2017 in the tennis season concluded with many heart-warming stories. Lucas Pouille came through in the clutch to beat Steve Darcis in the decisive fifth rubber at Davis Cup. David Goffin finally seemed to turn a corner in his career, beating Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the ATP Finals, and then beating Lucas Pouille and Jo-Wilfred Tsonga in Davis Cup. Grigor Dimitrov played, arguably, the best week of tennis in his career when he took the ATP Finals crown, going undefeated in the process.
But, for me, the biggest story at the end of season was Jack Sock's emergence as a threat to anyone he plays and his incredible successes to close out what was, beforehand, a forgettable season. Before playing in the Masters 1000 event in Bercy, Sock hadn't played great tennis. He hadn't made the Semifinals of a tournament since Washington before the hard court, summer Masters 1000 tournaments, a tournament in which he managed to embarrass himself by questioning the surface on which the tournament was played. It seemed as if Sock would meekly finish out 2017 before looking to turn things around in the new year.
But, Jack was not going to accept that script. His game started to come together in his first match in Paris. Played off the main court, Jack took on Kyle Edmund in a rematch from an earlier meeting in Atlanta where Kyle easily took care of Sock 6-4, 6-1. And it looked as if Sock's season would be ending soon when Edmund took a 5-1 lead in the third set.
But, Jack did not quit. I've questioned Jack's work ethic in the past, but I must give him credit, in this match he did not give up. Watching the tiebreak, which ended 7-5 in Sock's favor, I couldn't get over the attacking, physical style of tennis he played. He wouldn't let Edmund really get into the tiebreak, despite the deceivingly-close score. Once Jack got the mini-break to lead 4-2 in the tiebreak, one could sense the match was over.
From there, Jack beat Lucas Pouille in straight sets before taking on Verdasco. Fernando won the first set in a tiebreak and, again, it would have been easy for Jack to mail it in and call it a season. But, again, Jack refused to go down. Sock dominated the last two sets for a three-set victory. Then Sock took down hometown favotite Julien Benneteau in straight sets before playing Filip Krajinovic in the Final.
It was surely tough on Jack to have to take on Krajinovic. Sock was seen as the heavy favorite in this match, and given that a trip to the ATP Finals, was on the line, this was surely mentally tough on him. But after losing a tight first set, Sock played the best tennis I've ever seen him play and easily won the final two sets. Sock had now won three matches in the tournament having lost the first set.
And, instead of resting on his laurels after such an impressive tournament, Sock kept up his high level of play in the ATP Finals. He played Roger Federer tough in his first match and then, with elimination lurking, he came back from a break down in the third set to beat Marin Cilic in a third set tiebreak.
Sock would then take on Alexander Zverev, a top three player in the world, with the winner advancing on to the Semifinals. Sock won the first set before playing a terrible second set and getting down a break in the third. In addition, Sock got a point penalty early in the third set. Everything was seemingly go against Jack and, once again, Jack could have just played out the cards and go into the offseason feeling good about himself.
But, Jack wouldn't give up. Jack came back and won the match 6-4, breaking for the in at 5-4 up, to go on to the Semifinals against Grigor Dimitrov. And while he lost the match, he still took the first set over Grigor and proved, once again, that he could compete against the best in the world. Jack Sock had proven to the world that he could be a force in the coming years.
But, will Jack Sock sustain his success? This is then natural question after such great success which, at least from an outside perspective, seems to have come out of nowhere. For Jack, I think the key to success is making sure that his fitness is high. That has been a question mark in the past, and it will be interesting to see if Jack continues to show a high level of fitness when not in the climate controlled conditions that indoor tennis produces.
Another interesting question is how Jack Sock handles the pressure of being the top American male tennis player. For a very long time, John Isner has been the top male American tennis player, and now Jack will be tasked with leading what was once the top country in male tennis. Jack seems like an easy-going guy, so the pressure that produces shouldn't be a problem for him, but it is a question that needs to be asked.
Something else to look for is whether or not Jack can consistently compete at the level he competed with at the end of the season. It's one thing to win a Masters 1000 event and then do well in the next tournament, but it's a whole different ball game to keep those successes coming. Earlier in the season, when Jack had some successes in Indian Wells and Miami, he followed that up with a disappointing loss to Jordan Thompson in Davis Cup.
And while he did make the Semifinals of Houston in the following tournament, he then didn't Semifinals of a tournament (nor win more than two matches in a tournament) until Washington, which was then followed by some more poor results. So, it will be interesting to see if Jack can get some sustained success to start 2018. If Jack starts off strong through the Australian Open, then thoughts of the next American grand slam champion will come into view.
He needs to have the right attitude, though. That outburst that I mentioned earlier is not the type of behavior typically seen in champions. Sock's game is not on the level of a guy like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors, he can't be losing his focus on issues such as the condition of the court. But, I think that, given what we have seen at the end of the season, winning a slam is certainly a possibility.
With a continuation of good fitness and with a good attitude, I believe that Jack Sock can win at least one slam and sustain his success.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
The Decision to Play a Challenger Instead of US Open Qualifying
As the singles qualifying tournament started last week, players from around the world battled for the incredible chance to play at one of the four biggest tennis tournaments in the world: the US Open. The US Open, with it's total purse of $36,324,000 for the men's and women's singles tournament and a $1,938,400 purse for the qualifying tournament alone in women's and men's singles tournament, not to mention the many ranking points to be gained at the US Open, would seem like an opportunity too good to pass up. However, many male players in the clay court Manerbio Challenger did pass up the opportunity to play in the US Open and opted for a Challenger instead. This article will look at the ramifications of male players playing in the Manerbio Challenger as opposed to US Open qualifying.
From a points perspective, I can, perhaps, understand the decision to play a Challenger instead of trying to qualify for a Grand Slam. A realistic goal at a clay court Challenger where many of the top clay court players are in New York City trying to qualify for the US Open would be the Semifinals. And, the Semifinals of the Manebrio Challenger does give out 29 ranking points. However, a quick First Round loss doesn't give a player any ranking points, and a Second Round loss isn't much better, only handing out six ranking points. A Quarterfinalist would get 15 ranking points. A Finalist in Manerbio would receive 48 ranking points, while the winner receives 80 ranking points.
Qualifying and then losing in the First Round of the US Open, however, would give you more points than even a Semifinals at this Challenger event, giving qualifiers 35 points. Qualifiers get 25 points for qualifying and then 10 more points for losing in the First Round. So, essentially, by winning the same number of matches (3), you would get 6 more points by playing qualifying at the US Open.
Now, the rankings of the players playing US Open qualifying are generally, on the whole, higher than the rankings of players playing in Manerbio, so an argument could be made that it makes more sense to try to play in Manerbio as compared to New York City. However, you never know with the draws, and even if a player doesn't think he can qualify, he could still get a favorable draw and have a good shot at qualifying and a good draw in the main draw could even give a player a chance of winning even more (where the potential monetary and ranking possibilities sky rocket).
From a monetary perspective, it just makes much more sense for players who can play in US Open qualifying to do so. A lot of these qualifiers for the US Open are in a financial battle to stay on the tour, and even a First Round loss in qualifying can do a lot of good for players struggling financially. The differences in prize money in Manerbio compared to US Open qualifying are substantial.
A First Round loss in Manerbio will give a player 450 Euros, which is the equivalent of $483.36. Now, I'm sure a lot of players will say that they don't expect to lose in the First Round, but upsets happen. In contrast, a First Round loss in US Open qualifying will hand a player $5,606 dollars. That's over a $5000 dollar difference! A Second Round loss in Manerbio gives player 730 Euros, or $871.25. A Second Round loss in US Open qualifying $10,900 for over a $9000 difference. Again, sure there are generally higher ranked players in US Open qualifying as compared to Manerbio, but these differences in prize money for winning the same number of matches are incredible to think about.
A player would have to win Manerbio in order to get more money than they would have won losing in the First Round of US Open qualifying. Players winning all five matches in Manerbio would receive less money than winning one match in US Open qualifying. From a purely monetary perspective, it just seems to make a lot more sense to at least head to New York and hope to qualify. While I don't totally understand how this works, qualifiers for the US Open women's and men's singles tournament make $16,350, while women's and men's players losing in the First Round of the main draw make $43,313. Those are staggering cash amounts which are just much greater than what a player could make in Manerbio. And if a player goes further than the First Round of the main draw of the US Open, the numbers for money earned (in addition to ranking points earned) really sky rocket.
This post is not meant to shame anyone who decided to play in Manerbio instead of the US Open. I understand that a lot of players would much rather play on a clay court as opposed to a hard court, and would, thus, prefer to play on the clay courts of Manerbio as opposed to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows. I also understand that travel is expensive, and going to New York City could be much more expensive than going to Manerbio.
However, in my opinion, the potential for financial and ranking gain is very high for US Open qualifying and the draw could always be very favorable to a player! In any case, with US Open qualifying over, it is time for the US Open to begin later this morning. Enjoy the last major of the season!
