REPOST: Scenes from Heathrow Airport

First of all, a somewhat shocking revelation to myself that Tennis With Attitude has been live for nearly *gulp* 20 years?! I mean, what?! 

Second, a realization that I have never reposted an old post. But this one is one of my favorites, and it's about the seeded players at Wimbledon having a rough time. Sounds familiar. Anyway, enjoy. I'm working on a post about this year's insanity.

Garbine Muguruza sulks through Heathrow Airport, head down. It feels as though everyone was staring at her. They're always staring. They stare at the airport. They stare at Wimbledon while she gets outgunned by some kid no one ever heard of. Why are they staring at her? Don't they have smartphones or something?
She approaches the desk. "I'd like the first flight out of here, please."
The kindly woman smiles and rolls her eyes. "Wouldn't we all?" she says, and chuckles.
Mugu looks back at her blankly.
"Oh, it's a Brexit thing -- you wouldn't understand," the airline ticket agent says. "Never mind. Well, anyway, the next flight out is booked."
"OK," Mugu says. "I normally don't like pulling this, but do you know who I am? I won the French Open last month."
"Oh, I do!" the woman says. "It's just that the flight is booked." She gestures with a little head tilt and Mugu looks behind her. An ocean of tennis players stare back. Everyone with the staring.
"Don't expect me to give up my flight out of here," Petra Kvitova says. She's sitting in a chair. Next to her, there's a tennis bag in the trash can. "I don't even know why I come to this place every year. It's always raining!"
"Probably because you win it," Genie Bouchard says. "Lemme ask you guys: Does Cibulkova play a full schedule or does she just go to Slams to screw with the seeded players?"
"Oh. Do not even get me started," Kvitova says. "I coulda told you when the draws came out that Makarova was gonna be a problem. But everyone's all like, "Upset, upset! Whatever."
"Boy, you women. Always whining, whining," Stan Wawrinka pipes in from the other set of seats.
"The heck are you doing here already?" says Mugu.
"I just think it's illegal to play on grass, and if you have to play on grass, then you can't be allowed to ace everywhere," Wawrinka answers, gesturing wildly with his hands. "It's outrageous. And all that crowing from del Potro about wrist injuries. Yeah, right!"
"Dude," says David Ferrer. "Seriously?" Everyone mumbles agreement and Wawrinka begins absently reading his tattoo.
Muguruza settles into the second row of chairs and they fall silent. For a second.
"You know what I don't get," Grigor Dmitrov says. "Every year, they play this tournament at the rainiest time of the year, and are always surprised when we have delays. And instead of pushing it back, they just make us play more without rest. What do they expect? Don't the Americans have a saying about people doing the same thing and expecting different results?"
"They do," Ferrer says. "But are you referring to the organizers putting it on or the players who come?"
The ticket agent clears her throat. "Kvitova? Kvitova?"
"Yeah," she answers.
"Sorry, I need to put you on the next flight."
"What?" She shoots up from her chair.
The ticket agent shrugs. "We have another priority customer." The man in front of her turns around. It's Novak Djokovic.
The whole section of tennis players recoil.
"I don't want to talk about it!" he shouts.
The agent interrupts again. "I'm sorry -- I just heard that the flight has been delayed due to weather."
"Of course," Djokovic mutters. "Of course."

So You Say There Was a Slam Going On: French Open 2019

For people who have been watching tennis for a long time, Slam seasons can be a little annoying. Slam stans (a term I just made up) are usually not there for the tennis, but for their favorite players. The good thing is that once their player is gone, they are too, so they can't muddy any further the conversations around the great tennis usually being played around a major. Because there are plenty of good things happening during a major tournament on the court, so we don't have to harp on things happening off the court, like Interview-gate, in which two tennis news cycles were spent on whether Dominic Thiem owes Serena Williams an apology or vice versa.
Again, there's plenty of good things that happened on court in the last couple of weeks that deserve more air, so here they are:

1. Rafa Nadal: And no, it's not just him and his sexy ass, although that is a big part of it. Nadal won the French Open for the 12th time on Sunday. Sometime during Nadal's thorough shellacking of Thiem in the fourth set, I began to wonder if there were any other players whose dominance of a surface was more entertaining or ironclad than Nadal's. There was Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, but between us, that was boring. A big swing serve out wide, a volley, another grass title. Gustavo Kuerten on clay? Entertaining, absolutely, but he clearly didn't have that longevity. There's nothing in tennis that can compare to Nadal's performance on clay that I can think of, and I'm willing to take contenders.
It's not just that Nadal always wins on clay. It's that he shows off a new strength in his game each time, especially recently. This year, Nadal's net game was the added dimension. This is impressive when you consider that he starts most return games essentially standing in the first row of spectator seats, but when he got there, he ended points on these delicate volleys that flew in the face of the brutality of the rest of his game. Remember that year he beat Stan Wawrinka in the final? That year, it was his down-the-line forehand when he was stretched wide. That's why he's so entertaining -- it's something new each time. Here is someone who is still working on his game on the surface on which he performs the best. It's quite something to witness.

