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
Showing posts with label Stanislas Wawrinka. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanislas Wawrinka. Show all posts
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Why Juan Martin Del Potro Should Receive a US Open Wildcard
A week ago, another Twitter poster, Baseline Bagels, and I got into a heated debate over whether Juan Martin Del Potro deserves a wildcard to the US Open. Del Potro would need a wildcard to the US Open because his ranking (at 142 in the live rankings currently) is not high enough to give him direct entry into the main draw, and I learned though that he is not using a PR because, I would assume, it has either expired or he has used it all up. I am vehement, however, that not only does Del Potro deserve a wildcard to the US Open, but that the US Open should be extremely enthusiastic about giving him one.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
For starters, Del Potro is a former US Open champion. In 2009, Juan Martin won the event, beating an impressive group of players in the process. In the final three rounds of the tournament, he beat three slam champions (although only two at the time) in Marin Cilic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer. Del Potro beat Nadal in straight sets, only losing six games, and came back from two-sets-to-one down in the Final to beat Federer. Coming into that Final with Federer, Del Potro had only lost two sets during the tournament.
So, with a resume like that, it seems obvious that Del Potro would receive a wildcard if his ranking is not high enough to have direct entry into the main draw. At only 27 years old, Del Potro is still in the prime of his career, and as wins this year over Stanislas Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, Gilles Simon, and Grigor Dimitrov have shown, Del Potro is still capable of playing at a very high level and would certainly not be an easy First Round opponent for anyone.
Baseline Bagels tried to say that giving Del Potro a wildcard would be the same as giving one to former champion Lleyton Hewitt. However, besides the fact that Lleyton Hewitt has retired, he is also 35 years old and has not won consecutive singles matches since 2014. If Hewitt was 27 years old, then he would probably have an argument for receiving a wildcard, but Del Potro and Hewitt's situations are much different and should not be compared.
Another important thing to remember about Del Potro is that he is the only male slam, and US Open, champion from the Western Hemisphere (another difference between him and Hewitt) since Andy Roddick at the US Open in 2003. While he isn't an American, he is from the Americas and that is definitely something to keep in mind when deciding whether to give the wildcard to an American or Del Potro. Because, the crux of Baseline Bagel's argument is that the US Open is a place to develop American talent, and thus every non-reciprocal wildcard should be given to American players.
And in almost any other situation, I would wholeheartedly agree with Baseline Bagels. The United States has so many young, talented American players alongside many talented older Americans that have made their mark on tennis in the United States, that, even if Del Potro had a ranking that got him direct entry into the main draw, choosing the US Open wildcards would be extremely difficult. However, with a former champion, 27 years old, from the Americas not directly into the main draw, it is a no-brainer that Del Potro should receive a wildcard instead of any of the other candidates for that wildcard. In regards to the younger Americans, the American player not receiving a wildcard because Del Potro received one might be better off in the long run attempting to qualify (just as Del Potro had to qualify in the early stages of his career) for the US Open instead of being given a wildcard.
And, the US Open also doesn't have to worry that giving a wildcard to a non-American would mean less fans would be interested in the US Open, and specifically Juan Martin's matches. Del Potro already is a household name, he has huge fan support, and any match he plays in will be a huge draw.
For me, this is an easy decision for the USTA to make. The USTA should absolutely give Juan Martin Del Potro a US Open wildcard.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Media Credentials and What Makes a Tennis Journalist?
Prior to the BNP Paribas Showdown at Madison Square Garden, just before Indian Wells, a "press conference" ensued for the four players involved: Caroline Wozniacki, Gael Monfils, Serena Williams, Stanislas Wawrinka. As I checked Twitter during that press conference, seemingly every tweet from "tennis twitter" were regarding the terrible questioning and, overall, lack of real journalism in the room. And this is about when I asked myself, "If these 'journalists' can get media credentials to a high profile tennis event, can just about anyone?"
And so, with this in my mind, I embarked on a long-term project to try to see if I could get media credentials to an ATP World Tour tournament, with just this blog as my claim to be a tennis "journalist". I had to first decide upon a a tournament to attempt to get media credentials at. I ultimately decided upon the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships as a relatively small ATP 250 Tournament and one that I thought I legitimately could get credentialed at, even with just this All About Tennis Blog, and it's inconsistent article-publishing schedule and lack of recognition in the greater tennis community.
