Category: Uncategorized (So Far)

I closed my piece for Friday with this paragraph:

But Federer is clearly well below 100 percent. There’s just no question. He won yesterday because Youzhny got hurt. He plays Feliciano Lopez in the next round, and, barring some miracle of healing, Federer is going to lose.

Despite expecting to see a one-sided win for Feliciano Lopez, I watched anyway. And what I saw instead was what I have come to see as standard Roger Federer, in which against a player like Lopez, here the 31-seed, a veteran player, legitimately one of the, yes, thirty-one best players in the world, Federer is just simply, brilliantly better. The match was Roger in full flow, and, as with every match in which he achieves that state, it was beautiful to behold. And beautiful despite it being something of a whuppin’, three-three-and-five to Federer, finished in a mere 1:46 for three sets, less than the time many players take to play two.

So I was wrong. Federer very, very much did not lose. Unless, perhaps, I was right: that among Federer’s myriad other skills, we can now add a magical ability to heal.

A little necessary background, first of all: I am such a big Federer fan that when he loses, I generally feel gutted. I just want him to win so fucking badly. I was watching the Federer-Tiafoe match Tuesday night with a friend who perennially roots for underdogs, and I told him that while I sometimes do the same, I will never root against Federer. I said, “That’s like rooting against beauty itself.”

At the heart of it, beauty is why I watch sports. I invest a lot of energy and emotion into watching because, agony or ecstasy in the result, there is that frisson in getting to the see physicality and physical expression elevated to the level of art. Even in the realm of professional sports, the grind of “this is a job” can never fully suppress the joy inherent in the sports themselves. These are games after all. You know, like children play.

With all that in mind, it pleases me to see that my viewing of tennis has gotten a little more astute, that I see the game a little more clearly, and that therefore I bring a bit more energetic balance to my watching. Sometimes it’s clear that there’s no real point in investing any energy into a given match. Sometimes you can just see it: today there will be no magic. That was the case in Federer’s match yesterday against Mikhail Youzhny. Right from Federer’s first service game, it was clear that his play was off. I first noticed it in his serve. His follow-through looked muted, like he was holding back from putting the full weight of his body into the serve. I started paying close attention. By the middle of the set, he was hitting some serves at less than 110 miles per hour, a good ten-to-fifteen miles per hour. slower than he usually does. And some of his first serves were going wildly astray. Still, somehow he won the first set, 6-1. But in his first service game of the second set, he got broken. He broke back, held, then broke again and was serving up 3-2 when I decided to stop watching. Federer clearly wasn’t right. I said to myself, “Either he will win because he’s Roger Federer, or he will lose because he’s injured. Either way, nothing particularly worth watching is going happen here.” I had work to do, so I went to do my work.

So as the match went from Federer serving for the set in the second, to getting broken to even things up, to losing in the tiebreaker (without even being especially competitive), then getting broken early and losing the third set, I didn’t feel my usual anguish at an impending Federer loss. I was sad because it was disappointing, but sometimes players get injured. Whaddayagonnado?

Except that he didn’t lose. I was working at the computer, and I had the muted TV on behind me, and I checked on the match from time to time, and in the fourth set I turned around to see Youzhny receiving treatment. I checked the score: Federer was up a break. “Wow,” I said. “Is Federer going to win because the other guy got hurt?” And that’s what happened. Federer pulled it out in five sets.

But Federer is clearly well below 100 percent. There’s just no question. He won yesterday because Youzhny got hurt. He plays Feliciano Lopez in the next round, and, barring some miracle of healing, Federer is going to lose.

While beating the top seed in the bottom half of the draw is a great result for Borna Coric, it is hard to overstate just what a bad result this is for the US Open, and for tennis in general.

