Articles by Steve Tignor

James Blake is taking his talents to South Beach

Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:31:00 +0000

When James Blake retired from tennis in 2013, he did what thousands of other ex-Ivy Leaguers before him have done: he thought about going into banking. Blake was 33 instead of 23, and his two years at Harvard were long behind him. Unlike most Wall Street wannabes, though, he had already earned nearly $8 million in prize money, criss-crossed the globe dozens of times, helped the U.S. bring home the Davis Cup and recorded wins over Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.

But all of the years spent pounding tennis balls, and pounding his legs across asphalt courts, had left Blake wondering if he should try another, less-taxing line of work. It wouldn’t be so bad to get out of the sun and sit behind a desk, would it?

“I took some time away—it ended up being about nine months—to get an idea of what my options were. I looked into finance and banks, and saw what it might be like to work in an office,” Blake says, sounding slightly incredulous at the memory. “When you’ve been traveling non-stop for a decade, you think you might want to stay in one place for a while.”

If there’s one thing that will make a pro athlete appreciate what he does for a living, it’s the prospect of having to do just about anything else. When he was young, a burned-out David Ferrer quit tennis to become a brick layer; it would be 20 years before he dared to put his racquet down again. After his first retirement, at age 25, Bjorn Borg tried every occupation from rally-car driver to TV commentator to underwear salesman to professional libertine before making an inglorious return to the tour. For Blake, nine months away were more than enough.

“It’s pretty simple: I realized that I loved tennis, and I wanted to be part of it in any way I could,” says Blake, who has spent the past few years as an analyst for Tennis Channel. “I wanted to use whatever wisdom I’ve gained to help the sport.”

In 2012, Blake married publicist Emily Snider; the couple has two children, Riley and Emma. Rather than take an office job in Manhattan, Blake moved to sports-rich San Diego.

“It’s 70 degrees and sunny everyday, which isn’t a bad thing,” he says.

But in 2015, Blake’s life took a jarringly unexpected turn, one that seemed as if it might push him in a new direction entirely. While he was on his cell phone outside a Manhattan hotel during the US Open, Blake was tackled by an undercover NYPD officer in a case of mistaken identity. The incident, which was captured on a surveillance video that quickly went viral, inspired this well-mannered family man from the Connecticut suburbs to become what he described as an “accidental activist” at age 35.

“I immediately called my wife. And that’s when I realized how big a deal this was,” Blake told NPR of his reaction to the attack. “I’m an athlete. I’ve been taught to be the tough guy. And I just wanted to sweep this under the rug. I just told her I was angry, but I’m going to, you know, just go about my day. And she just said, ‘What if this happened to me?’”

“And it immediately hit me. I started actually tearing up a little bit and thinking about what I would have done if this happened to someone I loved. After that, it definitely changed my perspective and made me a little bit more defiant.”

Blake’s measured defiance led him to sue the city of New York. Rather than demand monetary damages, he succeeded in having the NYPD start a fellowship that would fund investigations into police misconduct.

Two years later, Blake’s changed perspective would lead him to publish his second book, Ways of Grace: Stories of Activism, Adversity, and How Sports Can Bring Us Together. Taking his title from Arthur Ashe’s final autobiography, Days of Grace, Blake recounted the principled stands that athletes of the past have taken for their political beliefs.

Some began to wonder whether a career in politics might be in Blake’s future. His thoughtful, even-keel persona seemed like a natural extension of Ashe’s, and even Barack Obama’s. But Blake has seen enough of the politician’s life, and the indignities it entails, to realize it’s not for him.

“I know some people have said I would be a good fit for it,” Blake says of the political world. “But I’ve been disillusioned. The rewards aren’t worth everything you have to do, everything that happens to you and your family.”

For Blake, activism is less a responsibility than it is an opportunity.

“I don’t believe [athletes] bear a responsibility that they have to do this in any way,” he told NPR. “But if something really does bring you to tears or gives you this kind of emotion, or it’s something that you feel is an injustice, and you need to speak out, then, yeah, you have a platform.”

With Mark Shapiro, Serena Williams and Stephen Ross, Blake is helping the Miami Open put down roots in the concrete heart of the city (left). As a Tennis Channel commentator, he remains connected to the tour and its players.

Last year, Blake’s mix of political savvy and playing experience helped him step onto a new platform, when he was hired by the Miami Open to be its tournament director. In the position, Blake serves as a liaison between players and officials, and gives the event a familiar and popular public face. But his first year on the job wasn’t all smooth sailing. After losing to local favorite Monica Puig, top seed Caroline Wozniacki claimed that her family had received death threats from fans during the match. Blake’s response, that courtside staff and security hadn’t been notified of any threats, wasn’t strong enough for Wozniacki, who talked about boycotting the tournament next year.

In 2019, Blake has faced a new challenge: tearing up the Miami Open’s 33-year-old roots on the idyllic island of Key Biscayne, and putting them down again in the parking lot of a football arena downtown. After years of trying, and failing, to get approval to renovate and expand in Crandon Park, the tournament finally found room across the bay at Hard Rock Stadium, home of the Miami Dolphins.

In Dolphins owner and real estate mogul Stephen Ross, it also found a patron who could conceivably match the deep-pocketed commitment that Larry Ellison has brought to the Miami Open’s chief rival, the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells. Ross will oversee construction of a 13,800-seat temporary stadium court inside the arena, and a permanent facility outside Hard Rock Stadium that will house 12 match courts and 18 practice courts.

While the transition may not be a natural one for players and longtime fans, Blake likes what he sees so far.

“I’m excited about the move,” Blake says. “I think some players may have wondered what [the facility] would be like, but they’ve seen the renderings, and I think they understand how beautiful it can be.”

If advance ticket sales are an indication, the same seems to be true of fans. By January, sales were up 22 percent over the same time in 2018.

“You don’t normally associate tennis with football, but sports fans are sports fans, and I think we’ve done a good job tapping into the Dolphins base,” Blake says about the reaction. “It will also be easier for people north of the city, in Broward County and Palm Beach, to come down.”

The tournament’s move will be another learning experience for Blake.

“I’ve got a new appreciation for what goes into running a tournament,” he says. “Just putting together the schedule each day. As a player, you’re like, ‘What’s the problem? Just put it out!’ But there are so many intricacies to it, so many chefs in the kitchen.”

Blake says there are “added elements” he can bring to the event, through his knowledge of the players’ perspective, and his relationships with the game’s older stars. He’s pleased that Serena and Venus Williams, Novak Djokovic, Nadal and Federer can still be potential drawing cards in Miami.

“I think it’s great, because we’re witnessing history,” Blake says of the continued dominance of these veterans. “I’m also partial, because I played against them and with them, and I think they’re incredible human beings. Whether it’s Alexander Zverev or Felix Auger-Aliassime who makes a big move, I’m not worried about the next generation. The transition will come.”

In his first year as the Miami Open’s tournament director, Blake invited the boys’ and girls’ tennis teams from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, FL, to show support and benefit survivors of the shooting that had occurred just a month earlier.

As for Blake’s own role in the sport’s future, he’s not ready to jump into coaching yet—“To do it right, you’ve got to be there 30 weeks, and I have a 6-year-old and a 4-year-old at home,” he says. But he believes an increased emphasis on coaching is the key to any improvement in U.S. tennis fortunes.

“It’s such a broad country, we can’t have a top-down approach. We need to encourage coaches to work their own way,” Blake says. “We need to support them financially, but not everyone has to play the game the same way.”

As Blake approaches 40, he knows he’s committed to tennis, in one form or another, for the long haul. Whether it’s on the court as a coach, or off the court as an official or an activist voice, Blake’s platform will come.

Miami ATP Preview: Which Novak Djokovic will we see in South Beach?

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:30:00 +0000

In previewing the women’s draw at the Miami Open earlier today, I wrote that there had been 13 WTA tournaments played this year, and that 13 different players had won them. Lest this sound like the “chaos” of the women’s tour at work, here’s another stat: There have been 19 ATP tournaments played so far this year, and they’ve had 19 different winners (h/t to Chris Clarey of the New York Times). Anything can happen on either tour these days, and it doesn’t feel like a bad thing.

Can the men go 20 for 20 in Miami? Here’s a look at the draw.

First Quarter

The question marks begin at the top: Which Novak Djokovic will we see in Miami? The one who has dominated the majors of late, and who has won this event six times, or the one who floundered through a straight-set loss to Philipp Kohlschreiber in Indian Wells, and who has shown some vulnerability at best-of-three-set events? Djokovic should be better than he was last week. He came to Indian Wells after more than a month off, and he used his doubles run with Fabio Fognini there to get his practice cuts in. He’ll start against either Bernard Tomic or Tomas Berdych, could play John Millman after that, and is scheduled, as of now, to face defending Miami champ John Isner in the quarters.

Also here: Indian Wells semifinalist Milos Raonic, who will open against either Max Marterer or Taylor Fritz.

First-round match that will make you think it’s 2014 all over again: Berdych vs. Tomic

Semifinalist: Djokovic

Second Quarter

OK, Dominic Thiem beat Roger Federer to win Indian Wells; but is he ready to challenge for the Sunshine Double? It’s a feat reserved for the elite on the men’s side: the Agassis, Federers and Djokovics of the world. Thiem, whose best surface will always be clay, is probably not ready to make that leap on hard courts, but his draw makes it an intriguing possibility. The other seeds in his quarter are: Kei Nishikori, Nick Kyrgios, Gilles Simon, Borna Coric, Gael Monfils, Nikoloz Basilashvili, and Marton Fucsovics. I’d say Thiem would be a solid favorite against any of them at the moment.

Player of Interest: Before withdrawing from Indian Wells, Monfils was playing with newfound intensity. Can he keep it up? If so, he has a chance to go far here.

Semifinalist: Thiem

Third Quarter

Last year at Indian Wells, Federer lost a close, fierce final to Juan Martin del Potro, then came to Miami and his lost his first match, to Thanasi Kokkinakis. Now that he’s lost another close, fierce final in Indian Wells, to Thiem, can he avoid a similar fate? Federer should get past his opening round, where he’ll either play Matthew Ebden or a qualifier. But to go farther he may have to beat his countryman Stan Wawrinka for the second time in as many tournaments.

