Why does tennis continue to infantilize women or make them seem as if they are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Why must we continuously have these discussions about women as if they are not strong enough to withstand any and everything?
Why must we be continually defending women who are professionals in their own right with the power to hire and fire as they please, as if they are unable to make decisions for themselves.
I recently had a discussion on social media regarding how we discuss the bodies of female athletes. I commented that Caroline Dolehide, an aggressive young tennis player either had really big breasts or the tennis kit that she was wearing was so ill fitting as to make her bust seem quite large. Clearly there were other people who had similar views, most of whom did not express their views in the way or in the manner that I did. Many, as they are wont to do focused mainly on the size of her breasts. That was sexist. Commenting on her physique and her fitness level, the ill fitting kit that she was wearing, was in my opinion fair commentary game, but apparently that is not the case in tennis world.
Recently Darren Cahill tweeted that women who take a break from the game to start a family should be afforded the opportunity to retain their ranking when they return, or in essence should not be penalized for starting a family. My question to Mr. Cahill is this, what about the other women who chose to continue their careers and not pause to have a family? Will they not be penalized for losing their ranking when Serena or whomever else returns from maternity leave? How is that fair to those women?
It seems as if it is only in tennis that these conversations happen. Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce, a multiple Olympic gold medalist from Jamaica who was crowned Jamaica and the world’s Sprint Queen took time away from the sport to start a family. She has just started training again and once she is ready to compete, she will have to go through the same selection process that everyone who wishes to represent Jamaica has to go through. If she fails in qualifying to represent Jamaica then she will have to hope that the selection committee looks at her overall record and appoints her to the team, to the detriment of someone who has posted faster times and who has a better chance of medaling. In that scenario it is not because the selection committee doesn’t believe in Shelly-Ann’s abilities, but that she didn’t meet the threshold to qualify. Chances are if Shelly-Ann ends up in that situation, she will not make the cut to compete for Jamaica.
Serena Williams is playing her very first competitive tournament after being away from the sport for 14 months. In the match that she played against her sister Venus on Monday night, the rust was quite apparent. The rust has been apparent from her very first match. Simona Halep by contrast, the No. 1 player in the world, while she has been frustrated with her game, is hitting a better ball and performing at a higher level than is Serena. Should we then have relegated Simona Halep, a player who reached the final of the first Grand Slam tournament of the year to a lower seeding just because Serena is back? Simona seems to think so, but I would suggest that she is only doing so because of the views held by her coach. Simona’s own thought process as it relates to the equal treatment of female athletes is well known to most of us who follow tennis as she has said in no uncertain terms that the men deserve to be paid more than she does. One wonders if that is also the view of her coach.
Serena struggled, as was expected. She faced an opponent who was match tough and whose game, while a bit shaky at times was more nuanced. Half the time in her match against Venus, Serena was left flat and/or wrong footed. There is no doubt in mine or anyone else’s mind that Serena will probably get back the No. 1 ranking, but to gift it to her just because she returned from maternity leave is a slap in the face to not only Serena but to all the other women who have worked their asses off to attain a higher ranking.
Serena currently has an ad out that says there are many ways to be a woman. I am going to add that one of the ways in which to be a woman is the ability to be able to figure things out for yourself. Most women will tell you that in order to accomplish some of the greatest things in life they have had to rely on themselves moreso than anyone else. Neither Serena or Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce or any of the countless professional female athletes in the world need anyone, least of all some administrator to give them something that they themselves can earn.
In an effort to be seen as equitable people seem to be adopting a paternalistic approach to the issues that affect female athletes. It needs to stop.
Elise Mertens v. Caroline Wozniacki
Simona Halep v. Angelique Kerber
I don’t know which of these amazingly talented women will raise the trophy, but I am sure going to stay up late tonight to experience what will undoubtedly be a night of epic matches.
