Australian Open 2026: OK, Happy Slam. I See You.

         I will be the first to admit that I used to make fun of over-the-hill NFL quarterbacks who couldn’t call it quits, no matter how badly their skills were waning. 

        OK, I’m probably still going to make fun of them because for the most part, these dudes tend to bring a whole team down with them when they start to decline. That said, I understand them a little better now after watching Venus Williams battle in round 1 of the Australian Open. 

        I’ve said before that the older you get, the less likely you are to tell someone they need to retire, for obvious reasons. I’ve wondered why Venus is still doing this and I’m convinced it’s not just for the health benefits. It’s not likely to win another Slam (which would be difficult in this current climate anyway). It’s for the love of the game. It’s because you can still do it. Stephen King is 78 years old. Imagine telling him to stop what he’s doing because he's old and doesn’t have a shot at his former glory. Despite wondering why Venus is still doing this, last night, it was obvious to the stadium and her opponent Olga Danilović that she is willing to show up and do the job. So I’m done cracking wise about age and just going to sit back and watch this extraordinary athlete steer her career wherever she wants it to go, and doing that well. 

        (But. Losing a 4-0 lead in the final set is brutal. Hang in there, girl.)

                  

The Happy Slam Gets Happier!

        Every time tennis tries to do something to draw in the masses, I give tremendous side-eye. But this year’s run-up to the Australian Open included a 1-Point Slam, and legends matches that involved Roger Federer, Andre Agassi, Pat Rafter and Ash Barty! This is what I’m talking about! I am talking about exhibitions that combine pros with amateur players and events that take full advantage of what tennis already has. That, notably is not the same as changing the rules to make the game more palatable. Or taking an actual Slam event and turning it into an exhibition. 

        Also, uh, got a chance to check in one of the sports legends that we don’t talk about enough (except on this corner of the Internet): 

 

        Is that ... is that Marat Safin!

        Oh, it is. And I thought he couldn’t get hotter. Long hair!?!!!? (#swoon)

TWA Podcast: Episode 4 (as in 4.0!)

I know you were just thinking, "Man, when're we getting a new podcast episode?" Beloved, your prayers have been answered!

I mentioned some things in the episode, including Iga Swiatek choosing a weird time to work on her swing during the Aussie Open semifinal: 

OMG, the hand up at the end of those shenanigans gets me every damn time. Girl.

The other thing I talked about was confidence and Debbie Millman. I've talked about it before on the blog, but just in case ya missed it, click here to get a definition of confidence and some fuel for all you late bloomers out there.

And Jannik Sinner. I'll get back to that one. All I know is that if Nick Kyrgios and I are even remotely close to being on the same side of an issue, it warrants further investigation. Like, that makes me think I could be wrong!

Lastly, and pop-culturally-speaking, I should have mentioned Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl halftime show. Not because I am a huge fan -- although I am new to the bandwagon and have some catching up to do -- but because of the record time my butt was off the couch when I saw Ms. Serena Williams dancing during "Not Like Us." Really, I was more like

Anyway, don't forget to listen to Episode 4!

2025 Australian Open: Busted Draws, Drama-Queen Djokovic and the Svitolinas Make Money Moves

I'm writing this as Elina Svitolina just came back from 4-1 down in the first set against Veronika Kudermetova. It's the day after (here in the States) that Gael Monfils beat TayLOR FRITZ to advance to tHE FOURTH ROUND of the Australian Open?!?? I'd said for years that Monfils has the game to win a major. Full disclosure: The last year I said that was probably, like, 2018. 

But I keep forgetting that this is the first Slam of the year, and I had told myself I was going to stop doing draws for this one, because it is always quite a surprise how it actually plays out. At least it's a surprise to me. Behold, these busted draws:

That red is bad. (Like it is on an election map in the U.S. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Also, you can see it's rare that I'm right and I hated to be right about Ons Jabeur losing to Emma Navarro. But a Navarro/Daria Kasatkina fourth round feels like a great time to multi-task. I'm sure I can finish doing all the laundry in my house. Also, painting my garage. Might even be able to throw in a bathroom redesign. Both of them.