From a points perspective, I can, perhaps, understand the decision to play a Challenger instead of trying to qualify for a Grand Slam. A realistic goal at a clay court Challenger where many of the top clay court players are in New York City trying to qualify for the US Open would be the Semifinals. And, the Semifinals of the Manebrio Challenger does give out 29 ranking points. However, a quick First Round loss doesn't give a player any ranking points, and a Second Round loss isn't much better, only handing out six ranking points. A Quarterfinalist would get 15 ranking points. A Finalist in Manerbio would receive 48 ranking points, while the winner receives 80 ranking points.
Qualifying and then losing in the First Round of the US Open, however, would give you more points than even a Semifinals at this Challenger event, giving qualifiers 35 points. Qualifiers get 25 points for qualifying and then 10 more points for losing in the First Round. So, essentially, by winning the same number of matches (3), you would get 6 more points by playing qualifying at the US Open.
Now, the rankings of the players playing US Open qualifying are generally, on the whole, higher than the rankings of players playing in Manerbio, so an argument could be made that it makes more sense to try to play in Manerbio as compared to New York City. However, you never know with the draws, and even if a player doesn't think he can qualify, he could still get a favorable draw and have a good shot at qualifying and a good draw in the main draw could even give a player a chance of winning even more (where the potential monetary and ranking possibilities sky rocket).
From a monetary perspective, it just makes much more sense for players who can play in US Open qualifying to do so. A lot of these qualifiers for the US Open are in a financial battle to stay on the tour, and even a First Round loss in qualifying can do a lot of good for players struggling financially. The differences in prize money in Manerbio compared to US Open qualifying are substantial.
A First Round loss in Manerbio will give a player 450 Euros, which is the equivalent of $483.36. Now, I'm sure a lot of players will say that they don't expect to lose in the First Round, but upsets happen. In contrast, a First Round loss in US Open qualifying will hand a player $5,606 dollars. That's over a $5000 dollar difference! A Second Round loss in Manerbio gives player 730 Euros, or $871.25. A Second Round loss in US Open qualifying $10,900 for over a $9000 difference. Again, sure there are generally higher ranked players in US Open qualifying as compared to Manerbio, but these differences in prize money for winning the same number of matches are incredible to think about.
A player would have to win Manerbio in order to get more money than they would have won losing in the First Round of US Open qualifying. Players winning all five matches in Manerbio would receive less money than winning one match in US Open qualifying. From a purely monetary perspective, it just seems to make a lot more sense to at least head to New York and hope to qualify. While I don't totally understand how this works, qualifiers for the US Open women's and men's singles tournament make $16,350, while women's and men's players losing in the First Round of the main draw make $43,313. Those are staggering cash amounts which are just much greater than what a player could make in Manerbio. And if a player goes further than the First Round of the main draw of the US Open, the numbers for money earned (in addition to ranking points earned) really sky rocket.
This post is not meant to shame anyone who decided to play in Manerbio instead of the US Open. I understand that a lot of players would much rather play on a clay court as opposed to a hard court, and would, thus, prefer to play on the clay courts of Manerbio as opposed to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows. I also understand that travel is expensive, and going to New York City could be much more expensive than going to Manerbio.
However, in my opinion, the potential for financial and ranking gain is very high for US Open qualifying and the draw could always be very favorable to a player! In any case, with US Open qualifying over, it is time for the US Open to begin later this morning. Enjoy the last major of the season!
Saturday, August 26, 2017
US Open Men's First Round Upset Predictions
With the men's US Open draw officially out, it is now time to make
bold predictions and predict upsets that will look foolish within 30 minutes of
play beginning on Monday. But, alas, I will still try my best to predict the
big upsets that I think will occur in the US Open men's tournament. For the
purposes of this post, upset predictions will be made based on non-seeds
beating seeds and not on the odds for each match.
US Open Men's First Round Upset Predictions
Damir Dzumhur to beat Pablo Cuevas (27) in four sets: Dzumhur has
looked fantastic this week in Winston-Salem, playing in the Final today. He has
beaten very solid players this week, defeating players such as Gilles Simon,
Hyeon Chung, and Kyle Edmund. Cuevas, on the other hand, has been in very poor
form. Pablo has lost five matches in a row and has only played in one hard
court tournament this summer, losing in straight sets to Jan-Lennard Struff.
What worries me about picking Dzumhur in this matchup is the fact that he could
be fatigued. He made the Final of a clay court tournament last week and is in
the Final of Winston-Salem this week. On the hot hard courts of Flushing
Meadows, he could crack. Still, I like Dzumhur to win this match.
Jordan Thompson to beat Jack Sock (13) in five sets: I really
liked how Thompson played in Washington. His match over Bemelmans was thorough
domination and then he played Alexander Zverev the closest that anyone played
him in Washington that week, losing 7-5 in a third set tiebreak. The fact that
Zverev won Washington and Montreal makes his efforts against Alexander even
more impressive. Thompson plays that pesky game that annoys opponents, much
like Dzumhur. Thompson has also done well recently on the Challenger circuit,
making the Final of Binghampton and Vancouver. Sock has lost three of his past
four matches and has not been playing well ever since his victory over Milos
Raonic in Washington. In addition, when these played before in a Davis Cup
match in Australia earlier this year, Thompson won in four sets. And while the
crowd should help Jack, I think Thompson style of play bothers Jack greatly and
Sock wilts in the New York heat. This match could be similar to the match that
Sock played against a similarly styled player in Yuichi Sugita, where Sock lost
in straight sets.
So, those are the only seeds I have losing are these two, which
obviously is unlikely to occur, but I am just trying to be honest with how I
see these games playing out and not just pick upsets for the sake of picking
upsets. But obviously, because I picked so few upsets, expect about 10 seeds to
be out by the time morning play starts on Tuesday!
US Open Women's First Round Upset Predictions
With the women's US Open draw officially out, it is now time to make bold predictions and predict upsets that will look foolish within 30 minutes of play beginning on Monday. But, alas, I will still try my best to predict the big upsets that I think will occur in the US Open women's tournament. For the purposes of this post, upset predictions will be made based on non-seeds beating seeds and not on the odds for each match.
US Open Women's First Round Upset Predictions
Sabine Lisicki to beat Shuai Zhang (27) in three sets: I am making this prediction for two reasons. First, despite having a good week in New Haven, including a straight sets victory over Petra Kvitova, Zhang had to pull out of the Connecticut Open with injury. I could tell she wasn't 100% healthy when she took a medical timeout in the Round of 16 against Magda Linette, and that was proven to be the case when she withdrew from the tournament. Second, Lisicki played well enough in Washington, making the Quarterfinals, that I feel confident enough that she will capitalize on this opportunity and win the match.
Lucie Safarova to beat Anett Kontaveit (26) in three sets: I'm not very confident about this one, but I saw enough in Toronto for me to think that she will pull the upset. Safarova won three matches in Toronto, including impressive victories over Dominika Cibulkova and Ekaterina Makarova. Yes, she lost to Sloane Stephens in Toronto and Cincinnati, but I think that's more of a matchup problem as opposed to anything regarding Lucie's form. Kontaveit form has also cooled off recently, losing in the First Round of Cincinnati and New Haven.
Camila Giorgi to beat Magdalena Rybarikova (31) in three sets: These two just played in Cincinnati, with Giorgi winning in two sets. I am not convinced of Rybarikova as a top-echelon player. Yes, she played amazing tennis at Wimbledon that showed how much variety she has in her arsenal, but I don't think she can sustain top tennis in the long haul. Yes, Rybarikova won in New Haven in 2014, but she didn't make it out of qualifying in Cincinnati nor New Haven, and the only reason she made it out of qualifying in Toronto is because she got into the draw as a lucky loser. Giorgi also looked very good in Cincinnati and came within one set of the Quarterfinals.
Ashleigh Barty to beat Ana Konjuh (21) in two sets: Barty looked great in Cincinnati. She qualified and made the Round of 16 of Cincinnati and had a very impressive win over Venus Williams. Until she played Caroline Wozniacki in the Round of 16, she had only dropped one set in qualifying and the main draw combined. Barty also qualified and made the Round of 16 in Toronto, coming within one set of the Quarterfinals. Konjuh, meanwhile, has lost three matches in a row, which included a retirement in Toronto.
Sofia Kenin to beat Lauren Davis (32) in three sets: Davis has lost six matches in a row, not winning a match since Eastbourne, where (despite winning a qualifying match) the only reason she got into the main draw and not out in the Final Qualifying Round was because she was a lucky loser. In her six match losing streak, she has only won one set and won nine games combined in the past two matches. Kenin did lose in qualifying of Cincinnati and New Haven, but earlier this summer won an ITF tournament in Stockton, made the Final of another in Lexington, and made the Semifinals of another in Sacramento.
