Five Slams is Not the Problem Here

I haven't been on retirement watch for Maria Sharapova. I'm honestly trying to gird myself for Venus Williams'.
I wasn't that surprised, though, that Sharapova turned in her papers this week. And in the back of my head, I knew about the debate that would ensue upon her retirement and how it would mess with my blood pressure. And I knew I should have stayed off Twitter during this time, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have seen this Nike tribute ad:

Mistakes. OK. 

Let's see what the news has to say about this.

Ah, complicated? Are we gonna get honest here?

Only?!??
Five slams is not a small amount of Slams, Matt. It's actually pretty impressive especially when you consider that she has at least one of each major. She has two French Open titles. Two! Know how many Venus has? That's not what's "complicated" here.
Yeah, we're about to talk about the doping ban. Because it's a big deal. I read the whole ITF report, if you'll remember, and it was fairly damning. There's also the fact, which is only now sinking in for me, that this report revealed that she'd been taking a drug she didn't need for 10 years. That would start us, then, at 2006, the year she won her second slam. That means that most of those five Slams were won while she was taking meldonium. When she returned from her ban, she could barely crack the second week of a major.
Now that is complicated.
There is this sort of internal wrestling match that tends to ensue when we talk about Sharapova's career. I've tried to insert other names into that Washington Post headline above, another person's photo, to see if we would be so shy about discussing her drug ban in frank terms. Rafa Nadal (who's been dogged by these rumors anyway)? Serena Williams? I can't help but think this conversation would be different if we put in another athlete's name. If it were Nadal or Serena, there'd be nothing "complicated" about it -- they cheated.
Sharapova was assisted in keeping her nose above this fray by supportive sponsors, including Head, which -- I mean, if you ever rob a bank or commit some crime, please get sponsored by Head first. That way, you can get the support that Head gave Sharapova after her ban. Even this whitewashing effort by Nike in this retirement ad is ... a lot. She was taking a banned substance and got caught and ... mistakes? MISTAKES?
Of course Matt mentioned the ban in his story. Everyone does. It should be in the headline because it was significant and it might have been a major part of what made her successful as a player. This is a part of the ITF report that I can't unsee:

Did she call him as he advised? Another thought just popping into my head these years later.
I feel kind of bad writing this and I don't know why. I'm not making this report up. Maybe it's because I do want to remember Sharapova for being a badass on court. I know we can't call what she and Serena had a rivalry, but one thing they both had was this ability to clamp down mentally in a match and will their way to victory, even when it didn't look good. This thread about her shading her opponents is precious and I love it.

A thread of Maria Sharapova moments, by a tennis fan who loved to hate her:

— Andrew Atkinson (@atkinsonfasho) February 26, 2020

Isn't she back in Poland already? Oh my god. Even when she went after Serena after that Rolling Stone profile and went off on Serena dating her coach my goodness that is what we look for here at Tennis with ATTITUDE. The ATTITUDE.
But.

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

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.

HOMELAND SLAM: A Sea of Red

I had a lot of fun filling out the women's draw. Was feeling pretty good about my choices. And then the tournament started.

Anyway, this year's U.S. Open has had a lot going on, which is something of an understatement. On the first day, Simona Halep lost and it turned out that there wasn't a heat rule for men, which is ... something. On the second day, Alize Cornet changed her shirt on court and an umpire, upon viewing a sports bra, was more offended by that than the bare-chested men he no-doubt sees at least twice a week.
We all know about Mo Lahyani's free coaching session by now. This whole episode, which -- don't get me wrong -- is wild, still illustrates something I've been trying to point out for a while. For much of the tennis calendar, women are encouraged to get coaching -- it's actually a feature that is apparently a fan pleaser. (?) But if a man gets a whiff of coaching (also this week, Andy Murray reported to his match ump that his opponent that day, Fernando Verdasco, had been getting advice during the 10-minute break due to heat), this is viewed as very bad.
Yes, I understand that the coaching they were receiving was against the rules, while the women being coached during the year is a rule. But the existence of this rule suggests this notion that women somehow need it, which sort of flies in the face of the idea of equality in the sport. I think on-court coaching is a crutch, but if both men and women were allowed access to it, it would be just another thing I didn't like about tennis, and you wouldn't have Twitter exchanges like this between a male and female pro

where I would be in the unenviable position of agreeing with Nick Kyrgios. (Yes, this is that Donna Vekic. Yikeys.)

