The Official 2018 Yearbook

This post has been in the cards for some time now. But real life intervened and I had to handle some things. Still handling it. No, I don't want to talk about it. But it is time to re-enter that tennis life. Because tennis has always been therapy for me, like writing. Also, I just realized the Australian Open is about to begin, so, uh, time to say goodbye to 2018. It might have been a trash year in every other way, but I gotta say that tennis had a solid year. So what are we waiting for? Let's do the thing!

Head of the Class: Who had the most impressive year in 2018? This is a tough one, but I'm going with Novak Djokovic. It would have been pretty easy to sulk after the start that Djokovic had. I mean, you just know that his French Open loss to Marco Cecchinato is destined to be a Jeopardy! answer one day. He went back to his original coaching team and I guess started the donkey milk again? Whatever it was, he then won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open -- the only person, man or woman, to win more than one major this year. He wasn't beating tin cans either -- his match against Rafa Nadal in the Wimbledon semis was an instant classic. And he also outplayed his other major rival, Roger Federer, this year on a couple different occasions.

Most Inspiring Player: Gonna go with Simona Halep. Last year, at the Australian Open, she was denied a major title once again after being right there on the verge. For that to happen once is probably tough to take. For it to happen twice (and to perennial whiner Caroline Wozniacki to boot) has to be crushing. And when she finally did win the French Open, it was in another battle, where it would have been easy to determine this wasn't her time. Honestly, I don't even know how she did it, because Sloane Stephens was actually playing a hell of a match. But she did it.

Most Popular: Serena Williams, naturally. I'd love to see her win in Australia, but then I would just assume she was pregnant, which would make me selfishly unhappy.

Most Likely to Succeed: I actually thought Aryna Sabalenka was about to win the U.S. Open this year, and if she doesn't somehow win at least one slam this year, I'll be stunned. When she's on, there are a lot of players who have trouble dealing with her power. She's even learned how to volley. In a way. I'm going to throw Alexander Zverev in here, too. I feel like the only thing missing with him is his head. His focus seems all over the place sometimes. Ooh, and Kiki Bertens. 

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: I want to say Agz Radwanska, but I really want her to come back to tennis and win her major, dammit. Same with Lucie Safarova. I definitely see a future in MMA for Mikhail Youzhny, who also retired this year. One player who I have determined will never succeed at anything other than tennis is Philipp Kohlschreiber. That's because he'll never stop. Nev-URRRR 

That Student Who Skates Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: Naomi Osaka. She had a very, very, very uneven year and then showed the poise of someone twice her age (most people twice her age) in winning her first major in, uh, a dicey situation. If she can do that, she can have a more stable season in 2019.

Who Will Win in 2019? This is a new feature in which I will attempt to predict all the Slam champions right now! Stop laughing. This is hard! OK, here I go:

Australia: Kiki Bertens, Novak Djokovic
French Open: Sloane Stephens, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon: Aryna Sabalenka, Roger Federer
U.S. Open: Serena Williams (unless she retired because she was pregnant), Djokovic

The Season Is Slowing Down, They Said. Take the Week off Blogging, They Said.

Here are some things that happened this month so far that I haven't had a chance to discuss yet. We're doing it live!

via GIPHY

1. Agz Radwanska retiring: I don't want to say I saw it coming, because I didn't. I noticed the decline in the ranking and the marriage and the increasing number of K-tape with each match. And some things are just not fair. It's not fair that she never got to snag at least one Slam. Over her career, Radwanska has flummoxed the best of the WTA stars on the big stage. Serena Williams. Garbine Muguruza. Victoria Azarenka. Caroline Wozniacki. But she never did it at a major. That stinks, but that also suggests that there is one way to measure tennis greatness. That's not true. There hasn't been a player as creative as Radwanska since Martina Hingis. And people are going to fight me here, but she was more creative! She was able to pull her opponents all over the court, varying depth and width with what seemed to be sleight-of-hand. Oh, so you're a power player? She had speed to chase it down and then use your power against you. Counter-puncher? Yeah, well, her too. Until she pulled the trigger and you likely stood there wondering why you just went through that 27-shot rally.
The problem with this style, of course, is that it takes a toll on your body. Relying on guile means you're not relying on one or two weapons to slide you out of trouble. And so, for the sake of all her sore muscles and tendons, I'm relieved for her. But there aren't a lot of others waiting in the wings to entertain us the way Agnieszka Radwanska has for the last decade. I know Ana Sevastova will be one, but with Radwanska's retirement, we have the end of a fun era.

