COVID-19 has created massive problems throughout the world, including the cancellation of tennis through July 13th (currently). The Mutua Madrid Open decided that, instead of cancelling the tournament altogether, they would hold a virtual tournament instead of the regular in-person clay court event.
While not ideal by any means, with the surge in popularity of esports, this seemed like a good way for tennis to enter into the gaming sphere. The tournament decided that Tennis World Tour would be the video game of choice and playstation to be the game console used.
With 150,000 euros at stake (with at least some of that total expected to go to a donation) and 50,000 additional euros set aside exclusively for donations, the stakes were high for the 32 players participating.
The tournament was still gender-separated with 16 ATP players and 16 WTA players parsed into groups of 4 for dueling round robin tournaments. In the round robin stage, the players played to 3, with at tiebreak at 3-3. There was also a charity tournament occurring simultaneously.
For the main tournaments, after the round robin, there would be a traditional quarterfinal, knock out-style setup. In the knock out stages of the tournament, a full set of virtual tennis was played to determine a winner. Kiki Bertens and Andy Murray ended up winning the WTA and ATP virtual titles, respectively.
So, how successful was the tournament? Could we see a wave of similar tournaments, even when the regular tours return? Let's dive in.
Mutua Madrid Open Virtual Pro Review
The tournament started off on the wrong foot with the withdrawal of Gael Monfils (whose spot was taken by Benoit Paire) due to an issue with the rights to stream his virtual matches.
Tennis journalist Matthew Willis made the point that the virtual tournament was exclusive to Facebook and Monfils was affiliated with Twitch, another streaming platform. The streaming on Facebook part is weird to Willis, who has showcased how much more popular Twitch is for streaming.
There were more withdrawals during the tournament too. The game itself was a laggy disaster (more on that later), and during the round robin stage of the men's tournament, Dominic Thiem and Karen Khachanov withdrew because of technical issues, giving opponents 3-0 wins.
Even in the charity tournament taking place alongside the main tournament, technical issues for Rafael Nadal and Donna Vekic forced the cancellation of that match.
If Tennis World Tour is the best video game that tennis has, then the future of video game play in the sport is in huge trouble. Willis showcased the glitchy, terrible graphics that almost certainly turned viewers off from the game.
Then, in the men's semifinals, when Andy Murray took on Diego Schwartzman, it was as tennis journalist Stuart Fraser reported Murray saying, "...a disaster." Technical difficulties marred the match and the players ultimately decided that Murray should advance to the final.
It was almost comical how poorly the tournament was working out. In the semifinals of a virtual tournament, the players can barely even play due to technical issues. If I'm being frank, it was a total embarrassment for the tournament and reflected poorly on the sport's ability to put together a solid virtual tournament.
Personally, when I was watching the quarterfinal matchup between Bianca Andreescu and Sorana Cirstea, a match which Cirstea eventually won in a tiebreak, there was at least one occasion that I can remember where a player served a let, but was inexplicably given the point. With as seriously as the virtual tournament was taking itself, even such a seemingly minor problem during play de-legitimizes the competition.
That's not to say that the organizers weren't trying their hardest. It was clear that Madrid tournament director Feliciano Lopez and the rest of the team at Madrid were trying their best to put on the best event possible.
The problem for the Mutua Madrid Open Virtual Pro was that the the game itself felt deficient in someway. The graphics felt like they were from 10 or 15 years ago, as opposed to the modern day video games we are used to.
Tennis as sport might also just not be very well-suited to video games in general, at least serious video games trying to realistically replicate the action on the court. Watching the Virtual Pro, it felt like so much was missing. The cool angles and spins that players put on the ball, the trick shots, even the interaction between players and their boxes. All gone.
Instead, we got a glitchy, laggy, bland version of tennis that was a massive disappointment. The fun of NHL, FIFA, NBA2K, and Madden was replaced with this lame game.
A charity tournament featuring the Serena Williams Naomi Osaka, and Maria Sharapova (along with other tennis players and celebrities) is using Mario Tennis Aces as their game of choice. While that tournament, officially named the "Stay at Home Slam", is also using Facebook to stream, there is a key difference. The video game of choice is much better suited for a virtual tennis event meant to draw in fans.
Mario games are more about having fun than having serious, realistic competition. And perhaps that was the Virtual Pro's problem, they were so intent on having pros in the game itself that they forgot that a less serious video game like Mario Tennis Aces would actually be more fun to play and watch.
Let's be honest, no video game is going to realistically mimic the Nadal topspin forehand on clay.
However, a word of caution for the "Stay at Home Slam": the tournament is using John McEnroe along with Justine Ezarik for commentary. I believe that having official commentary was a very poor choice for the Virtual Pro. The commentary was unnecessary and took away from the players' own commentary. Yet another way the tournament was taking itself too seriously.
I don't mean for this to be a post where I just crap all over the virtual tournament. However, if we are to have video game tennis tournaments in the future, it's important to learn from past mistakes and try to provide the best viewer experience possible.
I appreciate the Mutua Madrid Open stepping up to the plate and essentially being the guinea pig for quarantine virtual content. Future tournaments can take what happened at the Virtual Pro and hopefully put together a better product.
Showing posts with label Maria Sharapova. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maria Sharapova. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Friday, April 12, 2019
Nick Kyrgios, Sara Errani, and the Underarm Serve
Nick Kyrgios made waves in tennis world weeks ago when he started hitting underarm serves as a way to change up the pace of the match and keep his opponents from standing too far behind the baseline. However, given that Kyrgios has one of the best serves in men's tennis, the underarm serve was seen as more of a novelty act than anything worth paying serious attention to. And while players, like Alejandro Davidovich Fokina started to also occasionally serve underarmed, it seemed more for the shock factor to the opponent than a serious, long-term strategy.