Last thing, I swear: Why is Novak Djokovic such a drama queen. (That punctuation is correct. I do not expect an answer.) I just read this story about Djokovic basically hissy-fitting his way to an apology from an Australian tennis commentator who either made a bad joke or voiced a bad take. But because he called Djokovic overrated, my guy boycotted the network's post-match interview after his fourth-round win. Left poor Jim Courier hanging. Because a rando tennis commentator said a thing that wasn't terribly funny or made much sense. I assume the man was joking because no one would call Djokovic overrated. He is the major Slams record holder. He is the last of the Big Three standing, and currently being coached by the Fourth. He is not going to lose to Reilly Opelka in this tournament. And he needs the affirmations of this rando guy? Whatever happened to the days when commentators' ridiculous takes were met with a healthy public scoffing and ... that was it? 

(Even if this guy was serious, I've heard John McEnroe say far dumber things and people love him!) (But hey, when you think about who's about to be the president of the United States, that dynamic makes sense!)

I have said this before and I'ma have to say it again, I guess. Djokovic cares waaaaayyyyy too much about what people think about him. I don't know if he feels like the little sister when it comes to Roger and Rafa, but speaking of, those guys didn't seem to hunt down bad press about themselves and get butthurt over silly comments. I think it's because they let their games and their reputations speak for themselves. I don't want to say that he should do the same thing because he's gonna have his hands full in this draw from here on. 

2025 Australian Open: Who Needs an Offseason?

NOTE: Edited to add, well, words!

Before we go any further, I just want to say Madison Keys. She looks amazing right now and she's looked pretty good in the warmups. We gotta keep her encased in bubble wrap between matches. 

For the guys, I've never been a fan of Reilly Opelka but he better work that Brisbane magic. 

Men's Draw

I didn't see too many first-round matches that got me excited, but now that play has started, big props to Kei Nishikori. I've been rooting for him since back in the day and his career has been waylaid by injury. And also Thiago Montiero, it seemed for a second. Nishikori was down match point against an opponent who is kind of like Jelena Ostapenko -- lots of firepower, shots that make your mouth drop open, followed by errors that simply didn't need to be made. Heck of a treat for round one, that's for sure. 

And, yes, I picked Opelka against Djokovic. Now, I've watched too many true-crime documentaries to ever let Opelka into my car, but I do think he can beat Djokovic again -- that wasn't a fluke. But it's not just Opelka's game -- Djokovic does look a step slower. Did he ever, like, recover from his knee surgery?

Women's Draw

Now. Here are some good first-round matches. Note the starred matches. Minnen v. Aiava was a good one. I feel for Victoria Azarenka. Like, when did Lucia Bronzetti learn to serve like that? Did I miss something? Probably yes, but dang! I expect Emma Raducanu and Ekaterina Alexandrova to be another good one. I watched Laura Siegemund v. Hailey Baptiste, expecting exactly what I got -- the battle of the inconsistents. It was entertaining, as those matches tend to be. But yikeys. And Osaka/Garcia just finished about five minutes ago in my corner of the world. I think Osaka is right there, man. Right on the edge of another breakthrough. She's missing consistency and might need more match play for that. But she is riiiiight therrrrre.

And of course, if the seeds hold up, I am planning on putting everyone and everything on mute to watch Keys v. Danielle Collins. Keys just looks effortless right now. The power and accuracy is just flowing off the racquet. Danielle is just sheer willpower, so that should be fun!

Australian Open '24: The Final that Wasn't (thank the lawd)

You know damn right that I stayed up until 2 a.m. to watch the final point of the Jannik Sinner/Novak Djokovic match. And watching Djokovic get practically blown out (Sinner just blinked in that third-set tiebreaker) was worth the four pots of coffee I needed to survive the next work day. I know that theoretically, we're living in a great moment of tennis history, having had witnessed three greats at work in the game at the same time. And we all know where I stand on the GOAT debate between the them. I mean that ass alone has got to be the best thing that has filled out a pair of tennis shorts in a minute. Still. I never disliked or rooted against Federer (maybe a smidge when he played Rafael Nadal) and that's because he is a classy person. He wasn't overly humble to the point of ridiculousness. No. Fed knew how good he was and was forthright about it and it was never at the expense of someone else. Same with Nadal.

