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.
Showing posts with label majors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label majors. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Friday, March 3, 2017
Should Maria Sharapova Receive Wildcards to Majors?
Maria Sharapova has been subject to a big debate in recent days. After receiving a wildcard to many clay court tournaments following the end of her ban on April 26th, which starts with her inclusion in the WTA tournament in Stuttgart, Germany, the question then becomes whether or not Sharapova should receive a wildcard into the remaining majors of this season, with the French Open and Wimbledon in the not-so-distant future.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, May 13, 2016
French Open Wildcard Given to Tessah Andrianjafitrimo Shows Changes Needed
Last May, around this time, I wrote an article about wildcards at majors and essentially said that eight wildcards given out is fine, just make sure that two of them are based on merit, as opposed to random local players who amount to nothing more than a First Round bye. I mean, we all saw the level of resistance wildcard, and current world number 368, Manon Arcangioli put up in her horrific 6-2, 6-0 loss to unseeded Irina Falconi in the French Open last year. However, this year I have decided to put my foot down and call for a change due to, finally, my realization of just how far tournaments will go to promote the local talent of their choosing, with politics certainly playing a role in the decision-making process.
Let me start out by saying that, upon review, a player such as Arcangioli should have never been included in the draw in the first place. I'm not sure what her ranking was at the time of her inclusion, but given that her career high ranking was 268 in March of 2015, I'm guessing it was around there, probably a bit lower. And while I understand why the French Tennis Federation might want a bunch of players from France in the main draw of their home major, I think that this desire should definitely be balanced with the possibility that the players will be able to be, at the very least, competitive in the main draw. Because, at the end of the day, a close will draw up more interest than a blowout, no matter who's involved. Arcangioli proved in the process of getting demolished by Falconi that she was nowhere near the level of a player who could win a round in qualies, let alone a round in the main draw.
However, instead of learning their lesson, the French Tennis Federation seems to be going down a similar path this year with the inclusion of Tessah Andrianjafitrimo as a wildcard in the main draw of the tournament. To be honest, seeing her name on the wildcard list was just embarrassing. Currently ranked number 313 in the world with a paltry 129 ranking points (although when the wildcards were released, I believe she was 311 in live rankings), Andrianjafitrimo has to be one of the worst recipients to a wildcard that I have ever seen.
And it's not as if her recent results are even close enough to making up for her horrible ranking. Her only noteworthy result this season was making the Final of a clay court 10k tournament. For those who do not know, a 10k is essentially the equivalent of a tennis tournament just above the "amateur" level and shouldn't even be near the thought process of someone deciding who should receive a French Open wildcard. And, besides that result, this year has been extremely poor for Tessah. She lost in the opening round of qualies for a 50k tournament in Croissy-Beaubourg and even had a poor result today, in the opening round of qualies for the International-level event in Strasbourg. Today, Tessah lost 6-4, 6-4 to world number 143 in the live rankings, Yafan Wang. While I guess you could say that at least Tessah made the sets competitive today against Wang, the fact that she couldn't win a set against someone far out of the top 100 in the first round of qualies certainly suggests, to me, that she should be far from the CONVERSATION of who should get a wildcard to one of tennis' four most prestigious events.
A few articles back, I wrote a piece backing the USTA for giving Taylor Townsend the US reciprocal wildcard over Louisa Chirico. And, I still stand by every word I wrote in that article. However, I can't help feel bad for Louisa, along with other players who have had good results this season or was successful at Roland Garros in the past. This list includes Istanbul champ Cagla Buyukakcay, and Andrea Mitu, who made the Fourth Round of the French Open last year. But, instead, these players will be playing in the qualifying tournament, while Andrianjafitrimo waltzes into the main draw. So, for those who want Chirico to get Townsend's wildcard, don't get mad at the USTA, instead, be angry with the French Tennis Federation for selfishly choosing a poor player of their own instead of these other, much more deserving, options.
But, let's say that French Tennis Federation is desperate to have all French player receive the wildcards, besides the two reciprocal wildcards. Let's take a look if there was higher ranked players who were overlooked, skipped over by Andiranjafitrimo for the wildcard. And, sure enough, currently ranked 212 (101 ahead of Tessah right now, and I believe 99 when the wildcard was announced) is Sherazad Reix. Reix actually won a WTA match this season, beating Marand in Bogota and actually taking nine games off Irina Falconi in her next match, a stark contrast to the two taken by Arcangioli. Mathilde Johansson, current world number 216, was also passed over for the wildcard. In fact, Stephanie Foretz, current world number 237 in live rankings, Chloe Paquet, number 263 (live rankings), and hell, even Julie Coin (currently in retirement, but at 306 in live rankings) are higher ranked than Tessah. And so, for me at least, it seems a bit odd that a player was chosen for a wildcard, when five other players (four of them active) from the same country are ahead of her in the rankings.
So, personally, this stinks of under-the-table poltiics. There is no excuse for Andrianjafitrimo to receive the wildcard over these other Frenchwomen, if we are really forced to have six French wildcards. I mean, I understand that Tessah is extremely young, at 17 years old, but her results have forced me to say that she isn't ready yet for this moment. It's just too early, and there are just too many other deserving players who could possibly justify getting the wildcard to just stick Andrianjafitrimo in the draw.
Tessah will have her whole career to rise in the rankings, and eventually play in the French, but ranked outside of the Top 300 and struggling in lower-level tournaments should not warrant a wildcard to one of the biggest tournaments of the season. The French Tennis Federation has made it very clear that they only gave this wildcard to her because she is 17 years old, and are praying for a "Cici Bellis 2014 US Open" result. But, how young a player is should NEVER factor into the decision to give a player a wildcard and is a horrible excuse. But, because, much like the USTA, the French Tennis Federation is intent on pushing young tennis talent in France in a vain attempt at popularizing tennis in France, at the expense of older players, this is what we get. And, in my opinion, it's just plain disrespectful to other players for the French Tennis Foundation to give it to her.
So, what suggestions do I now have for addressing this wildcard situation. Well, first off, I would (if I were the ITF) force tournament directors to reduce the number of wildcards allowed in the draw at majors from eight to two. There are just too many of these lower-ranked players in the draw, taking the spots of players who are simply much better than them at tennis. And while it might be more exciting to see a wildcard win a round at a major than a random journeyman or journeywoman, that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Second, I would (if I were the ITF) set a hard cut-off for the lowest ranking a wildcard is allowed to have. Personally, I would set this cutoff at #250 in the world at the time of handing out wildcards. This way, the tournament can be more sure that players they are giving their wildcards to actually have a shot at winning a round in the main draw and are not "walking byes". This would mean, in the context of this article, that both Arcangioli and Andrianjafitrimo would not be eligible for a wildcard. And the only exceptions to this rule would be players using a special ranking, which would not include Manon nor Tessah.
I know this article seems very harsh, but this is what needed to be said. The wildcard system at majors has gotten out of control.
Let me start out by saying that, upon review, a player such as Arcangioli should have never been included in the draw in the first place. I'm not sure what her ranking was at the time of her inclusion, but given that her career high ranking was 268 in March of 2015, I'm guessing it was around there, probably a bit lower. And while I understand why the French Tennis Federation might want a bunch of players from France in the main draw of their home major, I think that this desire should definitely be balanced with the possibility that the players will be able to be, at the very least, competitive in the main draw. Because, at the end of the day, a close will draw up more interest than a blowout, no matter who's involved. Arcangioli proved in the process of getting demolished by Falconi that she was nowhere near the level of a player who could win a round in qualies, let alone a round in the main draw.
However, instead of learning their lesson, the French Tennis Federation seems to be going down a similar path this year with the inclusion of Tessah Andrianjafitrimo as a wildcard in the main draw of the tournament. To be honest, seeing her name on the wildcard list was just embarrassing. Currently ranked number 313 in the world with a paltry 129 ranking points (although when the wildcards were released, I believe she was 311 in live rankings), Andrianjafitrimo has to be one of the worst recipients to a wildcard that I have ever seen.
And it's not as if her recent results are even close enough to making up for her horrible ranking. Her only noteworthy result this season was making the Final of a clay court 10k tournament. For those who do not know, a 10k is essentially the equivalent of a tennis tournament just above the "amateur" level and shouldn't even be near the thought process of someone deciding who should receive a French Open wildcard. And, besides that result, this year has been extremely poor for Tessah. She lost in the opening round of qualies for a 50k tournament in Croissy-Beaubourg and even had a poor result today, in the opening round of qualies for the International-level event in Strasbourg. Today, Tessah lost 6-4, 6-4 to world number 143 in the live rankings, Yafan Wang. While I guess you could say that at least Tessah made the sets competitive today against Wang, the fact that she couldn't win a set against someone far out of the top 100 in the first round of qualies certainly suggests, to me, that she should be far from the CONVERSATION of who should get a wildcard to one of tennis' four most prestigious events.
A few articles back, I wrote a piece backing the USTA for giving Taylor Townsend the US reciprocal wildcard over Louisa Chirico. And, I still stand by every word I wrote in that article. However, I can't help feel bad for Louisa, along with other players who have had good results this season or was successful at Roland Garros in the past. This list includes Istanbul champ Cagla Buyukakcay, and Andrea Mitu, who made the Fourth Round of the French Open last year. But, instead, these players will be playing in the qualifying tournament, while Andrianjafitrimo waltzes into the main draw. So, for those who want Chirico to get Townsend's wildcard, don't get mad at the USTA, instead, be angry with the French Tennis Federation for selfishly choosing a poor player of their own instead of these other, much more deserving, options.
But, let's say that French Tennis Federation is desperate to have all French player receive the wildcards, besides the two reciprocal wildcards. Let's take a look if there was higher ranked players who were overlooked, skipped over by Andiranjafitrimo for the wildcard. And, sure enough, currently ranked 212 (101 ahead of Tessah right now, and I believe 99 when the wildcard was announced) is Sherazad Reix. Reix actually won a WTA match this season, beating Marand in Bogota and actually taking nine games off Irina Falconi in her next match, a stark contrast to the two taken by Arcangioli. Mathilde Johansson, current world number 216, was also passed over for the wildcard. In fact, Stephanie Foretz, current world number 237 in live rankings, Chloe Paquet, number 263 (live rankings), and hell, even Julie Coin (currently in retirement, but at 306 in live rankings) are higher ranked than Tessah. And so, for me at least, it seems a bit odd that a player was chosen for a wildcard, when five other players (four of them active) from the same country are ahead of her in the rankings.
So, personally, this stinks of under-the-table poltiics. There is no excuse for Andrianjafitrimo to receive the wildcard over these other Frenchwomen, if we are really forced to have six French wildcards. I mean, I understand that Tessah is extremely young, at 17 years old, but her results have forced me to say that she isn't ready yet for this moment. It's just too early, and there are just too many other deserving players who could possibly justify getting the wildcard to just stick Andrianjafitrimo in the draw.
Tessah will have her whole career to rise in the rankings, and eventually play in the French, but ranked outside of the Top 300 and struggling in lower-level tournaments should not warrant a wildcard to one of the biggest tournaments of the season. The French Tennis Federation has made it very clear that they only gave this wildcard to her because she is 17 years old, and are praying for a "Cici Bellis 2014 US Open" result. But, how young a player is should NEVER factor into the decision to give a player a wildcard and is a horrible excuse. But, because, much like the USTA, the French Tennis Federation is intent on pushing young tennis talent in France in a vain attempt at popularizing tennis in France, at the expense of older players, this is what we get. And, in my opinion, it's just plain disrespectful to other players for the French Tennis Foundation to give it to her.
So, what suggestions do I now have for addressing this wildcard situation. Well, first off, I would (if I were the ITF) force tournament directors to reduce the number of wildcards allowed in the draw at majors from eight to two. There are just too many of these lower-ranked players in the draw, taking the spots of players who are simply much better than them at tennis. And while it might be more exciting to see a wildcard win a round at a major than a random journeyman or journeywoman, that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Second, I would (if I were the ITF) set a hard cut-off for the lowest ranking a wildcard is allowed to have. Personally, I would set this cutoff at #250 in the world at the time of handing out wildcards. This way, the tournament can be more sure that players they are giving their wildcards to actually have a shot at winning a round in the main draw and are not "walking byes". This would mean, in the context of this article, that both Arcangioli and Andrianjafitrimo would not be eligible for a wildcard. And the only exceptions to this rule would be players using a special ranking, which would not include Manon nor Tessah.
I know this article seems very harsh, but this is what needed to be said. The wildcard system at majors has gotten out of control.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
The Not-So-Random Stan Wawrinka
When one initially takes a look at the results of Stan Wawrinka, what one sees could puzzle him or her. There is seemingly a rash amount of inconsistencies. At some points you might ask yourself, "How can this man string together matches on the ATP Tour?". On other moments, however, you might ask yourself, "How has this man not consistently won majors during his career?" The answer to the second question is quite simple: The Big Four (consisting of Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer) is just too good. And while this is less of the case now than it has been in the past (as evident today), the fact that Stan was able to win one shows just how high his level can be.
The answer to the first question has to do with Stan's mindset. Although this is not always the case (i.e. Chennai/Rotterdam), Stan sometimes does not show up mentally for non-major tournaments. This year, for instance, Stan has lost to players such as Sergiy Stakhovsky and Federico Delbonis in ATP 250 tournaments. However, his in-and-out mindset even applies to Master 1000 Tournaments. At Indian Wells, for example, Stan lost his first match to Robin Haase and at Miami, Stan lost his second match in straight sets to Adrian Mannarino. This is not showing disrespect to Sergiy, Federico, Robin, nor Adrian, however, it is frustrating to see now that the world knows just how well Stan can play. In addition, Wawrinka has lost in his first or second match of a non-slam tournament in six of his nine ATP Tour-level events. That just seems a little bit off, especially after watching Stan at the majors.
At the four Grand Slams (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open), Stan Wawrinka is a totally different man. It's as if a light switch goes off in his head. This is best exemplified by the fact that from the 2013 French Open onwards, Stan has made the Quarterfinals or better in seven of the nine majors (including the 2015 French Open) during this time span. Of these majors he has made the Semifinals or better in four of the nine and won the 2014 Australian Open. This interesting trend has resurfaced because Wawrinka beat Roger Federer in straight sets today to make the Semifinals of the 2015 French Open where, if he continues to play as well as he played today, he will be near-impossible to beat.
So, what does this all say about Stan Wawrinka's mindset? To me, it shows that majors are his one and only priority. Whether or not Stan does well in a non-major tournament seems to almost entirely depend on how important he thinks a tournament is to do well at a subsequent major. Let's dive in deeper.
Ever wonder why Stan "randomly" shows up for Chennai, a measly ATP 250 tournament? Well, after a long offseason it is his only warm-up tournament before the Australian Open. Therefore, if Stan wants to have good form going into the first major of the season, it is imperative that he do well at Chennai. Unsurprisingly, Wawrinka has won the tournament two years in a row. It's also unsurprising that Wawrinka, "randomly" took out the 2014 US Open champion Marin Cilic in a Quarterfinals run in Cincinnati in his final warm-up tournament before the 2014 US Open. After losing the first set to Cilic, he lost one game in the final two sets combined, a very impressive feat considering how Cilic performed at the US Open.
Wawrinka made at least the Quarterfinals of two majors in one year for the first time in 2013, where it seems as if he started taking his job much more seriously. While Stan had won a couple of titles on clay at this point (nothing on grass), at the majors, hard court had certainly been Wawrinka's best surface. Stan had made the Quarterfinals of the US Open in 2010 and the Australian Open in 2011, but hadn't made the Quarterfinals of either the French Open or Wimbledon. But, when Wawrinka started taking his career more seriously in 2013, his attitude towards grass and clay warmup tournaments changed as well.
In 2013, on clay, Wawrinka made the Quarterfinals of Monte Carlo, the Semifinals of Casablanca, the Finals of Buenos Aires (although not a warm-up tournament) and Madrid, and was the champion of Estoril. And, subsequently, how did Wawrinka do at the 2013 French Open? He made his first ever French Quarterfinals. And while he bonked out early of the 2014 French Open, he showed that he took warm-up tournaments on clay seriously, winning Monte Carlo. This year, Wawrinka made the Semifinals in Rome, beating Rafael Nadal on the way. His efforts were rewarded this season, as he has a really good shot to win the French Open this year for his second major.
On grass, Wawrinka's desire to win Wimbledon, through the help of warm-up tournaments, has been rewarded as well. In 2013, in line with Stan's new attitude, Wawrinka made the Final of 's-Hertogenbosch, not losing a set until the Final. And while this did not pay off immediately, following a run to the Semifinals of Queen's Club, he finally made the Quarterfinals of Wimbledon, losing only one set in his first four matches and even taking a set off of Roger Federer in his quarterfinal. Stan's hard work on the grass paid off.
Now, I'm not saying that there are no exceptions to Wawrinka's norm form of play. For instance, Stan obviously decided to take the 2014 Year End Championship (where he made the Semifinals) and 2015 Rotterdam (where he won it) seriously. However, that might be just to the streaky nature of the Wawrinka game itself than his mindset. And it's not like he does well at every warm-up tournament either, as he clunked out in his match in Madrid last year and his second match in Madrid this year, for example. But, perhaps that's because he doesn't see the Madrid elevation, for instance, as a great warmup for clay now that he has established himself on the surface (which wasn't the case in 2013). Perhaps that's why he's only has had runs in the much-lower elevations of Monte Carlo and Rome in the past couple of years.
But, in any case, Stan Wawrinka on the whole has shown that, in 2013, he completely changed his mindset. He started taking the majors much more seriously and really seeing the value of warm-up tournaments. The next step for Wawrinka will be to take an even greater number of tournaments seriously as his career goes on.
So, while many may call Stan "unpredictable", in my mind, he's really not so random.
The answer to the first question has to do with Stan's mindset. Although this is not always the case (i.e. Chennai/Rotterdam), Stan sometimes does not show up mentally for non-major tournaments. This year, for instance, Stan has lost to players such as Sergiy Stakhovsky and Federico Delbonis in ATP 250 tournaments. However, his in-and-out mindset even applies to Master 1000 Tournaments. At Indian Wells, for example, Stan lost his first match to Robin Haase and at Miami, Stan lost his second match in straight sets to Adrian Mannarino. This is not showing disrespect to Sergiy, Federico, Robin, nor Adrian, however, it is frustrating to see now that the world knows just how well Stan can play. In addition, Wawrinka has lost in his first or second match of a non-slam tournament in six of his nine ATP Tour-level events. That just seems a little bit off, especially after watching Stan at the majors.
At the four Grand Slams (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open), Stan Wawrinka is a totally different man. It's as if a light switch goes off in his head. This is best exemplified by the fact that from the 2013 French Open onwards, Stan has made the Quarterfinals or better in seven of the nine majors (including the 2015 French Open) during this time span. Of these majors he has made the Semifinals or better in four of the nine and won the 2014 Australian Open. This interesting trend has resurfaced because Wawrinka beat Roger Federer in straight sets today to make the Semifinals of the 2015 French Open where, if he continues to play as well as he played today, he will be near-impossible to beat.
So, what does this all say about Stan Wawrinka's mindset? To me, it shows that majors are his one and only priority. Whether or not Stan does well in a non-major tournament seems to almost entirely depend on how important he thinks a tournament is to do well at a subsequent major. Let's dive in deeper.
Ever wonder why Stan "randomly" shows up for Chennai, a measly ATP 250 tournament? Well, after a long offseason it is his only warm-up tournament before the Australian Open. Therefore, if Stan wants to have good form going into the first major of the season, it is imperative that he do well at Chennai. Unsurprisingly, Wawrinka has won the tournament two years in a row. It's also unsurprising that Wawrinka, "randomly" took out the 2014 US Open champion Marin Cilic in a Quarterfinals run in Cincinnati in his final warm-up tournament before the 2014 US Open. After losing the first set to Cilic, he lost one game in the final two sets combined, a very impressive feat considering how Cilic performed at the US Open.
Wawrinka made at least the Quarterfinals of two majors in one year for the first time in 2013, where it seems as if he started taking his job much more seriously. While Stan had won a couple of titles on clay at this point (nothing on grass), at the majors, hard court had certainly been Wawrinka's best surface. Stan had made the Quarterfinals of the US Open in 2010 and the Australian Open in 2011, but hadn't made the Quarterfinals of either the French Open or Wimbledon. But, when Wawrinka started taking his career more seriously in 2013, his attitude towards grass and clay warmup tournaments changed as well.
In 2013, on clay, Wawrinka made the Quarterfinals of Monte Carlo, the Semifinals of Casablanca, the Finals of Buenos Aires (although not a warm-up tournament) and Madrid, and was the champion of Estoril. And, subsequently, how did Wawrinka do at the 2013 French Open? He made his first ever French Quarterfinals. And while he bonked out early of the 2014 French Open, he showed that he took warm-up tournaments on clay seriously, winning Monte Carlo. This year, Wawrinka made the Semifinals in Rome, beating Rafael Nadal on the way. His efforts were rewarded this season, as he has a really good shot to win the French Open this year for his second major.
On grass, Wawrinka's desire to win Wimbledon, through the help of warm-up tournaments, has been rewarded as well. In 2013, in line with Stan's new attitude, Wawrinka made the Final of 's-Hertogenbosch, not losing a set until the Final. And while this did not pay off immediately, following a run to the Semifinals of Queen's Club, he finally made the Quarterfinals of Wimbledon, losing only one set in his first four matches and even taking a set off of Roger Federer in his quarterfinal. Stan's hard work on the grass paid off.
Now, I'm not saying that there are no exceptions to Wawrinka's norm form of play. For instance, Stan obviously decided to take the 2014 Year End Championship (where he made the Semifinals) and 2015 Rotterdam (where he won it) seriously. However, that might be just to the streaky nature of the Wawrinka game itself than his mindset. And it's not like he does well at every warm-up tournament either, as he clunked out in his match in Madrid last year and his second match in Madrid this year, for example. But, perhaps that's because he doesn't see the Madrid elevation, for instance, as a great warmup for clay now that he has established himself on the surface (which wasn't the case in 2013). Perhaps that's why he's only has had runs in the much-lower elevations of Monte Carlo and Rome in the past couple of years.
But, in any case, Stan Wawrinka on the whole has shown that, in 2013, he completely changed his mindset. He started taking the majors much more seriously and really seeing the value of warm-up tournaments. The next step for Wawrinka will be to take an even greater number of tournaments seriously as his career goes on.
So, while many may call Stan "unpredictable", in my mind, he's really not so random.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Age Should Not be a Question for Roger Federer
After Roger Federer lost the Gold Medal Match in embarrassing fashion to Andy Murray 6-2, 6-1, 6-4, the inevitable happened. It seemed like every so-called "expert" questioned whether or not Roger Federer was fading into oblivion. I am here to stop this from happening, he does not deserve to be treated like this.
The world knew that Roger Federer was going to be special from the second he stepped on the court. He won his first major championship in 2003 at the sacred ground of the All England Club at the age of 21. He has won, with the exception of a singles gold, almost every tournament one can ask to win. He won four major championships by the end 2004! This guy deserves more than these retirement questions.
By the time the French Open rolled around in 2010, Roger Federer had won 16 major championships, at this rate, Roger Federer seemed invincible. 25 majors was seemingly within reach! With the way the media portrayed Federer, he could be 50 years old and still winning majors. So the decline in his game was even more shocking.
From after the Australian Open 2010 to before he won 2012 Wimbledon, Federer failed to win one major. He went from this heralded superstar, to an old man. Many thought that this "shocking" decline meant Federer was "too old" to win a major again. Why do we doubt Federer's age?
At 2012 Wimbledon, Federer saw it all. He went from the Second Round beating Fabio Fognini with three straight 6-1s to being down 2 sets to love to Julien Benneteau, but winning anways. It doesn't matter if Federer is 20 or 30, no situation is too great for Roger Federer.
During the Final, down a set, no worries, he won three straight sets to win the major championship. Did we hear any questions about Federer's age then? No, it was almost like he became the favorite for every major for the next couple of years with the praise he was receiving. But, as we later found out, those questions were lurking.
Even though he won the silver medal at the London Olympics, experts and fans alike were upset with the way he played during the finals against Andy Murray. What do you think started again? Yes, the age questions. Even though a few weeks earlier he had beaten the same person to win Wimbledon, he was all of the sudden "old" again. Nobody "old" wins seven straight best-of-five matches, including against two of the top four players in the world.
The old questions have now resurfaced after Roger Federer's loss to Andy Murray in the Olympic tennis finals, but as we have learned, age should not be a question for him.
The world knew that Roger Federer was going to be special from the second he stepped on the court. He won his first major championship in 2003 at the sacred ground of the All England Club at the age of 21. He has won, with the exception of a singles gold, almost every tournament one can ask to win. He won four major championships by the end 2004! This guy deserves more than these retirement questions.
By the time the French Open rolled around in 2010, Roger Federer had won 16 major championships, at this rate, Roger Federer seemed invincible. 25 majors was seemingly within reach! With the way the media portrayed Federer, he could be 50 years old and still winning majors. So the decline in his game was even more shocking.
From after the Australian Open 2010 to before he won 2012 Wimbledon, Federer failed to win one major. He went from this heralded superstar, to an old man. Many thought that this "shocking" decline meant Federer was "too old" to win a major again. Why do we doubt Federer's age?
At 2012 Wimbledon, Federer saw it all. He went from the Second Round beating Fabio Fognini with three straight 6-1s to being down 2 sets to love to Julien Benneteau, but winning anways. It doesn't matter if Federer is 20 or 30, no situation is too great for Roger Federer.
During the Final, down a set, no worries, he won three straight sets to win the major championship. Did we hear any questions about Federer's age then? No, it was almost like he became the favorite for every major for the next couple of years with the praise he was receiving. But, as we later found out, those questions were lurking.
Even though he won the silver medal at the London Olympics, experts and fans alike were upset with the way he played during the finals against Andy Murray. What do you think started again? Yes, the age questions. Even though a few weeks earlier he had beaten the same person to win Wimbledon, he was all of the sudden "old" again. Nobody "old" wins seven straight best-of-five matches, including against two of the top four players in the world.
The old questions have now resurfaced after Roger Federer's loss to Andy Murray in the Olympic tennis finals, but as we have learned, age should not be a question for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)