However, what happens when the shock factor turns into a method of fending off retirement and keeping a player's tennis dreams alive? That is what Sara Errani is currently grappling with. As Diego Barbiani states in this tweet, in last night's match in Bogota, Errani served underarm for most of the match, especially in the second set. And not only that, but Errani only lost three games in the match. And as, Barbiani states, she only hit four double faults!
Now, you might be thinking, why is it such a big deal that she only hit four double faults? Well, in her previous match, she hit 18 double faults. To put that in perspective, 18 double faults is around 4.5 games in a match. While that is not a perfect comparison to make, given deuce games, it is still startling to see Errani serving so poorly. Sara's serve was always the weak part of her game, but she never used to serve like this. The serve is the one part of a player's game that the player has full control over, and is considered by many to be the most important shot in tennis, so to see Errani struggling to this extent is shocking.
But, it seems like switching to the underarm serve, at least in that one match, helped Errani to cut down on her serving woes and allow her to showcase her high-quality clay-court baseline game. This is in contrast to Errani often ending the point before it has really even started, not with an ace, but with a double fault. When one watches Errani, it is clear that her groundstroke prowess, while not on the level she was at when she made the final of the French Open in 2012, is still at a very high level. The problem is, however, when your serve is under pressure so often, by yourself as often as your opponent, how are you able to win consistently?
I don't see this underarm serve to be a long-term strategy for Errani. The WTA Bogota is definitely not the strongest of the WTA tournaments, and having success with the underarm serve against Bibiane Schoofs, currently No. 149 in the live rankings, doesn't mean that Errani is all of a sudden going to go toe-to-toe, for example, with Angelique Kerber, like she has in the past (head to head 2-2). Errani will most likely have to work out how to manage the regular service motion if she is going to advance in tournaments with stronger fields.
It is so interesting how this whole situation has panned out. Although Michael Chang famously used the underarm serve in his match against Ivan Lendl at the French Open, Nick Kyrgios revived it with his occasional underarm serves recently, and because it's Nick Kyrgios, this sparked seemingly endless debates about the underarm serve, with Kyrgios certainly enjoying the even brighter spotlight that serving underarm has brought him.
Yet, we also have a player, Sara Errani, who is using the underarm serve as a way to keep her dream of playing in French Open qualifying alive. It's amazing how far Errani has fallen, going from her peak, battling Maria Sharapova for the French Open, to her doping ban, to now utilizing the underarm serve as a way to keep her tennis career, and chances to even get into French Open qualifying, afloat.
Thus, proving that the underarm serve can be used for very different reasons.
However, what happens when the shock factor turns into a method of fending off retirement and keeping a player's tennis dreams alive? That is what Sara Errani is currently grappling with. As Diego Barbiani states in this tweet, in last night's match in Bogota, Errani served underarm for most of the match, especially in the second set. And not only that, but Errani only lost three games in the match. And as, Barbiani states, she only hit four double faults!
Now, you might be thinking, why is it such a big deal that she only hit four double faults? Well, in her previous match, she hit 18 double faults. To put that in perspective, 18 double faults is around 4.5 games in a match. While that is not a perfect comparison to make, given deuce games, it is still startling to see Errani serving so poorly. Sara's serve was always the weak part of her game, but she never used to serve like this. The serve is the one part of a player's game that the player has full control over, and is considered by many to be the most important shot in tennis, so to see Errani struggling to this extent is shocking.
But, it seems like switching to the underarm serve, at least in that one match, helped Errani to cut down on her serving woes and allow her to showcase her high-quality clay-court baseline game. This is in contrast to Errani often ending the point before it has really even started, not with an ace, but with a double fault. When one watches Errani, it is clear that her groundstroke prowess, while not on the level she was at when she made the final of the French Open in 2012, is still at a very high level. The problem is, however, when your serve is under pressure so often, by yourself as often as your opponent, how are you able to win consistently?
I don't see this underarm serve to be a long-term strategy for Errani. The WTA Bogota is definitely not the strongest of the WTA tournaments, and having success with the underarm serve against Bibiane Schoofs, currently No. 149 in the live rankings, doesn't mean that Errani is all of a sudden going to go toe-to-toe, for example, with Angelique Kerber, like she has in the past (head to head 2-2). Errani will most likely have to work out how to manage the regular service motion if she is going to advance in tournaments with stronger fields.
It is so interesting how this whole situation has panned out. Although Michael Chang famously used the underarm serve in his match against Ivan Lendl at the French Open, Nick Kyrgios revived it with his occasional underarm serves recently, and because it's Nick Kyrgios, this sparked seemingly endless debates about the underarm serve, with Kyrgios certainly enjoying the even brighter spotlight that serving underarm has brought him.
Yet, we also have a player, Sara Errani, who is using the underarm serve as a way to keep her dream of playing in French Open qualifying alive. It's amazing how far Errani has fallen, going from her peak, battling Maria Sharapova for the French Open, to her doping ban, to now utilizing the underarm serve as a way to keep her tennis career, and chances to even get into French Open qualifying, afloat.
Thus, proving that the underarm serve can be used for very different reasons.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Media Credentials and What Makes a Tennis Journalist?
Prior to the BNP Paribas Showdown at Madison Square Garden, just before Indian Wells, a "press conference" ensued for the four players involved: Caroline Wozniacki, Gael Monfils, Serena Williams, Stanislas Wawrinka. As I checked Twitter during that press conference, seemingly every tweet from "tennis twitter" were regarding the terrible questioning and, overall, lack of real journalism in the room. And this is about when I asked myself, "If these 'journalists' can get media credentials to a high profile tennis event, can just about anyone?"