I don’t normally write about men’s tennis, but sometimes there are things happening on the men’s side that impact the women’s game. Most of the time it is about the issue of equal prize money, which often reflects the sexism and misogyny that permeate tennis coverage by men who grew up in an era when men dominated in professional tennis and the women’s game was an afterthought.
Unless you were living under a rock the recent exposing of white supremacist beliefs espoused by some male American tennis players has found its way into women’s tennis. Ever since the election of Donald Trump as President, some tennis fans, who have long held the view that most of the white men that play professional tennis are racists and misogynists, have had their concerns confirmed by the writings and commentary espoused via social media by John Isner, Ryan Harrison and now Tennys Sandgren.
Tennys Sandgren, by dint of his run to the quarter-finals of the Australian Open, had his whole life exposed for the world to see. He was finally asked about his beliefs and his penchant for following alt-right and white supremacists on Twitter. In addition, in 2013, he tweeted about the Greatest of All Time, Serena Williams (post screencap here)
Someone needs to tell Mr. Sandgren that when you come for Serena, you basically take on all of tennis. I will not use this medium to defend Ms. Serena Jameka Williams, first of her name, because goodness me the woman is quite capable of doing that all on her own as she has been doing all her life.
As a case in point, Mr. Sandgren chose to issue a general apology today and Ms. Williams responded https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“>in kind.
Lack of Media Training
What I wish to address is the clear lack of PR training that seems to go on in men’s tennis. Gone apparently are the days when media training seemed to be an essential tool in selling men’s tennis. Today, you find all kinds of views being espoused by all and sundry. It used to be that one would only know a racist by their behaviour, but through social media these men openly declare their racist, homophobic, and sexist views through their interactions with those holding such views. It has become another space for players to reveal themselves.
This morning (24 January), John Isner labelled people who cite racism, sexism and homophobia as victims. This is the same John Isner who felt betrayed because people in New York City chose to cheer for Frenchman Gael Monfils in a match against him. To compound that issue, his good friend, Mr. Sandgren felt the need to declare that New York City, the greatest City (apart from Kingston, Jamaica) that was ever built, probably should not have the privilege of hosting a Grand Slam event. Who is the victim in this scenario?
The world has been watching what has been happening in the United States, a country previously defined by its generosity of spirit as it welcomed people with open arms, begin to close its borders. Men, ugly inside and outside, whose families have benefitted from the largesse of immigrants from countries who helped to build that great nation are suddenly making policies that benefit only people of a certain colour.
Tennys Sandgren traces his roots back to South Africa, a country so steeped in apartheid and racial segregation that once the back of that oppressive regime was broken, most white people who still believed that black people were inferior to white people and that apartheid was God given made their way to places like the United States, Canada, and England. I can tell you first hand that some have tried to make their home in the Caribbean, but without success. These people espouse a doctrine and a belief that is an anathema to social equality. Yet, they have found comfort in espousing these views in certain corners.
While many who cover tennis continues to make excuses for Tennys Sandgren, citing his age etc (hello Nick Kyrgios), they are also revealing their feelings about equality. It is important for all of us to listen very keenly to the excuses that are being made about Mr. Sandgren and his social media leanings. It is important for us to listen very keenly as journalists try to construct a narrative of excuses for a young man who clearly grew up in a home that lacked diversity and an understanding of its value. We need to take note as they defend a man who felt it was ok to denigrate minorities on a social media platform and then retreat into talks about his Christian beliefs and about following Jesus’ teachings when his beliefs were challenged.
Well, Mr. Sandgren, let me tell you about Jesus, because I am also a Christian. I am not just a warmer of benches on Sundays, but I follow the teachings of Christ to the letter. The Jesus that I know and love and which many people, including Serena Williams, know and love were taught to love everybody, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation or country of origin. We love all equitably. If you wish to know that Jesus, you are welcome to come to my church and join us so that you too can know this Jesus.
Back to the Tennis
I missed last night’s match with Simona Halep and Karolina Pliskova but I intend to watch it today. I have no idea what happened but I am sure that Karolina Pliskova and her coach are also wondering what happened.
