Wednesday, December 26, 2018

The Whole Hypocrisy of it All

I've heard for such a long time now about how interested those in power in tennis are about making the game "more accessible". How tennis leaders are desperate to get more people interested in tennis, and how this has lead to talks of getting rid of best-of-five, at least partially, at majors in order for people to be more likely to watch matches, and the introduction of the "fast four format", where players will play five sets to four games, which I guess is supposed to be more exciting than "traditional tennis". Whatever.

Of course there are slightly smaller changes that have been introduced, such as getting rid of let cords on serves and having no more ad-games, but the main goal has always been to make tennis grow to new audiences. And these new audiences are supposed to ensure the survival of tennis as a global sport.

However, looking beyond some of these changes, I think tennis, as it currently stands, is stuck in the mud of hypocrisy. The game of tennis, while trying to be accessible, I believe, is making itself more and more unaccessible for the common fan, and even the tennis super fan. Think about what is currently going on in tennis.

With the Australian Open now going to a super tiebreak when the last set of the match is at 6-6, instead of no final set tiebreak, this means that the four grand slams will have four different formats. The French Open still has no final set tiebreak, Wimbledon now has a final set tiebreak at 12-12, and the US Open has a final set tiebreak (not super tiebreak) at 6-6. Four slams, four different ways of figuring out a winner if the match goes to a final set.

And we are supposed to be making this more accessible for fans. A non-super fan of tennis might already be wondering why the US Open was playing a tiebreak at 6-6, when none of the other slams are, and now they will need to figure out which slam goes with which format, and will be utterly confused about the point behind all of the differences in final set format. Quite frankly, I'm a bit baffled why the four biggest tournaments in the sport can't come to consensus either.

Personally, while I am for no tiebreak at all, a good compromise seems to be Wimbledon's solution: in the final set of a match, have a regular tiebreak at 12-12. I thought the introduction of the super tiebreak in doubles to replace a set was ridiculous, and another variation of the rules in a sport trying to breakthrough to more fans, and now having a tiebreak to ten, when other sets have a tiebreak to seven, at the same point where the other sets would be having a tiebreak to seven, makes it even more confusing. And the need for consistency in tennis grows.

I don't even really want to get into this, because I'm still trying to understand it, but apparently now we have different ranking systems too? We have the WTA and ATP rankings, which I understand and which were the only rankings, with ITF integrated within this ranking format, but now we have something called the ITF World Tennis Ranking too. And this ITF World Tennis Ranking is a part of the ITF World Tennis Tour. Which is somehow different from the WTA and ATP Tours.

If I, someone who follows tennis extremely closely and understands how the sport works very well, is having a difficult time understand how this new ITF World Tennis Tour and IF World Tennis Ranking fit into the grand scheme of things, then what is a casual fan, or someone looking to get into tennis, going to think?

I understand the need for change in terms of ITF tennis, as corruption was a major problem on the ITF Circuit, however, I think that this change has overly complicated things, and instead of making tennis more accessible, has actually done the opposite and made tennis more inaccessible.

So, the leaders in this world might introduce any of these potential changes to try to make tennis a more popular sport. But, with regards to the things discussed in this article, all tennis has really done is confuse fans more, and possible, push more potential fans away.

And that's the whole hypocrisy of it all.

Monday, December 3, 2018

Next Season's Major Predictions

Since we have entered the WTA and ATP off-season, with the exception of the ITF Women's Tour and ITF Future's tournaments, I thought this would be a good time to look to next season for my predictions of which men and women will win the four majors. Of course, this is completely speculative (especially because the players I have playing in the Final could be on the same side of the draw), and I will probably look foolish later, but here are my picks to win the majors next season.

Australian Open
Women's Final: Sloane Stephens defeats Aryna Sabalenka in three sets
There are so many players I feel that have a shot at the title. However, I was very impressed with what I saw from Sloane Stephens last year, for the most part, and feel like she, along with Serena, were the best players last year without a major. Sloane's game adapts very well to hard courts, and bigger hitters will have a hard time hitting through her and will be frustrated in the heat of Australia. Aryna Sabalenka has made huge strides in 2018, and given her performance to end the year, seems primed to have a spectacular 2018. At number 13 in the rankings, expect this Final appearance to push her into the Top 10. However, I think Stephens has a little too much defense for Sabalenka, and Sloane will win in three sets.

