Note: Upon discussing this article with Parsa I want to clarify that the del Potro article previously written was discussing how he deserved a wildcard within the current system. Recently I have come to the conclusion that the system that del Potro would receive the wildcard in should be abolished. If the grand slams, ATP, WTA, and ITF were to keep the current system, then yes, del Potro would still deserve a wildcard.
As readers of my blog know, I have been a vocal critic of the wildcard system currently in place for both the WTA, ATP, ITF and the grand slam tournaments. I don't always think that the players receiving wildcard's results warrant the honor of receiving the wildcard, and perhaps that players just outside of the main draw cutoff (as it would be with wildcards) were getting screwed in place of a player who is almost certain to have a First Round exit.
As I read Parsa_Nemati's tweet last night, it dawned on me that something else really bothered me about wildcards. I want to note that I am not blaming the players receiving these wildcards whatsoever, but rather, I am blaming the system that the ATP, WTA, ITF, and grand slams have in place which makes it so tennis is not truly the meritocracy that, upon first glance, it seems to be, but rather that many players from countries with grand slam tournaments, or countries with lots of regular tournaments, receive a marked advantage just because they were born in one of these tennis-filled countries.
So, what am I exactly referring to? In Parsa's tweet, he mentioned that American Reilly Opelka has moved up 69 spots in the ATP rankings and he is now a career-high number 295 in the world. But, the difference between how Opelka moved from where he was for the August 1st rankings (seeing the week-by-week rankings is a really cool feature on the ATP's site and something interesting to look at if you have time!), at number 837 in the world, to where he is today, at number 295, is totally different than most other players who have moved up in the rankings. Because Riley Opelka has not had to grind it out on the ITF Future's Tour nor the ATP Challenger Tour in order to get to number 295, but rather, he has been gifted opportunities in ATP World Tour tournaments through the wildcard system.
Opelka received three wildcards to ATP World Tour events this season, in Washington, Atlanta, and Cincinnati, one of which lead to a special exemption into a fourth ATP World Tour tournament, in Los Cabos. Now, Opelka did very well to take advantage of the opportunities given to him, making the Semifinals in Atlanta (which gave him the special exemption into the tournament in Los Cabos) and winning a match in Cincinnati, but the question becomes, should he have even received the opportunity to do this at this point in time, given his ranking?
Of course, while Opelka earned his way into the Los Cabos draw by virtue of making the semis of the ATP tournament in Atlanta, that opportunity would not have presented itself had he not received the wildcard into the Atlanta tournament. And it's not like Opelka is really old and has been grinding it out on the ITF Future's Tour and ATP Challenger Tour his entire life. He's only 18 years old and started playing in Future's events (qualifying draw included) in 2013. Opelka still has PLENTY of time to achieve good results and work his way up the rankings. But again, this is nothing against Opelka. If I received a wildcard to Washington, Atlanta, and/or Cincinnati, of course I would take the opportunity given to me. This article, instead, is an indictment on the system that tennis has in place on the whole.
I understand why tournaments grant "home" wildcards. Having wildcards from the country that the tournament is in almost certainly increased interest, which will then increase ticket sales and revenue to the tournament. However, there is too much money and too many ranking points at stake for wildcards to be given to whoever the tournament pleases. Let's take a look at Cincinnati, a Masters 1000 event.
In the ATP draw, four wildcards were given out, including three to American players. Number two seed in the qualifying draw, Guido Pella lost in the First Round of qualifying. Had wildcards not been given out, Pella would have made the main draw, and even if he lost in the First Round of the main draw, still received $15,480 United States dollars and ten ranking points (as opposed to the $1,820 and zero ranking points that he received for losing in the opening round of qualifying).
So, y'all can see that giving wildcards does effect both the finances and rankings for players just outside of the main draw, who cannot make it through the qualifying draw, which given the depth on both the ATP and WTA tours, is a tough ask. By having wildcards, again, this goes against the foundation of a meritocracy that tennis is built on. Having a good ranking doesn't mean as much, when players are able to hop over you based on tournaments' decisions. That just doesn't feel fair to me.
Therefore, I have decided that the wildcard system needs to be abolished. Players should be getting into a tournament based on their ranking, not based on who a tournament wants to see in the main draw.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Saturday, August 20, 2016
How Can Anna Karolina Schmiedlova Turn Her Year Around?
In 2015, Anna Karolina Schmiedlova had a fantastic year. She reached three WTA Finals, winning two of them, and played in the WTA Elite tournament in Zhuhai, beating Roberta Vinci 6-1, 6-0. Overall, 2015 was definitely a success for Schmiedlova, and expectations were very high entering the 2016 season. Unfortunately, it seems as if the weight of these expectations have caused Schmiedlova's game to collapse.
2016 has not been a good year of tennis for Anna Karolina. Her record this year is 6-23, which includes a 2-1 record in Fed Cup and an 0-1 record in the Olympics. If you take these matches out of her record to show how she is doing in matches in which WTA points were on the line, she is 4-21, which equates to a winning percentage of 16%.
Now, luckily for her, she is still doing decently rankings-wise, at number 86. But, this is largely due to good results during the end of last summer and last fall, which included a Third Round appearance at the US Open, a semifinal in Seoul, a quarterfinal, in Wuhan, and the previously mentioned victory in Zhuhai. This makes it very important for Schmiedlova to turn her year around, quickly.
So, as opposed to turning this into an article bashing Schmiedlova's year, I have decided to try to figure out some ways that Anna Karolina can turn her year around. Hopefully, she will read these tips and incorporate, at least, think about some of the ideas I am suggesting, as I really hate to see a player struggle at the magnitude that she has, without any (known) injuries that could be explain her play.
How Can Schmiedlova Turn Her Year Around?
1. Seeing Either a Therapist or a Sports Psychology: At the beginning of the year, many of Schmiedlova's losses were in straight sets, however, in recent matches, Anna Karolina has played decently well, she just hasn't been able to finish the match. In recent matches to Sasnovich, Ostapenko, and Kontaveit, Schmiedlova has had at least one match point, but just hasn't been able to close out the match. I think, whether it be a general therapist or sports psychologist, it would be good for Anna Karolina to talk about what she is going through on court, to have someone totally unbiased who will understand what she is going through and help her work through the issues that she is facing. Perhaps Schmiedlova's issues are an injury that she isn't telling anyone about or something going on in her personal life, but whatever the case, having a therapist or sports psychologist to talk with would do Anna Karolina a lot of good, in my opinion.
2. Block out Distractions: Perhaps Schmiedlova's issues with her game is that she is not fulling invested in tennis this year, and is distracted by other diversions in her life. Whether she deems distractions as player parties, social media accounts, such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter, television, texting, the internet, or anything else, it is important that Anna Karolina identifies what might be distracting her from playing her best tennis and block out those distractions from her her life. It might be as simple as blocking out other diversions in her life that could lead Anna Karolina back to being a top 30 player.
3. Don't Panic and Play Too Many Tournaments: In a situation like Anna Karolina's, it would be easy to panic and just sign up for a tournament every week. I think this is a bad idea, however. What playing every week does is, if Schmiedlova doesn't win it just continues, every week, to hurt her mindset. However, if Schmiedlova does start winning and goes on a couple runs in consecutive tournaments, she will be fatigued and would be setting herself up to lose due to exhaustion in subsequent tournaments, if playing, for instance, for three or four weeks in a row. So, I don't think it is a great idea for Schmiedlova to have played seven tournaments in the past eight weeks (if we include New Haven as a tournament for next week). I think that, perhaps, scheduling a tournament every-other-week would provide the best balance of playing but not overplaying.
Notice how, in my advice to Anna Karolina, I don't mention any technical changes to her game. I think Schmiedlova's game is fine, otherwise she wouldn't have won two WTA titles. For Schmiedlova, I truly think that improving her game is more a matter of doing the right things off-the-court as opposed to making changes to the fundamentals of Anna Karolina's game.
But, Anna Karolina Schmiedlova is a very good tennis player, and I absolutely believe that she will turn her year around.
2016 has not been a good year of tennis for Anna Karolina. Her record this year is 6-23, which includes a 2-1 record in Fed Cup and an 0-1 record in the Olympics. If you take these matches out of her record to show how she is doing in matches in which WTA points were on the line, she is 4-21, which equates to a winning percentage of 16%.
Now, luckily for her, she is still doing decently rankings-wise, at number 86. But, this is largely due to good results during the end of last summer and last fall, which included a Third Round appearance at the US Open, a semifinal in Seoul, a quarterfinal, in Wuhan, and the previously mentioned victory in Zhuhai. This makes it very important for Schmiedlova to turn her year around, quickly.
So, as opposed to turning this into an article bashing Schmiedlova's year, I have decided to try to figure out some ways that Anna Karolina can turn her year around. Hopefully, she will read these tips and incorporate, at least, think about some of the ideas I am suggesting, as I really hate to see a player struggle at the magnitude that she has, without any (known) injuries that could be explain her play.
How Can Schmiedlova Turn Her Year Around?
1. Seeing Either a Therapist or a Sports Psychology: At the beginning of the year, many of Schmiedlova's losses were in straight sets, however, in recent matches, Anna Karolina has played decently well, she just hasn't been able to finish the match. In recent matches to Sasnovich, Ostapenko, and Kontaveit, Schmiedlova has had at least one match point, but just hasn't been able to close out the match. I think, whether it be a general therapist or sports psychologist, it would be good for Anna Karolina to talk about what she is going through on court, to have someone totally unbiased who will understand what she is going through and help her work through the issues that she is facing. Perhaps Schmiedlova's issues are an injury that she isn't telling anyone about or something going on in her personal life, but whatever the case, having a therapist or sports psychologist to talk with would do Anna Karolina a lot of good, in my opinion.
2. Block out Distractions: Perhaps Schmiedlova's issues with her game is that she is not fulling invested in tennis this year, and is distracted by other diversions in her life. Whether she deems distractions as player parties, social media accounts, such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter, television, texting, the internet, or anything else, it is important that Anna Karolina identifies what might be distracting her from playing her best tennis and block out those distractions from her her life. It might be as simple as blocking out other diversions in her life that could lead Anna Karolina back to being a top 30 player.
3. Don't Panic and Play Too Many Tournaments: In a situation like Anna Karolina's, it would be easy to panic and just sign up for a tournament every week. I think this is a bad idea, however. What playing every week does is, if Schmiedlova doesn't win it just continues, every week, to hurt her mindset. However, if Schmiedlova does start winning and goes on a couple runs in consecutive tournaments, she will be fatigued and would be setting herself up to lose due to exhaustion in subsequent tournaments, if playing, for instance, for three or four weeks in a row. So, I don't think it is a great idea for Schmiedlova to have played seven tournaments in the past eight weeks (if we include New Haven as a tournament for next week). I think that, perhaps, scheduling a tournament every-other-week would provide the best balance of playing but not overplaying.
Notice how, in my advice to Anna Karolina, I don't mention any technical changes to her game. I think Schmiedlova's game is fine, otherwise she wouldn't have won two WTA titles. For Schmiedlova, I truly think that improving her game is more a matter of doing the right things off-the-court as opposed to making changes to the fundamentals of Anna Karolina's game.
But, Anna Karolina Schmiedlova is a very good tennis player, and I absolutely believe that she will turn her year around.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Frances Tiafoe's First ATP Challenger Tour Title a Long Time Coming
*Note: this article is entirely about singles
Let me start off by saying that I have been a fan of Frances Tiafoe since I first read about his amazing story of a boy coming from poverty and becoming a success in the tennis universe. Tiafoe is an inspiring person.
Upon first starting to watch Frances' matches during the green clay court Challenger swing of 2015, it was apparent that Tiafoe was ultra talented, although he needed to refine his skill set in order for his game to mature to the next level. Tiafoe had already achieved moderate success upon jumping into the ATP Challenger Tour last spring, as he won an ITF Futures Tour tournament, and made the Final of two others.
When Tiafoe managed to qualify for the green clay Challenger event in Sarasota and make a run to the Quarterfinals, it was quite apparent that he had the potential to be a special tennis player. As just a 17 year old at the time, for him to grind out wins not only in the main draw, but in the qualifying draw as well, was truly stunning to watch, and in hindsight, reminds me a lot of Taylor Fritz's successes in Challenger tournaments late last year.
What was even more impressive than his run in Sarasota was that he then made the Semifinals of a Challenger in Savannah (coming within one set of the Final) and then made the Final of a Challenger in Tallahassee. Not only could Tiafoe have a big result, but he could back his result up with other, even better results. This, in fact, gave Frances the victory in the wildcard challenge that the USTA puts on, and with it, a spot in the main draw of the French Open. What was so impressive about Tiafoe, and continues to impress me, is his mental toughness during matches. In the Savannah and Tallahassee Challenger tournaments alone, Tiafoe came back from a set down to win in four of the matches he played, and won in three sets in one additional match.
Frances even lead the Final of the Challenger tournament in Tallahassee by a set and a break, before the much more experienced, gritty Facundo Arguello eventually won the match in three sets. Tiafoe managed to come back from two breaks down in the third set, but gave his serve up once more, and that was what Arguello needed to push through the end of the match. While the loss was disappointing for Tiafoe, it was understandable given the difference in experience between the two. However, it seemed inevitable at the time that Tiafoe would win a Challenger tournament soon thereafter.
However, the loss to Arguello was followed by some mixed results by Tiafoe until the very end of the season. Without going through each event individually, I will say that Frances did very well to win his first main draw ATP World Tour match in Winston-Salem, qualifying and then beating James Duckworth in a third set tiebreak in the First Round, coming from a set down. Tiafoe was even a set away from beating Thomaz Bellucci, a seasoned veteran, in his next match in North Carolina. That result, along another ATP Challenger Tour semifinal appearance in Fairfield (coming a set away from the Final), were the major achievements for Tiafoe between Tallahassee and Knoxville. However, a smattering of mixed results in addition to Wintson-Salem and Fairfield proved that Tiafoe might be rising in the rankings, but he would not skyrocket, like Taylor Fritz did towards the end of 2015.
And perhaps Fritz's results started to inspire Tiafoe, as in the Challenger at Knoxville, Tiafoe played great tennis. After getting pushed to three sets in the first two rounds, Tiafoe came within one set of the title, again winning the first set against Dan Evans, fighting back in the third set to get the match back on serve from a set down, but ultimately losing in three sets. From the parts of this match that I watched, I can assure y'all that Evans played really solid tennis, punishing Tiafoe from the baseline. It was impressive to me that Frances could even win a set off of Daniel. But, in any case, this sunk Tiafoe's record in ATP Challenger Tour finals to 0-2, and with a fairly early loss in Tiafoe's next tournament, somewhat surprisingly, his quest for a Challenger title would have to wait until 2016.
Tiafoe's 2016 up to the Challenger in Granby was marked by improved play and, generally speaking, good results. The problem was just that, he was having good results, but not great results. The big problem for Tiafoe in 2016, until Granby, was that he just couldn't win in the Final of a Challenger tourmament.
That's not to say the year up until Granby was not a success, as this would be far from accurate. Tiafoe picked up his second ATP World Tour match win ever, beating fellow young American Taylor Fritz in the First Round before winning the first set against David Goffin (currently number 13 in the world), and even having two match points, before ultimately losing in a third set tiebreak.
However, Tiafoe's consistent good results on the ATP Challenger Tour was, in my opinion, more impressive than a couple good performances in Indian Wells. Before Granby, Tiafoe had already made the Final of ATP Challenger Tour tournaments in Tallahassee, Winnetka, and in Lexington (which he played in the week prior to Granby). The problem for Frances was, he lost in the Final in all three of his Final appearances.
In Tallahassee, Tiafoe lost to a player he struggles playing against, Quentin Halys. From watching Halys' game, I think that the problem for Tiafoe is that Halys has a very strong backhand, while Tiafoe's backhand, while MUCH improved and a shot which has turned into a weapon for him as 2016 has progressed, is still a weaker part of his game.
