The French Open started yesterday. I wrote what follows before it started. These are the narratives I'm using to guide myself through the tournament this year.
The Men
Rafael Nadal: Though he was soundly outplayed in the quarters of Rome, thereby spanking my semi-prediction of a sweep of the European clay-court titles right on the bum, Rafa remains the overwhelming favorite here. That loss in Rome also meant that he played two fewer matches, suffered a little less wear and tear, and recovered for a couple of extra days, which all together actually increases his probability of winning the French.
A win this year would be his tenth French. With the convergence of speeds across the surfaces in the last ten or fifteen years, it's hard to imagine anyone will come close to that kind of single-surface dominance ever again. You've got to be pulling for him.
Dominic Thiem: In the past few weeks, he and Nadal met in the finals of Barcelona (Nadal won comfortably), the finals of Madrid (Nadal won less comfortably) and the quarters of Rome, when Thiem showed that he has the tools to beat Rafa, at least sometimes. After that match against Nadal, I was quick to declare1 that Thiem had just thrust himself into the conversation as the only serious rival to Nadal right now, and that we should hope to see them together in the final.
[I wrote this before the draw. Thiem and Nadal drew into the same half.]
Then the next day he got absolutely erased by Novak Djokovic, 6-1 6-0, a beating so humiliating I had to wonder if I was overestimating him. Except check out this quote from his post-match news conference: "I was empty. I was just not mentally on the level I should be against these opponents. It happens from time to time if you play a lot of matches. And if it happens against a guy like Novak, 6-0, 6-1 or a score like this, is the logical outcome."
So what was the real culprit? The commentators simply raved about Novak's performance that day, saying it was the best they'd seen him play since the French a year ago. They clearly really want to declare that he's back. But I argue that Thiem genuinely was fatigued, mentally spent, and had arrived at the match with no clear game-plan--this after putting a great deal of energy into developing a winning game plan against Rafa the day before. Consider: even with Djokovic playing at his very best, Thiem's groundstrokes and serve would on any normal day guarantee him a couple of service-game holds per set. And I say that notwithstanding that Djokovic presents a match-up he doesn't like and hasn't figured out. 6-2 6-2 would be a pretty serious beating too, but on any normal day Thiem would achieve at least that.
Assuming he comes back recharged from his week off, he needs to be considered among the favorites at the tournament.
Novak Djokovic: He erased Thiem in the semis at Rome. The commentators were quick to declare that the old Novak was back. He's the defending champion, and it just feels wrong to say he's an underdog. For a period of a year, from Wimbledon 2015 through the French 2016, he was absolutely invincible. It looked like he was seriously going to challenge Federer's record for most Grand Slams ever. But since he won the French, his intensity has fallen through the floor. He's a mere shell of himself. Yeah, he beat the pants off of Thiem. Then the next day in the final against Sasha Zverev, he started the first game like this: double-fault, unforced, unforced. He got broken at 15 in that game. He got completely and soundly beaten over the course of the match. It wasn't even really as close as the 6-4, 6-3 scoreline would suggest. In total points, Zverev won, 64-48. That's a beating.
Sasha Zverev: While it's kind of hard to imagine that at 20 years old he has the mental toughness to keep his shit fully together over seven rounds of best-of-five tennis, his title in Rome (his first Masters 1000 win) thrusts him into the conversation of players to watch this tournament.
Andy Murray: Andy will be the one-seed here this week, but he's shown no evidence at any point this year that he's the player he was at the end of last year. It's impossible to imagine that he'll repeat as a finalist here like he did last year. I expect he'll exit limply in a middle round. Maybe he can get it together in time to defend his title at Wimbledon.
Stan Wawrinka: Never, ever count Wawrinka out of a Grand Slam. He's like a freight train. If he gets out of the first week and gets up to momentum, from that point he's capable of going all the way. His clay-court form has been underwhelming so far this year, so he's certainly a long-shot, but until he loses, never, ever count him entirely out of a Slam.
The Women
Serena's having a baby. Maria wasn't granted a wild card. So that's the two biggest stars in the women's game, and winners of four of the last five French Opens. Defending champion Garbiñe Muguruza will be here; she made it to the semis of Rome, about the best performance she's had in a tournament since she won last year. She's been wildly inconsistent since her victory in the French, and her chances appear to have taken a real dive after her injury and subsequent retirement in the Rome semis. That means you almost should count her out. She's shown no ability to handle the pressure since she won here last year, and she's nursing an injury. Hard to imagine she'll go real far.
So who does that leave? At one point I called most of the women's game "a parade of also-rans," and I haven't really changed my assessment. While champions of the women's game like to claim the wide-open field is a feature, not a bug, I disagree. Why? For me--and, I hazard, most sports fans--the interest isn't in seeing two people who are both incredibly skillful at hitting fuzzy yellow balls across a net to each other. If it were, all professional matches would be essentially fungible, because each and every professional tennis player is simply incredible at what he or she does. What we want, instead, is answer to the question, "Which of these players is appealing enough, entertaining enough, that I'm willing to spend my limited time watching them play?" We're seeking something almost ineffable, something that might be properly called spark, are we not?
Well, the wild inconsistency of the women's game means there really isn't any spark. I and others hoped that Angelique Kerber was going to be the person to finally show up as a consistent threat to Serena, but she's been a shell of herself this year. The number-one mantle fits her uncomfortably. So who does that leave? Based on play, the only player who remains particularly compelling is Venus Williams. She's been consistent but beatable on clay this year, which is fair because it's probably her worst surface. It's hard to imagine that she's capable of winning the whole thing, no matter how cool that would be.
The other player of real interest is Petra Kvitova. No one expected her to return from her injuries so quickly. After what she went through, every successful shot she hits is a complete and beautiful story unto itself. It will be a pleasure to watch her play.
So here are my predictions for the French Open women's side:
-
Seeded players will scatter like bowling pins in front of the rolling momentum of their own inconsistent play.
-
Someone is going to win, because the rules demand it. But otherwise … I think it's possible that every single woman in the field would find a way to lose by the semis.
-
I predict a seeded player will win. There! How's that for bold? I have narrowed my field down to one of the 32 players.
-
I won't bother to watch much, if at all, unless Venus or Petra make a deep run.
1 In my zero drafts, anyway. I haven't published anything to that effect yet.