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.
Friday, May 13, 2016
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.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Regarding the USTA Pro Circuit Roland Garros Challenge
On paper, the USTA Pro Circuit Roland Garros Challenge looks like a brilliant idea for all parties. The challenge revolves around three Har-Tru American clay court ATP Challenger Tour events for the men and three ITF Pro Circuit American Har-Tru events for the women. Players' results are given a point value based on how big the lower level event is, and one's best two-of-three point values are added up to get your "score". The American woman and man with the highest score gets the reciprocal wild card to the French Open main draw. You can see the standings here.
For the tournaments, this ensures that lots of Americans are in the draw, which ensures interest from fans and higher attendance at events. For American players who cannot get into the main draw based on the ranking, there are massive point and financial incentive from a potential trip to Paris, so playing these smaller tournaments are a great idea. So, from this perspective, the wild card challenge is only a good thing, for the fans in attendance who want to see Americans battling on court, for tournament sponsors, for the players themselves, it seems as if having a wildcard challenge, rather than just handing out the reciprocal wildcard, is a brilliant idea. There is also something very rewarding about winning that wildcard as opposed to being gifted with one.
However, as is common with Twitter, everyone has an opinion, and so I stumbled upon an interesting tweet from a poster named Tyler Green, questioning the USTA for their wild card challenge on the women's side, specifically referring to whether the player in the lead right now, Taylor Townsend, deserves the wild card more than Louisa Chirico, who will not be given direct acceptance to the main draw, but is doing very well in European, WTA-level, clay court events. And he does bring up an interesting, and valid point. Why should players challenging themselves in Europe be punished for that by having to go through the qualifying draw in Paris, while players competing in smaller tournaments in the United States get rewarded. Let me try to dissect the reasoning behind it as best I can.
I think that there are multiple reasons why the wildcard is given in this manner. First of all, like I've mentioned earlier, I commend the USTA for wanting players to work for the wildcard as opposed to just being handed one, based on some internal discussions that the public will never hear. The proces of obtaining the wildcard is very clear, and there is no subjective discussion for "who is more deserving than who". Rewarding the wildcard in this manner would open up a huge hornets' nest of subjective wild card selections previously only reserved for the US Open if the USTA stopped their wildcard challenge in lieu of an opinionated process with no clear standards.
In addition, like I touched on before, the USTA is also helping the American tournaments involved by having the wild card. Instead of going to Europe, a lot of players are enticed to stay in America and compete in these smaller prize money events now, giving the tournaments more American players to advertise, and the fans more American players to watch compete. Sponsors are also helped as more eyes means more potential financial gain for them. And if sponsors are happy and butts are in sears, then tournaments can flourish. So, beyond the players themselves, the USTA is helping the actual American tournaments by bestowing the wildcard in this fashion. Ultimately, it's a lot better, and certainly more enticing, for the casual American fan to watch a Final between Taylor Townsend and Grace Min, or Bjorn Fratangelo and Jared Donaldson, than between two lower-ranked foreigners who the casual fan might not know, and if more Americans are in these tournaments, the probability of that occurring decreases, and probability of increases ticket sales increases.
Ultimately, though, for a player like Chirico, she knows the rules of how to get the wildcard, and seeing her level of play in Europe, would definitely have had a huge chance at getting it, but decided not to. This isn't a knock on her, but rather, the recognition of a conscious decision on her part. Because higher ranked players, such as Shelby Rogers and Anna Tatishvili, did stay home to compete in these tournaments, but Louisa decided against it to go to Europe. And, based on her results in Stuttgart and Madrid, it seems like a brilliant move so far. She has gotten a lot more money and a lot more ranking points than she would have gotten by staying in America. And based on her level of play in these tournament, she seems like a good bet to make the main draw of the French Open anyways.
However, let's not pretend as if Chirico didn't know about this wild card challenge. She knew the parameters for receiving the wild card and chose not to participate, which is totally her choice, but the wild card rules are clear, and she chose to go to Europe anyways. And while this is absolutely her right, it just means that she 100% did not deserve the wild card. I liken it to this, let's say a teacher gives you two choices for a final paper, and for the class, either paper topic is totally fine totally ok to write on, however an outside company is giving $100 for writing the best paper for only one of the topics. If you write the best paper in the world about the topic the company doesn't care about, while it's absolutely your right to do that according the specifications for the class itself (in this case, the ATP/WTA), it doesn't still mean that the outside company (in this case, the USTA), should give you the $100. Just some food for thought here.
