As COVID-19 wreaks havoc across the world, I thought about what good, if any, could possibly come out of this terrible pandemic. Coronavirus has brought much of the world to a halt, so there's plenty of time to think about tennis reform.
Before Indian Wells was cancelled, the plan was for ball kids to not handle the towels (towels would be on chairs) and to wear gloves while performing their duties on court. The question, then, that I have is: Why has it taken a global pandemic for this type of reform to be fully brought to the forefront of those in charge of tennis?
Even if we didn't have highly contagious, dangerous disease out there, what has stopped the tennis authorities from implementing such a change earlier?
At the Next Gen Finals event for the ATP, towel racks were placed on court so that ball kids would not have to touch the players' sweaty towels. Sure, it might take an extra second or two for the player to walk to the towel rack, but it is certainly worth it.
Besides sweat, almost certainly the players' hair and skin cells were smeared across those towels. And if a player was sick, the ball kids were at especially high risk.
The reception of the towel rack wasn't outstanding. According to The Telegraph's Charlie Eccleshare, Stefanos Tsitsipas stated, "it's the ball kids' job to provide them." This was when Tsitsipas was in the Next Gen Finals in 2018, so he might have evolved his view since then. But regardless, it shouldn't be the ball kids' job to hand players' a dirty towel. Pandemic or not.
Something interesting in Indian Wells' plans was the introduction of gloves. And it makes sense, right? Even if not touching the towels, the ball kids still have to touch the balls themselves. The same balls that the sweaty players hold before they serve and that smash into the asphalt/clay/grass many, many times throughout the match.
Not to mention that if a ball goes into the stands and a fan throws the ball back, that fan might also not be feeling well. So, it makes sense, at least to me, that ball kids should be heavily encouraged to wear gloves, no matter the state of public health around the world.
Perhaps I sound like I'm being hypersensitive given the state of the pandemic, but momentum has been building for ball kid reform for quite some time, with Fernando Verdasco's October 2018 treatment of a ball kid providing momentum for positive change. It should never be forgotten that ball kids are worthy of the same respect given to others in the tennis universe.
Due to coronavirus, July 13th is the soonest we will see tennis, as of now. And so many of us are eager to get back to the court as quickly as possible. But, when we do get back, let's not forget about the innovations that Indian Wells showed us just prior to its cancellation.
Ball kids are very important in the game of tennis in the sense that they keep the flow of the game working really well. Instead of tennis being a start-stop process, as players collect balls from around the court, ball kids keep the pace of play high.
So, let's start showing these invaluable members of the tennis community the respect they deserve, even if we have to delay the match a couple seconds so a player can towel himself/herself off.
Because without the ball kids, matches would be going a lot slower.
So, I'm imploring the ATP, WTA, and ITF: the COVID-19 pandemic is bad enough, let's see if we can get a little bit of good out of a terrible situation.
And ball kid reform as described in this post would be a good thing for the game.
Showing posts with label ITF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ITF. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2020
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
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.
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.
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.
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!
Monday, August 22, 2016
The Wildcard System Needs to be Abolished
Note: Upon discussing this article with Parsa I want to clarify that the del Potro article previously written was discussing how he deserved a wildcard within the current system. Recently I have come to the conclusion that the system that del Potro would receive the wildcard in should be abolished. If the grand slams, ATP, WTA, and ITF were to keep the current system, then yes, del Potro would still deserve a wildcard.
As readers of my blog know, I have been a vocal critic of the wildcard system currently in place for both the WTA, ATP, ITF and the grand slam tournaments. I don't always think that the players receiving wildcard's results warrant the honor of receiving the wildcard, and perhaps that players just outside of the main draw cutoff (as it would be with wildcards) were getting screwed in place of a player who is almost certain to have a First Round exit.
As I read Parsa_Nemati's tweet last night, it dawned on me that something else really bothered me about wildcards. I want to note that I am not blaming the players receiving these wildcards whatsoever, but rather, I am blaming the system that the ATP, WTA, ITF, and grand slams have in place which makes it so tennis is not truly the meritocracy that, upon first glance, it seems to be, but rather that many players from countries with grand slam tournaments, or countries with lots of regular tournaments, receive a marked advantage just because they were born in one of these tennis-filled countries.
So, what am I exactly referring to? In Parsa's tweet, he mentioned that American Reilly Opelka has moved up 69 spots in the ATP rankings and he is now a career-high number 295 in the world. But, the difference between how Opelka moved from where he was for the August 1st rankings (seeing the week-by-week rankings is a really cool feature on the ATP's site and something interesting to look at if you have time!), at number 837 in the world, to where he is today, at number 295, is totally different than most other players who have moved up in the rankings. Because Riley Opelka has not had to grind it out on the ITF Future's Tour nor the ATP Challenger Tour in order to get to number 295, but rather, he has been gifted opportunities in ATP World Tour tournaments through the wildcard system.
Opelka received three wildcards to ATP World Tour events this season, in Washington, Atlanta, and Cincinnati, one of which lead to a special exemption into a fourth ATP World Tour tournament, in Los Cabos. Now, Opelka did very well to take advantage of the opportunities given to him, making the Semifinals in Atlanta (which gave him the special exemption into the tournament in Los Cabos) and winning a match in Cincinnati, but the question becomes, should he have even received the opportunity to do this at this point in time, given his ranking?
Of course, while Opelka earned his way into the Los Cabos draw by virtue of making the semis of the ATP tournament in Atlanta, that opportunity would not have presented itself had he not received the wildcard into the Atlanta tournament. And it's not like Opelka is really old and has been grinding it out on the ITF Future's Tour and ATP Challenger Tour his entire life. He's only 18 years old and started playing in Future's events (qualifying draw included) in 2013. Opelka still has PLENTY of time to achieve good results and work his way up the rankings. But again, this is nothing against Opelka. If I received a wildcard to Washington, Atlanta, and/or Cincinnati, of course I would take the opportunity given to me. This article, instead, is an indictment on the system that tennis has in place on the whole.
I understand why tournaments grant "home" wildcards. Having wildcards from the country that the tournament is in almost certainly increased interest, which will then increase ticket sales and revenue to the tournament. However, there is too much money and too many ranking points at stake for wildcards to be given to whoever the tournament pleases. Let's take a look at Cincinnati, a Masters 1000 event.
In the ATP draw, four wildcards were given out, including three to American players. Number two seed in the qualifying draw, Guido Pella lost in the First Round of qualifying. Had wildcards not been given out, Pella would have made the main draw, and even if he lost in the First Round of the main draw, still received $15,480 United States dollars and ten ranking points (as opposed to the $1,820 and zero ranking points that he received for losing in the opening round of qualifying).
So, y'all can see that giving wildcards does effect both the finances and rankings for players just outside of the main draw, who cannot make it through the qualifying draw, which given the depth on both the ATP and WTA tours, is a tough ask. By having wildcards, again, this goes against the foundation of a meritocracy that tennis is built on. Having a good ranking doesn't mean as much, when players are able to hop over you based on tournaments' decisions. That just doesn't feel fair to me.
Therefore, I have decided that the wildcard system needs to be abolished. Players should be getting into a tournament based on their ranking, not based on who a tournament wants to see in the main draw.
As readers of my blog know, I have been a vocal critic of the wildcard system currently in place for both the WTA, ATP, ITF and the grand slam tournaments. I don't always think that the players receiving wildcard's results warrant the honor of receiving the wildcard, and perhaps that players just outside of the main draw cutoff (as it would be with wildcards) were getting screwed in place of a player who is almost certain to have a First Round exit.
As I read Parsa_Nemati's tweet last night, it dawned on me that something else really bothered me about wildcards. I want to note that I am not blaming the players receiving these wildcards whatsoever, but rather, I am blaming the system that the ATP, WTA, ITF, and grand slams have in place which makes it so tennis is not truly the meritocracy that, upon first glance, it seems to be, but rather that many players from countries with grand slam tournaments, or countries with lots of regular tournaments, receive a marked advantage just because they were born in one of these tennis-filled countries.
So, what am I exactly referring to? In Parsa's tweet, he mentioned that American Reilly Opelka has moved up 69 spots in the ATP rankings and he is now a career-high number 295 in the world. But, the difference between how Opelka moved from where he was for the August 1st rankings (seeing the week-by-week rankings is a really cool feature on the ATP's site and something interesting to look at if you have time!), at number 837 in the world, to where he is today, at number 295, is totally different than most other players who have moved up in the rankings. Because Riley Opelka has not had to grind it out on the ITF Future's Tour nor the ATP Challenger Tour in order to get to number 295, but rather, he has been gifted opportunities in ATP World Tour tournaments through the wildcard system.
Opelka received three wildcards to ATP World Tour events this season, in Washington, Atlanta, and Cincinnati, one of which lead to a special exemption into a fourth ATP World Tour tournament, in Los Cabos. Now, Opelka did very well to take advantage of the opportunities given to him, making the Semifinals in Atlanta (which gave him the special exemption into the tournament in Los Cabos) and winning a match in Cincinnati, but the question becomes, should he have even received the opportunity to do this at this point in time, given his ranking?
Of course, while Opelka earned his way into the Los Cabos draw by virtue of making the semis of the ATP tournament in Atlanta, that opportunity would not have presented itself had he not received the wildcard into the Atlanta tournament. And it's not like Opelka is really old and has been grinding it out on the ITF Future's Tour and ATP Challenger Tour his entire life. He's only 18 years old and started playing in Future's events (qualifying draw included) in 2013. Opelka still has PLENTY of time to achieve good results and work his way up the rankings. But again, this is nothing against Opelka. If I received a wildcard to Washington, Atlanta, and/or Cincinnati, of course I would take the opportunity given to me. This article, instead, is an indictment on the system that tennis has in place on the whole.
I understand why tournaments grant "home" wildcards. Having wildcards from the country that the tournament is in almost certainly increased interest, which will then increase ticket sales and revenue to the tournament. However, there is too much money and too many ranking points at stake for wildcards to be given to whoever the tournament pleases. Let's take a look at Cincinnati, a Masters 1000 event.
In the ATP draw, four wildcards were given out, including three to American players. Number two seed in the qualifying draw, Guido Pella lost in the First Round of qualifying. Had wildcards not been given out, Pella would have made the main draw, and even if he lost in the First Round of the main draw, still received $15,480 United States dollars and ten ranking points (as opposed to the $1,820 and zero ranking points that he received for losing in the opening round of qualifying).
So, y'all can see that giving wildcards does effect both the finances and rankings for players just outside of the main draw, who cannot make it through the qualifying draw, which given the depth on both the ATP and WTA tours, is a tough ask. By having wildcards, again, this goes against the foundation of a meritocracy that tennis is built on. Having a good ranking doesn't mean as much, when players are able to hop over you based on tournaments' decisions. That just doesn't feel fair to me.
Therefore, I have decided that the wildcard system needs to be abolished. Players should be getting into a tournament based on their ranking, not based on who a tournament wants to see in the main draw.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Kudos to Cici Bellis
Last year, following Roland Garros, I wrote an article very critical of Cici Bellis' decision to play in the junior French Open tournament. You can go back and read the article for yourself, and the accompanying comment section featuring an argument I got into with Bellis' mother, but I really felt as though Bellis was hurting her career, and damaging the sport, by occasionally continuing to play in junior tournaments. Well, I am happy to be able to now write a post praising Cici for great results and scheduling in the right manner.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)