Predictions. I hate to embarrass myself and keep making very wrong picks, but I also cannot resist offering thoughts. First, Maria Sharapova's advancement through this draw has been behind some of the ugliest tennis I've ever seen. But maybe also behind some of the luckiest. Sure, when she beat Jelena Ostapenko yesterday, her winners/unforced errors ratio was 11/18, which isn't great. But Ostapenko's was 10/41. Also not great.
Second, I am still unsure of what to make of Serena Williams. But the way she took down her own sister the other day was savage and if she's willing to do that to her own sister, the other players in the draw should be at least aware of that. Now pardon me while I go make some popcorn to watch Williams/Kanepi.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: The Ladies Preview

Listen, this women's draw is full of intrigue and great matchups right out of the chute, and I'm not even going to pretend that I feel as strongly about the men's draw.
Here's what I'm talking about:

Apologies for the crooked and cutoff draw at the edges. I think it might be time to do an "Office Space" on my printer.
Now, let's talk about some of these first-round matchups. Danielle Collins v. Elise Mertens. Heather Watson and Kirsten Flipkens. Naomi Osaka and Monica Niculescu. Belinda Bencic v. Caroline Garcia. Barbora Strycova and Svetlana Kuznetsova. But I really can't wait to see this Vera Zvonareva/Angelique Kerber match. I can't even cope with how excited I am to see Zvonareva again at a major. She was one of my favorite players to watch, because she struck a clean ball and her meltdowns were *chef's kiss* epic. I mean



It's always the racquet's fault.
Seriously, it's great to see older players coming back and redefining what a career looks like, especially after having a child. I wouldn't miss this one for anything. What time do they play now? Oh, 6:30 tomorrow morning? OK. Cool. Always fun when a Slam comes around and ruins your whole life for two weeks.
Anyway, on to the rest of the draw. For all the talk about whether Serena Williams should be seeded, it turns out that in the end, you still have to beat your opponent. For her 25th seeding, she gets a probable second-round match with Magdalena Rybarikova, who I believe just made the finals of a grass-court warm-up. And then fifth-seed Elina Svitolina. Let's say Serena advances through those matches. There's still Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe, Ana Sevastova, and Caroline Wozniacki just in her quarter. (Just for grins, Dominika Cibulkova, who complained about Serena potentially pushing her out of seeding range, opens against Alize Cornet and is in Simona Halep's quarter, which is also occupied by Elise Mertens and Petra Kvitova. No one won here.)
Venus. OK, I have her advancing to the semis. Venus does tend to come to life at Wimbledon, and if she can avoid donating entire games in double faults, then I think she has a friendly-enough draw to accommodate a nice run. If there's a quarter without a clear favorite, it's this one. Karolina Pliskova has had a pretty rough grass run. Sloane Stephens has had no grass run. So there's that.
The Garbine Muguruza/Kerber/Garcia quarter will be really interesting, too. You have to think Muguruza, having won Wimbledon last year (I can't believe that crazy final against Venus was just last year!) has an edge, but man, there's also Daria Kasatkina, and Osaka and Ash Barty, and Anett Kontaveit. Also Genie Bouchard, who advanced through qualifying. Big props to Bouchard, by the way, who played qualifying to get into the main draw, unlike some people who said last year that they would qualify to fight for her place ... and then didn't. Definitely not looking at you, Maria Sharapova. This has nothing to do with you. AT ALL.

The Official 2017 TWA Yearbook

And here I was, thinking I could wait until after Christmas and still get my last entry of the year in before the start of the 2018 season. But as I write, the first matches of the season have already been contested. So yeah. I'm thinking someone should do something about the lack of an offseason, especially considering we're coming off a season where half of the best men in the world didn't make it through the whole season.
But hey. What do I know. Actually, I know that the pro tennis season was one of the best things about 2017. So let's try and squeeze in a conversation about that before Serena Williams (!) plays her first match since January 2017, when she won the Australian Open while pregnant. Let's go!

Head of the Class: So, this season, the ATP and WTA had to deal with the same quandary -- the sudden loss of their top talent. But the players remaining handled it completely differently, I think. Serena Williams took the rest of the year off to have a baby and the other women spent the rest of the year playing hot potato. "No, you take the top ranking and all the Slams!" "Gah! No, you! Don't touch me!"
But most of these players didn't have anything in terms of experience on Mssrs. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. So when Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray were felled by injury this season, Federer and Nadal knew what to do. But they were nice about it -- they split the four Slams evenly among them. So, for the second year in a row, there will be co-heads of the class. But this time, neither are women. Don't @ me.