Also here: Two returning seeds, Kevin Anderson and Grigor Dimitrov, and a guy who may finally have put his year into gear in Indian Wells, Karen Khachanov.

Semifinalist: Wawrinka

Fourth Quarter

Alexander Zverev started the 2018 season slowly, but found his form in Miami, where he reached the final, and nearly won it. This time around, Zverev comes in as even more of a question mark. He’s started slowly again, and he lost his opener in Indian Wells after being sick for a week.

If Zverev isn’t back in form, who might take advantage? Stefanos Tsitsipas seems like a contender. While he lost fairly early, to Felix Auger-Aliassime, in Indian Wells, the extra rest should do Tsitsipas some good. He never really stopped playing after the Australian Open.

Other young guns in this section: Denis Shapovalov and Frances Tiafoe

Waving good-bye: David Ferrer will make his final stop in Miami, a tournament where—a certain crying baby aside—he has good memories. He’ll play Sam Querrey in the first round.

Semifinalist: Tsitsipas

Semifinals: Djokovic d. Thiem; Tsitsipas d. Wawrinka

Final: Tsitsipas d. Djokovic

Miami WTA Preview: All eyes are on Sloane, Halep, Serena and Osaka

Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:11:00 +0000

So far in 2019, there have been 13 WTA tournaments, and every one of them has had a different winner. It has been a season of surprises and breakthroughs, the most recent of which came on Sunday in Indian Wells, where 18-year-old Bianca Andreescu stunned the field. Will we see another shocker at the Miami Open? Can a 14th woman keep the streak alive? Here’s a look at the draw.

First Quarter

If you’re wondering where Andreescu goes from here, the answer is: into the same quarter as Naomi Osaka in Miami. The unseeded Canadian will start her campaign there against the same woman she played in the first round in Indian Wells, Irina-Camelia Begu. The winner will play Sofia Kenin, and the winner of that will likely have a third-round date with Kerber.

As for Osaka, will she be motivated by the fact that there’s suddenly a newer, younger kid on the WTA block? She’ll start against a qualifier, and is looking at a third-round encounter with a woman who almost beat her at the Australian Open, Su-Wei Hsieh. Life probably won’t get easier from there; also in this section are Aryna Sabalenka, Garbiñe Muguruza and Caroline Wozniacki.

First-round match to watch: Amanda Anisimova vs. Andrea Petkovic

Semifinalist: Kerber

Second Quarter

This quarter is headed up by two other 2019 champions, Petra Kvitova and Kiki Bertens, both of whom like hard courts, and both of whom are coming off exceedingly tough three-set losses in Indian Wells—Kvitova to Venus Williams, Bertens to Muguruza. This section would seem to give them an opportunity to put those losses behind them with a strong run. The other seeds here are Donna Vekic, Caroline Garcia, Julia Goerges, Ash Barty, Madison Keys and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova.

Player of Interest: Keys. Florida is her home base; after a first-round loss in Indian Wells, can she build some momentum here? She could play Barty in the third round.

First-round match to watch: Victoria Azarenka vs. Dominika Cibulkova

Semifinalist: Bertens

Third Quarter

All, or at least many, eyes will be on Sloane Stephens in Miami. She’s the defending champion, but she’s coming off a puzzlingly poor defeat, 6-3, 6-0, to Stefanie Voegele at Indian Wells. Stephens will try to put that behind her when she opens against either Ons Jabeur or Alison van Uytvanck. She could face Camila Giorgi after that.

Other eyes in this section will be on Karolina Pliskova and Belinda Bencic. Each has won a tournament this year, and each would seem to be a threat to win this title as well. Bencic beat Pliskova in three sets in Indian Wells; a round-of-16 rematch is possible in Miami.

Also here: Elise Mertens and 2018 Miami runner-up Jelena Ostapenko. They could meet in the third round.

Semifinalist: Pliskova

Fourth Quarter

Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Simona Halep, Elina Svitolina, Danielle Collins: they’re all stuffed into the bottom quarter.

Serena is not among those 13 players who have won a title this season, but Miami, where she has won eight times, is traditionally where she reasserts herself. Can she do it again, and leave behind the viral illness that knocked her out of Indian Wells? The first seed she could face is Qiang Wang; the second is Svitolina.

Something similar might be asked of Halep. The No. 2 seed also hasn’t won a tournament in 2019, but she does like U.S. hard courts, and this will be her last time on them for a few months.

Wild cards in this section: Mari Osaka, Naomi’s sister; and Cori Gauff, a 15-year-old American who won the French Open girls' title last year.

Semifinalist: Halep

Semifinals: Bertens d. Kerber; Pliskova d. Halep

Final: Pliskova d. Bertens

With Indian Wells win over Federer, Thiem's future looks much brighter

Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:19:00 +0000

“He’s not going to die wondering.”

That was the reaction Darren Cahill had in the commentator’s booth after watching Dominic Thiem hit a screaming forehand winner past Roger Federer on Sunday.

I’d never heard the term, but it was appropriate—both as a description of the shot, and of Thiem’s effort over the final weekend in Indian Wells. The Austrian has always had the power, the speed, and the weapons from both sides, but for all of the effort he put into every swing, he often seemed to leave something on the table. Entering more tournaments than any other top player, he played for the long haul rather than for the moment. Coming to Indian Wells, he had reached just two Masters 1000 finals, both on clay in Madrid, and he had just three match wins in 2019. In the States, at least, Thiem was most famous for two epic five-set losses at the US Open, to Juan Martin del Potro in 2017 and Rafael Nadal in 2018.

After 10 days in the desert, all of that has changed—it can happen fast in tennis. With his 3-6, 6-3, 7-5 win over Federer, Thiem has his first Masters 1000 title, his first important win on a hard court, and a signature victory over one of the Big 4. We knew Thiem was a talent, a slugger, a speedster, a spectacular athlete; this week we saw that he can use that athleticism in the service of winning at the highest level, too.

It began not against Federer, but in Thiem’s equally close semifinal win over Milos Raonic. Serving for the match at 5-4 in the third, Thiem tightened up and fell behind. But instead of giving the break back, he went all-out to put himself in position to hit forehands, and when they came, he hit them with a fierce conviction. In the past, Thiem has played too vertically; he stood well behind the baseline and leapt straight up to take his cuts, rather than pushing forward. In the final moments against Raonic, Thiem—playing horizontally now—pressed forward and took those cuts near the service line.

That conviction carried over into the final. Federer jumped out to an early lead, won the first set, and was on the verge of extending his lead early in the second. He was playing flawlessly, but one can only keep Thiem’s power contained for so long. By the time the match had reached a third set, the terms were set: The older man’s serve would have to keep the younger man’s ground strokes at bay. Once the rallies began, Thiem gradually imposed his will. Federer’s job was not to let those rallies begin; he mostly succeeded, by making 23 of his first 28 first serves in the third set.

In that sense, this final was reminiscent of last year’s Indian Wells final, between Federer and Thiem’s fellow bash brother, Juan Martin del Potro. The result was similar, too—bash prevailed, and Federer was left to ponder what-if. Federer is rightly known for his ability to win close matches and stage comebacks, to find his opponent’s weakness and choose the right shot for the right moment. But every so often that’s not how it goes. Every so often he lets one slip, and leaves his fans wondering what just happened. This, I’m guessing, is going to be one of those times.

When Thiem served at 3-4 in the third, it looked as if Federer’s superior match skills would finally prevail. Thiem began by missing a weird, ill-chosen, short-hop forehand, and then missed another regulation forehand wide. It was 0-30, and seemed sure to become 0-40 when Federer moved Thiem out of position and lined up a forehand into an open court. Instead of hitting a winner, though, Federer sent the ball wide. Federer was able to reach break point, but when Thiem came to net on a wing and a prayer, he hit a backhand pass into the bottom of the net. Thiem held.

Still, Federer appeared to have the upper hand down the stretch. Serving at 5-5, he went up 30-15, and hit an excellent drop shot. But Thiem, who had been burned by the play earlier, went into overdrive, tracked the ball down, and flicked a brilliant crosscourt winner. Strangely, presented with a mid-court forehand on the next point that he could have drilled, Federer chose to hit another drop shot to the same spot; the result was another Thiem flick winner. A minute later, Thiem had the match-deciding service break, and the biggest win of his career. Federer gave Thiem his opportunity, and Thiem took it. He won’t, as Darren Cahill would say, die wondering about this one.

During the match, I wondered if having Nicolas Massu, one of the game’s great overachievers and never-say-die competitors, in his player box had inspired Thiem, and he credited Massu’s “energy” afterward. In the third set, Thiem fell and cut his elbow, which started to bleed. But he didn’t appear to notice until after the match was over—that’s how far into this one he was. Thiem played as if his future depended on it. With spring and clay around the corner, his future just got a lot brighter.

Indian Wells champion Bianca Andreescu, 18, has something unteachable

Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:29:00 +0000

“No matter what the score is, anyone can come back,” a giddy, exhausted Bianca Andreescu told ESPN2's Mary Jo Fernandez on Sunday at the BNP Paribas Open. “5-0, 3-0...6-0. Anything is possible, I think I proved that today.”

Judging by her effort over the last 10 days at Indian Wells, where she pushed herself to the physical limit and beyond, tennis’ latest Canadian sensation just might be able to will herself back from a 6-0 deficit.

In 2018, Naomi Osaka made a breakthrough run at the BNP Paribas Open, when she won the title as an unseeded 20-year-old. Somehow, Andreescu managed to one-up that performance. She’s 18, she was granted a wild card into the event, and at the start of the year she was ranked outside the Top 150. Now, after a 6-4, 3-6, 6-4 win over Angelique Kerber that was dramatic, stubborn and brilliantly played in equal measure, Andreescu owns a Premier Mandatory title and has cracked the Top 30.

“It’s one of the toughest matches I’ve ever played,” Andreescu said afterward, one where, in her opinion, she proved “how much determination I have.”

Through the week, the talk surrounding Andreescu had, rightly, been about her competitive IQ and her ability and willingness to do anything with the ball. And that’s how she started against Kerber. In the early going, Andreescu sliced her forehand; used moonballs to back Kerber up, before moving in for the kill; rolled her forehand crosscourt to set up her inside-out putaway; pumped in strong second serves; and always had the drop shot close at hand.