In the other quarter final, Angelique Kerber seems to be finding her groove. Madison Keys had no answer, but it was good to see her smiling even during her loss. It can’t have been a happy outing for her. Caroline Wozniacki suffered another scare when it took her 3 sets to take out Carla Suarez-Navarro and Elise Mertens absolutely demolished Elina Svitolina. Svitolina has cited a hip injury for her loss, but we all know that even if she didn’t have that hip injury she was being outplayed from every part of the court. A good hip would not have saved her.
I will be back later today with my semifinal write up and Spin’s Picks.
I have always maintained that the WTA puts out a better quality product than the ATP. I have always believed that commentators and journalists always take the low hanging fruit when they attempt to craft a narrative surrounding the women who play professional tennis. They either reinvogorate the grunting debate, talk about the instability on the Tour and the mental fragility of the top players or they bemoan the loss of top seeds in Grand Slam tournaments, never ever thinking that the reason why there is a loss of top seeds is because of the depth that permeates the women’s Tour. This Australian Open, I believe they finally saw it (or did they).
The revelation of this year’s Grand Slam is not the resurgence of Angelique Kerber or the fraility of Sharapova 3.0, The revelations during this year’s Australian Open is that despite what many may think, the WTA Tour will do just fine once the marquee names have hung up their racquets.
Many times either Venus or Serena will opine and tell journalists that from the first ball at a Grand Slam event you have to be on your game. We saw that manifest itself with many of the top seeds being under the gun, with some being taken out in straight sets by their young upstarts. While the ATP struggles with trying to recraft the fact that the Tour has been infiltrated by its very own neo-Nazi, white supremacist dude and while tennis journalists try to tell us that he is thoughtful and his answers in press conferences showcases his humility and empathy, let us take a look back at what was a fantastic week for the women.
Hseih Su-Wei – there are no words left to talk about this young woman from Thailand who had the crowd on its feet with her uniquely artistic game. She showed that her take down of Garbine Muguruza was not a fluke and despite pulling double duty during this year’s tournament she gave as good as she got up to the round of 16. Take a bow Ms. Wei and don’t stay in the corners, let your light shine for everyone to see.
15-13 in the third. 3 match points come and gone. After the match both women embodied sports. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Lauren Davis will replay those 3 match points on Halep’s serve. Halep, getting a day off would clean up her game and play forceful tennis in taking out Osaka. The No.1 is finally believing that she is No. 1.
Caroline Wozniacki – her narrative being No.1 without winning a Slam. She showed us that the mental toughness that was a hallmark of her game when she was No.1 was still in full force and effect. Fighting back from 5-1 down, Wozniacki would save 2 match points to reach the quarter finals.
Carla Suarez-Navarro – the forgotten Spaniard. Her doubles partner has reigned supreme. 2 Grand Slam titles. Accolades galore. The Spaniard with the beautiful backhand has had trouble closing out matches. This time around she showed toughness in taking out Kontaveit. I have never seen her battle as hard as she did in this match. Is this a sign of things to come?
On one of the biggest stages in tennis, Madison Keys, the heir apparent to Venus and Serena Williams suffered a bagel in her first Grand Slam final. How would she deal with that let down. She did so by presenting herself into the last 8 by walloping Caroline Garcia in straight sets. Never getting down on herself. Never taking a moment to question what she was doing out on court. Keys played like I have never seen her play before.
Day 9 sees the bottom half of the women’s draw play the first set of semifinals. Spin’s Picks are below:-
Elise Mertens v. Elina Svitolina – I watched Svitolina during her run to the Brisbane title and what impressed me more than anything was her serve. I recall in one of her matches, she hit 10 aces, something that I can never recall her doing. Her second serve is still a challenge, but she is hitting her first serve better than I have ever seen her hit it. On the other hand her opponent Elise Mertens is one of the quickest players on Tour. In looking at the stats for both players from their previous matches, Mertens is going to be in a whole lot of trouble just from the return of serve. In her previous match Svitolina got almost 90% of her opponent’s serve in play and she won more return points than her opponent. In addition, Svitolina’s average serve speed was 110/89 (first and second respectively). Look for this to be a quick match, running notwithstanding.