Djokovic? He can be a bit of a dick. Sorry, it's true. Goading the crowd while blowing out the entirely uncontroversial Adrian Mannarino? Why?? There was last year's U.S. Open, stealing Ben Shelton's phone celebration (which, you have to give credit to a 20-year-old for even understanding the concept of a landline) and using it against him when he beat him. (And then the discourse became about Shelton and his manners. You can't make this up.) He beaned a line judge in the throat in another U.S. Open and threw COVID parties at the height of the pandemic. He used his refusal to get a shot as some sort of rallying cry/pity point. At the same time he does this, he goes on about how much he just wants to be loved and admired. Djokovic breaks out the violin when talking about how fans don't like him and just like the vaccination situation, he uses his own actions as the fainting bed he takes to, wondering why he is not universally loved. Does anyone remember that scene in I Heart Huckabees, when Naomi Watts' character is having a breakdown and can't decide whether she wants attention or to be left alone?

Anyway, that's Djokovic.

But the men's draw had another problem, and it has been festering for a couple years now, and that is Alexander Zverev and his allegations of domestic abuse. They have been following him around for a long time although for some reason, the ATP leadership and also the talking heads of tennis have been supertightfocused only on his game and not that his girlfriend accused him of beating him up when he was at a tournament. That's not even the one he's on trial for in May. And one of the most violent and discomforting things I have ever seen on a tennis court was Zverev whacking the side of an umpire chair because he was mad about a line call. I mean what the what

There is one big problem here that has led to other offshoot problems. That is that the ATP doesn't have a policy regarding domestic violence. If it makes more sense to think of it as a code of conduct, do that. Most anyone with a job is expected to live up to standards outside the workplace. Look how many people lost their job after George Floyd. (Would be interesting to see how many of them got it back ...) Because there's no rules governing this in the ATP, Zverev has been allowed to be named to the player's council AND continue playing tennis in public in front of people. This dude almost won the Australian Open. Incidentally, I do not root for or against Daniil Medvedev. I am neutral on him even after that post-match speech in New York, although I have to say I edge towards his brand of chaos. But I was on my knees during that Medvedev/Zverev final begging Medvedev to come up with something -- probably like the ATP powers-that-be were. Except unlike me, they actually could have done something about it. Who knows. Maybe they are intrigued by the idea of Zverev playing an exo in prison, like Johnny Cash performing in Folsom?

OK, I guess it's time to focus on the winners. After Djokovic/Sinner, the thing I hoped for most for Jannik was that he had enough in the tank to go get the title he deserved. For all the smack I talk about Djokovic, he is the best in the world and there's a reason. But I think what sets Sinner apart from the field, or at least what did in this tournament, was the belief in himself. I mentioned earlier how ridiculous Andrey Rublev looked for celebrating a round one win. Well, in that final, when Sinner won the third set from Medvedev, he didn't celebrate. He took a deep breath, like he had been working hard, and that he had just finished the first half of his shift. That's the energy. He's indefatigable. And poor Medvedev. I really thought that year that Nadal left him in the dust after Medvedev had a two-set lead was a once in a lifetime disappointment. Turns out that for Meddy, it's not even once in a decade. 😬

And then there's Aryna Sabalenka. I remember a couple years back on Twitter, I was chatting with this tennis fan who had just had it with Sabalenka. She was done rooting for her. Too many mistakes. Going for stupid shots at the worst point. Does she even know where she is in the court when she's going for those shots? Why can't she serve? Making wayyyy too many mistakes. I didn't disagree. I could understand the frustration. You're watching someone who has the talent and power to beat just about anyone out there. And she beat herself before the opponent even got a swing at her. If Twitter weren't such a hellscape, I would ask that tennis fan how she felt now that Sabalenka is a two-time Slam winner and that she seems to have stopped shooting herself in the foot. For the asterisks crowd that's going to ask about her draw and the fact that her opponent in the final, Qinwen Zheng, was a newcomer to the big stage. She was just dominant this tournament and if her opponent had been Iga Swiatek, not sure the result would have been much different. Having said that, I'd say that she'll still have to work harder against folks with some court IQ, like Swiatek, especially on, uh, different surfaces. Like clay.

Australian Open '24: Here We Go (A Day Early)

You know what we don't talk about enough? How hard is it to find a printable draw for a Slam. I mean I thought I had finished the women's draw just in time for the Australian Open to start (early!). Then I looked at it and asked myself, "Is Sabalenka not playing the Open all of a sudden?"

So no draw right now. But I have seen enough to know that this tournament will be too much, even without Rafael Nadal who had to withdraw due to injury after playing three really good warmup matches.

