens. Naomi Osaka and Monica Niculescu. Belinda Bencic v. Caroline Garcia. Barbora Strycova and Svetlana Kuznetsova. But I really can't wait to see this Vera Zvonareva/Angelique Kerber match. I can't even cope with how excited I am to see Zvonareva again at a major. She was one of my favorite players to watch, because she struck a clean ball and her meltdowns were *chef's kiss* epic. I mean
It's always the racquet's fault.
Seriously, it's great to see older players coming back and redefining what a career looks like, especially after having a child. I wouldn't miss this one for anything. What time do they play now? Oh, 6:30 tomorrow morning? OK. Cool. Always fun when a Slam comes around and ruins your whole life for two weeks.
Anyway, on to the rest of the draw. For all the talk about whether Serena Williams should be seeded, it turns out that in the end, you still have to beat your opponent. For her 25th seeding, she gets a probable second-round match with Magdalena Rybarikova, who I believe just made the finals of a grass-court warm-up. And then fifth-seed Elina Svitolina. Let's say Serena advances through those matches. There's still Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe, Ana Sevastova, and Caroline Wozniacki just in her quarter. (Just for grins, Dominika Cibulkova, who complained about Serena potentially pushing her out of seeding range, opens against Alize Cornet and is in Simona Halep's quarter, which is also occupied by Elise Mertens and Petra Kvitova. No one won here.)
Venus. OK, I have her advancing to the semis. Venus does tend to come to life at Wimbledon, and if she can avoid donating entire games in double faults, then I think she has a friendly-enough draw to accommodate a nice run. If there's a quarter without a clear favorite, it's this one. Karolina Pliskova has had a pretty rough grass run. Sloane Stephens has had no grass run. So there's that.
The Garbine Muguruza/Kerber/Garcia quarter will be really interesting, too. You have to think Muguruza, having won Wimbledon last year (I can't believe that crazy final against Venus was just last year!) has an edge, but man, there's also Daria Kasatkina, and Osaka and Ash Barty, and Anett Kontaveit. Also Genie Bouchard, who advanced through qualifying. Big props to Bouchard, by the way, who played qualifying to get into the main draw, unlike some people who said last year that they would qualify to fight for her place ... and then didn't. Definitely not looking at you, Maria Sharapova. This has nothing to do with you. AT ALL.
Friday, June 29, 2018
The Attitudimeter: Taking the Pre-Wimbledon Temperature
Let's get right to it. There's a lot happening.
I don't understand why it isn't the same as an injury protection, because a woman's body gets beat to hell for it. But you shouldn't be protected forever, and you wouldn't be with an injury protective ranking, either. And as Katrina Adams pointed out in this New York Times story, doing anything other than protecting the ranking is like asking a female CEO to come back from maternity leave to start in the mail room. And yes, I heard Barbora Strycova saying it isn't fair to everyone else, and Dominika Cibulkova crowing about losing her seeding, but ... wait. I gotta address Cibulkova first:
1. Win a Slam first, sis!
2. Giving Serena a seed at a major is a favor to YOU!
Now, to Strycova's point that pregnancy isn't the same as an injury, as it is a choice to become pregnant. It is true. Choosing to have a family should not ever negatively affect your career. Nothing you do outside your job (except being a criminal and a racist) should change your employment status. I hate to get New York Times-heavy in this post, but The Daily podcast did two incredible episodes about pregnancy discrimination in the workplace this week, which might add some nuance to the way we think about this.
Also, she does have a hell of a game ... and a hell of a penchant for giving up leads and winning matches in dramatic third sets, does she not? And her backhand is better than Roddick's.
So, does she have a shot at Wimbledon? You need at least a bit of a net game for that ... and Sabalenka's net game looks about the same as it did during the Fed Cup tie against the U.S. We'll see about Wimby. We'll see.
So Deadspin actually did a real tennis story about Serena apparently refusing to take a drug test and the headline is gold:
There's a lot here. Mainly, I have to say that when the airport eavesdropper heard some guy named Steve leave Serena a message, I just knew it was that dim bulb Steve Simon. Y'all know how I feel about him. Who the hell walks around a public place fielding private calls? Oh, that's right. Everybody. I guess he could have put it on speaker, like most people do in the grocery store.
Second, someone really should answer why Serena is getting tested at twice the rate of other Americans -- having played, what, three tournaments this year?
Third, I have a hard time buying that Serena was dodging this test, judging how vocal she is on social media about these tests. And then there is the small detail that she wasn't actually home. I would have liked to know what the policy is in that case. Are you supposed to wait around for her to come home? And sorry, why is she being tested so much?!
Fourth, I will definitely have my popcorn ready for Serena's first presser when someone asks her
about this.
Is this sarcastic?
Someone just answer me this: What did the person say to elicit this reaction?
Who's Up
Serena Williams
Serena Williams was unseeded when she returned to Grand Slam tennis. Has been since her return. Serena's not the first woman to come back from having a baby to play tennis, but you sure would think that. I bet you Victoria Azarenka is feeling pretty unloved right now as everyone rallies around the idea of a protected ranking for new mom Serena. Serena doesn't even have baby daddy drama and she's getting the help. Sorry, Vika. We shoulda been there for you. Because, yeah, new moms should get a protected ranking.I don't understand why it isn't the same as an injury protection, because a woman's body gets beat to hell for it. But you shouldn't be protected forever, and you wouldn't be with an injury protective ranking, either. And as Katrina Adams pointed out in this New York Times story, doing anything other than protecting the ranking is like asking a female CEO to come back from maternity leave to start in the mail room. And yes, I heard Barbora Strycova saying it isn't fair to everyone else, and Dominika Cibulkova crowing about losing her seeding, but ... wait. I gotta address Cibulkova first:
1. Win a Slam first, sis!
2. Giving Serena a seed at a major is a favor to YOU!
Now, to Strycova's point that pregnancy isn't the same as an injury, as it is a choice to become pregnant. It is true. Choosing to have a family should not ever negatively affect your career. Nothing you do outside your job (except being a criminal and a racist) should change your employment status. I hate to get New York Times-heavy in this post, but The Daily podcast did two incredible episodes about pregnancy discrimination in the workplace this week, which might add some nuance to the way we think about this.
Aryna Sabalenka
Sabalenka could be Andy Roddick's twin sister, and we don't talk about that enough.
Also, she does have a hell of a game ... and a hell of a penchant for giving up leads and winning matches in dramatic third sets, does she not? And her backhand is better than Roddick's.
So, does she have a shot at Wimbledon? You need at least a bit of a net game for that ... and Sabalenka's net game looks about the same as it did during the Fed Cup tie against the U.S. We'll see about Wimby. We'll see.
Who's Down
Serena Williams
You're not seeing double.So Deadspin actually did a real tennis story about Serena apparently refusing to take a drug test and the headline is gold:
An anti-doping agent occupied Serena Williams’s property and everyone is being squirrelly about it: https://t.co/XRqERzGqmp pic.twitter.com/mNQWonYbul— Deadspin (@Deadspin) June 27, 2018
There's a lot here. Mainly, I have to say that when the airport eavesdropper heard some guy named Steve leave Serena a message, I just knew it was that dim bulb Steve Simon. Y'all know how I feel about him. Who the hell walks around a public place fielding private calls? Oh, that's right. Everybody. I guess he could have put it on speaker, like most people do in the grocery store.
Second, someone really should answer why Serena is getting tested at twice the rate of other Americans -- having played, what, three tournaments this year?
Third, I have a hard time buying that Serena was dodging this test, judging how vocal she is on social media about these tests. And then there is the small detail that she wasn't actually home. I would have liked to know what the policy is in that case. Are you supposed to wait around for her to come home? And sorry, why is she being tested so much?!
Fourth, I will definitely have my popcorn ready for Serena's first presser when someone asks her
about this.
Roger Federer
Happens, I guess. Your main rival to date takes a break and affords you the opportunity to run the table. Perfect set-up to win the warm-up in Halle and then Wimbledon maybe -- making it Federer's 100th tournament win. But there comes Borna Coric, deciding after years of prospect talk about him, that he is going to go ahead and beat Roger Federer on his best surface. Surely, this is just a blip for Federer, which hopefully will lead to better decision-making. After all, the wheels pretty much fell off for Roger after THREE FAILED CHALLENGES IN A ROW. As I recall, Federer was super resistant to the challenge system in the first place and it looks like he should have really stayed away from it.Novak Djokovic
Actually, Djokovic is progressing in his comeback. He's not at the top of his game yet -- he lost a tough final at Queen's Club against Marin Cilic. But how about John McEnroe comparing him to Tiger Woods and his, uh, family troubles? McEnroe took the locker room talk to the mic! Woo. I bet Djokovic was ticked off about that one!