Men's Final: Novak Djokovic defeats Marin Cilic in four sets
Djokovic was so good to end the season. After his tight loss to Cecchinato at the French Open, Novak barely lost for the rest of the season. He had one of the wins of the season over Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, which proved to the rest of the world that he is back, and he beat Kevin Anderson in the Final. His US Open victory was thoroughly dominant too, barely being threatened and getting another major. Djokovic beat Federer a couple times too, including the Paris Masters Semifinals in another fantastic. I expect Djokovic to use the momentum of 2018 to get him an Australian Open victory, where he has won the tournament six times and is ultra-comfortable at the tournament. In regards to Cilic, I think his Davis Cup Final wins will help alleviate the mental block that seemed to haunt him for much of 2018 when he was winning in a match. Marin will also have confidence from being a set away from the title this year, but Djokovic will force Cilic into too many errors, and Novak will win the title.

French Open
Women's Final: Simona Halep defeats Garbine Muguruza in three sets
For me, Halep is the clear favorite to win the French Open. Her pedigree on clay is extremely good, and she is able to defend very well, and put her opponents in uncomfortable positions on the court. She has made the Final twice, coming within a set of the title against Sharapova and Ostapenko, and last year she finally broke through for the win against Sloane Stephens. I know that Darren Cahill is not coaching Simona next season, but I still expect Halep to have a great season and to win the French Open. As I was trying to decide who to have Halep beat in the Final, I eventually decided upon Garbine Muguruza. For me, she showed some signs of her true level towards the end of the season, despite a mostly rough 2018, and she still is the 2015 champion at Roland Garros. Her ability to hit through the court is superb, and I expect her to face Halep in the Final, where Simona's endurance and ability to make Garbine play a lot of extra balls will be the difference.

Men's Final: Rafael Nadal defeats Dominic Thiem in four sets
I know this is not an exciting prediction, given that almost the exact same result happened last year, but I have to call it as I see it. Nadal is an absolutely incredible player on clay, having won the French Open 11 times, and it is extremely difficult for players to take a set off of him on clay, let alone beat him. Nadal, essentially, plays all aspects of tennis at a very high level on clay. However, he is getting older, and injuries are concerning for him, and because I also think Thiem is going to take a step forward next year by not hitting as many unforced errors as in the past, I believe that Thiem will take a set off of Rafa at the French Open last year. But Nadal's amazing defense, along with his ability to hit winners from ridiculous places around the court, are still going to be too strong for Dominic to handle.

Wimbledon
Women's Final: Serena Williams defeats Naomi Osaka in two sets
I think that Serena would have won Wimbledon last year, but her ground game was not at the level that her serve was at. Serena has a spectacular serve, and when he groundstrokes are firing, then it is nearly impossible to beat her. Serena plays great at Wimbledon, winning the title seven times. This year, unlike against Kerber last year, I think that Serena's groundstrokes won't be rusty and her groundstrokes will match her serve in its effectiveness. Osaka had an amazing 2018, winning Indian Wells and the US Open, but when Serena is serving well and hitting her groundstrokes cleanly on grass, she can take the racquet out of Osaka's hands. Osaka will be overpowered by Serena on the grass, and I have feeling Serena will be extra-motivated to beat Osaka given that she lost to her twice last year.

Men's Final: Roger Federer defeats Novak Djokovic in five sets
I think that Federer has one more major in him, and I think it will come this year at Wimbledon. Federer won the Australian Open last year, but struggled, relatively, throughout much of the season, starting with his loss to Juan Martin del Potro in the Final at Indian Wells. Federer, I believe, will structure his season around winning Wimbledon, and will serve well throughout the Final. I think that he will come to the net a lot, pressuring Djokovic to make extremely difficult passing shots, and so he isn't worn down by Djokovic. Djokovic, as he showed once again last year, and through his four Wimbledon titles total, is extremely good on grass. But, in a match that I think will be very tight, the crowd support and Federer's will to extend his major lead is going to will him to a very close win over Djokovic.

US Open
Women's Final: Serena Williams defeats Aryna Sabalenka in three sets
Serena, as I have talked about before, is an incredible player. She has shown very often that her combination of power and accuracy is extremely hard to beat. The crowd support at the US Open is also very helpful for Serena. Serena does very well at the US Open, winning the title six times. As I mentioned previously, I am very high on Sabalenka. She hits the ball extremely hard, but has great margin on her shots too. However, I think that Serena has a little more power on her groundstrokes than Sabalenka and serves better, so she should win a tight title in three sets.