I then went on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships website, filled in my media outlet as the "All About Tennis Blog", and with that, started my media credential application! I then wrote in all of the boring stuff, my name, address, etc., and among other things, checked the box saying that I was (certainly) not a member of the ITWA. After this, I uploaded a picture of myself from earlier this year, and then wrote a short comment that was something along the lines that I was a student looking for a journalism opportunity. After writing this, I sent it, and it was all in the hands of the folks in Houston. Does some random blogger online have the standing to get credentialed at an ATP event, or would his request be denied?
Well, I waited, and waited even longer. At one point, I thought Houston might not even send me a reply at all about media credential request, which would obviously mean that I didn't get credentialed. However, right at the end of March, I received a small package from ATP Houston. Upon seeing who it was from, I tore into it, eager to see the results of my project. And sure enough, in the package was a letter and a media credential with my picture on it! I was initially in jubilation, as it is really cool to see that your hard work has paid off, and that an ATP tennis tournament is recognizing this with a credential. However, the excitement wore off when I realized that I would not be actually going to the tournament, and that this was all part of a long-term project for me.
And so, with that, I shifted my focus to what I really wanted to get at with this entire process, which originally started weeks back during a quick Twitter check. If I, a unknown blogger who has certainly not posted regularly on his blog over the years, can get media credentialed to an ATP World Tour event, then, for starters, how easy is it to be credentialed to a couple exhibition matches, such as the BNP Paribas Showdown?
I'm guessing, like for ATP Houston, it doesn't take much to be credentialed. Perhaps only a blog, like me, or a fancy job title would do the the trick. But, is taking in people like that really good for tennis fans looking for real information about tennis? There are two sides of the coin to this question. On one side, opportunities like this do give writers like me valuable experience and a chance to work on our craft. However, on the other side of this, it does not portray the sport in the best light. The press conference in New York City was a huge time in the tennis world. Everyone had just heard about Maria Sharapova, and so hearing the reaction to this news at the press conference was a big deal. And when, with the spotlight on this press conference, the questioning is absolutely terrible, I'm fairly confident I was not the only one appalled by the level of professionalism shown by the journalists there. And, while I think I would actually ask some insightful questions at this press conference, just the randomness of some random guy with a tennis blog being there would also call into question the seriousness of such a press conference.
However, I did not mean this article to be a rip on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships at all. I really do appreciate them credentialing me and validating the writing on my blog, in a way. And I didn't mean to "trick" them into credentialing me upon working on this project of mine. Perhaps, by (presumably) reading my blog, they saw the level of seriousness to my writing that I put into my blog and were impressed by it. They might have wanted to give me experience, as a student, too. At least I certainly hope that is all the reasoning and that I wasn't just credentialed because I just had some random tennis blog.
The main question behind all of this talk is really, What makes a tennis journalist? Is it quality of work, quantity of work, level of professionalism in one's work, or perhaps one's accolades? And, unfortunately, I don't even have an answer to that question, because in reality, it depends. Different tournaments might differ on what qualifies as a tennis journalist worthy of credentialing, just as tennis fans might also have completely different ideas of what the phrase "tennis journalist" means to them.
And I don't think anyone could really be wrong in their answer, it's really up to the individual (or the tournament). However, to ensure journalistic standards, I do think, before requesting media credentials, potential media members should definitely have to take a "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz to ensure that those who get credentialed are not hoaxing their way into the position. And I have no doubt that I would pass such a quiz, but would the journalists at the BNP Paribas Showdown? Questionable.
This entire project (and process) of attempting to get credentialed, getting the credential, and the questions that have followed, has been a long, winding process. However, I think questions raised from such a project could, ultimately, help tennis journalism by raising even more questions. Should this "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz be implemented? Should journalists be kicked out of a press conference for asking a ridiculous question? Does a media credential even mean anything anymore?
I can't, universally, come to a conclusion about those questions. These are for each individual, internally, to answer.