To try to keep up, Kerber had to bend low to dig out the slices; reach above her shoulders to counter the topspin; reflex back Andreescu’s powerful drives; and chase down her drop shots. To add insult to injury, Andreescu also hit Kerber three different times with balls that she batted to the other side of the net in between points. When the second set began, an annoyed Kerber dug in and began hitting with flat pace and more depth. She was answering the challenge, and not giving Andreescu the time she needed to weave her complex web. When Kerber reached break point twice at 2-2 in the third set, Andreescu seemed, finally, to be out of ideas, and out of gas.

That’s when we found out what else she has. It’s commonly called the X-factor, and in Andreescu’s case, it comes in two parts—one athletic, one emotional, neither teachable.

“I’m so tired,” Andreescu complained to her coach, Sylvain Bruneau, on the next changeover. “I want this so bad!”

In those two sentences, we could see what this 18-year-old already has something that so many more-seasoned players don’t: an ability to turn obstacles into motivation—to articulate and even dwell on the obstacles, so she can inspire herself to overcome them.

Throughout the tournament, Andreescu vented, but she didn’t mope, or rush, or get negative, or get away from her game. She thrives on the drama of competition, which is never a bad thing in any athlete.

In her previous match, a similarly hard-fought win over Elina Svitolina, Andreescu appeared to be cramping near the end. Rather than slowing her down, though, the cramps forced her, or reminded her, to be more aggressive.

“I think the cramping was because I was so stressed out with everything,” she said. “But I’ve had moments like this in the past, playing challenger events, juniors. So I had a good feel of how to deal with it.”

The same thing happened to Andreescu over the last three games against Kerber, and she dealt with it in the same way. Instead of rallying with Kerber, as she had for much of the match, Andreescu began to pull the trigger as soon as she could. Again, it worked. Her forehands practically detonated off her racquet and into the corners; she hit 19 forehand winners in the third set alone, and 37 for the match. Kerber can do a lot of things on a tennis court, but she can’t create opportunities for winners the way Andreescu can.

And that’s the other thing we found out about Andreescu: Yes, she’s thoughtful, and yes, she has variety, but those things wouldn’t mean nearly as much if she couldn’t back them up with old-fashioned racquet speed, and the point-ending power that comes with it. Andreescu may have started the match trying to mix things up and disturb Kerber’s rhythm, but she ended it by dropping bombs.

“I’m speechless,” Andreescu claimed, briefly, after her win over Svitolina. But, of course, she wasn’t, and her trophy-ceremony speech after the final was characteristically pitch-perfect in its ingenuous enthusiasm.

With her wide-ranging game and mature-beyond-her-years attitude, Andreescu defies all categories except one: she’s a natural.

An unexpected treat: A Bianca Andreescu vs. Angelique Kerber preview

Sun, 17 Mar 2019 00:38:00 +0000

A gold star for anyone who predicted, before the tournament began, that this would be the women’s final. The presence of the 18-year-old Andreescu, who began the year ranked No. 178, is obviously a shock. But Kerber wasn’t really part of the contenders’ conversation when the draw was made, either. She had never reached an Indian Wells final; she had made just one semifinal in 2018; and she was drummed out of the season’s biggest event, the Australian Open, 6-0, 6-2 by Danielle Collins.

But Kerber and Andreescu it is, and you can’t say they haven’t earned their spots. Kerber came back from 1-4 down in the third set to beat Aryna Sabalanka in the round of 16, straight-setted Venus Williams in the quarters, and slayed the WTA’s new giant killer, Belinda Bencic, in the semis. For her part, Andreescu steamrolled two-time Slam champ Garbiñe Muguruza, 6-0, 6-1, and outdueled No. 6 seed Elina Svitolina in a three-set semifinal.

But even if it wasn’t the final we expected, it should be one we can enjoy. Kerber and Andreescu are both consistent players who rely on thoughtful tactics, a variety of shots, constant changes of pace, and a mix of offense and defense. Neither is a power server or a hit-and-miss ball basher. It should be interesting to see the German and the Canadian, who have never faced each other, adjust to each other’s games as the match progresses.

Kerber obviously has more big-match experience, but Andreescu is on a breakthrough roll—we saw how far Naomi Osaka took a similar burst of momentum here last year. Andreescu also has a little more offensive weaponry than Kerber. Against Svitolina in the semifinals, it was the teenager who ran around to hit forehands and controlled the rallies with that shot.

Like that match, this one should also be on Andreescu’s racquet; right now that seems like a very good place for it to be.

Winner: Andreescu

Rested vs. Tested: Previewing a Roger Federer vs. Dominic Thiem final

Sun, 17 Mar 2019 00:29:00 +0000

Is it better to be rested or tested?

Is it better not to play at all the day before a final, or to win a tight three-setter which lasts two and a half hours, but which also ends with you playing some of the most clutch tennis of your career? We’ll have a better idea of the answer after this final.

Federer will be rested. Not only did his semifinal opponent, Rafael Nadal, withdraw from their Saturday showdown, Federer cruised through his first four matches, in which he didn’t drop a set or face anyone in the Top 20. Thiem was the one who took, and passed, a serious test against Milos Raonic in the semis. But he has also had the benefit of a walkover in Indian Wells, from his quarterfinal opponent, Gael Monfils.

Hopefully, that combination means both of these guys are feeling good for the final, because this is a match-up we haven’t seen often enough. Perhaps because Federer has skipped the clay season the last two years, and Thiem is at his best on clay, the Swiss and the Austrian have played just four times. They’ve split those meetings 2-2, while Federer has won both of their meetings on hard courts. Federer won a routine straight-setter last time they played, at the ATP Finals in London in November.

A slow hard court like the one in Indian Wells would seem to be the ideal place for these two to face off. This should also be an ideal moment. Federer has won his last nine matches, while Thiem was forced to lift his game to its summit to fend off Raonic. If Thiem can serve with the same intelligent mix of paces and placements, and scramble around to hit his forehand with the same Nadal-esque gusto that he showed on Saturday, he’s got a shot. If he can’t, he doesn’t.

Winner: Federer

Indian Wells semifinal preview: Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer, XXXIX

Sat, 16 Mar 2019 03:03:00 +0000

By now, as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer approach their 39th meeting on Saturday, tennis fans can find whatever they want in the head-to-head history between these two legends to justify picking one or the other to win.

Federer has won their last five meetings, but Nadal won the five before that. Federer leads 11-9 on hard courts, but Nadal leads 8-5 on hard-court matches played outdoors. Federer won their last meeting at Indian Wells, 6-2, 6-3; Nadal won the one before that, 6-4, 6-2; Federer won the one before that, 6-3, 6-4. Nadal has beaten Federer 23 times, but that number hasn’t budged in five years.

Leaving that ambiguous history behind and returning to the match at hand, the first thing we have to consider is Nadal’s right knee. In his quarterfinal against Karen Khachanov, Rafa’s patellar tendinitis flared again, and he played the second set with his right leg taped. There were moments when it appeared as if he would have to retire, but as the set progressed, his movement improved. While he couldn’t run down a couple of drop shots, he was well enough to dominate the second-set tiebreaker. At last year’s US Open, Nadal also played his third-round match with Khachanov with the same leg taped. He would survive two more rounds—including a five-set classic against Dominic Thiem in the quarterfinals—before having to retire in the semifinals.

For now, all we can do is wait to see how that knee feels on Saturday. If there’s any problem with Nadal’s movement, Federer becomes a heavy favorite. He’s on a nine-match win streak, is coming off a title run in Dubai, and hasn’t dropped a set or been seriously challenged in Indian Wells. While he hasn’t faced Rafa since 2017, Federer had his number on hard courts by the end of that year. He had added a newly free-flowing drive backhand to his repertoire, and Rafa hadn’t found a way to counter it.

But if Nadal is healthy tomorrow, he may finally have an answer. In the year and a half since they met, Rafa has added a newly aggressive element to his own game, in the form of a more powerful and varied first serve. After starting the year well in Australia, he has looked just as sharp as Federer in Indian Wells. Nadal also hasn’t dropped a set, and when he was challenged, by Khachanov, he rose to it. It’s also possible that Nadal’s injury will help him psychologically. If it makes him feel as if he has nothing to lose (or a little less to lose, anyway), he might hit with more freedom and aggression—never a bad thing, especially with Rafa.

Let’s hope Nadal is at full strength; a meeting between these two is always welcome, and we’ve seen over the last two years how hard it can be to come by. If Nadal’s knee allows, it should also be an opportunity to see Roger and Rafa compete against each other at a moment when they’re both at their late-career peaks. How many more times will we have that chance?

Winner: Federer

Nadal survives Khachanov and flare-up of knee in Indian Wells quarters

Sat, 16 Mar 2019 00:32:00 +0000

Longtime Rafael Nadal fans know the drill well. One moment their player looks perfectly fine, competing with his usual full-tilt intensity and enthusiasm. The next moment, they look up and see that one of his legs has been taped below the knee, and he’s struggling to move.

That’s the painfully unpredictable nature of Nadal’s ailment, patellar tendinitis, which flared again in the second set of his quarterfinal against Karen Khachanov at Indian Wells on Friday. Nadal had come back from a break down to win the first set in a tiebreaker. As he had all week, he was seeing and hitting the ball exceptionally well, and he had raised his game at exactly the right moment, winning the first-set tiebreaker 7-2 behind a flurry of winners—forehands, volleys, and smashes.

Nadal’s continued at that level through the first three games of the second set, until he reached break point on Khachanov’s serve at 1-1. During the ensuing rally, rather than taking a final step to get in position for a forehand, he lunged at it and sent it long. We found out why a few minutes later, when he limped to the sidelines, stretched his legs against the net, and called the trainer.

By the time Nadal came back out to serve at 1-2, his right knee was taped, his service speed had dropped 10 m.p.h., and he had stopped running for balls in the corners. A likely win, it seemed, was about to turn into a defeat, and a much-anticipated semifinal against Roger Federer was about to be derailed at the last second. Each time Nadal walked toward his chair for a changeover, everyone in the stadium waited to see if he was going to call it a day.

But as so often happens when a player is injured, his opponent was equally affected, and equally disturbed. Serving at 2-2, Khachanov misfired on a series of forehands and was broken. While he would get that break back in the next game, an opportunity—to build a lead, and to further discourage Nadal—had been lost. As the set progressed, Rafa’s movement, and his spirit, returned. After saving a set point at 4-5, when Khachanov sent a half-volley wide, Nadal again lifted his game in the tiebreaker. For a second time, he came up with a flurry of winners—volleys, smashes, forehands, passing shots—to close out a 7-6 (2), 7-6 (2) win.