And so, with this in my mind, I embarked on a long-term project to try to see if I could get media credentials to an ATP World Tour tournament, with just this blog as my claim to be a tennis "journalist". I had to first decide upon a a tournament to attempt to get media credentials at. I ultimately decided upon the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships as a relatively small ATP 250 Tournament and one that I thought I legitimately could get credentialed at, even with just this All About Tennis Blog, and it's inconsistent article-publishing schedule and lack of recognition in the greater tennis community.
I then went on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships website, filled in my media outlet as the "All About Tennis Blog", and with that, started my media credential application! I then wrote in all of the boring stuff, my name, address, etc., and among other things, checked the box saying that I was (certainly) not a member of the ITWA. After this, I uploaded a picture of myself from earlier this year, and then wrote a short comment that was something along the lines that I was a student looking for a journalism opportunity. After writing this, I sent it, and it was all in the hands of the folks in Houston. Does some random blogger online have the standing to get credentialed at an ATP event, or would his request be denied?
Well, I waited, and waited even longer. At one point, I thought Houston might not even send me a reply at all about media credential request, which would obviously mean that I didn't get credentialed. However, right at the end of March, I received a small package from ATP Houston. Upon seeing who it was from, I tore into it, eager to see the results of my project. And sure enough, in the package was a letter and a media credential with my picture on it! I was initially in jubilation, as it is really cool to see that your hard work has paid off, and that an ATP tennis tournament is recognizing this with a credential. However, the excitement wore off when I realized that I would not be actually going to the tournament, and that this was all part of a long-term project for me.
And so, with that, I shifted my focus to what I really wanted to get at with this entire process, which originally started weeks back during a quick Twitter check. If I, a unknown blogger who has certainly not posted regularly on his blog over the years, can get media credentialed to an ATP World Tour event, then, for starters, how easy is it to be credentialed to a couple exhibition matches, such as the BNP Paribas Showdown?
I'm guessing, like for ATP Houston, it doesn't take much to be credentialed. Perhaps only a blog, like me, or a fancy job title would do the the trick. But, is taking in people like that really good for tennis fans looking for real information about tennis? There are two sides of the coin to this question. On one side, opportunities like this do give writers like me valuable experience and a chance to work on our craft. However, on the other side of this, it does not portray the sport in the best light. The press conference in New York City was a huge time in the tennis world. Everyone had just heard about Maria Sharapova, and so hearing the reaction to this news at the press conference was a big deal. And when, with the spotlight on this press conference, the questioning is absolutely terrible, I'm fairly confident I was not the only one appalled by the level of professionalism shown by the journalists there. And, while I think I would actually ask some insightful questions at this press conference, just the randomness of some random guy with a tennis blog being there would also call into question the seriousness of such a press conference.
However, I did not mean this article to be a rip on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships at all. I really do appreciate them credentialing me and validating the writing on my blog, in a way. And I didn't mean to "trick" them into credentialing me upon working on this project of mine. Perhaps, by (presumably) reading my blog, they saw the level of seriousness to my writing that I put into my blog and were impressed by it. They might have wanted to give me experience, as a student, too. At least I certainly hope that is all the reasoning and that I wasn't just credentialed because I just had some random tennis blog.
The main question behind all of this talk is really, What makes a tennis journalist? Is it quality of work, quantity of work, level of professionalism in one's work, or perhaps one's accolades? And, unfortunately, I don't even have an answer to that question, because in reality, it depends. Different tournaments might differ on what qualifies as a tennis journalist worthy of credentialing, just as tennis fans might also have completely different ideas of what the phrase "tennis journalist" means to them.
And I don't think anyone could really be wrong in their answer, it's really up to the individual (or the tournament). However, to ensure journalistic standards, I do think, before requesting media credentials, potential media members should definitely have to take a "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz to ensure that those who get credentialed are not hoaxing their way into the position. And I have no doubt that I would pass such a quiz, but would the journalists at the BNP Paribas Showdown? Questionable.
This entire project (and process) of attempting to get credentialed, getting the credential, and the questions that have followed, has been a long, winding process. However, I think questions raised from such a project could, ultimately, help tennis journalism by raising even more questions. Should this "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz be implemented? Should journalists be kicked out of a press conference for asking a ridiculous question? Does a media credential even mean anything anymore?
I can't, universally, come to a conclusion about those questions. These are for each individual, internally, to answer.
And so, with this in my mind, I embarked on a long-term project to try to see if I could get media credentials to an ATP World Tour tournament, with just this blog as my claim to be a tennis "journalist". I had to first decide upon a a tournament to attempt to get media credentials at. I ultimately decided upon the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships as a relatively small ATP 250 Tournament and one that I thought I legitimately could get credentialed at, even with just this All About Tennis Blog, and it's inconsistent article-publishing schedule and lack of recognition in the greater tennis community.
I then went on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships website, filled in my media outlet as the "All About Tennis Blog", and with that, started my media credential application! I then wrote in all of the boring stuff, my name, address, etc., and among other things, checked the box saying that I was (certainly) not a member of the ITWA. After this, I uploaded a picture of myself from earlier this year, and then wrote a short comment that was something along the lines that I was a student looking for a journalism opportunity. After writing this, I sent it, and it was all in the hands of the folks in Houston. Does some random blogger online have the standing to get credentialed at an ATP event, or would his request be denied?
Well, I waited, and waited even longer. At one point, I thought Houston might not even send me a reply at all about media credential request, which would obviously mean that I didn't get credentialed. However, right at the end of March, I received a small package from ATP Houston. Upon seeing who it was from, I tore into it, eager to see the results of my project. And sure enough, in the package was a letter and a media credential with my picture on it! I was initially in jubilation, as it is really cool to see that your hard work has paid off, and that an ATP tennis tournament is recognizing this with a credential. However, the excitement wore off when I realized that I would not be actually going to the tournament, and that this was all part of a long-term project for me.