Men's Final: Karen Khachanov defeats Kevin Anderson in four sets
I have a feeling that the men's singles bracket at the US Open will provide a lot of surprises. Khachanov was so impressive in winning the Paris Masters event. His defeat of Djokovic in the Final showed that he can hit through amazing defending accurately and he showed very little signs of the moment being too big for him. Next year, I believe he will continue to work on his game, and will put everything together in winning the US Open.Anderson has continued to impress, since his breakthrough Final of the US Open in 2017. Anderson made the Final of Wimbledon this year, and proved he was going to be a top player for a long time. However, I think that Khachanov's game is less-prone to break down than Anderson's game, and I think he wins in four tight sets against Kevin.

So, what do y'all think of my predictions? Please let me know your thoughts on who is going to win the majors next year?

Friday, November 16, 2018

WTA End of Season Wrap-Up

So, with Fed Cup over last weekend and the Czech Republic beating the United States, that meant that the WTA season is officially over. Hard to believe it started many months ago around New Year's! I want to take this post in my blog to go through some of the All About Tennis Blog's picks for a variety of topics, including: best player, best match, most improved player, biggest disappointment, and best coach. Let's dive in!

Best Player
The best player this year, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward: Simona Halep. Not only did she finish as the number one player at the year's end, but she did it even though she lost in the First Round of the US Open and didn't play the WTA Finals. This shows just how good the rest of Halep's year has been. And her year has been very impressive. After a title in Shenzhen, Halep's year continued with a fantastic run to Final of the Australian Open, including an epic win over Angelique Kerber, and her season really blossomed when she made the French Open Final, dismissing a hot Muguruza along the way, and came back from the a set and a break down against Sloane Stephens in the Final to win the French Open, her first major title. Couple that with a great win in Toronto against Stephens, also in the Final, and this was the best year of Halep's career, and I think deserves best player honors.

Best Match
When you think of the best match of 2018, a few matches come to mind. This list is not extensive at all, and it is really hard to pick a best match, because I haven't even watched all of the epic matches I will be listing. But, based on the matches I've seen and the matches I've heard were great, I have limited best match down to a few options. I think that one match that people don't mention much that was spectacular was Halep beating Lauren Davis 4-6, 6-4, 15-13 in the Third Round of the Australian Open. Halep had to save match points in that match, and Lauren Davis played admirably. Another amazing match also comes from the Australian Open, and that was Halep beating Kerber 6-3, 4-6, 9-7 in an amazing semifinal. Then, in the Final, Wozniacki beat Halep 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 in another spectacular match. So, for me, those three matches come to mind for best match of the year, and they all happened to be at the Australian Open, and involve Simona Halep. Another epic match happened between Halep and Stephens at Toronto this year, as preivously mentioned, and Halep won 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 in a very tight match. Stephens also played a very tight match with Camila Giorgi, beating her 4-6, 6-1, 8-6. Overall, I would have to say that, in my completely subjective opinion, that Halep beating Kerber in the Australian Open semifinal would have to be my match of the year.

Biggest Surprise
This is a no-brainer. What Aryna Sablenka did during the second half of the season was spectacular. I already had a feeling Sablenka was going to be very good when I saw her crush Sara Errani in Tianjin in 2017 6-1, 6-3, but this year was well-beyond my expectations. Sablenka started to show her potential in Eastbourne when she lost a tough, tight two-setter in the Final to Caroline Wozniacki. Then, she played fantastic power tennis to match the Semifinals of Cincinnati, won the Connecticut Open, played Osaka as close as anyone in the tournament reaching the Round of 16 at the US Open, and won Wuhan. This gave her the opportunity to play in the WTA Elite Trophy where she very closely missed out on the Semifinals, although next year, I would expect to see her at the WTA Finals, and perhaps a be a top three player there.

Biggest Disappointment
For me, Garbine Muguruza was the most disappointing this year. Expectations were extremely high following Wimbledon last year, and she has failed to come even close to repeating her past successes. Given her high standards, her results this year weren't great. She only won one title, at WTA International event in Monterrey, and reached only one other Final, losing in the Doha Final to Petra Kvitova. She really only played well, in terms of major success, at the French Open, making the Semifinals before going down quickly to Simona Halep. At the other three majors this year, she went a combined 3-3, never making it past the Second Round. In fact, after the French Open, Muguruza only made two semifinals for the rest of the year, in Hong Kong and the WTA Elite Trophy. I'm not saying this a terrible year, but given Muguruza's expectations, she didn't come close to hitting those expectations.