The popular upset pick will probably be Maria Sharapova to beat Simona Halep (2), given the 6-0 head to head lead for Sharapova and the fact that she has five majors to Halep's zero. However, I don't see it happening. Sharapova has played only a single match since retiring in Rome, and had to withdraw from the next tournament she played in Stanford. And she was taken to three sets in that match in Stanford that she did play against Jennifer Brady. I don't think Sharapova has the matchplay necessary to beat Halep, and so I think Simona wins that match in three sets.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Men's French Open Predictions
It's time for my predictions for the French Open. These will almost surely be wrong, but I can try!
Semifinalists:
First Quarter: John Isner. This is one of those "out there" picks, I get it. But, if the way I see the drawing unfolding comes true, then Isner will come out of this section. I see Murray beating del Potro but, given his poor form and the physical tax that will come from that match Juan Martin, I think he loses to Isner in the Round of 16. I have Cuevas beating Zverev in the Third Round before losing to Querrey in the Fourth Round. I have Querrey upsetting Nishikori, who seems to be low on confidence right now. I think have Isner beating Querrey to reach the Semifinals! Yes, this pick is not expected, but I do believe we will be seeing a lot of Isner over the next two weeks.
Second Quarter: Stanislas Wawrinka. I think Wawrinka will be confident after winning Geneva. He also got a very good draw. Fognini, if he is focused, could trouble him in the Third Round, but I think he should beat him in four sets. I don't foresee the winner of Gasquet and Monfils beating a confident Wawrinka in the Round of 16. The winner of Tsonga-Cilic could provide Stan with some problems in the Quarterfinals, and I think Stan will meet Tsonga in quarters, but I think back to when Tsonga was only able to get a set against Stan back in 2015 when both were playing so well in the Roland Garros Semifinals, and I just can't see Tsonga winning that match. Wawrinka dominates the head to head with Cilic, going 11-2 and 4-0 on clay, so I see Cilic beating Wawrinka here either.
Third Quarter: Rafael Nadal. Nadal has had an amazing clay court season so far, only losing one match and winning in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Madrid. There's just really no one in his section that will be able to trouble him much. Maybe Simon in the Third Round if Nadal has a bunch of errors, and perhaps Sock if Nadal let's Jack's forehand dictate too much, but I just don't see many problems for Rafa, given his draw. I think he will play Pable Carreno Busta in the Quarterfinals, and I don't think Rafa will have any problems beating him. Nadal is just much better than everyone else in his quarter of the draw.
Fourth Quarter: Novak Djokovic. This is a very tricky quarter for Djokovic. There are tons of players in the this quarter that can give him issues. I think his first tricky match will be in the Third Round against Diego Schwartzman. Schwartzman is very good on clay and is not someone you want to see in your at Roland Garros. Luckily for Djokovic, Goffin and Thiem, who have both had very successful clay court seasons, are projected to match up against one another in the Round of 16. Novak will most likely see the winner of that match if he makes the quarters, and I think he will see Goffin. David is a matchup problem for Dominic, despite Thiem's win against Goffin last year in the quarters. In the Round of 16, Djokovic could see Ramos Vinolas or Pouille, both of whom have had a lot of clay court success. Also watch out for Djokovic's Second Round against Janko Tipseravic, who if healthy, could be dangerous. Tipseravic has dominated clay court Challengers this season.
Semifinals: Isner vs. Wawrinka, Nadal vs. Djokovic
Final: Wawrinka vs. Nadal
Champion: Stanislas Wawrinka
Semifinalists:
First Quarter: John Isner. This is one of those "out there" picks, I get it. But, if the way I see the drawing unfolding comes true, then Isner will come out of this section. I see Murray beating del Potro but, given his poor form and the physical tax that will come from that match Juan Martin, I think he loses to Isner in the Round of 16. I have Cuevas beating Zverev in the Third Round before losing to Querrey in the Fourth Round. I have Querrey upsetting Nishikori, who seems to be low on confidence right now. I think have Isner beating Querrey to reach the Semifinals! Yes, this pick is not expected, but I do believe we will be seeing a lot of Isner over the next two weeks.
Second Quarter: Stanislas Wawrinka. I think Wawrinka will be confident after winning Geneva. He also got a very good draw. Fognini, if he is focused, could trouble him in the Third Round, but I think he should beat him in four sets. I don't foresee the winner of Gasquet and Monfils beating a confident Wawrinka in the Round of 16. The winner of Tsonga-Cilic could provide Stan with some problems in the Quarterfinals, and I think Stan will meet Tsonga in quarters, but I think back to when Tsonga was only able to get a set against Stan back in 2015 when both were playing so well in the Roland Garros Semifinals, and I just can't see Tsonga winning that match. Wawrinka dominates the head to head with Cilic, going 11-2 and 4-0 on clay, so I see Cilic beating Wawrinka here either.
Third Quarter: Rafael Nadal. Nadal has had an amazing clay court season so far, only losing one match and winning in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Madrid. There's just really no one in his section that will be able to trouble him much. Maybe Simon in the Third Round if Nadal has a bunch of errors, and perhaps Sock if Nadal let's Jack's forehand dictate too much, but I just don't see many problems for Rafa, given his draw. I think he will play Pable Carreno Busta in the Quarterfinals, and I don't think Rafa will have any problems beating him. Nadal is just much better than everyone else in his quarter of the draw.
Fourth Quarter: Novak Djokovic. This is a very tricky quarter for Djokovic. There are tons of players in the this quarter that can give him issues. I think his first tricky match will be in the Third Round against Diego Schwartzman. Schwartzman is very good on clay and is not someone you want to see in your at Roland Garros. Luckily for Djokovic, Goffin and Thiem, who have both had very successful clay court seasons, are projected to match up against one another in the Round of 16. Novak will most likely see the winner of that match if he makes the quarters, and I think he will see Goffin. David is a matchup problem for Dominic, despite Thiem's win against Goffin last year in the quarters. In the Round of 16, Djokovic could see Ramos Vinolas or Pouille, both of whom have had a lot of clay court success. Also watch out for Djokovic's Second Round against Janko Tipseravic, who if healthy, could be dangerous. Tipseravic has dominated clay court Challengers this season.
Semifinals: Isner vs. Wawrinka, Nadal vs. Djokovic
Final: Wawrinka vs. Nadal
Champion: Stanislas Wawrinka
Women's French Open Predictions
With the French Open set to begin tomorrow, I make my prediction. They will almost surely prove to be incorrect, but I can try!
Women's Semifinalists:
Top Quarter: Samantha Stosur. For a long time, I thought Kuznetsova was coming up out of this section, but the more I think about it, the more I get the gut feeling she will lose. She did have a nice run in Madrid, but the conditions are very different in Rome than in Madrid, and she had an early loss to Gavrilova in Rome, and lost early in Stuttgart too to Siegemund. Stosur got a really nice draw, having two straight-forward matches to start the tournament and drawing a rusty Kvitova as her possible third round seeded opponent, and it's not as if Kvitova loved clay in the first place. Kuznetsova's eighth of the draw also features Wozniacki and recent Nuremberg champion Kiki Bertens, so only one of those players will make it out of that 8th of the draw. In addition, Kerber is playing very pooly, I have her losing to Makarova in the First Round. Stosur played great tennis in Strasbourg, only losing one set all week and beating a few very good players, and I have her in the semis.
Second Quarter: Dominka Cibulkova. I have no clue who will come out of this quarter of the draw. Tons of players have a real shot, including Cibulkova, Venus Williams, Timea Bacsinszky, Daria Gavrilova, Kiki Mladenovic, Annett Kontaveit and defending champion Garbine Muguruza (who plays a former champion in Francesca Schiavone in the First Round, by the way). Former Finalist Sara Errani is also in this quarter, but I'm not sure if she can beat Mladenovic in the Second Round. I have a suspicion that Kontaveit is going to upset Muguruza in the Second Round, as Annett has had a great season. Gavrilova had a tiring week in Strasbourg, and I don't know if Venus still has the fitness to win many clay court matches in a row, especially what should be a war in the Third Round against Gavrilova, so I think the winner of that matches loses to Cibulkova in the Round of 16. Cibulkova has a very straightforward draw to start the tournament, and I just don't think Mladenovic is quite ready for a major semi yet, especially playing someone of Cibulkova's caliber and fighting spirit, in the Quarterfinals so Dominika is my pick to come out of this quarter.
Third Quarter: Carla Suarez Navarro. Another quarter where anything can happen. Halep's injury still worries me, and after what should be a battle against Vondrousova (who I have upsetting Kasatkina in the Second Round) in the Third Round, I don't know how much fight Halep will have left for a potential Round of 16 match against Suarez Navarro. Despite her recent titles, I am not sure Svitolina is a player who can win a grand slam, as her game is often too passive. Madison Keys is a big name in this section of the draw, but she starts with a brutal First Round against Ashleigh Barty. Bouchard could make a run, but her pulling out of Nuremberg makes me hesitant to predict her to go too far in the draw. I think Suarez Navarro takes this quarter of the draw.
