Taylor Fritz vs Brandon Nakashima: An All-American Showdown at Wimbledon

The Wimbledon draws have come out and they're full of exciting matchups that will have tennis fans glued to the action. However, the first-round matchup that excited me the most has to be a battle of Americans: Taylor Fritz vs Brandon Nakashima.

Seed vs qualifier. One of the players who used to be considered the future of American tennis vs someone who is currently seen as part of the future of American tennis. A battle of players who can impose themselves from the baseline and hit their spots on-serve.

How will this matchup play out? Who will come out on top? Read on for my thoughts!

No. 31 seed Taylor Fritz is certainly grateful that this match is happening at all. The 23 year-old American suffered a massive injury during Roland Garros, tearing his meniscus during his second round Roland Garros match against Dominik Koepfer. The injury was so severe that he had to have a wheelchair take him off the court. Fritz even needed surgery, but somehow has found the strength and willpower to find a way to get ready for the meeting.

Fritz's health is certainly no guarantee. But, if he's in the draw, I'm going to assume he's healthy enough to at least compete at a good level. And if that's the case, then he certainly will present a massive challenge to Nakashima.

Fritz has won 1 ATP Tour title in his career and he lifted that winner's trophy on the grass of Eastbourne. In 2019, Fritz beat fellow American Sam Querrey in the final 6-3, 6-4.

After the match, Fritz told the ATP, "It's so amazing. I almost can't even believe it. I'm still trying to take it in...I really hope that I can continue on and progress the way Andy (Roddick) did and follow in his footsteps."

Fritz clearly saw the last Eastbourne champion from the United States, Andy Roddick, as a role model for his grass-court career.

In that Eastbourne event, Fritz served really well. He won at least 75% of his first-serve points in all 5 matches he played in the event. From the quarterfinals onwards, Fritz was only broken once. In the final against Querrey, Fritz won 89% of his first-serve points, facing only 1 break point, and he didn't get broken in that final.

However, at Wimbledon, Fritz has only made the 2nd round a couple times in his 4 appearances in the main draw. So, why has this been the case?

On the positive side, as mentioned before, Fritz's first serve is a huge weapon on faster surfaces, and is an area of his game where he's rapidly improved. Fritz's groundstrokes also are flatter and can really cut through the court on grass.

On the other hand, at times, it feels like the Fritz's backswings are little too far back for the quicker grass surface and he doesn't have an effective, low-skidding backhand slice that can do so much damage on the grass. In addition, Fritz isn't totally comfortable at the net.

So, there are aspects of Fritz's game that work supremely well on the grass, while there are other aspects that cause some concern. I guess that partially explains why, at times when he's able to play to his strengths on grass he can be dominant, while at other times, his weaknesses get exposed.

Perhaps some more time on grass last season and in the lead-up to Wimbledon this season would have been good for Fritz to continue to develop his grass-court game and try to continue to live up to the standard that Andy Roddick has set for American men, but a global pandemic and a fluke injury blew those chances.

On the other side of the net will be qualifier Brandon Nakashima. The 19 year-old American hadn't played a professional match on grass, having only competed in the juniors on grass.

And, in the Challengers leading up to Wimbledon qualifying, Nakashima showed some growing pains. Nakashima went 1-2 in the Challengers preceding Wimbledon qualifying, beat Mario Vilella Martinez and losing to Evgeny Donskoy and Thomas Fabbiano.

While Donskoy and Fabbiano are not the easiest matchups on grass, given the progression that Nakashima has shown, it was a bit disappointing that he lost those matches.

However, Nakashima seemed to put it all together during his time at qualifying in Roehampton.

The American doesn't have the biggest serve, but he hits his spots very well. He won 75% of his first-serve points in all three of his qualifying wins over Aleksander Vukic, Viktor Troicki, and Ernests Gulbis.

Nakashima also took advantage of second-serve returns. In every match Nakashima played in Roehampton, his opponents won 35% or fewer of his second-serve returns and broke 15 times over the course of the tournament.

In addition to his solid serving and returning, there are other aspects of Nakashima's game that work well on grass. Nakashima's groundstrokes are very flat and he hits his targets. Finally, Nakashima has really made it a point to improve his net-game, an aspect of tennis that is particularly important on grass. Nakashima attacks the net with authority and hits razor-sharp volleys.

Nakashima, however, doesn't have the power that would let him hit opponents off the court at times his forehand can get a little bit shaky, and like Fritz, his backhand slice could also use some work.

But, ultimately, Nakashima's qualifying campaign was a massive achievement. It was the first time in his career that he had qualified for a Major and Nakashima was clearly happy with his level of play.

Having had success at Roehampton as a junior, Nakashima explained to the ATP during his qualifying campaign, "It definitely feels pretty good coming back here. I feel comfortable with the courts..."

And, given how he performed, his comfort on the grass was very evident.

***

So, how will this matchup play out?

They've never played in a non-exhibition event, although Fritz leads 2-1 in exhibitions. However, all 3 of those matches were on hard courts and there's really not much to take away from them.

Fritz will have the power advantage from the baseline, but Nakashima is more comfortable at the net and will look to impose himself on Fritz when he can.

In terms of the serve, Fritz's first serve has evolved into one of the best in the game. He won't give Nakashima many opportunities on return and Nakashima will have to be clutch in converting the opportunities given to him.

Fritz's health is certainly the biggest question mark. Will he be ready physically for best-of-five? Will he have enough time on the practice courts to hone his game? How will he respond to not playing a grass-court match in 2 years?

Given Fritz's health concerns and lack of matchplay, it's hard to expect too much from him in this one. And an in-form Nakashima who has already played 6 matches on the grass this season.

For Nakashima, he's inexperienced at the Grand Slam level. He's only played in one Major before and never outside of the United States.

Ultimately, I trust Nakashima to pull through in this match. His improved net game and aggressive attitude will come through for him here and will be the steadier player from the baseline, as a rusty Fritz will spray unforced errors.

It won't be entirely straightforward, but expect Brandon Nakashima to win in 4 sets and set up a 2nd round showdown with fellow American Steve Johnson or Dennis Novak!

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.

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?

Eugenie Bouchard Silences Her Demons in Madrid

When Eugenie Bouchard finally beat Maria Sharapova 7-5, 2-6, 6-4 in Madrid, it was obvious that much of the tennis world was in shock. Maria Sharapova was clearly the odds-on favorite, Intertops having her at -714, and with a clear head-to-head advantage. In their four prior matches, Sharapova won all four, with Bouchard only managing to get one set in the process.