Carla Suarez-Navarro v. Caroline Wozniacki – how much does Carla have left in the tank after her marathon match against Kontaveit? Will her backhand hold up under the constant onslaught from Wozniacki? How will Wozniacki’s legs hold up if Carla gets a chance to use her angled backhand cross court? This is a pick em match but I am looking to see Wozniacki prevail and in straight sets.
I never like to write about players who seen hell bent on trying to change the narrative of their careers. Whether it is trying to get to the top ranking, trying to break into the elite of elites and win a Major or even the simple act of trying to break into the top 10. I have always maintained that players already have it hard with the pressure that they place on themselves that they don’t need armchair pundits like myself adding to the pressure.
I have tried not to talk or write about Wozniacki because she does seem to be on a mission. Whether that mission is to claw her way back to the top of women’s tennis or whether it is trying to win that elusive Major, Wozniacki has been hitting the ball as well or even better than when she was the top ranked woman in women’s tennis.
Don’t get me wrong her ability to play long grueling rallies during matches is still there but she is much more forceful on her forehand side and her serve which while good has never been outstanding has gotten even better. It would seem that with all the coaching changes that Team Wozniacki has experienced over the years they have taken a little bit of all those coaches to build a better tennis player. Wozniacki has now become Frankenwoz. Last night she was hitting from everywhere on the court with a 6-3, 6-0 drubbing of Rybarikova.
Her performance puts her into the quarterfinals of the Australian Open. The first time she has reached this round since 2011 when she made the semifinals. With her performance last night picking against Wozniacki might not be the best thing to do right now.
Today sees the top half of the women’s draw playing for a chance to get to the quarter rivals. Spin’s picks are below
Rod Laver Arena
Strycova v Pliskova (Pliskova has been doing a very good job of managing herself and her matches this tournament. No muss no fuss. The same could happen here but there is a little bit of history here what with a stolen coach smack dab in the middle of both women. Both players say there is no problem as it relates to the stolen coach, but social media posts always tell the true message, and Strycova, never one to be silent about things that bother her could still be fueled by being dumped by her coach. The tennis will probably be exciting and I am pulling for Pliskova to put her feelings aside and take this one)
Keys v. Garcia (this is a match that is the beginning of things to come. 2 big hitters, relatively young and healthy competing on the big stages. Garcia has shown incredible mental toughness to come through her early round matches. Keys has been hitting her backhand, forehand and serves as well as I have ever seen. She clearly has put the US Open final debacle behind her and is playing with house money. Garcia has much more variety in her game, and she also has firepower. The only difference will be who can win more of the big points)
Hseih v. Kerber (Kerber has put 2017 behind her and has come out guns blazing in 2018. She took Sharapova to the woodshed and she has been playing very well. Hseih has also been playing well and while this match may be somewhat competitive I expect Kerber to take this match with little or no problems)
Margaret Court Arena
Halep v Osaka (after that marathon match against Lauren Davis can Halep feel her ankles? Osaka has been making her way quietly through the draw with little fanfare. A win over the very hot Aussie Ashleigh Barty could very well have been her coming out party. I am taking the youngster for this one)
61, 6-3 and it wasn’t even that close. I got up this morning and saw the scoreline and thought to myself, well at least the second set was relatively competitive, except it really wasn’t. I did want to mention that ever since Sharapova returned from her doping suspension, she has looked slow, unsure around the court and not as fired up as she was pre-meldonium ban. Without a doubt Kerber has improved this season, but Sharapova, title notwithstanding this year is a shadow of her former self. Caught behind the baseline for much of the match, Sharapova kept lunging after balls and there seems to be no improvement whatsoever to her game. She still can’t hit a traditional volley and while before she was known as the queen of 3 sets, now she appears exhausted after a straight sets match. As someone opined elsewhere the fear factor, if there was ever one in the locker room no longer exists.