And so, with that, I shifted my focus to what I really wanted to get at with this entire process, which originally started weeks back during a quick Twitter check. If I, a unknown blogger who has certainly not posted regularly on his blog over the years, can get media credentialed to an ATP World Tour event, then, for starters, how easy is it to be credentialed to a couple exhibition matches, such as the BNP Paribas Showdown?
I'm guessing, like for ATP Houston, it doesn't take much to be credentialed. Perhaps only a blog, like me, or a fancy job title would do the the trick. But, is taking in people like that really good for tennis fans looking for real information about tennis? There are two sides of the coin to this question. On one side, opportunities like this do give writers like me valuable experience and a chance to work on our craft. However, on the other side of this, it does not portray the sport in the best light. The press conference in New York City was a huge time in the tennis world. Everyone had just heard about Maria Sharapova, and so hearing the reaction to this news at the press conference was a big deal. And when, with the spotlight on this press conference, the questioning is absolutely terrible, I'm fairly confident I was not the only one appalled by the level of professionalism shown by the journalists there. And, while I think I would actually ask some insightful questions at this press conference, just the randomness of some random guy with a tennis blog being there would also call into question the seriousness of such a press conference.
However, I did not mean this article to be a rip on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships at all. I really do appreciate them credentialing me and validating the writing on my blog, in a way. And I didn't mean to "trick" them into credentialing me upon working on this project of mine. Perhaps, by (presumably) reading my blog, they saw the level of seriousness to my writing that I put into my blog and were impressed by it. They might have wanted to give me experience, as a student, too. At least I certainly hope that is all the reasoning and that I wasn't just credentialed because I just had some random tennis blog.
The main question behind all of this talk is really, What makes a tennis journalist? Is it quality of work, quantity of work, level of professionalism in one's work, or perhaps one's accolades? And, unfortunately, I don't even have an answer to that question, because in reality, it depends. Different tournaments might differ on what qualifies as a tennis journalist worthy of credentialing, just as tennis fans might also have completely different ideas of what the phrase "tennis journalist" means to them.
And I don't think anyone could really be wrong in their answer, it's really up to the individual (or the tournament). However, to ensure journalistic standards, I do think, before requesting media credentials, potential media members should definitely have to take a "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz to ensure that those who get credentialed are not hoaxing their way into the position. And I have no doubt that I would pass such a quiz, but would the journalists at the BNP Paribas Showdown? Questionable.
This entire project (and process) of attempting to get credentialed, getting the credential, and the questions that have followed, has been a long, winding process. However, I think questions raised from such a project could, ultimately, help tennis journalism by raising even more questions. Should this "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz be implemented? Should journalists be kicked out of a press conference for asking a ridiculous question? Does a media credential even mean anything anymore?
I can't, universally, come to a conclusion about those questions. These are for each individual, internally, to answer.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Should Maria Sharapova Be Praised For Personally Announcing Illegal Meldonium Use? I Don't Think So.
On Monday, Maria Sharapova had a big announcement. There was speculation about retirement, surgery, and just about anything you could think of. But, about the one thing I didn't hear people talking about was a failed drug test. And a failed drug test was exactly what Maria Sharapova announced had occurred at her press conference.
If we are to believe Maria, she was taking the now-banned substance named meldonium for the previous ten years. She claims that her family doctor had recommended this medicine, if we are to call it that, to her because she was getting flu often, had an irregular EKG, and also has diabetes, along with the all-important family history of diabetes.
Now, I'm not going to get into the speculation about how long Sharapova actually needed to take it, how it wasn't FDA approved, nor whether her true intentions of taking the substance were good enough. The ITF will do their investigation, and as of now, Sharapova is intentions are innocent until proven guilty in my mind, and this is coming from a huge Serena fan. I trust that Maria wouldn't blatantly disrespect the rules and that she would realize that she can beat the vast majority of the tour without trying to artificially enhance her performance. And maybe this is naive of me, but Maria does not seem like someone who would purposefully disrespect the game in this manner.
With that said, let me get to the brunt of my argument. I recently saw on Twitter that talked about how Maria had "guts"for holding a press conference to admit she failed a drug test. And someone else on Twitter reminded me that I read yesterday that in Serena Williams' press conference yesterday, she essentially said that Maria was very courageous for coming out and admitting that she was using meldonium. Now, do I think that Serena really believes that? Of course not, but I have to take her word for it and believe what she says and analyze based on her words alone.
But, let's be honest here, with all due respect to Serena, Sharapova's press conference was anything but courageous. At the end of the day, she broke the rules, and that's all that matters. As Sharapova stated, she was sent something linking to a list of banned substances. However, as she stated, no one on her team even bothered to look at this list, knowing full-and-well she was taking this meldonium medicine. If you are putting any sort of supplement or medicine in your body, even if you think it's approved, it would still be a good idea to check the new banned substances list. And so, I don't think her negligence should be excused just because she holds a press conference on short notice for herself.
But, beyond that, let's just take a look at how Sharapova benefits from holding a press conference to say she tested positive for meldonium. First off, Sharapova gets to spin the narrative in her direction by holding this "courageous" press conference to announce her illegal drug use. Before anything else gets out into the media, Sharapova can insert words and phrases such as "family doctor", "diabetes", "legal until this year", and "taking full responsibility" into our mind to try to put her in the best light and lessen the damage done to her image by getting out ahead of the ITF's announcement.
And I'm not saying this was a stupid thing for her to do. She has, effectively I may add, made it almost seem like she is a victim of the ITF's covert effort to trick players into taking drugs that were snuck onto the banned list. However, I think this was a necessity for her and not an act of courage or something worthy of praise. Maria Sharapova broke the rules out of negligence and put something in her body that shouldn't have been there. There is no way around this fact.