Therefore, Halys' ability to maneuver himself into backhand-to-backhand rally situations, along with his all-court, powerful game allow him to gain the upper hand in this matchup. In terms of this particular matchup in Tallahassee, Tiafoe once again took the first set of the Final, before fading towards the end. Becuase Tiafoe's backhand, and volleys have substantially improved since this match in Tallahassee, I think that Frances will win their next matchup. However, I still don't think Tiafoe wants to see Halys in his section of the draw.
In Winnetka, Tiafoe lost to Yoshihito Nishioka in straight sets, in a match that was won by Nishioka in a very straightforward manner. Nishioka in an ATP World Tour tournament in Atlanta came within one set of the Final, losing to Nicholas Kyrgios in straight sets and has never lost a singles ATP Challenger Tour Final, going 3-0 in his career so far. What I am trying to say is that there is no shame in Frances losing this match. The real problem that this match caused was not that Tiafoe lost to Nishioka, but rather that Frances lost another ATP Challenger Tour Final. Mentally, it must have been tough for him to continue losing in the final stage of Challenger tournaments. However, the bitter losses must have made his first Challenger title even sweeter than if Tiafoe won a Challenger in his first Final (more on this later).
Lexington was a very close Final. Tiafoe's opponent was Ernesto Escobedo, a guy who was 0-6 combined in ITF Futures Tour and ATP Challenger Tour Finals before this match. Therefore, Escobedo had an even tougher mental barrier to get over than Tiafoe, a victory in a Futures event had even eluded him. However, in Lexington, Escobedo played excellent tennis, utilizing his powerful serve and forehand to force Tiafoe to be on the defensive, and playing punishing first-strike tennis, winning 7-6(3) in the third set. Because Escobedo took the racquet out of Frances' hands so often, it was more of how well Ernesto played than how bad Frances played. However, the weight of yet another Challenger Final loss almost certainly weighed heavily on Tiafoe's mind, no matter how well his opponent played.
Finally, in an ATP Challenger event in Granby, Tiafoe had his breakthrough. Putting the disappointment of his loss to Escobedo aside, Tiafoe won the tournament in Granby for his first title on the ATP Challenger Tour. Frances won five matches in a row to win Granby, including a very impressive win in the Round of 16, where he came back from a set down to beat James Ward. Tiafoe was broken serving for the match against Ward at *5-4 in the third set, however, he did not get down on himself and mentally checkout like he might have in the past, and instead, had the mental fortitude to break back immediately, and win 7-5 in the third set.
The set lost against Ward was the only set Tiafoe lost all tournament, meaning that from his first set loss to Ward, Tiafoe won the next eight sets to win the title. That is a very impressive feat and something that Frances should feel especially proud of. The Final was an emphatic win for Tiafoe. Taking on Marcelo Arevalo, Tiafoe lost only two games on the way to a 6-1, 6-1 victory. Frances never let Arevalo in the match, breaking Marcelo's serve in the first game, and never letting the nerves that come from playing in a Final, nor his history in Challenger Finals to drop his high level of play.
It was just so apparent watching the match just how far Tiafoe has come since he first started out on the ATP Challenger Tour last spring. The most amazing improvement in Tiafoe's game has definitely been his backhand. The improvement his ability to not only can he crack backhand winners, but also to play on the defensive on the backhand side has been astonishing. I'm starting to wonder if, one day, Frances' backhand will overtake his forehand as Tiafoe's better groundstroke.
It must have been really hard on Frances Tiafoe to lose so many ATP Challenger Tour Finals. To come so close, so many times, and not win a single Challenger before Granby almost certainly weighed on Tiafoe mentally. However, any mental on Tiafoe has now been lifted.
Frances Tiafoe won his first ATP Challenger Tour title yesterday in Granby. And the title was definitely a long time coming.
Let me start off by saying that I have been a fan of Frances Tiafoe since I first read about his amazing story of a boy coming from poverty and becoming a success in the tennis universe. Tiafoe is an inspiring person.
Upon first starting to watch Frances' matches during the green clay court Challenger swing of 2015, it was apparent that Tiafoe was ultra talented, although he needed to refine his skill set in order for his game to mature to the next level. Tiafoe had already achieved moderate success upon jumping into the ATP Challenger Tour last spring, as he won an ITF Futures Tour tournament, and made the Final of two others.
When Tiafoe managed to qualify for the green clay Challenger event in Sarasota and make a run to the Quarterfinals, it was quite apparent that he had the potential to be a special tennis player. As just a 17 year old at the time, for him to grind out wins not only in the main draw, but in the qualifying draw as well, was truly stunning to watch, and in hindsight, reminds me a lot of Taylor Fritz's successes in Challenger tournaments late last year.
What was even more impressive than his run in Sarasota was that he then made the Semifinals of a Challenger in Savannah (coming within one set of the Final) and then made the Final of a Challenger in Tallahassee. Not only could Tiafoe have a big result, but he could back his result up with other, even better results. This, in fact, gave Frances the victory in the wildcard challenge that the USTA puts on, and with it, a spot in the main draw of the French Open. What was so impressive about Tiafoe, and continues to impress me, is his mental toughness during matches. In the Savannah and Tallahassee Challenger tournaments alone, Tiafoe came back from a set down to win in four of the matches he played, and won in three sets in one additional match.
Frances even lead the Final of the Challenger tournament in Tallahassee by a set and a break, before the much more experienced, gritty Facundo Arguello eventually won the match in three sets. Tiafoe managed to come back from two breaks down in the third set, but gave his serve up once more, and that was what Arguello needed to push through the end of the match. While the loss was disappointing for Tiafoe, it was understandable given the difference in experience between the two. However, it seemed inevitable at the time that Tiafoe would win a Challenger tournament soon thereafter.
However, the loss to Arguello was followed by some mixed results by Tiafoe until the very end of the season. Without going through each event individually, I will say that Frances did very well to win his first main draw ATP World Tour match in Winston-Salem, qualifying and then beating James Duckworth in a third set tiebreak in the First Round, coming from a set down. Tiafoe was even a set away from beating Thomaz Bellucci, a seasoned veteran, in his next match in North Carolina. That result, along another ATP Challenger Tour semifinal appearance in Fairfield (coming a set away from the Final), were the major achievements for Tiafoe between Tallahassee and Knoxville. However, a smattering of mixed results in addition to Wintson-Salem and Fairfield proved that Tiafoe might be rising in the rankings, but he would not skyrocket, like Taylor Fritz did towards the end of 2015.
And perhaps Fritz's results started to inspire Tiafoe, as in the Challenger at Knoxville, Tiafoe played great tennis. After getting pushed to three sets in the first two rounds, Tiafoe came within one set of the title, again winning the first set against Dan Evans, fighting back in the third set to get the match back on serve from a set down, but ultimately losing in three sets. From the parts of this match that I watched, I can assure y'all that Evans played really solid tennis, punishing Tiafoe from the baseline. It was impressive to me that Frances could even win a set off of Daniel. But, in any case, this sunk Tiafoe's record in ATP Challenger Tour finals to 0-2, and with a fairly early loss in Tiafoe's next tournament, somewhat surprisingly, his quest for a Challenger title would have to wait until 2016.
Tiafoe's 2016 up to the Challenger in Granby was marked by improved play and, generally speaking, good results. The problem was just that, he was having good results, but not great results. The big problem for Tiafoe in 2016, until Granby, was that he just couldn't win in the Final of a Challenger tourmament.
That's not to say the year up until Granby was not a success, as this would be far from accurate. Tiafoe picked up his second ATP World Tour match win ever, beating fellow young American Taylor Fritz in the First Round before winning the first set against David Goffin (currently number 13 in the world), and even having two match points, before ultimately losing in a third set tiebreak.
However, Tiafoe's consistent good results on the ATP Challenger Tour was, in my opinion, more impressive than a couple good performances in Indian Wells. Before Granby, Tiafoe had already made the Final of ATP Challenger Tour tournaments in Tallahassee, Winnetka, and in Lexington (which he played in the week prior to Granby). The problem for Frances was, he lost in the Final in all three of his Final appearances.
In Tallahassee, Tiafoe lost to a player he struggles playing against, Quentin Halys. From watching Halys' game, I think that the problem for Tiafoe is that Halys has a very strong backhand, while Tiafoe's backhand, while MUCH improved and a shot which has turned into a weapon for him as 2016 has progressed, is still a weaker part of his game.
Therefore, Halys' ability to maneuver himself into backhand-to-backhand rally situations, along with his all-court, powerful game allow him to gain the upper hand in this matchup. In terms of this particular matchup in Tallahassee, Tiafoe once again took the first set of the Final, before fading towards the end. Becuase Tiafoe's backhand, and volleys have substantially improved since this match in Tallahassee, I think that Frances will win their next matchup. However, I still don't think Tiafoe wants to see Halys in his section of the draw.
In Winnetka, Tiafoe lost to Yoshihito Nishioka in straight sets, in a match that was won by Nishioka in a very straightforward manner. Nishioka in an ATP World Tour tournament in Atlanta came within one set of the Final, losing to Nicholas Kyrgios in straight sets and has never lost a singles ATP Challenger Tour Final, going 3-0 in his career so far. What I am trying to say is that there is no shame in Frances losing this match. The real problem that this match caused was not that Tiafoe lost to Nishioka, but rather that Frances lost another ATP Challenger Tour Final. Mentally, it must have been tough for him to continue losing in the final stage of Challenger tournaments. However, the bitter losses must have made his first Challenger title even sweeter than if Tiafoe won a Challenger in his first Final (more on this later).
Lexington was a very close Final. Tiafoe's opponent was Ernesto Escobedo, a guy who was 0-6 combined in ITF Futures Tour and ATP Challenger Tour Finals before this match. Therefore, Escobedo had an even tougher mental barrier to get over than Tiafoe, a victory in a Futures event had even eluded him. However, in Lexington, Escobedo played excellent tennis, utilizing his powerful serve and forehand to force Tiafoe to be on the defensive, and playing punishing first-strike tennis, winning 7-6(3) in the third set. Because Escobedo took the racquet out of Frances' hands so often, it was more of how well Ernesto played than how bad Frances played. However, the weight of yet another Challenger Final loss almost certainly weighed heavily on Tiafoe's mind, no matter how well his opponent played.
Finally, in an ATP Challenger event in Granby, Tiafoe had his breakthrough. Putting the disappointment of his loss to Escobedo aside, Tiafoe won the tournament in Granby for his first title on the ATP Challenger Tour. Frances won five matches in a row to win Granby, including a very impressive win in the Round of 16, where he came back from a set down to beat James Ward. Tiafoe was broken serving for the match against Ward at *5-4 in the third set, however, he did not get down on himself and mentally checkout like he might have in the past, and instead, had the mental fortitude to break back immediately, and win 7-5 in the third set.
The set lost against Ward was the only set Tiafoe lost all tournament, meaning that from his first set loss to Ward, Tiafoe won the next eight sets to win the title. That is a very impressive feat and something that Frances should feel especially proud of. The Final was an emphatic win for Tiafoe. Taking on Marcelo Arevalo, Tiafoe lost only two games on the way to a 6-1, 6-1 victory. Frances never let Arevalo in the match, breaking Marcelo's serve in the first game, and never letting the nerves that come from playing in a Final, nor his history in Challenger Finals to drop his high level of play.
It was just so apparent watching the match just how far Tiafoe has come since he first started out on the ATP Challenger Tour last spring. The most amazing improvement in Tiafoe's game has definitely been his backhand. The improvement his ability to not only can he crack backhand winners, but also to play on the defensive on the backhand side has been astonishing. I'm starting to wonder if, one day, Frances' backhand will overtake his forehand as Tiafoe's better groundstroke.
It must have been really hard on Frances Tiafoe to lose so many ATP Challenger Tour Finals. To come so close, so many times, and not win a single Challenger before Granby almost certainly weighed on Tiafoe mentally. However, any mental on Tiafoe has now been lifted.
Frances Tiafoe won his first ATP Challenger Tour title yesterday in Granby. And the title was definitely a long time coming.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Why Juan Martin Del Potro Should Receive a US Open Wildcard
A week ago, another Twitter poster, Baseline Bagels, and I got into a heated debate over whether Juan Martin Del Potro deserves a wildcard to the US Open. Del Potro would need a wildcard to the US Open because his ranking (at 142 in the live rankings currently) is not high enough to give him direct entry into the main draw, and I learned though that he is not using a PR because, I would assume, it has either expired or he has used it all up. I am vehement, however, that not only does Del Potro deserve a wildcard to the US Open, but that the US Open should be extremely enthusiastic about giving him one.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
Monday, July 18, 2016
United States Davis Cup Disappointment: What Went Wrong and What's Next?
The entire situation was sort of surreal. The United States couldn't possibly have blown a 2-0 lead in the best-of-five Davis Cup, could they have? As I sat last night pondering what happened in the United States-Croatia Davis Cup Quarterfinals, I just couldn't wrap my brain around the total collapse that occurred for the United States in this competition. And, when you combine the collapse with the reality of the current state of American male tennis, it makes the loss all the more frustrating.
The Davis Cup campaign for the US men started out promising. After losing in the Round of 16 of the World Group to Great Britain the past two years, in 2016, the team won their Round of 16 tie against Australia, beating the Australians in their home country on the grass in four matches. John Isner beat Sam Groth, the Bryan Brothers won the doubles match in five sets, and the Isner took down Bernard Tomic to win the tie for the Americans. This was a huge win for the United States, as a very winnable next tie against Croatia loomed.
The tie against Crotia started out amazingly well for the United States. After losing the first two sets, Jack Sock proceeded to win the next three to beat Marin Cilic in a dramatic five set victory to give America a 1-0 lead in the tie. Considering how Cilic also lost in five sets to Roger Federer in his previous match at Wimbledon (also leading two sets to none), this was a greatly damaging loss to his psyche. John Isner then took the second rubber of the tie over Borna Coric in three fairly straight-forward sets to give the United States a commanding lead.
In my mind, and I imagine in the minds of many American tennis fans and even the players, it was a matter of "when" rather than "if" in regards to when the United States would finish off this tie, with the Bryan Brothers having a great shot to win the doubles rubber and make sure there would not be a live rubber on Sunday. This is when things went awry.
Bob and Mike Bryan took on Ivan Dodig and Marin Cilic in the doubles rubber. The Bryans, obviously, are doubles legends. They have won 16 doubles majors, and an Olympic goal together, while also winning 11 mixed doubles majors split between the two (Bob with seven mixed titles and Mike with four). It is a great luxury for the United States to be able to put such an amazing doubles team out there every time Davis Cup rolls around, and it is almost to be expected that America will take the doubles rubber.
It must be said that Ivan Dodig was a player not to be underestimated. He has been as high as number four in the world in doubles, and won the 2015 French Open with Marcelo Melo. However, Dodig's doubles partner in this match, Marin Cilic, scarcely plays doubles, as shown by his doubles ranking of number 256 in the world. Therefore, presumably, he would be the major weakness on the court. However, that did not turn out to be the case.
Instead, it was Mike Bryan who was the weak spot out there, causing major issue for the American squad. With a serve that was broken often, and which I could not say was even at the level of serve you'd see on the ATP Challenger Tour, while doing enough with the rest of his game to make up for his serving deficiencies, it was a disastrous day for Mike. It was very upsetting watching the match, as the Bryan Brothers as a tandem have clearly lost a step out there, which an experienced doubles player like Dodig was quick to exploit. And while Cilic played well, the Bryans just couldn't seem to put him in tough positions at the net, which might have also allowed his recent best-of-five issues to enter the front of his mind. But, In the end, Dodig/Cilic won the match in four sets, and the tie would go on to Sunday.
I must say, my expectations for John Isner beating a rejuvenated Marin Cilic were not high. I thought John had a chance, and certainly felt like he would take a set, but Cilic is a singles major champion and certainly not someone to be underestimated. John, however, put in a slightly disheartening performance, losing in straights sets, and only even being able to reach a tiebreak in the first set. In that first set John had a set point on Cilic's serve in the tiebreak, but couldn't convert, as Cilic managed to win the point after initially being on the defensive. In the second and third sets, Isner's huge serve was broken. Isner also never managed to break Cilic's big serve, losing out on his first, and only break chance. The tie was all-square, two apiece.