However, the match of the day was the 2 hour and 45 minute wonder that was the third set of Halep/Davis. Who knew that 2 players who barely scrape 5 ft, 6 could make an entire stadium rise to its feet in appreciation. After 3 hours, Lauren Davis held 3 consecutive match points on the Simona Halep serve. She failed to take any of them. Simona Halep by extension had to serve for the match 4 times before finally earning her first match point. There was a medical time out drama (broken toenail), heat exhaustion, mental issues, but both women kept going and going and going.
After listening to Pam Shriver bemoan the many breaks of serve in women’s matches, it was a bit of karmic justice that one of the best matches of this year’s Australian Open featured a match where neither player had a big serve, and neither player was able to serve out a match until Halep through sheer willpower managed to do so.
I was late for church this morning as I ended up watching my new favourite player, Su Wei Hseih do her thing. In her match this morning against Radwanska, Hseih took control of the match from first to last ball. I don’t know what is going on with Radwanska but her body appears to be broken. In most if not of all her matches so far this year she has had to call the trainer to treat some injury or other. I dubbed her match against Hseih Ninja v. Ninja, but it was like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Just no competition.
Naomi Osaka with a new coach and looking fitter and leaner than I have ever seen her shut down the crowd on Margaret Court Arena by taking out Australia’s last female hope in singles in straight sets. She served well but returned even better. Her shot selection was on point and her attitude on court was sublime.
Today’s matches feature the bottom half of the women’s draw and has some players that no one had on their draw sheets. Spin’s Picks are below
Kontaveit v. Suarez-Navarro (the more seasoned campaigner who has been down this road before against the big hitter who can go off the boil)
Rybarikova v. Wozniacki (the head to head matters but I don’t think it will feature in the results today. Wozniacki is on a mission to lift her first Grand Slam trophy. Rybarikova is looking to back up show that her run to the Wimbledon quarter-finals was not a fluke)
Allertova v. Svitolina (the qualifier v. the tennis pick. I loved the fight that I saw from Allertova in her previous match. She is match tough having come through qualifying. It is a night match so she will not feel the effects of the heat as she did in her last match. Svitolina looked good against her young countrywoman and made it look easy, but I feel as if the pressure to win a big title may come bearing down on her)
Martic v. Mertens (2 women who no one expected to be here. My heart says Martic but my head is going with Mertens on this one)
One of the more popular pieces that I have ever written for this blog is a how to guide about covering women’s tennis. I am linking it again as a reminder to commentators and sports journalists alike that women’s tennis is not the forgotten stepchild of tennis, but is a professional endeavour undertaken in the same rigorous manner like the men. It is not to be ridiculed and frankly, it is not an aside or prelude to the main event, i.e. a men’s match.
Last night there were some matches that were so entertaining that for a minute I wondered at the lack of tennis enthusiasts, commentators and journalists providing play by play commentary via social media. The first match on Rod Laver Arena featured qualifier Luksika Kumkhum and comeback queen Petra Martic. It was a match with its ups and downs, but the shotmaking was absolutely incredible. It is true that the match was slow going at first, but once Kumkhum took the second set, we all knew we would be in for the ride of our lives in the third set. Kumkhum played exceptionally well, so much so that at one point she had the fans in the stands on their feet with her athleticism, especially in the forecourt. During that match there was such a dearth of commentary on social media, I wondered whether I was the only person watching it.
What made the match so exceptionally good was the fact that it was really hot, but you would never know it, apart from each player taking a little bit of time in the shade. Neither player made the heat an issue. Meanwhile, there was a men’s match being played at the same time, and from what I saw on social media, neither man was able to contend with the heat. One sports journalist suggested the quality of play was poor as the men were just trying to survive.