Best Coach
I want to finish with a quick discussion of best coach for the year. I think this is an easy decision: Darren Cahill was spectacular coaching Simona Halep this year. Although he won't continue as Simona's coach next year, his ability to help guide Simona to a grand slam is very impressive, given how hard it is to win a grand slam and the mental block that had seemed to form at Grand Slam Finals for Simona. His calm demeanor and good advice clearly played in role in Halep's successes this year, and he should be recognized for his fantastic coaching.

Well, that's an extremely quick breakdown the WTA season. I can't wait for next year!

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Serena Williams Lacks Maturity in US Open Final Loss

By now, everyone has heard about it. In Serena Williams' 6-2, 6-4 loss to Naomi Osaka in the US Open Final, Serena completely lost control of her emotions. But, before we get to that, let me stop to praise Naomi Osaka on an amazing tournament. It was quite apparent, after beating Aliaksandra Sasnovich 6-0, 6-0 in the Third Round before taking out the in-form Aryna Sablenka in the Fourth Round that Osaka had completely reversed her prior poor US Open Series results.

In the Final, Osaka played magnificently. She completely dominated the first set, breaking Serena in two of her first three service games, and serving out the set. And she didn't let getting down a break in the second set, 3-1, phase her either. Osaka immediately broke back before breaking again. And with intense pressure serving for the tournament at *5-4 in the second set, Osaka played a very good game to win the tournament. Osaka was absolutely incredible and thoroughly deserved her victory. So, congrats to her on becoming a major champion!

Now, let's turn our attention to the issues between Serena Williams and the chair umpire for the match, Carlos Ramos. I will give a short rundown of what happened, but since by now, you probably know what happened already, I'll keep this section of the article brief. Serena's coach, Patrick Mouratoglu, was caught coaching in the stands by Ramos, seemingly urging Serena to push forward towards the net. Serena was upset with Ramos' insinuation that she was cheating and said her coach was only giving her a thumbs' up.

After getting broken-back in the second set, Serena smashed her racquet, which was a point penalty. Then, a little later, Serena got called for a game penalty after pointing at the umpire, and in an angry tirade, calling him both a "thief" and a "liar". The match's trophy ceremony was filled with boos, until Serena stepped in and calmed things down. Serena, during the course of the match, accused the chair umpire of sexism, demanded an apology from Ramos, and mentioned her daughter in regards to her not being a cheater.

So, let's unpack this situation, because there is a lot to talk about. I believe that all three penalties were completely warranted. The first penalty, Patrick admitted to in an interview with Pam Shriver after the match, but justified it by saying that everyone does it. That doesn't make it, not-against the rules, though, and the chair umpire has full-discretion to call coaching if she/he sees it. And it doesn't matter if Serena even saw the coaching, the fact that Mouratoglu was making that gesture with his hands is enough for a warning, whether Serena wanted the coaching, and/or saw the coaching, or not.

So, Serena shouldn't have gotten so offended when called for the coaching warning, as the warning had nothing to do with her actions. The coaching had everything to do with her coach's actions. And Mouratoglu can claim that others coach, as well, that doesn't matter. The fact is, it is against the rules, and he got caught, end of story. Instead of apologizing to Serena in the post-match interview, he made excuses, even after admitting fault.

But, where Serena went wrong was taking the warning so personally, even though it was just that, a warning, and it would take something else for her to get penalized. But, by becoming so emotionally charged following the warning, she was giving herself a greater chance of a second penalty, because her emotions were so high.

And sure enough, she smashed her racquet after getting broken back to *2-3 in the second set, which is an automatic warning. And the second warning is a point penalty. I don't know if Serena thought that Ramos had rescinded the first warning, but her reaction to the point penalty was absolutely ridiculous. Obviously smashing a racquet is a warning, that's about the easiest call for umpires in tennis. And it was clear that Mouratoglu was attempting to coach Serena, even if Serena only felt like he was giving her a thumbs' up. So, I'm not sure where the confusion is with Serena. An umpire is obviously not going to reverse a coaching penalty, even if he acknowledges that you didn't cheat.

Because a coach giving a hand signal doesn't mean the player is cheating anyways. Getting a coaching violation doesn't mean the player was cheating, so the coaching warning can still stand, even if the umpire confirms with the player that she wasn't cheating. This could have been where Serena's confusion was. Or maybe it was a lack of understanding of the rules. Maybe Serena didn't realize a second warning was a point penalty? This seems less likely.

Serena went on an angry tirade against Ramos, calling him a "liar" and a "thief" in the process. It certainly felt like a personal attack on Ramos' character, and Ramos was completely in the right for issuing a third warning, which is equivalent to a game penalty. This put Osaka up *5-3 anyways. As a side note, notice that Osaka was up a set and a break anyways when the penalty occurred, so we can say with confidence that Osaka was in a great position to win before the game penalty.