Is this sarcastic?
Nick Kyrgios
Nick Kyrgios got fined €15,000 for pretending to jerk off with a water bottle: https://t.co/FkhOKWvOAD pic.twitter.com/vjDCWHIDcL— Deadspin (@Deadspin) June 24, 2018
Someone just answer me this: What did the person say to elicit this reaction?
Thursday, June 21, 2018
The Attitudimeter: The Grass is Greener than the Clay
Well, it's the end of the clay court season. That means Roger Federer came out of his hole and did not see his shadow, so he'll be sticking around for a while. Rafael Nadal? Well, who knows really. But there were plenty of players happy to return to the grass courts. Let's check in with them now!
Kyrgios is a strange character. You might know this already. So there he is in Stuttgart, playing the semis against Federer. They're playing their per-usual tiebreaker, and Kyrgios, for once, wins a set against Federer. And then he put his head down and focused on the task and grinded his way through a challenging second set. LOL no. Actually, what he did was treat the second set as some type of proving ground for all his trick shots, and missed nearly all of them. By the time he reconciled himself to the fact that Fed wasn't going to sabotage himself, he tried to refocus for the third set, which he did, but still lost because it was Federer he was playing against. I have advocated for giving Nick a bit of space before writing him off completely. I still am, but I also am losing a bit of patience for someone who apparently is so bored out there that he's taken to hitting trick shots just to keep himself amused. If the thrill of competition doesn't do it for him, then what will?
Who's Up
Andy Murray
He's back! Woo! I really didn't realize how much I missed his game until he played against Nick Kyrgios this week (who we will discuss). He has a real workman-like game, and it's good to have his variety back. Sure, he's still rusty, but this is plenty of preparation to win Wimbledon in a couple weeks, right? No pressure whatsoever.Roger Federer
This might be a good time to note that back in the day, some people couldn't get away with having the schedule Federer currently enjoys, which is: "Play whenever I like!" I only say this because of Serena and Venus Williams, who took on a lighter schedule to go to school, to start a business, to do "play whenever they liked!" They were greeted with haughty looks, upturned noses, lectures about how unserious they were about tennis. Federer is doing what the sisters did a decade ago and I have heard hardly a cross word about it. And I'm not looking to pick a whataboutism fight. I'm just saying, I guess. Anyway, Federer came back out and utterly dominated to win his 18th grass court title, and 98 overall. Some pundits have pointed out that if Federer plays his schedule right, he could win his 100th title at Wimbledon. Let's hope he doesn't run into ...Who's Down
Nick Kyrgios
First of all, to answer your question, Nick, yes. Yes, the between-the-legs shot can be overplayed. And yes, it loses its brilliance when you are doing it standing still.Kyrgios is a strange character. You might know this already. So there he is in Stuttgart, playing the semis against Federer. They're playing their per-usual tiebreaker, and Kyrgios, for once, wins a set against Federer. And then he put his head down and focused on the task and grinded his way through a challenging second set. LOL no. Actually, what he did was treat the second set as some type of proving ground for all his trick shots, and missed nearly all of them. By the time he reconciled himself to the fact that Fed wasn't going to sabotage himself, he tried to refocus for the third set, which he did, but still lost because it was Federer he was playing against. I have advocated for giving Nick a bit of space before writing him off completely. I still am, but I also am losing a bit of patience for someone who apparently is so bored out there that he's taken to hitting trick shots just to keep himself amused. If the thrill of competition doesn't do it for him, then what will?
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Dustup in Paris: The Answer Was Right In Front of our Faces
Who would win the French Open? The top seeds, as it turned out.
Of course Simona Halep. Three times this tournament, she lost the first set against an inspired opponent, and three times, she would come back and dominate the last two sets. She played three major finals before this and lost, including one on the same court last year. She deserves it.
Naturally, it was going to be Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer just takes the spring off because it's going to be Nadal. This time, Nadal faced Dominic Thiem in the final, who was young and fast with powerful groundstrokes, who said he had a plan to beat Nadal. Dude won eight games. It might have been seven if Nadal's fingers hadn't started cramping. Usually, Nadal doesn't take cramping very well
via GIPHY
but this time, no biggie.
Let's talk about the things you don't expect, like being fortunate enough to have a long enough career that you can win a Slam and be greeted by your proud son, ahem Nicolas Mahut:
Of course Simona Halep. Three times this tournament, she lost the first set against an inspired opponent, and three times, she would come back and dominate the last two sets. She played three major finals before this and lost, including one on the same court last year. She deserves it.
Naturally, it was going to be Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer just takes the spring off because it's going to be Nadal. This time, Nadal faced Dominic Thiem in the final, who was young and fast with powerful groundstrokes, who said he had a plan to beat Nadal. Dude won eight games. It might have been seven if Nadal's fingers hadn't started cramping. Usually, Nadal doesn't take cramping very well
via GIPHY
but this time, no biggie.
Let's talk about the things you don't expect, like being fortunate enough to have a long enough career that you can win a Slam and be greeted by your proud son, ahem Nicolas Mahut:
— Roland-Garros (@rolandgarros) June 9, 2018
And don't think I didn't see you wiping that sweet child's kiss off your face Pierre-Hugues Herbert. I mean, I get it, but ... I see you.
Friday, June 08, 2018
Dustup in Paris: Gird Thyself for Finals Weekend!
Patrick McEnroe tweeted early last week that Sloane Stephens was going to win the French Open. I don't want to say I doubted him
but I just wasn't sure. He tweeted this while there was a Williams sister, a Pliskova, a Kerber, a Muguruza and a Kvitova for good measure still active in the tournament. And Sloane is not always hitting monster groundies. She has just been steady throughout, playing out points and waiting for her opportunity. When her opportunity comes, she rarely squandered it. (Totally looking at you, Garbine Muguruza. Like, totally.) Stephens' performance here is a good reminder of something I've been thinking about lately -- there's no one way to win a tennis match. You don't have to look a certain way, or be a good server -- it helps to be fit these days -- but there's always room for strategy and steadiness.
The one person who might know that better than Stephens, is, unfortunately for her, Simona Halep. Halep has played two Slam finals and lost them both -- one in spectacular fashion this time last year. I've been watching her matches, including against Muguruza in the semis and wondered how she is doing it. And it is that thing that I've always admired about Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. I've never seen two people who could win a match with sheer will (vintage, of course), even when their game wasn't there for them. This tournament, Halep has sprinted all over the court to run down wannabe winners, from side to side, front to back -- and then lost the point. And the next point, she resets and starts all over again. I throw a LOT of shade her way for on-court coaching, because she's better than needing a crutch. She can do it herself.
The women's final holds much more intrigue to me than the men's final. I know it shouldn't. I know in my head that Dominic Thiem is going to be a big problem for Rafael Nadal. Nadal said today that his body feels like it's 40. (Anytime he's ready, I can tell him what it looks like.) Logically, yes, Thiem can win his first French Open on Sunday, and he might. However, it is difficult to ignore history here. Something happens to Nadal in Paris. And this year, that thing can need a set to get kicked into year. Maybe a set and a break, but then he's stalking the baseline, doing that engine thing, slapping forehands down the line, both feet airborne. If you create a Thiem and Nadal column, there's a lot in Thiem's column: youth, fire, steadiness, patience, point construction. Almost all of those things are in the Nadal column as well, and then you'd add that thing. I don't know what you call it, but it's worth about 50 items on the Nadal column.
I got another thing to get off my chest and it's about Serena Williams. Apparently, her coach Patrick Mouratoglou doesn't think Serena should be playing doubles with her sister. Like Venus is the problem. He's had this beef apparently for a while. He probably wasn't wrong in this case -- it's her first major back and it did end in a retirement from injury. BUT. Let the record show that Serena could use some doubles lessons from her coach. Standing like a stone in the middle of no-man's land so that her sister must cover three-quarters of a court. The volleys. Doubles is not a stationary game, hon!
That's it. I just feel like it needed to be said.
Just FYI.— Patrick McEnroe (@PatrickMcEnroe) May 30, 2018
Sloane Stephens is winning this tournament
— AndyRoddicksNetGame (@TWA_tennis_blog) May 30, 2018
but I just wasn't sure. He tweeted this while there was a Williams sister, a Pliskova, a Kerber, a Muguruza and a Kvitova for good measure still active in the tournament. And Sloane is not always hitting monster groundies. She has just been steady throughout, playing out points and waiting for her opportunity. When her opportunity comes, she rarely squandered it. (Totally looking at you, Garbine Muguruza. Like, totally.) Stephens' performance here is a good reminder of something I've been thinking about lately -- there's no one way to win a tennis match. You don't have to look a certain way, or be a good server -- it helps to be fit these days -- but there's always room for strategy and steadiness.