2. Ashleigh Barty: So Barty's game is just as devastating as Nadal's, and transferrable to different surfaces and the reason I never realized it was because she is not a showman about it. I've been watching her in clay warmups, and in Paris, and I wondered why players had so much trouble with her -- without denying that she has a nice game. But it isn't nice. It's overpowering and it can throw an opponent off-balance. I also did not know her backstory -- that she quit tennis for a while to deal with her personal health and to play cricket. This is a great profile by the way, h/t Courtney Nguyen. Her first Slam title happened in a rather lopsided fashion, but I think Marketa Vondrousova will be better prepared in her next major final.

3. The heavy mantle Serena Williams places upon herself: I wasn't going to say anything about this because there is no way to say anything that isn't high praise about Serena these days without sounding as if you just hate her. I'm going to take a crack at this now, though, because what she's presenting right now is something familiar to a lot of us women who are, er, multitasking. Serena wore a jacket at the French Open that read "Mother, Champion, Queen, Goddess" A reader on my Facebook page raised this and even though I responded, I thought there was more there, and it was hard to get to what that "more" was.

When I had my first child, I was in awe of the ability my body had to bear such a miracle. That kid changed me in ways I can't explain. Before I was a mother, I was a newspaper editor and writer and naturally I took time off after the birth. When it was time to go back to work, I stuffed myself into one of my favorite pre-pregnancy dresses and marched myself into the office. Why? No one told me to do that. I did it because I wanted to signal that I was back, that I was the same old professional and motherhood hadn't affected my ability to be a kick-ass editor. It was pressure placed on me by extension -- women are expected to be all things at all times. That meant never admitting I was tired because I was up feeding the baby at 3:30 in the morning. It meant wearing clothes that barely fit and sitting in abject discomfort because I was not only a mother, but I was here doing my job as I always did with the same dedication and commitment to work excellence and nothing -- nothing -- had changed. I could be all of it at all times. And without making it look hard. That's important.
People, and society, put pressure on you whenever they get a chance. Have you ever worked with someone who waited until the last minute to do something? And then, faced with failure, you get a call from said person asking you for help to fast-track their project because now they're in trouble. There's the attempt to foist their pressure on you. What do you do? Do you accept it and begin also running around like a chicken whose head has been cut off? Or do you tell them that you have a lot going on already, and that their project will be fit in between the things you were already under pressure to do?
Do you see what I mean?
Mercifully, after I had my second child, I realized that that was nonsense. I wore my maternity clothes for as long as I needed. I went to work and I did my job to the best of my ability. I came home and spent time and energy on my family. When I was able to play tennis, I did it as well as I could. The difference was that I was not trying to be everything at all times. Serena Williams is a tennis player and she should be the best tennis player on court that she can be. Everything else can take a back seat on court. It's really OK. Not that the outfit caused her to lose -- I'd say it was that suspect footwork. Still, I believe she wears this mantle all the time. I still think about her U.S. Open loss, how her first defense to the umpire was, "I'm a mother!" What? The pressure of being an active legendary tennis player is plenty for the tennis courts. Let Alexis treat you like the queen and goddess that you are at home, off court. I guess that what I'm hoping for is that Serena Williams is kinder to herself. Serena being Serena is enough. That's a lesson a lot of us can take home.

4. I thought Stan Wawrinka v. Grigor Dimitrov was one of the best matches of the tournament. For a long time, I thought it was a matter of time before Dimitrov stepped up to claim a major, but does it seem to anyone else that the window that might have been his has closed?

5. If Novak Djokovic and Thiem had finished their semifinal match in one day, which was completely possible, does the final have a different ending? Just a thought I've been thinking since Sunday.

6. Whatever happened to Garbine Muguruza?

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 ...

