Wimbledon '21: The Quarters

I just heard the term "Manic Monday" as applied to Wimbledon's second Monday of the tournament for the first time. I'm sure it's been used before but man was it true yesterday. There were so many questions.

How did Paula Badosa manage to lose that match, especially that first set? 

How are you Karen Khachanov on grass and having trouble holding serve?

Is Aryna Sabalenka intentionally injecting drama into her matches just to see if she can come out of it?

Who is more adept at opening his mouth and removing all doubt: John McEnroe or Piers Morgan? 

And finally, do you like roller coasters? Then you loved Andrey Rublev and Marton's Fucsovic's match, right? My favorite thing from the Internet yesterday was that "Call the ambulance" meme featuring these two. I cried. But I didn't like it, so it's now swept away in the flood that is the Twitter feed. Anyway, it was funny.

So, the quarters are underway and so far, Karolina Pliskova is locking down her spot in the semis and Daniil Medvedev is having a slow start to the continuation of his Round of 16 match. Pretty slow -- down 2-4 in the fifth, so. 

Of the matches coming up, I'm excited for Ons Jabeur v. Sabalenka, about to commence shortly. Jabeur earned the OG tag when she puked on court before upsetting Garbine Muguruza. Sabalenka can basically run the table in any match because of her power, but she's not yet put it all together at a major. This one could be dicey. This has to go three sets, right?

I think Ash Barty is a lock for her quarterfinal. Aja Tomljanovic looked good most of the tournament and against Emma Raducanu in her previous match. (Sidebar: OK, am I the only one who would also be trying to catch my breath after long, tortured rallies against a veteran player? What is this drama?!) But Aja has struggled in just about every other match. Barty in straights.

I would love to say Angelique Kerber is an easy lock for the semis, but I am literally still wondering how Karolina Muchova even won her Round of 16 match. So who knows.

Whoa snap, Medvedev is already out! Well then. 

Last Slam on the Left: U.S. Open 2019 -- The Women

Well, looks like another boring women's draw, with nothing to look out for until the quarters. Ho hum.
OK, you know I'm just playing. Before we continue, I am declaring this blog a Serena 2018-free zone for the next two weeks after this paragraph. ESPN made a documentary about last year's women's final. Like, last week. Guys. All of us had something to say about it in the moment (including me), but that was last year. And now, everyone's crying "rigged draw," presumably some sort of payback for last year? The last thing I'll say is the other reporting out of this situation suggested that Carlos Ramos will no longer be allowed to chair Serena's matches. This bothered me for a moment -- he called a code violation that later was on the up-and-up, so why is he being penalized? But then, it occurred to me that perhaps the person most excited about the prospect of never having to call a Serena Williams match again might be ... Carlos Ramos.
OK! Let's get into it!

Early Rounds to Watch

Serena Williams v. Maria Sharapova: OK, Serena stans who think this draw is rigged. Who here thinks Maria Sharapova can beat Serena Williams? I wanna see hands. No hands. Exactly. I will be watching this of course because there's history here, and off-court drama but this will be a straightforward match and there's no previous recent history to suggest otherwise. If Serena's back is still a problem, y'all do know she'd quit before she went out and had to lose or retire to Sharapova, right?

Aryna Sabalenka v. Victoria Azarenka: Now here is a match that is a tough call. I like Sabalenka, but Azarenka is starting to play some good early-round tennis in recent tournaments. I think this will be the second-most entertaining first-round match we'll see, close behind

Garbine Muguruza v. Alison Riske: See, Serena stans? It could have been a LOT worse. Like, how the heck is Muguruza, in her current form, supposed to beat Alison Riske, who had a way better Wimbledon than most would have expected, and is probably feeling pretty good about herself?

Angelique Kerber v. Kristina Mladenovic: Kerber has also been shaky this summer. Good thing Mladenovic has been shaky for about a year and a half.

Who Are Our Quarterfinalists?

Why is Sabalenka in red? I kinda like this draw for her, even with Osaka in her quarter. I kinda think she could win the whole tournament. But it's crazy to think that because she does not have an easy draw. My spidey sense says that Sabalenka is waiting for people to stop tipping her for winning tournaments so she can play with less pressure again. But I could be wrong, so why not highlight a horrendous calculation for the world to see?
Man, Serena has a tough quarter down there at the bottom. There's Kerber, who has no problem beating Serena at a major and Ash Barty. Let's not forget Su-Wei Hseih -- that's a three-hour match right there.

Who's Going to Win?