It seemed, to me, as if Isner felt he had done his job when he beat Coric on Friday, and never truly believed that he had what it took to beat Cilic. And this same lack of belief is what makes it disappointing that John pulled out of the Olympics and an ATP 250 event in Atlanta instead. It seems as if John's thinking is, "I don't think I can beat those top guys, so why try?" And I believe it is this type of mindset which has hindered John throughout his career, and was in full display yesterday, once more, against Marin.
The fifth rubber was between Jack Sock and Borna Coric. Sock came into the match with all of the momentum with his huge comeback victory over Cilic. That was the type of match which changes a career, as Sock not only beat a major champion in the best-of-five format, but did so when the odds were certainly against him. I expected him to come into this match oozing with confidence. And against Coric, a solid player, but not a guy with big weapons, I thought that Jack would be able to dictate play and pull out the victory. However, from the very start, Sock looked very low-energy out there, as if he were physically done from the match against Cilic.
All Coric really had to do was play good defense, get balls back in play, and wait for Sock to implode. The forehand that Jack is known for did not have the same bite as we are accustomed to seeing. And, I believe, it all stems back to Jack's fitness. I have been very critical of Sock in the past for not being fit enough to compete at the highest level on tour. His performances in Atlanta last year and in the Houston Final this year were a real indicator that Jack needs to be working harder on his fitness. Yesterday was yet another example of how he needs to be in better shape. Now, it seems like adrenaline during the Cilic match is what got him through that match, and when that adrenaline was gone, Sock could not handle the physical demands of another best-of-five match, especially against a defensive-minded Coric. Borna won the match in four sets, winning tie for Croatia 3-2. Croatia moved on to the Davis Cup Semifinals.
So, what can be done to make sure that a disappointing tie like this never happens again? I think that the United States should adjust who is playing on the team. I will start off by saying that I think that the Bryans should get to continue to play the doubles rubber until they retire. They have earned the right to have this opportunity, and there is no other American doubles player that is good enough to even approach the current level of Mike and Bob Bryan.
However, I would put different players in for John Isner and Jack Sock. I think American tennis should start looking to the future. Players such as Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Stefan Kozlov, and Tommy Paul should be given an early start playing for the United States Davis Cup team. Yes, these guys might not be winning matches immediately, but they are the building blocks for American tennis, and while the United States might not win the Davis Cup this year, if you allow young players such as Fritz, Tiafoe, Kozlov, and Paul to get Davis Cup experience early in their careers, then this will be beneficial for years down the road, and maybe in five years the United States can win Davis Cup once more.
Putting some of these young players out there might not be a popular choice, initially. I understand that, but with the game that these young Americans have shown, I think they could surprise some folks, possibly even winning a round or two next year, if a combination of these four players, based on the surface played on, were the singles players for the United States Davis Cup team next season.
But, even if you don't like my idea for how to change up the United States Davis Cup team, based on the disappointment this past weekend, it is quite clear that a change of some sort, either with in regards to who is in the lineup or who is our captain, must occur.
The Davis Cup campaign for the US men started out promising. After losing in the Round of 16 of the World Group to Great Britain the past two years, in 2016, the team won their Round of 16 tie against Australia, beating the Australians in their home country on the grass in four matches. John Isner beat Sam Groth, the Bryan Brothers won the doubles match in five sets, and the Isner took down Bernard Tomic to win the tie for the Americans. This was a huge win for the United States, as a very winnable next tie against Croatia loomed.
The tie against Crotia started out amazingly well for the United States. After losing the first two sets, Jack Sock proceeded to win the next three to beat Marin Cilic in a dramatic five set victory to give America a 1-0 lead in the tie. Considering how Cilic also lost in five sets to Roger Federer in his previous match at Wimbledon (also leading two sets to none), this was a greatly damaging loss to his psyche. John Isner then took the second rubber of the tie over Borna Coric in three fairly straight-forward sets to give the United States a commanding lead.
In my mind, and I imagine in the minds of many American tennis fans and even the players, it was a matter of "when" rather than "if" in regards to when the United States would finish off this tie, with the Bryan Brothers having a great shot to win the doubles rubber and make sure there would not be a live rubber on Sunday. This is when things went awry.
Bob and Mike Bryan took on Ivan Dodig and Marin Cilic in the doubles rubber. The Bryans, obviously, are doubles legends. They have won 16 doubles majors, and an Olympic goal together, while also winning 11 mixed doubles majors split between the two (Bob with seven mixed titles and Mike with four). It is a great luxury for the United States to be able to put such an amazing doubles team out there every time Davis Cup rolls around, and it is almost to be expected that America will take the doubles rubber.
It must be said that Ivan Dodig was a player not to be underestimated. He has been as high as number four in the world in doubles, and won the 2015 French Open with Marcelo Melo. However, Dodig's doubles partner in this match, Marin Cilic, scarcely plays doubles, as shown by his doubles ranking of number 256 in the world. Therefore, presumably, he would be the major weakness on the court. However, that did not turn out to be the case.
Instead, it was Mike Bryan who was the weak spot out there, causing major issue for the American squad. With a serve that was broken often, and which I could not say was even at the level of serve you'd see on the ATP Challenger Tour, while doing enough with the rest of his game to make up for his serving deficiencies, it was a disastrous day for Mike. It was very upsetting watching the match, as the Bryan Brothers as a tandem have clearly lost a step out there, which an experienced doubles player like Dodig was quick to exploit. And while Cilic played well, the Bryans just couldn't seem to put him in tough positions at the net, which might have also allowed his recent best-of-five issues to enter the front of his mind. But, In the end, Dodig/Cilic won the match in four sets, and the tie would go on to Sunday.
I must say, my expectations for John Isner beating a rejuvenated Marin Cilic were not high. I thought John had a chance, and certainly felt like he would take a set, but Cilic is a singles major champion and certainly not someone to be underestimated. John, however, put in a slightly disheartening performance, losing in straights sets, and only even being able to reach a tiebreak in the first set. In that first set John had a set point on Cilic's serve in the tiebreak, but couldn't convert, as Cilic managed to win the point after initially being on the defensive. In the second and third sets, Isner's huge serve was broken. Isner also never managed to break Cilic's big serve, losing out on his first, and only break chance. The tie was all-square, two apiece.
It seemed, to me, as if Isner felt he had done his job when he beat Coric on Friday, and never truly believed that he had what it took to beat Cilic. And this same lack of belief is what makes it disappointing that John pulled out of the Olympics and an ATP 250 event in Atlanta instead. It seems as if John's thinking is, "I don't think I can beat those top guys, so why try?" And I believe it is this type of mindset which has hindered John throughout his career, and was in full display yesterday, once more, against Marin.
The fifth rubber was between Jack Sock and Borna Coric. Sock came into the match with all of the momentum with his huge comeback victory over Cilic. That was the type of match which changes a career, as Sock not only beat a major champion in the best-of-five format, but did so when the odds were certainly against him. I expected him to come into this match oozing with confidence. And against Coric, a solid player, but not a guy with big weapons, I thought that Jack would be able to dictate play and pull out the victory. However, from the very start, Sock looked very low-energy out there, as if he were physically done from the match against Cilic.
All Coric really had to do was play good defense, get balls back in play, and wait for Sock to implode. The forehand that Jack is known for did not have the same bite as we are accustomed to seeing. And, I believe, it all stems back to Jack's fitness. I have been very critical of Sock in the past for not being fit enough to compete at the highest level on tour. His performances in Atlanta last year and in the Houston Final this year were a real indicator that Jack needs to be working harder on his fitness. Yesterday was yet another example of how he needs to be in better shape. Now, it seems like adrenaline during the Cilic match is what got him through that match, and when that adrenaline was gone, Sock could not handle the physical demands of another best-of-five match, especially against a defensive-minded Coric. Borna won the match in four sets, winning tie for Croatia 3-2. Croatia moved on to the Davis Cup Semifinals.
So, what can be done to make sure that a disappointing tie like this never happens again? I think that the United States should adjust who is playing on the team. I will start off by saying that I think that the Bryans should get to continue to play the doubles rubber until they retire. They have earned the right to have this opportunity, and there is no other American doubles player that is good enough to even approach the current level of Mike and Bob Bryan.
However, I would put different players in for John Isner and Jack Sock. I think American tennis should start looking to the future. Players such as Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Stefan Kozlov, and Tommy Paul should be given an early start playing for the United States Davis Cup team. Yes, these guys might not be winning matches immediately, but they are the building blocks for American tennis, and while the United States might not win the Davis Cup this year, if you allow young players such as Fritz, Tiafoe, Kozlov, and Paul to get Davis Cup experience early in their careers, then this will be beneficial for years down the road, and maybe in five years the United States can win Davis Cup once more.
Putting some of these young players out there might not be a popular choice, initially. I understand that, but with the game that these young Americans have shown, I think they could surprise some folks, possibly even winning a round or two next year, if a combination of these four players, based on the surface played on, were the singles players for the United States Davis Cup team next season.
But, even if you don't like my idea for how to change up the United States Davis Cup team, based on the disappointment this past weekend, it is quite clear that a change of some sort, either with in regards to who is in the lineup or who is our captain, must occur.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Wimbledon Officials Handles Berdych-Vesely Match Very Poorly
When the dust settled on the fantastic match between former finalist Tomas Berdych and Jiri Vesely, Berdych had won 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(8), (9)6-7, 6-3. The match, remarkably, lasted around four hours, consisted of five sets, and was played over two days. The match was truly remarkable, and honestly, who doesn't love a long five-set battle with two players playing their hearts out during the second week of a major? But, the circumstances surrounding the match are where the problems lie.
By the tiebreak in the fourth set, tensions were high. Berdych had lead 5-2* in the fourth, had three match points at *5-6, and was soon down in the tiebreak 6-1*. Berdych actually came all of the way back from that 6-1* deficit, missing two more match points in the tiebreak. Vesely eventually went on to win the tiebreak 11-9, and the fifth set of the match pushed till today.
And while the fifth set only lasted 37 minutes, Berdych winning it 6-3, the combination of the physical strain from a match lasting around four hours, and the mental strain of having to sleep on the match overnight (after having multiple match points last night) created a tricky situation for both players, and will continue to have an effect on Berdych for his quarterfinal match tomorrow against Lucas Pouille.
There was arguably not even enough sunlight to finish the tiebreak last night. As ESPN showed last night, sunset in London yesterday was at 9:19 PM, and the clock struck this time during the tiebreak last night. As soon as 9:19 PM hits, play absolutely should have stopped on all outer courts. Playing the match in darkness leads the match to have a "roulette feel". Due to the fact that sight is obviously an important sense to have on the tennis court, if lack of light is hindering one's sight, as what happens when the sun sets, and was almost certainly evidenced by Berdych's mood during the tiebreak (in addition to his frustrations because of his blown chances), then the match should obviously be stopped, not matter the point in the match where sunset occurs.
So, not stopping play upon sunset was one problem that Berdych-Vesely displayed yesterday. However, another issue was at hand. Playing best-of-five tennis is a grueling endeavor for a tennis player. Players has to compete at a very high level for quite a long time, while staving off any physical ailments that could occur over the course of the match.
Keeping this in mind, it is extremely unfair of Wimbledon to force Berdych (or Vesely had he won) to play four straight days in order to reach the Semifinals. Berdych and Vesely playedThird Round matches against Alexander Zverev and Joao Sousa, respectively, on the Middle Sunday, where there is typically no play (a ridiculous rule, honestly) because of issues with rain. The two then had to battle each other yesterday for over three hours, and today for over half an hour. While playing so little today might not seem like a big deal, but the cumulative effects of playing so much tennis, and for the winner, Berdych, having to play again tomorrow is a huge ask.
So, what could Wimbledon have done to alleviate the hardship they put on the victor? The answer is quite simple. As at least one commentator on ESPN heard based on Berdych's reaction to stopping yesterday, moving the match to Centre Court to finish under the roof, and the lights, was certainly a good option to make sure that the winner would get a full day of rest.
Considering that in-progress matches have been moved to Centre Court before to finish under the lights, such as Simon-Monfils last year and Bouchard-Rybarikova this year, it wouldn't be such a crazy idea to allow the fifth set of Berdych-Vesely to played under the roof at Centre Court. When one considers competitive balance, such as the fact that Pouille, and everyone else that was left in the entire main draw, had finished their matches already and would be receiving an off-day today, then it certainly seems like the wrong decision to force Berdych and Vesely to come out and finish their match today.
If this was the French Open, where there are (unfortunately) no lights, then of course make the players come back the next day to finish the match. However, when there are resources available that would prevent one playing from gaining a competitive advantage over another, then it is deplorable if you don't use them.
Ultimately, I am left having to say that the officials of the most prestigious tournament on the planet handled the Berdych-Vesely match poorly. And now, while the tennis world turns their attention to the men's Quarterfinals, former finalist Tomas Berdych will have to pay the price, not only for not closing out the match sooner, but because the Wimbledon officials, totally out of his control, made a poor decision.
By the tiebreak in the fourth set, tensions were high. Berdych had lead 5-2* in the fourth, had three match points at *5-6, and was soon down in the tiebreak 6-1*. Berdych actually came all of the way back from that 6-1* deficit, missing two more match points in the tiebreak. Vesely eventually went on to win the tiebreak 11-9, and the fifth set of the match pushed till today.
And while the fifth set only lasted 37 minutes, Berdych winning it 6-3, the combination of the physical strain from a match lasting around four hours, and the mental strain of having to sleep on the match overnight (after having multiple match points last night) created a tricky situation for both players, and will continue to have an effect on Berdych for his quarterfinal match tomorrow against Lucas Pouille.
There was arguably not even enough sunlight to finish the tiebreak last night. As ESPN showed last night, sunset in London yesterday was at 9:19 PM, and the clock struck this time during the tiebreak last night. As soon as 9:19 PM hits, play absolutely should have stopped on all outer courts. Playing the match in darkness leads the match to have a "roulette feel". Due to the fact that sight is obviously an important sense to have on the tennis court, if lack of light is hindering one's sight, as what happens when the sun sets, and was almost certainly evidenced by Berdych's mood during the tiebreak (in addition to his frustrations because of his blown chances), then the match should obviously be stopped, not matter the point in the match where sunset occurs.
So, not stopping play upon sunset was one problem that Berdych-Vesely displayed yesterday. However, another issue was at hand. Playing best-of-five tennis is a grueling endeavor for a tennis player. Players has to compete at a very high level for quite a long time, while staving off any physical ailments that could occur over the course of the match.
Keeping this in mind, it is extremely unfair of Wimbledon to force Berdych (or Vesely had he won) to play four straight days in order to reach the Semifinals. Berdych and Vesely playedThird Round matches against Alexander Zverev and Joao Sousa, respectively, on the Middle Sunday, where there is typically no play (a ridiculous rule, honestly) because of issues with rain. The two then had to battle each other yesterday for over three hours, and today for over half an hour. While playing so little today might not seem like a big deal, but the cumulative effects of playing so much tennis, and for the winner, Berdych, having to play again tomorrow is a huge ask.
So, what could Wimbledon have done to alleviate the hardship they put on the victor? The answer is quite simple. As at least one commentator on ESPN heard based on Berdych's reaction to stopping yesterday, moving the match to Centre Court to finish under the roof, and the lights, was certainly a good option to make sure that the winner would get a full day of rest.
Considering that in-progress matches have been moved to Centre Court before to finish under the lights, such as Simon-Monfils last year and Bouchard-Rybarikova this year, it wouldn't be such a crazy idea to allow the fifth set of Berdych-Vesely to played under the roof at Centre Court. When one considers competitive balance, such as the fact that Pouille, and everyone else that was left in the entire main draw, had finished their matches already and would be receiving an off-day today, then it certainly seems like the wrong decision to force Berdych and Vesely to come out and finish their match today.