I'd expect any athlete who broke the rules to own up to it. And whether or not Sharapova called a press conference for herself or not should have any effect on how she is treated because it shouldn't matter that Maria has the resources surrounding her to be able to hold a press conference for herself, a video or a statement released the day before would have been fine, and it wouldn't have caused so much unnecessary speculation. Even a conference call with reporters on Sunday, giving them the ability to ask questions, would have been perfectly fine.
Look, I understand why Maria Sharapova got ahead of the curve and personally announced that she had taken meldonium. However, to call her "courageous", or say that she has "guts" for doing it, is a slap in the face to everyone who has actually been courageous or had guts over their lifetimes. You want courageous? A fireman rushing into a burning building is courageous. You want guts? Dr. Martin Luther King's efforts to stop segregation took guts.
So, should Maria Sharapova be praised for personally announcing her illegal meldonium use? I don't think so.
If we are to believe Maria, she was taking the now-banned substance named meldonium for the previous ten years. She claims that her family doctor had recommended this medicine, if we are to call it that, to her because she was getting flu often, had an irregular EKG, and also has diabetes, along with the all-important family history of diabetes.
Now, I'm not going to get into the speculation about how long Sharapova actually needed to take it, how it wasn't FDA approved, nor whether her true intentions of taking the substance were good enough. The ITF will do their investigation, and as of now, Sharapova is intentions are innocent until proven guilty in my mind, and this is coming from a huge Serena fan. I trust that Maria wouldn't blatantly disrespect the rules and that she would realize that she can beat the vast majority of the tour without trying to artificially enhance her performance. And maybe this is naive of me, but Maria does not seem like someone who would purposefully disrespect the game in this manner.
With that said, let me get to the brunt of my argument. I recently saw on Twitter that talked about how Maria had "guts"for holding a press conference to admit she failed a drug test. And someone else on Twitter reminded me that I read yesterday that in Serena Williams' press conference yesterday, she essentially said that Maria was very courageous for coming out and admitting that she was using meldonium. Now, do I think that Serena really believes that? Of course not, but I have to take her word for it and believe what she says and analyze based on her words alone.
But, let's be honest here, with all due respect to Serena, Sharapova's press conference was anything but courageous. At the end of the day, she broke the rules, and that's all that matters. As Sharapova stated, she was sent something linking to a list of banned substances. However, as she stated, no one on her team even bothered to look at this list, knowing full-and-well she was taking this meldonium medicine. If you are putting any sort of supplement or medicine in your body, even if you think it's approved, it would still be a good idea to check the new banned substances list. And so, I don't think her negligence should be excused just because she holds a press conference on short notice for herself.
But, beyond that, let's just take a look at how Sharapova benefits from holding a press conference to say she tested positive for meldonium. First off, Sharapova gets to spin the narrative in her direction by holding this "courageous" press conference to announce her illegal drug use. Before anything else gets out into the media, Sharapova can insert words and phrases such as "family doctor", "diabetes", "legal until this year", and "taking full responsibility" into our mind to try to put her in the best light and lessen the damage done to her image by getting out ahead of the ITF's announcement.
And I'm not saying this was a stupid thing for her to do. She has, effectively I may add, made it almost seem like she is a victim of the ITF's covert effort to trick players into taking drugs that were snuck onto the banned list. However, I think this was a necessity for her and not an act of courage or something worthy of praise. Maria Sharapova broke the rules out of negligence and put something in her body that shouldn't have been there. There is no way around this fact.
I'd expect any athlete who broke the rules to own up to it. And whether or not Sharapova called a press conference for herself or not should have any effect on how she is treated because it shouldn't matter that Maria has the resources surrounding her to be able to hold a press conference for herself, a video or a statement released the day before would have been fine, and it wouldn't have caused so much unnecessary speculation. Even a conference call with reporters on Sunday, giving them the ability to ask questions, would have been perfectly fine.
Look, I understand why Maria Sharapova got ahead of the curve and personally announced that she had taken meldonium. However, to call her "courageous", or say that she has "guts" for doing it, is a slap in the face to everyone who has actually been courageous or had guts over their lifetimes. You want courageous? A fireman rushing into a burning building is courageous. You want guts? Dr. Martin Luther King's efforts to stop segregation took guts.
So, should Maria Sharapova be praised for personally announcing her illegal meldonium use? I don't think so.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Venus Williams vs. Maria Sharapova Predictions
Tonight (in the United States), a huge Third Round matchup will take place. And let's be honest, I think the winner of this match has a better-than-average chance of, at least, making it to the Finals. This match is Venus Williams vs. Maria Sharapova. But who will win? Will I change my prediction of Maria Sharapova making the Finals? Let's find out.
Both Williams and Sharapova have rolled through their first two matches. Venus Williams hasn't even been threatened in a set yet, while Maria Sharapova hasn't even lost a game yet. This is what makes this match even more compelling. These two players haven't been sneaking by, playing below average, but winning due to the low level of competition put in front of them. They have been beating down on their opponents, like a champion should.
So, who will win? In the first set, I expect Maria Sharapova to get off to a hot start. Venus Williams will get pushed around by Sharapova's hard-hitting game, and will not offer much resistance. I can see this set going 6-2 to Sharapova, with the score not even being a fair indicator of the lopsidedness of the match. I don't think the first set will be too pretty for Venus.
The second set, however, I believe will be much tighter. Venus Williams will start to find her game again, occasionally trading breaks with Sharapova. Sharapova will start to spray a few more errors, giving Williams a chance to take the set. Venus Williams will win the second set 7-6 (7-3). It will all come down to the final set.