The last four sets that Nadal and Khachanov have played, dating back to their brutally-fought third-round match at last year’s US Open, has ended in a tiebreaker. Rafa has won them all, and it wasn’t hard to see why today—he has so many more options.

While he has been accused of playing a one-dimensional baseline game in the past, Nadal was the player who closed out big points at the net, who finished with volley winners and overhead winners, who found a away to attack, rather than defend, when it mattered, and who put the ball at Khachanov’s feet on passing shots. Khachanov served brilliantly—he made 86 percent of his first serves in the first set—and came within a point of sending the match to a third. But when he was forced to try that delicate half-volley on set point, he couldn’t do it. When Nadal broadened his tactics and changed things up in the tiebreakers, Khachanov couldn’t answer with any new looks of his own.

Afterward, Nadal’s celebration was muted. He plays Federer tomorrow afternoon, but the more important moment may come in the morning, when he wakes up and finds out how his knee feels. When he faced Khachanov at the Open, Nadal also played with his right knee taped. He survived to win two more matches, including a classic against Dominic Thiem in the quarterfinals, before having to retire in the semifinals. We’ll see how long Rafa can last in Indian Wells. When he faces Federer, an opponent he has lost to five straight times, we’ll also see how well he can play.

Bencic tops yet another Top 10 player—Pliskova—and will soon join them

Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:37:00 +0000

Belinda Bencic and Karolina Pliskova are two players who could each use a little of what the other one has. If Bencic has a weakness, it’s her lack of putaway power, something that comes naturally to Pliskova. Conversely, Pliskova’s flaw—the long strides that can keep her from moving forward proactively—is Bencic’s most obvious strength.

So it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that when the Swiss and the Czech met in the quarterfinals at Indian Wells on Thursday, those strengths and weaknesses largely cancelled each other out, and the two played an exceedingly tight three-setter that became more riveting as it went along. They have been two of the WTA’s top performers so far in 2019: Pliskova won a title in Brisbane and made the semis at the Australian Open, while Bencic beat four Top 10 opponents in her run to the championship in Dubai two weeks ago. Their first career meeting didn’t disappoint.

Over the course of the first two sets, each player had a chance to show off what she does best, and how effective it can be. Bencic began by taking everything at, or inside the baseline, coolly controlling the rallies, and breaking Pliskova’s lethal serve twice.

“She overwhelms her opponent by where she makes contact,” Lindsay Davenport said of Bencic in the Tennis Channel booth.

“It’s difficult to make a plan against Karolina Pliskova because of her serve,” Bencic said afterward. “I was just trying to disturb her rhythm.”

While Bencic was showing us what she does well in the first set, Pliskova was doing the opposite. During a sideline visit, her coach, Conchita Martinez, urged her to move up to the ball more quickly, with energetic steps. Pliskova listened, and began to wrest control of the points from Bencic. At the same time, Bencic, despite having a lead and being firmly in control, became agitated for no apparent reason.

“It’s bizarre to see her get so rattled right now,” Davenport said.

Was Bencic feeling the pressure that’s bound to come with her stellar recent results? By the time she settled down again, she trailed 0-4. She worked her way back, and saved four set points with Pliskova serving at 4-5, but she couldn’t save the fifth.

As the third set began, the level of play peaked, as the two jockeyed for position on top of the baseline. Forehand passes were met with better drop volleys; hard crosscourt ground strokes came back harder down the line; break points were earned with good shots, and saved with great ones. Serving at 1-2, Pliskova fended off four break points and held in a 13-minute game.

“I did a lot of running,” Bencic said with a laugh afterward.

Bencic is trimmer than she has been over the last couple of seasons, when she was plagued by injuries, and she has credited her improved fitness with her resurgence. If anything, she grew stronger and more confident down the stretch on Thursday. She held at love for 3-2, cashed in on her first break point at 4-3, and closed the match out nervelessly for a 6-3, 4-6, 6-3 win.

In her final service hold, Bencic also reminded us of her roots, and of why she was so highly touted as a teenager. Faced with a tricky, high backhand volley, she casually knocked it off, with topspin, for a winner, without having to break stride. It’s a shot that came right of the playbook of her mentor, Martina Hingis.

These days, Bencic is on a run that’s reminiscent of Hingis in her prime. This was her sixth Top 10 win in her last eight matches; five of those victories have come in three sets. Bencic is taking the best that these top players have to give, and finding a way to beat it. Few would be surprised if she does it again, against either Angelique Kerber or Venus Williams in the semis.

“If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em,” is how the cliché goes. Bencic is about to give it a twist: She can beat the players in the Top 10, and pretty soon she’s going to join ’em.

Bianca Andreescu, just 18, thinks her way through a statement win

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:01:00 +0000

“That came out nowhere, that drop shot!” exclaimed Chanda Rubin, commentating for Tennis Channel from Indian Wells.

Her partner in the booth, Mary Carillo, echoed her enthusiasm.

“She’s making all of these reasoned, mature decisions,” Carillo said, with a touch of amazement in her voice.

The object of their astonishment? It wasn’t anyone in the WTA’s Top 10, 20, 30 or even 50. It wasn’t a player who had ever been this deep, at a tournament this size. It wasn’t a player that many people in the crowd were likely to have heard of before. But it may have been, as Rubin’s and Carillo’s words of praise indicated, the most interesting player they would watch all week.

That player was 18-year-old Bianca Andreescu of Canada, and she was in the process of putting her name on the pro-tennis map, probably for good. Over 51 fast-moving but never-boring minutes on Tuesday, she dismantled two-time Grand Slam champion Garbiñe Muguruza 6-0, 6-1 to reach the semifinals at one of the WTA’s top-tier events.

It was the peak moment in a rise that began at the start of the season for Andreescu. So far in 2019, she has reached the final in Auckland and the semis in Acapulco, won the Oracle Challenger Series event in Newport Beach, moved from outside the Top 150 to inside the Top 60, and recorded wins over Caroline Wozniacki, Venus Williams and now Muguruza. What her fellow 18-year-old Canadian Felix Auger Alissiame has been to the men’s side in Indian Wells, Andreescu has been to the women’s: a breakout player whose game and attitude look built for the long haul.

“We’re all killing it,” Andreescu said of Auger Alissiame and their fellow Canadian teen Denis Shapovalov, who reached the round of 16 before losing. “It’s great. We have played so many junior tournaments together, and it’s so nice to see every one of us at the top of our game at this stage of our life, only 18, 19, which is pretty incredible.”

“We motivate each other.”

Andreescu should be motivating for any tennis player to watch. With her, you have a chance to see her think her way through each match, each game, each point. During a rally, she’ll move seamlessly from a drive backhand to a slice backhand to a moonball forehand to a power forehand to a drop shot—changing the pace with each one. In the final game on Wednesday, Andreescu floated easily to her left and knocked off two inside-in forehand winners in a row. The shot is clearly part of her wide-ranging repertoire, but I hadn’t seen her hit it all afternoon; she obviously didn’t need it.

Andreescu is just 5’7”, but she has a nice rhythm, and thus a nice pop, on her serve, and she gets good depth on her returns. At one stage against Muguruza, Andreescu had hit 31 percent of her ground strokes within two feet of the lines, yet, like Auger Aliassime, she rarely tries to do too much with the ball.

Milos Raonic and Andreescu are the last two survivors of a Canadian contingent that has made its presence felt at Indian Wells—in the number of top-level players the country has produced, in the variety of their playing styles, even in their rapping skills. Each is a child of immigrants, none of whom hail from the same country of origin: Raonic’s parents are from Montenegro, Shapovalov’s are from Russia, Auger Aliassime’s father is from Togo, and Andreescu’s parents are Romanian (her favorite player is Simona Halep). She started training with Tennis Canada at 11, worked with Nathalie Tauziat when she was younger, and is now coached by Sylvain Bruneau.

If there’s a defining characteristic to the Canadian players, it seems to be that they’ve been allowed to flourish in their own, distinctive ways: Raonic is a methodical serve machine; Shapovalov is a flashy shotmaker; Auger Aliassime is equally explosive and contained; Andreescu has a high competitive IQ.

As Carillo says, this 18-year-old already knows how to make the reasoned, mature decision. As Andreescu herself says: she’s killing it.

Big 3 report: Nadal and Federer were brilliant; Djokovic...not so much

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:38:00 +0000

The story of the Big Three so far in 2019 had gone like this: Novak Djokovic was taking back his No. 1 crown, and was going to be unbeatable forevermore; while winter was gradually settling back in for Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, after their six-month Indian Summer of 2017 and 2018. And that may be how the season turns out. But one of the beauties of tennis is that not every day goes according to the master plan. Today at Indian Wells was one of those days. Nadal and Federer were very, very good; Djokovic, not so much.

Rafa kicked off the men’s matches on Stadium 1 against Diego Schwartzman. The Argentine was 0-6 against Nadal, and at 5’7”, 141 pounds, he looks like the kind of guy who may go 0-20 against him by the time it’s all over. But anyone who saw the way Schwartzman made Nadal work at last year’s French Open—he was the only player to take a set from the 11-time champ—knows that he has the shot-making skills to put at least a temporary scare into Rafa.

Maybe that’s why Nadal, who mentioned the quality of their previous matches, looked so determined not to let his friend make any inroads in their rallies. You could see from the start that Rafa was in a mood, and in a groove, and he stayed in both of them until his 6-3, 6-1 win was complete. He flicked forehand winners on the dead run. He pounded his returns with no sign of hesitation. He measured his forehand drop shots with flawless nonchalance. He hit with too much depth, too much height, and too much pace for Schwartzman. Even at those moments when Nadal typically gets nervous—hitting service returns at break point; trying to close out insurance breaks—he stayed loose. Rafa should go into his fourth-rounder against Filip Krajinovic with maximum confidence on Wednesday.

And so should Federer. If Nadal was at his best from a ball-striking perspective on Tuesday, Federer was at his best from a tactical perspective in his equally brisk, equally one-sided 6-3, 6-4, 59-minute win over Stan Wawrinka.