HOMELAND SLAM: The Men

I did a U.S. Open preview 10 years ago. Which makes this blog the thing I've been most committed to in my whole life. Which, yes, is a little depressing. But the point was to mention that here is that this is how my preview began 10 YEARS AGO:

Nadal and Federer are astounding tennis specimens is what I'm getting at. OK, let's get back to the future:

1. Rafael Nadal: So far, Nadal has had a strong year, and stayed fairly free from serious injuries. His draw here is better than most, although Karen Khachanov could end up being a situation. But his hardcourt warm-up was judicious and sharp, and when he's fit, as it appears he is now, you gotta tag him for at least the semis.
2. Roger Federer: Federer's looked good too, this summer. No hardware like Nadal, but pretty sharp until he came across Novak Djokovic. His quarter here is full of minefields. Nick Kyrgios in the third round, which ... well, you know. It depends on which Kyrgios shows up, if he's in a good mood, if he brought his tennis kicks instead of his basketball shoes. Djokovic is also in his quarter, so he's going to have to get a bit sharper than he was in Cincinnati.
3. Juan Martin del Potro: Any major with del Potro in form is better for it. He'd face a group of tough competitors on the way to the semis -- Andy Murray, the Greek Stefanos Tsitsipas and maybe John Isner or Wawrinka. But as long as his wrist is feeling good and he's able to spank forehands all over the place, it could be a good tournament for him.
4. Alexander Zverev: If Zverev should again determine that this is his time, it's actually a decent time! He could run the table up to the semis if he wanted. His main obstacles could be Kei Nishikori, who is pretty steady and Marin Cilic.
5. Kevin Anderson: I tell you what, I thought Anderson was pretty lucky to get to the U.S. Open final a couple years ago, but it would appear it wasn't luck. If he hadn't been screwed over at Wimbledon with the schedule and the twelve-week match against Isner, he might have won the tournament.
6. Novak Djokovic: The way he's been playing the last couple of months, it's hard not to imagine him in the final. Of course, this is also the same person who lost to Taro Daniel, Marco Cecchinato and Bernard Paire this year.
7. Marin Cilic: Is it me, or does Cilic look like he plays with a chip on his shoulder these days? He's just been fired up lately. I'm picking him for the semis, too.
8. Grigor Dmitrov: I wonder if there's ever been a player -- any player, no one specifically -- who wouldl ever show up to a tournament feeling good and then looking at the draw and then just feels like packing up his gear and going home. Just a random thought I had. Oh, and by the way, Dmitrov's opening round opponent is Stan Wawrinka.
9. Dominic Thiem: Who even knows. Dude basically fell off the map after the French.
10. David Goffin: Kind of surprised he's in the draw. He's apparently struggling with a shoulder injury, so not expecting too much.
11. John Isner: He's in the Wawrinka quarter (sorry Dimitrov), so he's got a chance for a good run.
12. Pablo Carreno Busta: I'm not trying to be a jerk, but how is Carreno Busta seeded this high?! I'm really not, but ...
13. Diego Schwartzman: I really like his game, but he's stuck in Zverev quarter and there's a lot of talent in there. I don't know about this year, buddy.
14. Fabio Fognini: See. No. 12.
15. Stefanos Tsitsipas: This kid is crushing it lately. This summer, he's beaten Djokovic, Thiem, Zverev and Goffin. He's obviously having a lot of fun doing it, too. Do yourself a favor and follow him on Twitter. He's living that life right now. As for this tournament? If he touches a hair on del Potro's head, he's dead to me.
16. Kyle Edmund: He's got a pretty meat-and-potatoes type game, not real flashy, but effective. Not sure he'll be able to get past Nadal in the fourth round, though. Side-note: If I told you Edmund was only 23, would you believe me? I wouldn't have pegged him for a day under 40. Just saying.

First round matches to watch:
Wawrinka v. Dimitrov: As noted, I'd be stunned if Dimitrov got out of this match.
Nadal v. Ferrer: So long, David!
Shapavalov v. Felix Auger-Aliassime: I've not seen this Felix guy yet, so I'm excited to see what the hype is about.
Fernando Verdasco v. Feliciano Lopez: One of the great disappointments of this blog will be that my nickname for Verdasco, Hot Truth, never really took off.
Adrian Mannarino v. Frances Tiafoe: UPSET WATCH
Marcos Baghdatis v. Mikhail Youzhny: I hear they're giving out free walkers after this match. To the players! (rim shot)
Isner v. Bradley Klahn: I was going to make some tasteless joke about Isner playing his first round against someone whose last name is Klahn, but then I decided not to.

Wimbledon for Breakfast: Men's Preview

Don't get me wrong. The men's draw still has its promising first-round matches (Richard Gasquet v. Gael Monfils, Taro Daniel v. Fabio Fognini and of course Stan Wawrinka against Grigor Dimitrov -- which I still say Wawrinka will win), but it just doesn't rise to the promise of the women's draw this year. Not right away, anyway.