Unfortunately for tennis fans, however, I don't think this last set will be so close. The heat will finally get to Venus, her time off of tennis finally coming back to bite her in the heat of Australia.. Maria Sharapova will cruise to a 6-1 victory in this set, giving her the match as well. Although it won't be enough for Venus, she will have definitely played her heart out.
I predict Maria Sharapova will beat Venus Williams, but not before giving up a set. This half of my Finals prediction will still be alive!
Monday, January 14, 2013
Venus Williams Looks Ready To Take On Maria Sharapova
I have to admit, I wasn't quite sure what to expect when Venus Williams stepped on the court yesterday, to take on unseeded opponent Galina Voskoboeva. Would she flop, as she did in singles at Wimbledon the previous year, or would she rise to the occasion. Well, it was only one match, however I think we got our answer.
Venus Williams took it to Voskoboeva, smacking shots left and right, Voskoboeva looking hopeless, as Venus took games at will. In fact, Venus Williams was on fire, winning 6-1, 6-0 in seemingly no time. This was a demolition.
At the beginning of the match, the very beginning, Voskoboeva looked like a crafty player, a women that would be no walk over for a shaky Venus. Then, out of nowhere it seems, Williams turned it on, and before you knew it, the game was totally out of hand, Williams prancing to the finish line. The early success of Galina gone in the blink of an eye.
So now it is time to look forward, to that question that appeared in many minds after the draws were announced. Will Venus Williams be ready to take on Maria Sharapova in the Third Round? And I don't mean just participate in the match, I mean beating her. Before yesterday, I really wasn't sure, Sharapova looked, and based on yesterday is, a very strong opposition. Could Venus, at this stage of her career, really do what is necessary to make that match into a classic.
My answer to that initial question is yes. Venus Williams looks ready to take on Maria Sharapova. She looks ready to look eye to eye with the defending French Open champion, and hit with her stroke for stroke. She looks ready to not only take her on, to challenge her, but maybe, just maybe, to beat her as well.
Venus Williams is ready for that challenge. Whether or not she will win, however, is still a mystery.
Venus Williams took it to Voskoboeva, smacking shots left and right, Voskoboeva looking hopeless, as Venus took games at will. In fact, Venus Williams was on fire, winning 6-1, 6-0 in seemingly no time. This was a demolition.
At the beginning of the match, the very beginning, Voskoboeva looked like a crafty player, a women that would be no walk over for a shaky Venus. Then, out of nowhere it seems, Williams turned it on, and before you knew it, the game was totally out of hand, Williams prancing to the finish line. The early success of Galina gone in the blink of an eye.
So now it is time to look forward, to that question that appeared in many minds after the draws were announced. Will Venus Williams be ready to take on Maria Sharapova in the Third Round? And I don't mean just participate in the match, I mean beating her. Before yesterday, I really wasn't sure, Sharapova looked, and based on yesterday is, a very strong opposition. Could Venus, at this stage of her career, really do what is necessary to make that match into a classic.
My answer to that initial question is yes. Venus Williams looks ready to take on Maria Sharapova. She looks ready to look eye to eye with the defending French Open champion, and hit with her stroke for stroke. She looks ready to not only take her on, to challenge her, but maybe, just maybe, to beat her as well.
Venus Williams is ready for that challenge. Whether or not she will win, however, is still a mystery.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Wrapping Up the Women's Tennis Season
There have been many story lines from the year in women's tennis. Although there are still some minor tournaments to come, the next time tennis will be a huge deal will be the 2013 Australian Open. Let's look at some of the key points of the year.
The first thing I want to talk about is Victoria Azarenka's emergence. She leaped onto the scene this year beating Maria Sharapova in the 2012 Australian Open Finals, which showed that she was ready to take the leap of stardom. She did not rest on her achievement, however. She gained the number one ranking in the world, which is a huge achievement. Then, she went to the Olympics and performed well there too. She won a bronze medal for her country Belarus to further her fantastic year. Then, in the US Open Finals, she battled Serena Williams till the very end, showing she would be a major factor in the years to come. Awesome job, Victoria.
Maria Sharapova really excelled this year. After challenging Azarenka at the Australian Open, she finally mastered that pesky clay and rolled through the competition, beating surprise finalist Sara Errani in the Finals. This was an especially important major for Sharapova to win as it gave her the career grand slam. Sharapova also won a silver medal for her country, Russia. This year truly solidified Sharapova's place as one of the best women's tennis players of all time.
Perhaps the player who had the best year, however, was Serena Williams. After losing in the First Round of the French Open, Williams exploded. She aced her way to a Wimbledon crown, her first major championship since her terrifying blood clot. And by the way, she won the doubles title too with her sister Venus Williams. She steamrolled her way to the Olympic gold, never being taken to three sets, and only losing one game in the final match. She also won the women's doubles gold with Venus again. Then, she went to the final major of the year, the US Open, and won there. For a year that started so disappointing, not making past the Round of 16 in either of the first two majors of the year, this was an amazing finish. Based partly on the latter part of this year, I believe we might be watching the great women's tennis player of all time.
We cannot also forget the player who beat Serena Williams in that epic First Round match at Rolland Garros: Virginie Razzano. This women needs to be commended for such an impressive showing against such an impressive player. The way she battled back from one set down, the way she battled as Serena Williams made one last push to save her tournament with that seemingly-forever deuce game when Razzano was up 5-3, was impressive. This was an upset for the ages, and we, as tennis fans should be appreciative of such a spectacular performance.
After such a great year in women's tennis, we can only hope that 2013 brings us such great memories.
Maria Sharapova really excelled this year. After challenging Azarenka at the Australian Open, she finally mastered that pesky clay and rolled through the competition, beating surprise finalist Sara Errani in the Finals. This was an especially important major for Sharapova to win as it gave her the career grand slam. Sharapova also won a silver medal for her country, Russia. This year truly solidified Sharapova's place as one of the best women's tennis players of all time.