If this was the French Open, where there are (unfortunately) no lights, then of course make the players come back the next day to finish the match. However, when there are resources available that would prevent one playing from gaining a competitive advantage over another, then it is deplorable if you don't use them.
Ultimately, I am left having to say that the officials of the most prestigious tournament on the planet handled the Berdych-Vesely match poorly. And now, while the tennis world turns their attention to the men's Quarterfinals, former finalist Tomas Berdych will have to pay the price, not only for not closing out the match sooner, but because the Wimbledon officials, totally out of his control, made a poor decision.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Three Bold Predictions and Draw Projections for Wimbledon Women
On Friday, the Wimbledon men and women's draw came out, allowing every tennis pundit the opportunity to make predictions and projections that will look laughable in two weeks. But, part of the fun of the draw is making these prognostications, being that pundit who "called" the big upset. I will do my best to make my readers proud, with a goal of one bold prediction coming through. So, what do I expect to happen for the women in London?
Three Bold Predictions
- Camila Giorgi will make the Quarterfinals. Yes, this does sound crazy given Giorgi's form, or lack thereof. Giorgi had to pull out of the Ricoh Open in the Netherlands, a title she was defending, and lost her opening matches in both Birmingham and Eastbourne. She is under a lot of pressure to pick up a decent haul of points at Wimbledon due to the rankings drop that came with losing those Rosmalen points. And, given Giorgi disastrous Third Round against Wozniacki last year, is she Giorgi not good enough for the biggest stages of tennis?
Giorgi's draw initially seems as if it wouldn't help her cause but I see reason for hope. Her opening round against Muguruza will be a huge moment for Garbine, as well. This will be only the second match for Muguruza following her win at Roland Garros, and her first major. Not only that, but as the defending Finalist, she has a ton of points to defend, in addition to the new pressures on her shoulders. It's also important to note that Camila leads the H2H 2-1. I believe Giorgi's powerful game with overwhelm a stunned Muguruza and that she will advance. Although she had a good run in Mallorca, Mariana Duque-Marino is a clay courter and should not present problems for Camila in the Second Round (based upon my projections). In the Third Round I have Giorgi playing Lucie Safarova, and although she has had success here in the past, Safarova's poor recent form suggests that Giorgi could send Lucie packing, as well. In the Round of 16, I believe Camila will take on equally-as-erratic Sabine Lisicki, a former Wimbledon Finalist. I think a confident Giorgi goes toe-to-toe with Lisicki in a wild match, winning it in three sets. Then, in the Quarterfinals, Giorgi will lose to Venus Williams.
- Tsetvana Pironkova will make the Semifinals. Normally, drawing the seven seed is a recipe for a First Round exit, but given Bencic's recent absence on tour, the confidence Pironkova got from her run in Paris, and her history at Wimbledon, and all of a sudden, it seems as if the fortnight will be good to Tsetvana. As I mentioned earlier, Bencic has just returned from injury, and I watched much of her run to the Ricoh Open semis, and was not impressed by her game. It seems as if Belinda has lost some of the punch on her groundstrokes. From there, I think Pironkova easily dismisses Andrea Petkovic, who's counterpuncher style is not the best for grass.
From there, I foresee Pironkova taking on Petra Kvitova, two-time Champion, and Agnieszka Radwanska, former Wimbledon Finalist. In regards to the Kvitova match, last year's loss to Jankovic, when Petra looked to be in red-hot form showed me that Kvitova on any given day can just play disastrously. I also think that Kvitova has lost a lot of the confidence she gained from that 2014 title, and has gone off the rails a bit lately. Pironkova will win that match in what, like for Lisicki-Giorgi, should be a wild affair. Radwanska has not impressed me with her grass court play this season. She looked lethargic in her loss to Coco Vandeweghe in Birmingham, and collapsed from a set-and-a-break up against Dominka Cibulkova in Eastbourne. Radwanska seems to have even loss some of the touch that she is famous for. Pironkova will surprise again and win that match to reach the Semifinals, before ultimately losing to Serena Williams.
- The Final will be contested between the Williams sisters. Yes, we will get another Final between Venus and Serena Williams. For Serena to get to number 22, she will have to go through her sister, who will be desperate for another major to help cap off a brilliant career. The drama, the storylines, and the high level of play will help make this an extraordinary Wimbledon Final. The two have played 27 times, with the head-to-head very tight, Serena leading 16-11. And while Serena won easily at Wimbledon last year, the two played a very tight match the US Open last year, Serena taking it in three sets.
As a tennis fan, this is the type of match you want to see. And I believe we will see it on one of the biggest stages of tennis, two weeks from today. A five-time Wimbledon champion, with seven majors, battling a six-time Wimbledon champion, with 21 majors. So yes, I predict this match will be the Final, and it will surely be a treat to watch.
Draw Projections
- Quarterfinals:
Serena Williams defeats Coco Vendeweghe in two sets
Tsetvana Pironkova defeats Agnieszka Radwanska in three sets
Angelique Kerber defeats Madison Keys in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Camila Giorgi in two sets
- Semifinals
Serena Williams defeats Tsetvana Pironkova in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Angelique Kerber in three sets
- Final
Serena Williams defeats Venus Williams in three sets.
Three Bold Predictions
- Camila Giorgi will make the Quarterfinals. Yes, this does sound crazy given Giorgi's form, or lack thereof. Giorgi had to pull out of the Ricoh Open in the Netherlands, a title she was defending, and lost her opening matches in both Birmingham and Eastbourne. She is under a lot of pressure to pick up a decent haul of points at Wimbledon due to the rankings drop that came with losing those Rosmalen points. And, given Giorgi disastrous Third Round against Wozniacki last year, is she Giorgi not good enough for the biggest stages of tennis?
Giorgi's draw initially seems as if it wouldn't help her cause but I see reason for hope. Her opening round against Muguruza will be a huge moment for Garbine, as well. This will be only the second match for Muguruza following her win at Roland Garros, and her first major. Not only that, but as the defending Finalist, she has a ton of points to defend, in addition to the new pressures on her shoulders. It's also important to note that Camila leads the H2H 2-1. I believe Giorgi's powerful game with overwhelm a stunned Muguruza and that she will advance. Although she had a good run in Mallorca, Mariana Duque-Marino is a clay courter and should not present problems for Camila in the Second Round (based upon my projections). In the Third Round I have Giorgi playing Lucie Safarova, and although she has had success here in the past, Safarova's poor recent form suggests that Giorgi could send Lucie packing, as well. In the Round of 16, I believe Camila will take on equally-as-erratic Sabine Lisicki, a former Wimbledon Finalist. I think a confident Giorgi goes toe-to-toe with Lisicki in a wild match, winning it in three sets. Then, in the Quarterfinals, Giorgi will lose to Venus Williams.
- Tsetvana Pironkova will make the Semifinals. Normally, drawing the seven seed is a recipe for a First Round exit, but given Bencic's recent absence on tour, the confidence Pironkova got from her run in Paris, and her history at Wimbledon, and all of a sudden, it seems as if the fortnight will be good to Tsetvana. As I mentioned earlier, Bencic has just returned from injury, and I watched much of her run to the Ricoh Open semis, and was not impressed by her game. It seems as if Belinda has lost some of the punch on her groundstrokes. From there, I think Pironkova easily dismisses Andrea Petkovic, who's counterpuncher style is not the best for grass.
From there, I foresee Pironkova taking on Petra Kvitova, two-time Champion, and Agnieszka Radwanska, former Wimbledon Finalist. In regards to the Kvitova match, last year's loss to Jankovic, when Petra looked to be in red-hot form showed me that Kvitova on any given day can just play disastrously. I also think that Kvitova has lost a lot of the confidence she gained from that 2014 title, and has gone off the rails a bit lately. Pironkova will win that match in what, like for Lisicki-Giorgi, should be a wild affair. Radwanska has not impressed me with her grass court play this season. She looked lethargic in her loss to Coco Vandeweghe in Birmingham, and collapsed from a set-and-a-break up against Dominka Cibulkova in Eastbourne. Radwanska seems to have even loss some of the touch that she is famous for. Pironkova will surprise again and win that match to reach the Semifinals, before ultimately losing to Serena Williams.
- The Final will be contested between the Williams sisters. Yes, we will get another Final between Venus and Serena Williams. For Serena to get to number 22, she will have to go through her sister, who will be desperate for another major to help cap off a brilliant career. The drama, the storylines, and the high level of play will help make this an extraordinary Wimbledon Final. The two have played 27 times, with the head-to-head very tight, Serena leading 16-11. And while Serena won easily at Wimbledon last year, the two played a very tight match the US Open last year, Serena taking it in three sets.
As a tennis fan, this is the type of match you want to see. And I believe we will see it on one of the biggest stages of tennis, two weeks from today. A five-time Wimbledon champion, with seven majors, battling a six-time Wimbledon champion, with 21 majors. So yes, I predict this match will be the Final, and it will surely be a treat to watch.
Draw Projections
- Quarterfinals:
Serena Williams defeats Coco Vendeweghe in two sets
Tsetvana Pironkova defeats Agnieszka Radwanska in three sets
Angelique Kerber defeats Madison Keys in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Camila Giorgi in two sets
- Semifinals
Serena Williams defeats Tsetvana Pironkova in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Angelique Kerber in three sets
- Final
Serena Williams defeats Venus Williams in three sets.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Kudos to Cici Bellis
Last year, following Roland Garros, I wrote an article very critical of Cici Bellis' decision to play in the junior French Open tournament. You can go back and read the article for yourself, and the accompanying comment section featuring an argument I got into with Bellis' mother, but I really felt as though Bellis was hurting her career, and damaging the sport, by occasionally continuing to play in junior tournaments. Well, I am happy to be able to now write a post praising Cici for great results and scheduling in the right manner.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Looking at Grand Slam "Home" Wildcard Data
So, a little while back I compiled some data on how the "home" wildcard did at the four majors. By "home wildcard", I mean a wildcard entry who is from the same country that the tournament is hosted in. So, I went back and looked at how these main draw wildcards performed in the tournament they were given a wildcard into. I will be removing "home" wildcards who played each other in the First Round from the data, but will be using "home" wildcards who played a different wildcard not from the host country. And while this article may seem a bit repetitive given how much attention I have given wildcards on this blog, especially recently, I hope that this post is very informative.
For the sake of this post, let's give each round a point value. So, for instance, if a wildcard lost in the First Round, their result would be given a value of "one", while if a wildcard lost in the Final, they would be given a point value of "seven". Because I want to be complete in my specifications, despite it not occurring in the data, if a "home" wildcard wins the tournament they would be given a score of "eight". Therefore, you could look at a player's "score" as what round they lost in, correlated to a numerical value.
There are many different ways to group the data, which runs from the 2013 Australian Open through the 2016 French Open, but let's start with grouping the "home" wildcards by major. Let's look at the Australian Open first. There were 36 "home" (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores ranged from a home wildcard losing in the First Round (and, thus, receiving a score of one) to those losing in the Second Round (and, therefore, receiving two "points"). The Australian Open has a mean score (rounded to two decimal places) of 1.17. Meaning that the vast majority of home wildcards lose in the First Round at the Australian Open. With the range being so small, this is not surprising from a data standpoint, but given the larger ramifications of what this means, given that 1.17 is a shockingly low number, it seems as if the local players given these wildcards were, for the most part, not ready for the big scene.
Now, let's take a look at the data for the French Open. There were 46 home (eligible) wildcards given at the French Open during the timespan previously mentioned, which is much higher than the number given out at the Australian Open. The range of scores went as low as one and as high as four. The French Open had a mean score of 1.39. While this is still a shockingly low score, it is a tiny bit higher than the Australian Open, which shows, perhaps, that better home players were given wildcards at Roland Garros. However, one could also make the case that a larger sample size led to a larger chance of a home wildcard making a run, and also that, had the Australian Open given 50 home wildcards away, that their score could have been even lower since, perhaps, France is more of a tennis "hotbed" than Australia.
Wimbledon (data only 2013-2015) gave out 22 home wildcards. This number is significantly less than the two previously mentioned majors because, at the time of the writing of this article, the 2016 wildcards haven't been given out yet and because Wimbledon just seems to give out less home wildcards than the other majors anyways. Wimbledon had a range of scores from one to three. The mean score for Wimbledon is 1.18, just barely above the Australian Open's mean score, but below the French Open's mean point total. Although I have not collected all wildcard data, I am speculating (the latter due to conjecture from Men's Tennis Forums) that this low score, and low number of home wildcards given, could be due to a combination of a lack of professional-level talent in Great Britain and the LTA just deciding to award wildcards to more worthy foreigners who have done well that season on grass.
Finally, in terms of this specific analysis, let's take a look at the data for the US Open. The US Open (2013-2015) has given out 37 home wildcards, significantly more than Wimbledon gave out in the same time frame. This is even more than the Australian Open has given, but with a year less of data! The number of wildcards, in a four year increment, would be 49.33, slightly greater than the number of wildcards (both eligible and non-eligible for analysis) at the French Open (48). The US Open's range of scores went from as low as one to as high as four. The mean point total for the US Open is 1.43, the highest of any major. And while this shows that, roughly, home wildcards do generally still fall in the First Round, it shows home wildcards at the US Open, in the sample size collected (although smaller than the French Open and Australian Open) does do a better job with picking out home wildcards that can go further in the draw. And while this could be due to the deep talent pool that the USTA has to work with, this definitely gives me a little bit more confidence in the wildcard selection process at the US Open.
The other angle I want to take when exploring this data is what the difference in scores for female home wildcards as opposed to male home wildcards. I will start with female home wildcards. In total, from the 2013 Australian Open to the 2016 French Open, 73 home (eligible) female wildcards were given. The scores of these wildcards ranged from one to four. The mean score for female home wildcards is 1.29. This number, once more, shows us that the vast majority of female home wildcards are losing in the First Round. Now, let's see if the same can be said for the men.
In total, there are 68 male home (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores varied from as low as one to as high as three. The mean score for male home wildcards is 1.32. This means that, while the majority of male home wildcards did lose in the First Round, perhaps the grand slams were slightly better at choosing male home wildcards, as opposed to female ones. However, it would take many more majors' worth of data before we could really make any definitive conclusions or takeaways in regards to the relationship between female vs. male data.
So, with all of this said, we cannot really takeaway much from the data, as it was mainly constructed for my readers' enjoyment and intrigue. However, if we are to say that this is a representative sample, which I think it is, we can say that all majors, whether selecting male or female wildcards, are not selecting players who are making deep runs in these majors, unfortunately. Why this is, exactly, is not known, but the data does paint an interesting picture regarding home wildcards at majors.
Obviously more research is needed, and with no margin of error analysis, there is not much I can say with certainty regarding the data, so take all of this analysis with a grain of salt. However, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard the data either. Because, really, with as low as the numbers are, maybe less home wildcards should be given out.
For the sake of this post, let's give each round a point value. So, for instance, if a wildcard lost in the First Round, their result would be given a value of "one", while if a wildcard lost in the Final, they would be given a point value of "seven". Because I want to be complete in my specifications, despite it not occurring in the data, if a "home" wildcard wins the tournament they would be given a score of "eight". Therefore, you could look at a player's "score" as what round they lost in, correlated to a numerical value.
There are many different ways to group the data, which runs from the 2013 Australian Open through the 2016 French Open, but let's start with grouping the "home" wildcards by major. Let's look at the Australian Open first. There were 36 "home" (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores ranged from a home wildcard losing in the First Round (and, thus, receiving a score of one) to those losing in the Second Round (and, therefore, receiving two "points"). The Australian Open has a mean score (rounded to two decimal places) of 1.17. Meaning that the vast majority of home wildcards lose in the First Round at the Australian Open. With the range being so small, this is not surprising from a data standpoint, but given the larger ramifications of what this means, given that 1.17 is a shockingly low number, it seems as if the local players given these wildcards were, for the most part, not ready for the big scene.