The more I think about this Sabalenka pick, the more I wonder if there's loose glue around here I might have been sniffing. But it could happen. Maybe? I think I might need a backup pick

We Got Some Salty Tennis Players in Miami

I am regularly surprised by things that happen in pro tennis. I couldn't have told you that Naomi Osaka would win two Slams in a row by the time she was 21. Or that Serena Williams would back out of both Indian Wells and Miami. (Well. That's not as surprising.)
But if you were going to ask me if there was one top player I could think of who would say something mean to her opponent at the handshake, it would not be Angelique Kerber. And yet, here we are.
In case you missed it (and some people are apparently hoping you missed it), Kerber, who lost last week's IW final to Bianca Andreescu, played in the second round in Miami against ... Andreescu. During the match, Andreescu called twice for a medical time out with an arm problem. At the end of each time-out, she went back to the court. It was a great match. Full disclosure: It was nearly 1 a.m. when it ended in my corner of the world and I was drifting in and out of sleep, and when the final ball was struck, I snapped awake to see the two players meeting at the net. Kerber said something and she looked irritated, but it didn't register and I went to sleep because I was tired. It was the next day before I saw the clip while fully awake:

Canada kept it of course, eh. (h/t @omess)pic.twitter.com/lH6jMPLGjI

— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) March 25, 2019

OK!
First, Kerber is not Miss Shade Academy, so this is wild to see from her. Second, there are players who are very dramatic where I wouldn't be surprised to hear them getting called out

.
Andreescu was not playing that card. So, what on earth was Kerber talking about?
Third is this apparent effort by Kerber and the WTA to pretend that the whole thing ... never happened? The WTA scraped it off their website and the next day, Kerber makes this nice Twitter post in tribute of the teenager.

Tough battle out there last night @miamiopen! Congrats to Bianca @Bandreescu_ for a great performance and a well deserved win. 👍 pic.twitter.com/IpXzAJRNpi

— Angelique Kerber (@AngeliqueKerber) March 24, 2019

Here is a crazy idea. Maybe just (wo)man up and say sorry if you did something wrong. Because it's not a good look when you are a tour veteran and you pitch a fit after a talented teenager beats you for the second time in some days. Calling someone a drama queen in a huff after you lose to this person is a pretty drama-queen thing to do. Mainly, I just want to know what she meant. And another thing: When did the WTA get into public relations? You know what I can find at this moment on the WTA website? Full accounting of Serena Williams going postal at the U.S. Open. But we're protecting Kerber?

Speaking of drama queens, on to the next tennis controversy in Miami. Apparently, Nick Kyrgios won a crucial point in his match Monday by serving underhand. And well, social media thought that was (wait for it ...) underhanded. Look, serving underhand is annoying and tricky, but it is an acceptable tennis play. I play with some people who do that. Yes, they're 70-80 years old. It is legit, though. It's exactly like a drop shot. Tennis, as I've said, is 99.9948278 percent mental. Part of that means being ready for anything. I mean, as a player, no one likes when someone does this. But is that what we're doing now? We're playing nice? I hope that's not true because I'm working on my underhand serve after I hit publish.

Andrees-who?

Strangely, I have not dedicated too many key strokes to Bianca Andreescu before, but I will rectify that now. And I'll just start with WOW.
So I watched that Indian Wells final and it was one of the most entertaining finals I've seen recently. This final, Andreescu v. Angelique Kerber, was what happens when two players showcase their strengths ... and when, mercifully, one of those strengths is not a serve. They have good serves, yes, but no one was acing their way out of trouble. Lucky for us, they had to slug their way through the trouble.
I've written before about Kerber's unconventional game, and I still have trouble understanding how she does this all the time -- advance to big-time finals, and usually win them. For a minute, it seemed as if that was going to happen again.
OK, so Andreescu. I am impressed. It's not just that she's 18 and had a great run through this tournament. Think about the players you know who have the variety that Andreescu displayed the other day. Seriously. Off the top of my head, I have Roberta Vinci, Conchita Martinez, Fabrice Santoro. Santoro's too far maybe. But anyway, what do those players have in common? At the height of their careers, when they were masterfully displaying that variety, they were in their late-20s and early 30s. This chick is 18. Unfortunately, I had the volume on during the match, so I could hear the commentators saying that she was going to the drop shot too much. Never stop, Bianca! Because guess what? It worked and if you are fortunate enough to have powerful groundstrokes that can keep someone pinned to the baseline, then yes, the drop shot is an intelligent play. Just because a player starts running in doesn't make it less effective. Kerber's returns on that shot (except for that one lucky slice up the line on a dead run) did not leave Kerber in a winning position. Plus, no one drop shots anymore, and it's annoying. Andreescu is 18 and is already learning how to use the entire court.
Yes, she has room for improvement. She fairly limped over the finish line on Sunday, so the fitness maybe could use some work.