Most Inspiring Player: This is a toss-up, because there is one guy who claimed wins against Fed and Nadal this season, but came up short in the Slams and in Davis Cup. He also has beaten Djokovic and Nick Kyrgios. Regardless, David Goffin might look like a bag of bones in oversized tennis shorts, but his game said much more. (His player page says he's 5-foot-11. Nah, right?) Next time you feel like you're outsized, out-powered and out-talented, well, you probably are. But before you take the bagel, consider that this year, Goffin shored up his weaknesses to prevail against some of the biggest names in the game. Except Grigor Dimitrov, of all people.
There is also one woman who has shown up quietly to all the Slams this year and made the final of three of them. Due to recent underwhelming results, no one really expected Venus Williams to be a force this season. But there she was, on one half of the court during some the best matches of the year. She did this being older by her opponents by often a decade at least, and sometimes without her best tennis. She never did it with a coach in her ear at every timeout. She's old-school in every way -- except she's not quite ready for the senior tour. And when Venus is on a roll, it's best to let that roll go. Am I right, Jennifer?

Most Popular: Maria Sharapova, of course. She really was the belle of the ball. Never has anyone returned from a drug ban to such pomp, including a tournament holding a spot for her after it had already started until the end of her suspension. I might have noted once or twice how unimpressed I was with how her suspension went down, but fans didn't care. When tournament organizers thought that she might qualify to get into Wimbledon, they sold tickets to those rounds -- and people bought them! (Remember when Sharapova said she'd play anywhere, even a New York City street? Turned out that enthusiasm didn't extend to, like, qualifiers.) So there you go. The people (who aren't me) have spoken. 

Most Likely to Succeed: Garbine Muguruza, like the other women on the WTA Tour, has been unsteady this year, but her run to the Wimbledon title, including her utter domination of the second half of the final match, makes me think she's got a shot at hitting the ground running next year. Whatever her obstacles, they seem to be between the ears. 

Most Likely to Succeed ... at Something Other than Tennis: Martina Hingis, who probably should consider another profession because it would appear she has done just about everything possible in tennis. I'm sure that if she took up MMA boxing, it'd go okay. I guess. She might be slight, but Hingis will cut you.

That Student Who Skates Through the School Year, But Aces the Final Exam: Looking at you, Caroline Wozniacki. She had a solid season, although she came up short in most of the final matches she played. Until September, when she won her first final out of seven tries. And then. She goes to the WTA Finals and beats Venus, who she had never beaten before. 

U.S. Open Time!: Peak Shade and a Cavernous Men's Half

You know me. I am not about gossip or "spilling tea" or anything like that.
OK, who am I kidding? I am loving this Sharapova/Wozniacki/Coach Patrick shade-throwing! I mean, when half of the big-time talent are missing from the last major of the year, you have to find life somewhere!
You know what? Let's start with the men. As previously noted, we have Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer in the same half of the draw, and so far, they are delivering. They're making it a little uncomfortable  on themselves -- watching Federer go into five sets after seemingly gaining control of a match is a bit weird. Probably moreso for him. Nadal's last two matches have been interesting, too. He's had tight first sets with players he would not normally have trouble with -- Taro Daniel and Leonardo Mayer -- but watching him struggle to find that gear, then just go off to the races has been really interesting. And let's not forget that past champion Juan Martin del Potro, up-and-comer Dominic Thiem and ninth-seed David Goffin are still among contenders in the Rafa/Roger half.
Wanna see the bottom half?

One of these guys is going to play for a U.S. Open title. Yep. Yeppers. Uh-huh!
Yeah, this is what happens when Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka and Milos Raonic can't even show up. No, this is no time to talk about the pro tennis schedule. Don't. Be. Silly. The other thing that happens when you need to schedule matches for a spotlight-short men's draw is that you look in other places. You look at your star attractions. You look for someone who can put butts in seats when Pablo Carreno Busta can't.
You look at Maria Sharapova.
And, yes, this sucks for all the reasons I have previously stated, and many die-hard fans feel the same way. But I think this is why she's getting the plum night session on Ashe every time. No, it's not fair. It's definitely not fair to someone like Caroline Wozniacki, delegated to Court 17 and reportedly deluged by fans after a match she lost because security was nowhere to be found.
Yeah, they were probably at Ashe. Protecting the gold bouillon.
Wozniacki aired her frustrations and said what many have been saying (count among them the organizers at the French Open and Wimbledon, by the way, nbd): Someone coming back from a drug ban shouldn't have the fatted calf laid out for her the second she returns, regardless of whether she's done the time.
And it turns out that Maria Sharapova had something to say about that, which went a little like this:

