French Open 2025: "Such a hottie."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Open: When You Don't Fill Out a Draw

            I fill out a draw for just about every major, even if I don’t publish it (which is almost never). This time, I didn’t -- believe it or not, I forgot to do it even though I have my two weeks worth of excuses about why I can’t possibly be at work at all these next fourteen days.  

I wasn’t prepared for how freeing it is to watch tennis when you haven’t tried to predict the future. Oh, Carlos Alcaraz lost in the second round? Didn’t see that coming! Oh well. 

I don’t think anyone’s winning money off their original men’s draw this year. 

Seriously, I don’t know if it’s time to worry about Alcaraz yet. That seems silly even to write – he just won Wimbledon. He’s got four majors and he’s what, 21? These flameouts happen to everyone and it’s probably nothing to worry about, given that he’s still so young and that losing to Van De Camps will teach him something. That said, watching him lose last night was perplexing. Not only was he making bad decisions against a guy who was obviously dedicated to attacking the net the whole night, but his concentration seemed very inconsistent. I can’t think of the last time I saw someone down two sets and a break making a great shot and celebrating like he had just brought up match point. If he was going to win, he still had so much work to do. And then he was following that up with making wild errors. It was just odd to see. Sometimes I think he is dangerously close to upsetting the fine balance he has displayed so far of showmanship and tennis guile. I mean, I love the shots and that he is often giving the crowd a match that is worth every dime in watching.  

Orrrr, maybe it’s too much tennis. The day after Alcaraz lost early, it was Novak Djokovic’s turn to lose a four-set match to Alexei Popyrin. Both Djokovic and Alcaraz medalled at the Olympics. Which in the grand scheme might be worth it for them, but the real gift they’ve left is this wide-open men’s draw – a world where Frances Tiafoe has as good a chance as Brandon Nakashima to make the final.  

On to the women. Here’s another “is it time to pull the emergency cord yet” question: What is up with Elena Rybakina? I couldn’t help but notice that she barely made it through her first-round match against someone she shouldn’t have had much issue with. In fact, I’m just going to say it: That was the ugliest pro match I have seen in some time (no offense to Australia’s Destanee Aiava – I mean, sometimes you have a bad day). But whoa, it was bad. It was like reverse tennis – both of them trying to see who could make a mistake first. But then Rybakina withdrew from the tournament. By my count, that’s six tournaments she’s withdrawn from this season.      

Other than Rybakina, the higher seeds of the women’s draw are holding up well for now. But that probably won’t be the case by the end of today. I look at this draw as it is and feel as if Jessica Pegula has a really good chance to make her first Slam final. I’ll be watching Coco Gauff’s match against Emma Navarro pretty closely too. Also, a quick shout-out to Paula Badosa, who has been injury-ridden lately, but is now in the fourth round. By the way, it took me a good year to figure out why, when I watched a Badosa match, I’d find myself chanting “Fair is fair!” after one of her winners. Then it dawned on me.

    

            You might call her match today a “do-or-die" situation. IYKYK  

French Open 2023: Festivus Comes Late

It's been a while. What can I say? I haven't been busy enough to watch tennis, but I have been too busy to write about it. Which is kind of sad because I've had a lot of thoughts -- about Rafael Nadal not being at the French Open this year, about Carlos Alcaraz already being the top seed and world No. 1(!), Aryna Sabalenka finally harnessing her game and power to be a real contender in Paris -- and basically everywhere I think, about the lob I just saw Taylor Townsend run down to keep a doubles point alive and then single-handedly won the point herself (yes, I am aware doubles is a team effort, but did you even see this?), lots of thoughts, beautiful thoughts. 

But the thing that caused me to dust off this blog was not even a recent development. It was one thing that has always annoyed me, and the perfect analogy to describe my beef.

During every Slam, someone has to get on Twitter to talk about how five sets is too much tennis. I usually jump right in, especially when people start laying out their arguments. I usually drop in to tell them that there are a certified megaton of other sports available to watch if watching two (or four) athletes duke it out isn't quite their jam. No one ever takes me up on it because they come back every. single. TIME.

Last night, someone posted that there's a lot of throwaway tennis in five-setters. I responded (and by the way, I know it's useless. No one has ever been able to articulate their concerns with five-setters beyond their general boredom and it's not going to happen on social media, but I can't help it) by saying you could say the same about three-set matches. The person just responded, "no." 

Sorry, girl, but: yes. The nature of the scoring of tennis means that there is "throwaway" tennis in almost every match. (And I am assuming "throwaway tennis" are the points that don't end in sizzling winners bouncing off lines.) There are points you play just to slow things down, or speed things up, or try to get your opponent tired, and that is not always attractive tennis. But it is part of the game. It's called strategy. And honestly, it's almost as if none of these people have managed to stress-clean their entire house while watching a Rafa/Medvedev French Open final! 

So anyway, I woke up the other morning with the perfect analogy for this debate. It's like watching a boxing match. I'm not much of a boxing fan, but my dad was, and so I watched quite a few matches. Boxing is a timed sport, so you can predict when it will end. But what if you wanted to shorten it? Where do you start? At the beginning? When it's "boring?" Hi, you need the "boring" stuff to get to the good stuff. 

What about chess? Now, I would never watch a game of chess, but it is like tennis in that it's a game of strategy. So is it boring to watch players try out tactics on each other? You wanna just skip to the part where they're both going toe-to-toe? If so, maybe just push for a spirited round of rock-paper-scissors. Or maybe sports betting -- seems like you just want the result, not the battle. Or not too long of a battle. Or just the good parts of the battle. 

You see how silly that sounds?

Another grievance to air: Beefing with players who are from a war-torn country. Sabalenka had to play a Ukrainian player in her first round -- Marta Kostyuk. Kostyuk has been vocal about all her family has lost in the war, and has not been shaking hands with Russians or players from ally countries with Russia (like Sabalenka, a Belarussian). Before their match, Kostyuk said she wished Sabalenka would say more about the war because she has a microphone. Sabalenka is like, "My name is Been-it and I ain't in it." This whole back-and-forth reminds me of when Trump was elected president in the U.S. It turned out that qwhite a few American players were Trump supporters and that felt like a slap in the face. I definitely didn't want to hear John Isner talking about how he wanted MAGA-man to see him win a major. 

Still, I think you have to pick a side. I mean, do you want players talking politics or not? Whatever your answer is, you need to be consistent across the board. The question isn't whether you agree with what they're saying, it's whether you think they should use their advantage to make a difference. I think it's worth a couple Muhammad Alis and Colin Kaepernicks if we also have to get an Isner in there. It is what it is. But then, just because you've settled on your answer doesn't mean you then get to push Sabalenka around because you want her to talk. Does she want to talk? No? OK, then. Respect players for their own stances and move on, even when it's murky. Because maybe you're like Paula Badosa, who thinks politics has no place in sports. Maybe you're more like this player who looks and sounds suspiciously like Paula Badosa, who thinks women should be paid the same as men. It's confusing, OK?!??