So far, looks like the match of the tournament involved Andrey Rublev digging out of a five-setter against Thiago Seyboth Wild, who made a splash last year at the French Open. I just finished watching this one and I don't think I've ever before seen someone develop bags under their eyes as a match continued like Rublev just did. I honestly don't understand what his problem is. He's got a great game and absolutely no consistency. My guy is ranked number 5 at a major and is collapsing to the ground after just winning the first round? It's not good. 

Having said that, there are a ton of good early matches. Danielle Collins v. Angelique Kerber? Shelby Rogers v. Emma Raducanu? Adrian Mannarino and Stan Wawrinka? Looks like an early start to my wrecked sleep schedule! Woo! Related: Siri, find me a job where I can take four two-week vacations a year and still get paid.

Now That Was a Wrap! (Australian Open 2022)

As I was saying, the Australian Open didn't need Novak Djokovic, which is what made their decision to try to accommodate his mess made no sense at all. 

Just look at how this tournament turned out. The women's side had some great matches in the fourth round on and the reemergence of familiar faces (Amanda Anisimova, Alize Cornet and Simona Halep). Plus Kaia Kanepi. I don't know how she does it. She picks a slam, shows up, and as the kids say, chooses violence on seeded players for a good week. The women's game is full of solid players who can win a point in any variety of ways and we're lucky to witness it. And this is mostly without two of the young stars who have already made their presence felt -- Naomi Osaka (who did come to the Open) and Bianca Andreescu (who didn't). So who knows what will happen when/if they are at the top of their games again. But what we have now is Ash Barty. With the early-morning match times here in the States, I didn't get to see much of her because she was wiping her opponents off the court in straight sets and with little consideration for mercy. Surely, you think, she'll have trouble with Jessica Pegula, who upset Maria Sakkari. Surely. (6-2, 6-0). OK, but Madison Keys, who racked up a warmup tournament title and had been serving well and hitting terrifying groundstrokes all over the place? Surely this matchup would be concerning to Barty. (6-1, 6-3). The last American standing was Danielle Collins, whose cackle went viral during the tournament while her game carried her through a few three-set tussles in the last two weeks. Even that was more of a challenge borne more of Barty's nerves, I think. And I've never seen her more fired up after a win. 

And don't get me started on that men's final. Seriously. I had an errand to run and left just before Rafael Nadal was broken for the first time. When I came back, he was in real trouble in the third set and I was glad I'd missed most of it because I didn't want to see him go out like that. And I didn't see him go out in any way. That was an unbelievable final and I hope it shuts down the five-set haters forever. No, not every five-setter is this good, this dramatic, but there's nothing like it in all of sports. I see matches like that, and consider that I'm old enough to remember that tennis commentators predicted that Nadal would not be able to have a lengthy career due to his hard-charging style. Listen, that ass is built to last. But we'll get back to that ass in a second.

First, Daniil Medvedev. Have I mentioned he's like watching Gumby play? The swings, the body contortions. Gumby used to slide around pretty fast, and that tracks too because he can run everything down. He's a tough guy to beat and Nadal had to do take the scenic route to take Medvedev down -- just by wearing him out. Even worn out, I was worried at 5-all in the fifth. So was Nadal. 

Second, of course, it was tough to listen to his takeaway after the match. He was really disappointed by the crowd response to him, which is ... confusing? I don't know how familiar Medvedev is with the guy he played against, but he is actually pretty popular and a fan favorite. So getting mad about people supporting Nadal over him is probably understandable in the moment, but not something to take personally. The other piece of this is how much energy Medvedev puts into trolling the crowd. He makes a real effort at it. Does that translate into making yourself a crowd favorite? I'm trying to think of a situation where that happened and am failing. John McEnroe, maybe? But he didn't seem to need the crowd on his side and it was never clear that Medvedev did either. His post-match comments were just a lot. 

I didn't even get to Nick Kyrgios winning a major on his home soil and being a bigger audience troll than Medvedev in the process. Congrats to him and Thanasi Kokkinakis for prevailing in the all-Aussie final. 

So it was a great tournament, and no one needed you-know-who to make it memorable. I often wonder what I would do if I got a chance to travel to the Australian Open. It's obviously be great to be in a crowd and feel that energy. But sometimes, I dream bigger. What would I do if I were on a post-match stage with a man who just made tennis history and has a world-renowned backside? I'd probably be fine and be able to hold it together. Or I'd have to just take a small 

OK, she wins. She wins!