2. Now that Alexander Zverev's acceptance speech from the ATP Finals is finished, we can talk about his performance. I have to say, I didn't really see Alexander Zverev winning this. It seems like the second he announced his premature arrival to the ascendency of tennis

"Let's go, c'mon, it's my fucking time," says Zverev as he breaks (or, rather, Khachanov breaks himself) for 4-2.

— Tumaini Carayol (@tumcarayol) June 3, 2018

it turned out it wasn't his time.
(Incidentally, do you have any idea how hard it is to find the actual video of this moment on the Internet? Every clip of it has been disabled. Kinda weird.)
I think it goes without saying that Zverev's masterful performances against Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic speaks for themselves. (Mini-rant: Can we have a little class control, crowds whose favorite player loses to a young, insurgent force on the tour? First there's Naomi Osaka, looking miserable after beating Serena, in some part due to a booing crowd. Now we have Zverev explaining how he stopped a point because he was following the rules of tennis, and a clearly uneducated crowd raining down jeers on him. Now, I should note that I posted this video on Facebook and someone couldn't even see why Zverev stopped play. But from where Zverev was hitting, he clearly would have. No need to blame the ballkid either. Let's just ... like not boo people unless they deserve it?) I'd say the thing I noticed most about Zverev was his control. He was willing to rally, especially with Djokovic, which seems dangerous. But he handled it well. I actually think that next year will be his time. But I have to think about that some more.

3. The Davis Cup just ended. Like, forever. You know, as we knew it. Now, when the changes to this tournament were announced this year, folks weren't happy, for a lot of fair reasons. There aren't going to be a lot of stops like the one I made for Fed Cup in Sarasota, so less access for fans. It might limit player availability. (Another mini-rant: This is actually the part of the criticism that cracks me up the most. Players were not generally interested in Davis Cup to begin with! Because if they were, we wouldn't be changing Davis Cup. If Federer, Djokovic and Rafa Nadal were making this part of their schedule, guess who would also be doing that? Yes. Fans. Just saying.) There's the question of who came up with the plan -- a soccer player coming up with a tennis format? (Well, actually, soccer is way more popular than tennis worldwide, so maybe ... yeah?)  But here's one thing that we have known for a long time about Davis Cup. It needed to change. No one cared about it. The fans never knew when it was happening, not even when their country was in it. It seemed like an afterthought. These changes, in brief, make it more of a tournament, and that's as it should have been. You have a dedicated spot on the calendar and sustained fan interest.
So these changes seem promising for the Davis Cup. The same changes have not been introduced for Fed Cup yet. One change that has been announced: The addition of an additional team player (so, five now) and third-set tiebreakers. Got it. So the men's tournament gets a new format that could boost its popularity and the women ... get ushered off the court faster. Sweet!

4. Speaking of Fed Cup, Barbora Strycova is retiring from the event and managed to get it done with a win for her team. I'm not sure if I've said it before, but Strycova is about as bad-ass a doubles player as I've ever seen and I'll miss her when she presumably soon retires altogether. Now, much has been made of Lucie Safarova's retirement, because she was very nice. I will miss Strycova because she was a straight-up bi-yotch on court. I mean who can forget

Andy Roddick Was Good at Tennis. That's It!

Wimbledon might be over, but the tennis world keeps spinning. Let's talk about some things that have happened in the past week or so:

1. Hall of Fame: Kim Clijsters and Andy Roddick are the newest inductees into the Tennis Hall of Fame. Let me say a few things about Roddick first, because I've spent a significant amount of time on him in this blog over the past decade. Here's one of my favorite old posts about him. Roddick was the shot of personality that tennis needed in the early aughts. There was nothing better for a while there than Andy Roddick playing tennis at night at the U.S. Open. He was the first significant sign of American male tennis life since Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. He won a major. He was No. 1 in the world for a minute.
He totally does not deserve to be in the Tennis Hall of Fame.
You can't (or should not) get into the Hall of Fame if you came in second a lot. You should be great, and not just good to get into the HOF. Think about this: Chris Evert is in the Tennis Hall of Fame. Sampras. Navratilova. Agassi. Arthur Ashe. I mean, really?!
I was a little pissed about this for a few days, until I finally decided to find out exactly who is in the International Hall of Fame. There are more than 200 members -- and this includes not just players, but broadcasters and others who contributed to the sport in other ways than picking up a racquet. Here's the list. I clicked on the first name I didn't recognize that caught my eye: one Mal Anderson. He actually was never No. 1 in the world, but was No. 2 and he won one major -- the 1957 U.S. Open. He was on two winning Davis Cup teams. So Mal Anderson is not great, but good. Like Roddick.
Then I realized that the Tennis Hall of Fame is a lot like the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I mean, it used to be a big deal for someone to get a star. And then a couple years ago, Paul Rudd got one. Right. Exactly. It's this guy:

Rudd was pretty good in "Clueless," and is an OK Antman, I guess. H'es good, not great. We have a theme.
So now I get it and my mind is de-boggled. It's worth noting at this point that Clijsters is absolutely deserving of this honor. This woman left the tour to have a baby and then came back and won a Slam. She was a force in women's tennis for a long time and hit a clean ball. I loved watching her play. I still remember when she faced off against Jennifer Capriati in the final of the French Open in '01. Tracy Austin was doing on-air commentary before the match and she actually said these words about Clijsters: "She doesn't have anything to hurt Capriati with." That was when I realized that commentators don't necessarily watch tennis until someone pays them to do so.

2. Agz Radwanska got married. Congratulations! Let's work on that serve now!

3. OK. Let's talk about Bernard Tomic. Everyone else is, and it's not for a good reason. Tomic has been taking his pity party on the road lately. It all started at Wimbledon, when he acknowledged that he was bored and couldn't get himself motivated or interested in winning. He also may or may not have entirely bailed on his match. That lost him his Head sponsorship, which takes some doing, especially when you realize that Head is happy to stand behind an admitted drug cheat. But we've had enough tangents here, so let's push through my heavy eye-roll. Tomic last week said he was playing tennis just for the money, but is still trying to find some joy in tennis.
It is super easy to go off on Tomic and point out that he gets paid to play a game. It's probably true that if someone walked into my house and told me I could play tennis for a living for any amount of time, I'd leave a note for the family and hit the road. Here's what else is true: There are an awful lot of people who feel exactly the way Tomic feels about their own jobs. And a good chunk of those people are not afraid to tell you just how much they hate their jobs. Believe me -- I've worked with them. So I really just feel sorry for Tomic if he hates his job so much. I've been there too, and when you get out, it's like getting rid of a heavy weight from your shoulders. Tomic has a varied game that shouldn't bore him, but if it does, I hope he finds something else to do, because if he doesn't want to be out there, no one is really going to want to pay to watch him, either.

4. Davis Cup: A couple of weeks ago, the ITF announced some potential changes to the Davis Cup and Fed Cup formats. One was having men play best-of-three, because who wants to see five sets of tennis when players are representing their country, and not just themselves for once? So silly.
Whatever on that. BUT there is one other thing on the agenda -- having the Cups play their final ties at the same place and time, starting in 2018. It would be called the World Cup of Tennis.
When I saw this, it made me feel like that homeless person in those crisis movies, the one who stands on the street corner holding a "THE END IS NEAR" sign. Except that instead of everyone ignoring me and throwing nasty looks, someone stops, hugs me and says, "You guys we should listen to her because she is totally right and Davis Cup and Fed Cup have been flawed for a long time and gentlemen we can fix it we can give it a structure and give fans a reason to care about it instead of having it be at random times on the calendar which makes it appear to be an afterthought and if even the sport of golf can make it work surely we can because tennis is much more interesting to watch than golf so let's get this new format rolling like now and someone get her a shower because she stinks."
I'm just saying it's a start.