Perhaps the player who had the best year, however, was Serena Williams. After losing in the First Round of the French Open, Williams exploded. She aced her way to a Wimbledon crown, her first major championship since her terrifying blood clot. And by the way, she won the doubles title too with her sister Venus Williams. She steamrolled her way to the Olympic gold, never being taken to three sets, and only losing one game in the final match. She also won the women's doubles gold with Venus again. Then, she went to the final major of the year, the US Open, and won there. For a year that started so disappointing, not making past the Round of 16 in either of the first two majors of the year, this was an amazing finish. Based partly on the latter part of this year, I believe we might be watching the great women's tennis player of all time.
We cannot also forget the player who beat Serena Williams in that epic First Round match at Rolland Garros: Virginie Razzano. This women needs to be commended for such an impressive showing against such an impressive player. The way she battled back from one set down, the way she battled as Serena Williams made one last push to save her tournament with that seemingly-forever deuce game when Razzano was up 5-3, was impressive. This was an upset for the ages, and we, as tennis fans should be appreciative of such a spectacular performance.
After such a great year in women's tennis, we can only hope that 2013 brings us such great memories.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Thoughts on the First Three Rounds for the Women at the US Open and a Look Ahead
The US Open first three rounds came to a close yesterday for the women, so this is a good time for me to give my thoughts on the women during this opening stretch. Who impressed? Who disappointed? Check it out below, along with a look ahead to the rest of the tournament.
One of the player who really impressed me with how well she has played is Victoria Azarenka. All of the attention is on how Serena Williams is just going to waltz right into winning the championship here. And even though she totally deserves it we have totally forgot about the number one seed! She has dropped six games, and beat Zheng Jie 6-0, 6-1. Zheng Jie has made two major semifinals and took Serena Williams to 9-7 in the third at Wimbledon. So, I was expecting a really competitive match, which was not the case. Looking at the draw ahead, I foresee her facing Maria Sharapova in the Semifinals, which is the other women who impressed me.
Maria Sharapova has been totally dominate during the US Open this year. She has only dropped seven games so far this tournament, and has not dropped more than two games since the First Round. She crushed the young Mallory Burdette 6-1, 6-1. Her powerful groundstrokes have been an ever-so-present part of her game. As mentioned earlier, I fully expect her to reach the Semifinals to face Victoria Azarenka, but her path is much harder as she has to play two ranked opponents, possibly five seed Petra Kvitova in the Quarterfinals. With the way she is playing, however, I believe nobody can stop her until the Semifinals.
So, who has disappointed me? Well, who else could it be other than Caroline Wozniacki? This is the second major in a row that she has gone out in the First Round, however this one was different. When she lost to Tamira Paszek at Wimbledon, she took a set and then went out fighting 6-4 in the third. This time, against an unkown opponent Begu, she went out meekly. She lost 6-2, 6-2 in a disappointing loss for the former number one. For Wozniacki, now the long wait for the Australian Open ensues.
So, now it is prediction time. I have already stated who will make it to the Semifinals in the top half of the bracket, but what about the bottom half? The obvious semifinalist is Serena Williams, but the other one will be Angelique Kerber, who will just edge out Aga Radwanska in the Quarterfinals. Sharapova will beat Azarenka in three sets, and Serena Williams, out for revenge against Angelique Kerber, will beat her in two sets.
So, the Finals will be Maria Sharapova against Serena Williams. This is a rematch of the 2012 Olympic final. Serena Williams won 6-0, 6-1 there, and I do not expect a much different result here either. Serena Williams will beat Maria Sharapova 6-3, 6-1 to win the US Open.
One of the player who really impressed me with how well she has played is Victoria Azarenka. All of the attention is on how Serena Williams is just going to waltz right into winning the championship here. And even though she totally deserves it we have totally forgot about the number one seed! She has dropped six games, and beat Zheng Jie 6-0, 6-1. Zheng Jie has made two major semifinals and took Serena Williams to 9-7 in the third at Wimbledon. So, I was expecting a really competitive match, which was not the case. Looking at the draw ahead, I foresee her facing Maria Sharapova in the Semifinals, which is the other women who impressed me.
Maria Sharapova has been totally dominate during the US Open this year. She has only dropped seven games so far this tournament, and has not dropped more than two games since the First Round. She crushed the young Mallory Burdette 6-1, 6-1. Her powerful groundstrokes have been an ever-so-present part of her game. As mentioned earlier, I fully expect her to reach the Semifinals to face Victoria Azarenka, but her path is much harder as she has to play two ranked opponents, possibly five seed Petra Kvitova in the Quarterfinals. With the way she is playing, however, I believe nobody can stop her until the Semifinals.
So, who has disappointed me? Well, who else could it be other than Caroline Wozniacki? This is the second major in a row that she has gone out in the First Round, however this one was different. When she lost to Tamira Paszek at Wimbledon, she took a set and then went out fighting 6-4 in the third. This time, against an unkown opponent Begu, she went out meekly. She lost 6-2, 6-2 in a disappointing loss for the former number one. For Wozniacki, now the long wait for the Australian Open ensues.
So, now it is prediction time. I have already stated who will make it to the Semifinals in the top half of the bracket, but what about the bottom half? The obvious semifinalist is Serena Williams, but the other one will be Angelique Kerber, who will just edge out Aga Radwanska in the Quarterfinals. Sharapova will beat Azarenka in three sets, and Serena Williams, out for revenge against Angelique Kerber, will beat her in two sets.