But Why?

Where do I start? With the nerve of this dude? The apparent ineptitude of his team? With the frustrations of a country who has (by and large) followed the rules, only to watch an athlete try to bypass those same rules? Tennis officials?

Yes. Let's start there. 

I am sorry I can't type this any louder but the biggest takeaway here is that TENNIS DOES NOT NEED NOVAK DJOKOVIC, A WALKING HEALTH RISK, AT A SLAM IF HE'S A WALKING HEALTH RISK. And based on the last two years of my experience with how selfish people can be in the midst of a pandemic, you know that if you're someone who is going to claim a medical exemption to avoid a vaccine, then you are also the type of person who will forget his mask and will forego social distancing as well. Why did Tennis Australia think tennis needed him to play in this situation? Why is this dude worth the risk? The answer is that he isn't. 

Djokovic claims to want to be loved and then does exactly what you would do if you wanted to be universally hated. He's not doing what's good for the game -- he's doing what's good for him. And putting himself at risk by refusing to get vaccinated isn't even good for him, not in the long term. Djokovic just needs to grow up. 

Now, Djokovic is in limbo right now, awaiting a court hearing to determine whether he can stay, and all the information about his case is coming out. Probably the best overview of the situation is here, but there are three things that I will always hold true regardless of how things shape out here:

• This is Djokovic's fault. He should have gotten vaccinated if he wanted to chase history.
• This is the tennis authorities' fault. This is a pandemic and the safety of everyone involved in these events should be paramount. Trying to find a loophole for your dimwit No. 1 player instead of making him get vaccinated shows how little they care about everyone else.
• If he plays -- and even if he wins -- this will have been a disaster. An entire, avoidable, useless, disaster. Especially if he wins. Some of us live in places where people in power are urging people to pretend this pandemic is over even though it obviously isn't. And we wonder why this isn't over yet. 

OK, so. 

There is actual tennis going on and it is good! Ash Barty is in good form, Naomi Osaka is looking good, Simona Halep is pushing people around on the court again. Most is right with the tennis world.

Aussie Open: Go to Your Rooms! No, Seriously

Part of me thinks it's pretty noble, trying to play an international tennis event in a pandemic. If they can have the Super Bowl, right? 

Even if the event goes off without a hitch, there are players who aren't going to have fond memories. Several players had to lock themselves in their hotel rooms for two weeks of hard quarantine after a case arose on a flight to Melbourne. First, let me congratulate Australia for taking a pandemic seriously. Not everyone has. (In America, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just recently issued a mask mandate on public transportation and flights. We're almost a year into this thing and that would have been useful advice about a year ago.) A few players who flamed out early are blaming this hard quarantine -- they literally couldn't leave their rooms to practice -- and yeah, it's a tough situation. You can't bend the rules for one group and not the other, but on the other hand, these people came here just to play in a tennis tournament and they're not being allowed to practice? You can see both sides of it and there's no easy answer -- except to not play a Grand Slam right now. Obviously, no one is going that route.

This quandary has led to several early-round losses that are a surprise -- Angelique Kerber and Victoria Azarenka among them. Both directly cited the quarantine as a problem. Then again, so did Tennys Sandgren, but ... well, I don't know how else to say this, but when you don't exactly have a reputation for being very good, claiming that quarantine hampered your prep sounds more like an excuse than a real reason. 

But presuming no one gets sick, I am here for this version of the Australian Open. I just need to retrain my body for this tournament. You know, staying up until 3 a.m. in the early rounds to watch Novak Djokovic get pushed to the limit by Frances Tiafoe, then chugging copious amounts of coffee to achieve baseline usefulness at work. I just need, like, one more day to get adjusted. 

I never did get around to doing predictions for this tournament, but I realized that the first Slam of the year usually is a waste when it comes to forecasting. Usually, the one thing you can predict is early-round drama in a Stan Wawrinka match and that thing had more twists than fame achieved via TikTok. (I told you I've had no sleep.) I mean how do you come from the brink of defeat to force a tiebreak, gain a huge lead in the tiebreak and then just drop the tiebreak? Well, at least it was entertaining? 

