We all remember the US Open last year for many reasons. Serena Williams finally tied Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova with 18 majors, Kei Nishikori stunned Novak Djokovic in the Semifinals, and Marin Cilic won the first major of his career. However, we also remember the 2014 US Open for Cici Bellis. Cici was the 15 year old (at the time) girl who defeated 2014 Australian Open Finalist Dominka Cibulkova in her first major on the WTA Tour. And while Bellis lost in three sets to Zarina Diyas in her Second Round match, it was a great start to Bellis' career.
To understand why Bellis hindered her development at the French Open, we must first look to last year. In 2014, Bellis played 11 tournaments on the ITF Junior Circuit. Being only 14/15 during that year, it was certainly understandable that Bellis did not play on the main circuit. Of these 11 tournaments, Bellis played the Juniors in three of the four, excluding the Australian Open, (more on this later) and even the prestigious Metropolia Orange Bowl International Championship. And Bellis, for the most part, succeeded on this junior circuit last season. Not only did Bellis make the Round of 16 in the Junior French Open and the Semifinals of the Orange Bowl, but she also made the Final of a tournament and won four other junior circuit tournaments.
So, the fact that Bellis not only grabbed the chance to play in the main draw of the US Open, but also won a match is not a total shock given her recent form on the junior circuit. It was almost as if the US Open were merely icing on the cake. Bellis would play a couple more tournaments on the junior circuit, but the Orange Bowl would be the last junior tournament she would play for a very long time. By the looks of it, Bellis was moving up the ladder of women's tennis.
Bellis' next non-Junior tournament following the US Open was not nearly as glamorous. Playing at Captiva Island, a $50,000 dollar , hard court tournament at the very end of the 2014 season, Bellis lost in straight sets to Tatjana Maria. And while Maria is a decent player, she beat (a struggling) Bouchard this year, she was definitely an opponent that Bellis could defeat. After her what seemed to be her last Junior tournaments she would ever play at the end of 2014, Bellis next played at the beginning of 2015, in a $25,000 dollar, clay court tournament in Daytona Beach. Playing in her first match at the tournament Bellis got only six games in another straight set loss to Arantxa Rus. This was an opponent that Bellis definitely should have beaten, so the fact that she went down so meekly was indicative that perhaps Cici wasn't ready for the rigors of the professional tour.
However, Bellis definitively proved the doubters wrong. In her next tournament, she qualified for a $25,000 dollar event in Sunrise, and this time, she beat Maria in her first match. She even won the last set of the match 6-0. And while she lost her next match. to win four matches in a non-Juniors tournament was very impressive. A few weeks later, in one of Bellis' biggest successes to date, Cici won a $25,000 dollar hard court tournament in Rancho Santa Fe, only dropping one set in the entire tournament and losing a total of two games in the Final. Bellis proved that she could contend, even if it was merely a $25,000 dollar tournament.
But perhaps Bellis' biggest triumph since the US Open was her run to the Round of 32 in Miami, a WTA Premier Mandatory event. Bellis only lost seven games combined in her two wins in South Florida. This included a 6-2, 6-1 win over Zarina Diyas, a fantastic win given the fact that Diyas is currently the 32nd ranked player in the world. And while Bellis got destroyed by Serena Williams in the Round of 32, it was a great learning experience for Cici.
So, you might be wondering, what does this all have to do with Bellis' development at the French Open? Well, there are two things that my readers need to learn from all of this about Cici Bellis. First is what I mentioned at the beginning of the post, that Bellis has had a ton of success on the ITF Junior Circuit and had not played a Junior match since 2014. This certainly suggests to that Bellis has outgrown the junior circuit. Second is that, not only has Bellis outgrown the junior circuit, but she is holding her own, if not thriving on the professional circuit. She won a match at the US Open, won a couple matches in Miami, and even won a small tournament in Rancho Santa Fe. Playing a Juniors tournament seemed to be a thing of the past for Cici.
However, as we learned at the French Open this year, that was not the case. Bellis signed up for, and played qualifying for the professional French Open qualifying draw for the chance to get into the main draw of the tournament. But, qualifying ended up being a full-blown disaster for the young American. Bellis played Paraguayan Veronica Cepede Royg in the First Round of Roland Garros qualifying. Bellis lost the match 6-4, 6-0 in an extremely disappointing result for her. It wasn't extremely disappointing in the sense that she lost the match, it was more the way she lost it. The way Bellis couldn't hang with Cepede Royg must have deeply disappointed Cici.
But, this type of loss didn't necessarily hinder Cici Bellis' development. Sometimes, you have to go through losing in order to experience the winning that follows. Sometimes it takes a poor loss to really motivate a player to practice harder and develop a winning attitude. It's quite possible that Bellis' development could have been advanced due to the outcome of her match with Cepede Royg rather than hindered. This was not the case, however, because Bellis decided to take the "easy way out". She did this by playing in the Junior French Open.