In their previous match at the 2015 Australian Open, Sharapova had beaten Bouchard in straight sets, only losing five games in the entire match. With Bouchard struggling, many felt like this would be an easy match for Maria, a warmup before her battle with world number two Angelique Kerber in the next round. However, that was far from the case.

This match meant much more than what a random Second Round match would typically mean. For Sharapova, winning this match would mean that she would be a step closer to the main draw of Wimbledon, which would be crucial for her return to tennis following her meldonium use that forced her to spend 15 months on the sidelines. Getting in the main draw of a Grand Slam, in addition to the massive amounts of prize money, would make it much easier for Sharapova to catapult up the WTA rankings, where the number one spot is up for grab's due Serena Williams' pregnancy. However, with this loss, Sharapova will now look to Rome as an opportunity to move up the ranks of the WTA.

For Eugenie Bouchard, this match looked to be a crossroads for her career. Following a run to the Fourth Round of the Australian Open, coming within one set of the Quarterfinals before falling to CoCo Vandeweghe, Eugenie had massive struggles with her game. She lost in the First Round of Acapulco, Indian Wells, Miami, and Monterrey, before going to an ITF tournament in Indian Harbor Beach and only getting three games in a meek defeat to world number 484, Victoria Duval. And when Bouchard lost in the First Round of Istanbul too, it seemed more and more likely that her Wimbledon Final was nothing more than a massive fluke.

This match was complicated by Bouchard's chatter regarding Sharapova's drug use. Bouchard called Sharapova "a cheater" and also wanted her banned from tennis for life. This surely made proceedings personal between Eugenie and Maria, despite Maria saying that she was "way above that". This was condescending, in a way. Sharapova was essentially calling Bouchard immature, and definitely had a "holier than thou" attitude mixed into it. I'm sure that Bouchard's initial comments really irked Sharapova, and I'm also sure that Maria's condescending reply annoyed Eugenie as well.

This context provided the reasoning behind the electric intensity of the match. I watched much of the match, and one of the things that stuck out to me at the beginning was the ability of Bouchard to keep the point alive. While against some other players, Sharapova might have drawn more forced errors, Bouchard frequently refused to let the point die. Bouchard had a determined attitude, something that had been missing from her game until this match. This determined attitude started in her first match in the tournament against Cornet where, despite losing the second set, Bouchard won the third set in dominating fashion, 6-1.

When Sharapova broke first in the match to lead *4-2 in the first set, it would be easy for her to go away, knowing that the head-to-head (to this point) was a disaster, and that her year wasn't much better. However, Eugenie refused to go away. In a long seventh game of the match, Bouchard broke back and held from 0-30 down. Even after getting broken serving for the set at *5-4, Bouchard just wouldn't back down. At 5-5, despite not breaking on her first three chances in the game, Eugenie Bouchard broke through, winning Sharapova's service game and holding in the next game, despite facing a break point at 30-40.

In the second set, Sharapova imposed her will. Maria had to save a break point at 1-1 in the set, but didn't struggle much from there, taking the second set 6-2 to tie the match at one set all. This would have been the perfect time for Bouchard to look at her season, her past defeats to Sharapova, and perhaps, throw in the towel. After all, when Maria took the second set in Paris in the Semifinals of the French Open in 2014, she had little problems in the third set, taking it 6-2. Eugenie could have thought of that match, thought of history repeating itself in part, and put in a weak third set effort. But, in a stunning set, Bouchard rose above her competition.

The third set was a tussle of wills, a battle of who would outlast the other. Bouchard saved a break point at *0-1 to hold for 1-1, and then had 0-40 on the Sharapova serve, a crucial break nearly inevitable. However, utilizing huge serving and crushing play from the baseline, Maria held and then got up 0-40 on Bouchard's serve, one point away from a moment that would almost certainly crush her spirit. However, a combination of good serving from Bouchard and bad returning from Sharapova allowed her to escape the 0-40 hold, and eventually the game.

Eugenie then got to 0-40 on Sharapova's service game once again, but Maria's fighting spirit pushed her through to yet another hold. Once again, this was a crossroads for Bouchard. Having 0-40 in two games in a row, a combined eight break points lost in two Sharapova service games, it would be easy for Eugenie to have a let down, but she wouldn't quit. Despite going 15-30 down at 3-3 in the third set, Bouchard held on and then finally broke Maria when she got up 0-40 in yet another Sharapova service game to go up *4-3 in the third set, two holds from a huge victory.

But, Sharapova wouldn't go away, utilizing impressive power tennis, Sharapova pounded away at the Bouchard serve, never allowing Eugenie to get comfortable in the game, and breaking back for 4-all. It seemed to me, at this point, that Bouchard's will would finally be broken. She had done seemingly everything in her power to beat Maria, but it looked as if Sharapova had answered every one of Bouchard's questions. And when Sharapova went up 40-15 in her ensuing service game, it seemed as if a 6-4 third set to Maria was on it's way.

But, Bouchard had other plans. Eugenie ended up breaking Maria from 40-15 down, then saving two break points when serving for the match to win 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. This was, given the circumstances and Bouchard's year so far, definitely the biggest win of her year, and up there with the biggest wins of her career. To have such poor results before this match, to have so many headlines swirling around, to play such high-quality tennis was astounding.

Bouchard's defensive play was superb, and she was hitting her forehand the way I remembered her forehand looking in 2014, her breakout year on the WTA Tour. If Bouchard can continue to play, and compete, in a similar fashion to tonight, then there is no reason why she cannot make a deep run in both this tournament, and eventually, at Roland Garros. Sharapova has also shown that she will be a force on clay this year, and if she is luck enough to get a French Open wildcard (which I think that she shouldn't receive), she will definitely be a factor in Paris.

Next up for Bouchard is world number two Angelique Kerber, who before the tournament would be an almost-assured victory for Angelique. However, given the quality of play seen by Bouchard in this tournament thus far, there is no reason why Eugenie cannot win that match. Win or lose, however, Eugenie Bouchard has silenced her demons in Madrid.

Should Maria Sharapova Receive Wildcards to Majors?

Maria Sharapova has been subject to a big debate in recent days. After receiving a wildcard to many clay court tournaments following the end of her ban on April 26th, which starts with her inclusion in the WTA tournament in Stuttgart, Germany, the question then becomes whether or not Sharapova should receive a wildcard into the remaining majors of this season, with the French Open and Wimbledon in the not-so-distant future.

The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.

So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.

However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.

Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.

But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.

I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.

Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.