Now, let's take a look at the data for the French Open. There were 46 home (eligible) wildcards given at the French Open during the timespan previously mentioned, which is much higher than the number given out at the Australian Open. The range of scores went as low as one and as high as four. The French Open had a mean score of 1.39. While this is still a shockingly low score, it is a tiny bit higher than the Australian Open, which shows, perhaps, that better home players were given wildcards at Roland Garros. However, one could also make the case that a larger sample size led to a larger chance of a home wildcard making a run, and also that, had the Australian Open given 50 home wildcards away, that their score could have been even lower since, perhaps, France is more of a tennis "hotbed" than Australia.
Wimbledon (data only 2013-2015) gave out 22 home wildcards. This number is significantly less than the two previously mentioned majors because, at the time of the writing of this article, the 2016 wildcards haven't been given out yet and because Wimbledon just seems to give out less home wildcards than the other majors anyways. Wimbledon had a range of scores from one to three. The mean score for Wimbledon is 1.18, just barely above the Australian Open's mean score, but below the French Open's mean point total. Although I have not collected all wildcard data, I am speculating (the latter due to conjecture from Men's Tennis Forums) that this low score, and low number of home wildcards given, could be due to a combination of a lack of professional-level talent in Great Britain and the LTA just deciding to award wildcards to more worthy foreigners who have done well that season on grass.
Finally, in terms of this specific analysis, let's take a look at the data for the US Open. The US Open (2013-2015) has given out 37 home wildcards, significantly more than Wimbledon gave out in the same time frame. This is even more than the Australian Open has given, but with a year less of data! The number of wildcards, in a four year increment, would be 49.33, slightly greater than the number of wildcards (both eligible and non-eligible for analysis) at the French Open (48). The US Open's range of scores went from as low as one to as high as four. The mean point total for the US Open is 1.43, the highest of any major. And while this shows that, roughly, home wildcards do generally still fall in the First Round, it shows home wildcards at the US Open, in the sample size collected (although smaller than the French Open and Australian Open) does do a better job with picking out home wildcards that can go further in the draw. And while this could be due to the deep talent pool that the USTA has to work with, this definitely gives me a little bit more confidence in the wildcard selection process at the US Open.
The other angle I want to take when exploring this data is what the difference in scores for female home wildcards as opposed to male home wildcards. I will start with female home wildcards. In total, from the 2013 Australian Open to the 2016 French Open, 73 home (eligible) female wildcards were given. The scores of these wildcards ranged from one to four. The mean score for female home wildcards is 1.29. This number, once more, shows us that the vast majority of female home wildcards are losing in the First Round. Now, let's see if the same can be said for the men.
In total, there are 68 male home (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores varied from as low as one to as high as three. The mean score for male home wildcards is 1.32. This means that, while the majority of male home wildcards did lose in the First Round, perhaps the grand slams were slightly better at choosing male home wildcards, as opposed to female ones. However, it would take many more majors' worth of data before we could really make any definitive conclusions or takeaways in regards to the relationship between female vs. male data.
So, with all of this said, we cannot really takeaway much from the data, as it was mainly constructed for my readers' enjoyment and intrigue. However, if we are to say that this is a representative sample, which I think it is, we can say that all majors, whether selecting male or female wildcards, are not selecting players who are making deep runs in these majors, unfortunately. Why this is, exactly, is not known, but the data does paint an interesting picture regarding home wildcards at majors.
Obviously more research is needed, and with no margin of error analysis, there is not much I can say with certainty regarding the data, so take all of this analysis with a grain of salt. However, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard the data either. Because, really, with as low as the numbers are, maybe less home wildcards should be given out.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Why Laura Robson Does Not Deserve a Wimbledon Wildcard
If you've followed this blog or my Twitter account (AllAboutTennisBlog, @TennisBlogger1) you would know that a lot of my tweets are about wildcards and the faults in the wildcard process. I still believe that wildcards in some form can exist in tennis, but the way and extent to which they are given out is truly sickening, with major reform needed. With that said, however, I will give Wimbledon credit for truly being the best major for not handing out the "walking bye" home" wildcard.
I have compiled a bunch of data regarding hometown wildcards either for a future article or just for general use, but in the past three years combined, Wimbledon has only given out 11 total wildcards to British female players. This, when compared to a slam like the French Open, which has given 19 "home" wildcards out, and you can see that Wimbledon doesn't just hand wildcards to any random player with a British flag next to their name. And, while Wimbledon British wildcard recipients have been very unsuccessful over the past three years, with only one match win since 2013, with a significantly less number of "home" wildcards, it seems reasonable to expect a significantly lower number of wins, as well.
This brings me to Laura Robson and the issue of the Wimbledon wildcard. I saw on Twitter the other day that Chris Goldsmith was tweeting out (and continues to tweet) some nonsense about how Robson deserves a wildcard based on random, anecdotal evidence such as a 4R Wimbledon results from three years ago and how she has beat a group of top players in the past. Goldsmith, however, completely ignores the obvious and instead cherry picks what he wants to form a weak argument. Therefore, I have taken to the blog to explain why Laura Robson absolutely does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Let's start off with Robson's results this year, specifically. On the year, in events bigger than $25,000's (which Robson is only 2-3 in), Laura has compiled a 2-10 record, meaning her winning percentage on the year is .17. If we look at her record in the main draws of events larger than 25k's, Robson is 1-8 for a horrific winning percentage of .11. Yes, the player that Goldsmith is advocating a wildcard has won one main draw match all season, which came, on clay, against a player currently ranked outside of the top 500 in the world in the live rankings.
This year, Robson has been a victim to nine straight set losses, and in tournaments bigger than $25k's, has only won five sets ON THE YEAR! Five sets! How anyone could advocate for a player who is struggling to win matches in $25,000 tournaments and has won only five sets in $50,000 tournaments and larger boggles mind. Robson currently is on a six match losing streak, as well, only winning one set out of her past 13. But yet, Goldsmith wants to shower this young lady with a wildcard because she really has the results to back her up this season!
But, how has she done on grass? Shouldn't that matter much more than how she did on clay? Absolutely, but unfortunately, this doesn't help Robson much either. This season, Robson has played two grass court tournaments, losing both in the First Round and managing just one set between the two matches. And, it's not as if she were playing a top player in either tournament. In Eastbourne, a 50k tournament, she battled world number 161 (live rankings) and lost in three sets. Then, in Nottingham, she took on world number 229 in the live rankings, Michelle Larcher de Brito, and lost that match in straight sets. Again, if Robson is having trouble taking sets off of players ranked outside of the Top 150 on grass, should Wimbledon, the premier grass court tournament in the world, really be handing her a wildcard?
In fact, Robson hasn't won a grass court match since that 2013 run, losing both of the grass court matches she played in last season (winning 0 sets), and not playing grass court matches in 2014, I believe due to injury. It's also important to note that outside of that 2013 run, she only won one other grass court match during that season, going 1-2 outside of Wimbledon and losing in straight sets in her two losses. And, while Robson did beat Angelique Kerber at Wimbledon in 2011, that was her only victory at Wimbledon from the first time she played Women's Singles in 2009 until her run in 2013.
If we are going to analyze her 2013 run further, we would note that during her run, while she did beat 10 seed Maria Kirlenko in the First Round, Kirlenko had suffered a knee injury during a warmup tournament very-well could not have been 100% in that match. In the Second Round, she faced clay-courter Mariana Duque-Marino, a player that has only been to the Second Round of Wimbledon twice, and in the Third Round she beat another unseeded player, Marina Erakovic, a player who has never made a Round 16 appearance at a slam. Then, in the Round of 16, when she took on a competent grass courter in Kaia Kanepi, Robson lost in straight sets.
Again, I'm all for giving players wildcards when they have proven they deserve them, but do the results I just laid out for you really warrant a wildcard to one of the four biggest tournaments of the season? Even with that Round of 16 run at Wimbledon, her winning percentage there is still .40, as she has a 4-6. In addition, to give y'all some perspective, Ashleigh Barty, who has just picked up tennis again after temporarily quitting in 2014, in just her second tournament back, discounting Eastbourne qualifying, in matches played at the 50k level and above, has 3.5 times as many match wins as Robson, which includes quadruple as many main draw wins, as many wins at the WTA Tour level, and has seven wins on grass to zero for Robson. Now, I'm not saying that Wimbledon should be giving Barty a wildcard, but this just puts things into perspective for Laura.
I'm also not opposed to giving wildcards out for good results during the previous year's tournaments. I was all for the French Open giving Andrea Mitu a wildcard for her French Open Round of 16 appearance during the previous season instead of Tessah Adrianjafitrimo. However, when we have to reach three years in the past, and only for a Round of 16 result, to justify giving a player with a 2-9 record in 50k and up tournaments all year a wildcard, then it just looks a little desperate, and really, pathetic.
If Robson has a great run next week, then great, give her a wildcard, it will be well deserved. But, if Wimbledon gives Robson a wildcard based on the current results, then it would be a total and complete disgrace and would make the calls to get rid of the wildcard system altogether even louder. Because, a player like Tara Moore, with a Final run in Eastbourne and winning a match in Nottingham does deserve to have her moment at Wimbledon, but given that Wimbledon is one of the four biggest tournaments of the year, the tennis governing body for Britain, the LTA, should act like it. And, by that, I mean, actually give out wildcards to players who deserve them. And beating some of the top players at random points of previous years, quite some time ago, doesn't exactly scream "deserving" to me.
Because, at the end of the day, let's be honest, there is no justification for giving Laura Robson a wildcard other than the fact that she is British, and that would look a lot like a corrupt, unfair system to me. Robson simply does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
I have compiled a bunch of data regarding hometown wildcards either for a future article or just for general use, but in the past three years combined, Wimbledon has only given out 11 total wildcards to British female players. This, when compared to a slam like the French Open, which has given 19 "home" wildcards out, and you can see that Wimbledon doesn't just hand wildcards to any random player with a British flag next to their name. And, while Wimbledon British wildcard recipients have been very unsuccessful over the past three years, with only one match win since 2013, with a significantly less number of "home" wildcards, it seems reasonable to expect a significantly lower number of wins, as well.
This brings me to Laura Robson and the issue of the Wimbledon wildcard. I saw on Twitter the other day that Chris Goldsmith was tweeting out (and continues to tweet) some nonsense about how Robson deserves a wildcard based on random, anecdotal evidence such as a 4R Wimbledon results from three years ago and how she has beat a group of top players in the past. Goldsmith, however, completely ignores the obvious and instead cherry picks what he wants to form a weak argument. Therefore, I have taken to the blog to explain why Laura Robson absolutely does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Let's start off with Robson's results this year, specifically. On the year, in events bigger than $25,000's (which Robson is only 2-3 in), Laura has compiled a 2-10 record, meaning her winning percentage on the year is .17. If we look at her record in the main draws of events larger than 25k's, Robson is 1-8 for a horrific winning percentage of .11. Yes, the player that Goldsmith is advocating a wildcard has won one main draw match all season, which came, on clay, against a player currently ranked outside of the top 500 in the world in the live rankings.
This year, Robson has been a victim to nine straight set losses, and in tournaments bigger than $25k's, has only won five sets ON THE YEAR! Five sets! How anyone could advocate for a player who is struggling to win matches in $25,000 tournaments and has won only five sets in $50,000 tournaments and larger boggles mind. Robson currently is on a six match losing streak, as well, only winning one set out of her past 13. But yet, Goldsmith wants to shower this young lady with a wildcard because she really has the results to back her up this season!
But, how has she done on grass? Shouldn't that matter much more than how she did on clay? Absolutely, but unfortunately, this doesn't help Robson much either. This season, Robson has played two grass court tournaments, losing both in the First Round and managing just one set between the two matches. And, it's not as if she were playing a top player in either tournament. In Eastbourne, a 50k tournament, she battled world number 161 (live rankings) and lost in three sets. Then, in Nottingham, she took on world number 229 in the live rankings, Michelle Larcher de Brito, and lost that match in straight sets. Again, if Robson is having trouble taking sets off of players ranked outside of the Top 150 on grass, should Wimbledon, the premier grass court tournament in the world, really be handing her a wildcard?
In fact, Robson hasn't won a grass court match since that 2013 run, losing both of the grass court matches she played in last season (winning 0 sets), and not playing grass court matches in 2014, I believe due to injury. It's also important to note that outside of that 2013 run, she only won one other grass court match during that season, going 1-2 outside of Wimbledon and losing in straight sets in her two losses. And, while Robson did beat Angelique Kerber at Wimbledon in 2011, that was her only victory at Wimbledon from the first time she played Women's Singles in 2009 until her run in 2013.
If we are going to analyze her 2013 run further, we would note that during her run, while she did beat 10 seed Maria Kirlenko in the First Round, Kirlenko had suffered a knee injury during a warmup tournament very-well could not have been 100% in that match. In the Second Round, she faced clay-courter Mariana Duque-Marino, a player that has only been to the Second Round of Wimbledon twice, and in the Third Round she beat another unseeded player, Marina Erakovic, a player who has never made a Round 16 appearance at a slam. Then, in the Round of 16, when she took on a competent grass courter in Kaia Kanepi, Robson lost in straight sets.
Again, I'm all for giving players wildcards when they have proven they deserve them, but do the results I just laid out for you really warrant a wildcard to one of the four biggest tournaments of the season? Even with that Round of 16 run at Wimbledon, her winning percentage there is still .40, as she has a 4-6. In addition, to give y'all some perspective, Ashleigh Barty, who has just picked up tennis again after temporarily quitting in 2014, in just her second tournament back, discounting Eastbourne qualifying, in matches played at the 50k level and above, has 3.5 times as many match wins as Robson, which includes quadruple as many main draw wins, as many wins at the WTA Tour level, and has seven wins on grass to zero for Robson. Now, I'm not saying that Wimbledon should be giving Barty a wildcard, but this just puts things into perspective for Laura.
I'm also not opposed to giving wildcards out for good results during the previous year's tournaments. I was all for the French Open giving Andrea Mitu a wildcard for her French Open Round of 16 appearance during the previous season instead of Tessah Adrianjafitrimo. However, when we have to reach three years in the past, and only for a Round of 16 result, to justify giving a player with a 2-9 record in 50k and up tournaments all year a wildcard, then it just looks a little desperate, and really, pathetic.
If Robson has a great run next week, then great, give her a wildcard, it will be well deserved. But, if Wimbledon gives Robson a wildcard based on the current results, then it would be a total and complete disgrace and would make the calls to get rid of the wildcard system altogether even louder. Because, a player like Tara Moore, with a Final run in Eastbourne and winning a match in Nottingham does deserve to have her moment at Wimbledon, but given that Wimbledon is one of the four biggest tournaments of the year, the tennis governing body for Britain, the LTA, should act like it. And, by that, I mean, actually give out wildcards to players who deserve them. And beating some of the top players at random points of previous years, quite some time ago, doesn't exactly scream "deserving" to me.
Because, at the end of the day, let's be honest, there is no justification for giving Laura Robson a wildcard other than the fact that she is British, and that would look a lot like a corrupt, unfair system to me. Robson simply does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Friday, May 13, 2016
French Open Wildcard Given to Tessah Andrianjafitrimo Shows Changes Needed
Last May, around this time, I wrote an article about wildcards at majors and essentially said that eight wildcards given out is fine, just make sure that two of them are based on merit, as opposed to random local players who amount to nothing more than a First Round bye. I mean, we all saw the level of resistance wildcard, and current world number 368, Manon Arcangioli put up in her horrific 6-2, 6-0 loss to unseeded Irina Falconi in the French Open last year. However, this year I have decided to put my foot down and call for a change due to, finally, my realization of just how far tournaments will go to promote the local talent of their choosing, with politics certainly playing a role in the decision-making process.