Fourth Quarter: Caroline Garcia. Again, I have no idea what will happen here. The three top ten seeds in this quarter are Plsikova, Konta, and Radwanska, and neither of those three play particularly well on the clay. That leaves me with two realistic semifinalists: Caroline Garcia playing in front of her home fans, or Anastasia Pavyluchenkova, who has had a really great clay court season. I expect the quarterfinal match between those two players to be tight, but I think Garcia sneaks out a really tight match. However, I could easily see Pavyluchenkova coming out of this section, that was a really hard match to predict. Other players I could see making a run are Alize Cornet and Coco Vandeweghe, but I just can't see either of them in the Semifinals.
Semifinals: Stosur vs. Cibulkova, Suarez Navarro vs. Garcia
Final: Stosur vs. Suarez Navarro
Champion: Samantha Stosur
Women's Semifinalists:
Top Quarter: Samantha Stosur. For a long time, I thought Kuznetsova was coming up out of this section, but the more I think about it, the more I get the gut feeling she will lose. She did have a nice run in Madrid, but the conditions are very different in Rome than in Madrid, and she had an early loss to Gavrilova in Rome, and lost early in Stuttgart too to Siegemund. Stosur got a really nice draw, having two straight-forward matches to start the tournament and drawing a rusty Kvitova as her possible third round seeded opponent, and it's not as if Kvitova loved clay in the first place. Kuznetsova's eighth of the draw also features Wozniacki and recent Nuremberg champion Kiki Bertens, so only one of those players will make it out of that 8th of the draw. In addition, Kerber is playing very pooly, I have her losing to Makarova in the First Round. Stosur played great tennis in Strasbourg, only losing one set all week and beating a few very good players, and I have her in the semis.
Second Quarter: Dominka Cibulkova. I have no clue who will come out of this quarter of the draw. Tons of players have a real shot, including Cibulkova, Venus Williams, Timea Bacsinszky, Daria Gavrilova, Kiki Mladenovic, Annett Kontaveit and defending champion Garbine Muguruza (who plays a former champion in Francesca Schiavone in the First Round, by the way). Former Finalist Sara Errani is also in this quarter, but I'm not sure if she can beat Mladenovic in the Second Round. I have a suspicion that Kontaveit is going to upset Muguruza in the Second Round, as Annett has had a great season. Gavrilova had a tiring week in Strasbourg, and I don't know if Venus still has the fitness to win many clay court matches in a row, especially what should be a war in the Third Round against Gavrilova, so I think the winner of that matches loses to Cibulkova in the Round of 16. Cibulkova has a very straightforward draw to start the tournament, and I just don't think Mladenovic is quite ready for a major semi yet, especially playing someone of Cibulkova's caliber and fighting spirit, in the Quarterfinals so Dominika is my pick to come out of this quarter.
Third Quarter: Carla Suarez Navarro. Another quarter where anything can happen. Halep's injury still worries me, and after what should be a battle against Vondrousova (who I have upsetting Kasatkina in the Second Round) in the Third Round, I don't know how much fight Halep will have left for a potential Round of 16 match against Suarez Navarro. Despite her recent titles, I am not sure Svitolina is a player who can win a grand slam, as her game is often too passive. Madison Keys is a big name in this section of the draw, but she starts with a brutal First Round against Ashleigh Barty. Bouchard could make a run, but her pulling out of Nuremberg makes me hesitant to predict her to go too far in the draw. I think Suarez Navarro takes this quarter of the draw.
Fourth Quarter: Caroline Garcia. Again, I have no idea what will happen here. The three top ten seeds in this quarter are Plsikova, Konta, and Radwanska, and neither of those three play particularly well on the clay. That leaves me with two realistic semifinalists: Caroline Garcia playing in front of her home fans, or Anastasia Pavyluchenkova, who has had a really great clay court season. I expect the quarterfinal match between those two players to be tight, but I think Garcia sneaks out a really tight match. However, I could easily see Pavyluchenkova coming out of this section, that was a really hard match to predict. Other players I could see making a run are Alize Cornet and Coco Vandeweghe, but I just can't see either of them in the Semifinals.
Semifinals: Stosur vs. Cibulkova, Suarez Navarro vs. Garcia
Final: Stosur vs. Suarez Navarro
Champion: Samantha Stosur
Friday, May 26, 2017
Sara Errani is Ready for Main Draw of French Open
It almost seemed surreal to see Sara Errani in the French Open qualifying draw. Just five years, she was one match from winning the French Open before Maria Sharapova beat her 6-3, 6-2. She had beaten French Open champion Ana Ivanovic in the Third Round, two-time grand slam champion Svetlana Kuznetsova in the Round of 16, future two-time grand slam champion Angelique Kerber in the Quarterfinals, and US Open champion Sam Stosur in the Semifinals. That was a very impressive run. In addition, Sara has won three Australian Opens, a French Open, and Wimbledon with former doubles partner Roberta Vinci.
At Roland Garros, Errani backed up this success with a Semifinals showing in the 2013 French Open, and then reaching the Quarterfinals at the 2014 and 2015 French Open. These is some serious success at one major, and after reaching the Quarterfinals as recently as two years, it is definitely a shock to see Errani in the qualifying draw this year.
Errani's slide down the rankings came soon after the biggest title of her career, winning a Premier event in Dubai. After her title in Dubai, she lost four of her next six matches, made the semis of Charleston, and then proceeded to lose every match for the rest of the clay court season up to the French Open, including a shocking First Round loss to Tsetvana Pironkova at Roland Garros.
The grass court season was not successful for Errani, going 1-2, and she had middling results for the rest of the season, which included First Round losses in four of her final five tournaments of 2016, including at the US Open. 2017 has not been great to Sara either, as she lost in her first match of the season at Brisbane, had to withdraw from the Second Round of the Australian Open before her match against Ekaterina Makarova, and proceeded to lose in the Second Round of her next three tournaments, even on the clay of Charleston. Not great results from Errani, and given her horrendous form to end 2016, it seemed as if she would be playing in qualifying of the French Open.
Errani showed glimpses through some of the clay court season that she could eventually gain back her form. She made the Quarterfinals of Bogota, and later in the clay court season, made the Semifinals of Rabat. But, there were also moments this clay court season where you wondered if Errani would never be close to the player she was in the past. Errani lost in the Second Round of Istanbul to Elise Mertens, the First Round of qualifying in Madrid to Pauline Parmentier, and the First Round of Rome to Alize Cornet (which she got a wildcard in order to get into the main draw without playing qualifying).
So, when the qualifying draw came out, while it seemed like Errani would be able to get through the draw without much trouble, you could never be certain given her erratic form. However, Sara's form in qualifying has been spectacular. In her First Round match in the qualifying draw, Errani played a French wildcard, Sara Cakarevic. And Errani played up to her abilities and competed like the former Roland Garros Finalist that she is, destroying Cakarevic 6-1, 6-0. It was very clear at that point that Errani would be on her game and would be nearly impossible to beat in qualifying.
Sara continued her good form in the Second Round of qualifying when she played Veronika Kudermetova. Errani destroyed Kudermetova, as well, winning 6-1, 6-2. This means that, after her first two qualifying matches, Errani only lost four games. Then, in the Final Qualifying Round, Sara beat Nicole Gibbs 6-3, 6-0. This gave Errani to 6-0 sets in qualifying to along with two 6-1 sets. No opponent got more than three games in a set, or in a match, against Errani during French Open qualifying.
I really think that winning so easily during French Open qualifying will be a turning point in the year for Errani. Watching Errani play for much of last year and this year so far, much of the problem with Errani's game is that she has lost a tremendous amount of confidence. She isn't hitting her groundstrokes with the authority that she once did, and this affects both the depth on her groundstrokes, and has also damaged her fighting spirit. The Errani that I saw, for instance, lose to Christina McHale in Brisbane and Johanna Larsson in Bogota was not the Errani that I had watched a couple years ago. She had lost both her fighting spirit and the depth on her groundstrokes, and I have a feeling it has been largely a confidence issue for Sara.
I truly believe that not just winning in qualifying, but dominating in every match she played, will give Errani a lot of confidence. Just a few weeks ago, Sara was the one losing 6-0 in a set, in the semis of Rabat, which could have caused her to lose some of the confidence she had gained over the course of the week. But to come to a place where she has won the doubles title and made the singles Final, and to play so well over the course of three matches, it signals good things in Errani's future in Paris.
So, now Sara moves onto the main draw. She will open up against Misaki Doi, who was having a good week in Nuremberg, before retiring in the Semifinals against Kiki Bertens. Overall, that is a pretty good draw for Errani, and I expect her to come through that match and set up a tough Second Round match against, most likely, Kristina Mladenovic, who has had a great year so far.