Wimbledon Officials Handles Berdych-Vesely Match Very Poorly

When the dust settled on the fantastic match between former finalist Tomas Berdych and Jiri Vesely, Berdych had won 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(8), (9)6-7, 6-3.  The match, remarkably, lasted around four hours, consisted of five sets, and was played over two days.  The match was truly remarkable, and honestly, who doesn't love a long five-set battle with two players playing their hearts out during the second week of a major?  But, the circumstances surrounding the match are where the problems lie.

By the tiebreak in the fourth set, tensions were high.  Berdych had lead 5-2* in the fourth, had three match points at *5-6, and was soon down in the tiebreak 6-1*.  Berdych actually came all of the way back from that 6-1* deficit, missing two more match points in the tiebreak.  Vesely eventually went on to win the tiebreak 11-9, and the fifth set of the match pushed till today.

And while the fifth set only lasted 37 minutes, Berdych winning it 6-3, the combination of the physical strain from a match lasting around four hours, and the mental strain of having to sleep on the match overnight (after having multiple match points last night) created a tricky situation for both players, and will continue to have an effect on Berdych for his quarterfinal match tomorrow against Lucas Pouille.

There was arguably not even enough sunlight to finish the tiebreak last night.  As ESPN showed last night, sunset in London yesterday was at 9:19 PM, and the clock struck this time during the tiebreak last night.  As soon as 9:19 PM hits, play absolutely should have stopped on all outer courts.  Playing the match in darkness leads the match to have a "roulette feel".  Due to the fact that sight is obviously an important sense to have on the tennis court, if lack of light is hindering one's sight, as what happens when the sun sets, and was almost certainly evidenced by Berdych's mood during the tiebreak (in addition to his frustrations because of his blown chances), then the match should obviously be stopped, not matter the point in the match where sunset occurs.

So, not stopping play upon sunset was one problem that Berdych-Vesely displayed yesterday.  However, another issue was at hand.  Playing best-of-five tennis is a grueling endeavor for a tennis player.  Players has to compete at a very high level for quite a long time, while staving off any physical ailments that could occur over the course of the match.

Keeping this in mind, it is extremely unfair of Wimbledon to force Berdych (or Vesely had he won) to play four straight days in order to reach the Semifinals.  Berdych and Vesely playedThird  Round matches against Alexander Zverev and Joao Sousa, respectively, on the Middle Sunday, where there is typically no play (a ridiculous rule, honestly) because of issues with rain.  The two then had to battle each other yesterday for over three hours, and today for over half an hour.  While playing so little today might not seem like a big deal, but the cumulative effects of playing so much tennis, and for the winner, Berdych, having to play again tomorrow is a huge ask.

So, what could Wimbledon have done to alleviate the hardship they put on the victor?  The answer is quite simple.  As at least one commentator on ESPN heard based on Berdych's reaction to stopping yesterday, moving the match to Centre Court to finish under the roof, and the lights, was certainly a good option to make sure that the winner would get a full day of rest.

Considering that in-progress matches have been moved to Centre Court before to finish under the lights, such as Simon-Monfils last year and Bouchard-Rybarikova this year, it wouldn't be such a crazy idea to allow the fifth set of Berdych-Vesely to played under the roof at Centre Court.  When one considers competitive balance, such as the fact that Pouille, and everyone else that was left in the entire main draw, had finished their  matches already and would be receiving an off-day today, then it certainly seems like the wrong decision to force Berdych and Vesely to come out and finish their match today.

If this was the French Open, where there are (unfortunately) no lights, then of course make the players come back the next day to finish the match.  However, when there are resources available that would prevent one playing from gaining a competitive advantage over another, then it is deplorable if you don't use them.

Ultimately, I am left having to say that the officials of the most prestigious tournament on the planet handled the Berdych-Vesely match poorly.  And now, while the tennis world turns their attention to the men's Quarterfinals, former finalist Tomas Berdych will have to pay the price, not only for not closing out the match sooner, but because the Wimbledon officials, totally out of his control, made a poor decision.

Three Bold Predictions and Draw Projections for Wimbledon Women

On Friday, the Wimbledon men and women's draw came out, allowing every tennis pundit the opportunity to make predictions and projections that will look laughable in two weeks.  But, part of the fun of the draw is making these prognostications, being that pundit who "called" the big upset.  I will do my best to make my readers proud, with a goal of one bold prediction coming through.  So, what do I expect to happen for the women in London?

Three Bold Predictions

 - Camila Giorgi will make the Quarterfinals.  Yes, this does sound crazy given Giorgi's form, or lack thereof.  Giorgi had to pull out of the Ricoh Open in the Netherlands, a title she was defending, and lost her opening matches in both Birmingham and Eastbourne.  She is under a lot of pressure to pick up a decent haul of points at Wimbledon due to the rankings drop that came with losing those Rosmalen points.  And, given Giorgi disastrous Third Round against Wozniacki last year, is she Giorgi not good enough for the biggest stages of tennis?

Giorgi's draw initially seems as if it wouldn't help her cause but I see reason for hope.  Her opening round against Muguruza will be a huge moment for Garbine, as well.  This will be only the second match for Muguruza following her win at Roland Garros, and her first major.  Not only that, but as the defending Finalist, she has a ton of points to defend, in addition to the new pressures on her shoulders.  It's also important to note that Camila leads the H2H 2-1.  I believe Giorgi's powerful game with overwhelm a stunned Muguruza and that she will advance.  Although she had a good run in Mallorca, Mariana Duque-Marino is a clay courter and should not present problems for Camila in the Second Round (based upon my projections).  In the Third Round I have Giorgi playing Lucie Safarova, and although she has had success here in the past, Safarova's poor recent form suggests that Giorgi could send Lucie packing, as well.  In the Round of 16, I believe Camila will take on equally-as-erratic Sabine Lisicki, a former Wimbledon Finalist.  I think a confident Giorgi goes toe-to-toe with Lisicki in a wild match, winning it in three sets.  Then, in the Quarterfinals, Giorgi will lose to Venus Williams.

- Tsetvana Pironkova will make the Semifinals.  Normally, drawing the seven seed is a recipe for a First Round exit, but given Bencic's recent absence on tour, the confidence Pironkova got from her run in Paris, and her history at Wimbledon, and all of a sudden, it seems as if the fortnight will be good to Tsetvana.  As I mentioned earlier, Bencic has just returned from injury, and I watched much of her run to the Ricoh Open semis, and was not impressed by her game.  It seems as if Belinda has lost some of the punch on her groundstrokes.  From there, I think Pironkova easily dismisses Andrea Petkovic, who's counterpuncher style is not the best for grass.