It wasn't as entertaining watching Venus Williams last night. And everyone here knows Venus is my girl. But there is persistence and there is stubbornness. If you can barely walk on a tennis court, where's the nobility in saying, "Hey, at least I finished the match?" when you are not mounting a real challenge? Sure, her movement seemed to loosen up after rolling her ankle, but it was never enough to play the way she did in the first round. Where's the wisdom in risking further injury? I always wonder if she does things like this because she knows she's going to retire soon, but I've had this thought for three years, so I'm thinking sheer stubbornness. And also, like, where did Sara Errani come from again all of a sudden?  

Speaking of throwbacks, I just finished reading this Stephen King book called Revival. Pretty good book. The premise is that there's this guy, Jamie, who keeps running into this other guy throughout his life. Jamie refers to this person as his fifth business, as a person who isn't part of your everyday life, or even someone you randomly encounter in a coffee shop. No, this fifth business person's role is to simply bring drama to your doorstep. Kaia Kanepi is the fifth business for top-tier women's tennis. There you are, being Sonia Kenin, the Aussie Open defending champ, and you walk into your second-round match to encounter a very unseeded player. Sixty-four minutes later, you're done, having lost to the woman who has snatched the likes of Naomi Osaka, Petra Kvitova, Caroline Wozniacki, Angelique Kerber, Sam Stosur and Justine Henin out of tournaments at the height of their games. Kanepi is 35, so she's developed a bit of a reputation for this kind of drama, and no one knows what's happening at this tournament anyway, so it does feel like this is a good time and place for fifth business-y antics.

We Really Having the Aussie Open, Huh: No, I'm Not Watching Venus v. Gauff Live

Does anyone else remember that movie, "The Day Before Tomorrow?" I remember watching it and finding it a bit unrealistic, even for a sci-fi movie. It starts with everything going sideways, right out the chute. (Also starts and ends with Jake Gyllenhaal, but that's not the point, which is rare from me.) Anyway, the thing that seemed ridiculous was that all of a sudden, the world was melting down and yet, everyone seemed off guard. I just mention this now because we're playing the Australian Open and people having trouble breathing because of these raging wildfires and we're ... just playing the Australian Open. Maybe this is what we're going to do before everything goes truly sideways.

So, yeah, switching gears. Here are the draws. 

Some notes:

1. If Coco Gauff can beat Venus Williams at Wimbledon, what will she do at the Slam where Venus routinely underperforms? I don't want to know, not right away. 

2. Philipp Kohlschreiber is still out here, fam.

3. I am fascinated by this Ernests Gulbis/ Felix Auger-Aliassime matchup in the first round. 

4. Same with Daniil Medvedev v. Frances Tiafoe. I am picking Medvedev, but barely. 

5. It was funny, filling out the men's draw. I'd gone through it, thinking Nadal has shockingly little pushback to get to the semis and wondering who was missing. Then I went to the next page, and all of a sudden, there's Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Denis Shapovalov, Stefanos Tsitsipas, heck, even Grigor Dimitrov. Back half loaded much?

6. Whatever happened to Daria Kasatkina?

7. I think Petra Kvitova has a nice shot at a deep run here, but her first round against Katerina Siniakova could be a rough one. 

8. Aryna Sabalenka v. Carla Suarez Navarro?! 

9. It's nice to see Serena Williams break the title drought. But yikeys, does she have a bad draw. Johanna Konta. Dayana Yastremka, old nemesis Sofia Kenin and other old nemesis Sloane Stephens? 

10. Why can you never print a normal-sized draw for the Australian Open?

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.

AO'19: The Women

My biggest takeaway is that the Serena/Halep quarter is loaded. But at least Serena can be grateful for the fact that Ekaterina Makarova isn't in her half.

via GIPHY

Anyway, the draw:

Yeah, so I blindly chose Kiki Bertens to win the Australian before the draws came out. Then I filled out the draw and ... I can't see her getting through her half? Sloane Stephens is there. Aliaksandra Sasnovich is there. Angelique Kerber. So we'll see. But clearly I went with Sloane Stephens.
First-round matches:
Simona Halep v. Kaia Kanepi: This seems unfair. What's the point of being the top seed when Kaia "Walking Dead-bandages" Kanepi is the first face you see when you get on court?
Laura Siegemund v. Victoria Azarenka: This should be a good one. I think Azarenka will win, but I wonder if even she believes she's Slam-run ready.
Belinda Bencic v. Denise Siniakova: Ah, Belinda. I'm concerned.
Monica Niculescu v. Amanda Anisimova: Just mentioning because I think this will be fun to watch. Niculescu is fun to watch, but if you played anyone with that skill set in your league, you'd basically accuse her of cheating.
Maria Sakkari v. Jelena Ostapenko: Man. Who knows.
Kirsten Flipkens v. Sasnovitch: Good test for Sasnovich, because Flipkens also has an annoying game.