But, no matter the results in the main draw of the French Open, I can't help but to think that Errani is on the right track in turning her year around. I believe Sara will gain a lot of confidence from the qualifying event in Paris, and this will be crucial to her success for the rest of the season, and even in a broader sense, for the rest of her career. Based on her results in qualifying, Sara Errani is ready for the main draw of the French Open.
At Roland Garros, Errani backed up this success with a Semifinals showing in the 2013 French Open, and then reaching the Quarterfinals at the 2014 and 2015 French Open. These is some serious success at one major, and after reaching the Quarterfinals as recently as two years, it is definitely a shock to see Errani in the qualifying draw this year.
Errani's slide down the rankings came soon after the biggest title of her career, winning a Premier event in Dubai. After her title in Dubai, she lost four of her next six matches, made the semis of Charleston, and then proceeded to lose every match for the rest of the clay court season up to the French Open, including a shocking First Round loss to Tsetvana Pironkova at Roland Garros.
The grass court season was not successful for Errani, going 1-2, and she had middling results for the rest of the season, which included First Round losses in four of her final five tournaments of 2016, including at the US Open. 2017 has not been great to Sara either, as she lost in her first match of the season at Brisbane, had to withdraw from the Second Round of the Australian Open before her match against Ekaterina Makarova, and proceeded to lose in the Second Round of her next three tournaments, even on the clay of Charleston. Not great results from Errani, and given her horrendous form to end 2016, it seemed as if she would be playing in qualifying of the French Open.
Errani showed glimpses through some of the clay court season that she could eventually gain back her form. She made the Quarterfinals of Bogota, and later in the clay court season, made the Semifinals of Rabat. But, there were also moments this clay court season where you wondered if Errani would never be close to the player she was in the past. Errani lost in the Second Round of Istanbul to Elise Mertens, the First Round of qualifying in Madrid to Pauline Parmentier, and the First Round of Rome to Alize Cornet (which she got a wildcard in order to get into the main draw without playing qualifying).
So, when the qualifying draw came out, while it seemed like Errani would be able to get through the draw without much trouble, you could never be certain given her erratic form. However, Sara's form in qualifying has been spectacular. In her First Round match in the qualifying draw, Errani played a French wildcard, Sara Cakarevic. And Errani played up to her abilities and competed like the former Roland Garros Finalist that she is, destroying Cakarevic 6-1, 6-0. It was very clear at that point that Errani would be on her game and would be nearly impossible to beat in qualifying.
Sara continued her good form in the Second Round of qualifying when she played Veronika Kudermetova. Errani destroyed Kudermetova, as well, winning 6-1, 6-2. This means that, after her first two qualifying matches, Errani only lost four games. Then, in the Final Qualifying Round, Sara beat Nicole Gibbs 6-3, 6-0. This gave Errani to 6-0 sets in qualifying to along with two 6-1 sets. No opponent got more than three games in a set, or in a match, against Errani during French Open qualifying.
I really think that winning so easily during French Open qualifying will be a turning point in the year for Errani. Watching Errani play for much of last year and this year so far, much of the problem with Errani's game is that she has lost a tremendous amount of confidence. She isn't hitting her groundstrokes with the authority that she once did, and this affects both the depth on her groundstrokes, and has also damaged her fighting spirit. The Errani that I saw, for instance, lose to Christina McHale in Brisbane and Johanna Larsson in Bogota was not the Errani that I had watched a couple years ago. She had lost both her fighting spirit and the depth on her groundstrokes, and I have a feeling it has been largely a confidence issue for Sara.
I truly believe that not just winning in qualifying, but dominating in every match she played, will give Errani a lot of confidence. Just a few weeks ago, Sara was the one losing 6-0 in a set, in the semis of Rabat, which could have caused her to lose some of the confidence she had gained over the course of the week. But to come to a place where she has won the doubles title and made the singles Final, and to play so well over the course of three matches, it signals good things in Errani's future in Paris.
So, now Sara moves onto the main draw. She will open up against Misaki Doi, who was having a good week in Nuremberg, before retiring in the Semifinals against Kiki Bertens. Overall, that is a pretty good draw for Errani, and I expect her to come through that match and set up a tough Second Round match against, most likely, Kristina Mladenovic, who has had a great year so far.
But, no matter the results in the main draw of the French Open, I can't help but to think that Errani is on the right track in turning her year around. I believe Sara will gain a lot of confidence from the qualifying event in Paris, and this will be crucial to her success for the rest of the season, and even in a broader sense, for the rest of her career. Based on her results in qualifying, Sara Errani is ready for the main draw of the French Open.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Coco Vandeweghe Proves She Can Play on the Clay
For a while, it seemed as if Coco Vandeweghe was a lost cause on clay. After all, she had barely registered any wins on the surface and was excelling on the hard and grass courts, making the clay an afterthought. However, this clay season we have seen a different Vandeweghe on the dirt. Suddenly, Vandeweghe looks like a real factor in the clay court season and, perhaps, even a threat for the title at the French Open.
Before 2014, Coco Vandeweghe had not even won a WTA Tour-level match on clay in her entire life. The clay courts seemed like they wouldn't fit her powerful, first-strike tennis game, however, and the results backed up this notion. Even in 2014, she only had one win on clay, beating Iveta Melzer in the First Round before being convincingly beaten by Ekaterina Makarova in the Second Round. This was the same year that Coco won her first title, on a grass court in s'Hertogenbosch, so the difference between surfaces for Vandeweghe was very pronounced at this point.
In 2015, Vandeweghe only won two clay court matches, compiling a 2-5 record on the dirt, including Fed Cup. In Paris that year, Vandeweghe lost in the First Round to Julia Goerges. Again, the differences between her game on grass and clay were pronounced. At Wimbledon in 2015, she made the Quarterfinals, coming within one set of the semis before losing to Maria Sharapova. It seemed as if Vandeweghe would never show great results on clay, and this was seemingly confirmed by another lackluster clay court season in 2016 (including Fed Cup), where Coco went 1-4, her only victory coming in a three-setter at Roland Garros. Last year, Vandeweghe won s'Hertogenbosch again, which once again proved that she was playing good tennis, just not on clay.
Perhaps it was the 2017 Australian Open that gave Vandeweghe more confidence, which has been able to convert to the clay courts. During this year's Australian Open, Vandeweghe played spectacular tennis. Coco only dropped one set and came within one set of the Final before losing to Venus Williams in three sets in the Semifinals. Vandeweghe was "in the zone" for much of the tournament, and this was highlighted by a stomping of defending French Open champion Garbine Muguruza in the Quarterfinals. Vandeweghe seemingly couldn't miss and played precision power tennis, taking the racquet out of Muguruza's hands. She won the match 6-4, 6-0 and displayed, with the exception of Serena in Australia, the highest quality of tennis in that match that I have seen all season.
This match surely must have given Vandeweghe the confidence, if she didn't already have it, that she could play with the elites in the game and be a force on the WTA Tour. Not everyone in the tennis world likes her unfiltered attitude, but I find it refreshing to see a player not feel the need to act like a public relations employee at every moment. This is not a knock on people who are very careful in what they say, but there is something refreshing about Coco's attitude.
Coco went on a slump following her run in Australia, and it seemed like she might have to wait until the grass court season to regain her form. After a couple wins in Fed Cup, she lost in the First Round of Dubai, Indian Wells, and Miami, which included shocking losses to Alison Riske and Jana Cepelova. However, on the green clay of the Fed Cup, with American support, Coco finally found her game again. Vandeweghe beat Vondrousova and Siniakova in straight sets, never losing more than four games in the process. She followed this up with a win against Kontaveit in Stuttgart, before falling in a hotly-contested match against Pliskova.
Vandeweghe then moved on to Madrid, where she has blossomed. After beating Kontaveit again in the First Round, Coco followed that up by beating recent Stuttgart champion Laura Siegemund in a three-setter, a surprising win for Coco given her lack of good results on the surface and Siegemund's great clay court play. Today, Coco then followed up that win with a huge result against Carla Suarez Navarro. Not only was Suarez Navarro playing in her home country, but her best surface is by far clay.
It would have been easy for Vandeweghe to fold, especially after she lost a tight first set 7-4. However, Coco wouldn't go away. Vandeweghe won the second set 6-4, and despite going down 3-0 in the third set, clawed her way to a three set victory, 7-5 in the third. This was a huge victory for Coco, and was confirmation that she could definitely play on the dirt. Yes, Madrid is at a high altitude, and thus, it helps power players, as the ball flies through the air. But, beating players so great on clay courts, such as Siegemund and Suarez Navarro says a lot more than about the altitude alone.
Since Frencesca Schiavone in 2010, the French Open has had a player that one couldn't refer to as a traditional "clay courter" win the title. In 2011, Li Na won the title, while Sharapova took the title in 2012 and 2014. In 2013 and 2015, Serena Williams won at Roland Garros, while in 2016, Garbine Muguruza lifted the winner's trophy. In my opinion, there is nothing stopping Vandeweghe from winning the title in this wide open women's field, given Serena's pregnancy. Power players can still win on clay, and if Vandeweghe plays up to her capabilities, she can beat anyone in the field, no matter the surface.