Every time Wawrinka lingered far behind the baseline, Federer either snuck in a drop shot or snuck in to net himself. Every time Wawrinka tried to attack his second serve, Federer put the ball in the most difficult possible spot to hit a return. When Wawrinka smash an easy overhead, Federer was right there to reflex it back. While an amped-up Wawrinka tried to pummel the ball too early, too hard and too close to the lines, Federer deftly moved him up and back with slice backhands and angled forehands, and finished points with drop-volley winners and half-volley winners.

Within that delicate onslaught, though, one indelicate Federer shot stood out. At 5-3 in the first set, Wawrinka hit a crosscourt forehand that sent Federer wide of the singles sideline. It was clear, as he ran to track the ball down, that the court behind Federer was going to be wide open for Wawrinka. Most players in that situation would go for an all-or-nothing rifle-shot down the line. Instead, Federer drilled his forehand safely down the middle, right back at Wawrinka, but with just enough extra pace that it took him by surprise. It worked; Wawrinka framed a backhand wide. Pretty much everything worked for Federer on Tuesday, against a very familiar opponent. On Wednesday, he’ll go up against an opponent he has never faced, Kyle Edmund.

In between Nadal and Federer came Djokovic. On this day he was as ordinary, or sub-ordinary, as they were extraordinary. It had been 10 years since he had lost to his opponent, Philipp Kohlschreiber, but apparently there’s a second time for everything, because the 35-year-old German walked away from a surprise 6-3, 6-4 win.

“It was one of those days,” Djokovic said later, and that sums it up well. From the start, he was unable to get any depth or penetration on his shots. As hard as he swung, as loudly as he grunted, as much of his body as threw into his swings, the ball kept landing in the middle of the court and sitting up for his opponent. Djokovic poked at his down-the-line backhand tentatively and sent regulation drop shots five feet wide, and when he got good looks at forehands, he overhit them.

At the same time, Kohlschreiber, who was coming off a satisfying win over Nick Kyrgios, was there to take advantage. Kohlschreiber moved Djokovic wide to his forehand side, then hammered his own forehand down the line for a winner; later he did the same thing from the backhand side. His one-handed backhand topspin got up above Djokovic’s shoulder and made him uncomfortable. And Kohlschreiber had an unerring ability to wrong-foot Djokovic and leave him spinning his wheels at mid-court.

Djokovic will be better; this was his first tournament since the Australian Open six weeks ago. But this afternoon was about Kohlschreiber. After nearly two decades on tour, he recorded his first win over a world No. 1, and the rush of emotion showed in his leaping fist-pump afterward. One of the beauties of tennis is that there will be surprises like this, and one of the beauties is that, every so often, good, unassuming, under-appreciated—and amazingly talented—players like Kohlschreiber get to make them happen.

Osaka uses her disruptive return to subdue Collins in Indian Wells

Mon, 11 Mar 2019 04:02:00 +0000

Naomi Osaka has talked about how hard it can be for her to decide whether to pull the trigger on her return of serve.

“Do it. Don’t do it. Do it. Don’t do it,” she thinks to herself as the ball comes toward her.

Usually, it should be obvious by now, she does it. She steps a few feet inside the baseline, aims for a corner, and snaps off a quick, compact, power-packed stroke. The result is, as often as not, a blazing winner.

We’ve known how good Osaka’s return is for at least a year now, but it’s hard to remember a match in which it played a more important role than it did in her 6-4, 6-2 win over Danielle Collins on Monday night at Indian Wells.

It began early, when Collins couldn’t find her first serve; she made just 42 percent of them in the first set. That meant Osaka could do what she loves to do more than anything else: Move as close to the service line as possible for the second ball, and take her cuts. Collins managed to hang on through eight games, but two Osaka returns at 4-4 turned the match in her favor for good. Down 40-15, she cracked a forehand return winner and a backhand return winner, and eventually broke with another forehand winner.

When Osaka broke again early in the second set, Collins called out her coach, Pat Harrison. In their sideline chat, focused specifically, and not surprisingly, on how to counter Osaka’s return. His advice was to kick the first ball in, so she didn’t have to hit as many second serves; but if she did have to hit a second serve, she should try to slice it and keep it low, so Osaka couldn’t tee off on the ball. Osaka’s return had forced Collins and her coach to rethink everything that she would normally do with her serve.

Alas, there were no adjustments that were going to save Collins on this night. Osaka, who was playing with total focus and near-total positivity throughout, wore the American down in the second set—not with steadiness, but with relentless, first-ball pace. Osaka hit 29 winners to 21 errors, won 73 percent of first-serve points, broke four times, and faced just one break point herself. Collins is well-known for her own power from the ground, but Osaka, with her serve and return, consistently beat her to the punch.

Is Osaka’s return the most disruptive shot in the game? It’s in the conversation. Her opponents can’t make mistakes with their serves and expect to survive; knowing that alone puts them under a lot of pressure. Belinda Bencic will be the next woman to have to face it.

Serena's comeback has been full of great moments and unfortunate exits

Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:57:00 +0000

One year ago this week, Serena Williams made her return to tennis after the birth of her first child. Unfortunately, this anniversary week went the way so many others have for her over the last 12 months: A promising performance was followed by a surprising—and in this case concerning—disappointment.

On Friday night, Serena looked like her old self and then some when she beat Victoria Azarenka in a blistering contest that approached the level of their fiercest Grand Slam contests from years past. For 15 minutes or so on Sunday, Serena looked as if she would maintain that level when she broke out to a 3-0 lead over Garbiñe Muguruza. But by the fourth game it was obvious that there was something not right with Serena. She walked slowly between points, stared at the ground, and put her hand up to her forehead. Soon she was a step behind during the points as well. After losing six straight games and the set, she called for the trainer; after coming back out for one more game, she retired with what was later called a viral illness.

“Extreme dizziness and extreme fatigue,” which “got worse every second,” is how Serena described it later.

This pattern—glorious return to form followed by demoralizing exit—has held true, in one form or another, for much of the past year.

At the French Open last spring, Serena fought through three rounds and beat two seeds before having to withdraw from a fourth-round encounter against Maria Sharapova with a pectoral strain. At Wimbledon, she dropped just one set in her first six matches, only to falter at the finish line against Angelique Kerber. At the US Open, she reigned supreme against Karolina Pliskova and Anastasija Sevastova in the quarters and semis, only to lose to Naomi Osaka in the chaotic title match. At this year’s Australian Open, Serena won a high-class, three-set struggle over Simona Halep in the fourth round, and led Karolina Pliskova 5-1 in the third in the quarterfinals, before turning her ankle and losing six straight games.

On each of these occasions, Serena’s defeat has come as a surprise, but the pattern itself is hardly shocking. She’s 37, she’s had a child, she was away from the game for more than a year, and since returning, she hasn’t been able to put together a run of wins long enough to help her build the kind of momentum that carries over from one tournament to the next. She’s yet to win a title over those 12 months, which means she never walks away from an event entirely happy with where her game is. Sometimes, as with her illness today, the result is out of her hands.

So maybe it’s a good time to remember that few players in the Open era have won many titles at 37. Serena herself is already the oldest women’s Grand Slam champion, having won her 23rd major at the 2017 Australian Open, at age 35. As Rod Laver has said about playing in your 30s, you can still reach the heights you once did it, but it’s tougher to stay there day after day.

Maybe it’s a good time to remember the heights that Serena reached just two days ago, in her opening match against Azarenka. It was as if two old friends had reconnected and taken each other back in time. After a shaky start, Azarenka began to walk with her old, determined stride, and she tracked down virtually everything Serena threw at her. At the same time, Serena rose to Azarenka’s challenge, thrived on her pace, and answered with her best tennis in a year.

After that throwback thriller, it was clear: Serena can play as well as she ever has. At some point, some week, over the next 12 months, she’s going to do it long enough to hold another trophy.

The New Monfils continues his rise with win over Mayer in Indian Wells

Sun, 10 Mar 2019 01:20:00 +0000

Gael Monfils has done a lot of unique, memorable, instantly-viral things on a tennis court over the course of his 15-year career. He’s leapt as high as anyone ever has for overheads, and flung himself so far across the court for volleys that he’s made his body go completely horizontal.

But gutting out 12-minute games on his opponent’s serve? When that opponent keeps wiping away break points with one swing of his racquet and forcing him to start all over again at deuce? That’s what the Nadals, the Hewitts, the Sharapovas of the world do, not this happy-go-lucky Frenchman.

Except...that’s exactly what Monfils did in his 6-4, 3-6, 6-3 second-round win over Leonardo Mayer at Indian Wells on Sunday. At 3-3 in the first set, Monfils kept earning break points, and Mayer kept coming up with something special to save them. But rather than wearying of the struggle and pulling the ripcord on a couple of forehands, the way the Monfils of old might have, he did what any stubbornly patient player would do: He kept his head down, kept getting back to break point, and was finally rewarded when a Mayer forehand landed a millimeter wide of the sideline.

In case you hadn’t heard yet, there’s a New Monfils on tour in 2019. Yes, we’ve seen this more-focused, less fun-loving version of La Monf before, most recently in 2016, when he went 44-17, won his first 500-level event, at the Citi Open, and finished in the Top 10 for the first time. So far this year, Monfils is on track to be even better. He’s 13-4, he won his second career 500, in Rotterdam, and he’s back in the Top 20 and seemingly only heading upward from there. Instead of using his energy to entertain, he’s using it to play the type of forceful, forward-moving tennis that so many people have wished he would play in the past.

“New goals, new team, new routine, obviously wins under my belt,” Monfils, 32, said last week in Dubai when he was asked about his attitude in 2019. “Everything is going fine. I just try to keep doing what I’m doing. Every day a little more, a little more to improve.”

As in 2016, Monfils has been inspired by the energy and optimism of a new coaching relationship; then it was Mikael Tillstrom, now it’s Liam Smith, a London native who has coached for Tennis Australia and lives in Miami. So far, Smith has tried to get Monfils to use his speed not just for defensive purposes, the way he likes, but for offensive ones as well—he’s even serving and volleying on a regular basis now. Just as important, Monfils has been more solid on his return of serve—traditionally a weakness—as well as from the baseline, and he’s using his serve with a new and long-hoped-for ruthlessness.