The one person who might know that better than Stephens, is, unfortunately for her, Simona Halep. Halep has played two Slam finals and lost them both -- one in spectacular fashion this time last year. I've been watching her matches, including against Muguruza in the semis and wondered how she is doing it. And it is that thing that I've always admired about Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. I've never seen two people who could win a match with sheer will (vintage, of course), even when their game wasn't there for them. This tournament, Halep has sprinted all over the court to run down wannabe winners, from side to side, front to back -- and then lost the point. And the next point, she resets and starts all over again. I throw a LOT of shade her way for on-court coaching, because she's better than needing a crutch. She can do it herself.
The women's final holds much more intrigue to me than the men's final. I know it shouldn't. I know in my head that Dominic Thiem is going to be a big problem for Rafael Nadal. Nadal said today that his body feels like it's 40. (Anytime he's ready, I can tell him what it looks like.) Logically, yes, Thiem can win his first French Open on Sunday, and he might. However, it is difficult to ignore history here. Something happens to Nadal in Paris. And this year, that thing can need a set to get kicked into year. Maybe a set and a break, but then he's stalking the baseline, doing that engine thing, slapping forehands down the line, both feet airborne. If you create a Thiem and Nadal column, there's a lot in Thiem's column: youth, fire, steadiness, patience, point construction. Almost all of those things are in the Nadal column as well, and then you'd add that thing. I don't know what you call it, but it's worth about 50 items on the Nadal column.
I got another thing to get off my chest and it's about Serena Williams. Apparently, her coach Patrick Mouratoglou doesn't think Serena should be playing doubles with her sister. Like Venus is the problem. He's had this beef apparently for a while. He probably wasn't wrong in this case -- it's her first major back and it did end in a retirement from injury. BUT. Let the record show that Serena could use some doubles lessons from her coach. Standing like a stone in the middle of no-man's land so that her sister must cover three-quarters of a court. The volleys. Doubles is not a stationary game, hon!
That's it. I just feel like it needed to be said.
Saturday, June 02, 2018
Dustup in Paris: A Running List of French Open-Related Grievances
I'm really not someone who's hard to please. I mean, when Slams come around, I just need to either be on location (I am currently available in July and in late-August/early-September), or an air-conditioned locale in which to watch, and a mute button for most match commentators. I also need not to humiliate myself with the draw every year. But no. Every year, I have to deal with people trying to ruin my tournament by doing things like:
1. Airing the French Open on the Tennis Channel: It's nothing personal. I like Jon Wertheim, Lindsay Davenport and James Blake as commentators. (Justin Gimelstob? Hard pass to anyone who would insult a fellow pro player by suggesting, even in jest, that Rafa Nadal got a better challenge from a ballboy than Richard Gasquet, his third-round opponent.) The problem is this feature they have where they go around the grounds to update viewers on other matches. And then ... they just stay with the match they were showing you. Example: Novak Djokovic is in his first set against Roberto Bautista-Agut. At the same time, second seed Alexander Zverev is two sets and a break down to some dude and Grigor Dimitrov, the fourth (!) seed, is also facing elimination. And so it makes complete sense to ... watch Djokovic hold serve IN THE FIRST SET. I know that the Tennis Channel thinks it's the only show in town, but there is this thing called the Internet. It's a wild place, and there, you can watch any match you want, mostly via this one website called Reddit. But, yeah, you keep showing us matches based on what you think casual tennis fans who only know the big names would want to see.
2. This infernal debate about men playing five sets: This happens at every Slam, but nowhere is it as loud as in Paris each year. The courts are slower, the points longer. Five sets can take a long time. Not all of it is action-packed. That means you can basically set your clock to a tweet from tennis writer Ben Rothenberg:
I like his work. He's a very good reporter, a decent writer. He finds really good tennis stories. But for Pete's sake, he has some really bad takes. #saveourmen? Those poor men who were making more money at all the majors for decades? I have ranted on this before, but I don't know why tennis fans are so quick to change the game of tennis as if something's so horrible about it. Just to pick up a few casual fans? You know what would bring in more tennis fans? Making it easier to people to actually play tennis. I am just saying. I am also just saying that if Roger Federer and Nadal were about to play five sets, I bet it would get awfully quiet in that corner of Twitter. Not every five-setter is worth writing home about. Not every match is worth writing home about. What, are we going to change this to a super-tiebreak game because we think that not everyone has the patience for a whole match? Bruh-uh-uh-uh-uhhhhhhhh.
(Oh, fun fact! I ballgirlled for Niskioka this spring when he played in Sarasota. Did I not tell you guys about that yet? I have to tell y'all about that.)
3. The French are out here every year putting their countryfolk on Phillippe Chatrier and Suzanne Lenglen every year as if a French person is going to win the French Open. You kidding me? We're really watching Gael Monfils and Caroline Garcia on Center Court while Simona Halep is on COURT 18? Yes, the Simona Halep who almost won the tournament last year. Really, French fam? It kind of cracks me up to see this center-court treatment for these guys when I'm old enough to remember how the French used to do Mary Pierce, who actually won the French Open.
1. Airing the French Open on the Tennis Channel: It's nothing personal. I like Jon Wertheim, Lindsay Davenport and James Blake as commentators. (Justin Gimelstob? Hard pass to anyone who would insult a fellow pro player by suggesting, even in jest, that Rafa Nadal got a better challenge from a ballboy than Richard Gasquet, his third-round opponent.) The problem is this feature they have where they go around the grounds to update viewers on other matches. And then ... they just stay with the match they were showing you. Example: Novak Djokovic is in his first set against Roberto Bautista-Agut. At the same time, second seed Alexander Zverev is two sets and a break down to some dude and Grigor Dimitrov, the fourth (!) seed, is also facing elimination. And so it makes complete sense to ... watch Djokovic hold serve IN THE FIRST SET. I know that the Tennis Channel thinks it's the only show in town, but there is this thing called the Internet. It's a wild place, and there, you can watch any match you want, mostly via this one website called Reddit. But, yeah, you keep showing us matches based on what you think casual tennis fans who only know the big names would want to see.
2. This infernal debate about men playing five sets: This happens at every Slam, but nowhere is it as loud as in Paris each year. The courts are slower, the points longer. Five sets can take a long time. Not all of it is action-packed. That means you can basically set your clock to a tweet from tennis writer Ben Rothenberg:
Rough to watch: Yoshihito Nishioka, up 5-3 in the fifth, totally undone by cramping and loses 7-5 in the fifth to Verdasco (who wasn't exactly slamming the door shut). 4 hours, 22 minutes.— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) May 27, 2018
There's a better way. #bestofthree #saveourmen
I like his work. He's a very good reporter, a decent writer. He finds really good tennis stories. But for Pete's sake, he has some really bad takes. #saveourmen? Those poor men who were making more money at all the majors for decades? I have ranted on this before, but I don't know why tennis fans are so quick to change the game of tennis as if something's so horrible about it. Just to pick up a few casual fans? You know what would bring in more tennis fans? Making it easier to people to actually play tennis. I am just saying. I am also just saying that if Roger Federer and Nadal were about to play five sets, I bet it would get awfully quiet in that corner of Twitter. Not every five-setter is worth writing home about. Not every match is worth writing home about. What, are we going to change this to a super-tiebreak game because we think that not everyone has the patience for a whole match? Bruh-uh-uh-uh-uhhhhhhhh.
(Oh, fun fact! I ballgirlled for Niskioka this spring when he played in Sarasota. Did I not tell you guys about that yet? I have to tell y'all about that.)