But as far as I can tell, when it comes to the brainy part of tennis, she's already ahead of any of the young women I've seen coming up so far.
Not much to say about Roger Federer going down to Dominic Thiem in the men's final. It was entertaining, and Thiem is about to mess around and bring back the one-handed backhand. His backhand is definitely better than Fed's right? That's what I saw.

HOMELAND SLAM: The Women

The draw gods were very kind to tennis fans. I am not sure if the actual players feel the same way, but here we go!

Seeds

1. Simona Halep: The one to beat. And it won't be easy. So good luck, ladies listed below. Here stands one of the most mentally tough players the tour has seen since Serena and Maria. I know a lot has been made of the logjam in her quarter, but what she did this summer turned me into a convert. Her match against Sloane Stephens, and even Kiki Bertens, were just awesome displays of tenacious tennis. When you consider that she was doing two-a-days in her last two tournaments. And all of that extra tennis played could come back and bite her in the form of exhaustion. But I don't think she gets tired, y'all.

2. Caroline Wozniacki: Ever since she won Australia, she's been all over the place. Her first round is against Sam Stosur, and if/when she comes up against Bertens, she's probably going to go to the low end of that "place."

3. Sloane Stephens: I have to admit that I thought that her title here last year was a blip, a lucky bounce here and there. That semi against Venus literally hung on a couple of tough rallies. But Sloane has backed it up with a French Open final appearance and a couple of really strong showings against Halep. I wish she had a real weapon, something that could end a point in under 15 minutes, but here we are.

4. Angelique Kerber: Hey, when's she's not No. 1, she's killing the competition. Her Wimbledon final performance was just stellar. She's got a good draw and I can see her making the semis, easy.

5. Petra Kvitova: She's had a strong summer, but there are some floaters in this draw she needs to look out for -- Aryna Sabalenka and Naomi Osaka.  

6. Caroline Garcia: Garcia has had an up-and-down season, not a lot of consistency. And her first round is against a resurgent Johanna Konta, so that's not great. Then possibly Monica Puig, who beat her last week in Connecticut, and as someone who watched that match, I have no idea how Garcia managed to lose. So not much hope for her here.

7. Elina Svitolina: If this were a tournament that wasn't a major, I'd say, sure. Let's go with Svitolina. But it's a major, so Agz Radwanska will likely be the first and last person Svitolina sees on a tennis court in New York. 

8. Karolina Pliskova: I have concerns. She's got some coaching changes going on -- she just snagged Conchita Martinez, so maybe she can help Pliskova figure out how to win this summer. She's had losses to Sabalenka and Bertens, and even Ekaterina Makarova the last few tournaments, so we will see.

9. Julia Goerges: It's great to see Goerges having great results again and she's in Svitolina's quarter, so maybe things will work out for a run to the quarters? 

10. Jelena Ostapenko: Given her high-risk game, you just have to wait until the match with her. Andrea Petkovic is going to be a tough first round because Petkovic can handle the power, so should be fun!

11. Daria Kasatkina: Gonna have to do a hard pass here.

12. Garbine Muguruza: We just gotta see what kind of mood Muguruza is in right now. If she's in a good mood, this draw is here for her. If she's in a bad mood, Maria Sakkari or Pliskova will be waiting to see her out of Queens.

13. Kiki Bertens: It has a heckuva year for Bertens. I really love her game. The thing that had been missing until this year was the mental toughness. She'd have players in a corner and then she'd blink. Not this year. The way she handled that Halep match in the Rogers Cup final was really impressive. Quarters at the least for her.

14. Madison Keys: On the whole, it's been a pretty meh year for Keys. So I'm not expecting another run to the final from her. 

15. Elise Mertens: Nah.

16: Venus Williams: It's not been a great year for Venus, and if she wants to replicate her semifinal run from last year, she'd have to bypass her sister, Simona Halep, and probably Muguruza and Pliskova. That's just her quarter. I don't know is all I'm saying.

The Stragglers

Serena Williams: Yes, it is completely possible she wins the whole thing. What's more likely, though, is that her lackluster court movement will be exposed early on by some quality opponents -- there are many in her quarter alone -- including her own sister.

Aryna Sabalenka: I still want to know if what she was sniffing during the Fed Cup last year was legal. Whatever it is might have taught her how to volley, because her game is locked and loaded right now. I just watched her win the Connecticut Open and her game is BIG. It's also INCONSISTENT. She is also as MOODY as the average teenager.