From there, I foresee Pironkova taking on Petra Kvitova, two-time Champion, and Agnieszka Radwanska, former Wimbledon Finalist.  In regards to the Kvitova match, last year's loss to Jankovic, when Petra looked to be in red-hot form showed me that Kvitova on any given day can just play disastrously.  I also think that Kvitova has lost a lot of the confidence she gained from that 2014 title, and has gone off the rails a bit lately.  Pironkova will win that match in what, like for Lisicki-Giorgi, should be a wild affair.  Radwanska has not impressed me with her grass court play this season.  She looked lethargic in her loss to Coco Vandeweghe in Birmingham, and collapsed from a set-and-a-break up against Dominka Cibulkova in Eastbourne.  Radwanska seems to have even loss some of the touch that she is famous for.  Pironkova will surprise again and win that match to reach the Semifinals, before ultimately losing to Serena Williams.

- The Final will be contested between the Williams sisters.  Yes, we will get another Final between Venus and Serena Williams.  For Serena to get to number 22, she will have to go through her sister, who will be desperate for another major to help cap off a brilliant career.  The drama, the storylines, and the high level of play will help make this an extraordinary Wimbledon Final.  The two have played 27 times, with the head-to-head very tight, Serena leading 16-11.  And while Serena won easily at Wimbledon last year, the two played a very tight match the US Open last year, Serena taking it in three sets.

As a tennis fan, this is the type of match you want to see.  And I believe we will see it on one of the biggest stages of tennis, two weeks from today.  A five-time Wimbledon champion, with seven majors, battling a six-time Wimbledon champion, with 21 majors.  So yes, I predict this match will be the Final, and it will surely be a treat to watch.

Draw Projections

 - Quarterfinals:
Serena Williams defeats Coco Vendeweghe in two sets
Tsetvana Pironkova defeats Agnieszka Radwanska in three sets
Angelique Kerber defeats Madison Keys in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Camila Giorgi in two sets

- Semifinals
Serena Williams defeats Tsetvana Pironkova in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Angelique Kerber in three sets

- Final
Serena Williams defeats Venus Williams in three sets.

Looking at Grand Slam "Home" Wildcard Data

So, a little while back I compiled some data on how the "home" wildcard did at the four majors.  By "home wildcard", I mean a wildcard entry who is from the same country that the tournament is hosted in.  So, I went back and looked at how these main draw wildcards performed in the tournament they were given a wildcard into.  I will be removing "home" wildcards who played each other in the First Round from the data, but will be using "home" wildcards who played a different wildcard not from the host country. And while this article may seem a bit repetitive given how much attention I have given wildcards on this blog, especially recently, I hope that this post is very informative.

For the sake of this post, let's give each round a point value.  So, for instance, if a wildcard lost in the First Round, their result would be given a value of "one", while if a wildcard lost in the Final, they would be given a point value of "seven".  Because I want to be complete in my specifications, despite it not occurring in the data, if a "home" wildcard wins the tournament they would be given a score of "eight".  Therefore, you could look at a player's "score" as what round they lost in, correlated to a numerical value.

There are many different ways to group the data, which runs from the 2013 Australian Open through the 2016 French Open, but let's start with grouping the "home" wildcards by major.  Let's look at the Australian Open first.  There were 36 "home" (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis.  The range of scores ranged from a home wildcard losing in the First Round (and, thus, receiving a score of one) to those losing in the Second Round (and, therefore, receiving two "points").  The Australian Open has a mean score (rounded to two decimal places) of 1.17.  Meaning that the vast majority of home wildcards lose in the First Round at the Australian Open.  With the range being so small, this is not surprising from a data standpoint, but given the larger ramifications of what this means, given that 1.17 is a shockingly low number, it seems as if the local players given these wildcards were, for the most part, not ready for the big scene.

Now, let's take a look at the data for the French Open.  There were 46 home (eligible) wildcards given at the French Open during the timespan previously mentioned, which is much higher than the number given out at the Australian Open.  The range of scores went as low as one and as high as four.  The French Open had a mean score of 1.39.  While this is still a shockingly low score, it is a tiny bit higher than the Australian Open, which shows, perhaps, that better home players were given wildcards at Roland Garros.  However, one could also make the case that a larger sample size led to a larger chance of a home wildcard making a run, and also that, had the Australian Open given 50 home wildcards away, that their score could have been even lower since, perhaps, France is more of a tennis "hotbed" than Australia.

Wimbledon (data only 2013-2015) gave out 22 home wildcards.  This number is significantly less than the two previously mentioned majors because, at the time of the writing of this article, the 2016 wildcards haven't been given out yet and because Wimbledon just seems to give out less home wildcards than the other majors anyways.  Wimbledon had a range of scores from one to three.  The mean score for Wimbledon is 1.18, just barely above the Australian Open's mean score, but below the French Open's mean point total.  Although I have not collected all wildcard data, I am speculating (the latter due to conjecture from Men's Tennis Forums) that this low score, and low number of home wildcards given, could be due to a combination of a lack of professional-level talent in Great Britain and the LTA just deciding to award wildcards to more worthy foreigners who have done well that season on grass.

Finally, in terms of this specific analysis, let's take a look at the data for the US Open.  The US Open (2013-2015) has given out 37 home wildcards, significantly more than Wimbledon gave out in the same time frame.  This is even more than the Australian Open has given, but with a year less of data!  The number of wildcards, in a four year increment, would be 49.33, slightly greater than the number of wildcards (both eligible and non-eligible for analysis) at the French Open (48).  The US Open's range of scores went from as low as one to as high as four.  The mean point total for the US Open is 1.43, the highest of any major.  And while this shows that, roughly, home wildcards do generally still fall in the First Round, it shows home wildcards at the US Open, in the sample size collected (although smaller than the French Open and Australian Open) does do a better job with picking out home wildcards that can go further in the draw.  And while this could be due to the deep talent pool that the USTA has to work with, this definitely gives me a little bit more confidence in the wildcard selection process at the US Open.

The other angle I want to take when exploring this data is what the difference in scores for female home wildcards as opposed to male home wildcards.  I will start with female home wildcards.  In total, from the 2013 Australian Open to the 2016 French Open, 73 home (eligible) female wildcards were given.  The scores of these wildcards ranged from one to four.  The mean score for female home wildcards is 1.29.  This number, once more, shows us that the vast majority of female home wildcards are losing in the First Round.  Now, let's see if the same can be said for the men.

In total, there are 68 male home (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis.  The range of scores varied from as low as one to as high as three.  The mean score for male home wildcards is 1.32.  This means that, while the majority of male home wildcards did lose in the First Round, perhaps the grand slams were slightly better at choosing male home wildcards, as opposed to female ones.  However, it would take many more majors' worth of data before we could really make any definitive conclusions or takeaways in regards to the relationship between female vs. male data.