3. The French are out here every year putting their countryfolk on Phillippe Chatrier and Suzanne Lenglen every year as if a French person is going to win the French Open. You kidding me? We're really watching Gael Monfils and Caroline Garcia on Center Court while Simona Halep is on COURT 18? Yes, the Simona Halep who almost won the tournament last year. Really, French fam? It kind of cracks me up to see this center-court treatment for these guys when I'm old enough to remember how the French used to do Mary Pierce, who actually won the French Open.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Dustup in Paris: The Women's Preview
About three or four weeks ago, I would have discounted this women's draw as nothing to write home about. But the clay-court season was super interesting. Who knew Maria Sharapova's game would arise from the grave and begin hitting drop shots?! And Elina Svitolina's game, so boring and yet so effective, showed consistent results, even a win against top-seeded Simona Halep. Petra Kvitova's over here winning on clay. Sloane Stephens grinding out some wins, and looking pissed almost the entire time. Also, Serena Williams is playing her first major after maternity leave. Let's get into it:
I've been off the blog for a minute, but I have been watching tennis. So the first thing that's worth noting is just a quick rant about Karolina Pliskova. She got fined some thousands of dollars at the Rome tournament for just straight trashing the match umpire's chair after losing in an upset in the third round. No one's saying how much she was fined, just that it's four figures. I'd like to point out that Serena Williams got fined $82,000 for threatening a linesperson once. With her racquet, yes, but there was no physical contact. Pliskova hit a chair that someone was sitting in. Repeatedly. And maybe it's just me, but the fact that she first reached for the ump's hand, and then hit her chair makes that thing a little more direct. So she should have gotten a tad bit more than a four-figure fine.
But alas. She is our second seed. So that's cool.
Phew. Off my chest. Garbine Muguruza and Svetlana Kuznetsova are playing each other in the first round. How does Muguruza get a worse first-round draw than Serena? Muguruza should make her way through, but I have no idea what's going to happen between Danielle Collins and Caroline Wozniacki. Woz's clay season has not been ideal. Collins hasn't been that much better, but she is having a breakout year, and when you put that against someone coming off her first Slam win, well. Just get the popcorn ready.
Now, Serena. I know everyone is all jacked about her return, myself included. But does Serena have a chance to win this tournament? Her quarter of the draw includes Muguruza, Sharapova and Pliskova, all of whom have been playing on tour regularly. She's in the same half with Halep, with Kerber, with even Elise Bertens. She's probably in the tougher half of the draw. Who wouldn't love to see a new mom come out and muscle her way through this draw, maybe even play Venus in the final again? I guess I'm saying that Wimbledon is right around the corner, fam.
I've been off the blog for a minute, but I have been watching tennis. So the first thing that's worth noting is just a quick rant about Karolina Pliskova. She got fined some thousands of dollars at the Rome tournament for just straight trashing the match umpire's chair after losing in an upset in the third round. No one's saying how much she was fined, just that it's four figures. I'd like to point out that Serena Williams got fined $82,000 for threatening a linesperson once. With her racquet, yes, but there was no physical contact. Pliskova hit a chair that someone was sitting in. Repeatedly. And maybe it's just me, but the fact that she first reached for the ump's hand, and then hit her chair makes that thing a little more direct. So she should have gotten a tad bit more than a four-figure fine.
But alas. She is our second seed. So that's cool.
Phew. Off my chest. Garbine Muguruza and Svetlana Kuznetsova are playing each other in the first round. How does Muguruza get a worse first-round draw than Serena? Muguruza should make her way through, but I have no idea what's going to happen between Danielle Collins and Caroline Wozniacki. Woz's clay season has not been ideal. Collins hasn't been that much better, but she is having a breakout year, and when you put that against someone coming off her first Slam win, well. Just get the popcorn ready.
Now, Serena. I know everyone is all jacked about her return, myself included. But does Serena have a chance to win this tournament? Her quarter of the draw includes Muguruza, Sharapova and Pliskova, all of whom have been playing on tour regularly. She's in the same half with Halep, with Kerber, with even Elise Bertens. She's probably in the tougher half of the draw. Who wouldn't love to see a new mom come out and muscle her way through this draw, maybe even play Venus in the final again? I guess I'm saying that Wimbledon is right around the corner, fam.
Dustup in Paris: The Men's Preview
Whew! It's been a minute. I have been working on some things, including my new logo. Pretty boss, am I right? Anyway, I knew I had to kick things back into gear in time for the next major. Things have been interesting on tour. We've had some players come back from injury layoffs with mixed results, we got Roger Federer taking his annual spring break that coincidentally lasts for the entire clay season, and we got Rafael Nadal showing utter domination on his favorite surface (with a bump or two ...). I know the temptation is to just hand the trophy to Nadal, and his draw lends to that conclusion, but I don't know. The biggest potential problems for him are in the bottom half of the draw. Actually, the bottom half of the draw is where, like, all the drama is:
So, Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic in round 1? Will there be stress balls and meditation on changeovers? Some other really interesting matches in the first round, too -- Ernests Gulbis v. Gilles Muller, Grigor Dimitrov v. Victor Troicki, who is still playing by some miracle. But if the tennis gods are very nice to us, round two will give us Djokovic v. David Ferrer. I know Ferrer is not who he used to be, but this is still clay, and Djokovic is still pretty fresh in his comeback. I'm just planning to be sick during that match if it happens. Don't tell my boss.
Really the biggest injustice of this draw is the fact that somehow Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev are in the same half of the draw. Actually *squints, checks draw* they are in the same quarter. I mean, what. Nadal manages to avoid anyone who can take a set off of him on clay, and yet the second half is loaded with a French Open champion, a French Open finalist, David Goffin, Kei Nishikori and the two youngsters who can threaten Nadal on clay? This is a little unfortunate -- not for Nadal -- but for fans. I mean, could we spread out the intrigue?
Really the biggest injustice of this draw is the fact that somehow Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev are in the same half of the draw. Actually *squints, checks draw* they are in the same quarter. I mean, what. Nadal manages to avoid anyone who can take a set off of him on clay, and yet the second half is loaded with a French Open champion, a French Open finalist, David Goffin, Kei Nishikori and the two youngsters who can threaten Nadal on clay? This is a little unfortunate -- not for Nadal -- but for fans. I mean, could we spread out the intrigue?
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Therapy with TWA: When You End Up Rooting Against Americans
I've been sitting on this post for a bit, because I wasn't sure how to say what I wanted to say, or even if it needed to be said. But I just read Jon Wertheim's latest tennis column (and you should, too), and it's time to hit the therapy couch.
American Tennys Sandgren had another good run in Houston last week, and naturally, I didn't watch one second of it. I tracked the final online, hoping desperately that he would lose, and he did, in three sets. I'm sure it was a good match. I'm sure I'll never be watching a match featuring Sandgren unless he's getting his butt kicked by Rafa Nadal or something. Some people would call this "petty" or tell me it's "time to move on." We'll get to that in a second.
This all started a few months ago, when Sandgren's social media account was combed and some things came out in the wash. Pizza-gate. Homophobia. Xenophobia. Probably some light racism (or at least a helping of Serena Williams hateration). Disgusting. And when fans began calling him out on Twitter for it, there was John Isner, asking everyone what the big deal was. This is, yes, the same Isner who called out Colin Kaepernick for protesting racial injustice in America by kneeling during a song that has a racist verse in it. But. Sandgren and Isner are fine tennis players -- among the best that America has to offer right now. And social media? That's off-court. That's life. And tennis is tennis. You can pull apart the player from the person. Right? Right?!?
Right. I guess. It's not as if I live in a bubble. Heck, I'm in Florida and I play tennis with people who voted for the current Cheeto-in-Chief. (Sorry. Nah. Can't use his name here, but bigs up to Luvvie Ajaye who has allllll the nicknames.) Did I ever mention that I got invited to a post-election party by a MAGA-head and when I told him later I had to miss his party because I was at the Women's March, he told me I had wasted my time? Anyway, I've played with people who talk politics on the changeover. And because we are way past the times of politely declining to give voice to my disagreement, we disagree. Then we we get back on the court and keep playing. No problem.
So why is it so hard for the people I actually do not know? I've been wondering about this myself for a while, ever since the Sandgren affair. This weekend, I finally figured it out. It's because of what they represent -- that's what's getting under my skin. These players represent America, and I live in America. And they don't represent me. And what they believe and support is so much more than "other-side-of-the-aisle" disagreement. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that President Dolt is a racist. (And if you can use circumstantial evidence to send someone to prison for murder, than I can posit why majority-black countries are the shitholes, but not Sweden.) And these players support that. And I am supposed to support them? I am supposed to watch only what they do on court. Tennis fans -- well, we're off the court. And many of us, especially fans of color, are busy spending our off-court time being horrified by the choices that their guy makes daily.