Magdalena Rybarikova: She's in Svitolina's quarter and I see her as the main beneficiary when Svitolina flames out for some ridiculous reason.

First Round Matches to Watch

These first round matches could be very consequential to the way this tournament shakes out. Not even hyperbol-ing right now.

Patty Schnyder v. Maria Sharapova: I don't give her more than six games, but you gotta love Patty Schnyder out here talking trash on the Tennis Twitter streets like she never left the game. 

Maybe someone know this, but I think in 18 years I never loose a first round @usopen ...

— Patty Schnyder (@pattyschnyder) August 21, 2018

Simona Halep v. Kaia Kanepi: Picking Halep, but should be entertaining at least.

Venus v. Svetlana Kuznetsova: The sad part is that if Venus gets out of this match, it just gets worse for her.

Sachia Vickery v. Svitolina: Many opportunities for Svitolina flame-outs. This will be just the first.

Johanna Konta v. Caroline Garcia: Konta needs to get her ranking up. Because this is cruel.

Jelena Ostapenko v. Andrea Petkovic: Petkovic has retired that dance by now, right?

Sabalenka v. Danielle Collins: Collins has cooled a bit since the spring, but this still could be entertaining. 

Laura Siegemund v. Naomi Osaka: Fully expecting Osaka to make it through this one, but should be a good match. 

Wozniacki v. Stosur: Sam Stosur won the U.S. Open once. Let that one marinate.

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

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.

Abbreviating that part, instead of the extraneous two sets at the beginning of the best-of-five match, seems so misguided.

— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) July 14, 2018

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.

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?!

#wimbledon2018
After 4hrs...
I knew you wouldn’t let go.
Proud of you no matter what.
Keep calm and #VamosRafa 🤜🏻🤛🏻@RafaelNadal pic.twitter.com/7UFTV69geM

— Dora Hon (@Rana060325) July 11, 2018

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.

What's Up Down Under with the Ladies?

The 2017 pro tennis season is underway and fraught with dramatic story lines, in both the men's and women's games. Can Angelique Kerber defend her title and her status as the world No. 1? What about Serena Williams? What about the upstarts? And what value can we place on warm-up tournaments?
Let's get right into it.

A few things worth noting:
1. If Serena Williams is going to win the Australian Open, it might have to be one of the most legendary performances she has ever orchestrated at a major. And she just started her season with a loss to Madison Brengle. This Madison Brengle.



So. Serena's first round opponent is definitely Belinda Bencic, who has already beaten Serena before and has a really good game. She struggled with back injuries last year, and if she's feeling better, well, yeah. I don't know. But let's say Serena gets out of the first round. She's likely to face the tricky Lucie Safarova, and up-and-comer Timea Babos. Looming in just her quarter: young gun Naomi Osaka, Dominika Cibulkova (who's always down to ruin someone's run at a major), Caroline Wozniacki and, well, Ekaterina Makarova, who has beaten Serena at the Australian Open before. Now, to be fair, Serena has a dominant head-to-head with Makarova, but, again, Madison Brengle. Should Serena navigate her way through that quarter, I think she's likely to face Agz Radwanska. But there's also Karolina Pliskova up there, and Sam Stosur. Obviously, in the final, she'd be seeded to face Kerber, but it could be Svetlana Kuznetsova, or Elina Svitolina, or Venus Williams or Simona Halep or even Garbine Muguruza, if she's finally recovered from the biggest win of her career, the 2016 French Open. Actually, if she could get out of the first week, you could say Serena's chances are pretty good in the second. But Madison Brengle. I just don't know.

2. A lot of people are really big lately on Johanna Konta, even going as far as saying she could win this tournament. Well, her draw's not real friendly, either. She gets Kirsten Flipkens in the first round. Now, if you are trying to ease into a tournament, work your way into it, getting better incrementally as you play, Flipkens is not really someone you want to see in the first round, as Venus Williams can attest from their match in Rio. Konta's second-round match would likely be against Osaka, who has a ton of firepower. Even if you think Konta could win that, she's in Serena's quarter. She has the same problems! But someone has to navigate them. Maybe it will be Konta. I don't know if I'm buying her yet, though.