Let me start out by saying that, upon review, a player such as Arcangioli should have never been included in the draw in the first place. I'm not sure what her ranking was at the time of her inclusion, but given that her career high ranking was 268 in March of 2015, I'm guessing it was around there, probably a bit lower. And while I understand why the French Tennis Federation might want a bunch of players from France in the main draw of their home major, I think that this desire should definitely be balanced with the possibility that the players will be able to be, at the very least, competitive in the main draw. Because, at the end of the day, a close will draw up more interest than a blowout, no matter who's involved. Arcangioli proved in the process of getting demolished by Falconi that she was nowhere near the level of a player who could win a round in qualies, let alone a round in the main draw.
However, instead of learning their lesson, the French Tennis Federation seems to be going down a similar path this year with the inclusion of Tessah Andrianjafitrimo as a wildcard in the main draw of the tournament. To be honest, seeing her name on the wildcard list was just embarrassing. Currently ranked number 313 in the world with a paltry 129 ranking points (although when the wildcards were released, I believe she was 311 in live rankings), Andrianjafitrimo has to be one of the worst recipients to a wildcard that I have ever seen.
And it's not as if her recent results are even close enough to making up for her horrible ranking. Her only noteworthy result this season was making the Final of a clay court 10k tournament. For those who do not know, a 10k is essentially the equivalent of a tennis tournament just above the "amateur" level and shouldn't even be near the thought process of someone deciding who should receive a French Open wildcard. And, besides that result, this year has been extremely poor for Tessah. She lost in the opening round of qualies for a 50k tournament in Croissy-Beaubourg and even had a poor result today, in the opening round of qualies for the International-level event in Strasbourg. Today, Tessah lost 6-4, 6-4 to world number 143 in the live rankings, Yafan Wang. While I guess you could say that at least Tessah made the sets competitive today against Wang, the fact that she couldn't win a set against someone far out of the top 100 in the first round of qualies certainly suggests, to me, that she should be far from the CONVERSATION of who should get a wildcard to one of tennis' four most prestigious events.
A few articles back, I wrote a piece backing the USTA for giving Taylor Townsend the US reciprocal wildcard over Louisa Chirico. And, I still stand by every word I wrote in that article. However, I can't help feel bad for Louisa, along with other players who have had good results this season or was successful at Roland Garros in the past. This list includes Istanbul champ Cagla Buyukakcay, and Andrea Mitu, who made the Fourth Round of the French Open last year. But, instead, these players will be playing in the qualifying tournament, while Andrianjafitrimo waltzes into the main draw. So, for those who want Chirico to get Townsend's wildcard, don't get mad at the USTA, instead, be angry with the French Tennis Federation for selfishly choosing a poor player of their own instead of these other, much more deserving, options.
But, let's say that French Tennis Federation is desperate to have all French player receive the wildcards, besides the two reciprocal wildcards. Let's take a look if there was higher ranked players who were overlooked, skipped over by Andiranjafitrimo for the wildcard. And, sure enough, currently ranked 212 (101 ahead of Tessah right now, and I believe 99 when the wildcard was announced) is Sherazad Reix. Reix actually won a WTA match this season, beating Marand in Bogota and actually taking nine games off Irina Falconi in her next match, a stark contrast to the two taken by Arcangioli. Mathilde Johansson, current world number 216, was also passed over for the wildcard. In fact, Stephanie Foretz, current world number 237 in live rankings, Chloe Paquet, number 263 (live rankings), and hell, even Julie Coin (currently in retirement, but at 306 in live rankings) are higher ranked than Tessah. And so, for me at least, it seems a bit odd that a player was chosen for a wildcard, when five other players (four of them active) from the same country are ahead of her in the rankings.
So, personally, this stinks of under-the-table poltiics. There is no excuse for Andrianjafitrimo to receive the wildcard over these other Frenchwomen, if we are really forced to have six French wildcards. I mean, I understand that Tessah is extremely young, at 17 years old, but her results have forced me to say that she isn't ready yet for this moment. It's just too early, and there are just too many other deserving players who could possibly justify getting the wildcard to just stick Andrianjafitrimo in the draw.
Tessah will have her whole career to rise in the rankings, and eventually play in the French, but ranked outside of the Top 300 and struggling in lower-level tournaments should not warrant a wildcard to one of the biggest tournaments of the season. The French Tennis Federation has made it very clear that they only gave this wildcard to her because she is 17 years old, and are praying for a "Cici Bellis 2014 US Open" result. But, how young a player is should NEVER factor into the decision to give a player a wildcard and is a horrible excuse. But, because, much like the USTA, the French Tennis Federation is intent on pushing young tennis talent in France in a vain attempt at popularizing tennis in France, at the expense of older players, this is what we get. And, in my opinion, it's just plain disrespectful to other players for the French Tennis Foundation to give it to her.
So, what suggestions do I now have for addressing this wildcard situation. Well, first off, I would (if I were the ITF) force tournament directors to reduce the number of wildcards allowed in the draw at majors from eight to two. There are just too many of these lower-ranked players in the draw, taking the spots of players who are simply much better than them at tennis. And while it might be more exciting to see a wildcard win a round at a major than a random journeyman or journeywoman, that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Second, I would (if I were the ITF) set a hard cut-off for the lowest ranking a wildcard is allowed to have. Personally, I would set this cutoff at #250 in the world at the time of handing out wildcards. This way, the tournament can be more sure that players they are giving their wildcards to actually have a shot at winning a round in the main draw and are not "walking byes". This would mean, in the context of this article, that both Arcangioli and Andrianjafitrimo would not be eligible for a wildcard. And the only exceptions to this rule would be players using a special ranking, which would not include Manon nor Tessah.
I know this article seems very harsh, but this is what needed to be said. The wildcard system at majors has gotten out of control.
Let me start out by saying that, upon review, a player such as Arcangioli should have never been included in the draw in the first place. I'm not sure what her ranking was at the time of her inclusion, but given that her career high ranking was 268 in March of 2015, I'm guessing it was around there, probably a bit lower. And while I understand why the French Tennis Federation might want a bunch of players from France in the main draw of their home major, I think that this desire should definitely be balanced with the possibility that the players will be able to be, at the very least, competitive in the main draw. Because, at the end of the day, a close will draw up more interest than a blowout, no matter who's involved. Arcangioli proved in the process of getting demolished by Falconi that she was nowhere near the level of a player who could win a round in qualies, let alone a round in the main draw.
However, instead of learning their lesson, the French Tennis Federation seems to be going down a similar path this year with the inclusion of Tessah Andrianjafitrimo as a wildcard in the main draw of the tournament. To be honest, seeing her name on the wildcard list was just embarrassing. Currently ranked number 313 in the world with a paltry 129 ranking points (although when the wildcards were released, I believe she was 311 in live rankings), Andrianjafitrimo has to be one of the worst recipients to a wildcard that I have ever seen.
And it's not as if her recent results are even close enough to making up for her horrible ranking. Her only noteworthy result this season was making the Final of a clay court 10k tournament. For those who do not know, a 10k is essentially the equivalent of a tennis tournament just above the "amateur" level and shouldn't even be near the thought process of someone deciding who should receive a French Open wildcard. And, besides that result, this year has been extremely poor for Tessah. She lost in the opening round of qualies for a 50k tournament in Croissy-Beaubourg and even had a poor result today, in the opening round of qualies for the International-level event in Strasbourg. Today, Tessah lost 6-4, 6-4 to world number 143 in the live rankings, Yafan Wang. While I guess you could say that at least Tessah made the sets competitive today against Wang, the fact that she couldn't win a set against someone far out of the top 100 in the first round of qualies certainly suggests, to me, that she should be far from the CONVERSATION of who should get a wildcard to one of tennis' four most prestigious events.
A few articles back, I wrote a piece backing the USTA for giving Taylor Townsend the US reciprocal wildcard over Louisa Chirico. And, I still stand by every word I wrote in that article. However, I can't help feel bad for Louisa, along with other players who have had good results this season or was successful at Roland Garros in the past. This list includes Istanbul champ Cagla Buyukakcay, and Andrea Mitu, who made the Fourth Round of the French Open last year. But, instead, these players will be playing in the qualifying tournament, while Andrianjafitrimo waltzes into the main draw. So, for those who want Chirico to get Townsend's wildcard, don't get mad at the USTA, instead, be angry with the French Tennis Federation for selfishly choosing a poor player of their own instead of these other, much more deserving, options.
But, let's say that French Tennis Federation is desperate to have all French player receive the wildcards, besides the two reciprocal wildcards. Let's take a look if there was higher ranked players who were overlooked, skipped over by Andiranjafitrimo for the wildcard. And, sure enough, currently ranked 212 (101 ahead of Tessah right now, and I believe 99 when the wildcard was announced) is Sherazad Reix. Reix actually won a WTA match this season, beating Marand in Bogota and actually taking nine games off Irina Falconi in her next match, a stark contrast to the two taken by Arcangioli. Mathilde Johansson, current world number 216, was also passed over for the wildcard. In fact, Stephanie Foretz, current world number 237 in live rankings, Chloe Paquet, number 263 (live rankings), and hell, even Julie Coin (currently in retirement, but at 306 in live rankings) are higher ranked than Tessah. And so, for me at least, it seems a bit odd that a player was chosen for a wildcard, when five other players (four of them active) from the same country are ahead of her in the rankings.
So, personally, this stinks of under-the-table poltiics. There is no excuse for Andrianjafitrimo to receive the wildcard over these other Frenchwomen, if we are really forced to have six French wildcards. I mean, I understand that Tessah is extremely young, at 17 years old, but her results have forced me to say that she isn't ready yet for this moment. It's just too early, and there are just too many other deserving players who could possibly justify getting the wildcard to just stick Andrianjafitrimo in the draw.
Tessah will have her whole career to rise in the rankings, and eventually play in the French, but ranked outside of the Top 300 and struggling in lower-level tournaments should not warrant a wildcard to one of the biggest tournaments of the season. The French Tennis Federation has made it very clear that they only gave this wildcard to her because she is 17 years old, and are praying for a "Cici Bellis 2014 US Open" result. But, how young a player is should NEVER factor into the decision to give a player a wildcard and is a horrible excuse. But, because, much like the USTA, the French Tennis Federation is intent on pushing young tennis talent in France in a vain attempt at popularizing tennis in France, at the expense of older players, this is what we get. And, in my opinion, it's just plain disrespectful to other players for the French Tennis Foundation to give it to her.
So, what suggestions do I now have for addressing this wildcard situation. Well, first off, I would (if I were the ITF) force tournament directors to reduce the number of wildcards allowed in the draw at majors from eight to two. There are just too many of these lower-ranked players in the draw, taking the spots of players who are simply much better than them at tennis. And while it might be more exciting to see a wildcard win a round at a major than a random journeyman or journeywoman, that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Second, I would (if I were the ITF) set a hard cut-off for the lowest ranking a wildcard is allowed to have. Personally, I would set this cutoff at #250 in the world at the time of handing out wildcards. This way, the tournament can be more sure that players they are giving their wildcards to actually have a shot at winning a round in the main draw and are not "walking byes". This would mean, in the context of this article, that both Arcangioli and Andrianjafitrimo would not be eligible for a wildcard. And the only exceptions to this rule would be players using a special ranking, which would not include Manon nor Tessah.
I know this article seems very harsh, but this is what needed to be said. The wildcard system at majors has gotten out of control.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
The Current, and Future, State of the WTA: Parity or Lack of Star Power?
Does a seed even mean anything anymore? That's the question that many tennis fans must surely be asking themselves over much of 2016, but especially the past two weeks in Madrid, and now Rome. And it's becoming reality that top seeds will fall in what seems like huge upsets weekly and pandemonium quickly spreading throughout the draw. So, what should we make of the current state of the WTA?
Before answering that question, it's important note that a huge reason for why it feels like there has been more crazy draw sheets this year, as opposed to years past, is because Serena Williams has been out for much of the year and thus, while in years past there might have been a lot of drama with seeds, it was shielded by a constant presence on top of the women's game. One always knew that Serena would be there at the end of the tournament and that, through all of the noise, consistency would reign at the top of the game.
And, ultimately, I think that the dominant presence of Serena was good for the game, as tennis fans knew that Serena would play well and exemplify the quality of tennis to be expected from the top of the women's game. This year, Serena's age (24 years old) looks to be effecting her play and injury/illness concerns have also hampered her game, so the flaws in other WTA top players are more visible. But, with Serena's retirement not too far in the future, it's important to look at how the tour will be without her.
To help look at this issue further, let's look at examples of what I have been discussing, first showing how the seeds did in Madrid, and are currently performing in Rome. In Madrid, at the end of the First Round, five seeds were out, but these included both the number one and two seeds, Agnieska Radwanska and Angelique Kerber, respectively. But, the seeds continued to fall in the Second Round, as six more seeds were sent packing (or in Safarova's case, withdrew) including the three seed, Garbine Muguruza. It got to the point where by the Quarterfinals, the only seed remaining was sixth-seeded Simona Halep.
And while you can make the argument that much of this "craziness" was negated by Halep being the eventual winner of the tournament, I just find it impossible to get past that out of the 16 players seeded in this tournament on the women's side, only one could manage to win three matches in a row. And while some of the losses are understandable, Cibulkova has given Aga problems ever since she double-bageled Dominka in Australia in Sydney in 2013, other losses, such as Muguruza flaming out to Irina-Camelia Begu were unacceptable for a player of her ability.
And so far, for the WTA in Rome this week, the same general pattern has continued, besides Serena finally bringing a level of calmness to the top of the draw. While in the First Round of Rome there weren't many upsets, with only three seeded players falling, it is important to note that this could be due to the fact that the top eight seeds had byes into the Second Round. So, when put into that light, 3/8 seeded players who actually played in the First Round losing actually is worse than it initially seems. However, in the Second Round, eight more seeds were lost, meaning that 12/16 seeds were gone before the Round of 16, and of the 12 seeds in the Second Round, 2/3 were dismissed. And these seeds included the number two seed, Angie Kerber, the four seed, Victoria Azarenka, fifth seed Petra Kvitova, and Madrid champion (and sixth seed) Simona Halep. It's safe to say that today was disastrous for seeded players in Rome. This means that the Round of 16 will feature only one matchup of seeded players on the WTA side, with Suarez Navarro and Bacsinszky playing each other tomorrow.
There are two different main arguments that can be debated regarding the wild results from this season, and specifically in Madrid/Rome. The first possibility that could possibly be deliberated is that the results are a direct consequence of the parity of the of WTA. By parity, I mean that because the level of a top player (with, personally, the exception of Azarenka on hard courts and Serena on any surface) and lower ranked players are not that huge, so that when a player lower in the rankings upsets a seeded player, it really isn't very surprising at all. Pundits making this argument would say that, for instance, Eugenie Bouchard is only slightly worse than Angelique Kerber, despite the 44 places separating them in the live rankings. Therefore, it would be completely understandable to these people that Bouchard dispatched Kerber today. However, doesn't this "parity argument" merely seem like an excuse for players who lose early, as opposed to a legitimate reason for the results? Because, in reality, the players at the top are there for a reason: they earned the most points. So, if we throw aside the possibilities of players being ranked low due to injury and that a player might obtain more points from playing more tournaments, the players with more points should be better than those below them.
The opposite side of the coin here would be that the wave of upsets that has hit the WTA Tour this year is due to a lack of star power, where a group of players can just take over the tour and will constantly be battling in the later stages of tournaments, week after week. On the men's side, this would be the equivalent of the Big Four (Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer, and RafaelNadal). Obviously, there are some flaws with this line of thinking. First off, Serena and Venus Williams are still on tour, so despite Maria Sharapova being out on suspension, these are two big names who have won many, many majors between them. The counter to this opposing viewpoint would be that Venus is obviously finished as top tennis player (due to her age and Sjogren's Syndrome) and so while she might have a big name, it is unrelated to the argument at hand. And with Serena's issues this season, as previously mentioned, this fails to address what will happen when she retires, along with the results when she was gone this season. And, one could say that Victoria Azarenka has dominated the spring hard court season this year, winning Indian Wells and Miami. However, as Madrid showed us, who wins the tournament is less related to this topic as opposed to how seeds on the whole are doing.