Serena called the umpire sexist and gave a spiel after the match about her battle for the rights of women, which just seems to be taking the situation way out of context. Serena's argument was that men get away with what she got penalized for all of the time. First off, Serena gave no evidence for her claim that men get away what she got penalized, it just seemed like a generalized claim to stir the pot. Sure, I see men and other women tennis players getting a warning for breaking the rules, but the reason we see very few game penalties is because most players know they can't act out much after their first warning, as it would hurt their chances of winning the match.

Second, by calling the umpire "liar" and "thief", she personalized the attack against the umpire. I would argue even cursing isn't so bad, so long as it isn't a personal attack on the umpire. But, as soon as you make the attack personal against the umpire, it makes what you're saying much worse, whether you are using profanity or not.

Serena needed to accept her coaching penalty with grace, but perhaps bothered with the way the match was going, decided to fight back. And after the racquet smash, possibly still bothered by the course of the match, she decided to get personal with the umpire, questioning his integrity. And to question the integrity of someone with as much integrity as Carlos Ramos is extremely insulting. I'm confident that Ramos was extremely hurt by what Serena said, and was right in calling for her third violation.

I think that claiming sexism in this case trivializes actual sexism, and this is upsetting to me. Because there is real sexism occurring in our society that needs to stop, but when Serena just randomly claims sexism in this case, it kind of makes sexism seem like a trivial thing in society, a way of justifying someone's bad behavior as opposed to the reality of it being an injustice that needs to change. So, personally, that hurts me.

So, to be quite honest, I think Serena Williams needs to mature a little. Her reactions to getting penalized in the US Open Final were, quite frankly, shocking, and completely derailed her chance for another US Open crown. Yes, Patrick shouldn't have gave the hand signal and should not have claimed that everyone does it after the match, but Serena has to react to the situation better than she did.

As Epictetus said, "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters." And for Serena Williams, she reacted to the situation in a very immature manner.

And, at the end of the day, it was Naomi Osaka, not Serena Williams, holding the winner's trophy.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Who is the Biggest Threat to Beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open?

Another clay season is here, which means that in a little over a month, almost the entire tennis world, if not the entire tennis world, expects to see Rafael Nadal hoisting the winner's trophy at Roland Garros for an 11th time.

And given Nadal's form in both the clay court Davis Cup matches he played, and in Monte Carlo, despite being fresh off from an injury, Nadal looks as dominant as he's ever been. In his Davis Cup and Monte Carlo matches, Nadal has won every set he has played. And not only that, but in every set he has played, the opponent has not gotten five games in a set, let alone winning a set.

And let's not pretend like Nadal's opponents have even been getting to four games in a set very often! Nadal played ten sets in Monte Carlo. Of those ten sets, only one set, the first set against Grigor Dimitrov in the Monte Carlo Semifinals, has had Nadal's opponent winning four games! However, Nadal's opponents have won zero or one game in a set three times! So Nadal has triple the number of sets where his opponents have won zero or one game compared to when his opponents have won four games (or more)! This includes Dominic Thiem, who beat Nadal in Rome last year, getting only two games in his match with Nadal, and Kei Nishikori winning only five games in the Final against Nadal.

So, how do you beat Nadal playing at this level on clay?

In Nadal's career, only two players have beaten Nadal at the French Open. In probably the biggest shocker in tennis history, Robin Soderling beat Rafa in four sets at the French Open in the 2009 Round of 16. And then, in 2015, Djokovic beat Nadal in straight sets in the Quarterfinals. But, Soderling is out of the game, and its unrealistic to believe that Djokovic, who has been injured for a lot of the previous year, to go onto Nadal's turf and beat the 10-time Roland Garros champion in a best-of-five match.

So, this leads me to my theory. I don't think a baseliner and/or a clay courter can beat Rafa at the French Open this year. For instance, Nishikori and Thiem are all talented baseliners with awesome groundstrokes and can put all kinds of pressure on opponents. Nishikori was up huge on Nadal in Madrid before leaving with injury, so while he might have the game to beat Nadal on clay, not only does his game have to be peaking and Nadal's game extremely mediocre, but he also has to navigate the best-of-five format. When Nishikori has played Nadal best-of-five, he has lost every set he has played, going 0-9 in sets in the three major meetings, which includes Nishikori winning eight games in three sets at the 2013 French Open.