Another match that provided great entertainment and is the focus of my commentary today is the match between Jelena Ostapenko and Annett Kontaveit. At the tail end of the first set, that doyen of women’s tennis, Pam Shriver spoke about the many breaks of serve in the women’s match, while comparing the fact that the men’s match only had 3 breaks of serve over 3 sets. The inference to be drawn is that the men’s game either had better serves or the quality of play was much better than the women’s match. Nothing could be further from the truth. Breaking your opponent’s serve is a part of the sport of tennis. You can’t win a tennis match if you don’t break serve, whether it is during a set or even during a tiebreak. At some point you have to lose serve. Why breaking serve is misinterpreted as a defect in the women’s game is beyond my comprehension.
Therein lies the rub for me. If commentators influence how people, who are scrolling through channels, view the women’s game, then the WTA is going to be hard pressed to build momentum for its sport. Rather than talking about the inability of the women to hold serve, how about we talk about the competitiveness of matches? Why cast a feature if the game in such a negative light?
Another narrative that has raised its head is how many women have the ability to leave the Australian Open wearing the No. 1 crown. Rather than spinning it as instability at the top, how about framing it as an indication of the depth of talent on the women’s tour? Would we rather see a Tour that increasingly relies on the fortunes of 2 players (Federer/Nadal) to gain large tv audiences, or would we rather have a Tour that has a slate of multiple players pushing each other forward. Once Federer and Nadal have left the men’s Tour (and yes hard to believe but they will eventually retire), the men’s Tour will be left with a group of men who will most likely jockey for position each week, even if some are devoid of personality and have already earned the ire of tennis journalists everywhere. Will we suddenly see a valuing of having a chase for number 1 among more than two players?
We have to move away from using the men’s game as a measuring stick for the women. The women’s game can be measured based upon its own merits, which may very well include the fact that women are capable of breaking each other’s serve.
Would we rather see a Tour that increasingly relies on the fortunes of 2 players (Federer/Nadal) to gain large tv audiences, or would we rather have a Tour that has some amount of stability to take it forward. Once Federer and Nadal have left the men’s Tour (and yes hard to believe but they will eventually retire), the men’s Tour will be left with some men who are devoid of personality and who have already earned the ire of tennis journalists everywhere.
Day 6 sees play from the top half of the draw and features some incredibly good matches. It is a long weekend where I am and so I will make sure to follow my mantry of sleep being for the weak. Spin’s Picks are below
Halep v. Davis (battle of the little people. Experience takes this one)
Barty v. Osaka (how much more does Barty have left in the tank after those epic matches?)
Kerber v. Sharapova (this one I really don’t care too much about but rooting for Kerber)
Bogdan v. Keys (again, experience over youth)
Safarova v. Pliskova (battle of the Czechs – Safarova is the more experienced competitor but Pliskova has bigger weapons)
Hsieh v. Radwanska (Ninja v. Ninja – who will prevail?)
Sasnovich v. Garcia (the player with not only the bigger weapons, but who seems to be the far better competitor at this year’s event)
Pera v. Strycova (the lucky loser with huge weapons against the experienced player with a whole host of weapons. I think the lucky loser still has one more match win in her)
One of the reasons why I cover the Slams moreso than regular WTA tournaments is because at the Slams you will see players that you normally never get to see during regular WTA events. Part of the problem is that the WTA product is not on tv on a regular basis, but part of it is that sometimes you just don’t have the time to watch many tennis matches.
Su Wei Hseih
The Majors allow you the opportunity to either watch matches when you get home in the evenings (the Australian Open) or in the early mornings (French Open/Wimbledon) before you leave for work. In addition, the Slams provide wall to wall coverage, with many courts being covered.
As a result of that I got to see a player who I have only ever thought of as a doubles specialist, play tennis in a way that in my view is under appreciated. Su Wei Hseih is relatively small compared to other players. I think she stands about 5 feet, 2 inches and probably weighs about 100 pounds soaking wet. She has no name brand clothes, and her tennis is for want of a better word unusual.