However, if we are to take this argument at face value, we would be led to believe that because there is not a group of "commanding players" on tour (besides Serena), it is no surprise that upsets are so frequent nowadays on the WTA. Because there is this "feeling" that the playing field is equal, whether one is ranked number two or number 46 psychologically doesn't matter because players like Radwanska and Kerber do not have the mindset of typical top players. And perhaps this is a direct result of Serena winning so many majors over the past few years, that she hinders other players from reaching stardom, and the mindset that comes with it. I mean, if anything, Kerber winning a major has worsened her results, and while this may be because she is struggling with media attention that a major winner attracts, it is certainly not something that would be expected of the number two player in the world.
So, ultimately, is there a clear-cut answer to whether parity or a lack of star power is producing the current results on the WTA Tour? I don't think so. Throwing aside the obvious possibility of confounding factors not considered in this article, I think that it's probably a combination of the two sides that lead to the present state of the WTA. Despite my earlier, big spiel on ranking points, perhaps women's tennis, with, for the most part, a lack of big weapons, lends itself to closer matches and more parity. However, at the same time, it's very valid to say that because there hasn't been consistent winners on the WTA Tour recently, especially in majors, this definitely diminishes the star power of everyone but Serena, so when Serena is not playing well or is off the tour for some reason, it almost feels as if the WTA is an uninteresting free-for-all. And, from a financial perspective, this is definitely not a good thing. Because, a lack of stars means a lack of attendance at WTA matches (and non-joint events, in general).
However, I don't want to say that the future of tennis is bleak. It's also important to remember that when Serena leaves the tour, all players, but especially the top ones, will have a much better shot at winning majors, and eventually more WTA players will win three, four, five, etc. majors and find consistency in their games. And, inevitably this will lead to stardom, and the WTA will be perfectly fine. However, currently, with Serena not being as dominant as she once was (at least currently) and many other players high in the ranking unable to fulfill the void this has left, the current and immediate future of the WTA is not a pretty sight. However, I urge tennis fans and members of the tennis media not to panic, and to see the big picture on this issue. Everything will be fine.
And, anyways, if Serena wins the French Open, all of these problems will disappear from sight, put on the backburner for another time.
Before answering that question, it's important note that a huge reason for why it feels like there has been more crazy draw sheets this year, as opposed to years past, is because Serena Williams has been out for much of the year and thus, while in years past there might have been a lot of drama with seeds, it was shielded by a constant presence on top of the women's game. One always knew that Serena would be there at the end of the tournament and that, through all of the noise, consistency would reign at the top of the game.
And, ultimately, I think that the dominant presence of Serena was good for the game, as tennis fans knew that Serena would play well and exemplify the quality of tennis to be expected from the top of the women's game. This year, Serena's age (24 years old) looks to be effecting her play and injury/illness concerns have also hampered her game, so the flaws in other WTA top players are more visible. But, with Serena's retirement not too far in the future, it's important to look at how the tour will be without her.
To help look at this issue further, let's look at examples of what I have been discussing, first showing how the seeds did in Madrid, and are currently performing in Rome. In Madrid, at the end of the First Round, five seeds were out, but these included both the number one and two seeds, Agnieska Radwanska and Angelique Kerber, respectively. But, the seeds continued to fall in the Second Round, as six more seeds were sent packing (or in Safarova's case, withdrew) including the three seed, Garbine Muguruza. It got to the point where by the Quarterfinals, the only seed remaining was sixth-seeded Simona Halep.
And while you can make the argument that much of this "craziness" was negated by Halep being the eventual winner of the tournament, I just find it impossible to get past that out of the 16 players seeded in this tournament on the women's side, only one could manage to win three matches in a row. And while some of the losses are understandable, Cibulkova has given Aga problems ever since she double-bageled Dominka in Australia in Sydney in 2013, other losses, such as Muguruza flaming out to Irina-Camelia Begu were unacceptable for a player of her ability.
And so far, for the WTA in Rome this week, the same general pattern has continued, besides Serena finally bringing a level of calmness to the top of the draw. While in the First Round of Rome there weren't many upsets, with only three seeded players falling, it is important to note that this could be due to the fact that the top eight seeds had byes into the Second Round. So, when put into that light, 3/8 seeded players who actually played in the First Round losing actually is worse than it initially seems. However, in the Second Round, eight more seeds were lost, meaning that 12/16 seeds were gone before the Round of 16, and of the 12 seeds in the Second Round, 2/3 were dismissed. And these seeds included the number two seed, Angie Kerber, the four seed, Victoria Azarenka, fifth seed Petra Kvitova, and Madrid champion (and sixth seed) Simona Halep. It's safe to say that today was disastrous for seeded players in Rome. This means that the Round of 16 will feature only one matchup of seeded players on the WTA side, with Suarez Navarro and Bacsinszky playing each other tomorrow.
There are two different main arguments that can be debated regarding the wild results from this season, and specifically in Madrid/Rome. The first possibility that could possibly be deliberated is that the results are a direct consequence of the parity of the of WTA. By parity, I mean that because the level of a top player (with, personally, the exception of Azarenka on hard courts and Serena on any surface) and lower ranked players are not that huge, so that when a player lower in the rankings upsets a seeded player, it really isn't very surprising at all. Pundits making this argument would say that, for instance, Eugenie Bouchard is only slightly worse than Angelique Kerber, despite the 44 places separating them in the live rankings. Therefore, it would be completely understandable to these people that Bouchard dispatched Kerber today. However, doesn't this "parity argument" merely seem like an excuse for players who lose early, as opposed to a legitimate reason for the results? Because, in reality, the players at the top are there for a reason: they earned the most points. So, if we throw aside the possibilities of players being ranked low due to injury and that a player might obtain more points from playing more tournaments, the players with more points should be better than those below them.
The opposite side of the coin here would be that the wave of upsets that has hit the WTA Tour this year is due to a lack of star power, where a group of players can just take over the tour and will constantly be battling in the later stages of tournaments, week after week. On the men's side, this would be the equivalent of the Big Four (Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer, and RafaelNadal). Obviously, there are some flaws with this line of thinking. First off, Serena and Venus Williams are still on tour, so despite Maria Sharapova being out on suspension, these are two big names who have won many, many majors between them. The counter to this opposing viewpoint would be that Venus is obviously finished as top tennis player (due to her age and Sjogren's Syndrome) and so while she might have a big name, it is unrelated to the argument at hand. And with Serena's issues this season, as previously mentioned, this fails to address what will happen when she retires, along with the results when she was gone this season. And, one could say that Victoria Azarenka has dominated the spring hard court season this year, winning Indian Wells and Miami. However, as Madrid showed us, who wins the tournament is less related to this topic as opposed to how seeds on the whole are doing.
However, if we are to take this argument at face value, we would be led to believe that because there is not a group of "commanding players" on tour (besides Serena), it is no surprise that upsets are so frequent nowadays on the WTA. Because there is this "feeling" that the playing field is equal, whether one is ranked number two or number 46 psychologically doesn't matter because players like Radwanska and Kerber do not have the mindset of typical top players. And perhaps this is a direct result of Serena winning so many majors over the past few years, that she hinders other players from reaching stardom, and the mindset that comes with it. I mean, if anything, Kerber winning a major has worsened her results, and while this may be because she is struggling with media attention that a major winner attracts, it is certainly not something that would be expected of the number two player in the world.
So, ultimately, is there a clear-cut answer to whether parity or a lack of star power is producing the current results on the WTA Tour? I don't think so. Throwing aside the obvious possibility of confounding factors not considered in this article, I think that it's probably a combination of the two sides that lead to the present state of the WTA. Despite my earlier, big spiel on ranking points, perhaps women's tennis, with, for the most part, a lack of big weapons, lends itself to closer matches and more parity. However, at the same time, it's very valid to say that because there hasn't been consistent winners on the WTA Tour recently, especially in majors, this definitely diminishes the star power of everyone but Serena, so when Serena is not playing well or is off the tour for some reason, it almost feels as if the WTA is an uninteresting free-for-all. And, from a financial perspective, this is definitely not a good thing. Because, a lack of stars means a lack of attendance at WTA matches (and non-joint events, in general).
However, I don't want to say that the future of tennis is bleak. It's also important to remember that when Serena leaves the tour, all players, but especially the top ones, will have a much better shot at winning majors, and eventually more WTA players will win three, four, five, etc. majors and find consistency in their games. And, inevitably this will lead to stardom, and the WTA will be perfectly fine. However, currently, with Serena not being as dominant as she once was (at least currently) and many other players high in the ranking unable to fulfill the void this has left, the current and immediate future of the WTA is not a pretty sight. However, I urge tennis fans and members of the tennis media not to panic, and to see the big picture on this issue. Everything will be fine.
And, anyways, if Serena wins the French Open, all of these problems will disappear from sight, put on the backburner for another time.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Growing Pains Part of the Process for Taylor Fritz
Throughout the second half of 2015, things were almost coming too easily for American Taylor Fritz, currently number 73 in the live rankings. Playing in, from what I can, only his second ATP Challenger Tour event ever, the essentially unknown Fritz blitzed the field in Sacramento. The surprises really started in the Second Round when he beat Dustin Brown in a tight three-set match before then taking out Jared Donaldson, another young American talent much higher in the rankings at the time, in the Final, showing mental resiliency from a blown second set.
This was followed by an astonishing run in the Fairfield Challenger, where he didn't drop a set. In fact, no opponent even got five games in a set against Taylor in that tournament. He beat Brown in the Final there, proving that the previous week was anything but a fluke. Then, just a few tournaments later for Fritz, when his results seemed to have slowed, Taylor made the Final of the Champaign Challenger, barely losing in three sets to Henri Laaksonen in the Final there, and thus ending a very successful 2015 campaign for Fritz.
With little points to defend in 2016, Fritz kept up his frantic pace of picking up points. His first challenger tournament in 2016 resulted in a win in Happy Valley, a tournament in which he only dropped one set and beat veteran Dudi Sela in the Final. Fritz then qualified for the Australian Open and took Jack Sock to five sets, before then reaching the Final in an ATP World Tour 250 event, losing in a tight battle to Kei Nishikori. It seemed like everything was clicking for Fritz, he reached as high as number 69 in the world (still very close to what he is now), and his climb to the Top 50 seemed inevitable at that point. So, what happened?
Well, initially, nothing happened. After an early loss in Delray Beach, Taylor still had an impressive run as a qualifier to the Quarterfinals of Acapulco and was a set away from the semis. And while Fritz then lost in the First Round of Indian Wells, that was a very understandable loss, as his opponent, Frances Tiafoe knew him very well from their days playing junior tennis. Fritz qualified in Miami and came within a point of winning the first set in the Second Round against hardened veteran, and a player near the top of the game, David Ferrer.
However, this is about where the good results end for Taylor. He shockingly lost in the First Round of a challenger event in Leon to Agustin Velotti and lost to Malek Jaziri in the semis of the next challenger he played, struggling with a couple lower ranked players in previous rounds just to get to that point. Obviously, something was changing in either Taylor's level of play, or, more interestingly, in how opponents approached playing Fritz. This was further exemplified in Taylor's losses in the First Round of qualies of both Madrid and Rome to Radek Stepanek, his first ventures to the European clay (and Europe in general) as an ATP-level player.
I think that there are two main factors in play as to why Taylor is starting to stagnate in terms of results, beyond just a dip in his level of play. The first is that, I believe, opponents are finally starting to get good tape of Taylor and are figuring out how to play him effectively. Fritz essentially barnstormed the challenger circuit when he first started playing ATP Challenger Tour matches. Here was a guy who hit the ball with such power, had a rocket serve, and who just seemed to overpower opponents, despite, in my opinion, not really utilizing the width of the court or incorporating much variety in his game. But, at first it didn't matter, as opponents didn't know much about Taylor's game, and quite frankly, weren't ready for what he brought to the table. So, all Fritz had to do was go out there and play his game, and that was usually good enough to win, and win handedly at that.
However, as time goes on, match film comes out that players, and coaches can study, a larger sample size gives a player and his team more information on Fritz's tendencies, and therefore, what parts of his game can be exploited. And so, if Taylor doesn't adjust, players will gradually catch on to his game, and thus, start to beat him. And so, perhaps Fritz naively thought that he could keep playing without making adjustments and this would allow him to rise to the top of the men's game unhindered, I don't know, but I think this is a major reason why his results have slowed, and a guy like Tiafoe was just ahead of the rest of the field in exploiting this in Indian Wells. It's up to Taylor to adjust his tendencies not only to opponents, but ultimately to surfaces other than hard courts in order to keep up his ascent in men's tennis.
The other big factor in why I think Taylor has stalled in the rankings a bit is because he is now playing on European clay courts, definitely not in his comfort zone. Those hard courts in North America, but especially the US, were Fritz's bread-and-butter. It was his best surface (at least compared to clay, the jury is still out regarding grass) and he was playing in front of friendly fans, and overall, in a very comfortable environment. There seems to be no better place in this world for Fritz to rise in the rankings and breakthrough. But, alas, you can't get by only playing on one surface and in one area of the world. I commend Taylor for his good results in Australia, but I think that when he struggled with his surroundings, the hard court surface was there to bail him out a bit. Things aren't coming so easily for him on European clay, but to be honest, that's to be expected.
Because, to be completely honest, I commend Taylor for giving European clay a try, instead of just staying in his comfort zone in the United States, playing the US green clay events and, instead, challenging himself in Europe. And, yes, the results weren't there this time around, but I think that playing in Europe on a surface he isn't totally comfortable on was a great idea. Taylor is getting used to unfamiliar surroundings and competition, in Stepanek, that is unlike what he would see normally on the challenger tour, despite Radek's current live ranking of 132. Because Stepanek is crafty veteran who won't wilt to Fritz's power game, a player who will try to outwit Taylor. And it's good for Fritz to get experience playing a guy like Radek, as it can only help him adjust to the level of play he will see on the main tour, and ultimately, make him better.
I think Fritz's run in Memphis was a little bit of fool's gold, I'm not going to lie. Despite the fact that he was playing in very friendly surroundings, something that I think is irrelevant in this case, Fritz played a Futures/Challenger level player in his first match against Michael Mmoh, a stagnant Steve Johnson in the Second Round. Then, Fritz played a Challenger-level player, Benjamin Becker in the Quarterfinals, before taking Ricardas Berankis in the Semifinals, who I believe to having a very inflated ranking due to the number of challenger events he plays. So, while Taylor should be commended for reaching the Final, let's not pretend like he faced top competition in getting there.
And, because of this, I think the American tennis media did Fritz a huge disservice by pumping him up and putting so much additional pressure on his back, when he's only 18 years old, much like the hype that Ryan Harrison and Donald Young got in his early days playing professional. Sometimes, it's good to praise a young man for a good tournament, without proclaiming that he will be a top-tier player very shortly, instead letting the talented player to mature at his own pace and go through the ups and downs of professional tennis.
Because, it would be impossible for a tennis player to not have any growing pains in his or her career. And that's just what these results are for Taylor: growing pains. Yes, losing in the First Rounds of qualies to the same player twice might not feel good for Fritz right now, but it is ultimately necessary for him to go through stretches like this in order to get to the top of the game. And while I think that Taylor might need to adapt his game to the growing knowledge of what he brings to the table, that's a fix that can be done, and will be done, with time.
I understand why the American tennis media wants the next "star" American urgently. The top players on the men's side right now are on a downward swing. John Isner is showing zero ambition by not going the Olympics, instead opting to stay in his comfort zone by play an ATP 250 event in Atlanta. Jack Sock is turning out to be an unfit, petulant, whiner who refuses to improve his backhand. Sam Querrey, while showing glimmers of hope by winning Delray Beach, continues to be all serve, but little else to offer. Donald Young's forehand has turned out to be absolutely horrific, and Ryan Harrison has a horrific attitude, like Sock, but without the good attributes of Jack's game. And ultimately, guys like Fritz and Tiafoe have to take the heat for the generation before them. Because, the tennis media in the US know that they need someone to hype up, someone to save American men's tennis from going down the tubes.