Cici Bellis made the decision to attempt to play in the women's French Open main draw when she entered the qualifying draw. But, really, there wasn't even a decision to make. She had previously played six professional tournaments where she even attempted to qualify and/or was in the main draw since her last Juniors tournament and had not played a Juniors tournament this entire season. It was quite obvious that Bellis was focusing on the main tour and that playing other women attempting to make it on the tour was best for her development. But, yet, Cici shot herself in the foot.
It was later learned that Cici Bellis had signed up for the Junior French Open tournament. Now, I'm not trying to claim that Bellis didn't win matches at the Junior Roland Garros, because she certainly had a good tournament. Cici made the Semifinals, only losing one set in her first four matches. But, I propose the question, What good did this really do for Bellis? Despite the fact that she could have gained confidence from the Junior wins, for one, a lot of the players she played in the Junior French Open and others that she could have played, depending on the draw, are of a lower caliber than Bellis would be (and should be) playing in order to sufficiently improve Cici's game. But, it's more than that.
Playing at the Junior Roland Garros teaches Cici Bellis that when you lose, you can get a second chance to try to make everything right in your world. The world of professional tennis is cutthroat. Cici has hundreds upon hundreds of women, young and old, fighting just like her for a spot on the WTA Tour main circuit, and these women don't normally get a second chance in a $25,000 dollar or $50,000 dollar tournament in some random corner of the world. And while a counter argument may be, "Well, what about lucky losers?" (and trust me, I don't like those either), my response would be that while those are given out randomly (hence the "lucky" in lucky loser), Bellis made the conscientious decision that she deserved a second chance from her failure in the qualifying draw. She made the decision that she was entitled to a second chance.
Now, another doubt that may enter your mind is, "Why aren't you getting on her after playing Juniors after two matches in the main draw of the US Open?". And my answer is simple, her mindset was most likely much different at the time. Before those main draw matches at the US Open, Bellis had never played a match at the professional level in her life. When Bellis got the wildcard to the US Open, she most likely intended on playing a match to see what the professional tour is like for a match before returning to the junior circuit. And while that mindset may have a changed a bit once she beat Cibulkova, one must give her the benefit of doubt that with such little time to soak in the win over Dominka, her mindset did not drastically change in such a short period of time. So, for the US Open, I give Bellis a pass for playing in the Juniors.
But, I do not give Cici a pass for playing in the Junior French Open. In fact, Cici Bellis hindered her own development as a tennis player at the French Open as a result her decision.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Thursday, June 4, 2015
The Power of Twitter in Relation to Tennis
As someone who has on twitter for over three years now, I know twitter very well and love it dearly. I love sending out irrational, angry tweets to my 100+ followers who could probably care less what I have to say. But, as some random, unimportant dude who's tweets really mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I've made tweets that, if I had any sort of stature in society, would get me ridiculed with sponsors pulling any support of me they previously had.
But, the good news? I don't have to worry about that because, as I said before, I am essentially Joe Schmo. However, for players on the WTA and ATP Tours, one is constantly in the spotlight. As a professional tennis player, whatever you say will be twisted, convoluted, and you will be blasted for something that you totally did not mean to say. But, in the case of some players on tour, no twisting is needed and what players say on twitter is quite powerful.
Perhaps the biggest example of someone who probably needs to censor themselves more on Twitter is Ivo Karlovic. We all surely remember Ivo Karlovic's passive-aggressive tweet following Serena William's 19th Grand Slam victory in Melbourne. When Serena closed out Maria Sharapova in straight sets to win the tournament, in showing her excitement, Williams started jumping up and down and hopped over to her Player's Box. Karlovic, upon seeing Serena's celebration, sent out a nasty tweet that said "Earthquake in Melbourne #jumping". The implication here certainly seems to be that Serena is overweight and her jumping is causing the ground to shake.
So, what were the implications of such a tweet? Well, of the direct responses to the tweet, some of them thought it was funny (but did not necessarily agree with what Ivo had to say) while many others ripped into Ivo and thought it was anything but amusing. In addition, tennis website tennis.com considered it a lowpoint and the tweet generated A LOT of discussion on the popular women's tennis forum tennisforum.com, in which, based on the first couple of pages that I read for writing this post, were not favorable. In any case, it was very inappropriate of Karlovic to (whether intentional or not) deflect the spotlight from Serena and onto himself.
This was not the only case of Karlovic making a spectacle of himself with jabs on twitter. Just last Sunday, Ivo lashed out in a tweet against Roger Federer, saying, "Roger said its dark so it's dark". What Karlovic completely ignored is the fact that it was cloudy out, and therefore would get darker earlier than usual, and also that Monfils could have probably used the rest, given that the world later learned he was sick for that match with Roger. So, while Karlovic had been trying to take a swipe at Federer, he ended up looking pretty stupid himself. Karlovic also has had many more cases in which he has written rude tweets, so he certainly has a track record with abusing his twitter account for the sake of putting down others.