This week with TWA: Serena, Rafa and Sveta on fumes

Last week, the other shoe fell for Rafa Nadal. I guess we all knew there would be consequences from his decision to make an Olympic run, which turned out to be incredible for fans and Spain. Now he's shutting his season down due to injury. Again. I hate to be that guy -- the one who's ready to set the retirement clock for Rafa. But when was the last time he was able to complete a season without missing at least one major? Although it was nice to see the opening of his new academy in Spain last week, attended by the biggest rival of his career -- the Fed. But ... is that some sort of sign? That he's trying to move on? He doesn't have permission to move on! No one approved this! OK, deep breathing. *clicking my heels* Rafa will come back. Rafa will come back. Rafa will come back ...
*clicking faster*
I'm not as worried about Serena Williams, who also pulled her own card on the season last week. That means she won't be around for the year-end championships, which led to some things happening that we'll get to in a second. Chris Evert gave her annual obit on Serena's career this weekend, citing her broken-down body and the aura of invincibility being gone. I can't imagine that's true. Evert has more access to players, so it's hard to dispute, but really? Players no longer fear Serena? Hm. I don't dispute the injury build-up -- that would actually be impossible. It seems that Serena's problem lately is more in the head, though. And some time off might straighten out those issues as well as the shoulder. We've just been here too often with her -- thinking she's gonna call it a day, that she's not interested anymore, blah blah blah. Then she busts out four majors and we shove the obit back to Evert for revisions. Rinse, repeat.
Which brings us to the WTA Tour finals in Singapore. (OK, that didn't bring us here, but this is where I want to go next, so ...) The field of eight singles players included Johanna Konta ... until the day before matches started. Svetlana Kuznetsova was able to qualify by winning in Moscow at the 25th hour. Now I've got no issue with Sveta, but more with the WTA on this one. I hate to keep dumping on the WTA on account of the lecture a couple weeks about the CEO who is under the belief that the best way to draw tennis fans is to have players play as little tennis as possible. So I will keep this rant short. What's hard about setting a cutoff date date for qualifying for the tour finals? I guess I had assumed there was such a thing, and yes, I know what happens when you assume. But now I also know what happens when you can qualify for the finals until the day before the thing starts. A complete mess. I figured that with Sveta on fumes, Konta might get her shot on court anyway, but that appears to be quite inaccurate, considering that she's already beaten Agz Radwanska.
This is the part in therapy when the counselor would say: "Now, say something nice about the WTA." OK. Despite the absence of anyone except one person in the singles draw who has won a Slam this year, it is an impressive lineup and at least the matches will be competitive. Exhibit A: Angelique Kerber v. Dominica Cibulkova. The tennis so far has really been high quality. It'll get a complete wrap-up in next week's post.

Quick hits:
Juan Martin del Potro won a tournament, everybody! With his win at the Stockholm Open, he's back into the top 50, where no one will be happy to see him, especially if they like winning. Jack Sock had a good tournament, too, but he was left flailing after half of del Potro's groundstrokes.
Maria Sharapova has been removed from the WTA rankings because of her drug ban, which has been upheld but shortened. Just until she returns next April and has played three tournaments. No matter. I'd imagine she'll enroll at MIT next to whittle away the time.

In defense of variety

I just happened to catch the Agz Radwanda/Caroline Wozniacki match in Tokyo last week and for some reason, I had a delayed reaction to something I've known for a while. It's the lack of variety in the pro tennis game.  It's hard to play the way Radwanska does, which is probably why you don't see too much variety in the game right now. It's especially hard on the body -- every time I see Radwanska play, she's got tape somewhere else on her body. (Once again, this

doesn't really help.)
This isn't rocket science, but it is kind of sad. Think about the young guns, both men and women, who can legitimately say they rely on more than power. Coming up empty, aren't you?
But, for one shining moment, there was Justine Henin. She could match Serena Williams in power, and was a great shotmaker and point plotter. She also didn't last long. There was (is) Martina Hingis, whose guile was enough to drive her opponents crazy -- until they figured out all they had to do was hit through it.
I'm not minimizing their success -- but the actual reign of that success, and the career longevity -- is certainly shorter than power players. It could be that Radwanska is now finding that as well. Even though she was able to win the first set against Wozniacki, she started getting pushed around by Woz, who is something of a tactician on the court as well, but can also flatten out her strokes and seems to be working on her serve.
Seeing the lack of variety is a bad thing for tennis, for the record. It's not because I don't like watching power players, because, like, who doesn't? But it sure does make for boring tennis, watching players do the same thing against each other over and over again.
At least there is still a small place for variety in tennis -- doubles, where Hingis continues to dominate.

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

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

The women's journey to gold

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

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