This article is not a dig at Tyler Green, nor is it a dig at Louisa Chirico. This is merely a careful analysis of why the USTA gives out the wildcard in this format. And trust me, I don't agree with every decision the USTA makes, but in this case, the wildcard is definitely handed out in a just format.
For the tournaments, this ensures that lots of Americans are in the draw, which ensures interest from fans and higher attendance at events. For American players who cannot get into the main draw based on the ranking, there are massive point and financial incentive from a potential trip to Paris, so playing these smaller tournaments are a great idea. So, from this perspective, the wild card challenge is only a good thing, for the fans in attendance who want to see Americans battling on court, for tournament sponsors, for the players themselves, it seems as if having a wildcard challenge, rather than just handing out the reciprocal wildcard, is a brilliant idea. There is also something very rewarding about winning that wildcard as opposed to being gifted with one.
However, as is common with Twitter, everyone has an opinion, and so I stumbled upon an interesting tweet from a poster named Tyler Green, questioning the USTA for their wild card challenge on the women's side, specifically referring to whether the player in the lead right now, Taylor Townsend, deserves the wild card more than Louisa Chirico, who will not be given direct acceptance to the main draw, but is doing very well in European, WTA-level, clay court events. And he does bring up an interesting, and valid point. Why should players challenging themselves in Europe be punished for that by having to go through the qualifying draw in Paris, while players competing in smaller tournaments in the United States get rewarded. Let me try to dissect the reasoning behind it as best I can.
I think that there are multiple reasons why the wildcard is given in this manner. First of all, like I've mentioned earlier, I commend the USTA for wanting players to work for the wildcard as opposed to just being handed one, based on some internal discussions that the public will never hear. The proces of obtaining the wildcard is very clear, and there is no subjective discussion for "who is more deserving than who". Rewarding the wildcard in this manner would open up a huge hornets' nest of subjective wild card selections previously only reserved for the US Open if the USTA stopped their wildcard challenge in lieu of an opinionated process with no clear standards.
In addition, like I touched on before, the USTA is also helping the American tournaments involved by having the wild card. Instead of going to Europe, a lot of players are enticed to stay in America and compete in these smaller prize money events now, giving the tournaments more American players to advertise, and the fans more American players to watch compete. Sponsors are also helped as more eyes means more potential financial gain for them. And if sponsors are happy and butts are in sears, then tournaments can flourish. So, beyond the players themselves, the USTA is helping the actual American tournaments by bestowing the wildcard in this fashion. Ultimately, it's a lot better, and certainly more enticing, for the casual American fan to watch a Final between Taylor Townsend and Grace Min, or Bjorn Fratangelo and Jared Donaldson, than between two lower-ranked foreigners who the casual fan might not know, and if more Americans are in these tournaments, the probability of that occurring decreases, and probability of increases ticket sales increases.
Ultimately, though, for a player like Chirico, she knows the rules of how to get the wildcard, and seeing her level of play in Europe, would definitely have had a huge chance at getting it, but decided not to. This isn't a knock on her, but rather, the recognition of a conscious decision on her part. Because higher ranked players, such as Shelby Rogers and Anna Tatishvili, did stay home to compete in these tournaments, but Louisa decided against it to go to Europe. And, based on her results in Stuttgart and Madrid, it seems like a brilliant move so far. She has gotten a lot more money and a lot more ranking points than she would have gotten by staying in America. And based on her level of play in these tournament, she seems like a good bet to make the main draw of the French Open anyways.
However, let's not pretend as if Chirico didn't know about this wild card challenge. She knew the parameters for receiving the wild card and chose not to participate, which is totally her choice, but the wild card rules are clear, and she chose to go to Europe anyways. And while this is absolutely her right, it just means that she 100% did not deserve the wild card. I liken it to this, let's say a teacher gives you two choices for a final paper, and for the class, either paper topic is totally fine totally ok to write on, however an outside company is giving $100 for writing the best paper for only one of the topics. If you write the best paper in the world about the topic the company doesn't care about, while it's absolutely your right to do that according the specifications for the class itself (in this case, the ATP/WTA), it doesn't still mean that the outside company (in this case, the USTA), should give you the $100. Just some food for thought here.
This article is not a dig at Tyler Green, nor is it a dig at Louisa Chirico. This is merely a careful analysis of why the USTA gives out the wildcard in this format. And trust me, I don't agree with every decision the USTA makes, but in this case, the wildcard is definitely handed out in a just format.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)