So, why am I bringing up athletes and twitter today? This is because, today, I read a very rude and disrespectful tweet from Tara Moore, who is also on the WTA Tour (but is lightyears behind Serena in terms of quality of play, and I now know, in terms of quality of individual). It was learned before the match that Serena was very sick for her Semifinals match against Timea Bacsinszky at the French Open. Serena was very down on court, and was clearly suffering even more so than during the Australian Open this year. However, Moore was not convinced about Serena's performance and sent out a tweet in which she said, "Not only is serena one of the best women players of all time, she's also one of the best actresses #suckitup #learnhowtolose #pathetic". In my opinion, the hashtags at the end of the tweet are where Moore really crossed over the line and made a rude tweet into a disrespectful one.
So, how did this tweet go over for Moore? Well, almost every reply was negatively directed towards Tara, with Moore later even tweeting that death threats were coming her way. Moore tweet also got coverage at theguardian because of her tweet, which also reported that even injured tennis player Laura Robson sent out a tweet dismissing Moore's "#pathetic". All of this controversy over the 395th ranked women's player in the world in the live rankings! This should really not be happening and the amount of attention payed to Moore is certainly not proportional to the amount of attention she has received (almost entirely negative) due to this tweet.
So, a player like Moore should be desperately working to make her way up the rankings in order to really try to make it on the tour. Instead of sending out a nasty tweet about, arguably, the best women's tennis player of all time, she should be making sure the spotlight is off of her, so that she has no distractions on her quest to be the best that she can be. And the same can be said for Karlovic, as well. Since winning Delray Beach in February, Ivo has won a total of three matches. In the entire clay court season, he won a total of one match. And, when he sent out the tweet regarding Serena and an earthquake, he had made a Second Round exit in the Australian Open. Again, like Moore, instead of drawing attention to himself, Karlovic should be wanting to deflect all of the attention off oh himself and really focus in on his tennis.
I must say, though, I give a little more leeway to Moore regarding this issue (as of now) than I do to Karlovic. This is because Karlovic (as previously mentioned) definitely has a long history with sending out rude and hurtful tweets, where, as far as I can tell, Moore seems to be a "first time offender". And while she is an adult, and thus is totally responsible for whatever decisions she makes, perhaps she didn't quite realize just how bad her tweet had and the subsequent impact it would have, while Karlovic seems to tweet nasty things all of the time without batting an eyebrow. However, both Karlovic and Moore should feel ashamed about how they have presented themselves on their twitter account.
In any case, the main lesson here is that, for professional tennis players, twitter is very powerful. For players those who tweet with class and grace it can be a great way to connect with their fans. But, for those who do not conduct themselves in that manner on twitter, perhaps it's time to shut the account down. Maybe Ivo Karlovic and Tara Moore's twitter accounts need to be deactivated.
But, the good news? I don't have to worry about that because, as I said before, I am essentially Joe Schmo. However, for players on the WTA and ATP Tours, one is constantly in the spotlight. As a professional tennis player, whatever you say will be twisted, convoluted, and you will be blasted for something that you totally did not mean to say. But, in the case of some players on tour, no twisting is needed and what players say on twitter is quite powerful.
Perhaps the biggest example of someone who probably needs to censor themselves more on Twitter is Ivo Karlovic. We all surely remember Ivo Karlovic's passive-aggressive tweet following Serena William's 19th Grand Slam victory in Melbourne. When Serena closed out Maria Sharapova in straight sets to win the tournament, in showing her excitement, Williams started jumping up and down and hopped over to her Player's Box. Karlovic, upon seeing Serena's celebration, sent out a nasty tweet that said "Earthquake in Melbourne #jumping". The implication here certainly seems to be that Serena is overweight and her jumping is causing the ground to shake.
So, what were the implications of such a tweet? Well, of the direct responses to the tweet, some of them thought it was funny (but did not necessarily agree with what Ivo had to say) while many others ripped into Ivo and thought it was anything but amusing. In addition, tennis website tennis.com considered it a lowpoint and the tweet generated A LOT of discussion on the popular women's tennis forum tennisforum.com, in which, based on the first couple of pages that I read for writing this post, were not favorable. In any case, it was very inappropriate of Karlovic to (whether intentional or not) deflect the spotlight from Serena and onto himself.
This was not the only case of Karlovic making a spectacle of himself with jabs on twitter. Just last Sunday, Ivo lashed out in a tweet against Roger Federer, saying, "Roger said its dark so it's dark". What Karlovic completely ignored is the fact that it was cloudy out, and therefore would get darker earlier than usual, and also that Monfils could have probably used the rest, given that the world later learned he was sick for that match with Roger. So, while Karlovic had been trying to take a swipe at Federer, he ended up looking pretty stupid himself. Karlovic also has had many more cases in which he has written rude tweets, so he certainly has a track record with abusing his twitter account for the sake of putting down others.