Unless Coric makes a deep run–and there is nothing in his recent results to suggest that he’s ready to do so–then all we’ve seen here is the top young talent in the game get knocked out not because of some amazing performance by his opponent but because of the particularly New York stupidity in match scheduling. Zverev didn’t even start his match Monday night until after 10:30 pm. He finished at 2:02 Tuesday morning. After press, the return drive to Manhattan, and then trying to get to sleep after all the adrenaline of a hard-fought tennis match, it was reported that he didn’t get to sleep until 6am.

And you could clearly see, as the match wore on, that he was physically and emotionally exhausted. He was emotionally flat. He had no pop in his legs. Yes, he hit 43 winners, but that went with 58 unforced errors. But importantly, of those 43 winners, 22 were aces. That meant that he was unable to put a point away once it got started. And anyone who has watched Sascha Zverev play know that this is not a normally a problem for him.

By depriving an already-depleted draw of most of the star power in the bottom half of the draw, the organizers have denied themselves a hook to draw in the interest of the casual fan. With so much hand-wringing happening about how to grow the game, it might be worth the USTA taking a closer look at how they schedule.

---

On the other hand, Denis Shapovalov’s win against Jo-Wilfred Tsonga was great for the game. First of all, he simply played Tsonga off the court. But second of all, it was the manner in which he did it. He played utterly fearless tennis. Frequently he hit shots that were near-impossible, and the vibe he gave off was that it never occurred to him that the shot was impossible. It’s thrilling and joyous to watch, and one has to hope that he goes a long way in this tournament–it would be a fantastic narrative to counter the loss of Sascha.

On the one hand, we’re all mad at Andy Murray for waiting until after the draw to pull out (did he really think one more day was going to finally heal his hip?), which kept Federer as the 3-seed, which allowed him to draw into the same side of the draw as Nadal, which means our Narrative of Greatest Hype features a Nadal-Federer semi-final, which is not quite as bright and shiny as potentially meeting in the final, is it?

On the other hand–and not to take too much away from Frances Tiafoe, who continued to show that the ceiling on his game is very high indeed–the quality of Federer’s play would seem to indicate that his back is not 100%, which suggests that he’ll either lose before the semis, or else get soundly thumped by Nadal if they end up playing each other.

So what’s happened in the first round so far:

Sharapova beat Halep 6-4, 4-6, 6-3. The tennis writers I follow on Twitter said it had all the quality and intensity of a final. I was on the road and so haven’t seen it yet, but today’s rainouts have opened up some time.

Related: a question I’ve been interested in and hope to explore in some writing this week: when is it worth watching a sporting event if you already know the outcomes?

I said Jo Konta was capable of beating anyone in the field. She lost.

I declared Jack Sock as worth mentioning when I discussed the players with a shot of coming out of the bottom half of the draw. He lost.

Headline writers are calling Naomi Osaka’s win over Kerber an upset. To which I respond: please. Kerber is a shell of herself. She got blown off the court.

If she’s wise, she’ll take the rest of the season off. I have no idea if there’s anything clearly measurable about how differently she’s playing this year compared to last, that is, if modern advanced statistical techniques would demonstrate what’s changed, but it’s clear that a) she’s mentally barely present and b) hasn’t quite accepted just how burned out she really is. Maybe the humiliation of going from defending champ to first-round loser might open her eyes.

The Men

After a season that started like a dream, one of the greatest seasons the game has ever seen–Federer vs. Nadal in the Australian Open final, then Federer’s swing through the North American hard-court spring, then Nadal’s clay-court season, then Federer’s season on grass–we’ve seen things kind of fall apart in the weeks since Wimbledon. The rash of injuries at the top of the game have taken a lot of the shine out of the Open. Djokovic shut his season down after Wimbledon, citing a wrist injury. Wawrinka had surgery on his knee and is out. Nishikori is out with a wrist injury. Raonic is out with a wrist injury. And yesterday, Murray pulled out, his troublesome kip finally being too much to deal with. That’s a gaping set of holes in the draw.