Thiem beat Rafa in best-of-three at Rome last year, so he can beat Nadal on clay. But look what happened not only this year in Monte Carlo, when Rafa was not fatigued as he surely must have been in Rome this year, but also last year in his matchup with Nadal in the French Open Semifinals. In three sets, Thiem managed to win seven games, and the match included a 6-0 third set win for Nadal. These baseliners can give Nadal a fight, and possibly even beat him, in best-of-three, but playing on Nadal's turf in best-of-five is tough.

David Ferrer, a Roland Garros finalist and one of the best clay courter of this generation, has won one set in four matches against Nadal at the French Open. Even Roger Federer, who has won a record 20 majors, won only four sets in five matches at the French Open against Nadal.

So, my theory is that the best chance to beat Nadal at Roland Garros, a player needs to do a few things, which are MUCH easier said than done. First, a player must have a huge serve. As Nishikori learned yesterday against Nadal, not having a big serve to win a bunch of free points against Nadal on clay will just lead to absolutely brutal baseline rallies where a player might be able to sustain their game early, as Nishikori did have an early break *2-1 in the first set, but by the end of the match, the player is absolutely gassed by constantly chasing down Nadal's heavy-topspin shots. Again, look at Nishikori yesterday, by the end of the match, he had lost six of the final seven games. But, Nishikori was actually rare in the fact that he got a good start, as every other opponent in Monte Carlo last week was broken in their first service game of the match.

The player must not allow Nadal to establish a rhythm from the baseline. I think a big server with an aggressive baseline game has an advantage in this area too. Rallying with Nadal a lot gives him the rhythm he needs to feel comfortable and work the player around the court, so a player must absolutely crush any ball that is less short, as Thiem did in Rome last year and Soderling did at Roland Garros, because otherwise, Nadal will probably almost every rally ball back, creating a rhythm for himself. And once he has that rhythm, then he is nearly impossible to beat because of the high margins he creates for himself through his groundstrokes. This means that it is ok to go huge and miss groundstrokes! Even if a player misses some groundstrokes, its still creating the start-and-stop culture of the match needed to allow a player to beat Rafa.

So, as I've said, players must have a big serve allowing them to win and the player must not allow to establish a baseline rhythm. Part of the deal with this lack of baseline rhythm and big serving is for a player to come to the net as much as the player can. This, again, will make Nadal have to hit passing shots, and along with the big serving and with the player going for every groundstroke, will make Rafa feel uncomfortable. And that's the key, make Nadal uncomfortable and play your game, instead of playing his game. Of course, though, missing every groundstroke is also a losing strategy, so the player has to at least sometimes be making these high-risk groundstrokes.

Throughout the parts of Nadal's Monte Carlo matches that I watched, opponents were glued to the baseline playing Nadal's game, by coming to the net, hitting monster serves, and emphasizing short rallies, the right player can make Nadal extremely uncomfortable and potentially cause a huge upset at Roland Garros. I kind of think of a player doing this to be similar to what Mischa Zverev did to Andy Murray at the Australian Open in 2017. Murray wasn't able to play his game, and he ultimately lost in a shocker.

Obviously, though, belief is key, and if a player doesn't have belief that the player can challenge, and ultimately beat Nadal on clay, then when the player start to gain momentum in a match against clay, then whoever is playing Nadal will crumble. So, I think that having beaten, or coming close to beating Nadal on clay before will ultimately be necessary to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. I think that this belief is partially why Djokovic beat Nadal in the 2015 French Open is because of his five setter in the 2013 Roland Garros semifinal and how he took the first set against Rafa in the 2014 French Open Final. On a smaller scale, I also think that the reason why Thiem beat Nadal in Rome last year, aside from Nadal's fatigue, is because Thiem played Rafa so tight in the first set last year of the Madrid Final, ultimately losing that set 7-6(8). Thiem finally knew that he could beat Nadal on clay.

So, you might be asking, who has all of these traits? And one guy comes to my mind: John Isner. Yes, he isn't someone who immediately comes to mind when you think of a clay courter who can challenge Nadal, but if there is going to be someone who can beat Nadal, it's either Isner, or someone who plays very similar to Isner. But, I think it's Isner who can beat Nadal for a few reasons, all which are demonstrated in Isner's five-set loss to Nadal in the 2011 French Open First Round. And while Isner did lose in five sets, he was two points away from 5-5 in the fifth, where anything would have been possible.