Really, what this situation needs is a person in a leadership position in tennis who recognizes that tennis fans are more diverse than ever and that this is a situation. But the only people connected to tennis who have been firm about Sandgren's transgressions are Serena Williams and Wertheim. And Wertheim is just a columnist. That person who will step up in a leadership capacity is apparently not Katrina Adams, the black female president of the USTA. Shortly after Sandgren's run in Australia, she congratulated him on Twitter, and when Tennis Twitter said essentially, HEY YO WHAT THE HELL IS THIS, Adams professed ignorance of what he said, and did not address it when folks showed her. If you are a leader who is watching as the players coming through the USTA are more diverse than ever (as well as the fans), but feel no need to address this -- if your approach is to let it blow over until Sandgren *crosses herself* wins a Slam -- then that's not what we need now. Unless I've missed it, she hasn't even said, "Hey, look, I talked to him. I believe he's sorry and that he wants to start over with fans." Now that would go a long damn way. And yet, even with the long, diverse history of American tennis -- which includes Martina Navratilova, the Williams sisters, Sachia Vickery and other immigrants, children of immigrants, and people of color -- Adams and the USTA has nothing to say.
We need someone who will at least attempt to address this in a nuanced way, as Wertheim did. And he's right. This isn't about politics. It's about ideology that is completely unacceptable. Scrubbing your social media and angrily denouncing the media because it reported facts are ... well, first of all, a little too on the nose.
It's also not really an apology.
Having said all of that, it's not fair for the media to continue to ask Sandgren questions about this -- his answers won't change. If he was sorry, he'd be sorry -- all the way sorry. And he's not going to post about Pizzagate again. So here we are in the gray area with Sandgren, with Isner, with these players whose names appear with tiny little American flags, with fans wanting to support your full Davis Cup roster -- and rooting for Belgium instead.
I hope David Goffin, at least, is on the level.
American Tennys Sandgren had another good run in Houston last week, and naturally, I didn't watch one second of it. I tracked the final online, hoping desperately that he would lose, and he did, in three sets. I'm sure it was a good match. I'm sure I'll never be watching a match featuring Sandgren unless he's getting his butt kicked by Rafa Nadal or something. Some people would call this "petty" or tell me it's "time to move on." We'll get to that in a second.
This all started a few months ago, when Sandgren's social media account was combed and some things came out in the wash. Pizza-gate. Homophobia. Xenophobia. Probably some light racism (or at least a helping of Serena Williams hateration). Disgusting. And when fans began calling him out on Twitter for it, there was John Isner, asking everyone what the big deal was. This is, yes, the same Isner who called out Colin Kaepernick for protesting racial injustice in America by kneeling during a song that has a racist verse in it. But. Sandgren and Isner are fine tennis players -- among the best that America has to offer right now. And social media? That's off-court. That's life. And tennis is tennis. You can pull apart the player from the person. Right? Right?!?
Right. I guess. It's not as if I live in a bubble. Heck, I'm in Florida and I play tennis with people who voted for the current Cheeto-in-Chief. (Sorry. Nah. Can't use his name here, but bigs up to Luvvie Ajaye who has allllll the nicknames.) Did I ever mention that I got invited to a post-election party by a MAGA-head and when I told him later I had to miss his party because I was at the Women's March, he told me I had wasted my time? Anyway, I've played with people who talk politics on the changeover. And because we are way past the times of politely declining to give voice to my disagreement, we disagree. Then we we get back on the court and keep playing. No problem.
So why is it so hard for the people I actually do not know? I've been wondering about this myself for a while, ever since the Sandgren affair. This weekend, I finally figured it out. It's because of what they represent -- that's what's getting under my skin. These players represent America, and I live in America. And they don't represent me. And what they believe and support is so much more than "other-side-of-the-aisle" disagreement. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that President Dolt is a racist. (And if you can use circumstantial evidence to send someone to prison for murder, than I can posit why majority-black countries are the shitholes, but not Sweden.) And these players support that. And I am supposed to support them? I am supposed to watch only what they do on court. Tennis fans -- well, we're off the court. And many of us, especially fans of color, are busy spending our off-court time being horrified by the choices that their guy makes daily.
Really, what this situation needs is a person in a leadership position in tennis who recognizes that tennis fans are more diverse than ever and that this is a situation. But the only people connected to tennis who have been firm about Sandgren's transgressions are Serena Williams and Wertheim. And Wertheim is just a columnist. That person who will step up in a leadership capacity is apparently not Katrina Adams, the black female president of the USTA. Shortly after Sandgren's run in Australia, she congratulated him on Twitter, and when Tennis Twitter said essentially, HEY YO WHAT THE HELL IS THIS, Adams professed ignorance of what he said, and did not address it when folks showed her. If you are a leader who is watching as the players coming through the USTA are more diverse than ever (as well as the fans), but feel no need to address this -- if your approach is to let it blow over until Sandgren *crosses herself* wins a Slam -- then that's not what we need now. Unless I've missed it, she hasn't even said, "Hey, look, I talked to him. I believe he's sorry and that he wants to start over with fans." Now that would go a long damn way. And yet, even with the long, diverse history of American tennis -- which includes Martina Navratilova, the Williams sisters, Sachia Vickery and other immigrants, children of immigrants, and people of color -- Adams and the USTA has nothing to say.
We need someone who will at least attempt to address this in a nuanced way, as Wertheim did. And he's right. This isn't about politics. It's about ideology that is completely unacceptable. Scrubbing your social media and angrily denouncing the media because it reported facts are ... well, first of all, a little too on the nose.
It's also not really an apology.
Having said all of that, it's not fair for the media to continue to ask Sandgren questions about this -- his answers won't change. If he was sorry, he'd be sorry -- all the way sorry. And he's not going to post about Pizzagate again. So here we are in the gray area with Sandgren, with Isner, with these players whose names appear with tiny little American flags, with fans wanting to support your full Davis Cup roster -- and rooting for Belgium instead.
I hope David Goffin, at least, is on the level.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
I Got Some Things to Say About the Miami Open
This is going to be a short post because the semifinals are about to start and nobody better bother me after 1 p.m., my time.
Seriously, this tournament has been crazy. I've said this before, but the women's tennis is just a tad bit more interesting than last year, yes?
For me, tennis is fun to watch and to try to play, but sometimes, you get little tiny reminders about how it's more than than for people. Sometimes, a tennis career ventures into dream category. As in, achieving something you thought you could do, but were almost too afraid to say it, or try it. And then the moment is there, and then you do it. Sometimes, you see how it matters in moments like this:
Did you see that? That look from Danielle Collins after she shook Venus Williams' hand? It gave me goosebumps, because that's a dream come true right there. Also, though? Her backhand is *fire emoji*
Still with the on-court coaching
The first time I heard a player get decent advice during this sexist practice was yesterday, during Elina Svitolina's match against Jelena Ostapenko (whatever happened with this Alona thing from last year? Was that some type of Garth Brooks/Chris Gaines thing?). The timing wasn't awesome -- she didn't know it, but Svitolina was about to be a couple games and a tiebreak from losing in straight sets. But what he said: "You have to be willing to play the right way" as opposed to focusing solely on winning or losing is actually a great reminder. Much easier said than done, but still, great advice.
Sloane!
I mean, dang! I am woman enough to acknowledge that in my heart of hearts, I thought Sloane Stephens winning a Slam might have been a touch fluke-y. But I think I might have been wrong. I really liked reading this from her after her most recent beatdown of Angelique Kerber:
Seriously, this tournament has been crazy. I've said this before, but the women's tennis is just a tad bit more interesting than last year, yes?
For me, tennis is fun to watch and to try to play, but sometimes, you get little tiny reminders about how it's more than than for people. Sometimes, a tennis career ventures into dream category. As in, achieving something you thought you could do, but were almost too afraid to say it, or try it. And then the moment is there, and then you do it. Sometimes, you see how it matters in moments like this:
Did you see that? That look from Danielle Collins after she shook Venus Williams' hand? It gave me goosebumps, because that's a dream come true right there. Also, though? Her backhand is *fire emoji*
Still with the on-court coaching
The first time I heard a player get decent advice during this sexist practice was yesterday, during Elina Svitolina's match against Jelena Ostapenko (whatever happened with this Alona thing from last year? Was that some type of Garth Brooks/Chris Gaines thing?). The timing wasn't awesome -- she didn't know it, but Svitolina was about to be a couple games and a tiebreak from losing in straight sets. But what he said: "You have to be willing to play the right way" as opposed to focusing solely on winning or losing is actually a great reminder. Much easier said than done, but still, great advice.
Sloane!