And so, with this in my mind, I embarked on a long-term project to try to see if I could get media credentials to an ATP World Tour tournament, with just this blog as my claim to be a tennis "journalist". I had to first decide upon a a tournament to attempt to get media credentials at. I ultimately decided upon the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships as a relatively small ATP 250 Tournament and one that I thought I legitimately could get credentialed at, even with just this All About Tennis Blog, and it's inconsistent article-publishing schedule and lack of recognition in the greater tennis community.
I then went on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships website, filled in my media outlet as the "All About Tennis Blog", and with that, started my media credential application! I then wrote in all of the boring stuff, my name, address, etc., and among other things, checked the box saying that I was (certainly) not a member of the ITWA. After this, I uploaded a picture of myself from earlier this year, and then wrote a short comment that was something along the lines that I was a student looking for a journalism opportunity. After writing this, I sent it, and it was all in the hands of the folks in Houston. Does some random blogger online have the standing to get credentialed at an ATP event, or would his request be denied?
Well, I waited, and waited even longer. At one point, I thought Houston might not even send me a reply at all about media credential request, which would obviously mean that I didn't get credentialed. However, right at the end of March, I received a small package from ATP Houston. Upon seeing who it was from, I tore into it, eager to see the results of my project. And sure enough, in the package was a letter and a media credential with my picture on it! I was initially in jubilation, as it is really cool to see that your hard work has paid off, and that an ATP tennis tournament is recognizing this with a credential. However, the excitement wore off when I realized that I would not be actually going to the tournament, and that this was all part of a long-term project for me.
And so, with that, I shifted my focus to what I really wanted to get at with this entire process, which originally started weeks back during a quick Twitter check. If I, a unknown blogger who has certainly not posted regularly on his blog over the years, can get media credentialed to an ATP World Tour event, then, for starters, how easy is it to be credentialed to a couple exhibition matches, such as the BNP Paribas Showdown?
I'm guessing, like for ATP Houston, it doesn't take much to be credentialed. Perhaps only a blog, like me, or a fancy job title would do the the trick. But, is taking in people like that really good for tennis fans looking for real information about tennis? There are two sides of the coin to this question. On one side, opportunities like this do give writers like me valuable experience and a chance to work on our craft. However, on the other side of this, it does not portray the sport in the best light. The press conference in New York City was a huge time in the tennis world. Everyone had just heard about Maria Sharapova, and so hearing the reaction to this news at the press conference was a big deal. And when, with the spotlight on this press conference, the questioning is absolutely terrible, I'm fairly confident I was not the only one appalled by the level of professionalism shown by the journalists there. And, while I think I would actually ask some insightful questions at this press conference, just the randomness of some random guy with a tennis blog being there would also call into question the seriousness of such a press conference.
However, I did not mean this article to be a rip on the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships at all. I really do appreciate them credentialing me and validating the writing on my blog, in a way. And I didn't mean to "trick" them into credentialing me upon working on this project of mine. Perhaps, by (presumably) reading my blog, they saw the level of seriousness to my writing that I put into my blog and were impressed by it. They might have wanted to give me experience, as a student, too. At least I certainly hope that is all the reasoning and that I wasn't just credentialed because I just had some random tennis blog.
The main question behind all of this talk is really, What makes a tennis journalist? Is it quality of work, quantity of work, level of professionalism in one's work, or perhaps one's accolades? And, unfortunately, I don't even have an answer to that question, because in reality, it depends. Different tournaments might differ on what qualifies as a tennis journalist worthy of credentialing, just as tennis fans might also have completely different ideas of what the phrase "tennis journalist" means to them.
And I don't think anyone could really be wrong in their answer, it's really up to the individual (or the tournament). However, to ensure journalistic standards, I do think, before requesting media credentials, potential media members should definitely have to take a "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz to ensure that those who get credentialed are not hoaxing their way into the position. And I have no doubt that I would pass such a quiz, but would the journalists at the BNP Paribas Showdown? Questionable.
This entire project (and process) of attempting to get credentialed, getting the credential, and the questions that have followed, has been a long, winding process. However, I think questions raised from such a project could, ultimately, help tennis journalism by raising even more questions. Should this "Basic Tennis Knowledge" quiz be implemented? Should journalists be kicked out of a press conference for asking a ridiculous question? Does a media credential even mean anything anymore?
I can't, universally, come to a conclusion about those questions. These are for each individual, internally, to answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)