So, with all of this said, we cannot really takeaway much from the data, as it was mainly constructed for my readers' enjoyment and intrigue.  However, if we are to say that this is a representative sample, which I think it is, we can say that all majors, whether selecting male or female wildcards, are not selecting players who are making deep runs in these majors, unfortunately.  Why this is, exactly, is not known, but the data does paint an interesting picture regarding home wildcards at majors.

Obviously more research is needed, and with no margin of error analysis, there is not much I can say with certainty regarding the data, so take all of this analysis with a grain of salt.  However, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard the data either.  Because, really, with as low as the numbers are, maybe less home wildcards should be given out.

Why Laura Robson Does Not Deserve a Wimbledon Wildcard

If you've followed this blog or my Twitter account (AllAboutTennisBlog, @TennisBlogger1) you would know that a lot of my tweets are about wildcards and the faults in the wildcard process.  I still believe that wildcards in some form can exist in tennis, but the way and extent to which they are given out is truly sickening, with major reform needed.  With that said, however, I will give Wimbledon credit for truly being the best major for not handing out the "walking bye" home" wildcard.

I have compiled a bunch of data regarding hometown wildcards either for a future article or just for general use, but in the past three years combined, Wimbledon has only given out 11 total wildcards to British female players.  This, when compared to a slam like the French Open, which has given 19 "home" wildcards out, and you can see that Wimbledon doesn't just hand wildcards to any random player with a British flag next to their name.  And, while Wimbledon British wildcard recipients have been very unsuccessful over the past three years, with only one match win since 2013, with a significantly less number of "home" wildcards, it seems reasonable to expect a significantly lower number of wins, as well.

This brings me to Laura Robson and the issue of the Wimbledon wildcard.  I saw on Twitter the other day that Chris Goldsmith was tweeting out (and continues to tweet) some nonsense about how Robson deserves a wildcard based on random, anecdotal evidence such as a 4R Wimbledon results from three years ago and how she has beat a group of top players in the past.  Goldsmith, however, completely ignores the obvious and instead cherry picks what he wants to form a weak argument.  Therefore, I have taken to the blog to explain why Laura Robson absolutely does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.

Let's start off with Robson's results this year, specifically.  On the year, in events bigger than $25,000's (which Robson is only 2-3 in), Laura has compiled a 2-10 record, meaning her winning percentage on the year is .17.  If we look at her record in the main draws of events larger than 25k's, Robson is 1-8 for a horrific winning percentage of .11.  Yes, the player that Goldsmith is advocating a wildcard has won one main draw match all season, which came, on clay, against a player currently ranked outside of the top 500 in the world in the live rankings.

This year, Robson has been a victim to nine straight set losses, and in tournaments bigger than $25k's, has only won five sets ON THE YEAR!  Five sets!  How anyone could advocate for a player who is struggling to win matches in $25,000 tournaments and has won only five sets in $50,000 tournaments and larger boggles mind.  Robson currently is on a six match losing streak, as well, only winning one set out of her past 13.  But yet, Goldsmith wants to shower this young lady with a wildcard because she really has the results to back her up this season!

But, how has she done on grass?  Shouldn't that matter much more than how she did on clay?  Absolutely, but unfortunately, this doesn't help Robson much either.  This season, Robson has played two grass court tournaments, losing both in the First Round and managing just one set between the two matches.  And, it's not as if she were playing a top player in either tournament.  In Eastbourne, a 50k tournament, she battled world number 161 (live rankings) and lost in three sets.  Then, in Nottingham, she took on world number 229 in the live rankings, Michelle Larcher de Brito, and lost that match in straight sets.  Again, if Robson is having trouble taking sets off of players ranked outside of the Top 150 on grass, should Wimbledon, the premier grass court tournament in the world, really be handing her a wildcard?

In fact, Robson hasn't won a grass court match since that 2013 run, losing both of the grass court matches she played in last season (winning 0 sets), and not playing grass court matches in 2014, I believe due to injury.  It's also important to note that outside of that 2013 run, she only won one other grass court match during that season, going 1-2 outside of Wimbledon and losing in straight sets in her two losses.  And, while Robson did beat Angelique Kerber at Wimbledon in 2011, that was her only victory at Wimbledon from the first time she played Women's Singles in 2009 until her run in 2013.

If we are going to analyze her 2013 run further, we would note that during her run, while she did beat 10 seed Maria Kirlenko in the First Round, Kirlenko had suffered a knee injury during a warmup tournament very-well could not have been 100% in that match.  In the Second Round, she faced clay-courter Mariana Duque-Marino, a player that has only been to the Second Round of Wimbledon twice, and in the Third Round she beat another unseeded player, Marina Erakovic, a player who has never made a Round 16 appearance at a slam.  Then, in the Round of 16, when she took on a competent grass courter in Kaia Kanepi, Robson lost in straight sets.

Again, I'm all for giving players wildcards when they have proven they deserve them, but do the results I just laid out for you really warrant a wildcard to one of the four biggest tournaments of the season?  Even with that Round of 16 run at Wimbledon, her winning percentage there is still .40, as she has a 4-6.  In addition, to give y'all some perspective, Ashleigh Barty, who has just picked up tennis again after temporarily quitting in 2014, in just her second tournament back, discounting Eastbourne qualifying, in matches played at the 50k level and above, has 3.5 times as many match wins as Robson, which includes quadruple as many main draw wins, as many wins at the WTA Tour level, and has seven wins on grass to zero for Robson.  Now, I'm not saying that Wimbledon should be giving Barty a wildcard, but this just puts things into perspective for Laura.

I'm also not opposed to giving wildcards out for good results during the previous year's tournaments.  I was all for the French Open giving Andrea Mitu a wildcard for her French Open Round of 16 appearance during the previous season instead of Tessah Adrianjafitrimo.  However, when we have to reach three years in the past, and only for a Round of 16 result, to justify giving a player with a 2-9 record in 50k and up tournaments all year a wildcard, then it just looks a little desperate, and really, pathetic.

If Robson has a great run next week, then great, give her a wildcard, it will be well deserved.  But, if Wimbledon gives Robson a wildcard based on the current results, then it would be a total and complete disgrace and would make the calls to get rid of the wildcard system altogether even louder.  Because, a player like Tara Moore, with a Final run in Eastbourne and winning a match in Nottingham does deserve to have her moment at Wimbledon, but given that Wimbledon is one of the four biggest tournaments of the year, the tennis governing body for Britain, the LTA, should act like it.  And, by that, I mean, actually give out wildcards to players who deserve them.  And beating some of the top players at random points of previous years, quite some time ago, doesn't exactly scream "deserving" to me.