So, the Finals will be Maria Sharapova against Serena Williams. This is a rematch of the 2012 Olympic final. Serena Williams won 6-0, 6-1 there, and I do not expect a much different result here either. Serena Williams will beat Maria Sharapova 6-3, 6-1 to win the US Open.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Why Draw Day Could be the Most Important of a Major
Yesterday, the US Open draws came out. Now, for some, this is just another batch non-news, but, it is much more important at a major than you might think. Why is this? Well, let's take a look at the women's and men's draw to find out.
Tomas Berdych has had a rough portion of his year. He lost in the First Round of both Wimbledon and the Olympics. The US Open is supposed to get him back on track. It's unfortunate he got a bad draw. In the opening round, Berdych will play David Goffn. This is the same David Goffin who made it to the Round of 16 at the French Open and the Third Round of Wimbledon. David Goffin took a set of Roger Federer at the French Open. This is not good for Berdych. And if he wins this, he has to play Denis Istomin, who was one set away from a Wimbledon Quarterfinals appearance this year. This was a horrible draw for Berdych, and one that could shape his tournament.
Another example of this in the men's draw, this time working the man's favor is with Roger Federer. Yes, he will have to play Andy Murray in the Semifinals, if they both make it there, but for at least the early matches, there could not have been an easier draw for him. To start off, he plays Donald Young, who has not won a match in who knows how long. His potential Third Round Opponent, Fernando Verdasco, does not have the weapons to beat him, and his potential Quarterfinals foe, Tomas Berdych, who might not even make it out of the First Round, has fizzled out ever since his Wimbledon Finals appearance. There are no hidden roadblocks for Federer in this draw. This was a great draw for Federer.
On the women's side, Angelique Kerber has a deceptively hard draw. When one looks at the bracket, one would see that Kerber would only possibly see one seed, and a low one at that (Tamira Paszek ; 29 seed), until possibly the Round of 16. Well, there are lots of under-the-radar roadblocks thrown in there. This starts with her First Round opponent, Anne Keothavong. Keothavong took Wozniaki the distance at the Olympics and there is no reason why she can not carry that momentum into the US Open. In the Second Round, she might have to take on two-time US Open champion Venus Williams, who she had to beat in two tiebreaks at the US Open, and the in Third Round, she might have to play Paszek, who made an under-the-radar Quarterfinals Wimbledon appearance this year. Needless to say this is not has easy as it seems.
The easy draw for the women has to belong to Maria Sharapova. She will not potentially have to play a seeded opponent until the Third Round, if she makes it that far. Unlike Kerber's draw, however, there is no tricky players early in the draw. Her potential opponent, 27 seed Anabel Medina Garrigues, would be blown off the court with Sharapova's power. In Sharapova's whole quarter, there is only one top ten player, 5 seed Petra Kvitova. Sharapova would not potantially have to play Kvitova until the Quarterfinals. Yes, Serena Williams is in her half of the draw, but as we saw at the French Open, she can lose early in a major. Williams also looked shaky at the Western and Southern Open. Until those potential matchups, however, things are looking pretty good for Maria Sharapova.
These examples show just how important the draws can be at a major, in this case the US Open. Now, a couple players are going to have to prove me wrong, and a couple of people will have to take advantage of their easy draws!
Tomas Berdych has had a rough portion of his year. He lost in the First Round of both Wimbledon and the Olympics. The US Open is supposed to get him back on track. It's unfortunate he got a bad draw. In the opening round, Berdych will play David Goffn. This is the same David Goffin who made it to the Round of 16 at the French Open and the Third Round of Wimbledon. David Goffin took a set of Roger Federer at the French Open. This is not good for Berdych. And if he wins this, he has to play Denis Istomin, who was one set away from a Wimbledon Quarterfinals appearance this year. This was a horrible draw for Berdych, and one that could shape his tournament.
Another example of this in the men's draw, this time working the man's favor is with Roger Federer. Yes, he will have to play Andy Murray in the Semifinals, if they both make it there, but for at least the early matches, there could not have been an easier draw for him. To start off, he plays Donald Young, who has not won a match in who knows how long. His potential Third Round Opponent, Fernando Verdasco, does not have the weapons to beat him, and his potential Quarterfinals foe, Tomas Berdych, who might not even make it out of the First Round, has fizzled out ever since his Wimbledon Finals appearance. There are no hidden roadblocks for Federer in this draw. This was a great draw for Federer.
On the women's side, Angelique Kerber has a deceptively hard draw. When one looks at the bracket, one would see that Kerber would only possibly see one seed, and a low one at that (Tamira Paszek ; 29 seed), until possibly the Round of 16. Well, there are lots of under-the-radar roadblocks thrown in there. This starts with her First Round opponent, Anne Keothavong. Keothavong took Wozniaki the distance at the Olympics and there is no reason why she can not carry that momentum into the US Open. In the Second Round, she might have to take on two-time US Open champion Venus Williams, who she had to beat in two tiebreaks at the US Open, and the in Third Round, she might have to play Paszek, who made an under-the-radar Quarterfinals Wimbledon appearance this year. Needless to say this is not has easy as it seems.
The easy draw for the women has to belong to Maria Sharapova. She will not potentially have to play a seeded opponent until the Third Round, if she makes it that far. Unlike Kerber's draw, however, there is no tricky players early in the draw. Her potential opponent, 27 seed Anabel Medina Garrigues, would be blown off the court with Sharapova's power. In Sharapova's whole quarter, there is only one top ten player, 5 seed Petra Kvitova. Sharapova would not potantially have to play Kvitova until the Quarterfinals. Yes, Serena Williams is in her half of the draw, but as we saw at the French Open, she can lose early in a major. Williams also looked shaky at the Western and Southern Open. Until those potential matchups, however, things are looking pretty good for Maria Sharapova.
These examples show just how important the draws can be at a major, in this case the US Open. Now, a couple players are going to have to prove me wrong, and a couple of people will have to take advantage of their easy draws!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)