3. Ms. Kerber. Sometimes, I watch her play and ask myself, "Does someone actually practice hitting like that?" Sigh. You know what they say, though -- there's more than one way to skin a tennis ball. Wait -- that's not right. Anyway. So Kerber is the obvious pick to advance to the semis here. There are dangerous opponents, but no one that should give her issues before the quarters. (Unless you count Genie Bouchard. I do not. Yes, I know she just beat Cibulkova.) It really does depend on where Muguruza's head is these days. If it's on right, then I'd choose her to win the whole tournament. But Kerber's head appears to be on just fine. She lost her first match in the warm-up event in Sydney, but her thoughts about the result (a straight-set loss to Daria Kasatkina, who is in Kerber's quarter in Australia, by the way), showed some pretty good perspective.

That's light-hearted and cold-blooded kind of all at the same time.

4. There is a lot of talent in the bottom quarter of the top half of the draw. I was buying Halep stock about a year-and-a-half ago. I'm selling now. She's No. 4 in the world, which is good. It's very good. Here's my question about Halep: Would she be top 4 if you couldn't get on-court coaching in WTA events? I'm not going to go on and on again about how much I hate on-court coaching again, but Halep does a lot better when Darren Cahill is talking her through a match. But what about Grand Slam events? Last year, she failed to get past the quarters in any major event, losing in the first round in Australia. But she won three tournaments, including Madrid. So it's a thought -- a thought that if you use a crutch long enough, it becomes hard to remember how to stand on your own feet. Like I say, a thought.
I have thoughts about Venus Williams, too, and they're a bit more upbeat. It looked like Venus really began to build points and consistency last year. Some of her losses last year were spectacular -- not in a "wow, that was a trainwreck" sense, but more in a match quality sense. She started her career as a wrecking ball, hitting through everything and then she seemed to falter when people began to handle it. But in her fourth-round loss to Pliskova, she showed some real balance in her power and strategical skills. Just enough balance that she deserves mention here. She doesn't tend to do well here, but I'd love to see what happens if she and Halep play in the fourth round. And then there's the barber Svetlana Kuznetsova. Her kind-of comeback (she's always sort of been around) has been great to watch. She's a great player and pretty entertaining in case you hadn't heard.



OK. So some first-round matches to watch:
1. Laura Siegemund v. Jelena Jankovic: Just because it's Jankovic. It's the same reason you watch any Alize Cornet match -- for the drama.
2. Kristina Mladenovic v. Ana Konjuh: Konjuh is the one who crashed onto the scene last year at the U.S. Open. Mladenovic has been playing great doubles and not so bad at singles, pushing Serena hard at the French Open last year. Should be good tennis.
3. Sam Stosur v. Heather Watson: Who knows which Sam Stosur will show up? Who knows which Heather Watson will show up?

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: Top 5 moments from the WTA Finals

Well, the WTA Tour Finals went down exactly the way I expected it.
Said no one. Like, no one.
Dominika Cibulkova won the WTA Tour Finals on Sunday. OK? You got it? No? Me neither! This one's gonna take a while.
This year-end tournament was Threat Level Insanity. It was like the U.S. presidential election 2016 shenani-aster. Except in all good ways. Let us count those ways:

Dominika Freakin' Cibulkova: First of all, there can't be too many other players at this tournament who lose twice, yet still advance to the sudden-death stage only to win the whole thing. Let's just get that hat-tip out of the way. Now, I called Cibulkova a Minion-sized player on Twitter, but she has always been one of my favorite players because she gives tiny tennis players like myself a lot of hope. Except she has to work really hard, which is kind of a bummer. Not only does she have to be fit, she has to have impeccable timing to get the drop on almost anyone else on the court. It is not easy to hit the ball at the top of the bounce every. single. time, or at least every time she successfully executes a shot. A big part of her game is taking time away, and it's just a second or two, but it's part of what had Kerber (and the rest of her opponents this week) scrambling all over the place. It's maddening.

Anddd, the loser, but still champion ...: I know a lot of people like Angelique Kerber. I like her. She's got grit, she works hard and she is the legit World No. 1 right now. But even as she earned that title, I always considered her a stopgap No. 1 at best. This tournament proved that, and the final match really shined a spotlight on this. Cibulkova played great defense and served well, too, but she offered up enough short balls that Kerber should have been able to step in and apply pressure. Instead, she's the one being pulled around the court. In her 20-minute offseason, she needs to develop the kill shot.

Svetlana Kuznetsova goes full Alize Cornet: Kuznetsova has always been my favorite Russian from that first post-Kournikova batch. She's not flashy, no drama, just a meat-and-potatoes tennis player. She's had periods of wild inconsistency, but at her best, she is a threat. She was a real threat to Johanna Konta last week and took her spot in the finals at the last minute. I thought she'd have nothing left to make a real run, but that was, to put it mildly, not accurate. She made a semifinal run to the tour finals, but not without a little sacrifice.