Because, at the end of the day, let's be honest, there is no justification for giving Laura Robson a wildcard other than the fact that she is British, and that would look a lot like a corrupt, unfair system to me.  Robson simply does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.

Vasek Pospisil, Clay Courts, and Fitness

Vasek Pospisil, by all accounts, has had a very successful career.  On the singles side, he has gotten as high as number 25 in the world, has been a finalist of an ATP World Tour 500-level tournament (Washington), and even made the Quarterfinals of Wimbledon last year.  In doubles, Pospisil has won six titles with his doubles partner Jack Sock, He won the Wimbledon doubles title with Jack Sock, including a Masters 1000 title at Indian Wells.  However, Vasek's biggest doubles achievement was a Wimbledon doubles title, something that definitely provided a bump in results for his singles career too.

And as great of a career as this has been for Vasek, looking at his results, they definitely leave something to be desired.  Because, for all his great results on grass, and to a lesser extent hard courts, his clay court prowess, in regards to his singles career, has been pathetic.  Yes, I said it, pathetic.  Vasek Pospisil, 25 years old, and currently the world number 46 in the live rankings, has never won a main draw ATP clay court match in his life.  And as much as this shows how well he must have done on other surfaces, it's deeply disturbing to see this level of ineptitude on the second most common surface on the ATP World Tour.  In fact, in the best-of-five format, Pospisil has only forced a fifth once, losing to Horacio Zeballos in five sets in 2013.

But, it's not for a lack of trying, at least during matches.  Unlike another top 50 tennis player, Bernard Tomic, when watching Pospisil on clay, you can see that despite it not being a surface he is even decent on, he is still giving his all and is mentally engaged in the match.  Against Radek Stepanek in the First Round of Madrid earlier this week, Pospisil was trying to fire himself up upon winning the second set and one could tell that he was desperately searching for answers on how to solve the puzzle that is clay court tennis.  And I commend him for having this attitude, there is nothing worse than the attitude of Bernard Tomic, where because his game might not naturally suit clay, he just doesn't give a shit (excuse my language).  And for Vasek, it's not like he can't win a set on clay.  In the past two years, in a best-of-three format, he has won a set in an ATP-level match three different times, but always fell in the third set.

So, now that we've established that Pospisil is giving his all on the court, and has had successes on other surfaces, what could be the major obstacle stopping Pospisil from success on clay and how can he jump this hurdle?  And upon watching and following Vasek's career enough, I have come to the conclusion that the major problem with Pospisil on clay has nothing to do with his tennis game itself.  Rather, Vasek is so unbelievably unfit, that he physically cannot win a match against decent competition on this surface.

You see, clay is unlike other surfaces in that the surface itself doesn't allow players to merely out-serve and outhit their opposition, which is much of what has made Pospisil successful on the main tour.  Point construction is a must, and one's baseline skills must be fine-tuned in order to be successful on the surface.  What all of this means is that points are going to last longer and be much more physically taxing than on, say, a grass court.  And if a player is not in tip-top shape, then said will struggle massively on the surface.  And, upon watching Vasek on clay and seeing his results, I think it's safe to say that his fitness level is deplorable, which means that his successes on clay will be very minimal.

I like to think of myself as someone who has been involved with fitness for quite some time, and someone who recognizes the importance of fitness as something that is crucial to the life of everyone, but should be especially crucial in the prime years of their life, such as Vasek.  And I believe that the problem with Pospisil's fitness, and a lot of tennis players in general, is that tennis training focuses too much on short bursts of speed/intervals.  And while this is definitely the most practical fitness application to tennis, I think that long-distance running gets short-changed, and for someone who might not naturally be a "runner" like Pospisil, this can severely affect his results.

You know, it seemed like people all throughout the tennis world were collectively wondering what Caroline Wozniacki was doing when she decided to run that marathon at the tail end of 2014, however, it was amazing to see her results spike when she was training for that marathon.  During the second half of 2014, she was able to consistently challenge Serena Williams and even got to the US Open Final.  I definitely think that there was a correlation between her marathon training her results.  And, while I'm not saying that Vasek needs to run a marathon, some distance running would definitely do some good for not only his clay results, but for every match he plays.

So, for as hard as it seems Pospisil is during matches, it is clear that he either is not working hard off of the court, or is not training in a proper fashion.  And maybe, at least partially, the environment he is putting himself in is to blame.  Or, in other words, since Sock seems to be having issues being able to physically last in matches too, perhaps this doubles combination creates a horrible environment for fitness, as one's poor training rubs off on the other's training too.  And, again, this is just speculation, however it is curious to me how two of the people with the worst fitness on tour just so happen to be doubles partners.

Vasek Pospisil has a decision to make.  He is absolutely a talented tennis player.  Now, he must decide whether he wants to put in the work, and the right type of work, in order to reach his full potential.

Teliana Pereira's Road To The Top 50 And The WTA's Scheduling Problem

*Note: when I talk about rankings, I mean the live rankings when I wrote this article

Earlier this week, I wrote an article blasting Inigo Cervantes for gaming the system and somehow getting a Top 60 ranking on the strength of a bunch of ATP Challenger tournaments on clay, along with offering the ATP solutions to solve the problem.  Well, today I want to turn my attention to a similar problem in the WTA.  But, I don't want to totally blame Teliana Pereira for her ranking, as at least she is playing WTA Tour-level tournaments, but I want to turn the attention to the mechanisms behind Pereira's ranking and how the WTA enables players to do what has done.

Teliana Pereira, from Brazil, is currently number 50 in the world and she had what, on the surface, seems like a very successful 2015 season.  She won two international-level titles last season, in Bogota and Florianapolis, and shot up the rankings, even getting as high 43 in the world in the second half of last year.  Pereira seems to a WTA success story, finally breaking through in her mid to later 20's after struggling in her initial days on the WTA Tour.  So, what's the problem?  Let's dive into the two tournaments she won, for starters.

Let's start by examining her tournament win in Bogota.  Pereira started the tournament off by playing the four seed, Francesca Schiavone.  Despite being a former French Open champion, Schiavone has really fallen off over the past few years, seemingly playing for a love of the game more than anything else.  Schiavone's current ranking is inflated by Florianapolis, but she is currently number 100 in the world, certainly not a world-beater at the moment.  Pereira went on to beat qualifier Mandy Minella, currently number 168 in the world, and just like that, she was into the Quarterfinals without having to beat a player currently ranked in the 90s.