All of this might be swept under the rug if Federer and Nadal are healthy and go deep. But Federer’s back injury in the final of Montreal is worrisome. Injuries in the core being very hard to heal, how likely is Federer to get through seven matches of best-of-five tennis in New York’s summertime heat without a recurrence? That’s a lot to ask of the body if it isn’t truly 100% going in.

So can we at least rely on Nadal? Hard to say. It’s deep in the season now, and Nadal has a lot of tennis in his body for the year. But when it comes to best-of-five on slower courts, it’s hard to put Nadal behind anybody except perhaps top-of-their-games Djokovic and Murray–neither of whom is playing.

With Federer and Nadal on the same side of the draw, thus dashing the marketers’ and many fans dreams of a Federer-Nadal final, that means that someone besides one of them is going to make the final. Most of the players whom I’d consider top contenders are in the Nadal-Federer half of the draw. So who looks possible to make a deep run in the bottom half? Cilic, the five-seed, has been struggling with injury. Tsonga, seeded eighth, could make a run. Jack Sock, the 13-seed, has played some very good tennis this year. But no one in that half of the draw has played with anything like the fire of Sasha Zverev.

Last year during my trip to the Open, I watched both of Sasha’s matches. He put on a rather petulant performance against Daniel Brands on his way to a four-set win, and then lost in four to Dan Evans in the second round. Sasha has matured greatly since then and has become different caliber player. He’s yet to have his breakthrough in best-of-five and, at 20 years old, is clearly still improving. But he was furiously good in Washington and Montreal earlier this month, before the accumulated fatigue overwhelmed him Cincinnati. He’s demonstrated that he can beat the best–he was outplaying Federer in Montreal even before Federer’s injury. The pressure on him is very great, but it would be wonderful to see him make the most of this opportunity.

(As an aside, the Zverev-Evans match was the most memorable match of my trip last year. They played late into the night on tiny, tiny Court 4. It’s safe to bet that Sasha won’t be playing on Court 4 this year.)

The Women

If the men’s draw is more open than usual because of all the players missing with injury, the women’s draw is open because that’s how the women’s game is when Serena isn’t around.

Here are the top nine seeds on the women’s side:

1. Pliskova
2. Halep
3. Muguruza
4. Svitolina
5. Wozniacki
6. Kerber
7. Konta
8. Kuznetsova
9. V. Williams

Let’s go ahead and presume that we’re not going to see a particularly deep run from reigning champ Angelique Kerber. She’s been a shell of the player we saw win two majors last season. With no wins against anyone in the top twenty all season, there’s every reason to think she’ll make an early exit here.

With her out of the way, let’s discuss the remaining eight in the top nine, and a few others besides.

Simona Halep, still just 25 years old, has seemed since her break-up and subsequent reconciliation with coach Darren Cahill back in the spring, like she’s poised for a breakthrough–and then she gets in her head and falls apart. She really struggles to close–in important matches, and in important tournaments. That she lost one-and-love to Mugu in Cincinnati suggests, again, that she isn’t quite ready to make the leap in her mental/emotional game to show up at her very best for the biggest matches.

She drew the single most interesting match, men’s or women’s, for her first-round match: she’ll be playing Maria Sharapova. It’s entirely possible that Halep won’t even make the second round, much less make a deep run. On the other hand, a strong performance against Maria could give her some useful momentum after what happened in Cincinnati.

Number-one seed Karolina Pliskova was a finalist here last year and has been consistent but not overwhelming throughout the year. On the other hand, she holds the top seed without having even made a final in a Slam this year. She’s a strong player, and would surely love to make a deep run here, but it’s hard to look at her as the favorite.