No matter the result of her match against Simona Halep in the Madrid Quarterfinals, Coco Vandeweghe has proven that she can play on clay. And, quite frankly, that should scare the rest of the WTA.
Before 2014, Coco Vandeweghe had not even won a WTA Tour-level match on clay in her entire life. The clay courts seemed like they wouldn't fit her powerful, first-strike tennis game, however, and the results backed up this notion. Even in 2014, she only had one win on clay, beating Iveta Melzer in the First Round before being convincingly beaten by Ekaterina Makarova in the Second Round. This was the same year that Coco won her first title, on a grass court in s'Hertogenbosch, so the difference between surfaces for Vandeweghe was very pronounced at this point.
In 2015, Vandeweghe only won two clay court matches, compiling a 2-5 record on the dirt, including Fed Cup. In Paris that year, Vandeweghe lost in the First Round to Julia Goerges. Again, the differences between her game on grass and clay were pronounced. At Wimbledon in 2015, she made the Quarterfinals, coming within one set of the semis before losing to Maria Sharapova. It seemed as if Vandeweghe would never show great results on clay, and this was seemingly confirmed by another lackluster clay court season in 2016 (including Fed Cup), where Coco went 1-4, her only victory coming in a three-setter at Roland Garros. Last year, Vandeweghe won s'Hertogenbosch again, which once again proved that she was playing good tennis, just not on clay.
Perhaps it was the 2017 Australian Open that gave Vandeweghe more confidence, which has been able to convert to the clay courts. During this year's Australian Open, Vandeweghe played spectacular tennis. Coco only dropped one set and came within one set of the Final before losing to Venus Williams in three sets in the Semifinals. Vandeweghe was "in the zone" for much of the tournament, and this was highlighted by a stomping of defending French Open champion Garbine Muguruza in the Quarterfinals. Vandeweghe seemingly couldn't miss and played precision power tennis, taking the racquet out of Muguruza's hands. She won the match 6-4, 6-0 and displayed, with the exception of Serena in Australia, the highest quality of tennis in that match that I have seen all season.
This match surely must have given Vandeweghe the confidence, if she didn't already have it, that she could play with the elites in the game and be a force on the WTA Tour. Not everyone in the tennis world likes her unfiltered attitude, but I find it refreshing to see a player not feel the need to act like a public relations employee at every moment. This is not a knock on people who are very careful in what they say, but there is something refreshing about Coco's attitude.
Coco went on a slump following her run in Australia, and it seemed like she might have to wait until the grass court season to regain her form. After a couple wins in Fed Cup, she lost in the First Round of Dubai, Indian Wells, and Miami, which included shocking losses to Alison Riske and Jana Cepelova. However, on the green clay of the Fed Cup, with American support, Coco finally found her game again. Vandeweghe beat Vondrousova and Siniakova in straight sets, never losing more than four games in the process. She followed this up with a win against Kontaveit in Stuttgart, before falling in a hotly-contested match against Pliskova.
Vandeweghe then moved on to Madrid, where she has blossomed. After beating Kontaveit again in the First Round, Coco followed that up by beating recent Stuttgart champion Laura Siegemund in a three-setter, a surprising win for Coco given her lack of good results on the surface and Siegemund's great clay court play. Today, Coco then followed up that win with a huge result against Carla Suarez Navarro. Not only was Suarez Navarro playing in her home country, but her best surface is by far clay.
It would have been easy for Vandeweghe to fold, especially after she lost a tight first set 7-4. However, Coco wouldn't go away. Vandeweghe won the second set 6-4, and despite going down 3-0 in the third set, clawed her way to a three set victory, 7-5 in the third. This was a huge victory for Coco, and was confirmation that she could definitely play on the dirt. Yes, Madrid is at a high altitude, and thus, it helps power players, as the ball flies through the air. But, beating players so great on clay courts, such as Siegemund and Suarez Navarro says a lot more than about the altitude alone.
Since Frencesca Schiavone in 2010, the French Open has had a player that one couldn't refer to as a traditional "clay courter" win the title. In 2011, Li Na won the title, while Sharapova took the title in 2012 and 2014. In 2013 and 2015, Serena Williams won at Roland Garros, while in 2016, Garbine Muguruza lifted the winner's trophy. In my opinion, there is nothing stopping Vandeweghe from winning the title in this wide open women's field, given Serena's pregnancy. Power players can still win on clay, and if Vandeweghe plays up to her capabilities, she can beat anyone in the field, no matter the surface.
No matter the result of her match against Simona Halep in the Madrid Quarterfinals, Coco Vandeweghe has proven that she can play on clay. And, quite frankly, that should scare the rest of the WTA.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Eugenie Bouchard Silences Her Demons in Madrid
When Eugenie Bouchard finally beat Maria Sharapova 7-5, 2-6, 6-4 in Madrid, it was obvious that much of the tennis world was in shock. Maria Sharapova was clearly the odds-on favorite, Intertops having her at -714, and with a clear head-to-head advantage. In their four prior matches, Sharapova won all four, with Bouchard only managing to get one set in the process.
In their previous match at the 2015 Australian Open, Sharapova had beaten Bouchard in straight sets, only losing five games in the entire match. With Bouchard struggling, many felt like this would be an easy match for Maria, a warmup before her battle with world number two Angelique Kerber in the next round. However, that was far from the case.
This match meant much more than what a random Second Round match would typically mean. For Sharapova, winning this match would mean that she would be a step closer to the main draw of Wimbledon, which would be crucial for her return to tennis following her meldonium use that forced her to spend 15 months on the sidelines. Getting in the main draw of a Grand Slam, in addition to the massive amounts of prize money, would make it much easier for Sharapova to catapult up the WTA rankings, where the number one spot is up for grab's due Serena Williams' pregnancy. However, with this loss, Sharapova will now look to Rome as an opportunity to move up the ranks of the WTA.
For Eugenie Bouchard, this match looked to be a crossroads for her career. Following a run to the Fourth Round of the Australian Open, coming within one set of the Quarterfinals before falling to CoCo Vandeweghe, Eugenie had massive struggles with her game. She lost in the First Round of Acapulco, Indian Wells, Miami, and Monterrey, before going to an ITF tournament in Indian Harbor Beach and only getting three games in a meek defeat to world number 484, Victoria Duval. And when Bouchard lost in the First Round of Istanbul too, it seemed more and more likely that her Wimbledon Final was nothing more than a massive fluke.
This match was complicated by Bouchard's chatter regarding Sharapova's drug use. Bouchard called Sharapova "a cheater" and also wanted her banned from tennis for life. This surely made proceedings personal between Eugenie and Maria, despite Maria saying that she was "way above that". This was condescending, in a way. Sharapova was essentially calling Bouchard immature, and definitely had a "holier than thou" attitude mixed into it. I'm sure that Bouchard's initial comments really irked Sharapova, and I'm also sure that Maria's condescending reply annoyed Eugenie as well.
This context provided the reasoning behind the electric intensity of the match. I watched much of the match, and one of the things that stuck out to me at the beginning was the ability of Bouchard to keep the point alive. While against some other players, Sharapova might have drawn more forced errors, Bouchard frequently refused to let the point die. Bouchard had a determined attitude, something that had been missing from her game until this match. This determined attitude started in her first match in the tournament against Cornet where, despite losing the second set, Bouchard won the third set in dominating fashion, 6-1.
When Sharapova broke first in the match to lead *4-2 in the first set, it would be easy for her to go away, knowing that the head-to-head (to this point) was a disaster, and that her year wasn't much better. However, Eugenie refused to go away. In a long seventh game of the match, Bouchard broke back and held from 0-30 down. Even after getting broken serving for the set at *5-4, Bouchard just wouldn't back down. At 5-5, despite not breaking on her first three chances in the game, Eugenie Bouchard broke through, winning Sharapova's service game and holding in the next game, despite facing a break point at 30-40.
In the second set, Sharapova imposed her will. Maria had to save a break point at 1-1 in the set, but didn't struggle much from there, taking the second set 6-2 to tie the match at one set all. This would have been the perfect time for Bouchard to look at her season, her past defeats to Sharapova, and perhaps, throw in the towel. After all, when Maria took the second set in Paris in the Semifinals of the French Open in 2014, she had little problems in the third set, taking it 6-2. Eugenie could have thought of that match, thought of history repeating itself in part, and put in a weak third set effort. But, in a stunning set, Bouchard rose above her competition.
The third set was a tussle of wills, a battle of who would outlast the other. Bouchard saved a break point at *0-1 to hold for 1-1, and then had 0-40 on the Sharapova serve, a crucial break nearly inevitable. However, utilizing huge serving and crushing play from the baseline, Maria held and then got up 0-40 on Bouchard's serve, one point away from a moment that would almost certainly crush her spirit. However, a combination of good serving from Bouchard and bad returning from Sharapova allowed her to escape the 0-40 hold, and eventually the game.