So, why am I bringing up athletes and twitter today? This is because, today, I read a very rude and disrespectful tweet from Tara Moore, who is also on the WTA Tour (but is lightyears behind Serena in terms of quality of play, and I now know, in terms of quality of individual). It was learned before the match that Serena was very sick for her Semifinals match against Timea Bacsinszky at the French Open. Serena was very down on court, and was clearly suffering even more so than during the Australian Open this year. However, Moore was not convinced about Serena's performance and sent out a tweet in which she said, "Not only is serena one of the best women players of all time, she's also one of the best actresses #suckitup #learnhowtolose #pathetic". In my opinion, the hashtags at the end of the tweet are where Moore really crossed over the line and made a rude tweet into a disrespectful one.
So, how did this tweet go over for Moore? Well, almost every reply was negatively directed towards Tara, with Moore later even tweeting that death threats were coming her way. Moore tweet also got coverage at theguardian because of her tweet, which also reported that even injured tennis player Laura Robson sent out a tweet dismissing Moore's "#pathetic". All of this controversy over the 395th ranked women's player in the world in the live rankings! This should really not be happening and the amount of attention payed to Moore is certainly not proportional to the amount of attention she has received (almost entirely negative) due to this tweet.
So, a player like Moore should be desperately working to make her way up the rankings in order to really try to make it on the tour. Instead of sending out a nasty tweet about, arguably, the best women's tennis player of all time, she should be making sure the spotlight is off of her, so that she has no distractions on her quest to be the best that she can be. And the same can be said for Karlovic, as well. Since winning Delray Beach in February, Ivo has won a total of three matches. In the entire clay court season, he won a total of one match. And, when he sent out the tweet regarding Serena and an earthquake, he had made a Second Round exit in the Australian Open. Again, like Moore, instead of drawing attention to himself, Karlovic should be wanting to deflect all of the attention off oh himself and really focus in on his tennis.
I must say, though, I give a little more leeway to Moore regarding this issue (as of now) than I do to Karlovic. This is because Karlovic (as previously mentioned) definitely has a long history with sending out rude and hurtful tweets, where, as far as I can tell, Moore seems to be a "first time offender". And while she is an adult, and thus is totally responsible for whatever decisions she makes, perhaps she didn't quite realize just how bad her tweet had and the subsequent impact it would have, while Karlovic seems to tweet nasty things all of the time without batting an eyebrow. However, both Karlovic and Moore should feel ashamed about how they have presented themselves on their twitter account.
In any case, the main lesson here is that, for professional tennis players, twitter is very powerful. For players those who tweet with class and grace it can be a great way to connect with their fans. But, for those who do not conduct themselves in that manner on twitter, perhaps it's time to shut the account down. Maybe Ivo Karlovic and Tara Moore's twitter accounts need to be deactivated.
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.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Elina Svitolina: A Presence On The WTA Tour Who's Here To Stay
2015 was a huge year for 20 year-old Elina Svitolina. How would she respond to a huge 2014? Her 2014 year included a title in Baku, a Round of 16 in Miami, a Quarterfinals appearance in Cincinnati, and she also made the Semifinals in Nuremberg, Wuhan, and Osaka. Svitolina could either sink with the pressure of a significant ranking points or swim and thrive on the WTA Tour. I think it's safe to say that Svitolina is swimming at the moment.
2015 got off to a spectacular spot for Svitolina as she made the Semifinals of Brisbane. I knew Elina was in for a special year when I watched her match against Angelique Kerber in the Quarterfinals. Elina was calm, cool, and collected, and was certainly not intimidated by the moment. She repelled almost anything Kerber through at her, and held her nerve to win in a tight three-setter. And although her run came to an end in the next round against Maria Sharapova, Svitolina showed that she was not going to slip into mediocrity in the new year.
While a Third Round appearance at the Australian Open a few weeks later could be seen as an average tournament for Svitolina, it was the way she played those three matches that impressed me most. In the first two rounds of the tournament, Svitolina acted as a seasoned veteran, beating both of her lower-ranked opponents in straight sets to play tournament-champion Serena Williams in the Third Round. Svitolina ended up being one of only two players to take a set off of Williams in that tournament, taking the first set 6-4. And while Elina would only win two games for the rest of the match, the fact that she could win a set against Serena showed her potential.
Svitolina's next good run of play occurred from Indian Wells till Marrakech. In Indian Wells, Elina made the Round of 16. However, it was her straight-set win over an in-form Lucie Safarova (won Doha a couple weeks before) that, once again, showed the world that Elina would be a tough out for whoever played her. The following month in Bogota, Svitolina made the Semifinals, showing once again that she can consistently win on the WTA Tour. Then, a couple weeks later, she won another title, this time in Marrakech, a clay court event. In the five matches she played in that tournament, Elina only lost one set and cruised to the title. Svitolina beat Timea Babos in the Final in straight sets to once again prove she wasn't a rising force for the rest of the WTA, she was a force that had arrived.