In that video you will see exactly the things I am talking about. Isner came to the net as often as possible. This took away Nadal rhythm and forced him to hit passing shots, which he can obviously do, but given the power of the balls coming to him and the reach of Isner, made life extremely difficult for Rafa. You can also see in the video that Isner is just whacking his groundstrokes. Whenever John can, he is hitting absolutely huge groundstrokes and insists on playing his game, as opposed to playing Nadal's game.

The serving from John is absolutely huge. As mentioned before, something we saw in Monte Carlo last week is that opponents often got off to terrible starts against Nadal. By having a big serve like John's, it allowed him to stay in sets and hope the pressure got to Nadal. Both sets that went to tiebreakers in that match were won by Isner. If Nadal's opponent can use their huge serve to keep the player in a set, both when on serve and when down one break, then potentially Nadal will falter and that player can take advantage, in this case Isner.

This was even true in the fifth set, when Isner used his power game to just stick around the set, and had an opportunity at *5-4 to potentially break back when at 30-30. Sure, Nadal was getting a lot of Isner's serves back, but when he did, often, John was in a great position in the point.

John's groundstrokes need to be on-point, as they were in that match, and as they were in Miami, where he recently won his first Masters 1000 title over Alexander Zverev in the Final. John's groundstrokes were at a very high level throughout that tournament and when his game is working like it was in Miami, he is extremely difficult to beat. John's ground game can be lifted to a higher level than other big servers, such as Ivo Karlovic, which is why I think Isner has a much better shot than Karlovic to beat Nadal at the French Open: John's groundstrokes just have a higher ceiling than Karlovic's groundstrokes.

Now, of course I am not saying that John will assuredly beat Rafa should they matchup this year at the French Open. That would be incredibly ridiculous of me to say, and quite demeaning given Nadal's sensational pedigree. Isner did lose to Stevie Johnson in a third set tiebreaker in Houston last week in his second match, although that was his first clay court tournament of the year and given Isner's plentiful tiebreakers, sometimes losing close matches like that is to be expected. And I mean, Nadal is 7-0 against Isner, including a 3-0 record on clay. But, in two of three of John's matches with Rafa on clay, they did go the distance, including a three setter in Monte Carlo which included Nadal winning a very close first set tiebreaker. And Isner did reach the Semifinals of Rome last year, a tournament who's conditions are much like the French Open.

I am just talking about who has the best shot to beat Nadal at Roland Garros this year. And unless you have a fully healthy, all-time great with a two-handed backhand (i.e. the Djokovic of 2015), then it's extremely improbably for a baseline-oriented player to beat Nadal. That's why I give Isner the best shot. And Isner should have a lot of belief, given how close he was to beating Nadal at Roland Garros in 2011, and how recently won his first Masters 1000 event.

So, all I'm saying is to not dismiss John's chances, not to fall into the belief that the players who can beat Nadal have to be spectacular for years. All it takes is one match for a player like Isner to record an upset that rivals Nadal's loss to Robin Soderling.

I believe that John Isner is the biggest threat to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Diego Schwartzman Continues To Impress in Rio de Janeiro

Over the past few days, Howard Bryant and I got into a little bit of an argument over this tweet regarding Monfils' match against Diego Schwartzman. Although, in hindsight, it doesn't seem like Bryant was intentionally being disrespectful to Schwartzman, by essentially reprimading Monfils for losing to Schwartzman, a player that previously took Monfils to five sets in the 2015 French Open, it sets the narrative that Schwartzman is some nobody who lacks the the talent that Monfils has.

But, this article is not saying that Monfils is not talented or that Howard Bryant doesn't know what he's talking about. Because both of those wouldn't be correct. Monfils is an extremely talented player and I truly believe, after exchanging tweets with Bryant that he didn't mean to come across as demeaning regarding Schwartzman. Instead, I was inspired by Bryant's tweet, and I want to use this article as a way to honor Schwartzman for his incredible achievements.

There has always been something fascinating, something really extraordinary, about short athletes doing great things. That's why an NBA players like Nate Robinson was so cool to watch, or how spectacular it is to see Drew Brees play the QB position in the supreme manner that he does. And the same principle goes for Diego Schwartzman.

At Diego's height of 5 foot, seven inches, upon first glance, it would not appear that Schwartzman could compete with many modern day tennis players. In today's game, it feels as if big serves and crushing forehands are the only way to play the game, and the variety of the past had been thrown out of the window.

Schwartzman goes against that logic, which is, perhaps, why his game is so refreshing. Now, I'm not saying that he can't serve big or that his forehand is weak. That is far from the case. Schwartzman did hit a couple of aces yesterday and his groundstrokes are very heavy and cause opponents many difficulties. But, what I'm trying to convey is that modern day player, at least in the eyes of the public, is more like John Isner and less like Diego Schwartzman, who also frequently uses variety and endurance in rallies to win his matches.