There are a couple of things to love about this. First, the theories bandied about by the female commentator. "She's feeling heavy on the court?" Pardon? Like, what?!!
It turned out that Kuznetsova's explanation about this moment was that her hair kept getting in her face and distracted her. OK. Makes sense. I guess my first inclination would have been to ... I don't know, ... tuck the problematic hair into my ponytail holder? But that's just me. There are about four other ways to solve the problem, and Sveta goes to the most time-consuming and permanent one. Oh-kay!
On the next changeover, Kuznetsova was sobbing like Vera Zvonareva. This is really all the evidence you need that the season is too long. We've got players having mini-episodes and losing critical thinking skills during matches, guys!


The return of Santina: Even though Martina Hingis and Sania Mirza did not defend their championship, they are still a very entertaining team to watch. The reason they ended their partnership in the first place was because they weren't getting the wins they were used to, and I guess losing here is just confirmation. But big-ups to Mirza, who was not really much of a doubles player when she started out, but has developed pretty well, learning a lot from Hingis and is now the best doubles player in the world. And she's getting the cream of the crop for partners so far, too. Barbora Strycova is not the friendiest person on tour, but she doesn't come for friends. She comes to clean up on the court. Hingis? Hingis is drawing Coco Vandeveghe. I would just submit she is not exactly battle-tested.
Anyway, the rest of the doubles tournament was also great to watch. Elena Vesnina is another one of those "clean up on aisle D" types and she and Ekaterina Makarova came away with the title, which again, was a bit of a surprise. Which fits in perfectly with the rest of the tournament.

What the Halep?: I have this feeling that the Simona Halep/Darren Cahill breakup is coming soon. Sure, I could be wrong, but perhaps the person most poised to pose a real challenge in this post-Serena season was the one behind her in the rankings most of the season -- Halep. And yet? Lackluster Slam appearances, barely registers a blip in Singapore. I'm far from an insider, but Cahill is a high-quality coach. People under his tutelage tend to get consistently better, or poof! Done! Has Halep maxxed out her potential? Maybe it's just that the long season took its toll. But she clearly needs to assess how badly she wants to challenge for No. 1, because right now? Yeah, this is the time.

Singapore: You know, since I've gotten the Tennis Channel back, I've been watching a lot more tennis. Duh. I know, but one other thing I've noticed is that I might be the only one watching the tennis. The stands at these late-season tournaments have been almost completely empty. That's questionable to me. Everyone's sitting around debating what we should do about the long season. Should we shorten matches? Replace tiebreakers with riveting rounds of rock-paper-scissors? Maybe we just have fewer tournaments. I have to think some of these events are operating at a loss. The money they pay in electricity just to get the party started must be exorbitant compared to the spectators. They might just consider having people bring candles to the matches if they're going to keep having tournaments that 10 people attend in person.
OK, with that off my chest, man, that crowd in Singapore loves themselves some tennis! Every match had enthusiastic fans. They didn't appear to be sellout numbers, but there was some life in the place. You want to fix tennis, Steve Simon? Maybe just give tennis to the people who want it?

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.

U.S. Open: Greatly exaggerated

Yes, I know Angelique Kerber is the new world No. 1 and the new U.S. Open champion. It still bugs me a little, but I think I realize why.

This.

(Who hits a forehand like that?)
And this.

Also this.

Kerber wins ugly. It definitely isn't pretty. But she won the point in these freeze frames. No effortless power on one or both wings. No shut-it-down serve to get out a tight spot. (That lefty swinger out wide is not bad, though. But it's ugly. Just saying.) Commentators keep going on about Kerber and Agz Radwanska's ability to hit a tennis ball almost in a sitting position. That baffles me. Do they teach that in tennis class now? That's ugly and there's a more economic way to blunt power and keep yourself in a point, a fact that former professionals ought to be aware of. Hi!
Here's my coping problem. I want my world number ones to be dominant and indisputable. Not invincible, but able to withstand an attack. Like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Steffi Graf, or even early Martina Hingis. Justine Henin. Like Serena Williams, who, despite her age is still a No. 1 contender for maybe the next couple of years in my book. She's still a force. You can discard anyone who has such a deep bag of tricks, plus sheer power.
Is Kerber a force? No. Can she consistently withstand various challengers? Sure, she edged Karolina Pliskova yesterday, but could she do that again next month?
The work ethic is why you can't argue with Kerber's new ranking. She wins ugly. But she wins. She does this because she works hard. Here's a portion of a story from the WTA website about what Andrea Petkovic had to say about Kerber in 2011:

Fifteen of 18 matches lost. There aren't a lot of pro players that could survive that type of drought with their confidence anywhere in shouting distance. What kind of fortitude must it take to come out and take beating after beating before coming out of that tailspin? These paragraphs right here says all that you need to know about why Kerber is the highest-ranked player in the world now.
And yet, she doesn't excite me about the future of women's tennis. Sorry -- she just doesn't. Kerber is post-Serena, but she's 28. There's the likes of Pliskova and Garbine Muguruza waiting in the wings. Some players have a work ethic and ridiculous natural talent.
At best, I would consider Kerber a stopgap No. 1, between Serena and either Serena again or the next dominant player. She isn't likely to have a long reign, or add the spark that women's tennis desperately needs right now outside of Germany. (Kerber v. Pliskova was a great final, but I'd watch a men's match any day still.)
So to dramatically appropriate a line from "The Dark Knight," Kerber isn't the world No. 1 that we need right now. 

But she's the No. 1 she deserves.

U.S. Open 2016: The future is ... now?

Look. Don't play the injury card. Worse yet, tell your coach not to play the injury card. Tell him to not speak of it ever. (OK, maybe for the tell-all at the end of your career) You're out there, aren't you?
I'm not saying Serena Williams wasn't really injured throughout a good chunk of this tournament. Doesn't make much sense to lie about something like that. But that is straight-up whack to bring that up after a huge upset against an inspired Karolina Pliskova (or any other player) who just played her ass off. Just don't. I remember when Justine Henin pulled that nonsense when Amelie Mauresmo beat her to win Wimbledon back in the day, and it was just as weak then. You lost. It's fine, it really is. Just move on. Don't try to asterisk your opponent's win.
OK. Got that off my chest. Let's move on.
One of the most impressive things about Pliskova's win is that she struggled with her nerves and somehow overcame them. It was pretty obvious -- all those double-faults she tossed up at key moments was a good indication. But then she swallowed it and hit her way through it. That type of mental game is the difference between her and someone like Petra Kvitova or Garbine Muguruza. And I kinda think she's going to win the U.S. Open.
That's not shade on Angelique Kerber, who made me revise my opinion of her game a bit. I thought she and Caroline Wozniacki would have a much closer match because neither of them have any big weapons that will win them easy points. What they do both have is stamina and the ability to run down any ball, which they did. But Kerber was able to unfurl that forehand down the line a bit more than Wozniacki did with her backhand (and she waited until she was down in the second set to start busting that out for some reason).
Kerber's the new world No. 1, and most of me still finds that a little fluke-y. (Nope, not a word. Already checked.) But you cannot deny that woman's work ethic. She works her ass off on the tennis court and although I still wonder if she can maintain the top ranking until, say, mid-2017, she does deserve it now.

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.

U.S. Open 2016: So, about last night ...