AO'19: The Men

So, it looks like my goal for each Slam is to ensure that my preview is last. I honestly am not trying to, I swear. Let's take a look!

So, I picked Novak Djokovic to win the tournament and a lot of it has to do with the uneven weight of the draws. Sure, Kei Nishikori could come in and show that U.S. Open run-skills from a couple years ago. Meanwhile, Roger Feder has a LOT in his draw. Technically that half belongs to Rafael Nadal, but, as usual, Nadal is recovering from a late-season injury. (Last season was like, three weeks ago. Just for perspective.) Nadal could come out shooting, but man, I see his potential match against Diego Schwartzman and I get some very traumatic flashbacks from the French Open last year. We will see.

Matches to watch:
Ernests Gulbis v. Stan Wawrinka: The Birds of Prey forehand v. that damn backhand
Milos Raonic v. Nick Kyrgios: The first round. OK. Got it.
Benoit Paire v. Dominic Thiem: Thiem, yeah, but still should be fun.
Roberto Bautista-Agut v. Andy Murray: Given what we now about Murray's condition, I just can't bring myself to write on paper that Murray could get topped in the first round. So I wrote "Murray." I'll take the hit.
Janko Tipsarevic v. Grigor Dimitrov: This seems like a good upset pick.

See y'all in the morning! Or the middle of the night. Whatever they do in Australia ...

The Attitudimeter: Jack Sock is here?!??

Just in time for Thanksgiving, a special holiday edition of The Attitudimeter. Despite all the craziness in the world right now, there is still plenty to be thankful for, especially where tennis is concerned. Tennis is really the only thing that didn't completely suck this year, when you think about it. So let's dig in!

High Attitude

These Shoes Right Here

I think it's great Serena Williams got married this weekend with everyone who is cool in attendance. Her baby is very adorable. Her husband appears to be well-trained to worship her regularly. But these dancing shoes for the reception

were really just the best things I've ever seen. Hands down.

Grigor Dimitrov

He won the ATP Finals. OK. Whatevs. We're gonna talk about how on earth something like this could even happen, but imagine a world where some of the strongest players on tour weren't injured right now. Where would Dimitrov have been during the finals? Shuffleboard? Playing Old Maid, maybe? But, yeah, congratulations ...

David Goffin

... to the guy who was really the star pupil at the finals. Let us consider that Goffin of Mordor was having a pretty great season to begin with when he suffered a gruesome on-court injury at the French Open. He came back and was still able to earn a spot in the finals. And then he beat Nadal and Roger Federer, ending both their seasons. He did the heavy lifting so that Dimitrov didn't have to. Also, he's a good four feet shorter than everyone else on tour. All hail our favorite tennis Hobbit.

Low Attitude

The ATP Tour

You really have to assess the choices you make as a tour when you've got Jack Sock at the year-end championships. This isn't Sock shade, honestly. He played well at the finals, advancing to the semis, and beating Alexander Zverev. But look who's on the sidelines. Andy Murray. Novak Djokovic. Milos Raonic. Kei Nishikori. Rafa Nadal as a late addition. These finals were never supposed to be a "best of the rest" wrap-up. I guess this is my way of saying that this is a good time to take a look at that tournament schedule, and if not that, then looking at what you're requiring of players.

The Tennis World

One of my first tennis fan memories was watching Jana Novotna cry on the shoulder of royalty when she lost Wimbledon. Yes, that was a terrible moment for her, but a great humanizing moment for the sport. I think that maybe when you also play tennis yourself (not always on a pro level), that sort of moment makes you realize it's OK for tennis to mean something to you. So it sucks to lose someone like Novotna so young to cancer. She was just 49. Hopefully, she understood that her moment of sadness on the court spoke to many of us in many ways. RIP, Jana.
Same goes to Pancho Segura, who at least was able to live a full and successful life. He died at 96 this week as well. He had a record-breaking career ... and also gave us Jimmy Connors. But you can't be perfect.