Teliana's Quarterfinals match once again showed the weak nature of this tournament, as she took on the present 116 in the world, Lordes Dominguez Lino.  Finally in the Semifinals she took on a player with a current ranking in the double digits when she played Elina Svitolina.  And while Svitolina is presently number 16 in the world, it is important to note that all of Svitolina's titles have been at the international level and that her best surface is on hard court, not clay (Pereira's best surface is clay).  So, while it was a nice win for Teliana, the match was much closer than it originally seemed.  And finally, in the Final, remember, this is the Final of a WTA-level tournament, Teliana took on WTA current number 71 Yaroslava Shvedova, winning that match, and the title.  This meant that she won the title playing one match against someone currently in the Top 70 and two matches against a player who's live rankings is in the double digits.

Now, let's turn our attention to Florianapolis, because a similar story unfolded there.  Teliana played her first match in that tournament (a tight three-setter) against Maria Irigoyen.  Irigoyen is number 225 in the live rankings, and mind you that she didn't even have to qualify for this tournament, that is how weak this field is.  Pereria then took on Risa Ozaki, the current number 125 in the world to reach the Quarterfinals.  Yes, Teliana Pereira got to the Quarterfinals of a tournament without having to beat a player who's live ranking is better than 125 in the world.  This is making the Bogota tournament look like Premier Mandatory event!  (Not really, but you get the point.)

In the Quarterfinals, Teliana took on the seven seed, Laura Siegemund, presently number 79.  Then, in the semis, Pereira played world number 92 (in live rankings), Anastasija Sevastova, meaning that Pereira reached the Final without taking on a player in the Top 75, this unbelievably occurring in a WTA Tour-level tournament.  In the Final, Pereira finally played a Top 50 player when she battled current world number 41 Annika Beck.  But this meant that Pereira, somehow, some way, won a WTA Title without ever beating someone in the Top 40 and only playing a single Top 75 player.  If that isn't a farce, then I don't know what is.

But, if Teliana Pereira was doing great in the majors, then perhaps we can look back that a lot of her points were coming from tournaments with such poor fields and perhaps she deserves her Top 50 ranking, after all.  But, this is VERY far from the case.  In fact, at the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open, she has never even made the Second Round!  This shows an extreme one-dimensional nature to her game, much like Cervantes, and is really a huge discredit to her.

But, her best surface is clay, so she must have made a run to the second week of the French Open at some point, right?  Wrong.  Teliana has only reached the Second Round at Roland Garros, a pathetic mark for someone who has two WTA-level titles on the dirt.  And since winning Florianapolis, Pereira has won a combined nine games in straight set losses to Ekaterina Makarova at the US Open (2015) and Monica Niculescu at the Australian Open this year.  While both players are higher ranked than Teliana, just how far she was from winning was disturbing.

So, now that we have established that Pereira's ranking is ridiculous, let's take a look at how the WTA schedules (look specifically at 2015, when Teliana won these titles) allows such "glitch" (as we'll call it) occurs.  In regards to Bogota, it's just out of the way when looking at the geographic flow of the WTA calendar.  The week before Bogota was a WTA Premier event in Charleston (United States) and an International event, indoor hard court, in Katowice, Poland.  Bogota is then the only event in the next week, as many of the top players move from the United States to Europe for the following week's Premier event in Stuttgart and the rest of the clay season following (Madrid is only a couple weeks after Stuttgart).  Therefore, if we look at things from a "flow" perception, players are moving east to Europe and Northern Africa (for Marrakech) following Charleston, if they're not already in Europe for Katowice or to practice for the clay court events across the Atlantic.  Going south to Bogota just seems out of the way and certainly not a popular option for WTA players.

Florianapolis is also poorly scheduled by the WTA, at least last year (for more info: http://www.tennisforum.com/12-general-messages/907769-wta-florianopolis-goes-deluxe-moves-5*-resort-beach-clay.html) when it was on clay instead of hard.  The problem was that, while everyone was making the transition from the western hemisphere, the vast majority of the tour was also moving from clay courts to hard courts as players started preparations for the US Open.  In fact, this was the last WTA-level event on clay for the rest of the season.  And guess what the last clay event in the western hemisphere was on the WTA Tour?  If you guessed Bogota, you would be correct.  Clearly this was against the flow of the WTA calendar, as the tour was clearly moving to hard courts.

The WTA, therefore, needs to really look at rescheduling these events (at least last year for Florianapolis) in order to get better fields and better go with the flow of the calendar.  There is no reason why Bogota should be where it is on the schedule, as it is just asking for a weak field and "point stealing" as I'm going to call it.  I would suggest perhaps moving Bogota to the week before the clay event in Rio De Janeiro to provide at least some continuity in the fact that both events are clay and in South America.  As for Florianapolis, as long as it is on a hard court, I believe it's position on the WTA schedule is fine, but they should have  really rescheduled it for, perhaps, the week following Rio last year in order to again, provide the continuity that seems to be not present in the scheduling for the WTA.

But, beyond all of this, I am left wondering why a player, like Teliana Pereira, would choose to go against and play in these events?  And I am, unfortunately, left with one answer.  Players like Pereira know that they can't compete in matches against most of the Top 50 (or even the Top 100, for that matter), so they decide that they would rather play ITF-level fields while picking up WTA-level points.

And, I give a player like Pereira credit.  She played this situation perfectly.  She got a couple WTA-level titles and got WTA-level points without playing, for the most part, WTA-level competition.  Kudos to her.  But, this situation is beyond a "point thief" like Teliana Pereira.  This is a problem with the WTA schedule.

In Appreciation of Sara Errani

Sara Errani is a very polarizing player on the WTA Tour, to say the least.  The about her, win or lose, on places such as Tennis Forum and Twitter are vile and make her out to be a talentless bum.  However, what she has achieved in career has been outstanding and she is and exemplifies how I expect a professional tennis player to act.  So, after the biggest title of her career in Dubai a couple weeks back, and as she gets ready to begin the WTA event in Monterrey today, just days after competing in the Doha doubles Final, I take a look at Sara Errani's illustrious career and retort a lot of the complaints I hear about her game.

Sara, currently the number 15 in the world from Bologna, Italy, has had a career that the vast majority of the WTA would envy.  Ranked as high as number 5 in the world during the 2013 season, Errani has constantly placed her in the upper-echelon of the women's game.  And she has not done this by occasionally having a big run in a larger tournament, but rather, more impressively in my opinion, consistently fighting for points, week-in and week-out.