And here, I have to make a confession. I really just had Andy Murray losing to Jeremy Chardy in the first round. I am woman enough to admit when I've made a mistake, and that was a mistake. Murray's going to lose in the second round, to Denis Shapovalov. My bad.
Despite Roger Federer's, er, collapse in the Halle final last week, and even though Borna Coric is actually in Federer's quarter, I still think he'll advance. Unless of course, Ivo Karlovic serves his way past him (which is possible and which is what sucks the most about men's tennis at Wimbledon). By far, though, the bottom half is the tougher one, and although I've picked Rafa Nadal to get to the quarters, I don't have a ton of faith in that pick. It really says a lot about Nadal that he managed to win Wimbledon, because it is not his surface. I think it's OK to say that. I think it's OK to suggest that things might not go Nadal's way this time if he ends up facing Diego Schwartzman on grass. Heck, even Mischa Zverev might give Nadal trouble. Even still, this is just the beginning for him. Juan Martin del Potro and Shapovalov are also in this quarter. So that's tough enough. But Nadal is Nadal, so it's also hard to believe he isn't up to this battle.
Then there's French Open finalist Dominic Thiem's quarter. There's Alexander Zverev, Novak Djokovic, Nick Kyrgios and Kei Nishikori. Whoa. If Wimbledon didn't reward a big server so disproportionately, I'd be more excited about these matchups.
Oh, what am I saying? I'm excited. I am! Just not Vera Zvonareva excited.
Aye. The reality of this Wawrinka upset pick is really starting to sink in. I'm staying with it, though. I guess. Yeah. Hm. OK. Yeah. I'm staying with it.

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.

Therapy with TWA: Is 3 better than 5?

Because I cannot contain my nervous energy during high octane matches, like the U.S. Open men's final, I consulted the tennis-mad population on Twitter to vent/discuss/analyze/discuss fuchsia. Ben Rothenberg, a tennis writer for the New York Times (nope. Not at all jealous. Not one bit.) began tweeting out his support for men playing best-of-three set matches at all times. He's pretty consistent -- he's been ringing this bell all year round. The idea is that playing less tennis can help ensure a quality match and protect the health of the players. It's generated some traction, because many tournaments outside of the Slams have a best-of-three format. 

Who wouldn't want tennis players to have fewer injuries and play high-quality matches late into a major tournament? I want that! And as much as I trend towards bucking most stuffy tradition, I can't do it here. Most of it is sheer selfishness. I want to see heavyweights like Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic play tennis for five sets. Hell, I'd like to see a five-set match between Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka. 

That's the other wing of this best-of-three argument -- that the women don't have to do it. We're wading into the territory of a previous therapy session, so I'll just say that yes, female professional players should be able to do best-of-five easy, given that current matches, especially early rounds, only last about an hour. 

Rothenberg is right about one thing, though -- tennis players are having a hard time holding up physically. Just ask Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, etc., etc., etc. But what really gets me about this whole debate is that if you want to ensure quality matches and healthy players, you don't need to alter match formats. You need to alter the tennis season. Because it's too damn long! 

There are tournaments all year round. If you are an up-and-comer, you play these tournaments to improve your ranking. Then you go into majors running on fumes. If you are a top-lever professional, you know you have to play the Slams. Then there are the top-tier events, such as Miami, Indian Wells, Rome, that you get fined for missing. The first Slam of the year is in late January. The year-ending championships are in November. Sure, you're training in between, but where's the down time? When do you get to recover, safe in the knowledge that you can also maintain your ranking?

Let us consider the schedule of newly crowned U.S. Open champ Wawrinka. What's he been up to this year? Glad you asked because this handy-dandy table can tell us.

Stan started his season the first week in January and has played at least one tournament a month since. Fifty-one matches, and it's only September. You might argue that his body seems OK with this -- he just won the U.S. Open. But look at the inconsistency. He wins Chennai and loses early in the Australian Open (by his standards) in the fourth round.

And then there's Djokovic, the world No. 1. If you're world No. 1, you gotta hit the courts to keep that ranking. And he's been faithful -- 62 matches to date. Unless he shuts it down due to injury, there will be more because it's only September, everybody.

What's the answer? Even to a tennis junkie, it's obvious that the season needs to be shorter. How do you do that without pissing off all the rich people who pay for these tournaments and want to make that paper? Well, that's the hard part, and the part for which I have no answer.

But you know who does have an answer, or even a say? Tennis players. Remember back in the day when the doubles players sued the ATP? I think a legal fight might be the only thing that causes the tennis powers that be to stop and consider that a season that is essentially year-round is a bad idea.

So the best-of-five v. best-of-three debate is a premature one. First, take care of the larger issue at hand.