Svitolina's latest triumph has occurred at the French Open. She is currently in the Quarterfinals and is playing unbelievable tennis. The most impressive part of Elina's run is her maturity (and the composure that stems from that maturity). In two of Svitolina's first four matches, she has been pushed deep into a third set. But, each time, she came through. In the Second Round, Svitolina beat Yulia Putintseva 9-7 in the third set, while in the Third Round, Elina beat Annika Beck 6-4 in the third set. Even in the Round of 16, with Svitolina losing serve when serving for the match twice and wasting three match point in the tiebreak, when Cornet had a set point, Svitolina refused to let that set slip away. And when she let two more match points get away from her, Elina dug in and finally closed the match on her sixth match point. Svitolina had made her first Grand Slam Quarterfinals appearance ever against Ana Ivanovic.
However, it surely seems like it won't be her last Grand Slam Quarterfinals appearance ever. Elina Svitolina has definitely proved that she is here to stay. Who knows? A week from today, she could be a Grand Slam champion.
2015 got off to a spectacular spot for Svitolina as she made the Semifinals of Brisbane. I knew Elina was in for a special year when I watched her match against Angelique Kerber in the Quarterfinals. Elina was calm, cool, and collected, and was certainly not intimidated by the moment. She repelled almost anything Kerber through at her, and held her nerve to win in a tight three-setter. And although her run came to an end in the next round against Maria Sharapova, Svitolina showed that she was not going to slip into mediocrity in the new year.
While a Third Round appearance at the Australian Open a few weeks later could be seen as an average tournament for Svitolina, it was the way she played those three matches that impressed me most. In the first two rounds of the tournament, Svitolina acted as a seasoned veteran, beating both of her lower-ranked opponents in straight sets to play tournament-champion Serena Williams in the Third Round. Svitolina ended up being one of only two players to take a set off of Williams in that tournament, taking the first set 6-4. And while Elina would only win two games for the rest of the match, the fact that she could win a set against Serena showed her potential.
Svitolina's next good run of play occurred from Indian Wells till Marrakech. In Indian Wells, Elina made the Round of 16. However, it was her straight-set win over an in-form Lucie Safarova (won Doha a couple weeks before) that, once again, showed the world that Elina would be a tough out for whoever played her. The following month in Bogota, Svitolina made the Semifinals, showing once again that she can consistently win on the WTA Tour. Then, a couple weeks later, she won another title, this time in Marrakech, a clay court event. In the five matches she played in that tournament, Elina only lost one set and cruised to the title. Svitolina beat Timea Babos in the Final in straight sets to once again prove she wasn't a rising force for the rest of the WTA, she was a force that had arrived.
Svitolina's latest triumph has occurred at the French Open. She is currently in the Quarterfinals and is playing unbelievable tennis. The most impressive part of Elina's run is her maturity (and the composure that stems from that maturity). In two of Svitolina's first four matches, she has been pushed deep into a third set. But, each time, she came through. In the Second Round, Svitolina beat Yulia Putintseva 9-7 in the third set, while in the Third Round, Elina beat Annika Beck 6-4 in the third set. Even in the Round of 16, with Svitolina losing serve when serving for the match twice and wasting three match point in the tiebreak, when Cornet had a set point, Svitolina refused to let that set slip away. And when she let two more match points get away from her, Elina dug in and finally closed the match on her sixth match point. Svitolina had made her first Grand Slam Quarterfinals appearance ever against Ana Ivanovic.
However, it surely seems like it won't be her last Grand Slam Quarterfinals appearance ever. Elina Svitolina has definitely proved that she is here to stay. Who knows? A week from today, she could be a Grand Slam champion.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
What Has Happened To Madison Keys?
When a player is ready to be great, the breakthrough becomes the norm. When a player is ready to be great, the results meet the expectations When a player is ready to be great, surprise turns into a steady focus. Madison Keys is not quite ready to be great yet.
Madison looked spectacular in Australian Open run in January. She made the Semifinals, beating great players such Petra Kvitova (in straight sets) and Venus Williams along the way. In fact, Keys only lost two sets en-route to the Semifinals and was within a two point swing of taking the first set from Serena Williams in an extremely tight first set. I remember sitting on my couch watching Madison rocket aces past Serena and thinking to myself, "This girl is unbelievable". Even though she lost that semifinal match against Serena, the world now knew Madison Keys' name, the breakthrough was complete.
However, the next step of the process is turning the breakthrough into the norm, which entails dealing the new pressures to succeed, dealing with the increased media presence (and outside distractions) surrounding you, and trying to stay humble. Obviously, this step is extremely hard to take,and it seems like Madison is having a very hard time taking this next step.
Following her great run in Melbourne, Keys went on to lose in her second match to a struggling (at the time) Jelena Jankovic at Indian Wells, and in her first match to Sloane Stephens in Miami to go a measly 1-2 in the spring American hard court swing. Gone was the jubilation of the run in Melbourne, replaced instead by the realization that the WTA tour (and the ATP tour for that matter) moves on with or without you.