This is evidenced by Errani's 19 WTA singles finals and nine victories.  And these victories are spread out over the years too, proving that Sara didn't just "peak" for a year or two and then disappear into the shadows.  While four of her titles did come in 2012, Errani has also won as early in her career as 2008 and as "late" (considering she is 28) in her career as Dubai last month (which was also her first WTA Premier Title).  Sustainability towards of the top of the women's game is Errani's forte, despite almost always facing players with much more powerful games than she has.

However,  at least in my opinion, Errani's greatest singles accomplishment was a tournament in which she lost: the 2012 French Open.  Sara Errani made the singles Final of this tournament, coming within one match of a major title.  And while she ultimately lost to Maria Sharapova 6-3, 6-2, the way she reached the Final was very impressive.

In the First Round, Errani could have easily given in to Casey Dellacqua's powerful lefty game, but after losing the first set, fought back to win the match in three sets.  And in the Third Round, facing former French Open champion Ana Ivanovic, Sara was steamrolled in the first set 6-1.  However, Errani's fighting spirit willed her through this match, winning a tight second set and ultimately pulling out the match in the three sets.  I believe this match to be a pivotal one in Sara's career, because it ultimately proved she was a contender and not just another journeywoman going through the motions in her career, proving that her game, and fierceness, would take her above much of the competition.

Errani went on to soundly defeat two-time major champion (and also a French Open winner) Svetlana Kuznetsova in straight sets, including a 6-0 first set before going on to beat Angelique Kerber in straight sets in the Quarterfinals (also now a major winner).  Then, in the Semifinals, Errani withstood a strong push in the second set (6-1) by defending US Open champion, winning that match in three sets too before her loss to Sharapova in the Final.  But, when you look at Errani's run to the Final of that French Open, it looks even better in hindsight than at the time, with Kerber also winning a major.  In total, of the six matches she played to reach the Final, Sara took on four major champions and beat them all (before eventually losing to Sharapova).  That's pretty darn impressive.

I don't want to limit Errani's accomplishments to only singles, however, as her doubles feats might even top what she's done in singles.  On the doubles court, Sara has 25 titles and has been in a doubles final 39 times!  This includes a 5-3 record in grand slam doubles finals with her former doubles partner Roberta Vinci!  In fact, Errani has the "grand slam" in doubles, meaning that she has won all four major titles at least once, with a victory in Melbourne occurring twice!  Errani has won at least one title in doubles every year, starting in 2008, through 2015.  So, when we judge Errani's career, it would be foolish to only look at her singles game when making judgment, as her doubles career has been more than impressive.

So, what do the critics have to go on, knowing all that Sara has accomplished.  Let's break it down.  One major critique against her is that her serve is so weak, so somehow this shows how weak the WTA Tour is that opponents can't be destroying Errani every match, given her serve.  And to that, I would respond with this: Yes, there are many club-level players who can serve harder than Errani, but doesn't that just show good Errani is defensively and on returning serve, rather than demonstrating a "weak era" or somehow a knock on Errani?

It's amazing watching Sara somehow get back neutral when an opponent whacks what seems to be a great shot on Errani's serve.  And when Errani is broken, I like to say that a break of serve in an Errani match is a like a hold against anyone else because the breaks just occur so often.  In just Sara's final three matches in Dubai, she broke her opponents' serve a total of 18 times in 7 sets!  That is an insane number of breaks.  In fact, against Madison Brengle in the Quarterfinals, she broke serve 10 times in the match!  If Errani is able to stay near the top of the WTA with her serve, it says more about the other aspects of her game than her serve itself.

Another reason why Sara is picked on by critics is because they somehow don't like her attitude, the same attitude that I see as a major reason why Errani has had so much success of her career.  Like I just said, Errani has a very poor serve, both on her first serve and her second serve.  At five-foot five-inches, it is also very hard for her to generate much power on her groundstrokes either.  So, Sara has to make up for this deficit in other ways.  One way is through her actual play, using lots of top spin, her superb defensive abilities, net play, and ability to use the entire court to her advantage.  However, these tactics would be greatly compromised if it weren't for her gritty attitude.  Sara needs to be so tough on court in order to fully engage herself to play the game that got her near the top of the women's game.

You see, other players have the  physical abilities to use their serve to get through a service game or blast a few groundstrokes when needed to get out of trouble.  Errani, however, doesn't have these luxurious and needs to play with that chip on her shoulder, that realization that the opponent might be physically talented than her, but that she is mentally tougher, in order to gut through the matches.  Because, if she played with this "all smiles", "pretty girl" attitude that it seems as if many of her detractors want to see from WTA players, there's no way she would pull out matches like in the Quarterfinals of Dubai, where she was down 4-1 and a double break in the third set.  So, to suggest that someone doesn't like Sara's on-court demeanor is ridiculous, as it is a major reason why she has been so successful over the years.

And yet another criticism of Sara is that her game is only applicable to clay, that she is a "one-surface wonder".  Now, while she is certainly not great on grass, she was golden-setted by Shvedova at Wimbledon after all in 2013 , Errani did reach the Third Round of Wimbledon in both 2010 and 2012.  For someone who can "only play on clay" that's pretty good results at a grass court event and demonstrate that, despite Errani not being at the peak of her game on grass, she can still tough out matches on her worst surface.

Now, that might not convince the detractors, but Errani's results on hard courts might.  For starters, Sara has won two WTA singles tournaments on hard court, including recently winning her only WTA Premier-level victory in Dubai.  In total, Sara has made the Final of seven singles tournaments on hard courts.  As mentioned earlier, Errani has won three doubles majors on hard courts, and ten hard court doubles tournaments in all (and has 17 doubles finals in total on hard courts).  And if that isn't enough, Errani is 3-1 in grass court doubles finals.

I have yet to even mention Errani's superb performances in majors on hard courts.  In Melbourne, Sara made the 2012 Quarterfinals and hung tough with Petra Kvitova in the Quarterfinals.  And in New York, Errani made the Semifinals of the 2012 tournament, losing to the 2012 champion, Serena Williams, in the semis.  Given all of her credentials off of hard, which I've just listed, I don't know how anyone could possibly conceive the argument that she is only good on clay courts.  Is clay her best surface?  Yes.  But, is her game only effective on clay?  Absolutely not.  Errani has proven many, many times, that she can adapt her game to hard courts and even win some on grass.

And yet, with all of this said, detractors will still take swipes at the Errani.  They moaned and groaned that Errani didn't have to play a tough opponent during her title run in Dubai, somehow "forgetting" that the reason why she didn't have to play higher ranked opponents is not because they weren't in the draw, the field was very strong, but rather, because they lost early, something totally out of Errani's control.

I think it's time everyone, whether they like her style of play or not, respect and appreciate Sara Errani for what she has accomplished during her time playing on the WTA Tour.