Sharapova about Wozniacki's comments: All that matters to me that I'm in the fourth round and I'm not sure where she is (📽 US Open/ESPN) pic.twitter.com/NcaBbhnXLc

— Ilya Ryvlin (@ryvlin) September 2, 2017

Whew! I did not know Sharapova had that in her and I'm kinda impressed. Because we know that she knew exactly where Wozniacki was, don't we?
Still, it's worth pointing out that for all of her talk about being willing to play anywhere, including a parking lot in Queens, there has been one place she has not been all that enthusiastic about: The qualifier draw.
Hm.
But in case you thought that would close the book on this chapter, Serena Williams' (who of course had to have her baby during a major) coach Patrick Moratoglou (who seems to really enjoy digging Sharapova) had to get involved, telling a New York newspaper that the best thing for Sharapova is to not have Serena in the draw AND that those with drug bans should have to wait a year before they get a wild card. I'll let him expand:

Man's right.
Very much looking forward to Sharapova's response. Because, yeah, I'm not mature at all.

U.S. Open Time: Women's Draw

Let's just get this out of the way.
Remember when Maria Sharapova acted like playing through qualifying was no problem for her? When she didn't get a wild card at Wimbledon, she put on a very stoic face and vowed to fight. And then backed out of Wimbledon. And now she's got a U.S. Open wild card and she is ready to go all of a sudden. OK! And then she draws the No. 2 seed and a night tennis slot at MY HOME SLAM.
OK. Deep breath. I'm fine.
Here's the women's draw:

Part of me is disappointed, wishing that Serena Williams or Victoria Azarenka were here just to establish some type of pecking order. But most of me thinks this tournament is going to play a part in establishing a new pecking order. Most of the seeds here are not exactly coming into the U.S. Open with a head of steam. Except Elina Svitolina. Somehow.
So who do we have? We have top seed Karolina Pliskova who was killing it this time last year, but who lately has not been playing to her ranking. She picked it up a bit in Cincinnati, but ended up losing to Garbine Muguruza in the semis. And then there's Angelique Kerber who I honestly don't even trust to make it out of round one, or past Francesca Schiavone in the third round. Venus Williams hasn't done much this summer. Nor has Johanna Konta. Still, of all the players who really didn't need to see Sharapova's name next to hers in the first round, though, it would have to be Halep. Her ego must be just tissue-thin right now. This summer, she has:
* taken defeat out of the jaws of victory at the French Open final
* lost a close one at Wimbledon against Johanna Konta
* had a chance to become the world No. 1 and lost pretty badly instead
* got the Venus treatment from Muguruza in the Cincinnati final
Can we let Darren Cahill coach from the sideline, for just this one match?
Gah.
Anyway, I also have Svetlana Kuznetsova as a dark horse. There's a lot of youth in her quarter, and if she's healthy, she's probably got enough guile to handle the CoCo Vandeweghes of the world. And yes, Pliskova, too, if it came down to it.

First round matches to watch:
Kerber v. Osaka
Jelena Jankovic v. Petra Kvitova: Bring an Oscar, because you know there will be drama. Drinking game: Take a shot every time Jankovic throws her arms towards the line judge as though it's her job to call an in ball out.
Heather Watson v. Alize Cornet: Take a shot every time Cornet stops to stare in shock at the umpire for calling an in ball in.
Garbine Muguruza v. Vavara Lepchenko
Sloane Stephens v. Roberta Vinci: Yes, Vinci is still here and yes, Sloane has been rounding into form since her return at Wimbledon. Could be fun.

But Are We, Though?

Here's how I found out Maria Sharapova was getting a wild card into this year's U.S. Open:

Blessed by none other.
Sure, she gets butts into seats. Sure, she's pretty and is actually good at tennis. Guess what else is true? The reason her ranking is so low is because she just had to serve a drug ban! Not only that, but for someone who sure looks like she tried to hide that she was taking meldonium for 10 years, she has been awfully unrepentant about her time in the penalty box! I mean, a wild card at a major?!
Ugh. That's all I have to say about that.
OK.
No, it's not. One of my favorite all-time tennis writers, Jon Wertheim, pointed out that, "Wild cards fly in the face of fairness." He noted that Vicky Duval, the young chipmunk-looking (meant in the nicest way) American who had been fighting lymphoma, has to qualify. That stinks. She's an American and it's the U.S. Open!
Yeah, right, I know. She wasn't likely to win the U.S. Open and maybe Sharapova is more likely to do that. If Maria Sharapova wins the U.S. Open off a wild card because her ranking was too low to get in on her own merits because she had to stay off the court for a year and a half because of a drug ban, then I think I am missing how that's good for tennis.