Perhaps this was a wake-up call for Madison, because she performed quite well on the green clay in Charleston. I suspect, however, that this was more due to weak competition than anything else, as the strongest player Madison faced was Lauren Davis before the Final. However, I'm sure that these easier matches boosted Keys' confidence and allowed her to forget about her failures in Indian Wells and Miami. In the Final, though, Madison was leading 4-1 in the third set before collapsing and losing the third set 7-5, thus giving Angelique Kerber the tournament win. It took a lot of mental strength to make the semis in Melbourne (especially her tough win over Venus in the Quarterfinals), but it seems as if that mental strength did not transfer over to Charleston.
And Madison has not seemed to recover from that Charleston loss, losing in her first match in Madrid, in straight sets to Kaia Kanepi, and losing in her second match at Rome to Bojana Jovanovski, for another 1-2 record at big tournaments on the European clay court swing. At the small event in Strasbourg (currently going on this week), Keys won her first two matches, including a TOUGH match over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni, before withdrawing with an injury, unable to gain any real momentum heading towards the French Open.
So, what do I think has happened to Madison Keys? I think she is overwhelmed right now. Overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed within the game and the new pressures around her outside of the game. Her confidence from the Australian Open also seems to be gone too, so Lindsey Davenport will really have to work with Madison regarding her confidence too. Lindsey will also have to try to get Madison to focus in on tennis itself, and not worry about what's going outside of the game.
At the end of the day, I still see a great future for Madison. It just might not come as soon as many predicted.
Madison looked spectacular in Australian Open run in January. She made the Semifinals, beating great players such Petra Kvitova (in straight sets) and Venus Williams along the way. In fact, Keys only lost two sets en-route to the Semifinals and was within a two point swing of taking the first set from Serena Williams in an extremely tight first set. I remember sitting on my couch watching Madison rocket aces past Serena and thinking to myself, "This girl is unbelievable". Even though she lost that semifinal match against Serena, the world now knew Madison Keys' name, the breakthrough was complete.
However, the next step of the process is turning the breakthrough into the norm, which entails dealing the new pressures to succeed, dealing with the increased media presence (and outside distractions) surrounding you, and trying to stay humble. Obviously, this step is extremely hard to take,and it seems like Madison is having a very hard time taking this next step.
Following her great run in Melbourne, Keys went on to lose in her second match to a struggling (at the time) Jelena Jankovic at Indian Wells, and in her first match to Sloane Stephens in Miami to go a measly 1-2 in the spring American hard court swing. Gone was the jubilation of the run in Melbourne, replaced instead by the realization that the WTA tour (and the ATP tour for that matter) moves on with or without you.
Perhaps this was a wake-up call for Madison, because she performed quite well on the green clay in Charleston. I suspect, however, that this was more due to weak competition than anything else, as the strongest player Madison faced was Lauren Davis before the Final. However, I'm sure that these easier matches boosted Keys' confidence and allowed her to forget about her failures in Indian Wells and Miami. In the Final, though, Madison was leading 4-1 in the third set before collapsing and losing the third set 7-5, thus giving Angelique Kerber the tournament win. It took a lot of mental strength to make the semis in Melbourne (especially her tough win over Venus in the Quarterfinals), but it seems as if that mental strength did not transfer over to Charleston.
And Madison has not seemed to recover from that Charleston loss, losing in her first match in Madrid, in straight sets to Kaia Kanepi, and losing in her second match at Rome to Bojana Jovanovski, for another 1-2 record at big tournaments on the European clay court swing. At the small event in Strasbourg (currently going on this week), Keys won her first two matches, including a TOUGH match over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni, before withdrawing with an injury, unable to gain any real momentum heading towards the French Open.
So, what do I think has happened to Madison Keys? I think she is overwhelmed right now. Overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed within the game and the new pressures around her outside of the game. Her confidence from the Australian Open also seems to be gone too, so Lindsey Davenport will really have to work with Madison regarding her confidence too. Lindsey will also have to try to get Madison to focus in on tennis itself, and not worry about what's going outside of the game.
At the end of the day, I still see a great future for Madison. It just might not come as soon as many predicted.
Monday, May 18, 2015
So, Who is the Favorite at the French Open for the Men?
So, a major debate going on in the tennis world right now is: Who is the real men's favorite to win Roland Garros this season? Let's dig in.
Possible Favorites:
-Andy Murray: You might be thinking to yourself, "Huh? Not possible." But, I'm being dead serious when I include Murray in this section. Andy has been spectacular this clay season. After entering the clay court swing with no titles on the surface, he exits with two trophies and zero losses. He first won the title at the BMW Open in Munich, Germany. On the way he beat some pretty good clay court (and overall) players in Goffin, Bautista Agut, and Kohlscreiber (in a Monday Final!). Then Murray quickly went to Spain and played some of the best tennis, in my opinion, that he's ever played on any surface. He dismissed the new generation in Raonic and Nisikori, both in straight sets, and then rocked Rafael Nadal, only giving up five games in the process. Andy Murray has earned his place on my unimportant blog!