Instead of laughing off his mistakes, Monfils is getting angry about them, and using that anger to fuel him. In Dubai, when he failed to close out Ricardas Berankis in straight sets, Monfils became incensed, yelling across the net after points and fist-pumping constantly; Berankis may not have known what to make of it, because he didn’t win another game.

“I really had to get upset and bring more energy for me, to move my legs, to be a bit more aggressive on my shots,” Monfils said. “The last three games was just pure anger.”

Pure anger from lovable La Monf? It worked in Dubai, and a similar intensity worked today.

Against Mayer, Monfils gave back an early service break in the second set, and threw away a couple of games after an argument with chair umpire Carlos Bernardes. At the start of the third, though, he put that behind him.

“At the end I refocused and won the third set,” Monfils said. “I overreact because of the frustration.”

Of course, Monfils has another new member of his team, Top 10 WTA player Elina Svitolina. He traveled to Dubai early to watch her there, and she was in the stands to see him beat Mayer today. Are the famously intense Ukrainian’s work habits rubbing off on him? Yes—and, well, no.

“I admire what she’s doing, how she work, the mentality she has,” Monfils said of Svitolina. “It’s incredible. But I always say not for me, not for me. She’s too serious for me. It’s her way. It’s her way to be the way she is.”

“Me, the only motivation that I will say that we have is to make the other proud. I love when she win. I’m very proud of her. I think same for her.”

There’s a sense of parity about the Monfils-Svitolina relationship that’s appealing. It’s about them, but it also seems to be about tennis, about a shared desire to improve and succeed. Even if Monfils can’t work as hard as Svitolina, he’s channeling some of her fight, which has often been the missing ingredient with him. The New Monfils won’t live forever; they never do. But it will be fun to see how high this one can climb, and what he can find in himself.

The Kermode kerfuffle: Why tennis’ era of good feelings could be over

Fri, 08 Mar 2019 17:24:00 +0000

“Straight out of central casting”: When Chris Kermode was hired to lead the ATP Tour in 2014, that’s the phrase that came to mind. English, well-dressed, with a full head of gray hair and a blend of approachability and gravitas, the 54-year-old was exactly what you think the head of a men’s professional tennis tour should look and sound like.

And that’s what, until very recently, most people in tennis assumed Kermode would continue to be. As the ATP’s CEO, he had presided over a period of calm prosperity. A former player and tournament director, he seemed ideally suited to keeping the peace between those two, often opposing, sides of the tour’s governing structure.

When discussions began earlier this year about whether to sign Kermode to a third three-year contract, commentator and coach Darren Cahill spoke for many when he wrote on Twitter:

“Big increases in prize money, pension plan, new events, doubles initiative supporter, new progressive rules for injured players and [Lucky Losers], Challenger increases, facility upgrades. I’d be stunned if Chris Kermode is removed. ATP needs stability right now.”

On Thursday, the ATP went in another direction, when its board decided not to offer Kermode that extension. Instead of stability, the tour found itself embroiled in drama and dissension. The top players, typically united, were at odds over the move. A player-council meeting ended in deadlock. Former players voiced their support for Kermode on Twitter. A pot-stirring headline on an Australian website summed up the situation like this: “Novak Djokovic has deepened the cultural divide between himself and Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer after a ruthless call that will anger plenty.”

Kermode’s ouster split the tour between a European camp—including Nadal, Andy Murray, Stan Wawrinka, Grigor Dimitrov, and presumably Federer—that wanted continuity, and a mostly North American camp—including John Isner, Sam Querrey, Vasek Pospisil, and presumably Djokovic—who wanted to rock the boat.

Nadal spoke for the don’t-fix-what-isn’t-broken camp when he said, “I believe in long-term projects. I’m not a very big fan of changing things very often...I personally think Chris did a good job.”

Pospisil, a player-council member, spoke for the insurgents earlier this year when he wrote in an email that the “system is broken,” “the ATP represents the tournaments,” and the players “have nothing to say about our future.”

The major issue for Pospisil and those who voted with him is revenue-sharing. As he says, while players in the NBA receive 50 percent of league earnings, tennis players get significantly less: Roughly 20 to 25 percent at ATP events, and an unknown but smaller amount at the Grand Slams. “Some have suggest the the figure is as little as seven to eight percent,” wrote Paul Newman of The Independent last year, though Wimbledon officials disputed that.

As for Djokovic, he has refused to tell reporters which side he supports, but he has talked about wanting to change the “structure” of the ATP’s board so that the president isn’t constantly caught between the players on one side, and the tournaments on the other. In general, Djokovic has been a reformist rather than a traditionalist. He has consistently called for prize money increases, he’d like to see the ATP Finals moved out of London and rotated to other cities, and there has been talk in the past of him supporting a boycott of the Australian Open and the establishment of a player’s-only union among the men.

It would be easy, and maybe logical, to say that the insurgent players don’t know how good they already have it. According to Newman, total purses at all men’s events have nearly doubled since 2008, contributions to the players’ pension funds have risen 250 percent, and 51 players earned more than a million dollars in 2017. Prize money at the Grand Slams has also increased steadily and significantly.

Historically, though, player revolts that have inspired skepticism at first have ended up having positive effects on the sport.

In 1973, when 80 male players boycotted Wimbledon, the London press and public sided with officials at their home Slam. But that boycott broke the hold that amateur officials had on the players, and helped lead to the pro-game explosion of the late '70s.

In 1988, when players and officials formed a new tour—the ATP we know now—their announcement ceremony was relegated to a US Open parking lot. The goal then was to streamline the schedule so the top players faced each other more often. That led to the creation of the Masters 1000 series, and to an era when stars like Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have dueled each other in dozens of legendary contests.

In 2011, when the top players, led that time by Nadal and Murray, complained about poor conditions and unfair scheduling at the US Open, many people shrugged and said nothing would ever change, it was all controlled by TV anyway. But the players had more power than they realized. Those complaints helped lead to a roof over Arthur Ashe Stadium; the end of the dreaded Super Saturday schedule that forced the men’s finalists to play on no rest the next day; and multiple rounds of prize-money increases at all the majors.

We’ll see where this latest revolt takes us. This time, there’s a real division among the players over the need for a change; Nadal and Murray, to name two, felt like they weren’t properly consulted on the decision to oust Kermode. Those hard feelings will have to be dealt with, or progress may be hampered.

Maybe the goal will simply be more money, or maybe Djokovic’s restructuring will lead to the formation of a player’s union. There’s general agreement that a union would be a positive development for tennis; the question for the last 50 years has been whether players in an individual sport, with varying needs and agendas, could ever fully unite. But as long we’re rocking the boat, what about a union that crosses tours and genders and includes men and women players equally?

Which leads me, finally, to what I hope doesn’t happen, post-Kermode. I hope that the quest for more prize money among the men doesn’t lead to calls from ATP players and officials to backtrack on equal pay at the majors. If the percentage of revenue the players earn at the Slams is really as low as seven, or 10, or even 15 percent, there should be more money there for both tours.

Is tennis’ era of good feelings, of peaceful prosperity, over? The face of that era on the men’s side was Kermode’s (as well as Federer’s). So far, the face of the new era is Djokovic’s. During his decade and a half in the game, he has matured into a champion on court, and an ambassador off it. Now we’ll see what he’s like as a leader.

Auger-Aliassime is ticking all the boxes as he climbs the ATP ranks

Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:04:00 +0000

On Wednesday, Felix Auger-Aliassime did what all famous tennis players do when they walk off the practice courts at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden: He worked the rope line like a celebrity, signing autographs and taking selfies with fans. In truth, there weren’t all that many fans there, certainly not the 20-people-deep crowds that greet the Nadals and Serenas of the world. And a few of the fans who were there didn’t seem entirely sure who this fresh-faced kid was when he took their pens.

Which is perfectly fine, and to be expected. Auger-Aliassime is 18, he’s ranked 58th, and he has played exactly one Grand Slam event, at last year’s US Open, where he lost in the first round. While awestruck tennis heads have been glued to videos of his junior matches for years now, his name isn’t likely to roll off the tongue of the average American sports fan.

But it will soon. The most distinctive thing about Auger-Aliassime’s rise so far is how logically and methodically it has played out. He has gone from Internet sensation at 14, to US Open junior champion at 16, to one of only two teenagers in the ATP Top 100—the other is his friend and countryman Denis Shapovalov—at 18. Two weeks ago, Auger-Aliassime reached his first 500-level final on red clay—a surface that’s hardly associated with his home country—at the Rio Open.

Yet there also hasn’t been a sense that FAA has moved up too fast, or flown too high too soon. He hasn’t taken any shortcuts, and his ranking and fame aren’t reliant on a flashy, unrepeatable result. Two summers ago, Shapovalov’s win over Nadal in Montreal launched him into a stratosphere that he may not have been quite ready to enter, but Auger-Aliassime has looked comfortable moving step by step and ticking off all the boxes along the way.

In 2016, he was a junior Slam champion. In 2017 and 2018, he hit the pro-tour road like any other no-name rookie and won nine Challenger and Futures titles. Last month, he clinched a Davis Cup tie for Canada on clay, and then embarked on a grueling, three-tournaments-in-three-weeks South American tour that felt like a rite of passage. When he reached the final in Rio—a run that included hard-earned wins over Fabio Fognini and Pablo Cuevas—I expected him to pull out of the next event, in Sao Paulo. But he kept slogging, and kept winning.

After all of that, Auger-Aliassime looked pleased to be back on hard courts in Indian Wells on Thursday, and his game looked like it had been sharpened to fine, glinting edge. He stormed out of the gate against Cam Norrie, winning the first three games in eight minutes. He drilled aces, he flicked forehand winners, he made a delicate half-volley drop and followed it with an overhead that he had to leap back to hit.

Despite that, I thought Norrie, a semifinalist in Acapulco who is the dictionary definition of the word pesky, might wear Auger-Alissiame down in the long run. And he did earn a break point at 2-4 in the first set, and another at 2-3 in the second, either of which could have put him back in the match. But Auger-Aliassime came up with service winners on both of those points, and navigated his way through trouble with impressive composure. In a 6-3, 6-2, 63-minute win, FAA made 80 percent of his first serves, hit 20 winners to Norrie’s eight, and converted all three of his break points.

“We’re seeing him develop in real time,” Tennis Channel’s Brett Haber said, and it was hard not to agree.

