My willingness to watch started slowly, even with Venus Williams losing at the first hurdle (I mean, gurl). But as the draw shook out, there were some great match-ups and before I knew it, I was in -- checking scoreboards at work, firing up the laptop at home (including once eschewing a writer's group Zoom call that I still kinda feel guilty about) and genuinely entertained by the few late-night matches this tournament had to offer.
I wondered, and still do, what this tournament would have looked like with the full and capable cast -- Nadal, Halep, Andreescu, Federer. I thought that whoever won would have an asterisk next to their name. I don't think that's true now and it was actually unfair to suggest this.
Those who sat this one out did it for good reason and those who chose to negotiate the risks to play the U.S. Open did it for good reason. These decisions really are reflective of what we're all navigating every day, right? We're trying to protect ourselves and our loved ones and trying to be responsible and also trying not to go insane in our living quarters. That good reason looks different to all of us and nowhere was that more clear than the draws we got at the U.S. Open. This is as true-to-life a scenario we'll see in professional tennis, where even millionaires are left making the same choices as you and me -- do I go back to work? How? Is it safe? Is everyone else being safe? It's kind of wild when you think about it.
Anyway, sorry. About the tennis. It was good! It was great for young Americans. I once saw Shelby Rogers play live at a Fed Cup match (warning: if you're missing crowds, don't click this link) and I was underwhelmed. Well, she has completely revamped her game, cracking the hell out of her groundstrokes and mixing up her shots. I always thought her forehand swing looked a little funky, but as with any tennis swing, you do it long enough and it will begin to work for you. I actually missed that she'd beaten Serena Williams this summer already as well. And there was Jennifer Brady who seemed to me to always be on the precipice of a breakthrough in Slams. I mean, she beat the sauce out of Angelique Kerber and I was really concerned for Naomi Osaka during their semifinal for a minute.
That Victoria Azarenka v. Serena match? Did not see that result coming, but this is 2020 and we can say that about everything at this point. Seriously, that was some great tennis, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it was an injury to Serena that lost her that match. I really think she's got a mental block around this 24th slam title. Because I didn't think Azarenka did anything much different to turn the match around -- Serena gave an inch and Azarenka took a mile. It's not like she doesn't remember how to win.
(MINI RANT COMING) I would like everyone to stop talking about women who are mothers playing each other now, please, NOW. Neither of these amazing athletes referenced about, and not Tsvetana Pironkova, either. I have never heard any commentator on any channel anywhere ever say that a Federer vs. Djokovic match was a battle of the dads. And I wouldn't care. Listen, I'm a mother. I get that we do it all. This isn't news. We are not gathered around our computer screens to observe them giving out tips for diaper rash. They are there to work and we are watching them work. So stop it. Just NO MORE (end of MINI RANT)
Whew. I feel better. Anyway, Naomi Osaka is the bomb and is still socially super awkward and I love it. I know I just mentioned Serena giving an inch, and I think the same happened with Azarenka in the final against Osaka, but the difference in the final was that Osaka's level went way up. Azarenka didn't tank, she just leveled out. She wasn't this solid when she won the U.S. Open in 2018 and she was never even really in trouble in that final. She has matured and what I personally am waiting for is to see her at her best against Bianca Andreescu at hers because that rivalry is the future of women's tennis and it's going to be amaze-balls.
Speaking of the future of tennis and why that phrase is overused, let's move on to the men's final, in which one of the participants, Alexander Zverev, noted that it would be a great match because it would be a showdown of the two best players in the world.
So Zverev has a history of his mouth writing checks that he can't cash. But. He came out on Sunday and quickly took two sets off Dominic Thiem, who I was rooting for, but I wasn't feeling invested. (I mean, if we're speaking freely, it has been a while since I've seen a legitimate ass on a white guy. Thiem's ass is, like, solid.) The thing is, I was watching and thinking, what is Zverev really doing here that is so special? I felt like I've seen Thiem play that well, and even better, before. Sure, a lot of it can be the heaviness of the moment -- both were playing for their first major title. Well, that question got answered when Thiem came back and forced a fifth set.
OK, so, if you're a tennis player or are playing league tennis, this fifth set might have been particularly gratifying. You know how you start decelerating through your shots as you approach the end of a close match? How your legs stop moving and you're mentally shouting at yourself to come on, just get the second serve anywhere, anywhere in the box? That was the fifth set of the men's final and it's just good to know that even when you become a professional, you are still prone to figuring out how to finish a match with your racquet wrapped around your neck. So, in that sense, knowing that anyone can and will choke makes me feel better in general.
But really, Thiem did come back and earned that win. He got a lot of help from Zverev, but he did it. And I did not expect to feel bad for Zverev, but when he gave his speech, I may have teared up.
Having said all of this, yes, this is a nice preview of the future of men's tennis and once both of them have mastered their nerves, we'll be in for treats. However, I could not believe my ears listening to commentators actually talking about the future being now and openly asking if this is the beginning of a shift. Hi. Two-thirds of the most dominant men in tennis right now did not play this tournament. When they do play tournaments, they usually win them. One of those men won this same tournament last year! What? No, it's not a shift yet. It'll be a shift when Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are legitimately standing in their way of a Slam -- and they bypass them. Just to clear that up because there appears to have been some amnesia happening.
OK, so that was more than I expected to have to say. It was good. I'm glad the players who came were able to bring back some semblance of normalcy to their lives. (Except for Kristina Mladenovic. Is she ... still sheltered in place?)
No comments:
Post a Comment