Eugenie then got to 0-40 on Sharapova's service game once again, but Maria's fighting spirit pushed her through to yet another hold. Once again, this was a crossroads for Bouchard. Having 0-40 in two games in a row, a combined eight break points lost in two Sharapova service games, it would be easy for Eugenie to have a let down, but she wouldn't quit. Despite going 15-30 down at 3-3 in the third set, Bouchard held on and then finally broke Maria when she got up 0-40 in yet another Sharapova service game to go up *4-3 in the third set, two holds from a huge victory.
But, Sharapova wouldn't go away, utilizing impressive power tennis, Sharapova pounded away at the Bouchard serve, never allowing Eugenie to get comfortable in the game, and breaking back for 4-all. It seemed to me, at this point, that Bouchard's will would finally be broken. She had done seemingly everything in her power to beat Maria, but it looked as if Sharapova had answered every one of Bouchard's questions. And when Sharapova went up 40-15 in her ensuing service game, it seemed as if a 6-4 third set to Maria was on it's way.
But, Bouchard had other plans. Eugenie ended up breaking Maria from 40-15 down, then saving two break points when serving for the match to win 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. This was, given the circumstances and Bouchard's year so far, definitely the biggest win of her year, and up there with the biggest wins of her career. To have such poor results before this match, to have so many headlines swirling around, to play such high-quality tennis was astounding.
Bouchard's defensive play was superb, and she was hitting her forehand the way I remembered her forehand looking in 2014, her breakout year on the WTA Tour. If Bouchard can continue to play, and compete, in a similar fashion to tonight, then there is no reason why she cannot make a deep run in both this tournament, and eventually, at Roland Garros. Sharapova has also shown that she will be a force on clay this year, and if she is luck enough to get a French Open wildcard (which I think that she shouldn't receive), she will definitely be a factor in Paris.
Next up for Bouchard is world number two Angelique Kerber, who before the tournament would be an almost-assured victory for Angelique. However, given the quality of play seen by Bouchard in this tournament thus far, there is no reason why Eugenie cannot win that match. Win or lose, however, Eugenie Bouchard has silenced her demons in Madrid.
In their previous match at the 2015 Australian Open, Sharapova had beaten Bouchard in straight sets, only losing five games in the entire match. With Bouchard struggling, many felt like this would be an easy match for Maria, a warmup before her battle with world number two Angelique Kerber in the next round. However, that was far from the case.
This match meant much more than what a random Second Round match would typically mean. For Sharapova, winning this match would mean that she would be a step closer to the main draw of Wimbledon, which would be crucial for her return to tennis following her meldonium use that forced her to spend 15 months on the sidelines. Getting in the main draw of a Grand Slam, in addition to the massive amounts of prize money, would make it much easier for Sharapova to catapult up the WTA rankings, where the number one spot is up for grab's due Serena Williams' pregnancy. However, with this loss, Sharapova will now look to Rome as an opportunity to move up the ranks of the WTA.
For Eugenie Bouchard, this match looked to be a crossroads for her career. Following a run to the Fourth Round of the Australian Open, coming within one set of the Quarterfinals before falling to CoCo Vandeweghe, Eugenie had massive struggles with her game. She lost in the First Round of Acapulco, Indian Wells, Miami, and Monterrey, before going to an ITF tournament in Indian Harbor Beach and only getting three games in a meek defeat to world number 484, Victoria Duval. And when Bouchard lost in the First Round of Istanbul too, it seemed more and more likely that her Wimbledon Final was nothing more than a massive fluke.
This match was complicated by Bouchard's chatter regarding Sharapova's drug use. Bouchard called Sharapova "a cheater" and also wanted her banned from tennis for life. This surely made proceedings personal between Eugenie and Maria, despite Maria saying that she was "way above that". This was condescending, in a way. Sharapova was essentially calling Bouchard immature, and definitely had a "holier than thou" attitude mixed into it. I'm sure that Bouchard's initial comments really irked Sharapova, and I'm also sure that Maria's condescending reply annoyed Eugenie as well.
This context provided the reasoning behind the electric intensity of the match. I watched much of the match, and one of the things that stuck out to me at the beginning was the ability of Bouchard to keep the point alive. While against some other players, Sharapova might have drawn more forced errors, Bouchard frequently refused to let the point die. Bouchard had a determined attitude, something that had been missing from her game until this match. This determined attitude started in her first match in the tournament against Cornet where, despite losing the second set, Bouchard won the third set in dominating fashion, 6-1.
When Sharapova broke first in the match to lead *4-2 in the first set, it would be easy for her to go away, knowing that the head-to-head (to this point) was a disaster, and that her year wasn't much better. However, Eugenie refused to go away. In a long seventh game of the match, Bouchard broke back and held from 0-30 down. Even after getting broken serving for the set at *5-4, Bouchard just wouldn't back down. At 5-5, despite not breaking on her first three chances in the game, Eugenie Bouchard broke through, winning Sharapova's service game and holding in the next game, despite facing a break point at 30-40.
In the second set, Sharapova imposed her will. Maria had to save a break point at 1-1 in the set, but didn't struggle much from there, taking the second set 6-2 to tie the match at one set all. This would have been the perfect time for Bouchard to look at her season, her past defeats to Sharapova, and perhaps, throw in the towel. After all, when Maria took the second set in Paris in the Semifinals of the French Open in 2014, she had little problems in the third set, taking it 6-2. Eugenie could have thought of that match, thought of history repeating itself in part, and put in a weak third set effort. But, in a stunning set, Bouchard rose above her competition.
The third set was a tussle of wills, a battle of who would outlast the other. Bouchard saved a break point at *0-1 to hold for 1-1, and then had 0-40 on the Sharapova serve, a crucial break nearly inevitable. However, utilizing huge serving and crushing play from the baseline, Maria held and then got up 0-40 on Bouchard's serve, one point away from a moment that would almost certainly crush her spirit. However, a combination of good serving from Bouchard and bad returning from Sharapova allowed her to escape the 0-40 hold, and eventually the game.
Eugenie then got to 0-40 on Sharapova's service game once again, but Maria's fighting spirit pushed her through to yet another hold. Once again, this was a crossroads for Bouchard. Having 0-40 in two games in a row, a combined eight break points lost in two Sharapova service games, it would be easy for Eugenie to have a let down, but she wouldn't quit. Despite going 15-30 down at 3-3 in the third set, Bouchard held on and then finally broke Maria when she got up 0-40 in yet another Sharapova service game to go up *4-3 in the third set, two holds from a huge victory.
But, Sharapova wouldn't go away, utilizing impressive power tennis, Sharapova pounded away at the Bouchard serve, never allowing Eugenie to get comfortable in the game, and breaking back for 4-all. It seemed to me, at this point, that Bouchard's will would finally be broken. She had done seemingly everything in her power to beat Maria, but it looked as if Sharapova had answered every one of Bouchard's questions. And when Sharapova went up 40-15 in her ensuing service game, it seemed as if a 6-4 third set to Maria was on it's way.
But, Bouchard had other plans. Eugenie ended up breaking Maria from 40-15 down, then saving two break points when serving for the match to win 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. This was, given the circumstances and Bouchard's year so far, definitely the biggest win of her year, and up there with the biggest wins of her career. To have such poor results before this match, to have so many headlines swirling around, to play such high-quality tennis was astounding.
Bouchard's defensive play was superb, and she was hitting her forehand the way I remembered her forehand looking in 2014, her breakout year on the WTA Tour. If Bouchard can continue to play, and compete, in a similar fashion to tonight, then there is no reason why she cannot make a deep run in both this tournament, and eventually, at Roland Garros. Sharapova has also shown that she will be a force on clay this year, and if she is luck enough to get a French Open wildcard (which I think that she shouldn't receive), she will definitely be a factor in Paris.
Next up for Bouchard is world number two Angelique Kerber, who before the tournament would be an almost-assured victory for Angelique. However, given the quality of play seen by Bouchard in this tournament thus far, there is no reason why Eugenie cannot win that match. Win or lose, however, Eugenie Bouchard has silenced her demons in Madrid.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Is Taylor Townsend Finally Set to Breakthrough Once Again?
I remember the 2014 French Open like it was yesterday. I remember following the live score of the Final between Maria Sharapova and Simona Halep, in awe with both of their abilities to hang in a match and fight. However, another huge reason why the 2014 French Open sticks out to me is because of Taylor Townsend's run to the Third Round.
Receiving a wildcard because of two straight tournament victories in $50k tournaments, Townsend made the most of her opportunity. In the First Round, Townsend easily beat Vania King in straight sets. However, her Second Round match against Alize Cornet is why this tournament was truly memorable for Townsend. Against a higher ranked and home-country favorite, Taylor was up a set and a double break in the second set before Cornet won five straight games to even the match up.