In other news, Rafael Nadal is going to be the world No. 1 next week. It's 2017.

In even more other news, Caroline Wozniacki lost in another tournament final. 0-6 now, and zero sets won. Zero tiebreakers played. I watched this one -- against Elina Svitolina in Montreal and two things:
1. Svitolina's game is effective and super boring to watch. I don't know how that's possible, but here we are.
2. Wozniacki looked fine throughout the tournament until the final. She's down 1-5 and calls her dad down? (Also she appears to have poached Victoria Azarenka's old hitting partner, who was Serena's old hitting partner -- the ever-mobile Sascha Bajin) Her dad's talking, gesturing wildly. Caroline's nodding. Caroline goes out and loses the next game in about five minutes. This on-court coaching is VERY BENEFICIAL.

Oh, and I almost forgot about Azarenka. Listen, this nonsense her ex is pulling is ... not cool, to say the least. Anyone who didn't want to be a petulant jerk would let his ex and her (presumably) very responsible team go to work out-of-state without making it a court issue.
This sucks for Azarenka. I really thought she was in the relationship clear once she got rid of RedFootBlueFoot Foo. Dang.

There *Might* Be a Theme Here

Did you know that Caroline Wozniacki has been to five WTA Tour finals this year? Not bad. Not bad.
Did you know she hasn't won one of them?
Although Wozniacki has been No. 1 before, recall that she has done this without having won a major. She has been to a couple of finals and come up short there, too.
Five finals in a season without winning one of them? That's nuts. Especially with a lot of the usual suspects on maternity leave or struggling with a return to form. She's lost to Johanna Konta, Karolina Plishkova (x2), Katerina Siniakova and Elina Svitolina. With the exception of Siniakova, all these women are in the top 10 --- and she's not so much snagged one set. Not a tiebreak.
Still. Wozniacki is No. 6 in the world. That's mainly because there's never been a tournament she won't play. "On the moon, you say? OK. I'll give it a shot."

I'm just wondering out loud whether Wozniacki has missed her window to take a major title. What do you guys think?

In other news, Maria Sharapova has pulled out of her last two tournaments with injuries.
And I don't even know why I mention this, because it's completely unrelated, but did you know that one of the benefits of meldonium is physical endurance due to increased blood flow? Oh, also a heart medicine.
Uh-huh.

The Aussie young guns are under fire. First Bernard Tomic admits he's not really feeling tennis right now, and then Nick Kyrgios defaults a match against a guy named Tennys. He didn't even win a game on Thursday in his first-round match against Sandgren, and the crowd was not impressed. He was booed out of the stadium.
I have been a proponent of giving Kyrgios a chance to be young and figure out what he wants. I'm also about tennis-ing with attitude (see top of page). I wonder, though, if these guys might not benefit from some type of ATP mentorship program. I'm serious. You can't tell me all the top pros didn't go through bouts like this. So why do some go on to be Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal, Andy Murray  (who probably could also benefit from some real talk), etc. and others are chronic underachievers with talent and no patience to stick it out? Is it a millennial thing? Or are fans too hard on these players (and they paid good money for tickets -- they have the right), only to find no support in the locker room or close by?
Just a thought.

Therapy with TWA: Maria Sharapova

After careful consideration of Genie Bouchard's application for membership to The Official Tennis with Attitude Commission, I have decided to advance it to the second stage. Her first attempt last year was blocked for having all the talk and not the action to back it up. This time, she straight-up called Maria Sharapova a drug cheat who should be banned for life. Just before meeting her in the second round at the Madrid Open.
I couldn't watch the match, but kept a watchful eye on Twitter all day at work, and when I saw that Bouchard had pulled out the win, 6-4 in the third -- all I can say is that I have never been so gleeful at someone's defeat. Especially when I saw what I was waiting for (h/t to @hypotemuse on Twitter):



The cold-fish handshake, accompanied by the dismissive scold-stare by Bouchard. Oh, I tell you, I was gleeful. And that's when I realized I needed help.
I am not at all happy that Maria Sharapova is back in tennis.
I am trying to be a grown-up and be reasonable about this. Yes, it's good for tennis, especially for that green bottom line. She attracts people and attention. The more attention tennis gets, the better. Right. I know. And I get that she served her time for taking a banned substance and that when you do something wrong, you should be allowed to do the time and move on. She's done that.
She's also -- ever since this happened -- been walking around acting as though she hasn't done anything wrong, that this is Someone Else's fault and that she was simply caught in the middle. She has threatened legal action and essentially demanded that people like Bouchard not say bad things about her. She accepted a wild card into an event that had already started before she was cleared to play again. And this is really where I struggle. Wild cards are for people who are not banned for drugs or other illegal activities. She was ranked #262 in the world BECAUSE OF THE BAN, NOT AN INJURY. !!!!!!
Whew. Had to take a minute. I'm back.
But here's the problem I have: Sharapova is not going anywhere any time soon. She's not going to walk into a press conference one day this week and express any real regret for the situation she put herself into, and apologize on behalf of her ignorant agent who chose to defend her by insulting the careers of two pretty good players. So what do I do?
Nothing, basically. Sometime around last November 8, I learned that not everyone plays by the rules, and they still get to play and they still win. Sometimes, you can get banned by your sport, and go to Harvard, write a book, and get welcomed back to your sport with a wild card that you don't deserve. Sharapova might even win another Slam, and maybe even this year. And she will feel vindicated and everyone will say that this is why she's great for tennis and we'll forget she took a "heart medication" and apparently never told most of her team about this, which is probably why no one told her it was banned for 2017 -- no one knew she was taking it. That woulda helped.
There I go again. I was hoping this therapy session would end with me finding a way to make peace with the way Sharapova has returned to tennis, but nope. Still mad. Except when I watch this:



Heh. Small victories.

Quick hits

OK, tennis news was a bit heavy this weekend and there's some things that didn't quite get addressed that we should probably discuss at least briefly:

1. You have got to be kidding me with this Maria Sharapova offensive. I mean, what. WHAT. I have never seen a person take a drug ban and demonstrably deserving of this ban, and yet be so defensive about criticism. I'm talking about Sharapova's agent coming out and insulting the careers of Caroline Wozniacki and Agz Radwanska because they had the nerve to suggest that wild cards should not be reserved for drug ban recipients. WHICH IS A FAIR POINT, by the way. I didn't mean to shout. But between Sharapova saying stupid stuff like this:

... and Max Eisenbud following up with petty nonsense like this:

... and then when you consider that the original ITF report on the ban had suspicious passages such as this:

you wonder what the strategy is here. It's already pretty clear that not everyone on tour is not that stoked about her coming back and ... then you go scorched earth? I sure hope Sharapova's game is going to back up all of this talk. Her comeback is this week at Stuttgart and her first round match is against Roberta Vinci.
(Quick aside regarding Eisenbud's comment about paragraphs 100 and 101, which are:

Here's paragraph 97b, which is also kind of interesting and one that Eisenbud should address as well perhaps:

So I don't understand how both these segments are in the same decision to grant Sharapova a reduced ban time. But hey, whatever, right?)

Anyway, I do believe Sharapova's return is good for women's tennis in terms of visibility, but I really wish she hadn't jumped the line this way by taking a wild card in a tournament that's started before her ban is completed. It's going to rightfully leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of fans.

2. While I was at the U.S. Fed Cup over the weekend, I noted some comments about Rafael Nadal, David Goffin and poor sportsmanship accusations about my man Rafa. I have investigated these charges, which are based on this point:



Obviously, umpire Cedric Mourier made a really bad mistake. It's these types of mistakes that make you think it might actually be time to bring the Shot Spot to clay courts, too, because now we can see that a mark can lie. But it's kind of hard to put this one on Nadal's shoulders. Sure, he looked like he was OK with the 'out' call, but is it on Nadal, from the other side of the court, to reverse a call? If the umpire has come down to inspect a mark, you'd think he knows how to do his job. I know there have been times I've hit a shot and thought it was long, only for my opponents to say it was right on the line. It happens. With the type of spin Nadal hits, it probably happens to him more than most. It would be one thing if Nadal was at the net and could see the shot a bit better. Otherwise, let's leave this one square at the feet of Mourier. Which, by the way, was exactly what Goffin did.

3. Ilie Nastase is a mentally depraved old man and even before this weekend's Fed Cup tie, this should have been noted and handled before. He warmed up on his weekend path of suckitude by speculating on the color Serena Williams' baby might have. (I wish I could see the way this question was posed to him, because I would almost bet the questioner knew he'd say something crazy.)
I don't want to waste too much more time on him. But let's just leave it here: He's very bad for tennis. Well, OK. Let me allow Great Britain coach Anne Keothavong to respond to Nastase's weak attempt at an apology by giving flowers to the entire team (God, did really have to go the full 1960s-stereotypical route?):

Slay! RT @EleanorcrooksPA: Keothavong loving her flowers from Nastase pic.twitter.com/n5nzF05Mch

— Adrin🏒 (@Chalk_Flew_Up) April 23, 2017

That's an Indian Wells wrap

So my last post was a little heated. I had to unload a bit about on-court coaching, and because I am often overtaken by my mini-rages, I lose sight of the good things. I mentioned a few of them early in my last post. Let us hit the way-back button to revisit Indian Wells, shall we? OK!

1. Roger Freakin' Federer. You might recall Federer taking some time off before, needing to rest his bad knee. It was at that moment that the Rolex-sponsored Retirement Watch began ticking in the minds of many. He sat on the sideline watching Rafa Nadal do damage at the Rio Olympics, Andy Murray become knighted and Novak Djokovic assert himself (kinda) as the world No. 1. Ol' Grandpa Roger must have really been motivated by what he was seeing. Even after the man won the Australian Open with his fishing buddy Rafa, commentators said, "Well, this is it for these guys. This might be the last time ..." And then Roger played Rafa in the fourth round here and beat him so bad I was wincing. Now I'm a big fan of Rafa and his sexy ass. So it was a tough one to watch:

Still, Federer looks unbeatable right now. He's running around tagging backhands like a teenager while Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray are pulling out of Miami. And let's give Stan Wawrinka a good amount of props, too. He made the final entertaining and had a couple key points gone his way, it might have gone to three. He also gave possibly the most memorable runner-up speech. So memorable that Mirka is probably gonna find him and wallop him upside the head with her purse.



2. I just don't even know what to say about Elena Vesnina.

3. Do you know what Maria Sharapova has done since she was ordered to serve an 15-month drug ban from tennis? She has:

a. gone to HARVARD UNIVERSITY for a specialized business program (that has a no-drug policy but whatever am I right?)
b. written and secured a publisher for her memoir
c. retained many of her sponsors, including Head, which congratulated her for getting time taken off her ban
d. appeared on the cover of Vogue magazine
e. received a wildcard into the Stuttgard tournament, which begins before her ban ends, but barely. That means organizers held a spot for her and set it up so she can start as soon as her ban is over, two days after the starting bell.

This should be obvious.
If you're someone, like me, who thinks she violated the rules and did it with some intention, then you're wondering how a drug cheat like Maria Sharapova ends up with the world on a string. Cheaters aren't supposed to win. But here Maria is, running the tables. Like big time. Even the WTA is embracing her with open arms. Well, at least the WTA's social media manager is. Er, was:

Good thing the WTA deleted this tweet. Wise move. Heck, Dominika Cibulkova probably hadn't even seen that yet.
I don't say this every day, but Alize is so many of us right now.

4. The secret plot to make Bernard Tomic and Nick Kyrgios love tennis and stop being babies: I'm gonna start with acknowledging that this is some real conspiracy-theory stuff I'm about to drop. That's not me usually, but I want this to be true so badly. So you know how Rafa Nadal usually plays doubles (when he plays doubles) with fellow Spaniard and gold-medal champ Marc Lopez? So this time, he took on Tomic. And then Nenad Zimonjic who usually plays with someone who will help him win a title, played with Kyrgios. And frankly, I have never either sourpuss happier on a tennis court. Also, if you're a sourpuss, you're less likely to be one while playing against legit Grand Slam winners. You will be on your best behavior. But still, this is odd for major champions to choose such unlikely partners. Even Nadal's countrymen had no idea why he was playing with Tomic. Now Nadal says it was because they were supposed to play together in Australia, but couldn't. OK, fine. But I think Nadal and Zimonjic did this for the good of the game. They might have even hatched this plot together. They know that Tomic and Kyrgios have the potential to be the future of the game, and because they're thinking big-picture, they're taking them under their more-experienced wing to show them that instead of murdering your racquet, you might consider taking a deep breath instead. So that's my theory. Rafa and Zimonij are geniuses, and not the evil variety, either,

OK, I finally figured out something to say about Vesnina. You know how people say, "Youth is wasted on the young?" It's meant to say that young people squander their physical assets or their time and when they're older they have less time and limited physical abilities. Vesnina is 30. She and her fellow Russian Indian Wells finalist Svetlana Kuznetsova (31) have been around for a long time. It's probably easy to think, even to yourself, that you have the ability to go through a murderer's row to earn your first tier 1 WTA singles title, especially when you see folks like Garbine Muguruza blow by and win a major before she's 20. But look at how Muguruza struggles to be consistent now. I think Vesnina, Kuznetsova, the Williams sisters, Nadal and Federer are living in tennis' sweet spot right now. They have age, but they also have experience, and as Eminem would probably say, their feet aren't failing them now. Youth is nice. Thinking young is impressive, too.

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: 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.

This Week with WTA: The rage edition, Vol. II, starring Maria Sharapova

Honestly, I didn't expect to go off as much as I did on Steve Simon in the last post, but he had it coming. But I have more to rage about. One more small development this past week in tennis was the final verdict on the Maria Sharapova suspension. Now, if you want to talk about special snowflakes, let's talk about Sharapova.
Her drug ban was shortened by the ITF to 15 months, down from two years. I have to confess that the response to this was not nearly what I would have expected. Sharapova's rock-of-ages sponsor Head released a statement that included the word "congratulations." To their player. For a drug ban that she is serving out. Confused yet? No? Let's continue. This way please.
Sharapova also reacted as though this was a victory and is now pushing back at the ITF, threatening legal action. About a drug ban that she is serving. For taking a banned drug that she definitely took. OK.
We could go there for sure about meldonium, and what it really did for Sharapova. If this drug was taken because she has concerns about heart disease that runs through her family, as she initially said, then what is she going to take now? Surely not a Bayer aspirin like other humans.
It's confounding to me that one would not only celebrate the shortening -- not the elimination, now -- of a drug ban of which you are guilty, but then get aggressive and threaten the tennis ruling parties that be. I am assuming that she and her team are operating under the assumption that few people are actually going to bother to read these findings. So I decided to read the ITF's ruling myself, instead of relying on news stories about it. It can be found here, and the parts that are in English are very, very interesting. It's also very long. But here are some takeaways that blew my mind. I took some screen caps and highlighted the salient points because I care about you and your time:

Oh, yes. Cause for celebration. Sure!

That's right. Put the sound speakers right over in that corner.

Do we have enough balloons?

We're gonna need alcohol, too! Yay to all of this!!

Hey, girl! We met at Harvard this summer, right? Save a seat for the lawyers! And the Head sponsors! Party. Is. Over. Here.

Woot! ...?

I sort of understand the reason the ban was shortened. If Sharapova had known that meldonium or mildronate was a banned substance, she would have stopped taking it. I do believe that, because she would have been stupid not to.
But the fact that she took it and never really told anyone about it is suspicious. OK, so she never told any of her doctors since 2013-ish that she was taking this drug because no one asked?!! Raise your hand if you've ever been to the doctor and filled out those arduous forms. Have any of those forms ever not asked you what drugs you are taking? If none of her doctors ever asked her what drugs she was taking, then her doctors are worse than any doctor I have ever visited. I have trouble believing this could be true.
You can deduce a lot from this document, can read between the lines one way or another. What you can't dispute is the part of this document that is agreed upon by all involved. Maria Sharapova was taking this drug long after it was prescribed her, and she didn't tell anyone, except two people, that she was taking it. If you have a heart or diabetes problem and you are an athlete, and you have a team, that team should know and understand your physical limitations -- and any medication necessary to curb it, along with side effects. I would be similarly find it odd if Venus Williams took meds for Sjogren's Syndrome and told none of her people about it.
We will never know for sure why, of the battery of 30 drugs she started out taking with her doctor in Russia, she chose to continue taking three, one of which was meldonium -- even after she ditched the doctor. We will also never know why, once she made that call, she chose to keep it to herself, especially if she was taking it for its prescribed purpose. (For the record, I don't think she was taking it for its prescribed purpose.)
You can draw conclusions, though, such as the idea that this is really Sharapova's fault. It's not on her team or her manager. It's on her. She chose not to tell anyone.
Having read that document actually makes me more confused. Why is Sharapova celebrating and wanting to fight this? And why on earth would you threaten to keep this going? Because if I were her, I would really not want people pursuing this any further. It is not a cause for celebration. Well, there is one thing to celebrate if you really wanted to draw one thing out.
Yay, technicalities!?