Carlos Alcaraz vs Bernabe Zapata Miralles: Battle of the Spanish Qualifiers

 As I look through the men's draw of the 2021 French Open, there's plenty of good matchups in the first round. Whether it be No. 13 seed David Goffin vs Lorenzo Musetti, Marin Cilic vs Arthur Rinderknech, or Gael Monfils vs Albert Ramos, there are plenty of good first round matchups to choose from.

But, it's a battle of qualifiers that could be the most exciting match of the first round in the men's draw. A match between Spaniards, an 18 year-old rising star and a 24 year-old experiencing his moment-in-the-sun. 

Yes, I'm talking about Carlos Alcaraz vs Bernabe Zapata Miralles.

Carlos Alcaraz is the 18 year-old rising star. He is newly into the top 100, entering that elite section of the rankings after beating Facundo Bagnis in the final of the of the clay-court Oeiras 3 Challenger to leap up to World No. 94 in the ATP rankings.

The win in Oeiras was the 3rd Challenger title for Alcaraz since the coronavirus hiatus and the 4th Challenger final during that time span. I will discuss that final later on, as he happened to play Zapata Miralles in that match.

Alcaraz went into French Open qualifying with the weight of last year's disappointment on his shoulders. Last year, Alcaraz lost in 3 sets to Aleksander Vukic in the first round of qualifying. He was a set up in the match, but after losing a tight second-set tiebreak, couldn't regain his momentum in the third.

But, a tough loss like that in a big moment can be the best thing to happen to a young player. It allows that player the chance to reflect and evaluate short-comings in his or her game and the opportunity to think more about how to improve one's mindset on the tennis court.

Alcaraz came into this year's Roland Garros qualifying, perhaps the last time he will have to play a Grand Slam qualifying match in his career, looking like a man on a mission.

The Spaniard only lost 11 games over the course of his 3 qualifying matches. He won over 70% of his first serves in all of his qualifying matches and in both of his last 2 matches in qualifying had a first serve percentage over 70%.

In all 3 of Alcaraz's qualifying matches he held his opponents to under 55% first serves won. And while Lukas Lacko in the opening round of qualifying was an easier opponent, Alcaraz easily disposed of good clay court Challenger players in Andrea Pellegrino and Alejandro Tabilo during his next two matches.

After qualifying, Alcaraz was overjoyed, telling the ATP, "I'm really, really happy. It's a great feeling to play here in my first main draw here in Roland Garros. Everyone is is really hungry to qualify to the main draw, so for me it's a great feeling."

Alcaraz later explained to the ATP that, "I got comfortable last week in Portugal winning the Challenger 125, then winning these three matches in qualifying."

And if Alcaraz can continue to combine his relaxed, confident demeanor with his high-quality tennis, then the rest of the men's draw needs to take notice.

But, he's not the only Spaniard to qualify, and one of the other Spanish qualifiers happened to be drawn as his first round opponent: Bernabe Zapata Miralles.

Zapata Miralles is also a recent Challenger winner. This Spaniard won the Heilbronn Challenger over another good clay-court player in Daniel Galan. Zapata Miralles only dropped 1 set all tournament and beat Galan in straight sets to lift the trophy.

The title in Heilbronn gave Zapata a career-high ranking of World No. 126 and he currently sits close to that mark at World No. 128.

In French Open qualifying, Zapata Miralles' road wasn't quite as straight-forward as Alcaraz's. Zapata Miralles dropped his first set of the qualifying tournament to Kyrian Jacquet and was down a break point late in the third set.

There was massive pressure in this match for Zapata Miralles facing a wild card outside of the top 450 in the world as a seeded qualifying player still trying to earn his first ever qualifying victory.

But, Zapata Miralles was able to pull out that match 6-4 in the third set and didn't look back. Zapata Miralles lost 9 games in the final two qualifying rounds against Dmitry Popko and Marc Polmans, dishing out 2 bagels in the process.

Zapata Miralles' return was on-point all week. After a pretty good showing on-return against Jacquet, with the Frenchman only winning 60% of his first serve points and 51% of his second serve points, Zapata Miralles turned up the heat further in his ensuing qualifying matches.

Zapata Miralles was able to hold Popko 46% first serves won and 37% second serves won, breaking him 6 times. And against Polmans, the Spaniard held him to 36% first serves won and 38% second serves won, breaking the Aussie 7 times.

So, as both players come into this match hot, how will it play out?

The two have played two matches in the past, but one was an exhibition matches during the coronavirus hiatus, so despite Alcaraz winning in straight sets, it doesn't mean much to me.

Their only "official" matches was the only Challenger final where Alcaraz didn't emerge victorious.

It was the final of the Cordenons Challenger on the red Italian clay. Both players didn't have an easy road to the final, with Zapata Miralles having to down top-seed Yannick Hanfmann in the first round and other good clay courters such as Andrea Collarini and Alejandro Tabilo, while Alcaraz moved past players like Benjamin Bonzi and No. 4 seed Facundo Bagnis.

Zapata Miralles ended up winning the match 6-2, 4-6, 6-2. He was the steadier player on the day and returned serve well, with Alcaraz winning less than 55% of his first serve points and under 50% of his second serve points.

Of course, Alcaraz's serve has improved since that match and he's able to better control his groundstrokes, but at the very least, it's a good reminder that despite Alcaraz getting a fellow (and much more unheralded) qualifier as his first match in the main draw, doesn't mean it will be an easy match.

As I've stated earlier, Zapata Miralles' return of serve is a key part of his game. His rally tolerance is top-notch and he's able to get good depth and placement on his shots, while showing a good level of aggression when the opportunity presents itself.

Zapata Miralles' forehand has a funky motion, but he makes it work for his game. He's solid on both wings and his serve does a pretty good job setting himself up from the baseline.

As mentioned before, Alcaraz's serve has really improved since that Cordenons final against Zapata Miralles. He's rolling his serves in much less than he used to and is able to get more power on that shot. Alcaraz's forehand will be the biggest weapon on the court, with the ball absolutely exploding off of his racquet from this wing.

Alcaraz's movement around the court is excellent and, if he can racquet on the ball, there's a chance he's an open alley in the court to smack a winner. Both players, but especially Alcaraz, can turn defense-into-offense very quickly.

Alcaraz is a big more erratic than Zapata Miralles, but that's because he goes bigger on his shots than his fellow Spaniard. 

It will be interesting to see how his rally tolerance holds up in the main draw of the Grand Slam on his best surface when he will be the favorite to advance, despite Zapata Miralles winning their only other official match. And don't doubt Zapata Miralles on clay either. While Alcaraz has a 75% winning percentage on clay over the course of his young career, Zapata Miralles isn't a slouch on clay either, with a career winning percentage on clay of 64%.

And, that's the thing, the pressure will be firmly on Alcaraz's shoulders, with Zapata Miralles able to swing freely knowing that he's "expected" to lose. But, with both he and Alcaraz knowing that he can win the match.

Best-of-5 should Alcaraz in the sense that if he has short spurts where his hard-hitting shots from the baseline are spraying around the court, he has the time to steady himself. 

But, Zapata Miralles didn't qualify and make the third round of Barcelona (in addition to the Heilbronn Challenger) for no reason. He has the game to make life very tough on the 18 year old.

So, what's my "official" prediction?

I predict that this will be a very close match, but that Carlos Alcaraz gets the better of Bernabe Zapata Miralles in a 5-set match with lots of twists and turns. Ultimately, with the way Alcaraz is hitting the forehand right now, it would be very hard to expect Zapata Miralles to get the better of Alcaraz again.

***

What do you all think of this exciting matchup? Let me know in the comments or on Twitter @TennisBlogger1!

Men's French Open Draw Thoughts

 It's weird to be near the end of September, yet we still have a major to go. And it's even weirder that this major is the French Open, typically played in May and June. But that's the 2020 tennis season in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. So, let's see where the French Open takes us! Will Rafael Nadal win his 13th French Open? Read on to find out!

Get ready for some (surely incorrect) predictions.

Note: the full men's draw can be found here

Don't Be Surprised If:

1. Rafael Nadal Wins the French Open Again

I had to get this one out of the way and I won't spend too much time on it, don't want to waste y'alls time saying stuff y'all already know. Nadal has quintessential clay court game. There's very few people in the draw that can beat him, so it's pointless to go through match-by-match. 

For Rafa, it's important that he conserves his energy ahead of what could be a brutal final two matches of the tournament if he faces Thiem in the semifinals and Djokovic in the final. And there's no one in Rafa's quarter that could challenge him too much at this point. 

Fognini in the round of 16 could be tricky, but he hasn't been close to his old self since his surgery during the pandemic. And Zverev in the quarterfinals could theoretically be tough, but does anyone really think that Nadal isn't going to take full advantage of Zverev's serving issues?

While the heavier conditions of the fall do not suit Nadal's game, it is very hard to pick against him in this tournament.

2. Denis Shapovalov Makes his First Grand Slam Semifinal

No, I didn't think a few months ago I would be predicting this either. But, I was really impressed by how Shapovalov played both at the US Open and then on the clay in Rome. Shapovalov's rally tolerance is at the best I've ever seen it, which is a really good thing on clay. Will he be able to sustain that over multiple best-of-five matches? That remains to be seen.

The draw sets up well for Shapovalov, however. Simon, his first round opponent, has been completely out-of-form since the pandemic. Even on clay, in Simon's current form, expect Shapovalov to be able to hit through him. His second round opponent will probably be Roberto Carballes Baena. Very solid clay court, but he has nothing to really hurt Shapovalov with from either his serve or his baseline game.

Shapovalov just beat Dimitrov, the other seeded opponent in his mini-section, in Rome and I would expect a similar result in this one. In the round of 16, he would potentially play Stefanos Tsitsipas. However, Tsitsipas was very weak in his Rome loss to Sinner, and even today in Hamburg against Cuevas, he was not convincing in his victory. 

Tsitsipas just doesn't have the depth and placement that he had last season during the clay court swing. And Tsitsipas has a very tough potential third round match against Filip Krajinovic. Shapovalov has won his only meeting with Krajinovic and whoever wins that battle between Tsitsipas and Krajinovic should be very tired. (My pick for a Tsitsipas vs Krajinovic match will be revealed later in this article!)

In the quarterfinals, Shapovalov might play Daniil Medvedev. However, clay is Medvedev's worst surface and he struggled in a straight-sets loss to Ugo Humbert in Hamburg this past week. Medvedev's flat ball-striking makes his life a little harder on the clay. Shapovalov also might play Andrey Rublev. However, Shapovalov leads the head to head 2-1 and has won each of the past two meetings against Rublev in straight sets.

Denis Shapovalov certainly has a path to a Grand Slam semifinal against, likely, Novak Djokovic.

3. Stefanos Tsitispas Goes Out in the First Week

Related to my previous point about Shapovalov, I am not convinced at all about Tsitsipas and think that the draw sets up quite poorly for him. I believe he loses before even getting the 

Tsitsipas lost 1-6, 7-6(9), 2-6 to Sinner last week and could not find his game at all. He won only 53% of his first serve points and 49% of his second serve points, hitting 7 double faults. Beating Dan Evans on clay and an older Pablo, Cuevas who really should have won the first set does not change my opinion that he is in trouble in Paris.

Tsitsipas plays Jaume Munar in the first round, who doesn't have the weapons to beat him, but his consistency from the baseline could tire Tsitsipas out. He will most likely get Pablo Cuevas in the second round,  and maybe this time Tsitsipas won't be able to get away with saving five break points that would have allowed Cuevas to serve for the first set.

Then, in the third round, it would be a war with (likely) Filip Krajinovic. Krajinovic is a very competent player and just beat Marco Cecchinato and Felix Auger-Aliassime in Rome before losing a close straight-setter to Novak Djokovic. 

Tsitsipas beat Krajinovic in a very tight four-set match at the French Open last year and it feels like Tsitsipas is playing worse tennis and Krajinovic is playing better tennis.

I think there's a very good shot that Tsitsipas is out in the first week.

4. Dominic Thiem Loses Early (For His Standards)

I know this is a popular opinion, but I really don't like Thiem's draw. Cilic's serving in Rome was at a high-level, but he certainly isn't a clay courter and Thiem just beat him in four sets at the US Open. Still, playing a grand slam champion with a serve like Cilic's in the first round is not ideal.

In the second round, Thiem might play Reilly Opelka. Opelka is a nightmare opponent, regardless of the surface, as he can take the racquet out of opponents' hands with his huge serve. In the third round, Thiem (if he gets to this point) will likely face Casper Ruud, who just made the semifinals of Rome and is in the quarterfinals of Hamburg currently. Ruud's heavy forehand is extremely dangerous on clay and Ruud is extremely fit. Thiem will have to work hard to win that one.

In the fourth round, Thiem might play former champion Stan Wawrinka, Felix Auger-Aliassime, or maybe even Andy Murray. None of these players are an easy out. Wawrinka, despite losing to Lorenzo Musetti in Rome, could easily serve well get hot from the baseline and punish Thiem with his huge forehand and one-handed backhand. Auger-Aliassime also has the ability to start serving huge and making sets tight with Thiem (although I'm more bullish on that possibility). And then Andy Murray I'm just mentioning out of respect, but he could make a match with Thiem very physical.

In the quarterfinals, it could be Diego Schwartzman for Thiem. Schwartzman has beaten Thiem a couple times in the past and was playing excellent tennis in Rome, making the final. This included a massive straight-sets victory over Rafael Nadal in the quarterfinals. That would not be easy, as Schwartzman's ability to take over the baseline, even though he is only 5 foot, 7 inches, is superb.

Thiem has made the final of Roland Garros the past two seasons (losing to Nadal both times), so it feels that any loss before the semifinals would be early. However, given how physical the end of the US Open was for Thiem combined with the mental fatigue of winning his first grand slam final, Thiem could be ripe for an upset in this tournament.

My Favorite First Round Matchup

Stan Wawrinka vs Andy Murray

Yes, this is a very cliche choice, but I feel it would be disingenuous for me to put anything else. Wawrinka did not look great in Rome, but he's gotten a lot of matches on the clay and is a former French Open champion. Andy Murray, while he hasn't won Roland Garros, has won multiple other majors and is so hard to beat regardless of surface. Rally tolerance is so huge against Murray, who can get so many balls back and is one of the best counterpunchers in the game.

I really am unsure of how this match will go. A lot of it will come down to Wawrinka's first serve percentage. If he can control his service games with a big first serve, it would be very hard for Murray to win this match. Wawrinka also has been a little wild from the baseline since the pandemic, which would be a disaster against a consistent player like Murray. 

Another factor is whether or not Murray is physically ready for best-of-five on the most physical surface of them all: red clay.

If I had to choose, I would say Wawrinka wins in four sets. I'm not convinced Murray has what it takes to win a clay court Grand Slam match against a player of the caliber of Wawrinka. Wawrinka has a bit too much firepower for Murray at this stage of Murray's career.

Walking "Byes"

1. Cameron Norrie

Yes, this is a bigger name than you might have been expecting, and yes, I know Norrie is playing a qualifier. But, I just can't see Norrie winning given his current clay form. He's, quite frankly, been a disaster on clay since the restart.

Norrie lost to current World No. 320 Giulio Zeppieri in Rome qualifications, only winning four games. Then, in at the Forli Challenger, Norrie won a tight three-setter over current World No. 1052 Christian Harrison, who had to qualify to make the main draw. After his tight win over Harrison, he then lost to current World No. 346 Andrea Pellegrino in straight sets.

I just can't see Norrie winning a round in his current clay-form, regardless of which qualifier he plays.

2. Nikoloz Basilashvili

I know it's weird to have a seeded player as a walking bye, but this is the case with Basilashvili. Since the restart, Basilashvili has went 0-5, without even winning a set. This is understandable due to the domestic violence charge against him, which I will not get into, but that you can read about for yourself. 

Basilashvili has been very erratic from the baseline since tennis has come back and there's no reason for that to change with his upcoming first round match against Thiago Monteiro. 

Expect Basilashvili to lose again in the first round of the French Open.

Predictions

Quarterfinals

Djokovic over Bautista Agut in 4

Shapovalov over Rublev in 5

Schwartzman over Ruud in 5

Nadal over Zverev in 3

Semifinals

Djokovic over Shapovalov in 4

Nadal over Schwartzman in 4

Final

Nadal over Djokovic in 4

Thoughts Regarding Tennis and COVID-19

So, this blog post is just as much as about myself working through issues related to tennis and coronavirus as much as it is about trying to provide clarity for others. Quite frankly, coronavirus has wrecked havoc to the tennis season. But, at this point, tennis is the very least of the vast, vast majority of the world's concerns.

COVID-19

I'm not an infectious disease, so I won't pretend to be an expert, but this is a good link for learning the very basics about coronavirus (specifically COVID-19) if you don't already know the specifics. Essentially, COVID-19 is a contagious disease that started in Wuhan, China, late last year. The main symptoms of COVID-19 are the patient having a fever, being tired, and having a cough that is dry. The link above answers many of the other questions you have about this strain of coronavirus and, rather than repeat their answers here, it's better to look at the Q&A if you want to learn more.

Impact on ATP, WTA, and ITF

Honestly, the impact on tennis really isn't important at this point, but this is a tennis blog and so I will break it down. The first major domino to fall was the cancellation of the outdoors hard court BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells. Indian Wells is a Masters 1000 for men and Premier Mandatory for women, so it's right below the ATP and WTA Finals events in terms of importance. From the perspective of an American, Indian Wells was one of the first American major events to be postponed (or cancelled), so this came as a shock.

It also came as a shock to the players, where some vented on Twitter for being out of the loop and finding out on the social media platform instead of from their governing body (WTA or ATP) directly. It's understandable that the tours would be scrambling, but it can certainly be frustrating, from the players' point of view, if they aren't getting information about the sport that they rely on for their livelihood in a timely manner.

Indian Wells was technically postponed, so there's a chance that it is played later this year. But, given the French Open's move (which I will discuss later), it seems less likely now. But, in a time like this, who knows.

March 12th was a busy day for tennis postponements/cancellations. The ITF postponed events until April 20th, at the earliest. The ITF is involved in events like Futures tournaments, Fed Cup, and Davis Cup. Therefore, anything within those areas are postponed.

Also on March 12th, the Miami Open was cancelled until 2021. Miami, like Indian Wells, is a Masters 1000 event for the ATP and Premier Mandatory for the WTA, so this was another major cancellation. The sunshine swing was officially over, at least at this point.

On this same date, the ATP announced a six week hiatus from the tour due to COVID-19. There are many tournaments affected by this ruling across the United States and Europe. This ruling also affects the ATP Challenger Tour, which is under the ATP's jurisdiction. The Challenger Tour was suspended, which included the tournaments currently being played in Potchefstroom and Nur-Sultan.

The WTA took a more incremental approach to the postponement/cancellation dilemma. On March 12th, The WTA stated that the Miami Open and the Volvo Car Open (Charleston green clay event) would not be happening. Then, later in the day on March 12th, the WTA cancelled Challenger in Guadalajara during the second week of Indian Wells and the International event set to start on April 6th in Bogota.

Finally, on March 16th, the WTA suspended the entire tour until May 2nd. This means that the indoor clay tournament in Stuttgart, and the outdoor clay events in Istanbul and Prague wouldn't occur. This stoppage was set a little longer than the ATP's, but at least I presume that the extension of the ATP hiatus would have been extended to at least as long as the WTA's.


Update: As reported by Gaspar Ribeiro Lanca, the ATP, WTA, and ITF announced that tennis is called off until June 7th. A freeze in the rankings will occur during this time.

Here is the updated list of tournaments that won't be played due to COVID-19.

French Open

The French Open, one of tennis' four major tournaments, announced on March 17th that the tournament would be moved to the back half of September through the beginning of October, as opposed to its usual late May through early June dates.

 This spins the tennis calendar on its head much more so than before. As tennis journalist Jose Morgado points out, there are many ATP and WTA events that were supposed to be played during the French Open, it seems unilaterally, decided to change their dates. 

There was confusion all around, whether it be the ATP's Player's Council, per Morgado, or even the WTA's head Steve Simon, as tennis journalist Christopher Clarey points out. It seems that the French Open's move was a total shock for many involved.

Morgado also makes the good point that the US Open ends six days before Roland Garros! The logistics of having a slam in such close proximity is, let's be honest, a nightmare. The US Open, given their statement, are clearly not happy with the French Open, either.

But, at the same time, former tennis player Mark Petchey has provided good perspective on the matter, stating that the ability to still have the major and make such massive amounts of money in such a time of crisis and instability in the world. 

It's certainly true that getting to play all four majors this year, even if it's inconvenient and some people in the world would have to make sacrifices. But, in the time of a pandemic, everyone isn't going to be able to get their way completely. It's important to just accept that, even if the French Open is coming off selfishly in this manner.

Overall

However, the economic impact of cancelling so much tennis is huge for players and others who make their money from tennis are suffering greatly right now. Even for players that were planning on playing or qualifying for Indian Wells or Miami, that was a big opportunity to make a lot of money that could fund much of the rest of the year and get an immediate boost in the rankings. For players planning on playing ITF events and Challengers, and tournaments workers who were relying on these tournaments to make a living, this crisis is even more of a disaster.

This certainly feels like a bleak time in the world's history and this feeling is certainly a reality. Kirsten Flipkens' sentiment in this tweet from March 15th is certainly a good way of looking at this world crisis.

Anything Positive?

To bring a small breath of positivity in this time, I want to state that I was very excited to see that Tsvetana Pironokva is coming back to the WTA Tour! She has been gone from the WTA due to having a child and is ready to see if she can reach new heights on the WTA Tour, having gotten as high as No. 31 in the World. Pironkova made the semifinals of Wimbledon in 2010, beating Venus Williams in straight sets in the quarterfinals before a semifinal loss to Vera Zvonareva.

It's going to be great to see Pironkova back out on the tennis court. Hopefully we can all band together and get through this world health crisis and we can see her, and every other professional tennis player, on court soon.

Stay safe, y'all!

About the US Open Final

I wanted to use this space in my blog as a post-mortem of sorts on the US Open final and the US Open more generally. I will then look have a quick look to the rest of the season on the ATP Tour for Nadal and Medvedev. There were lots of different storylines and levels of intrigue that came with both the players involved and the actual play on the court that I want to try to untangle for myself, more than anyone else.

Before this North American hard court season, many tennis fans knew Daniil Medvedev more for a racist incident, throwing coins at a chair umpire, and telling off Stefanos Tsitsipas than for what he could produce on the court. The rapid development of his game was partially obscured by these incidents, but also by other young breakthrough, such as Denis Shapovalov beating Rafael Nadal in Montreal 2017 and Stefanos Tsitsipas defeating at the Australian Open 2019.

Medvedev patiently waited for his turn in the spotlight. He wasn't putting up bad results by any means. He had won his first three ATP Tour titles in 2018, including a 500 event, and won his fourth title in February of this year. Stefanos Tsitsipas still hasn't won above a 250 yet, but because he got that big win over Federer at the Australian Open on his ways to the semifinals, people looked at him differently.

At Wimbledon, Medvedev lost a third round match to David Goffin 7-5 in the fifth. Medvedev was up two sets to one and was up a break in the fifth set. With a round of 16 matchup against the mercurial Fernando Verdasco next, this seemed like a lost opportunity for Medvedev. That elusive slam quarterfinal slipped out of Daniil's grasps. Now, despite having lost 6-4 in the final to Nadal, the story is quite different.

Tennis fans knew from the way he battled Novak Djokovic in a very physical four-set match at the Australian Open this year that Medvedev played a physical style, but I don't suspect many (myself included) realized just what great shape he had gotten himself in. An ESPN graphic last night showed that Medvedev had never won a five-set match in his life. So, it seems almost like an oxymoron to proclaim what great shape he is in, given that he has never summited the hardest physical test in the sport. However, having watched him the past few weeks, I can't help but feel that way.

Since his first match in Washington on July 30th, Medvedev has played 23 matches of tennis.  That's 60 sets of tennis. He's won 20 of those matches and 48 of those sets, taking home a Masters 1000 title and runner-up trophies at another Masters 1000 and a 500 event. The US Open was by far the most demanding of him, only winning two of his seven matches in straight sets, and playing a total of 27 sets. Medvedev was cramping up against Dellien, down a set and a break against Koepfer, and down two sets and a break against one of the greatest fighters in the history of the game, Rafael Nadal.

That's damn impressive.

Speaking of Nadal, of course I want to devote a lot of space to him. I have to admit I am a Federer fan, but it's hard not to respect a player like Nadal. Nadal is sometimes looked at as if he is weak on grass and hard courts. Yet, that could not be further from the case. The guy has two Wimbledon titles and, now, five hard court majors. Take out the French Open and that's still the resume of an all-time great.

Nadal won two of those majors, the 2017 US Open and 2019 US Open, after the age of 30. It's not like he's only winning these titles off of clay when he's young. At the 2017 US Open, Nadal dropped three sets over the course of the entire tournament, and was never pushed to five sets. This year, including a withdrawal, Nadal was pushed to five sets once, accounting for two of his three sets lost. And losing two sets to Medvedev in this form is nothing to be ashamed of.

Despite an extensive injury history, Nadal's major results this year of an Australian Open final (loss to Djokovic), French Open title, Wimbledon semifinal (loss to Federer), and US Open title is unbelievable. Nadal's been injured much more than Federer over the course of his career, so despite the difference in age, it's just as impressive what Nadal is doing at 33 as what Federer is doing at 37/38. But, I'm going to try to refrain from making comparisons with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, because it's better to just sit back and watch the incredible things that these three players can do.

Nadal's results aren't confined to majors, either, not by any means. Since turning 31, Nadal has also won five Masters 1000 titles, including two on hard courts. He's won a couple 500 events too, including a hard court win at the China Open. In other words, Nadal has been impressive both at the majors and at regular tour events, and not just on clay.

Everything that's to say about Nadal has already been said, so I'll leave my gushing of his career at that.

So, what about the match specifically yesterday? As Nadal was on his way of going up two sets to love, I thought that it might be in his best interest to do what won him his match against Djokovic in Cincinnati, and red-line. I felt like Nadal was wearing Medvedev down and that Medvedev was partially doing this to himself with his poor court positioning, frequently putting himself well behind the baseline.

Now, this isn't to say that Medvedev can't get depth on the ball from such a position. One of the most remarkable things that continued to surprise me during his summer run, until I came to expect it, was the depth Medvedev was able to hit from tough positions on the court. It was amazing how consistently Medvedev was able to get the ball deep from areas that you would expect him to hit short balls. Of course this type of court positioning did open up Medvedev to do more running, as Nadal was able to pull him around the court, but until the last ball was played, it felt that even if Medvedev's fuel tank was around empty, that he was always right near a gas station.

Nadal looked wearier and wearier as the match went on, but at the age of 33, it is absolutely remarkable what great shape he was in. Playing a 23 year-old didn't phase Nadal, he is still one of the most fit players on tour. The match yesterday lasted nearly five hours, yet Nadal was still chasing balls down, making ridiculous defensive plays when necessary, and covering the court so well that even though you knew Nadal was exhausted, you also knew there was no way his body was going to give out anytime soon. What helped make this match special was that both players were visibly exhausted, yet forged on.

Down two sets and a break against Nadal is usually curtains, but the mental and physical resolve that Medvedev showed to come back and win those two sets is why it's hard to take his five-set record that seriously at this point. No, he hasn't won a five set match, but as crazy as it is to say, that doesn't matter. How he almost came back from two breaks down in the fifth, having a break point to get back to five all, is the cherry on top in terms of seeing him as more fit than almost any other player on tour. Don't forget about how much tennis he's played before this.

The match, besides the physical challenges, featured some awesome tennis. The angles, variety, rally tolerance, and precision that both players showed was world-class and an absolute treat to watch. There's drama because a match is going on for a long time and drama because both players are at an extremely high level and it's exciting to see who's tennis comes out on top. This match was both of those. Again, a showing of how best-of-five should never leave the majors.

So, Nadal won his 19th major, putting him one behind Federer for most of all-time. Given the head-to-head, especially with how Nadal is winning more and more majors off of clay, it would be very hard to put Federer above Nadal in terms of the "Greatest of All Time" rankings if Nadal ends up with equal or more majors. However, Federer I think still has a major or two left in him (he was a point away at Wimbledon this year) and Djokovic might end up passing both. But, again, let's stray away from the "Greatest of all Time" debate and look at this more as the "Era Where The Three Best Ever Players Played."

So, how does the rest of the season play out? I don't see Nadal playing much. He's supposed to play Laver Cup, but let's see what happens. Maybe Shanghai and/or Paris, along with the ATP Tour Finals? Medvedev has a packed schedule, but who knows if he will end up playing all of these. He definitely will want to rest more, maybe only playing mandatory events, so he doesn't wear himself out, a la Dominic Thiem in years past.

The season feels over, but it isn't. There's still tournaments to be played, money and points to be won.

But, if the last big memory of the 2019 season is the US Open final, then I'm glad it will be of Nadal and Medvedev battling it out.

Wimbledon Men's Predictions

Wimbledon is almost here! Check out my predictions for Wimbledon below, along with my reasoning! I think tennis fans will be familiar with a few of my semifinalists.

Quarterfinals
Djokovic over Edmund in 4
Khachanov over Anderson in 5
Nadal over Simon in 3
Federer over Struff in 3

Semifinals
Djokovic over Khachanov in 4
Federer over Nadal in 4

Final
Federer over Djokovic in 5


Reasoning
I almost feel a little guilty picking the "cop out" of the Big 3 taking up three of the four spots in the semifinals, but it feels very scary picking anyone but them. They've taken up 5 of 8 major semifinal spots this season, with Federer's loss to Tsitsipas in the round of 16 of the Australian Open being the only time that one of the three hasn't made the semifinals so far this year. And that was a very tight match. But, let's go through all the quarters of the draw.

I am projecting three of Djokovic's first four matches at Wimbledon to be not too easy for him. Philipp Kohlschreiber is his first round match and he did have a victory against Djokovic in Indian Wells, although Djokovic has won twice since then and is totally in control of the head to head. Kohlschreiber is also not in the best form coming into this tournament, so he shouldn't be too much of an issue for Novak. Kudla is my second round pick to play Djokovic, and while he understands grass court tennis very well, he doesn't have the weapons to challenge Djokovic.

The round of 16 is going to be, perhaps, Djokovic's toughest match until the final. I have him taking on Felix Auger-Aliassime, a player I am very high on. Auger-Aliassime is only 18 years old, but he is clobbering his serve and hitting his groundstrokes with a lot of precision and confidence. I don't think he will be scared of Novak, and he has the weapons to really challenge him. But, at the end of the day, I don't think he is quite good enough to beat Djokovic at a major yet, and so I ave Djokovic advancing to play Kyle Edmund.

I have Edmund reaching the quarterfinals because I think that crowd support is huge for him, and I also really like what I've seen so far from in Eastbourne. In Eastbourne, he has been hitting his forehand huge and dealing with the changes of pace involved with grass court tennis very well. Edmund should beat Munar easily in the first round. I predict that he will then have some very tricky matches in a row with Verdasco, Tsitsipas, and Medvedev, but again, I really love what I've seen from Edmund in Eastbourne. In addition, both Verdasco and Tsitsipas have not looked great on the grass and I can't see either of them advancing too far at Wimbledon. And, with Medvedev, while his game is well-suited for grass, I think his grinding style is too hard to keep up for many rounds in the best-of-five format. I think in a Edmund-Djokovic quarterfinal matchup that it will play out much like their third round last year, with Edmund getting a set, but Djokovic ultimately being too much for him to handle.

This next quarter was the toughest for me to predict, and I honestly have very little idea what's happening. I know Anderson is just coming back from injury, but he obviously did very well last year, and his game is very well-suited for grass. A first round clash with Herbert will be tough, Herbert is great at the net and knows his way around a grass court. However, when push comes to shove, I just trust Anderson more in the big moments of a match like that. His next two rounds I have him facing off with Tipseravic and then Copil. Tipseravic shouldn't trouble Anderson at all, and while Copil has a big serve, the rest of his game isn't up to the standard needed to beat Anderson in a match like this. I have Anderson playing Wawrinka in the fourth round, and Wawrinka is not nearly as good on grass compared to other surfaces. So, I have Anderson advancing there to take on Karen Khachanov.

This was tough selection, but I liked what I saw from Khachanov in Halle, and think that he could bring his good form on grass into Wimbledon. Khachanov plays a very good up-and-comer named Soon Woo Kwon, but I don't think he is quite good enough to challenge Khachanov on grass. My predicted second round for Khachanov would be very tough, as I have him taking on Feiciano Lopez. But, I don't trust Lopez to consistently do well in best-of-five format anymore and have Khachanov winning a tight one. The next two rounds against Bautista Agut and then Zverev wouldn't be easy, but grass is both of their weakest surfaces. I just feel like Khachanov can play at a higher level than Bautista Agut on grass. In terms of Zverev, I also don't trust him at majors and Khachanov will be looking for revenge after Zverev beat him in five sets at the French Open last year.

So, I have Khachanov and Anderson facing off in the quarterfinals. Anderson won their only meeting last year in Miami, taking the match in three sets. However, given that he is still coming back from injury, this match would be a step too far for him, and I think Khachanov would win. Maybe I am just higher on Khachanov than most people?

From the top quarter of the bottom draw, I have Gilles Simon as one of the quarterfinalists. I really loved what I saw from Simon at the Queen's Club, where he was so close to taking the title. His passing shots have been on fire recently, and he's counterpunching so well. I have him easily beating Caruso and Uchiyama in the first two rounds. While Caruso beat Simon at the French Open, Simon is playing significantly better recently. In the next two rounds, I have Simon beating Fognini and Thiem. While both are great players, they are much better on other surfaces compared to grass, and Simon is just much more comfortable on the surface than them.

In the quarterfinals, I have Simon battling Rafael Nadal. I'm not overly confident in Nadal on grass, but it's just really hard to pick against him, especially considering how close he was to the final last year in his epic semifinal against Novak Djokovic. Sugita is a good grass court player, but Nadal just does everything better and with more power, and so Sugita should not present too much of a challenge. A second round match against Nick Kyrgios, however, would be extremely intense and must-see television. At the end of the day, though, Kyrgios' form has been mediocre and Nadal surely still remembers and wants revenge for Kyrgios' win in Acapulco. Nadal wins that one in a tight match.

Nadal would then potentially go up against Denis Shapovalov, who I have beating Jo-Wilfred Tsonga in the second round. Shapovalov has the game for grass, but I just don't think he is consistent enough to get another win over the Spaniard. In the round of 16, I have Nadal beating Dan Evans, a Brit with a nasty backhand slice who is in great form. However, this just comes down to the fact that Nadal is on a different league compared to Evans. Evans slice, while effective against many opponents, shouldn't trouble Nadal too much, he's just at a higher level than most. Against Simon in the quarterfinals, while there should be some long, taxing rallies (even on grass), I just can't see Simon outlasting Nadal here. Nadal advances to the semis.

In the top part of the final quarter, I have Jan-Lennard Struff making it the quarterfinals. I really like how Struff has been playing, as he looked good in Stuttgart before eventually falling to Berrettini. He is serving really well and hitting his groundstrokes with a lot of power. Albot will challenge him in the first round match, but ultimately not be able to hit through the court enough to beat him. And while Fritz (his potential second round opponent) is doing well in Eastbourne, having watched both recently, I like Struff to edge out that match in a close one. The next two rounds would be very tough, with Isner in the third round and Nishikori in the fourth round. However, Isner is just coming back from injury and would not be very sharp, and potentially still getting his fitness back. In terms of a matchup with Nishikori, I think that Nishikori's second serve is a major liability on grass, and I believe that Struff would punish him for his second serve.

I have Struff taking on Roger Federer in the quarterfinals. Federer is so accomplished at this tournament, he played very well on clay, and took his good form to Halle where he won the title. There's not much left to say about Federer on grass, I mean, his serve is magnificent, his backhand slice is extremely effective, and he knows the perfect opportunities to go to net. Federer won't be challenged in either of his first two matches, but a potential third round against the mercurial Alexander Bublik (who I have beating the winner of Gasquet-Pouille) would be interesting, as Bublik has a huge serve, and loves putting different spins on the ball which could be effective on grass. However, Federer would be just too solid for Bublik.

In the round of 16, I have Federer taking on Matteo Berrettini, who won the title in Stuttgart and had a good run in Halle. His huge serve and nasty backhand slice would give Federer some issues. However, I think that Federer's chip return on grass would be effective enough that Berrettini wouldn't be able to hold as easily as he would like, and give Federer enough break opportunities so that the matchup would not be a huge threat to him. The same principles apply to a quarterfinal against Struff because, while I love the German's game, I think Federer's chip return would be effective and Federer would advance to the semifinals. Federer holds so easily on grass that it puts a lot of pressure on opponents.

In a Djokovic-Khachanov semifinal, the high level of the Djokovic return would highlighted. Khachanov would not be able to get a lot of free points on serve against Djokovic, and Djokovic is so solid from the baseline that this could frustrate Karen. Khachanov picked up the biggest win of his career in beating Djokovic in the finals of the Masters 1000 event in Paris, but at Wimbledon last year, Khachanov only won 8 games in the entire match. While I think Khachanov could pick up a set, I would be very confident in Djokovic winning the match.

A Federer-Nadal semifinal would get a lot of press, just as it did at the French Open. However, unlike the French Open, I think Federer would win this match. While it was not the case on clay, Federer's attacking game would be very effective on grass in this matchup. Federer would take the fight to Nadal and make him uncomfortable with the attacking tennis that he would play. Roger's serve would be helped out by the grass, and Rafa would not be as good on defense as he was at Roland Garros. Federer would make the final.

In the final, I think it would be tight. As we've seen in past Wimbledon finals between Djokovic and Federer, Djokovic's consistency has worn Federer down over the course of the match. However, I think it would be different this time. Federer looked good on the clay and in Halle. I think that Federer would be more aggressive than he has in previous Wimbledon finals against Novak, not allowing Djokovic to wear him down from the baseline. I think Federer would really go after the Djokovic serve and try to take over the net as soon as possible. And, most important of all, I think that Federer backhand is better now than it was in years past when he's taken on Djokovic. In backhand-to-backhand rallies, I think that Federer's backhand would breakdown less in the past, and he would win more points in these exchanges. Therefore, I think this tips the scales slightly in Federer's favor.

Roger Federer will be your 2019 men's Wimbledon champion.

French Open Men's Predictions

Quarterfinals:

Djokovic over Fognini in four
Thiem over Khachanov in four
Tsitsipas over Schwartzman in four
Nadal over Paire in three

Semifinals:

Djokovic over Thiem in five
Nadal over Tsitsipas in three

Final:

Nadal over Djokovic in four

Reasoning:

It seems like Twitter is erupting over Djokovic's draw, but given the level he has showed this clay court season, I don't see much reason for concern. Hurkacz is a tough first rounder, but Djokovic will neutralize his serve and force him into a bunch of errors. I have Djokovic beating Martinez, Munar, and Coric, all grinders (in ascending difficulty) who he should be able to get through pretty easily. These type of players don't have the weapons to hurt Novak.

I have Fognini going through because he has played really well this clay court season. He'll take on some tough clay courters along the way, including Delbonis (who played really in Geneva) and Bautista Agut, but Fabio should be too crafty for these players. I have Fognini beating Alexander Zverev in the round of 16, but I think that the only reason why Zverev even makes it to that stage is because of a very kind draw, and Fabio should win that match easily. Djokovic's 8-0 head-to-head of Fognini says a lot about how their games match up, and Djokovic will be too much for the Italian.

Dominic Thiem has a tough draw, and while he lost fairly early by his standards in Rome, that should provide him with the extra rest needed to go far.  I have him taking on Paul, Molleker, Cuevas, and Verdasco (who just beat him in Rome) before even taking on Khachanov, but I think that best-of-five suits Thiem well. He plays so physical, and he is in such great shape, that he should be able to wear down his opponents, and the huge space at the back of Philippe Chatrier should provide him ample room behind the baseline (when he plays there), which is important because he stands so far back on the return of serve, which is hard to do on smaller courts.

I thought that Karen Khachanov turned a corner in Madrid from a tough start to the season, and this carried over in Rome. He got a pretty favorable draw, with the highest seed in his 8th of the draw being del Potro, who played well in Rome, but is still just returning from injury. The seed in his 16th of the draw is Pouille, which is not a scary seed and I have losing in the first round to Bolelli, and he will play Stebe in the first round and either Barrere or Ebden in the second round. Not bad. While Khachanov won their only match at the Paris indoor Masters 1000 event last year, I think that Thiem's heavy spin to the Khachanov backhand on clay will befuddle the Russian, and with one of Khachanov's biggest weapons, his serve, being partially neutralized by the clay, Thiem will win.

You might be shocked that I don't have Federer in the quarterfinals, but given this is his first best-of-five tournament on clay in years, I think that his draw is very tough. His first round opponent, Lorenzo Sonego, has had good results on clay this season. In the third round he will likely play Matteo Berrettini, who has already won a clay court tournament this season and beaten Alexander Zverev in another clay court tournament.

And by the time he reaches, Schwartzman, I think he will be fatigued from all the tennis. Schwartzman has lost 7-5 in the third (best-of-three) to Federer before, and he really found his form last week, beating Berrettini and Nishikori, and then taking Djokovic to three sets. I think he carries over this good form to Roland Garros, a tournament in which he made the quarterfinals last year, getting a set off of Nadal. His draw is tough, Fucsovics in the first round, and either Kohlschreiber or Cecchinato in the third round, but I think Diego makes it to Federer, and beats him in a tough round of 16 match.

Stefanos Tsitsipas has been so impressive this clay court season. He beat Rafael Nadal in Madrid, won Estoril, and beat Fognini in straight sets in a night match on Pietrangeli. His backhand, which is perceived as the weakness in his game, is so solid, and his draw sets him up pretty well. He should force his first round opponent, Maximillian Marterer into too many errors, and my projected second and third round opponents for Tsitsipas, Dellien and Carballes Baena, don't have the weapons to hurt him. His seed in the 16th of his draw, Frances Tiafoe, I have losing in the first round to Filip Krajinovic, and the top seed in his 8th of the draw, Marin Cilic, is struggling this season and is not great on clay. I have Tsitsipas beating Christian Garin in the round of 16, and while Garin is tough, he did win two clay court tournament this season and made the final of another, he is another player who doesn't have the weapons to hurt Tsitsipas. Then in the quarterfinal, I think Schwartzman after beating Federer, is going to be out of gas, and Tsitsipas should have a fairly comfortable match on route to the semifinals.

The bottom quarter of the draw is not going to super interesting, because Nadal will dominate. He's won Roland Garros 11 times, and I don't see anyone in this quarter that could beat him. His first minor test will be in the third round against David Goffin, but Goffin is not playing nearly well enough to challenge Nadal. In the fourth round, I have Rafa taking on Guido Pella, who challenged him for a set in Monte Carlo, but again, in best-of-five against Rafa on clay, you have to play out of your mind for extremely long periods of time, and Pella doesn't have the level to match Rafa for more than a set, as we saw in Monte Carlo.

I have Nadal playing Benoit Paire in the quarterfinals. Paire just won his second clay court tournament today in Lyon, and is playing so well. When his backhand, serve, and drop shot are working, he is extremely difficult to beat and I think he brings that good form to Paris. His draw sets him up well, until the quarterfinals. Copil shouldn't challenge him in the first round, and Medvedev, while he's had good success this clay court season, will be very frustrated by the changes of pace that Paire provides, just as he was frustrated by Krygios in Rome. Sousa and Ramos, my projected opponents for Paire in the third and fourth rounds, while good on clay, also will be puzzled by Paire's unconventional game, at the level it's at right now. Paire's serve is so well-placed, it's a very underrated part of his game. But, it won't be enough to trouble Nadal. Not even close.

In the semifinals, we will get an absolute battle between Djokovic and Thiem. This will be an absolute classic. Djokovic leads the head-to-head 6-2, but it's 3-2 Djokovic on clay. They've split their two matchups at Roland Garros. I'm very 50/50 on this match, it will come down to very fine margins. Will Thiem's heavy, hard-hitting groundstrokes be able to break through against the Djokovic defense? Or will Novak's counterpunching prevail? It's hard to beat Djokovic three-out-five, and as the match wears on, Djokovic's extreme fitness will start to take over. In the tight moments, who do you trust more? Djokovic wins.

The other semifinal is much more straightforward. Yes, Nadal lost to Tsitsipas in Madrid, but that was at altitude in best-of-three, and Nadal played one of the worst matches I've ever seen him play on clay. In Rome, Nadal won comfortably in straight sets. And given how Philippe Chatrier's huge clay surface allows Rafa ample room to defend against Tsitsipas' groundstrokes, the result of this one should be no surprise: Nadal wins.

In the final, it will be the second Djokovic-Nadal matchup in a row. While Djokovic leads the head-to-head 28-26, and easily won the final in Australia, in their match in Rome, Nadal won in three sets, but only gave up one game in the two sets he won. While Djokovic was tired, this should be a confidence booster for Rafa. I think that fatigue could also play a role in this match, as Thiem will push Djokovic a lot harder than Tsitsipas will push Rafa. I think that Djokovic will be a step slow in this match, and that will be all Rafa needs to win fairly comfortably.

Rafael Nadal will be your 2019 French Open champion!

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.

Jelena Ostapenko: What's Happened, Possible Adjustments, and the Power of Expectations

It was the shock of all shocks. It sent waves through the tennis universe. Simona Halep was up 6-4, 3-0 in the French Open Final over newcomer Jelena Ostapenko. Ostapenko had just turned 20 years old, and before the tournament, had only reached the Third Round of a major once in her life, let alone the Final. And, it seemed like the moment was too big for her. Her groundstrokes were flying on her, and it seemed she had lost control of her game.

But, tennis, a largely mental sport, has a way of twisting and turning, with the unexpected often coming through. Ostapenko cracked some groundstrokes, Halep's doubts surrounding her ability to win a major resurfaced, and Ostapenko stormed back to win 12 of the next 16 games, winning her maiden major 4-6, 6-4, 6-3.

This seemed like it could be the beginning of the Ostapenko era in women's tennis. Here was a young champion, with a huge game, who wasn't afraid of the moment and was ready to rise to whatever challenge came her way. Jelena could have crumbled against Halep, where seemingly everything was against her. She could have mailed it in the First Round, where Louisa Chirico had her on the ropes, winning the first set. She could have broken down in the Fourth Round, when Stosur took the first set 6-2. Or the Quarterfinals, when Wozniacki won the first set.

But, Ostapenko hung in there, and fought. And it was this fighting spirit, along with her huge game, where you just sensed something special was brewing for her future in tennis. You got the feeling she might be someone to look out for, when in the Final of a Premier 5 tournament, one of the biggest in women's tennis, she won the first set of the Final in Doha over Carla Suarez Navarro 6-1. And her Final of the Premier event in Charleston showed she could play on clay. However, even so, the tennis world largely was shocked, not that Ostapenko won a major, but that she did so at such a young age, and against a player of the caliber of Halep.

But, largely, that was the last the tennis world really saw Ostapenko at the top of the game. Yes, she won a title later that year in Seoul, squeezing out a tight match over Beatriz Haddad Maia. And, she did win a Premier doubles title with Gabriela Dabrowski in Doha early last year, but given the high bar she set winning a major, her results since the French Open title have largely felt underwhelming.

In singles, Ostapenko has only made one Final since her win in Seoul, a straight sets loss to Sloane Stephens in Miami (although it is a Premier Mandatory event) last year. But, given that we are now approaching two years since her French Open crown, two singles Finals with one title in an International event to show for it seems like a disappointment.

This isn't to say that Ostapenko never plays well, she did make the Semifinals of Wimbledon last year, it's just to say that there is very little consistency in her results, even within a tournament. Since that Wimbledon Semifinals run last year, for instance, she has only won two matches in a row during a tournament once, making the Third Round of the US Open last year before a straight sets loss to Maria Sharapova. Beyond those two wins in a row, the only time she has won two matches in a row is when she won a three setter over Rebecca Sramkova in Fed Cup and then won another three setter over a slumping Miheala Buzarnescu in the First Round of Doha. In non-Fed Cup play, she has three wins.

So, why write this article now? Well, Ostapenko just lost a three setter to Marketa Vondrousova, a 19 year old rising star who might, in a few years, if her game continues to develop, overshadow Ostapenko. Of course, Jelena still has her major, but if she does not start winning consistently soon, she will soon be thought of as a one-major-wonder, where her title is seen largely as a fluke. Yes, she still would have her title, of course, but the expectations of winning future majors would be put on the likes of players like Vondrousova, as opposed to Ostapenko

So, what are changes to Ostapenko's game that could be implemented? First, her serve can be improved. It is hard for Jelena to really gain control of points with her serve, as it is largely a weaker serve that sits up into the strike zone of her opponents. If she were able to gain some extra firepower on her serve, it would allow her to gain control of more points, which would ease some pressure off of her potent groundstrokes, giving her easier winners to hit and less pressure on her groundstrokes to be at a high level in order to win.

Speaking of Ostapenko's groundstrokes, I think a little more margin would do her a lot of good. I'm not saying that her groundstrokes should be a slow and loopy all of a sudden, but really focusing on adding a touch more topspin to her game, and making her targets slightly more inside of the court as opposed to trained on the line, would add an extra safety element to her game that I don't think she has. Because, even when she wins, her game just feels very erratic. Take her 6-1, 0-6, 6-0 win over Kristina Mladenovic in St. Petersburg this year, for example. Even within a match, Ostapenko's game can come-and-go.

Adding a little more margin to her groundstrokes would also help to eliminate the shock losses that Ostapenko has, such as her loss to Kristina Kucova in Hong Kong last year or her loss to Monica Niculescu in Shenzhen. Taking slightly fewer risks on the return of serve may also help Ostapenko out. When a player misses the return of serve, that player is not even giving the opponent a chance to produce an unforced error. While she might not hit as many return winners/forced errors (or winners/forced errors in general), I believe that she would be giving herself a better chance to win a greater percentage of the return points she plays. Again, I'm not suggesting that she start moonballing, but rather, that she plays just slightly higher percentage tennis.

It could be the power of expectations that is causing Ostapenko difficulty. Consistently, for maiden major winners, continuing success after a maiden major win is very difficult. A new, almost-suffocating attention is bestowed upon you, and you have to either deal with it, or let the pressure get to your head. And, it clearly takes a while to figure out.

So, perhaps, Jelena Ostapenko, who is still so young, at 21 years of age, is just taking a longer time figuring out her place in this tennis universe. With the margins already so low with her game, perhaps the mental pressure of being a major champion, of going into matches on big courts with the expectation to win, of being out on tour with the pressure of winning as a means of supporting herself, can contribute to Ostapenko's erratic play.

Everyone is different. And it's obviously too early to write Ostapenko off. She is 21 years old, a lot of people her age are either in college or just starting out in the workforce. She still has plenty of time in tennis to make her mark. Look at Venus Williams, who at 38 years old, just beat Petra Kvitova yesterday at Indian Wells. Ostapenko is clearly still trying to figure out her game, and the expectations that weigh on her game, given that she has won a major.

Yes, Jelena Ostapenko is currently 80th in the race to the Year End Championships, but the season is still so young. And, after all, she is still  22nd in the live rankings.

Jelena Ostapenko will be fine, just give her some time.

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.

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?

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.

Men's French Open Predictions

It's time for my predictions for the French Open. These will almost surely be wrong, but I can try!

Semifinalists:
First Quarter: John Isner. This is one of those "out there" picks, I get it. But, if the way I see the drawing unfolding comes true, then Isner will come out of this section. I see Murray beating del Potro but, given his poor form and the physical tax that will come from that match Juan Martin, I think he loses to Isner in the Round of 16. I have Cuevas beating Zverev in the Third Round before losing to Querrey in the Fourth Round. I have Querrey upsetting Nishikori, who seems to be low on confidence right now. I think have Isner beating Querrey to reach the Semifinals! Yes, this pick is not expected, but I do believe we will be seeing a lot of Isner over the next two weeks.

Second Quarter: Stanislas Wawrinka. I think Wawrinka will be confident after winning Geneva. He also got a very good draw. Fognini, if he is focused, could trouble him in the Third Round, but I think he should beat him in four sets. I don't foresee the winner of Gasquet and Monfils beating a confident Wawrinka in the Round of 16. The winner of Tsonga-Cilic could provide Stan with some problems in the Quarterfinals, and I think Stan will meet Tsonga in quarters, but I think back to when Tsonga was only able to get a set against Stan back in 2015 when both were playing so well in the Roland Garros Semifinals, and I just can't see Tsonga winning that match. Wawrinka dominates the head to head with Cilic, going 11-2 and 4-0 on clay, so I see Cilic beating Wawrinka here either.

Third Quarter: Rafael Nadal. Nadal has had an amazing clay court season so far, only losing one match and winning in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Madrid. There's just really no one in his section that will be able to trouble him much. Maybe Simon in the Third Round if Nadal has a bunch of errors, and perhaps Sock if Nadal let's Jack's forehand dictate too much, but I just don't see many problems for Rafa, given his draw. I think he will play Pable Carreno Busta in the Quarterfinals, and I don't think Rafa will have any problems beating him. Nadal is just much better than everyone else in his quarter of the draw.

Fourth Quarter: Novak Djokovic. This is a very tricky quarter for Djokovic. There are tons of players in the this quarter that can give him issues. I think his first tricky match will be in the Third Round against Diego Schwartzman. Schwartzman is very good on clay and is not someone you want to see in your at Roland Garros. Luckily for Djokovic, Goffin and Thiem, who have both had very successful clay court seasons, are projected to match up against one another in the Round of 16. Novak will most likely see the winner of that match if he makes the quarters, and I think he will see Goffin. David is a matchup problem for Dominic, despite Thiem's win against Goffin last year in the quarters. In the Round of 16, Djokovic could see Ramos Vinolas or Pouille, both of whom have had a lot of clay court success. Also watch out for Djokovic's Second Round against Janko Tipseravic, who if healthy, could be dangerous. Tipseravic has dominated clay court Challengers this season.


Semifinals: Isner vs. Wawrinka, Nadal vs. Djokovic

Final: Wawrinka vs. Nadal

Champion: Stanislas Wawrinka