That's the end of your therapy session and that'll be $75. I accept PayPal.

U.S. Open: Over and out

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Roger Federer couldn't go to the U.S. Open this year. Rafael Nadal should have beaten Lucas Pouille, right? Andy Murray would have made the semis if it weren't for Kei Nishikori. What's left for men's tennis, the casual fan might have asked. Can it survive?
Yes, it turns out. The men's final between Novak Djokovic (remember that name, MLB announcer guy. I think he's going to be somebody one day) and Stan Wawrinka lived up to the hype of such a big stage, even if most of us thought that one of those names would have been Murray. The match ended up being a masterclass in fearless tennis and clean ball striking. And I think we can add Wawrinka to the list of things that were built to last. He was almost ousted from the tournament in the third round, and left no match under the eight-hour mark. I'm sure that has to be right. Wawrinka went into a match against an opponent who had three walkover/retirement wins, and at the end of the day it sure wasn't Wawrinka calling for the trainer. And he did all of this wearing fuchsia. Now that is some tennis with attitude, people.
The most important takeaway from this match, though, is that men's tennis is going to be just fine. American men's tennis? Well, we're going to need to discuss that one at a later date.
OK, everyone. Back to your regular sleep patterns. Until Australia, that is.

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

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

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

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

U.S. Open 2016: The men's draw (or Why Not Be Seeded Fourth?)

Must be nice to be Novak Djokovic. You work hard, become a post-Federer/Nadal machine and then just when there's the slightest vulnerability (a bad wrist, for example) that might be at the heart of you being bundled out of the Olympics early, you end up in this top-heavy draw and you have what appears to be a very hard path just to the semifinals. Even Rafael Nadal, seeded fourth has got a smoother-looking draw than you. And on top all of that, there's a donkey cheese shortage that has severely curtailed your training.

Just kidding about the last part, although someone should really make sure Djokovic's supply remains secure. He's going to need it over the next two weeks. 

First up is Jerzy Janowicz, who has a nice game but his head game is a touch sensitive. But then you get perhaps Martin Klizan. SEED. Low seed, but still. Then maybe John Isner or Richard Gasquet. SEED. Marin Cilic. SEED. Jo-Jo Tsonga. SEED.  That's just through the quarterfinals. Djokovic will see a megaton of potential landmines just to advance through the first week. 

Having said all of that, I believe he will do that. Maybe only that. Curious to see how he looks after that first round. 

At the bottom half of this half is Milos Raonic. This weekend, one of his coaches, John McEnroe, said he would not be working with Raonic during the Open, and it must have been in part because of the criticism he took on because of his concurrent duties as commentator for ESPN during Wimbledon. It was a distraction. I'm not a fan of this arrangement either, but honestly, I think it's a worse offense when it involves coaches of female players during non-Slam events. I have gone there before, so I will digress. But it was a good call on Mac's part, and also, it appears that Raonic is a quick study. He's taken all of that net advice to heart and between McEnroe and Carlos Moya, Raonic is on track to be a threat. With a shaky Djokovic looming, this could be his chance to strike.

Here's my bottom half of the draw 

and I know what you're thinking. You might even be right. Yeah, I'm still thinking of Juan Martin del Potro's fine performance in Brazil and yes, that came virtually out of nowhere. There is no real evidence to back up a semifinal showing from him at the U.S. Open. But I will say it again -- if del Potro had been remotely healthy since he upset Roger Federer in the U.S. Open final in 2009, the men's tennis landscape would have more of a South American flair to it. And it looks like he's healthy again. He's unseeded here, but do I think he can beat Diego Schwartzman, Steve Johnson, David Ferrer, Dominic Thiem and Stan Wawrinka or Nicolas Kyrgios? Um, yeah. Yep. This could totally backfire, but I'm putting some eggs in the del Potro basket. 

I will also be leaving some of those eggs for Andy Murray, of course, because I believe he will win the U.S. Open. He is the steadiest of the Big Four right now (one, Roger Federer, is missing). 

First round matches worth blocking out some time at work for: 

Fernando Verdasco v. Stan Wawrinka: Like, really? I guess really, then. Unfair draw for both guys.

Feliciano Lopez v. Borna Coric: A wily veteran vs. an upstart kid who just beat Nadal. Hm. Hmm.

Radek Stepanek v. Gilles Simon: Just because Stepanek reminds me of Dracula. Will his tennis career never die? Does he have a reflection? Are you sure??

Dustin Brown v. Milos Raonic: Should be entertaining. One-sided, but entertaining. 

Djokovic v. Janowicz: For Djokovic's sake, here's hoping that wrist is at least serviceable.