The Australian Open in 2018

Look at this. I mean

Shot clock in Melbourne and intent of 16 seeds in Grand Slams in 2019 : pic.twitter.com/vugFNBzFVs

— Carole Bouchard (@carole_bouchard) November 21, 2017

I can see wanting to address player withdrawals. That makes sense. But it's a pretty hard line to say that if you retire from a first-round match, then you'll probably get fined. (Tanking, yes, should always be fined, Nick Kyrgios.) But ... what if you do it during the second round?
Also, I am old enough to remember why the Slams went to the 32-player draw -- to prevent, say, Grigor Dimitrov from playing Nadal in the second round. I was resistant, but it made sense, especially as tennis developed depth, and it's turned out well. So why change this? I can even see the argument for three-set matches for men before I see the logic of this nonsense. The shot clock in matches? What?!?? Why is tennis so insecure? Why are they trying to appeal to people who don't like tennis? Other sports aren't willing to change its bones to please non-fans. Am I missing something? I think, actually, that I'll miss tennis when it's gone.

What's Up Down Under?: What Lies Beneath

Have you ever seen a high-performing athlete suffer a drought and thought to yourself, "Man, he should retire?" I have. But this year's Australian Open has given me pause.
You could argue that it all had to align perfectly to get the Australian Open finals that we did. What if Venus Williams had to play Simona Halep, or Svetlana Kuznetsova? What if Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic had advanced to play Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal? What if the Open were played in February? Or if it were always roof-down? You could do this all day.
But it remains that the reason that Serena Williams and Federer won the 2017 Australian Open against their career-long rivals is because they showed up to compete. If you never try, you never win. If you never try, you never fail. Sometimes failure is not a bad thing, either. The last time Venus failed this big, it was 2009. Nadal last failed big in 2014. To do it again on such a stage, at such an age is a loss, sure, but for them, it could be fuel.
The wins will be fuel for Serena and Roger, too. At some point, they will need to cede the stage to the next big challenger. But why now, when you can still win so big, or fail so big? This weekend gave me a new perspective on the question of when to quit. Some pros quit when they can't win anymore. Which is fine -- it's their call. But what about this new breed of veterans, who happen to believe it's worth the big failures for the (rare?) big win? Is that crazy? Or could they do this all day? If you know that you can, even if it's sometimes only, is it still worth the ride?
I'm asking. I really don't know. But I'm happy to sit back and watch these greats figure out the answer that best suits them.

What's Up Down Under: Aussie Anomaly?

I gotta go to sleep soon so I can watch the women's final in the middle of the night, my time. But. Let us discuss the time warp we find ourselves in, and let us just appreciate it.
First, the Williams sisters. Sorry, I meant The Williams Sisters. Serena Williams will likely go down as one of the best tennis players in history, and certainly the best woman to ever play the game to date. She's ranked No. 2 in the world, and that's seriously underachieving to her. You could see her getting this far. Her draw was full of potential minefields and she navigated the ones she faced. Her opponent, though? Well, it's been a rough few years. Venus Williams has had to cope with a chronic disease that leads to fatigue and once she figured that out, well, the women's game had come up a bit. She was seeded 13th, and that seemed about right. Except if you were paying attention to Venus toward the end of 2016. Karolina Pliskova almost won the U.S. Open, but she barely managed to get past Venus to do it, which was plenty surprising enough. Also, Venus is 36 years old.
Oh, and is Roger Federer isn't far behind. Venus has been building up toward a result like this. Federer took the last quarter of the season off because of injury. With the exception of a warm-up tournament, he came into this tournament cold. He is seeded 17th (same number of the Slams he's won ...) and handled business, meaning Kei Nishikori and Stan Wawrinka.
And Rafa Nadal. Nadal showed at the Olympics that yes, he still has it. But will the body cooperate? I guess so. I don't know if you saw the semifinal with Nadal and Grigor Dimitrov (who picked a heckuva time to live up to his potential), but Nadal got outhit at times. The ball didn't bounce his way. But when he did at 3-4, 30-love down, was a life lesson. You go for it. You could be tentative -- play not to lose. Or you could step inside the baseline and hit a perfect backhand and leave your opponent flailing.
What does this mean? Is it an anomaly? Who knows. What it is -- to me -- as the real world slowly drifts off its axis, it means that there is one constant, one thing that is true. It means that if you want something, and put yourself in the position to get it, you can get it. You can only control you. The draws fall where they may and the people left standing put themselves in that position. This time, it true. It's the beauty of sport. I'm gonna let Venus take it from here: