French Open 2025: "Such a hottie."

Hey, sorry I'm late. Just finished chain-smoking my way through the Naomi Osaka/Paula Badosa first round at the French Open. But it's OK -- it was those little cute French cigarettes in the movies. I also ate a whole baguette.    

There should be some type of rule when you're putting draws together. Like, if you have two great players who are trying to re-establish their foothold on the game, and they get paired for a first or second round match, you gotta start the draw over. There is no world where it's fair that these two had to play each other right away. They deserved better but that stadium of spectators got their money's worth. 

The tennis was exciting to watch, but as a mere mortal who plays tennis, it is actually a little encouraging to see pros do things that you have also done. I can imagine that Osaka is going to see that game point Badosa had at 3-4 in her sleep for a while. She had Badosa outmaneuvered and pushes the backhand up the line just wide?! It was a game of margins, it seemed, for both players, except that the ball seemed to always be just out for Osaka. It's hard to say what, if anything, she did wrong at the end -- Badosa turned up the defense and set herself up better for closing shots. 

Tough loss for Osaka, but she'll be back. And it'd be nice to see Badosa stay healthy for the whole tournament, especially because her little corner of the draw looks really good for her!

Anyway, I also ended up stress eating another baguette and crying into my strong French roast yesterday watching the Rafael Nadal ceremony. I mean, you knew it was going to be an emotional rollercoaster. But the French went all the hell out. Matching shirts for the crowd? Bringing out the rest of the Big 4 on video, then in person?! The footprint on the court FOREVER?! Look, he deserved it and if I had any qualms, I'd say a bootyprint instead. Such a hottie. 

Speaking of the Big 4, it is hard to look at them and realize that one of these people were not like the others. I am not a person who likes shooing people into retirement. But I am just saying that Novak Djokovic might take something more from yesterday's ceremony. Like considering the idea that he had to get his 100th title at an ATP 250 tournament and beating Hubert Hurkacz in the final. Like losing to Matteo Arnaldi in Madrid. I am just saying.

P.S.: Yo, how is Yanina Wickmayer still playing Slams!? I ask this realizing her opponent is Victoria Azarenka, who is literally the same age. 

Coffee at Wimbledon: The Women

I look at this draw and a few questions come to mind: Whatever happened to Garbine Muguruza? What if Venus loses to her clone? Does Maria Sharapova have one more good run in her -- at, like, any event? What if Ash Barty and Naomi Osaka begin a legendary rivalry that starts right here at Wimbledon? Andy Murray wants to play mixed with which sister? The one who has never been that great a volleyer? Oh, OK, got it.
Anyway, let's check out this draw before I smack Murray upside the head with Venus' racquet:

Early Rounds to Watch:
Svetlana Kuznetsova v. Alison Van Uytvanck: I try to make it a rule to never miss Svetlana Kuznetsova play, or to type her name into my blog.

Donna Vekic v. Alison Riske: Should be interesting. Riske just won a warm-up tournament on grass.

Kaia Kanepi v. Stephanie Voegele: I think the Kanepi Upset Effect only works when she's playing a top seed in the first round, but worth keeping an eye on.

Belinda Bencic v. Ana Pavlyuchenkova: I did have to cut-and-paste that one. So Pavly is a tough competitor and although Bencic looks like she has rediscovered her court legs, this will be a test right out the gate.

Carla Suarez-Navarro v. Sam Stosur: I just like their game styles.

Ons Jabeur v. Petra Kvitova: Jabeur looked good in Eastbourne and Kvitova's getting over injury. Just saying.

Su-Wei Hsieh v. Jelena Ostapenko: What a world. Ostapenko won the French Open, like, two years ago and is now unseeded. Hsieh has one of the most entertaining games out there right now. So this should be ... something.

Victoria Azarenka v. Aliza Cornet: This one's gonna take a while and will involve at least four impassioned entreaties from Cornet to the court umpire with very dramatic hand gestures.

Venus Williams v. Coco Gauff: So in preparation for this post, and this entry, I did go ahead and watch the most recent match I could find of Gauff and it happened to be the one in Wimbledon qualifying where she beat the top seed. She's 15. And I hate to be that person, but watching her reminded me of Venus' game. Didn't see much of her at net, which is where Venus might consider going to win this match. Yes, the similarities are compelling, but this is Venus' best Slam, and even now, in a sort of lull, I don't think this will be a big brawl for her. That'll probably come later, against Aryna Sabalenka.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?

Some of these are obvious. Based on what we've seen this year from Serena Williams, it is just hard to see her beating an in-form Angelique Kerber. I mean, Julia Goerges could beat her in the third round. And Kvitova is always good on grass, but Johanna Konta has actually been doing well on it over the last couple of weeks, so she gets a very slight edge.
Hsieh's my fun pick. I know Pliskova just won a grass warmup, but she doesn't bend her knees. Don't any of you find that odd?

Who's Going to Win?
I am not sure! I would give Barty and Kerber the best odds. Osaka has a good draw through to the semis, but she has not been consistent lately. But she's a kid, too, and is the holder of two Slams. I also think this conversation really hinges on the health of Kvitova. If she's ready to go, she is going to be hard to beat. I guess what I'm saying is we'll see.

AO'19: Some Things that Surprised Me at the Australian Open

Some things about the Australian Open were fairly easy to guess: Novak Djokovic bringing home the men's title, the flaming-out of all the Australian men at their home tournament, very hot weather. Others were not, and it's a good time to re-examine those things now:

1. The sudden confrontation with the end of Andy Murray's career: Before he took the court for his first-round match, Murray had a hit with Djokovic that ended with him in physical and emotional pain. At a press conference, Murray said the Aussie Open might be his last tournament, although he was hoping to end it all at Wimbledon. Now, at this moment, Murray is recovering from a last-ditch surgery that hopefully can help his hip heal so he can play without pain. But just in case it doesn't, we should let the record show that, yes, he finally brought the Wimbledon crown to the home crowd. Back in the day, Murray hired Amelie Mauresmo to be his coach and everyone clutched the pearls. Since then, there has not been a more vocal pro-woman male player than Murray. Women appreciate this. Men claim to appreciate this, and then make the claim that because men attract larger ratings, they should be paid more than women. (Hi, Rafa. Still loving that sexy ass, but that's foul.) These days, Mauresmo is working another male pro, Lucas Pouille, and she will have her work cut out for her. After a recent win, Pouille was asked about the decision to have a (gasp) female coach. His response -- that Mauresmo's gender shouldn't matter -- is the mark of Andy Murray, whether he returns to court or not.

2. Serena Williams: Now, I didn't have her advancing past Simona Halep -- her footwork has been shoddy since she returned to the tour. But her footwork has improved quite a bit and she was able to advance to the brink of the semifinals. But what happened when she was up 5-1 in the third set is basically unheard of when it comes to Serena. True confession time: I was watching the match on mute, so I didn't hear the chatter about her injury until the next day. Sure, they showed close-ups of her stumble, but it didn't register at that point that it hampered her play. And frankly, it never looked as though it did. She had plenty of opportunities to close that match and she didn't. Whether it was tentativeness or injury or whatever, she didn't finish it out. A lot has been made of the fact that she didn't call for a trainer. Maybe she didn't need one? Now her coach is out in the world saying that she didn't call for a trainer because she knew the tournament was over for her. He got that out of his own head, having acknowledged that he never spoke to her. Look, I've said since the breastfeeding thing that she needed to cut bait on Patrick Mouratoglou. He is clearly a great tennis mind, but the man is really mostly interested in himself. And then there's the business of the foot fault on match point. Was it a foot fault? I have no idea. But it was one point of a match with many points (and three other match points ...) and to blame her loss on that call, even if it was wrong, is crazy. But yet, there was that groundswell. I'll just never get over the crowd that wants to paint Serena Williams as a perpetual victim, even when Serena isn't doing that.

3. How ineffective Nadal's game can be: Watching Nadal get picked apart by Djokovic, it became clear to me why Nadal's best results come at the French Open. He is a grinder, a physical player who works points until he can seize an advantage. Unfortunately for him, Djokovic is not a patient man. Djokovic is able to cut points short in his favor and the whole cat-and-mouse approach isn't going to work on him at his current level. Nadal's game can grind down most of the field -- he advanced to the final, after all. But against Djokovic, it didn't work. If Nadal wants to truly challenge Djokovic in his current form, he's going to need a first-strike sort of approach himself.