-Novak Djokovic: This guy is just incredible. After having won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami on hard courts, Novak continued his success on the clay. He then went on to Win Monte Carlo (also destroying Nadal, only losing six games to him) and then went on to win Madrid, beating clay courters like Almagro and Ferrer and also beating all-court players like Federer and Nishikori to complete a perfect clay court season (him and Murray either played different events or Murray withdrew). Djokovic also has the claim that he made the Final of the French Open in two of the past three seasons, with seemingly only Rafa being able to stop him.
-Rafael Nadal: I don't even think I have to say a word here. Seriously. This guy has won nine of the past ten French Opens (2005-2014 sans 2009) and has utterly dominated other clay tournaments in past years with zero mercy. Rafa is a clay legend. But, while he did pick up a clay 250 in Buenos Aires, Rafa has not done as well this clay court season. He made the Round of 16 in Barcelona, quarters in Rome, semis in Rio and Monte Carlo, and the Final in Madrid. For a lot of people, that is a great clay season, but not for Rafa. It also was the way he meekly went out in a lot of those matches (such as Murray in Madrid and Wawrinka in Rome) that has a lot of tennis fans worried.
So, who do I think the favorite is? Let me first rule out Andy. Although he has played really well this season, I can't get over how he had zero clay titles before 2015. While Andy has GREATLY improved on the surface, it's too big of a stretch to say that he goes from not having even won a 250 on clay to the favorite for the French Open. He might make a run, but until Novak and Rafa are out, he won't be the favorite. That leads us Djokovic and Nadal. A lot of tennis "pundits" think that Novak is the favorite, and while I can't fault them for their choice (he has played AMAZING this season), I'm sticking with Rafa.
First off, I can't get over how Rafa is a nine-time champion at a MAJOR and has won 90% of the major champions in Paris over the last ten years! Just think about that. 90%! So, that brings with it a lot of psychological advantages, which I think the media is too quick to say is escaping from Nadal. On top of that, Djokovic has won 0 majors on the surface, which says a lot about how he performs in Paris, NOT how performs on clay. In addition, Nadal is 6-0 against Djokovic in best-of-five on clay (Davis Cup and FO, excluding a Djoker retirement). The main court at Roland Garros, Philippe Chatrier, also suits Nadal perfectly, giving him A LOT of room to move around, which is super important for Rafa's game. Rafa also has the uncanny ability to grind an opponent down in best-of-five which one cannot see in a best-of-three clay court event. Finally, when I was looking at Djokovic's past results at RG, I noticed that every one of his losing matches from 2010-2014 were in four or five sets. What does that tell me? It shows me that Djokovic can play extremely well on the surface, but despite having extraordinary conditioning, on clay he just wears down. It's not that he's being outclassed, he's just wearing down. And that is a disturbing trend.
So, there you have it! Let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree with what I've had to say!
Possible Favorites:
-Andy Murray: You might be thinking to yourself, "Huh? Not possible." But, I'm being dead serious when I include Murray in this section. Andy has been spectacular this clay season. After entering the clay court swing with no titles on the surface, he exits with two trophies and zero losses. He first won the title at the BMW Open in Munich, Germany. On the way he beat some pretty good clay court (and overall) players in Goffin, Bautista Agut, and Kohlscreiber (in a Monday Final!). Then Murray quickly went to Spain and played some of the best tennis, in my opinion, that he's ever played on any surface. He dismissed the new generation in Raonic and Nisikori, both in straight sets, and then rocked Rafael Nadal, only giving up five games in the process. Andy Murray has earned his place on my unimportant blog!
-Novak Djokovic: This guy is just incredible. After having won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami on hard courts, Novak continued his success on the clay. He then went on to Win Monte Carlo (also destroying Nadal, only losing six games to him) and then went on to win Madrid, beating clay courters like Almagro and Ferrer and also beating all-court players like Federer and Nishikori to complete a perfect clay court season (him and Murray either played different events or Murray withdrew). Djokovic also has the claim that he made the Final of the French Open in two of the past three seasons, with seemingly only Rafa being able to stop him.
-Rafael Nadal: I don't even think I have to say a word here. Seriously. This guy has won nine of the past ten French Opens (2005-2014 sans 2009) and has utterly dominated other clay tournaments in past years with zero mercy. Rafa is a clay legend. But, while he did pick up a clay 250 in Buenos Aires, Rafa has not done as well this clay court season. He made the Round of 16 in Barcelona, quarters in Rome, semis in Rio and Monte Carlo, and the Final in Madrid. For a lot of people, that is a great clay season, but not for Rafa. It also was the way he meekly went out in a lot of those matches (such as Murray in Madrid and Wawrinka in Rome) that has a lot of tennis fans worried.
So, who do I think the favorite is? Let me first rule out Andy. Although he has played really well this season, I can't get over how he had zero clay titles before 2015. While Andy has GREATLY improved on the surface, it's too big of a stretch to say that he goes from not having even won a 250 on clay to the favorite for the French Open. He might make a run, but until Novak and Rafa are out, he won't be the favorite. That leads us Djokovic and Nadal. A lot of tennis "pundits" think that Novak is the favorite, and while I can't fault them for their choice (he has played AMAZING this season), I'm sticking with Rafa.