Even if he weren’t producing results like this yet, Auger-Aliassime would be a player to look out for, based on how solid and thorough his technique is, and how poised he remains when things aren’t going his way. His service motion is a paragon of coiled efficiency that allows him to use all of his leg power. He gets a full body rotation and extension on his two-handed backhand. Most promising, and scary, is his forehand, which he hits with a seemingly ideal mix of safe net clearance and forward-kicking power. There’s nothing weird or unorthodox about FAA’s strokes, and he rarely tries to do too much with them. Demeanor-wise, he has the poker face to match; I’ve yet to see him come unglued or sabotage his own chances—that’s saying something for an 18-year-old.

Next up for Auger-Aliassime is Stefanos Tsitsipas. For us tennis heads, it’s a match-up that speaks for itself. For the rest of the world, FAA may be soon be a very familiar set of sports-world initials, and the selfie-seekers at Indian Wells soon stand 20-deep as he works the rope line.

“Famous? Not yet, I don’t think so,” Auger-Aliassime said with a smile when he was asked about his level of notoriety here last year. “It will come eventually, maybe.”

No maybes about it this time around.

Can Naomi Osaka make the court, and the sport, hers like Serena has?

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:35:00 +0000

The 2018 US Open women’s final between Naomi Osaka and Serena Williams was many things. It was a stunning upset. It was an unmitigated disaster. It was a night of chaos and composure. It was a war between a star player and a stickler chair umpire. When it was over, it became a proxy for arguments about sexism, racism and double standards in the rule of law. It was the only thing anyone could talk about for months. As the winner said afterward: “I don’t really know what happened.”

For movie buffs, the match conjured images from that archetypal Hollywood tale of generational rivalry, All About Eve. In the 1951 film, Bette Davis plays a Broadway star who watches as her most devoted fan, one 20 years her junior, takes a job as her understudy, and then takes over her leading role.

Tennis’ version of that Oscar-winning story had all the elements needed for the silver screen.

On one side of Arthur Ashe Stadium was Williams, the 36-year-old superstar who was going for a record-tying 24th Grand Slam singles title. On the other side was Osaka, the soft-spoken 20-year-old who was playing her first Grand Slam final, had won one career tournament and who, as a third-grader, had written an essay about how much she idolized Serena. Sitting in Osaka’s player box was Sascha Bajin, Serena’s former hitting partner who now served as Osaka’s coach.

The story ended with the understudy, rather than the legend, lifting the trophy. But it also came with an unfortunate twist: rather than applauding, the audience greeted the result, which followed three Williams code violations, with a torrential downpour of boos.

“The memory of the US Open is a little bit bittersweet,” Osaka would say later. “I feel like it was so strange, I just didn’t want to think about it. I wanted to just push it to the side.”

What Osaka didn’t know was that she had bigger, and much less bitter, things in her future. Just five months after hearing boos at the US Open, she was roundly cheered in Melbourne for winning her second straight major title, at the Australian Open. In the process, Osaka assumed a title that Serena has previously held for 319 weeks: world No. 1.

In the end, what the US Open final may have signaled was a long-awaited changing of the WTA guard.

For Osaka, the movie script that had its finale at Flushing Meadows had begun much earlier. It was one she had been starring in her whole life.

“She’s the main reason why I started playing,” Osaka has said of Serena.

As Leonard Francois, Osaka’s father, told The New York Times Magazine last summer, the story began in June 1999 when he caught a glimpse of two young sisters, Venus and Serena Williams, on their way to winning the French Open doubles. François, a native of Haiti living in Japan, wasn’t a tennis player, but he wondered if he could replicate what Richard Williams had done. François and his Japanese wife, Tamaki Osaka, had two daughters of their own: Mari, 3, and Naomi, 1.

Many parents have tried to emulate the success of the Williams family, but François was especially committed to the dream. The next year, he moved his family from Japan to New York, where he once lived. Like the Williamses in Compton, CA, François, Mari and Naomi began to train on the public courts of Long Island.

The resemblances between the families didn’t stop there. In both cases, it was the older sister who was assumed to be the future star; in both cases, it was the younger sister who willed herself to surpass her. As a child, Serena thought of Venus as a “fierce swan,” and herself as the family’s “ugly duckling.” For Naomi, the dynamic was less metaphoric, and more straightforwardly zero-sum.

“I don’t remember liking to hit the ball,” Osaka told the Times Magazine. “The main thing was I wanted to beat my sister. For her, it wasn’t a competition, but for me, every day was a competition. Every day I’d say, ‘I’m going to beat you tomorrow.’”

Twelve years later, Naomi got her win. By then, the Osakas had headed south to Pembroke Pines, FL, where the girls were home-schooled as they continued their tennis regimen. Naomi largely skipped the juniors, just as the Williamses had, and turned pro at 14.

Yet unlike Venus and Serena, who were pre-teen celebrities, Osaka’s potential went largely unrecognized by tennis scouts in the U.S. François decided that his daughters would represent their native Japan instead.

Whatever flag she plays for, Osaka is an example of a phenomenon familiar to tennis: she’s a global citizen with roots in multiple cultures—in her case, Haitian, Japanese and American—and a personality that’s hard to pigeonhole.

Some days she can play the part of a young Serena: fist-pumping, emoting and letting her majestic hair fly. On other days, negative emotions can leave her slump-shouldered and perpetually frowning. Unlike Serena, Osaka doesn’t aim to intimidate; when a match is over, she typically bows to her opponent and speaks to the crowd in a soft, high voice and a sometimes-halting manner.

Away from the court, Osaka is fluent in ironic millennial self-deprecation. In her encounters with the media, that can lead to moments of disarming honesty and surprising comedy, often within the same sentence.

Asked about her friends, Osaka said at last year’s US Open, “Oh my God, I literally only have, like, one friend that I’m actually completely, like, myself with...I feel bad for her...”

Asked what goes on in her head during a match, she described a frenzied inner dialogue of doubt that most recreational players would recognize.

“Right before [my opponent] hits a second serve,” Osaka mused, “I’m thinking, ‘Do not hit this down the line.’ Don’t go for it, right? And then there’s another part of me that’s like, ‘But if I hit this down the line, there’s a 50/50 chance it will be a winner and you could win the point easily.’ And then when she’s serving the ball, I’m arguing with myself: ‘Do it. Don’t do it. Do it. Don’t do it.’ And then the ball comes and I hit it down the line and it goes in the net. I’m like, ‘Why did I do that?’”

Many of Osaka’s comments—about her awkwardness, her indecisiveness, her fear of being laughed at—can seem shockingly unguarded at first. But that quality makes her relatable in a way most pro athletes, who are taught to always project self-confidence, never allow themselves to be.

“She’s growing into herself,” Chris Evert said at the Australian Open. “Two years ago, her answers would be one-word answers. She was almost petrified to face the press. But now, even though she’s soft-spoken, she’s very playful with the press, asking them questions back. It’s showing her charisma, her personality.”

Before 2018, a question surrounding Osaka was whether a player as inward-looking as she is could succeed at the game’s highest level. Could she banish the doubt and embrace the adversity that comes with competition?

That’s where Bajin—at least for the length of a season—came in. When he began working with Osaka in December 2017, she was ranked No. 68. But Bajin knew this immense talent had the raw materials of a champion. He says that while Serena and Osaka are “completely different” people, they share similar instincts on court.

“They kind of want to play the same,” Bajin said last fall. “They are very powerful, big serves, big hitters, both of them.”

Bajin’s job, as he saw it, was to help Osaka improve her consistency and fitness. He put her through drills that forced her to remain patient for long periods. The work paid off immediately, when Osaka beat two Top 5 players on her way to the title in Indian Wells.

“She had this power,” Bajin said. “She maybe didn’t quite know how to handle it or control it. Didn’t quite know when to pull the trigger, when not to. So I was trying to kind of maintain the raw power, and then, at the same time, also show that there are other ways of creating pressure on the opponent.”

Osaka’s physical skills weren’t a surprise to Bajin. What he discovered was that her personality also made his job easier.

“What I really love about Naomi is that she really preserved that innocence,” Bajin said. “If she’s sad, she’s gonna show it. If she’s happy, she’s gonna show it. There are no fake emotions. And that makes it easy for me to also understand her, because my job is a lot based on emotions as well.”

The primary emotion Bajin tried to project was positivity. It hasn’t always worked. This January in Brisbane, Osaka slouched her way to defeat in the semifinals.

“I just feel like I had the worst attitude today,” she said.

By the Australian Open, Osaka had more than learned her lesson. Her stubborn competitiveness has never been on greater display than it was in Melbourne. She won four matches in three sets, and twice came back from a set down. In the final against Petra Kvitova, Osaka squandered three championship points in the second set, yet won the third set anyway. Again and again, she banished her doubts.

Yet just when it didn’t seem as if Osaka couldn’t offer us any more surprises, she gave the tennis world another shock in February when she split with Bajin.

Osaka told WTA Insider that while she wouldn’t “say anything bad” about Bajin, and that she appreciated what he had done for her, when it came to choosing between her career and her happiness she was going to choose happiness every time.

“If I’m not waking up happy to practice and happy to be around the people I’m around, this is my life,” she said. “I’m not going to sacrifice that just to keep a person around. I have to be happy with where I am at in my life.”

As Bajin himself understood, Osaka is never going to fake it.

In All About Eve, the understudy, Eve Harrington, deliberately sets her sights on taking her idol’s place. The same can’t be said of Osaka. Even as she competes against her rivals, she remains a fan at heart.

After beating Serena in Miami last March, Osaka said, “I kind of wanted to impress her.”

At the US Open, after winning her semifinal, Osaka was asked if she had a message for Serena, who she would play two days later: “I love you,” Osaka said with a laugh.

In Melbourne, asked about the possibility of facing Kvitova, Osaka said, “I think to have the opportunity to play her for the first time in the final of a Grand Slam is something very amazing.”

Osaka was just being her normal, authentic self. But her humility is more than an appealing character trait: it’s also an effective, if unwitting, strategy. At the US Open, Osaka’s admiration for Serena helped defuse any animosity that Williams may have had for an upstart who was outplaying her. At the Australian Open, Osaka thought of her match with Kvitova, a two-time Wimbledon winner, as an event to celebrate rather than worry about.