So, what they do is push the envelope, ignoring the benefits of giving these young talents time to improve, and ultimately, find themselves. And, ultimately, that's all I think Taylor Fritz needs: time to work out the kinks in his game and get comfortable playing on any surface, anywhere. Because, whether people like to admit it or not, growing pains are part of the process, even for someone as talented as Taylor Fritz.
This was followed by an astonishing run in the Fairfield Challenger, where he didn't drop a set. In fact, no opponent even got five games in a set against Taylor in that tournament. He beat Brown in the Final there, proving that the previous week was anything but a fluke. Then, just a few tournaments later for Fritz, when his results seemed to have slowed, Taylor made the Final of the Champaign Challenger, barely losing in three sets to Henri Laaksonen in the Final there, and thus ending a very successful 2015 campaign for Fritz.
With little points to defend in 2016, Fritz kept up his frantic pace of picking up points. His first challenger tournament in 2016 resulted in a win in Happy Valley, a tournament in which he only dropped one set and beat veteran Dudi Sela in the Final. Fritz then qualified for the Australian Open and took Jack Sock to five sets, before then reaching the Final in an ATP World Tour 250 event, losing in a tight battle to Kei Nishikori. It seemed like everything was clicking for Fritz, he reached as high as number 69 in the world (still very close to what he is now), and his climb to the Top 50 seemed inevitable at that point. So, what happened?
Well, initially, nothing happened. After an early loss in Delray Beach, Taylor still had an impressive run as a qualifier to the Quarterfinals of Acapulco and was a set away from the semis. And while Fritz then lost in the First Round of Indian Wells, that was a very understandable loss, as his opponent, Frances Tiafoe knew him very well from their days playing junior tennis. Fritz qualified in Miami and came within a point of winning the first set in the Second Round against hardened veteran, and a player near the top of the game, David Ferrer.
However, this is about where the good results end for Taylor. He shockingly lost in the First Round of a challenger event in Leon to Agustin Velotti and lost to Malek Jaziri in the semis of the next challenger he played, struggling with a couple lower ranked players in previous rounds just to get to that point. Obviously, something was changing in either Taylor's level of play, or, more interestingly, in how opponents approached playing Fritz. This was further exemplified in Taylor's losses in the First Round of qualies of both Madrid and Rome to Radek Stepanek, his first ventures to the European clay (and Europe in general) as an ATP-level player.
I think that there are two main factors in play as to why Taylor is starting to stagnate in terms of results, beyond just a dip in his level of play. The first is that, I believe, opponents are finally starting to get good tape of Taylor and are figuring out how to play him effectively. Fritz essentially barnstormed the challenger circuit when he first started playing ATP Challenger Tour matches. Here was a guy who hit the ball with such power, had a rocket serve, and who just seemed to overpower opponents, despite, in my opinion, not really utilizing the width of the court or incorporating much variety in his game. But, at first it didn't matter, as opponents didn't know much about Taylor's game, and quite frankly, weren't ready for what he brought to the table. So, all Fritz had to do was go out there and play his game, and that was usually good enough to win, and win handedly at that.
However, as time goes on, match film comes out that players, and coaches can study, a larger sample size gives a player and his team more information on Fritz's tendencies, and therefore, what parts of his game can be exploited. And so, if Taylor doesn't adjust, players will gradually catch on to his game, and thus, start to beat him. And so, perhaps Fritz naively thought that he could keep playing without making adjustments and this would allow him to rise to the top of the men's game unhindered, I don't know, but I think this is a major reason why his results have slowed, and a guy like Tiafoe was just ahead of the rest of the field in exploiting this in Indian Wells. It's up to Taylor to adjust his tendencies not only to opponents, but ultimately to surfaces other than hard courts in order to keep up his ascent in men's tennis.
The other big factor in why I think Taylor has stalled in the rankings a bit is because he is now playing on European clay courts, definitely not in his comfort zone. Those hard courts in North America, but especially the US, were Fritz's bread-and-butter. It was his best surface (at least compared to clay, the jury is still out regarding grass) and he was playing in front of friendly fans, and overall, in a very comfortable environment. There seems to be no better place in this world for Fritz to rise in the rankings and breakthrough. But, alas, you can't get by only playing on one surface and in one area of the world. I commend Taylor for his good results in Australia, but I think that when he struggled with his surroundings, the hard court surface was there to bail him out a bit. Things aren't coming so easily for him on European clay, but to be honest, that's to be expected.
Because, to be completely honest, I commend Taylor for giving European clay a try, instead of just staying in his comfort zone in the United States, playing the US green clay events and, instead, challenging himself in Europe. And, yes, the results weren't there this time around, but I think that playing in Europe on a surface he isn't totally comfortable on was a great idea. Taylor is getting used to unfamiliar surroundings and competition, in Stepanek, that is unlike what he would see normally on the challenger tour, despite Radek's current live ranking of 132. Because Stepanek is crafty veteran who won't wilt to Fritz's power game, a player who will try to outwit Taylor. And it's good for Fritz to get experience playing a guy like Radek, as it can only help him adjust to the level of play he will see on the main tour, and ultimately, make him better.
I think Fritz's run in Memphis was a little bit of fool's gold, I'm not going to lie. Despite the fact that he was playing in very friendly surroundings, something that I think is irrelevant in this case, Fritz played a Futures/Challenger level player in his first match against Michael Mmoh, a stagnant Steve Johnson in the Second Round. Then, Fritz played a Challenger-level player, Benjamin Becker in the Quarterfinals, before taking Ricardas Berankis in the Semifinals, who I believe to having a very inflated ranking due to the number of challenger events he plays. So, while Taylor should be commended for reaching the Final, let's not pretend like he faced top competition in getting there.
And, because of this, I think the American tennis media did Fritz a huge disservice by pumping him up and putting so much additional pressure on his back, when he's only 18 years old, much like the hype that Ryan Harrison and Donald Young got in his early days playing professional. Sometimes, it's good to praise a young man for a good tournament, without proclaiming that he will be a top-tier player very shortly, instead letting the talented player to mature at his own pace and go through the ups and downs of professional tennis.
Because, it would be impossible for a tennis player to not have any growing pains in his or her career. And that's just what these results are for Taylor: growing pains. Yes, losing in the First Rounds of qualies to the same player twice might not feel good for Fritz right now, but it is ultimately necessary for him to go through stretches like this in order to get to the top of the game. And while I think that Taylor might need to adapt his game to the growing knowledge of what he brings to the table, that's a fix that can be done, and will be done, with time.
I understand why the American tennis media wants the next "star" American urgently. The top players on the men's side right now are on a downward swing. John Isner is showing zero ambition by not going the Olympics, instead opting to stay in his comfort zone by play an ATP 250 event in Atlanta. Jack Sock is turning out to be an unfit, petulant, whiner who refuses to improve his backhand. Sam Querrey, while showing glimmers of hope by winning Delray Beach, continues to be all serve, but little else to offer. Donald Young's forehand has turned out to be absolutely horrific, and Ryan Harrison has a horrific attitude, like Sock, but without the good attributes of Jack's game. And ultimately, guys like Fritz and Tiafoe have to take the heat for the generation before them. Because, the tennis media in the US know that they need someone to hype up, someone to save American men's tennis from going down the tubes.
So, what they do is push the envelope, ignoring the benefits of giving these young talents time to improve, and ultimately, find themselves. And, ultimately, that's all I think Taylor Fritz needs: time to work out the kinks in his game and get comfortable playing on any surface, anywhere. Because, whether people like to admit it or not, growing pains are part of the process, even for someone as talented as Taylor Fritz.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Vasek Pospisil, Clay Courts, and Fitness
Vasek Pospisil, by all accounts, has had a very successful career. On the singles side, he has gotten as high as number 25 in the world, has been a finalist of an ATP World Tour 500-level tournament (Washington), and even made the Quarterfinals of Wimbledon last year. In doubles, Pospisil has won six titles with his doubles partner Jack Sock, He won the Wimbledon doubles title with Jack Sock, including a Masters 1000 title at Indian Wells. However, Vasek's biggest doubles achievement was a Wimbledon doubles title, something that definitely provided a bump in results for his singles career too.
And as great of a career as this has been for Vasek, looking at his results, they definitely leave something to be desired. Because, for all his great results on grass, and to a lesser extent hard courts, his clay court prowess, in regards to his singles career, has been pathetic. Yes, I said it, pathetic. Vasek Pospisil, 25 years old, and currently the world number 46 in the live rankings, has never won a main draw ATP clay court match in his life. And as much as this shows how well he must have done on other surfaces, it's deeply disturbing to see this level of ineptitude on the second most common surface on the ATP World Tour. In fact, in the best-of-five format, Pospisil has only forced a fifth once, losing to Horacio Zeballos in five sets in 2013.
But, it's not for a lack of trying, at least during matches. Unlike another top 50 tennis player, Bernard Tomic, when watching Pospisil on clay, you can see that despite it not being a surface he is even decent on, he is still giving his all and is mentally engaged in the match. Against Radek Stepanek in the First Round of Madrid earlier this week, Pospisil was trying to fire himself up upon winning the second set and one could tell that he was desperately searching for answers on how to solve the puzzle that is clay court tennis. And I commend him for having this attitude, there is nothing worse than the attitude of Bernard Tomic, where because his game might not naturally suit clay, he just doesn't give a shit (excuse my language). And for Vasek, it's not like he can't win a set on clay. In the past two years, in a best-of-three format, he has won a set in an ATP-level match three different times, but always fell in the third set.
So, now that we've established that Pospisil is giving his all on the court, and has had successes on other surfaces, what could be the major obstacle stopping Pospisil from success on clay and how can he jump this hurdle? And upon watching and following Vasek's career enough, I have come to the conclusion that the major problem with Pospisil on clay has nothing to do with his tennis game itself. Rather, Vasek is so unbelievably unfit, that he physically cannot win a match against decent competition on this surface.
You see, clay is unlike other surfaces in that the surface itself doesn't allow players to merely out-serve and outhit their opposition, which is much of what has made Pospisil successful on the main tour. Point construction is a must, and one's baseline skills must be fine-tuned in order to be successful on the surface. What all of this means is that points are going to last longer and be much more physically taxing than on, say, a grass court. And if a player is not in tip-top shape, then said will struggle massively on the surface. And, upon watching Vasek on clay and seeing his results, I think it's safe to say that his fitness level is deplorable, which means that his successes on clay will be very minimal.
I like to think of myself as someone who has been involved with fitness for quite some time, and someone who recognizes the importance of fitness as something that is crucial to the life of everyone, but should be especially crucial in the prime years of their life, such as Vasek. And I believe that the problem with Pospisil's fitness, and a lot of tennis players in general, is that tennis training focuses too much on short bursts of speed/intervals. And while this is definitely the most practical fitness application to tennis, I think that long-distance running gets short-changed, and for someone who might not naturally be a "runner" like Pospisil, this can severely affect his results.
You know, it seemed like people all throughout the tennis world were collectively wondering what Caroline Wozniacki was doing when she decided to run that marathon at the tail end of 2014, however, it was amazing to see her results spike when she was training for that marathon. During the second half of 2014, she was able to consistently challenge Serena Williams and even got to the US Open Final. I definitely think that there was a correlation between her marathon training her results. And, while I'm not saying that Vasek needs to run a marathon, some distance running would definitely do some good for not only his clay results, but for every match he plays.
So, for as hard as it seems Pospisil is during matches, it is clear that he either is not working hard off of the court, or is not training in a proper fashion. And maybe, at least partially, the environment he is putting himself in is to blame. Or, in other words, since Sock seems to be having issues being able to physically last in matches too, perhaps this doubles combination creates a horrible environment for fitness, as one's poor training rubs off on the other's training too. And, again, this is just speculation, however it is curious to me how two of the people with the worst fitness on tour just so happen to be doubles partners.
Vasek Pospisil has a decision to make. He is absolutely a talented tennis player. Now, he must decide whether he wants to put in the work, and the right type of work, in order to reach his full potential.
And as great of a career as this has been for Vasek, looking at his results, they definitely leave something to be desired. Because, for all his great results on grass, and to a lesser extent hard courts, his clay court prowess, in regards to his singles career, has been pathetic. Yes, I said it, pathetic. Vasek Pospisil, 25 years old, and currently the world number 46 in the live rankings, has never won a main draw ATP clay court match in his life. And as much as this shows how well he must have done on other surfaces, it's deeply disturbing to see this level of ineptitude on the second most common surface on the ATP World Tour. In fact, in the best-of-five format, Pospisil has only forced a fifth once, losing to Horacio Zeballos in five sets in 2013.
But, it's not for a lack of trying, at least during matches. Unlike another top 50 tennis player, Bernard Tomic, when watching Pospisil on clay, you can see that despite it not being a surface he is even decent on, he is still giving his all and is mentally engaged in the match. Against Radek Stepanek in the First Round of Madrid earlier this week, Pospisil was trying to fire himself up upon winning the second set and one could tell that he was desperately searching for answers on how to solve the puzzle that is clay court tennis. And I commend him for having this attitude, there is nothing worse than the attitude of Bernard Tomic, where because his game might not naturally suit clay, he just doesn't give a shit (excuse my language). And for Vasek, it's not like he can't win a set on clay. In the past two years, in a best-of-three format, he has won a set in an ATP-level match three different times, but always fell in the third set.
So, now that we've established that Pospisil is giving his all on the court, and has had successes on other surfaces, what could be the major obstacle stopping Pospisil from success on clay and how can he jump this hurdle? And upon watching and following Vasek's career enough, I have come to the conclusion that the major problem with Pospisil on clay has nothing to do with his tennis game itself. Rather, Vasek is so unbelievably unfit, that he physically cannot win a match against decent competition on this surface.
You see, clay is unlike other surfaces in that the surface itself doesn't allow players to merely out-serve and outhit their opposition, which is much of what has made Pospisil successful on the main tour. Point construction is a must, and one's baseline skills must be fine-tuned in order to be successful on the surface. What all of this means is that points are going to last longer and be much more physically taxing than on, say, a grass court. And if a player is not in tip-top shape, then said will struggle massively on the surface. And, upon watching Vasek on clay and seeing his results, I think it's safe to say that his fitness level is deplorable, which means that his successes on clay will be very minimal.
I like to think of myself as someone who has been involved with fitness for quite some time, and someone who recognizes the importance of fitness as something that is crucial to the life of everyone, but should be especially crucial in the prime years of their life, such as Vasek. And I believe that the problem with Pospisil's fitness, and a lot of tennis players in general, is that tennis training focuses too much on short bursts of speed/intervals. And while this is definitely the most practical fitness application to tennis, I think that long-distance running gets short-changed, and for someone who might not naturally be a "runner" like Pospisil, this can severely affect his results.
You know, it seemed like people all throughout the tennis world were collectively wondering what Caroline Wozniacki was doing when she decided to run that marathon at the tail end of 2014, however, it was amazing to see her results spike when she was training for that marathon. During the second half of 2014, she was able to consistently challenge Serena Williams and even got to the US Open Final. I definitely think that there was a correlation between her marathon training her results. And, while I'm not saying that Vasek needs to run a marathon, some distance running would definitely do some good for not only his clay results, but for every match he plays.
So, for as hard as it seems Pospisil is during matches, it is clear that he either is not working hard off of the court, or is not training in a proper fashion. And maybe, at least partially, the environment he is putting himself in is to blame. Or, in other words, since Sock seems to be having issues being able to physically last in matches too, perhaps this doubles combination creates a horrible environment for fitness, as one's poor training rubs off on the other's training too. And, again, this is just speculation, however it is curious to me how two of the people with the worst fitness on tour just so happen to be doubles partners.
Vasek Pospisil has a decision to make. He is absolutely a talented tennis player. Now, he must decide whether he wants to put in the work, and the right type of work, in order to reach his full potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)