Last night in a match played on Rod Laver Arean, Hseih took apart the game of a 2 time Slam champion in Garbine Muguruza. I know that when most tennis writers talk about that match they will inevitably pull the Muguruza was injured card, but for me watching that match, Garbine was simply out played. Hseih used Muguruza’s power and athleticism against her. She redirected the ball every chance she got and she got Muguruza moving. Not afraid of the net herself, Hseih came in when the opporutnity presented itself and on the rare occassions when she was caught in long baseline rallies, she stepped up and hit cross court backhand winners that left Muguruza flat footed.
It was a fantastic match and shows everyone that you can win tennis matches if you employ guile and a deft touch.
Another player who did that last night was Aga Radwanska. In a match that she should have lost, Radwanska used all her considerable guile to outplay Lesia Tsurennko. It was a very disappointing end to the tournament for Tsurenko who actually served for the match and failed to get it over the line.
I have not yet had a chance to see the replay of the Barty/Giorgi match but it seems as if the player with the more nuanced game won. Hopefully Giorgi will not be too disappointed and will continue to improve.
As I write I am currently watching a replay of Halep/Bouchard and play and I will update this post.
#MeToo and #TimesUp
I have been watching, as has everyone with a social media handle and television set the rise of the MeToo and TimesUp movement. The movement has been happening in journalism, entertainment, movies and now it has found its way into sport, most notably in women’s gymnastics. Larry Nasser the doctor who treated female gymnasts at the USA Gymnastic facility has been convicted of numerous counts of sexual assault. He is currently awaiting sentencing. Currently we are hearing and reading about his victims as they take the stand at his sentence hearing to give their Victim Impact Statements. The stories these women are telling are chilling, but it reminds me about tennis’ own MeToo and TimesUp movement that happened not too long ago.
It started with allegations against a Hall of Famer and it took months of reaching out to tennis personalities (including former players) before the authorities in South Africa even did any investigations. Recently, after Ilie Nastase made his racist remarks about the colour of Serena’s baby, Pam Shriver spoke about how Nastase had wanted to know if she was still a virgin.
I wondered recently when tennis would have its own MeToo and TimesUp moment. Surely no one thinks that many of these young men and women who have had to leave their families, some from very poor circumstances to go to training academies, where sometimes they don’t even speak enough English, and wonder if some ne’er do well coach has not used the opportunity to play fast and loose.
Tennis, being the insular, incestuous, secretive sport that it is, I doubt if we will ever hear of anything like this happening, in the same way that USA Gymnastics is about to have its own moment of reckoning. As will be the case a lot of people will say that these things do not happen, but if you have not already done so, you can read Jelena Dokic’s book or read about Mirjana Lucic-Baroni and know that while these instances of abuse were happening, no tennis journalist covering the sport at the time, or indeed any players came out in defence of any of these women. In the same way, if these things are happening at academies, no one will ever speak out against it, because that is how tennis works.
Clearly, tennis now needs its own #MeToo and #TimesUp moment.
Today sees the bottom half of the draw play their third round matches and it promises to be compelling tennis. Spin’s Picks are below:-
Kumkhum v. Martic(Kumkhum played Bencic like she belonged. Let us see how she fares against someone who seems just happy to be playing tennis)
Kostyuk v. Svitolina (battle of the Ukranians. It is weird that Svitolina is the veteran in this one but Kostyuk has more firepower and therefore produces more errors)
Bertens v. Wozniacki (Wozniacki struggled against an opponent ranked outside the top 100. She was overpowered. Against Bertens she will face similar firepower but a more steady opponent)
Allertova v. Linette (Alertova has always been a fave of mine. Good to see her playing so well)
Bondarenko v. Rybarikova (my favourite of the Bondarenko sisters, again very happy to see her rebuild her career and playing with such joy and abandon)
Ostapenko v. Kontaveit (two of my faves battling it out against each other. This is going to be must watch tv … as the kids say bring your popcorn)
Mertens v. Cornet (two women who shouldn’t even be here, but battling for a place in the fourth round of a Major. Good things happening to good people)
Kanepi v. Suarez-Navarro (Kanepi is one of my favourite players to watch. Hits cleanly and crisply. If you can just listen to the sound that the ball makes coming off her racquet. Suarez-Navarro has been playing well, but don’t know if she has what it takes to take down Kanepi.
by the Spin
It must hard to be Serena Williams. I imagine it must be even harder to be Venus Williams.