Staying grounded and keeping her expectations in check seems to help Osaka enjoy her job’s most pressure-packed moments. Instead of believing that she should win every match, she believes that she needs to play her best just to keep up with her more experienced opponents.

“I just thought to myself that this is my second time playing a [Grand Slam] final; I can’t really act entitled,” Osaka said when she was asked how she rebounded against Kvitova.

“To be playing against one of the best players in the world, to lose a set, suddenly to think that I’m so much better than her that isn’t a possibility. I wanted to enjoy my time here.”

As Osaka returns to the site of her first major success, in Indian Wells, she continues to offer sports audiences something new. Yes, she wins with rocket serves and superhuman athleticism, but she also lets us see the very human doubts that come with putting yourself on the line in public. And while she can play with ruthless force on the court, she’s just as ruthless in the service of her own happiness—in staying true to herself—off it.

Serena hasn’t left the stage just yet, but Osaka is certainly up there with her idol now. Will she become the WTA’s next star? She’s already something better: she’s tennis’ next winner.

Indian Wells ATP Preview: Welcome back, Novak; Djokovic or the field?

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 01:30:00 +0000

Which is the more significant fact: That Novak Djokovic has won three straight Grand Slam titles, or that he hasn’t been past the fourth round at Indian Wells since 2016? For anyone trying to predict the ultimate outcome at the BNP Paribas Open this year, that’s probably the question you want to try to answer first. Is Djokovic a mortal lock, the way this five-time Indian Wells champion would have been in his prime? Or is there still just a hint of the vulnerability he’s shown since turning 30? The fates of the other 95 players in the men’s draw will turn on the answer. Here’s a look ahead at what it might be.

*****

First Quarter

Since his resurgence at Wimbledon last summer, Djokovic has been perfect at the Slams, but he hasn’t been a slouch at the Masters 1000s, either; last year he won Cincinnati and Shanghai. But if he’s going to be beaten these days, it’s going to be in the best-of-three set format. In the three events he played between Shanghai and the Australian Open, he lost finals to Karen Khachanov and Alexander Zverev, and a semifinal to Roberto Bautista Agut.

Is there anyone in his draw who might be able to do the same thing? Funny you should ask: Djokovic could play Nick Kyrgios in the third round. Kyrgios beat Djokovic at Indian Wells in 2017, and he just resurrected his career with a title run in Acapulco. Provided Kyrgios is interested in keeping that run going and knocking off another superstar, this should make for a heckuva night-match spectacle. It will also be one Kyrgios can win.

Players to Watch:

Dominic Thiem. The slow courts in Indian Wells should suit him, but he’s just 8-5 here, and has never reached the semis.

Gael Monfils. He won a title in Rotterdam two weeks ago and reached a semi in Dubai last week. Can he improve on his 10-10 record in the desert? His draw makes it look possible.

Wild Card: Reilly Opelka. The New York Open champ starts against Leonardo Mayer, and will play Monfils if he makes the second round.

Semifinalist: Djokovic

*****

Second Quarter

Alexander Zverev was convincingly beaten by Kyrgios in the Acapulco final, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad week for the German. He needed a solid result after getting drummed out of the Australian Open in straight sets by Milos Raonic. Zverev has yet to do much damage in Indian Wells, but no one loves a Masters 1000 like he does.

Still, this section isn’t without its obstacles: The three seeds in Zverev’s half are Raonic, Grigor Dimitrov and Alex De Minaur. The other half is led by No. 5 seed Kevin Anderson and No. 9 seed Stefanos Tsitsipas.

Wild card: Felix Auger-Aliassime, who will start against Cameron Norrie, a semifinalist in Acapulco. The winner plays Tsitsipas.

Potential second-round match to watch (or cringe at): Alexander Zverev vs. his brother, Mischa. Come at me, bro—literally.

Semifinalist: A. Zverev

*****

Third Quarter

Roger Federer won his first title in Indian Wells in 2004, and his fifth and most recent in 2017. He also had match points to win a sixth last year against Juan Martin del Potro. So while Federer is only the fourth seed, he’s still a favorite, especially after his win last week in Dubai.

But there’s an early land mine in Federer’s path: If the most-anticipated third-round match in the top half is Djokovic vs. Kyrgios, the most-anticipated in the bottom half will be Federer vs. Stan Wawrinka. Not that Stan is a lock to get there; his second-round match could be against Marton Fucsovics. Last year in Toronto, Wawrinka saved match points to beat the Hungarian 12-10 in a third-set tiebreaker.

Also in this quarter: Kei Nishikori, Denis Shapovalov, Marin Cilic

All-SoCal first round: Taylor Fritz vs. Steve Johnson

Semifinalist: Federer

*****

Fourth Quarter

After his second-round loss to Kyrgios in Acapulco, Nadal was due for a decent draw, and he has one in Indian Wells. Rafa’s path could take him through Jared Donaldson, Diego Schwartzman, Daniil Medvedev and John Isner. Not a cakewalk, certainly, but not a murderer’s row of giant hitters, either. Unless and until he faces Isner, Rafa will get his swings in, which he’ll like.

Question Mark: Isner. He was a finalist here in 2012, but his results have been trending downward in the desert in recent years. Does he have another deep run left? His draw—Guido Pella and Pablo Carreño Busta are the nearby seeds—could facilitate it.

Russians to Watch: Khachanov and Medvedev. When the year began, all eyes were on the surging Khachanov. But through the first two months, it has been his Davis Cup partner Medvedev who has been the breakout performer.

Semifinalist: Medvedev

*****

Semifinals: Djokovic d. Zverev; Federer d. Medvedev

Final: Djokovic d. Federer

Indian Wells WTA Preview: Is Osaka the favorite? Desert stories abound

Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:54:00 +0000

The women have played just enough in 2019 to establish a few themes for the season: Naomi Osaka has continued to surprise, on all fronts; Petra Kvitova has been a bride once and a bridesmaid twice; Karolina Pliskova and Elina Svitolina have dug in deeper; Belinda Bencic has made it feel like 2015 all over again.

Now, though, the preliminaries are over and the regular season, one that lasts until the summer break after Wimbledon, begins in earnest in Indian Wells. Who else might begin to make their presences felt? Who might find an oasis in the desert? Here’s a first look at the WTA draw.

*****

First Quarter

Osaka describes her title run here last year as the week when she “got on the board.” Twelve months ago, she wasn’t even among the 32 seeds in Indian Wells; now she’ll come back at the top of the board, as the No. 1 seed.

But is Osaka the favorite? Since winning the Australian Open, she has split with her coach, Sascha Bajin, and lost the only match she’s played, to Kiki Mladenovic. She may have a chance for revenge—or a second defeat—right away: Osaka might face Mladenovic in the second round.

That might be the least of Osaka’s worries. She could play 25th seed Danielle Collins in the third round, Bencic or Caroline Wozniacki in the fourth round, and Karolina Pliskova in the quarterfinals. Osaka had all of her biggest wins with Bajin; is she ready to move on, or will she still be as unsettled as she appeared to be in Dubai? We know she can run the table against any lineup of players, once she gets comfortable.

Player of Interest: Donna Vekic. The Croatian has had a strong start to the year; she could play Pliskova in the third round.

Semifinalist: Pliskova

*****

Second Quarter

Overall, Kvitova may be having the best season of anyone, but she doesn’t have quite as much to show for it as she should. She won the title in Sydney, and lost three-set finals at the Australian Open and in Dubai, to two players, Osaka and Bencic, that she was favored to beat.

At first glance, Indian Wells wouldn’t seem to be the ideal place for her to go one step farther. Kvitova has never been to the final here, she lost early to Amanda Anisimova last year, and she has never loved the conditions in the States—and there are a lot of conditions in Indian Wells. There are also some good players in Kvitova’s way: her path to the semis could potentially put her up against Venus Williams, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova or Maria Sakkari, Madison Keys or Julia Goerges, then Angelique Kerber or Aryna Sabalenka.

Question Mark: Sabalenka. She has a good draw; can she put a very frustrating third-set-tiebreaker loss to Bencic in Dubai behind her?

Semifinalist: Kvitova

*****

Third Quarter

Kiki Bertens and Sloane Stephens are the top two seeds in this section, and those two clay-adept all-surfacers could each make a deep run on Indian Wells’ slow hard courts. For now, though, they’ll have to play second fiddle to what’s happening in the middle of this section. That’s where 10th-seeded Serena Williams is slated to meet Victoria Azarenka, provided Azarenka wins her first-round match. Just three years ago, Vika beat Serena played for the title here. This time Serena should be favored.

Should Serena also be favored to win her first title in Indian Wells in 18 years? Her road may be bumpy: Azarenka, possibly followed by Garbiñe Muguruza, possibly followed by Bertens, possibly followed by Sloane. But Serena still wants another title here, and an early encounter with Azarenka could be just what she needs to build the momentum to make it happen.

Question Mark: Stephens. Like Osaka, she split with the coach who took her to a Slam title, Kamau Murray, and she hasn’t reached a semi so far in 2019. But she has a draw that could give her chance to put any early-season doubts behind her.

Wild card: Anisimova, who will open against Aleksandra Krunic.

Player to Watch: Elise Mertens. She won in Doha, and she’s in the non-Serena half of this section.

Semifinalist: S. Williams

*****

Fourth Quarter

Simona Halep is another player who recently split with her coach, and while she hasn’t had a terrible start to the year, she hasn’t found her best form, either. Indian Wells would seem to be a good place for her to hit and run herself into a groove. She won the title here in 2015, and she has always liked North American hard courts. Halep also has a manageable draw; the three seeds she could face before the quarters are Aliaksandra Sasnovich, Jelena Ostapenko, and last year’s finalist, Daria Kasatkina.

If the draw holds, Halep will meet Elina Svitolina in the quarters. Like Kvitova, Svitolina has been in fine form this year, week in and week out, but doesn’t have the hardware to show for it. In Doha and Dubai, she lost close semifinals to Halep and Bencic.

Question Mark: Daria Kasatkina. Last year, her run to the final seemed to herald great things; so far this year she has struggled to win a match.

Player to Watch: Ash Barty. She’s in Svitolina’s half of this section.

Wild Card: Jen Brady has been playing well of late, and could pull an upset or two.

Semifinalist: Halep

*****

Semifinals: Pliskova d. Kvitova; S. Williams d. Halep

Final: S. Williams d. Pliskova