I mean, dang! I am woman enough to acknowledge that in my heart of hearts, I thought Sloane Stephens winning a Slam might have been a touch fluke-y. But I think I might have been wrong. I really liked reading this from her after her most recent beatdown of Angelique Kerber:
Stephens: “I think where the work is done is when you’re on Court 75 and you’re playing Niculescu, and she’s slicing and dicing you to Beijing, and you’re having to really fight and struggle.” #MiamiOpen pic.twitter.com/6EBWtcDn4k— WTA Insider (@WTA_insider) March 27, 2018
The wind issue
Speaking of Sloane v. Kerber, some people on the Internet had some issues with the court conditions:
There aren’t that many tennis hills I’d die on but I think one of them is definitely this: there should be a wind rule.— Courtney Nguyen (@FortyDeuceTwits) March 27, 2018
Nguyen offered some decent video evidence as well. But here's my thing: playing in high winds is difficult. So is playing when it's 90 degrees. So is when you're playing in wind on clay and little sand particles get into your eyes. Also when the sun overhead is messing with your toss. Where do you draw the line? And what does it say about the winner of the match when you essentially nullify the conditions by complaining about them? Stephens also played in high winds and she was able to negotiate the conditions. Kerber wasn't. That's why she lost. There's my tennis hill, I guess.
Now everyone go watch tennis!
Monday, March 19, 2018
Indian Wells Wrap: Because There's a Lot to Say
Yes, the tennis was excellent this tournament. The women's draw had a lot of storylines, and most of them seemed to run through Naomi Osaka, and we'll get there. On the men's side, well, I don't applaud at my laptop screen often, but when I do, it's when Roger Federer and Juan Martin del Potro have put on a helluva final.
First thing's first: Tommy Haas. That might not be the first thing for everyone but just hang on a second. Tommy Haas retired this week at Indian Wells and it made me sad. When I was a new tennis fan, Haas was one of those big guns coming up in the game with a smooth game and was also not difficult to look at. That sexy AF backhand. (Whew.) He was, for me, one of those figures in the game who was always on the precipice of greatness, but seemed to run into something. It was either injury, or Marat Safin, or injury, or it was Pete Sampras, or personal tragedy, or it was Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, or it was injury, or it was Roger Federer. Haas' career high ranking was No. 2. He never won a Slam, but all those guys I named? He beat them all, too. That's a hell of a span of players, and he was present for all of it -- as much as he could be with injuries in the way. As a fan, my knee-jerk is to say that his career was unfinished, but I think that's an insult in a way. Tommy Haas did what he could with what he had. He didn't waste one bit of his talent and he has nothing to be sorry about. His isn't a career to ask "What if?" about. It's just one that you're glad you got to see. Also, by the way, one of the last big wins he had was in 2017, against Roger Federer. So. And most importantly, Haas isn't riding that sexy ass into the sunset just yet -- we'll get to see him as a regular presence in tennis as the Indian Wells tournament organizer.
Now, on to the tournament itself. I don't know where to start. OK, fine, let's start with Osaka if you insist. I haven't written about her yet, mostly because of her spotty results. But the first time I honestly took notice of her was this year at Hopman Cup. Yeah, an exo, but an exo in which she got to square off against Federer in mixed doubles. The thing I noticed about her was that she went for Federer a couple times. This chick was trading groundstrokes with him instead of going to Belinda Bencic, which I definitely would have done. The thing about Osaka is that she wants to be weighed and measured, and if she's found wanting, she wants to fix it. She looked like a machine this tournament. I normally don't put a lot of stock about how players act, but she beat Maria Sharapova in the first round, and her expression was not of a stunned young upstart. She expected that result, and that was the same face she had throughout the tournament. She won the tournament and she smiled as if to say, "Oh, well, this is nice. I'm looking for No. 1., but this will do in a pinch." I'm legit wondering if she's gonna end the year with the U.S. Open title. Oh, but back to that poker face for a second: I wonder how it will hold up if she wins her first-round match in Miami next week. Her opponent is Serena Williams.
I haven't said a lot about Daria Kasatkina, either, but talk about players who are going to be a problem. Watching the emergence of she and Osaka is almost like the total opposite of what we saw in women's tennis last year, where the usual suspects couldn't quite bring themselves to dominate with a window in the leadership. These 20-year-olds seem to not have that type of concern at all. Kasatkina's match against Venus Williams was, so far, the match of the year to me. They both played some remarkable tennis and you can say that match was won by Kasatkina, not surrendered by Williams. And once again, Venus is out here as a message to all of you. You know who you are. You've had that crappy volley for years, and you figure you'll never be able to fix it. She's 37, y'all. Fix the volley.
Finally. That Federer/delP match. Hoo buddy. I don't know what to say about it. It just needs to be viewed. The turning points, the general saltiness of the players, the match point won turned double fault, I mean. Gracious. All I can say is that I feel like del Potro needed this win and I'm glad he got it. And if you don't have a soft spot for del Potro, you need to check your pulse. Verdict!
First thing's first: Tommy Haas. That might not be the first thing for everyone but just hang on a second. Tommy Haas retired this week at Indian Wells and it made me sad. When I was a new tennis fan, Haas was one of those big guns coming up in the game with a smooth game and was also not difficult to look at. That sexy AF backhand. (Whew.) He was, for me, one of those figures in the game who was always on the precipice of greatness, but seemed to run into something. It was either injury, or Marat Safin, or injury, or it was Pete Sampras, or personal tragedy, or it was Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, or it was injury, or it was Roger Federer. Haas' career high ranking was No. 2. He never won a Slam, but all those guys I named? He beat them all, too. That's a hell of a span of players, and he was present for all of it -- as much as he could be with injuries in the way. As a fan, my knee-jerk is to say that his career was unfinished, but I think that's an insult in a way. Tommy Haas did what he could with what he had. He didn't waste one bit of his talent and he has nothing to be sorry about. His isn't a career to ask "What if?" about. It's just one that you're glad you got to see. Also, by the way, one of the last big wins he had was in 2017, against Roger Federer. So. And most importantly, Haas isn't riding that sexy ass into the sunset just yet -- we'll get to see him as a regular presence in tennis as the Indian Wells tournament organizer.
Now, on to the tournament itself. I don't know where to start. OK, fine, let's start with Osaka if you insist. I haven't written about her yet, mostly because of her spotty results. But the first time I honestly took notice of her was this year at Hopman Cup. Yeah, an exo, but an exo in which she got to square off against Federer in mixed doubles. The thing I noticed about her was that she went for Federer a couple times. This chick was trading groundstrokes with him instead of going to Belinda Bencic, which I definitely would have done. The thing about Osaka is that she wants to be weighed and measured, and if she's found wanting, she wants to fix it. She looked like a machine this tournament. I normally don't put a lot of stock about how players act, but she beat Maria Sharapova in the first round, and her expression was not of a stunned young upstart. She expected that result, and that was the same face she had throughout the tournament. She won the tournament and she smiled as if to say, "Oh, well, this is nice. I'm looking for No. 1., but this will do in a pinch." I'm legit wondering if she's gonna end the year with the U.S. Open title. Oh, but back to that poker face for a second: I wonder how it will hold up if she wins her first-round match in Miami next week. Her opponent is Serena Williams.
I haven't said a lot about Daria Kasatkina, either, but talk about players who are going to be a problem. Watching the emergence of she and Osaka is almost like the total opposite of what we saw in women's tennis last year, where the usual suspects couldn't quite bring themselves to dominate with a window in the leadership. These 20-year-olds seem to not have that type of concern at all. Kasatkina's match against Venus Williams was, so far, the match of the year to me. They both played some remarkable tennis and you can say that match was won by Kasatkina, not surrendered by Williams. And once again, Venus is out here as a message to all of you. You know who you are. You've had that crappy volley for years, and you figure you'll never be able to fix it. She's 37, y'all. Fix the volley.
Finally. That Federer/delP match. Hoo buddy. I don't know what to say about it. It just needs to be viewed. The turning points, the general saltiness of the players, the match point won turned double fault, I mean. Gracious. All I can say is that I feel like del Potro needed this win and I'm glad he got it. And if you don't have a soft spot for del Potro, you need to check your pulse. Verdict!
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
The Attitudimeter: Indian Wells edition
We are only halfway through Indian Wells and has it been a time! Right now, Karolina Pliskova is whupping up on another fledgling American, Amanda Anisimova, and unknown Americans have been popping up in weird places. That is to say, they're advancing past the first rounds. But let's talk more about that later.
Shooken.
Also, small postscript: I can't imagine that any member of the Top 10 last night (including the one on court opposite Serena) watched that match without a wee bit of concern that Serena was coming for them personally.