4. Maria Sharapova's results: Double bagel in the first round, beating Caroline Wozniacki, taking Ash Barty to three sets? What has happened here?

5. Ana Pavlyuchenkova's results: Every time I fill out a draw with Pavly in it, I hover over her match and think the same thing every time: "She could win that. But will she?" And again she showed flashes of what she can do. Taking down Sloane Stephens is a big deal and normally I'd have something to say for her bowing out to Danielle Collins, but Angelique Kerber also lost to Collins which is still blowing my mind.

6. Naomi Osaka winning the Australian Open: She's a kid. She's not supposed to win two Slams in a row, both under extreme duress against wily veterans who are Slam champs themselves. I don't know what keeps Osaka calm in closing out these matches, but I need some of it just so I can get through most days without chucking items at people.

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.

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!

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?

U.S. Open Time!: Men's Draw

So I'm filling out my draw yesterday and decided to take a Twitter break to see if we were in World War III or if Charles Manson had been let out of prison, and it's a good thing I did, because Andy Murray had decided at the last possible moment to back out of the U.S. Open. It's probably best he did, but if he had decided to back out a bit earlier, we wouldn't have our current situation. Like this thing:

This was a tough call for Andy and maybe, just maybe it's time to talk about the 11-month tennis season. 

No? Too soon? OK. 

But anyway, now the bottom half of the draw is not as, let's say, robust in talent as the top half. The top half now features the two favorites to win the tournament -- Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Nadal, who is now in 2017 the world No. 1, has a couple potential issues on his way to the semis -- Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych and Grigor Dimitrov. 

Nadal has looked good at the Slams, but lost to some Canadian kid in oversized clothing at the Canadian Open a couple weeks ago and then Nick Kyrgios more recently. Still, he's the favorite to get through that part of the draw, as is Federer, who's got a dicier situation going on, and who also is coming off an injury layoff. There's Dominic Thiem, Juan Martin del Potro and Kyrgios (who apparently has trouble playing nobodies but gets geeked up to play the Federers of the world). 

I'm just saying that if Andy had pulled out before the draw came out, Federer might have the bottom draw to himself. As it stands, everyone in the bottom half of the draw has the draw to himself. Especially the bottom half of the bottom half. Someone said it looked like the draw of a Masters 250 now. This isn't inaccurate. There's Nicolas Almagro, Nicolas Mahut, Lucas Pouille, David Ferrer, oh!, and ex-U.S. Open champ Marin Cilic. Also Denis Shapalavov, the Canadian kid. And to think all off this real estate could have belonged to Federer. Sigh. Without playing Nadal until the final. Double sigh. 

The top half features Alexander Zverev and he's also looked good this summer, having bagged a win off Federer at the Italian Open. Also in his path are Americans Sam Querrey and John Isner and maybe Ernests Gulbis and Gilles Muller. I mean, I filled out the draw, but do not hold me accountable for the bottom. 

Early rounds to watch: 

Tomas Berdych v. Ryan Harrison

Roger Federer v. Francis Tiafoe: First match after an injury layoff ... just saying.

Fernando Verdasco v. Vasek Pospisil

One last funny thing: The rule for late withdrawals call for the No. 17 seed to take the place of the second seed should there be a late withdrawal. I know. That's Querrey and before Murray's withdrawal, he would have faced a qualifier and now? His first round is against Gilles Simon, who is ... not a qualifier. 

Looks like Murray came bearing gifts this U.S. Open. 

What's Up Down Under with the Gentlemen?

Sometimes, you see something happening for a long time. Like, you see it, but you don't see it. I'm referring, of course, to the evolution of the men's tennis landscape. It has changed. Did you know that? Let's take a look at the men's draw:

Some things worth noting:
1. Roger Federer is ranked 17th in the world. Right, right. I know he's been out with injury and while he's been gone, other men have climbed the ladder, the one he used to occupy alone (with occasional company by Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic). But there is a 17 next to Federer's name at this tournament. Like, what. What does this mean, in relatable terms? It means that Federer's quarter is not really his. It's Kei Nishikori's. It means that Federer's third round opponent is Tomas Berdych, not some tomato can who's wandered in off the street. It means that if Federer wants to get into the semis here, he has to possibly beat Berdych, Niskikori and the world No. 1, Andy Murray. So. The landscape is changing.
2. Have you ever seen "The Dark Knight?" You know that part where the Joker is talking about how he and Batman are destined to lock horns forever?



Damn, that is a good movie.
Anyway, after watching Murray and Djokovic face off in that Brisbane final, I think that they are destined (this season, anyway) to rumble for a lot of titles. Murray lost their most recent match, but not other recent matches. I used to get the sense that Murray didn't really believe he could beat Djokovic before, and now he absolutely believes it. Djokovic acknowledged how important it was for him to win that match, because if anyone is wanting to blink here, it would be Djokovic. This is like watching Federer/Nadal all over again -- one proven dominant player, one dogged aggressive challenger who says really nice things once the match is over, but is not nearly as deferential on the court. I don't know how everything before the final will pan out, but I do believe Murray and Djokovic will be the last ones standing. And there are plenty of obstacles for both men, but it's safe to say they're watching each other closely.

3. There are a couple other players that could bring some ruckus to this party. One of them is Milos Raonic. I still cannot believe he has shed himself of Carlos Moya after the best season of his career. (And it's not like Moya hasn't found himself some other work.) Raonic is now working with Richard Krajicek, who could probably help young Milos take it another step this year at Wimbledon. Raonic has a pretty tender draw. Sort of. There's Nadal, who is an unknown quantity at this point. Gael Monfils? Really, who knows with that guy? Alexander Zverev has promise, too. But this looks like Raonic's table to run. I'd really be interested to see him face off with Djokovic.

4. The other ruckus person is Nick Kyrgios. I have a crazy theory about Little Nicky. Now his season didn't end in the best way last year, and he's not exactly what you would call a fan favorite. If I were going to characterize his status in the eyes of tennis fans, I would say he is basically the opposite of fan favorite. But this is why I think he could pull something off here. It seems to me that he is fueled by haters. There are no more passionate haters of Nick Kyrgios than Australian tennis fans. They think he's a rude punk -- he's no Pat Rafter, and he shows no signs of mellowing into what Lleyton Hewitt has become. And Australians are almost as delusional and desperate as Americans these days for their next big hope. Bernard Tomic ... er, no. Sam Stosur? Hm. Sam Groth? Thumbs way down. Kyrgios is the next big hope and they hate him. So how to really get under haters' skin? Win the home slam and make sure they never forget you. Kyrgios can beat anyone in his quarter and maybe the top half. The operative word is "can." But will he? Is he interested enough? These are things we don't know.

First-round matches to watch:
1. Ryan Harrison v. Nicholas Mahut: Mahut versus a big-serving American? What could go wrong?
2. Mikhail Youzhny v. Marcos Baghdatis: Hello, everyone! Welcome to the 2008 Australian Open!
3. Tommy Haas v. Benoit Paire: TOMMY M&@^(*@(F(#***# HAAS.
4. Dmitry Tursunov v. Radek Stepanek: Hello everyone! Welcome to the 2006 Australian Open!
5. Novak Djokovic v. Fernando Verdasco: Well. This is a nice, easy match to start.

The Official 2016 TWA Yearbook

I know what you're thinking. You read that post title and think: "Why on earth would I want to remember anything about 2016?"

I'm with you, sister. (Or brother.) Still, 2016 actually was pretty good to the sport of tennis and to some of its stars. Let's take a look back at the best and worst of the year that we shall speak not of after this post.

Head of the Class: Inspired by Serena Williams' recent essay, I am not going to pick a male or female head of the class. But we have male and female co-winners for this category because both of these athletes achieved Sisyphean feats. I'm speaking, of course, about Angelique Kerber and Andy Murray. Kerber started out the year by winning the Australian Open. She won the Australian Open by beating Serena Williams. Despite a slight nosedive in results after that, she rebounded nicely to make the Wimbledon final and then win the U.S. Open. The other interesting thing she did this year was to start the season ranked No. 10 and end it ranked No. 1. Not bad, not bad.
Murray has spent the last several years as the runt of the Big 4 litter. "Is he at the top of game?" "Where at the top of the game?" "Is he ever going to be the Big 3?" "Is he going to get soft after having a kid?" These sorts of questions. Some people don't really dig questions about the value of their successes and they tank under pressure. Andy Murray won Wimbledon, a gold medal at the Olympics, the U.S. Open and the year-end championships. After losing to Novak Djokovic in Australia and France, he came back to exorcise that demon in London last month and became the world No. 1 in the process. Not really how runts act, right?

Most Inspiring Player: Juan Martin del Potro. His is the ultimate rise, fall, and rise again story they make sports movies about. If they made a movie about del Potro's career, non-tennis fans would roll their eyes and say, "Come on, now. Really?" Yes, really. del Potro really shook the tennis world in 2011 when he beat Roger Federer in the final to win the U.S. Open and had been sidelined with injuries ever since. He really did emerge again at the Olympics, beating Novak Djokovic in the first round, and Rafael Nadal to advance to the gold-medal round. Then he just won the Davis Cup for Argentina by winning an epic match, coming back from a 2-set deficit against Marin Cilic. And that was just 2016. So really the only question left is: "Who's gonna play del Potro?"

Most Popular: Maria Sharapova. Very popular these days. She's been all over my Twitter feed lately because SHE'S BACK! WOO!! Despite a drug ban that sidelined her for a year, everyone is so excited for her return. I am not that excited because I think she caught a break for gaming the system, but, hey. That's not a very popular opinion. 

Most Likely to Succeed: I am still putting my paper on Garbine Muguruza, who won the French Open this year, and then sort of lost her way. Like, she left the map. Should she find her way back, though, I think she's a more likely candidate than Karolina Pliskova because she can mix up her game a little better. In June, I might have added Lucas Pouille to this list, but talk about leaving the map. It's harder to make a dent in the men's game with inconsistency, a lesson young Milos Raonic has learned. He managed to clean up his game this season and almost snagged Wimbledon. Even though he lost, he showed that he is capable of kicking up much chaos. The only question I'd have is about his coaching situation. He retains John McEnroe, kicks him to the curb. He retains Carlos Moya, kicks him to the curb. After his best season ever. OK ...

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: We're lookin' at you, Little Nicky Kyrgios. After receiving some behavioral warnings throughout 2016, the ATP placed Krygios on the sideline, but not before giving an interview declaring that he's prefer basketball. Kyrgios is a special talent, no doubt, but it's clear he's not happy on a tennis court. It's pretty unlikely he took the ATP's suggestion of therapy, so that begs the question: How long would you do a job that made you miserable?

Fifth-Year Seniors: One of the biggest questions of 2016 will undoubtedly be "What about Roger and Rafa?" Both are a bit long in the letterman jacket if you understand my meaning, and both are struggling with injuries. Maybe a better question is: "Will the Big 4 involve both of these men in 2017?" I think the answer is no. Top 10 maybe. And maybe just Federer. He's always had the most economical style and even though he's older than Nadal, he's physically the fresher of the two. Now, Nadal's own run at the Olympics shows that he can still be a serious threat. Plus, I feel that his loss of dominance against Murray and especially Djokovic, has messed with his confidence. 

That Student Who Skates Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: Dominika Cibulkova. Yes, I made a category just for her, but come on -- you all know/knew that student. It's almost not fair, is it. Some people put in the hard yards, gain a reputation, come to expect certain things of themselves. And then they play Cibulkova in the year-end championships and she beats you.
Seriously, I hope Cibulkova can win a major next year. It's going to be a lot harder now, though. I mean, she's short, but everyone sees her now.

This week with TWA: Some falls and a rise

In the spirit of Thanksgiving (at least here in the U.S.), it's a great time to express gratefulness -- and a bit of shock -- about how well men's tennis has stood up despite the absence of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Not to say they are not missed. But the ATP Tour finals really showed me something. Not just that Milos Raonic is likely the real deal, despite the occasional presence of that Koozie. Even without Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, there's still plenty of promise in the likes of Dominic Thiem and other young guns who are cutting their teeth against the best in the world. 

But they're not quite ready yet. So let's go back to Murray and Djokovic. When the tour finals began, I didn't expect much out of Djokovic. Given his recent results and struggles with injury, you just got the sense that he was here because this tournament was a big deal, not because he was ready to win it. Then he showed up and handled Raonic and demolished the rest of the round-robin field. (Which, sorry, wasn't that hard. I mean, look at Murray's draw!) It was starting to look like the old routine, where Djokovic assumes the role of buzzsaw. And even though Murray dominated the second half of the season, he had found himself lacking when it came that one opponent -- the same guy he had to play for the year-end world No. 1 title.

Not this time. Murray handled business against Djokovic and that's great for tennis. Because now, anything can happen when they face off. And when you bring back the experience of Federer and Nadal, it will bring back some of the weight and consistency missing from the Top 4 this year. 

                                                                               ***

One thing I love about the ATP finals is how much love doubles has always gotten. This might be the first year, incidentally, that the winners of the doubles tournament are completely unheard of to me. If you want to talk about changing tides, then I guess it's time to concede that the likes of Nenad Zimonjic and Daniel Nestor are no more. They were nowhere near this tournament. The Bryan Brothers were, though. It could be me, though, but in their semifinal match against Henri Kontinen and John Peers, it looked like doubles tennis is starting to take the same turn that singles has taken, especially in the men's game. I'm talking about the rise of the power game. Maybe I missed it, but even men's doubles used to involve some guile and strategy and maybe that's what the Bryans came to do, but more often, the points ended up with a massive overhead or a crushing down-the-line return off of a meh serve. 

Of course, if I'm not completely delusional, that would be terrible for doubles. I guess there's always mixed?

This Week with TWA: "Nasty Women," Andy Murray and the ATP Finals

It's been a nutty week. Last Tuesday, our country elected a Cheeto Satan to be president. I have more to say on that, but I need to breathe first before I hit send on that post.
Let me tell you something. When you find that you are basically in hysterics for an entire week and find it difficult to hold it together, there's really only one cure for that. Well, playing tennis, yes. But if you can't play tennis, it's better to watch pissed-off individuals play at least.
Which brings me to the Fed Cup. OK. I don't think I've done this yet, but it's time to officially induct Barbora Strycova into the TWA Hall of Fame. I already told you guys that Strycova does NOT CARE. She will fight you, as Kristina Mladenovitch now knows.

Strycova really didn't have a reason to be mad here -- it was the right play. But still. And then she basically strapped Karolina Plishkova onto her back and carried her to victory. This is why I want Barbora Strycova to be my doubles partner.
The bottom line: Fed Cup had some great matches and it came down to the doubles, so that was great to watch. I want to really love Fed Cup, but they need to fix it so that everyone can realize how great women's tennis is. Well, except Steve Simon, who runs women's tennis. But I guess he's going to need convincing.

***

Now, you know that I hate to brag. Actually, I love to brag. It's my superpower. But I remember mentioning on this blog a little bit ago that Andy Murray was going to win majors and be a top-tier player. Of course, at that point, he was having a little trouble keeping the whole package together, as it were.
But I was right. Despite the buzzsaw that Novak Djokovic was for much of this year, Andy Murray has emerged as the world's No. 1. Before I talk about how screwed he got for the round-robin portion of this event, we need to pause and appreciate this. Murray is not Roger Federer. He does not have the grace about the court. You don't look at Murray and get the sense that he is a natural. He has had to work hard to be this good. Yeah, yeah, everyone works hard. But at this time in men's tennis history to emerge as a No. 1, with the Djokovics, Federers, Nadals, Stan Wawrinkas -- and the young guns -- nipping at your heels? This is huge for Murray and it's well-deserved and I told you so.
Now let's talk about how Murray got screwed in the round robin.

Even though Djokovic is having a hard time in these matches, his draw is easily the best. The most anyone else in his section has done is a Grand Slam final. One. Poor Murray draws Stan Wawrinka, Marin Cilic and Kei Nishikori? It's a running theme here in the States, but I think you have to consider the idea the system is rigged.

U.S. Open: One long night

True confession time: Shortly after sending this tweet

I remember nothing else. I wouldn't call it falling asleep as much as losing consciousness, but I did not ride and/or die. I still don't know what happened between Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin del Potro. No spoilers! Kidding. I'm sure I'll find out momentarily when I check out today's schedule.
What I do remember is watching Serena Williams take out Simona Halep under circumstances we've seen before, and it doesn't always go her way. There she was, cruising, and then suddenly in the second set, she was not cruising. Big ups to Halep for offering a stiff challenge in that set. Now, social media went a little nuts last night after a commentator said Halep smiled too much after winning the second set. It's not the smiling that lost her the match, but she obviously let up off the gas after the second set, as though it was more than she expected just winning a set. That is the head thing I'm talking about. Halep obviously showed she can hang with Serena, physically. Mentally, too, for a set. You need two sets, though.
There was one minor development during the day session. Andy Murray got beat! By Kei Nishikori! The guy I said would win majors, just not now! I believe I might have been mistaken. Still awaiting a block of time to watch this one, so I can't say much but !!
Alrighty. Women's semis tonight. Serena and Karolina Pliskova. Hmmmmm. This is tricky because Pliskova has a great serve. Serena is a pretty good returner, though. Still, Serena is showing that she can dig deep in this tournament, even in tight spots, so I'll give her a 60 percent chance of winning. Pliskova clearly also has balls of steel (see Williams, Venus, fourth round, U.S. Open 2016). I think it'll be a great match.
I'm not gonna call Caroline Wozniacki and Angelique Kerber. Sometimes, you just have to pop some popcorn and watch some tennis and hope they're done by midnight because I'm clearly now an old lady who can't stay up much past the ending of The Tonight Show. Sigh.

U.S. Open: Well, that tennis was (not) special

You got all amped after you saw the Rafael Nadal and Venus Williams matches over the weekend, right? You were probably like, "It just can't get any better than this! We got Lucas Pouille, Gael Monfils, Angelique Kerber, Roberta Vinci, Novak Djokovic and Jo-Jo Tsonga! This is gonna be ...
... the biggest tennis letdown ever. Here's hoping Vinci, Tsonga and Ana Sevastova heal up, which is most important. Second most important is griping about such a balloon-popper of a tennis day at the U.S. Open. Obviously, it's not the fault of the players that their bodies cannot hold up consistently over a 17 1/2-month season. I'm gonna take the higher road here and not rant about the silliness of how the tennis season is set up, but there is likely a TWA therapy session coming up on this very topic.
Let's instead take a look at what's ahead, and hope for better days and also hope that all banana peels are promptly picked up in the players' quarters. The last thing we need is another injury.
Ana Konjuh and Karolina Pliskova: A TV commentator pointed out that you don't see a lot of young guns advancing deep into tournaments anymore, so Konjuh is a complete anomaly right now. Pliskova's had a good summer, and at 24, she's basically a spring chicken compared to just about anyone in the top 10. I'd give the nod to experience, but Konjuh seems to offer more variety in her game, which can defuse power well. So I'm going to live on the edge here and pick no one. (See what I did there?)
Kei Nishikori v. Andy Murray: Way back in the day, I predicted that Murray would win majors. It took a lot longer than many people thought, but here he is, a favorite to win the tournament, even as the second seed. I believe Nishikori also has the game to win majors, and as with Murray, it's going to take a little longer than most people think. Nishikori has been impressive, especially in handling Ivo Karlovic's serve in the previous round. But Murray's on a different level right now and he'd have to take quite the dip for Nishikori to even pick up a set here.
NIGHT SESSION!
We got Serena Williams v. Simona Halep: I'm going Serena unless some emotional self-sabotage takes place during this match. Everyone's talking about how great Halep's playing right now. I don't see anything different. She's always had a solid game. The problem is her head, and if she really believes she can beat Serena, well, then, we have a problem. I don't think she has the weaponry, so this one is up to Serena.
Oh my god Stan Wawrinka and Juan Martin del Potro: I want you two to drop and give me five sets and a tiebreaker, stat!

TWA's Cincy wrap

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but is anyone as surprised as I am that Angelique Kerber had a shot at being the No. 1 player in the world this weekend? 

Kerber is a fine player, no doubt. But her lack of one fallback weapon was her downfall in Cincinnati on Sunday. *Time out: Yes, I also recognize that she just won the silver medal in Brazil and might be a tad tired, and I recognize that she played that match under the weight of knowing that all she had to do was win it and she would be the best player in the world. What I am about to note is still true regardless of all of that. Time in.* It's clear that Karolina Pliskova, at least this week, had some huge groundstrokes that Kerber was literally fighting off on her knees. A valiant effort, but when Kerber faces off against power players who are hitting their targets, it totally takes away her game, which is the ball-machine approach -- get everything back. She's very good at that. It's why she beat Serena Williams in Australia. Serena wasn't ready to work that hard, but when your opponent plays the way Plishkova did, and you don't have a backup plan, well, you get handled pretty efficiently. 

Having said all of that, big-ups to Kerber for showing up after the Olympics and advancing to the final. Same to Andy Murray. There are times in pro tennis when the dominant player of the time stumbles, even briefly, and leaves a small window of opportunity. Many times, there isn't anyone able to step in and take advantage. With Novak Djokovic on the sidelines right now, the opportunist is Murray. He has made himself the player to beat right now, and although he also lost in the Cincinnati final Sunday, to Marin Cilic, he should feel very good about his chances at the U.S. Open (in less than a week!). 

Another major development in Cincinnati was the first tournament for Martina Hingis and Sania Mirza -- with new partners. Hingis had Coco Vandeweghe and Mirza's new partner is Barbora Strycova. (Now, sizing up these new partners is a push. Both Coco and Strycova have huge chips on their backs, but due to sheer age, I'll say Strycova's is bigger.) Naturally, they both ended up in the final, and if you were lucky enough to be in Cincinnati, you saw what seemed to be a tight match with Mirza/Strycova taking the title. If you weren't, you had to follow some live-score website to find out who won. 

Which is going to bring me head-on into my rant-o-the-week. Again. Most tennis fans who play play doubles. Why is it so hard to get doubles on TV? I'd watch it. The folks on Twitter on Sunday moaning about not being able to see this match anywhere would watch it. What's it going to take to get doubles the love it deserves. Rafael Nadal just won Olympic gold, if your answer is "big names." Martina Hingis is one of the best doubles players around, if your answer is "dubs is boring." If you're reading this, I am about to embark on a crusade to get doubles on TV more often. All I need is a good hashtag, because everyone knows that nothing gets done anymore without a good hashtag. So let's brainstorm bombard the networks with some pressure, all right?! Seriously, though, I'm gonna need some help because all I got right now is #makedoublesgreatagain, which is obviously a nonstarter.

The Rio wrap: Waxing on sauerkraut, socks and why the Olympics matter

It’s more than three days after the conclusion of the Rafael Nadal/Juan Martin del Potro throwdown classic, and I am still laid out on the floor in sheer ecstasy and exhaustion. Not literally, but wow, did the Olympics offer up some great matches. It was a little scary for those of us who saw the early exits of Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic and thought

via GIPHY

I know I said that the fact that many of the guys decided to bail on Rio made the men’s draw boring. But, for the first time in TWA history, I must admit that I was wrong. It’s because of the likes of Nadal and del Potro mostly. Nadal, who is still struggling with his wrist, came to the Olympics anyway. (There is a decent chance that this is because he might call it a day before 2020, due to his issues with injury.) He left with a gold medal in doubles (with dream dubs partner Marc Lopez.). Del Potro is also finding his way back after a long layoff, and I would say he did just OK. Seriously, I hope he keeps up the fine form.

It’s important to play for your country, even though it’s just sports. Do you wonder why Venus Williams, even though she was sick with a virus, still threw her hat in the ring for mixed doubles? Just because she was hanging around anyway? No. She in all likelihood had no idea who Rajeev Ram was (although she probably knew he was no Jack Sock), but it was important, so she tried one more time and became one of the most decorated tennis players in Olympic history, earning a silver medal.

Their attendance at the Games illustrates one thing. The Olympics still matter. It sure as hell matters more than your average tournament. Oh, jeez, nice job, John Isner, winning Atlanta or whatever he played instead of the Olympics. And I know it’s poor form or just outright rude to point this out, but Isner is not going to win the U.S. Open. If he wins the U.S. Open, I’ll eat my writing hat and top it with mustard, sauerkraut and baked beans. And I will Snapchat that thing like nobody’s business.

Anyway, the Olympics are important. Let’s resume that conversation in four years, when the American No. 1 dodges Tokyo. In other very important Olympic business:

1.       Gold medalist Bethanie Mattek-Sands, I would like a pair of your socks.

2.       Gold medalist Usain Bolt, I would like your warmup shirt.

3.       Gold medalist Andy Murray, I still think your attitude stinks sometimes, but you are earning quite the reputation lately of performing under pressure. Remember, I believed in you when nobody did!

4.       OK, I threw the slightest bit of shade – it was just a shadow really -- on Monica Puig the other day. She deflected that shade with her new piece of jewelry. Seriously, what a gutsy tournament. She took every scalp she encountered and earned Puerto Rico its first gold medal. Ever.