With seemingly everything going against her, it would have been easy for Taylor to let the match slip away. However, in that third set, Taylor immediately got up a double break and held on to win 6-4, 4-6, 6-4. And while she did lose in the next round to Carla Suarez Navarro, who is very accomplished on clay courts, 6-2, 6-2, the future was looking very bright for Townsend. Perhaps she would be the one to take over after the Williams sisters retired as the face of American women's tennis. This wsa certainly a breakthrough for Taylor Townsend. However, in the coming years, there would be many ups and downs for the young American.
Townsend had pretty good results for the rest of 2014. She qualified and made the Round of 16 at a tournament in Washington D.C., she qualified and won a match in the main draw in Cincinnati, and she reached the Semifinals of another $50k tournament. However, 2015 is where things started to spiral downwards for Taylor. Townsend struggled to win matches, losing in the First Round at tournaments such as the Australian Open, Monterrey, Strasbourg, and the French Open. In fact, Townsend was having major difficulties even winning a match at the $25k tournament level. She lost her First Round matches in $25k tournaments in Sumter and Baton Rouge.
2016 was a major turnaround year for Townsend. I will spare you from hearing the story of her match against Gail Falkenberg again, but I do think that this match spurred Townsend to really turnaround her game and strive for greatness. Townsend ended up making the Semifinals of that tournament in Pelham before winning a $50k tournament and making the Final of two other $50k tournaments (which got her a French Open wildcard). In addition, earlier in the year at Indian Wells, Taylor won the pre-qualifying tournament, then qualified for the main draw.Townsend also won a round at the French Open and qualified for the US Open. 2016 could definitely be seen as a great stepping stone for Taylor Townsend's career.
So, where does Townsend stand in 2017? Townsend started off the year in decent form, winning a couple qualifying matches in both Auckland and the Australian Open, but failing to qualify for either tournament. Townsend played two Australian $60k tournaments, making the Semifinals of one and losing in the First Round of the other.
Townsend's season, however, is definitely on an upwards trajectory. In Auckland, she qualified without losing a set. Townsend then beat Jennifer Brady, who had beaten Taylor in the same round at the Australian Open earlier in the season. While Townsend lost to Christina McHale in the next round, after struggling to qualify for tournaments earlier in the year, it was great to see Taylor qualify and win a round at a WTA tournament. The fact that she beat a player she had lost to previously in the year was an added bonus.
Taylor struggled in Indian Wells, losing in the First Round against Magda Linette. I watched a good portion of that match and Taylor was not getting a lot of power on her shots. In addition, Townsend's shots were just landing too short in the court to really gain the upper hand against Linette in rallies. However, Townsend's fortunes changed in Miami.
In Miami, Taylor not only qualified without losing a set, but she beat a very accomplished player, Mona Barthel, in the process. In the main draw, Townsend came back from a set down to beat Anisimova and then scored a huge victory against Roberta Vinci, only losing five games in the process. And while Townsend did lose in straight sets to two-time Grand Slam champion Svetlana Kuznetsova, she was up a break in the first set, and the tournament can definitely be seen as a huge success.
As one can see from the trajectory of Taylor's recent years playing professional tennis, Townsend certainly goes through some ups and downs in terms of results. Take the past three tournaments she played. She went qualifying and winning a round in Acapulco, to easily losing in her first match at Indian Wells (she got a wild card into the main draw), to qualifying and winning two matches in Miami.
Townsend can certainly play at a high level, but for her to breakthrough once again, it will take consistent good results. Townsend is a very talented player, she certainly has a very good net game. However, at number 103 in the WTA live rankings, Townsend does not have a lot of room for error, especially if she is looking to make the main draw of the French Open without qualifying. Taylor needs to bring her A-game every week, no matter if she is playing in a $25k tournament or a Grand Slam.
However, I think that Townsend can breakthrough once again and become a top 50 player. When Taylor is playing well, as players such as Cornet and Vinci learned, she is tough to beat. Hopefully she is very confident from her run in Miami and takes this confidence with her into the clay court season, which suits her game very well.
In sum, I believe that Taylor Townsend is finally set to breakthrough once agian.
Receiving a wildcard because of two straight tournament victories in $50k tournaments, Townsend made the most of her opportunity. In the First Round, Townsend easily beat Vania King in straight sets. However, her Second Round match against Alize Cornet is why this tournament was truly memorable for Townsend. Against a higher ranked and home-country favorite, Taylor was up a set and a double break in the second set before Cornet won five straight games to even the match up.
With seemingly everything going against her, it would have been easy for Taylor to let the match slip away. However, in that third set, Taylor immediately got up a double break and held on to win 6-4, 4-6, 6-4. And while she did lose in the next round to Carla Suarez Navarro, who is very accomplished on clay courts, 6-2, 6-2, the future was looking very bright for Townsend. Perhaps she would be the one to take over after the Williams sisters retired as the face of American women's tennis. This wsa certainly a breakthrough for Taylor Townsend. However, in the coming years, there would be many ups and downs for the young American.
Townsend had pretty good results for the rest of 2014. She qualified and made the Round of 16 at a tournament in Washington D.C., she qualified and won a match in the main draw in Cincinnati, and she reached the Semifinals of another $50k tournament. However, 2015 is where things started to spiral downwards for Taylor. Townsend struggled to win matches, losing in the First Round at tournaments such as the Australian Open, Monterrey, Strasbourg, and the French Open. In fact, Townsend was having major difficulties even winning a match at the $25k tournament level. She lost her First Round matches in $25k tournaments in Sumter and Baton Rouge.
2016 was a major turnaround year for Townsend. I will spare you from hearing the story of her match against Gail Falkenberg again, but I do think that this match spurred Townsend to really turnaround her game and strive for greatness. Townsend ended up making the Semifinals of that tournament in Pelham before winning a $50k tournament and making the Final of two other $50k tournaments (which got her a French Open wildcard). In addition, earlier in the year at Indian Wells, Taylor won the pre-qualifying tournament, then qualified for the main draw.Townsend also won a round at the French Open and qualified for the US Open. 2016 could definitely be seen as a great stepping stone for Taylor Townsend's career.
So, where does Townsend stand in 2017? Townsend started off the year in decent form, winning a couple qualifying matches in both Auckland and the Australian Open, but failing to qualify for either tournament. Townsend played two Australian $60k tournaments, making the Semifinals of one and losing in the First Round of the other.
Townsend's season, however, is definitely on an upwards trajectory. In Auckland, she qualified without losing a set. Townsend then beat Jennifer Brady, who had beaten Taylor in the same round at the Australian Open earlier in the season. While Townsend lost to Christina McHale in the next round, after struggling to qualify for tournaments earlier in the year, it was great to see Taylor qualify and win a round at a WTA tournament. The fact that she beat a player she had lost to previously in the year was an added bonus.
Taylor struggled in Indian Wells, losing in the First Round against Magda Linette. I watched a good portion of that match and Taylor was not getting a lot of power on her shots. In addition, Townsend's shots were just landing too short in the court to really gain the upper hand against Linette in rallies. However, Townsend's fortunes changed in Miami.
In Miami, Taylor not only qualified without losing a set, but she beat a very accomplished player, Mona Barthel, in the process. In the main draw, Townsend came back from a set down to beat Anisimova and then scored a huge victory against Roberta Vinci, only losing five games in the process. And while Townsend did lose in straight sets to two-time Grand Slam champion Svetlana Kuznetsova, she was up a break in the first set, and the tournament can definitely be seen as a huge success.
As one can see from the trajectory of Taylor's recent years playing professional tennis, Townsend certainly goes through some ups and downs in terms of results. Take the past three tournaments she played. She went qualifying and winning a round in Acapulco, to easily losing in her first match at Indian Wells (she got a wild card into the main draw), to qualifying and winning two matches in Miami.
Townsend can certainly play at a high level, but for her to breakthrough once again, it will take consistent good results. Townsend is a very talented player, she certainly has a very good net game. However, at number 103 in the WTA live rankings, Townsend does not have a lot of room for error, especially if she is looking to make the main draw of the French Open without qualifying. Taylor needs to bring her A-game every week, no matter if she is playing in a $25k tournament or a Grand Slam.
However, I think that Townsend can breakthrough once again and become a top 50 player. When Taylor is playing well, as players such as Cornet and Vinci learned, she is tough to beat. Hopefully she is very confident from her run in Miami and takes this confidence with her into the clay court season, which suits her game very well.
In sum, I believe that Taylor Townsend is finally set to breakthrough once agian.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Should Maria Sharapova Receive Wildcards to Majors?
Maria Sharapova has been subject to a big debate in recent days. After receiving a wildcard to many clay court tournaments following the end of her ban on April 26th, which starts with her inclusion in the WTA tournament in Stuttgart, Germany, the question then becomes whether or not Sharapova should receive a wildcard into the remaining majors of this season, with the French Open and Wimbledon in the not-so-distant future.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)