On the Up Swing
Doubles
The tournament announced a $1 million bonus for the player who wins in singles and doubles, and look! It's Victoria Azarenka! John Isner! Grigor friggin' Dimitrov! It might have been a cheap trick, but that Azarenka/Aryna Sabalenka v. Sloane Stephens/Genie Bouchard match was still great to watch. The best part of this bonus is that it brings out the big names in the game, but people who show up get to see the Barbora Strycovas and Marc Lopezes -- the real doubles specialists, and they get the attention they deserve, too. Everyone wins. Except the singles players. Everyone else, though.American Women You've Never Heard Of
Danielle Collins? Caroline Dolehide? (was anyone else having a hard time not thinking of Silence of the Lambs during her match against Simona Halep?) Sachia Vickery? It appears that the wild cards decided they were going to make this visit count.Williams v. Williams rivalry
It's unbelievable that we are almost on our second decade of watching Venus and Serena square off and that (a) people still care and (b) the matches actually get better with time. I'm old enough to remember when watching the sisters play was painful and awkward for all involved. Now? I feel like their match-up last night -- their 29th time playing each other -- was one of their better matches. I mean, they were going after each other! Look a' dis:Shooken.
Also, small postscript: I can't imagine that any member of the Top 10 last night (including the one on court opposite Serena) watched that match without a wee bit of concern that Serena was coming for them personally.
Down Swing
Madison Keys
I feel like a broken record, but here we go anyway. This reliance on on-court coaching isn't even helpful. Keys is on the ropes against fellow American Danielle Collins in the first round, and she can't figure out what she should do, so she calls Lindsay Davenport over, who tells her, in a nutshell, "You're doing amazing, sweetie. Hang in there." Keys goes out there and stands idly while Collins whips shots all over the court. This isn't even Davenport's fault. I'm just saying that Keys obviously has a problem with nerves (see: 2017 U.S. Open final) and running to the coach isn't going to fix it.Men's tennis
I don't know. Maybe it's because so many of the big guns are MIA, but it is hard to get with these early rounds so far. Even Novak Djokovic losing in his first match wasn't that dramatic -- or unexpected. These injuries are beginning to make a big dent in this big tournaments. As it is now, we'll have to wait until the end of the week (hopefully) to see some firework matches.Some of these coaches
I know. I'm gonna stop. But first. I believe this was late in Simona Halep's scrappy win over Dolehide when Dolehide calls the coach over. Coach tells her she has to be the first one to change direction. OK, why? What exactly is the strategy here? Of course it didn't work. These players need to check where their money is going is all I'm saying.Tuesday, March 06, 2018
Therapy with TWA: The Davis Cup Breakdown
So here's how news breaks on Twitter:
1. *news breaks*
2. Twitter at 30 seconds: this is the worst
3. Twitter at 60 seconds: ugh so depressing. 2018 ruined
4. Twitter at 120 seconds: hey, guys, so read the story
5. Twitter at 10 minutes: wow, this is what I've always wanted
That's how it went in a nutshell with the announcement that Davis Cup was planning to change up some things. Right now, the plan on the table (which still needs to be approved this August) is to play the event at one place over one week. The matches would be best-of-three, with three matches per tie -- two singles, one doubles. Also, an investment firm run by a soccer player (!) would be at the helm.
This is, in case you are new here, what I've been talking about for about 10 years on this blog (not the soccer guy part). Here's the first time I complained about the DC format. (I actually called for playoffs for a spot on your team, which is a great damn idea!) Here's another time. Sometimes, I've even wondered if the coaches want to be there. However, I realize I am but one person. There are other tennis fans (and players!), and some of them were not happy about this change to Davis Cup. Oh, actually, it's, uh, now going to be called the World Cup of Tennis. Normally, I'm the tradition junkie who rejects tennis changes at all times, but this needs to happen. Or something like it. Why? So that people will care about this event!
There is reason to think the ITF doesn't even care much about Davis Cup. This year's first round of Davis Cup was during Super Bowl weekend. If you want to generate excitement for a sport, why would you set it for the same weekend as one of the largest North American sporting events at all? Now, most of those matches, if not all, were over by the start time of the game, but the point remains. Super Bowl weekend is Super Bowl weekend. It doesn't leave a lot of oxygen in the room for anything else. And in general, it's hard to generate excitement for a tournament that is tucked into the calendar four times a year.
Now, one complaint about this idea is that part of the appeal of Davis Cup was that players had more opportunities to play in their home country, no matter how small. These are people who will never be able to attend the Australian Open. That will be a loss for those places in ways that are financial and ways that can grow the sport there. I don't know what to say about that, because that sucks. Last year, I drove a little over an hour from the middle of Florida to watch a Fed Cup tie and that was a good experience, and one I'm not likely to have again if this plan takes hold.
But big-name players cared so little about Davis Cup that they eventually had to be compelled to participate when the ITF linked DC appearances to Olympic eligibility. Which is interesting. Because here are these players, who are clearly willing and proud to represent their country in sport. They do it for the Olympics and they'll even travel to alleged hole-in-the-ground Rio de Janiero to do this, but not to ... their home country? Why?
Because Davis Cup is broken. And these proposed changes will fix that, I think. Let's face it: A lot had changed about tennis in the years since the Cup began. It started in 1900, so, for one thing, there were wooden racquets. Tennis was also a bit more popular than it is now, at least in the States, and back then, there weren't three tournaments a week. All of that has changed, and the Davis Cup has not. It has not looked at the success of the Ryder Cup in golf.
I don't agree with all these changes. I wish they could play more matches, keep it at reverse singles and the doubles match. They could do that if they made it a two-week event. I would even be in support of making it a biannual event.
But the main thing that needs to happen here is that Davis Cup, er, World Cup, is finally treated as an EVENT. When you have an EVENT, it fills stadiums every day for two weeks. I think tennis should be more popular than it is. Tennis players like to compete for their countries. They do it in every context except Davis Cup. It's Davis Cup that's broken, and hopefully in August, the ITF will fix it.
1. *news breaks*
2. Twitter at 30 seconds: this is the worst
3. Twitter at 60 seconds: ugh so depressing. 2018 ruined
4. Twitter at 120 seconds: hey, guys, so read the story
5. Twitter at 10 minutes: wow, this is what I've always wanted
That's how it went in a nutshell with the announcement that Davis Cup was planning to change up some things. Right now, the plan on the table (which still needs to be approved this August) is to play the event at one place over one week. The matches would be best-of-three, with three matches per tie -- two singles, one doubles. Also, an investment firm run by a soccer player (!) would be at the helm.
This is, in case you are new here, what I've been talking about for about 10 years on this blog (not the soccer guy part). Here's the first time I complained about the DC format. (I actually called for playoffs for a spot on your team, which is a great damn idea!) Here's another time. Sometimes, I've even wondered if the coaches want to be there. However, I realize I am but one person. There are other tennis fans (and players!), and some of them were not happy about this change to Davis Cup. Oh, actually, it's, uh, now going to be called the World Cup of Tennis. Normally, I'm the tradition junkie who rejects tennis changes at all times, but this needs to happen. Or something like it. Why? So that people will care about this event!
There is reason to think the ITF doesn't even care much about Davis Cup. This year's first round of Davis Cup was during Super Bowl weekend. If you want to generate excitement for a sport, why would you set it for the same weekend as one of the largest North American sporting events at all? Now, most of those matches, if not all, were over by the start time of the game, but the point remains. Super Bowl weekend is Super Bowl weekend. It doesn't leave a lot of oxygen in the room for anything else. And in general, it's hard to generate excitement for a tournament that is tucked into the calendar four times a year.
Now, one complaint about this idea is that part of the appeal of Davis Cup was that players had more opportunities to play in their home country, no matter how small. These are people who will never be able to attend the Australian Open. That will be a loss for those places in ways that are financial and ways that can grow the sport there. I don't know what to say about that, because that sucks. Last year, I drove a little over an hour from the middle of Florida to watch a Fed Cup tie and that was a good experience, and one I'm not likely to have again if this plan takes hold.
But big-name players cared so little about Davis Cup that they eventually had to be compelled to participate when the ITF linked DC appearances to Olympic eligibility. Which is interesting. Because here are these players, who are clearly willing and proud to represent their country in sport. They do it for the Olympics and they'll even travel to alleged hole-in-the-ground Rio de Janiero to do this, but not to ... their home country? Why?
Because Davis Cup is broken. And these proposed changes will fix that, I think. Let's face it: A lot had changed about tennis in the years since the Cup began. It started in 1900, so, for one thing, there were wooden racquets. Tennis was also a bit more popular than it is now, at least in the States, and back then, there weren't three tournaments a week. All of that has changed, and the Davis Cup has not. It has not looked at the success of the Ryder Cup in golf.
I don't agree with all these changes. I wish they could play more matches, keep it at reverse singles and the doubles match. They could do that if they made it a two-week event. I would even be in support of making it a biannual event.