OK, let's just start right away with the Rafa Nadal v. Lucas Pouille throwdown in the fourth round. I suppose we just have to deal with the fact that we are now at that place that whenever Nadal or Roger Federer lose, people feel the need to hasten their retirement. Because anyone who played the way Nadal did last night needs a walker, right? Wrong, of course.
Nadal did not give away that match, or choke, or anything else of the sort. Although at 6-6 in the fifth-set tiebreak, I would argue that he blinked. He had an easy forehand to roll up the line for a 7-6 lead and some breathing room and he missed it, to the surprise of everyone. I mean, my eyes followed where the ball was supposed to go and when it didn't get there, I thought he must have hit it so fast I missed it. Literally the last thing I thought was that he missed it.
But anyway, blinking and choking are different to me. Nadal played one of hist best matches of the year. Obviously, I don't follow Pouille very closely (who does unless you're French?), but I'd have to wager he played one of the best matches of his year last night as well. There is really nothing in the way of weakness that I could see. Now one thing that will happen naturally with a hard hitter like him is that his shots will go off the rails, and they did at times, which was when Nadal was able to capitalize. It seems to me that he would struggle against a flatter ball striker who would give him less to rally with than Nadal's topspinny shots would. For example, I could see why Pouille went down to a Tomas Berdych-type at Wimbledon. But man, Pouille gave very little away yesterday and as a result, it was a great match to watch. It looks like we've got a lot more to see from him -- he's only 22.
Also in the "What a match!" category but in an entirely different way was the Petra Kvitova/Angelique Kerber match. Anyone who has ever watched Kvitova play well must wonder how she isn't in the top 3 in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, last night's match was your answer. Forty-three unforced errors in under 90 minutes. Mistakes strewn about the court like discarded beer cans in the stands at the end of the night. Thumping forehands followed up by shots that were several feet wide of the court. Double faulting on match point. I pointed out on the Twitter last night that whether Kerber won the match had precious little to do with her, but Kvitova and it turned out to be true. When Kvitova's shots were good, they were very good, and when they were bad, there was Kerber waiting. I sometimes wonder if Kvitova doesn't still suffer from the expectations that I think is plaguing Garbine Muguruza after winning an unexpected first slam. But women's tennis needs her to pull it together. Right now, it needs some serious depth in order to avoid the Serena-Kerber monotony. So pull it together, woman! I need to be entertained.
I think it's funny now in retrospect that people actually thought Novak Djokovic had a chance to lose to Kyle Edmund, the young Brit. Did anyone else happen to notice Djokovic's "interview" on the way into Ashe Stadium? Here it is in a nutshell:
Interviewer: And here's Novak Djokovic. What's your strategy going into the match?
Novak: It's good to be here. I'm ready to play.
Interviewer: How do you feel? How's your arm?
Novak: I'm looking forward to the match. Goodbye, Felicia.
He was about his business and it showed. Time to settle in for a nice deep Djokovic run at the Open.
We have a little time before play starts again on this, the most laborious of days. Let's look at some of the matchups, with a rating from 1-5, five being the most likely to produce an upset:
Dominic Thiem v. Juan Martin del Potro: 5. Thiem is the seed here, at eight. Nope. Not gonna hold.
Karolina Plishkova v. Venus Williams: 4.2. Venus is playing well, but still subject to the mid-match errors, so I think the 10th-seeded Plishkova could take advantage.
Grigor Dmitrov v. Andy Murray: 1. Move the traffic along, fellas. Nothing to see here.
Agz Radwanska v. Ana Konjuh: 2. I just tend to give Radwanska the advantage against anyone under the age of 21. They just don't have the patience to deal with the cat-and-mouse stuff, although I personally love watching it.
Carla Suarez Navarro v. Simona Halep: 4. Navarro is also tricky as hell.
Ilya Marchenko v. Stan Wawrinka: 2. I forgot to mention the circumstances around this match, so *time out* Everyone needs to calm down about Nick Kyrgios. He was hurt. Yes, he can be petulant and immature and flighty and all of that, but he is also a kid. He also quit the match against Marchenko injured, so now isn't the time to pile on, unless there's some indication that he faked it, and there is not. We need to do a TWA therapy session about Nicky, but it'll wait. Let's talk about how Stan Wawrinka fought like a man to beat back a match point against Daniel Evans. DAT BACKHAND DOWN THE LINE, THO. That was the single sexiest tennis shot I've ever seen. *time in* I think Wawrinka is going to win.
Serena Williams v. Yaroslava Shvedova: 2.2. I don't know about this one. I sense rumblings.
Kei Nishikori v. Ivo Karlovic: 2, but I will be reserving my spot on my couch for this one.

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.

Sometimes you play the Olympics. Sometimes the Olympics play you.

It's a good thing it rained in Rio yesterday -- it put the brakes on the seemingly neverending beatdown on the top players in the world. OK, Novak Djokovic's loss was a big deal, but he lost to a sleeping giant. Serena Williams losing to Elina Svitolina? Say what now? Five double faults in one game?! Pardon? A basic inability to return serve down the stretch?!!! A colossal upset for sure, but unlike the folks over at ESPN Tennis, I don't think we're talking about a sea change in women's tennis, unless we really think that Svitolina or Monica Puig (who beat the living crap out of Garbine Muguruza, by the way) are going to win the U.S. Open and bundle Williams into retirement. I mean, come on. Really.
One unexpected benefit to this rash of upsets is a repopulation of the mixed doubles draw. Venus Williams is back in, with Rajeev Ram, Nadal is pairing up with Muguruza and Bethanie Mattek-Sands has got Jack Sock. Heck, if you don't have to play a third set, but a tiebreaker, why not, right?
But anyway, who the heck knows what's going to happen in this tournament now. Nobody would have believed that Rafael Nadal has more of a chance to win the Olympic gold (in singles and doubles) than Djokovic at the beginning of this tournament, or that Madison Keys has a better shot now than Serena, but here we are. And no complaints, because we have some great matchups in the works: Nadal is playing Gilles Simon, Juan Martin del Potro is playing Daniel Taro, who took out Sock in the first round of singles, and Andy Murray against Fabio Fognini, Svitolina v. Petra Kvitova, and Angelique Kerber v. Johanna Konta, just to name a few highlights. And no, I would not even pretend to know how this all shakes out.