Venus was the first of the Williams Sisters to make a Grand Slam final. She was the first to join the WTA Tour. She was the first to play with beads in her hair. She was the first to hit a swing volley. She was the first with a serve that was clocked the fastest in the world ever hit by a woman. There is a lot of firsts for Venus.
This year she was the first top seed to lose at the Australian Open. I am sure that is not something that Venus would like to herald from the mountaintop. The player who took her down in straight sets, went out in the same way to unheralded Kumkhum, a qualifer from Thailand. Most of us first became aware of Kumkhum when she took out Petra Kvitova in the first round of the US Open some years ago.
When Bencic took the court at Rod Laver arena to play Venus she brought the holdover swagger from winning the Hopman Cup. She had confidence and she let Venus know that despite the age difference and despite the fact that Venus was a top player, she was here not only to play but play to win. And she did just that.
I watched Bencic’s match against Kumkhum from start to finish. I expected her to pull a rabbit out of a hat, especially on her break chances. I expected her to win those long deuce games. I expected her to use her power and guile against Kumkhum in the same way she did against Venus. Instead, what I saw was the petulant, entitled Bencic who clearly needed someone to come down court side and hold her hand.
I sometimes do not wish to use the narrative that players play their best against Venus and Serena, but after watching last night’s performance, there is no other way to spin what can only be termed a disastrous showing by Bencic.
I went to bed during the second set of Wozniacki’s match against Fett. I woke up this morning to hear that Wozniacki came back from 5-1 and 2 match points to beat Fett 7-5 in the third. I have not seen the third set, but no doubt I will try and take the opportunity to see what happened. It was my first time seeing or even hearing about Fett, and apart from her unusual service toss which always makes me think she is going to double fault, there is a lot to like about her game.
In another match that finished very late Australia time, Gavrilova, up 5-0 in the first set, would go on to lose that set 7-5 to the always dangerous Elise Mertens and then end up losing the match in straight sets. I don’t know what Gavrilova needs to take her game to the next level, but bouncing around the court and trying to get the home crowd on her side against her opponent is not it.
Day 4 Picks
I am really looking forward to today’s schedule as there are some really good match ups and I am hoping that most of these matches live up to the hype. Below is the schedule and Spin’s Picks
Sharapova v. Sevastova (I am picking Sharapova only because I don’t believe that Sevastova has been playing at her usual high level since the end of last season)
Muguruza v. Hsieh (it could very well be that Hsieh pulls the upset here but I am doubtful)
Barty v. Giorgi (going with my pre-tournament pick to make the second week)
Kerber v. Vekic (how good is Kerber playing and how confident is Vekic?)
Halep v. Bouchard (Bouchard won a tough first round match. Is she confident to take out the World No. 1? Halep has been struggling but will she remind herself that Bouchard has been on a losing streak?)
Vondrousova v. Garcia (despite being in the top 10, Garcia has not looked or played like a top tier player. Maybe she will start to feel better now that she got past Witthoeft)
Haddad Maia v. Pliskova (struggled to close out her match in round 2. Look for her to come out firing on all cylinders)
Konta v. Pera (the lucky loser loses here)
Safarova v. Cirstea (Cirstea struggled against Diyas who barely has weapons. She will struggle against a fit and focused Safarova)
Osaka v. Vesnina (playing very quiet and confident tennis)
Tsurenko v. Radwanska (always dangerous, Aga’s run stops here)
Arruabarrena v. Strycova (immovable object meets unstoppable force)