But the main thing that needs to happen here is that Davis Cup, er, World Cup, is finally treated as an EVENT. When you have an EVENT, it fills stadiums every day for two weeks. I think tennis should be more popular than it is. Tennis players like to compete for their countries. They do it in every context except Davis Cup. It's Davis Cup that's broken, and hopefully in August, the ITF will fix it.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
The Attitudimeter: Yes, Roger is on this List
Lot of big news in the pro tennis world in the last week or so. Time to crank up the 'meter!
Some things never change. He's still the best and he still talks as if he could actually lose to people. So adorable.
I'm not sure how you're a top five player and can't get a clothing deal, but that problem is finally solved for Halep. She's a Nike girl now, but wondering if she's going to be one of those Nike girls wearing the same set as the other Nike girls during tournaments. Bad news is that she's now sidelined with injury after playing well post-Australian Open, but I have a question. Why are major finalists and winners not taking time off after a Slam anymore? Caroline Wozniacki was playing the very next tournament after Australia. But why?
Who's Got Attitude
Roger Federer
He's not so much "up" as he is No. 1 in the world again. I, personally, was pretty happy with the previous No. 1, but whatever. This is fine, too. If you want to talk about longevity, let's talk about something I wrote about Fed some 11 years ago this month:
Petra Kvitova
You might say there's no kvit in her. You might if you liked cheesy wordplay. If you like a player returning from a long and scary layoff only to come back and win two fairly big tournaments back-to-back, you'd probably like Kvitova's recent history. She's looking dominant against most players and grinding out tough wins against the better players. It can't be easy to return from a lot of time off, and not everyone has rebounded as well as she has (we'll talk more about that in a second), but she is looking like an early Wimbledon contender. Again.
Simona Halep
I'm not sure how you're a top five player and can't get a clothing deal, but that problem is finally solved for Halep. She's a Nike girl now, but wondering if she's going to be one of those Nike girls wearing the same set as the other Nike girls during tournaments. Bad news is that she's now sidelined with injury after playing well post-Australian Open, but I have a question. Why are major finalists and winners not taking time off after a Slam anymore? Caroline Wozniacki was playing the very next tournament after Australia. But why?
Who Needs an Attitude Adjustment
Maria Sharapova
You're probably thinking: "So, who now? Where has she been?" She has been in tournaments. She was in Qatar. She lost in the first round to Monica Niculescu. Sharapova has not had a great go of it since she's been back. Sure, she beat Halep at the Open last fall, but she's not even advancing far enough in tournaments to get a sniff at the top players right now. And I wonder if this would be happening if she hadn't been banned. She's been back on the tour about the same time as Kvitova, but they are obviously on different tracks right now. It's not just that she's not winning. She hasn't beaten a top-10 player since Halep, who has since returned the favor in dominant form. She's getting destroyed by top players. Angelique Kerber beat the crap out of Sharapova in the third round in Australia. She made the final of the Australian before her suspension. I just wonder what's going on in the alternate universe, where she didn't feel the need to hide from most of her team that she was taking a medication that would later be banned.Thursday, February 15, 2018
LEAGUE WATCH: It's All in Your Head (OK, My Head)
It's that time again -- USTA league play is finally underway here in Florida. And for me, that means ... uh-oh. It means I hadn't played any tennis in at least three weeks, but yet I'm mad I'm not in the week one lineup.
And see, this isn't all my fault. What had happened was that my home courts -- located a comfortable seven minutes from my house -- is now under construction. In the meantime, the best place to pick up matches is a half-hour away. So it's been either drive across the county after work or try to coax others to come find a court closer to me. Naturally, neither has happened. Thus the spider webs on my racquets.
But this time, I had a plan to brush up on my game, despite not having played in three weeks and just one day before my first league match. I would play for hours with a fun group the day before. I'd work out all the kinks with my serve and backhand. The muscle memory would kick in, and I would be all set for the following day. Brilliant!
I didn't play well on Saturday. I couldn't get my toss in the right place and if the ball wasn't hit to my forehand, it was not likely to go over the net. But, I thought, now I know what I need to work on!
But a very surprising development unfolded on Sunday during my match. I continued my poor play from the day before and actually played worse than ever at times. The first league of the year out here is the 7.0 mixed, so I was playing with a 3.0. That means that, as the higher-rated player, it doesn't mean necessarily that you need to take over a match, but you do need to be the steadier player, the one making things happen. That would have been really helpful, especially considering what we had across the net -- a very experienced and physically strong 4.0 guy. That's the time when you need to really target the opposition's weakness while shoring up your own issues.
Unfortunately, however, that isn't what happened. Sure, I had a plan. I've played this 4.0 guy before. He was good, but I had beaten him in doubles before. I knew hitting to his partner was the best thing we could do. But here's the problem: It is very difficult to focus on how to pick apart the opposition when you are busy trying to remember how you hit a tennis ball in the first place.
Like, I had no rhythm, was rendered completely unable to move my feet. I re-tossed the ball for my serve about four times, per serve, on average. Not kidding. Even still, I double-faulted at least once per game. I'm one of those nervous laughers you've met and are annoyed by, so I'd miss badly and turn to my partner and laugh out an apology. He smiled, but I bet inside he was screaming for mercy. I know I was. It's really hard to focus on strategy when you are a bit distracted by your own game.
They say that behind every cloud is a silver lining and I believe ours that day was that we managed to win that one game in the first set.
So this was bad. Immediately after the match, I endeavored to play again as soon as possible and get to the bottom of this terrible play. On Tuesday, I was back at the courts and I didn't have to wait long to get into a foursome to play a set. My serve was still a hot mess, but strangely, I felt free to move and swing however I wanted. I was thinking strategically, seeing the gaps I had in the court, even hitting drop shots and volleys. I felt great.
"What's different about today and two days ago?" I asked myself about a half-hour into the set.
Forgive me -- I'm a little slow. The answer is obvious. One is a practice situation and the other is a match situation. It's pressure. You get used to dealing with it when you play regularly. That's why the practice is important, too. If you don't have to worry about yourself, you have time to focus on the mental part of tennis -- strategy and picking apart the opposition. Otherwise, you're just out there like
And see, this isn't all my fault. What had happened was that my home courts -- located a comfortable seven minutes from my house -- is now under construction. In the meantime, the best place to pick up matches is a half-hour away. So it's been either drive across the county after work or try to coax others to come find a court closer to me. Naturally, neither has happened. Thus the spider webs on my racquets.
But this time, I had a plan to brush up on my game, despite not having played in three weeks and just one day before my first league match. I would play for hours with a fun group the day before. I'd work out all the kinks with my serve and backhand. The muscle memory would kick in, and I would be all set for the following day. Brilliant!
I didn't play well on Saturday. I couldn't get my toss in the right place and if the ball wasn't hit to my forehand, it was not likely to go over the net. But, I thought, now I know what I need to work on!
But a very surprising development unfolded on Sunday during my match. I continued my poor play from the day before and actually played worse than ever at times. The first league of the year out here is the 7.0 mixed, so I was playing with a 3.0. That means that, as the higher-rated player, it doesn't mean necessarily that you need to take over a match, but you do need to be the steadier player, the one making things happen. That would have been really helpful, especially considering what we had across the net -- a very experienced and physically strong 4.0 guy. That's the time when you need to really target the opposition's weakness while shoring up your own issues.
Unfortunately, however, that isn't what happened. Sure, I had a plan. I've played this 4.0 guy before. He was good, but I had beaten him in doubles before. I knew hitting to his partner was the best thing we could do. But here's the problem: It is very difficult to focus on how to pick apart the opposition when you are busy trying to remember how you hit a tennis ball in the first place.
They say that behind every cloud is a silver lining and I believe ours that day was that we managed to win that one game in the first set.
So this was bad. Immediately after the match, I endeavored to play again as soon as possible and get to the bottom of this terrible play. On Tuesday, I was back at the courts and I didn't have to wait long to get into a foursome to play a set. My serve was still a hot mess, but strangely, I felt free to move and swing however I wanted. I was thinking strategically, seeing the gaps I had in the court, even hitting drop shots and volleys. I felt great.
"What's different about today and two days ago?" I asked myself about a half-hour into the set.
Forgive me -- I'm a little slow. The answer is obvious. One is a practice situation and the other is a match situation. It's pressure. You get used to dealing with it when you play regularly. That's why the practice is important, too. If you don't have to worry about yourself, you have time to focus on the mental part of tennis -- strategy and picking apart the opposition. Otherwise, you're just out there like
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)