At least in my eyes, Schwartzman first came onto the scene when he battled Roger Federer in a clay court tournament in Istanbul in 2015. Sure, Schwartzman had been tearing up the clay court Challenger circuit, and had beat players like Alexander Zverev, Thiago Monteiro, and Jerzy Janowicz in his career, but he had yet to sustain a deep run in an ATP Tournament, as he had mostly been grinding through Challenger and Futures tournaments (successfully).

In that Semifinals match with Federer, after not being able to take a set in his two prior matches with Roger, easily took the first set, and played a very close third set, losing 7-5 in the third. It's a match like that, despite the loss, that can prove to a player, in their own mind, that they can compete at the level needed to be successful on the ATP World Tour. And, I have a feeling that this could very well have been the case for Schwartzman.

Over the next year, Schwartzman continued to battle his way through Challenger tournaments and onto the main tour, beating players like Berlocq, Dolgopolov, and Muller. Then, in Istanbul the year following the Federer match, he had his breakthrough. Diego fought hard, winning three set battles over Dzumhur and Delbonis in the Quarterfinals and Semifinals before coming back to beat Grigor Dimitrov in a three setter, which featured a bagel in the third set (although that was partially due to code violations from Grigor, which were partially due to Schwartzman's incredible consistency).

Winning an ATP World Tour title was an amazing feat for Schwartzman, especially given the narrative that short people can't compete at the level necessary to play professional tennis. But, unfortunately due to Dimitrov's code violations, the spotlight was placed too much on Grigor and not enough on Diego. The match was thought of more as "Did you see Grigor Dimitrov melt down?" than "Diego Schwartzman played an incredible match and tournament".

But, that was not the end of the story for Diego. His level continued to rise. Schwartzman continued to win Challengers, and in addition, he made the Final of the ATP World Tour tournament in Antwerp, a tournament in which he beat Pablo Cuevas and David Goffin, before losing in the Final to Richard Gasquet. Schwartzman made the Final of Antwerp again last year, losing a fairly competitive match to Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. Schwartzman also had impressive wins in 2017 over players like Karen Karen Khachanov, David Ferrer (twice), Roberto Bautista Agut, Dominic Thiem, and Marin Cilic, along with Lucas Pouille as part of Schwartzman's first run to a Grand Slam quarterfinal at the US Open.

But, still, Schwartzman had one title that was thought of, in the general public, as more of the "Grigor Dimitrov meltdown" match than the "Diego Schwartzman" first title match.

That's why, in addition to Rio being Schwartzman's first ATP World Tour title at the 500 level, this title was so special for Diego. And it wasn't like Schwartzman had an easy road either. Playing guys like Gael Monfils and Fernando Verdasco on clay are brutal. Verdasco, for instance, had destroyed this week's Buenos Aires champion, and last year's French Open semifinalist, Dominic Thiem, 6-4, 6-0 in a prior round. But, Schwartzman took him out as if it were no problem, losing only five games in a straight set win. In fact, Schwartzman didn't lose a set all tournament. It was a spectacular tournament for Schwartzman and sets up the rest of the season very nicely for him.

I can't help but wonder how far Schwartzman can go. I'm sure pundits will continue to discount him due to his height, but that hasn't stopped him previously and it won't stop him in future tournaments. As I said on tennis twitter yesterday, there is only one player on clay that I don't think Schwartzman can beat, Rafael Nadal. So, with any clay tournament he plays, if Nadal is upset, I give Diego a great chance to win the tournament.

Obviously, this does not mean that I think Schwartzman is the second-favorite after Nadal to win a clay court masters event or the French Open. It just means that I think he has a big shot at it, if Nadal loses. But, I also don't want to discount Schwartzman's credentials on hard court. After all, he did make the Final of Antwerp twice, including a great win over Goffin in 2016, and his Quarterfinals run in the US Open in 2017 once again proved that he isn't a clay court-only type of player. Sure, Diego won't be tearing it up on a grass court, but he is extremely good on hard courts too.

For me, with Diego Schwartzman, the word that comes to mind is "impressive". Given his height, given the modern game where power is valued over anything else, it is so impressive to see Schwartzman's continued good results. Schwartzman can absorb and then redirect the powerful groundstrokes of his opponent better than almost anyone else on tour, and it is a pleasure to watch.

Keep impressing, Diego!