First off, I can't get over how Rafa is a nine-time champion at a MAJOR and has won 90% of the major champions in Paris over the last ten years! Just think about that. 90%! So, that brings with it a lot of psychological advantages, which I think the media is too quick to say is escaping from Nadal. On top of that, Djokovic has won 0 majors on the surface, which says a lot about how he performs in Paris, NOT how performs on clay. In addition, Nadal is 6-0 against Djokovic in best-of-five on clay (Davis Cup and FO, excluding a Djoker retirement). The main court at Roland Garros, Philippe Chatrier, also suits Nadal perfectly, giving him A LOT of room to move around, which is super important for Rafa's game. Rafa also has the uncanny ability to grind an opponent down in best-of-five which one cannot see in a best-of-three clay court event. Finally, when I was looking at Djokovic's past results at RG, I noticed that every one of his losing matches from 2010-2014 were in four or five sets. What does that tell me? It shows me that Djokovic can play extremely well on the surface, but despite having extraordinary conditioning, on clay he just wears down. It's not that he's being outclassed, he's just wearing down. And that is a disturbing trend.
So, there you have it! Let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree with what I've had to say!
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Should There Be Wildcards At Majors?
Over at Men's tennis forums, there is a nice debate going on about whether or not there should be wildcards at majors, and as I wanted to resurrect this blog, I thought that would be a good topic to resurrect with.
As you can see here, these wildcards for the French Open aren't going to the guys and girls ranked just below the main draw cut off or just below the qualifying cut off. We aren't seeing Dustin Brown, for instance, get rewarded for his hard work, not have to worry about qualifying, and instead get a main draw wildcard. Instead, these wildcards are going to mainly the French (although there are reciprocity agreements with Australia and the US), and are either going to young guns looking for a head start on the tour, or older guys/gals being rewarded for their time on tour (or recent success). The first group would be, in this year's selection of wild cards, players like Dodin, Halys, or Chung (for the qualifying draw) and the second group would be players like Mahut and Razzano.
So, I've read the vast majority of the thread on this topic on MTF, and from what I gather, there are two sides. The first (pro-wild card) side is that wild cards drive ticket sales, improve the atmosphere at the event, and generally just create a buzz around the community when a home wild card is playing. The other (anti-wild card) side says that more deserving players who just missed the cut off should get into the major instead of wild cards.
So, what side am I on? I admit, I'm copping out a little bit here, but if we stick to the eight wild cards for the main draw, I think that maybe six of the wild cards should be for local players (and possibly reciprocity agreements, although that is up for the majors to decide), and maybe two should go to players who have had a good run of form lately, but maybe just missed the cut off (the same general principle applies for qualifying too). That way we can get a buzz on the grounds for a young gun, like Halys for instance, but at the same time reward a couple of men and a couple of women who might not have made the cut, but are really playing well and are sure to be competitive in the main draw. An example of that, for instance, could be Kokkinakis for the men (although he is already getting a reciprocity wild card, the principle is the same). Perhaps say that whoever wins the Bordeaux Challenger, French or not, gets a wild card into the main draw.
Just my thoughts on this matter. Happy to be back!
As you can see here, these wildcards for the French Open aren't going to the guys and girls ranked just below the main draw cut off or just below the qualifying cut off. We aren't seeing Dustin Brown, for instance, get rewarded for his hard work, not have to worry about qualifying, and instead get a main draw wildcard. Instead, these wildcards are going to mainly the French (although there are reciprocity agreements with Australia and the US), and are either going to young guns looking for a head start on the tour, or older guys/gals being rewarded for their time on tour (or recent success). The first group would be, in this year's selection of wild cards, players like Dodin, Halys, or Chung (for the qualifying draw) and the second group would be players like Mahut and Razzano.
So, I've read the vast majority of the thread on this topic on MTF, and from what I gather, there are two sides. The first (pro-wild card) side is that wild cards drive ticket sales, improve the atmosphere at the event, and generally just create a buzz around the community when a home wild card is playing. The other (anti-wild card) side says that more deserving players who just missed the cut off should get into the major instead of wild cards.
So, what side am I on? I admit, I'm copping out a little bit here, but if we stick to the eight wild cards for the main draw, I think that maybe six of the wild cards should be for local players (and possibly reciprocity agreements, although that is up for the majors to decide), and maybe two should go to players who have had a good run of form lately, but maybe just missed the cut off (the same general principle applies for qualifying too). That way we can get a buzz on the grounds for a young gun, like Halys for instance, but at the same time reward a couple of men and a couple of women who might not have made the cut, but are really playing well and are sure to be competitive in the main draw. An example of that, for instance, could be Kokkinakis for the men (although he is already getting a reciprocity wild card, the principle is the same). Perhaps say that whoever wins the Bordeaux Challenger, French or not, gets a wild card into the main draw.
Just my thoughts on this matter. Happy to be back!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)