So who is? Surely it is Muguruza who has taken over that role. It’s a bit surprising to say that, after where she was just a few short months ago at Roland Garros, when she melted down under the pressure and looked like she simply didn’t have the tools right now to be a serious contender for another major. But then she won Wimbledon, made the semis (losing to Madison Keys) at Stanford, made the quarters in Toronto (losing to Svitolina), then in Cincinnati beat Keys, Kuznetsova, and Pliskova on her way to the final, before demolishing Halep to take the title. Her losses have come against good players, and her wins have been very strong. She’s looking like she finally decided to shoulder the burden of being a top player. In her current form, she has to be seen as the favorite here.

Elina Svitolina still feels like something of a wild card (in the colloquial rather than tennis sense). Her play has been pretty consistent all season. She’s only 22 years old. She won in Rome and Toronto this year, showing that she’s competitive up to the highest levels of the sport–but she’s never made it beyond the third round at the US Open. Will this be the year in which she goes deeper?

Wozniacki has been strong but not amazing this season. She plays some matches like she’s on her way back to championship caliber, but then there are matches like the final of the Rogers Cup in Toronto against Svitolina, when she fought gamely through most of the first set, lost it, and then simply got demolished in the second. Based on her consistent inconsistency, it seems unlikely that she’s going to be able to string together the seven solid matches it takes to hoist the trophy in New York.

Jo Konta, the number-seven seed, is an interesting case. She’s become a solid player, capable of beating anybody playing. Her power makes her impossible to write off.

Kuznetsova has been rather under the radar. She made the quarterfinals at Wimbledon, the 2nd round at Toronto, and the quarterfinals in Cincinnati. She’s too good to ignore, but hard to take seriously as an actual contender.

And then there’s Venus Williams. She’s 37 years old now. She made the finals at both the Australian and Wimbledon. She’s too good and too experienced to ignore as a possible contender here. On the other hand, she’s at her best on faster courts than we’re likely to see in New York (though we’ll see if that proves true–no one expected the Australian to play quite as fast as it did), and in each of her Slam finals this year, she showed that she doesn’t quite maintain her mental game at its highest in every match, especially the toughest matches. I shouldn’t have been surprised by her lack of presence against Serena in the Australian final–we’ve seen enough times that she doesn’t like playing her sister that it should have been expected–but her utter capitulation against Mugu in the final of Wimbledon still completely baffles me. She’s classy as hell though, and it would be profoundly cool to see her make another deep run in New York.

Other players to watch: Madison Keys, certainly. Jelena Ostapenpo, who still has me shaking my head and smiling over her play on her way to her victory at Roland Garros. CoCo Vandeweghe. Petra Kvitova, still on the comeback trail. And, as we saw at Roland Garros, there’s plenty of reason to think that any other number of players–maybe anyone in the top fifty?–could make a serious run here.

Gotta be excited for this one. Expect a fun tournament. Oh, and there are eight players with a chance to hold world-number-one after the Open: everyone in the top nine except for Kerber. Here’s a fascinating little wrinkle: if the final ends up being the one and two seeds, Halep and Pliskova, and Pliskova ends up winning, Halep still leaves the Open as the new number one. Rolling rankings can create some interesting occurrences, eh?

Last night at 11:50pm, I briefly excused myself from the best bar in Milwaukee in order to connect to WiFi and publish yesterday’s piece.

I’ve done this practice too long to simply let it slide. But as I did, I did take a moment to ask myself why. Just habit? Why couldn’t it wait until morning?

This morning, I awoke to the answer. The heart of the practice isn’t publishing. What I’m really practicing is professionalism. Even when I’m not getting paid, I’m ingraining the habits of a professional. Writing is my job. I show up, no matter what.

A question: can the commonplace be miraculous?

Here’s what I mean. Tuesday morning, I awoke in a tent in rural Wyoming. We drove across more than a thousand miles of country, and that night I craned my neck upwards to take in the marvels of the architecture of the skyscrapers of downtown Chicago.

On the one hand, it’s just a math problem: average 70 m.p.h. over fifteen hours of driving, and you trade Wyoming’s Black Hills National Forest for the shores of Lake Michigan. Simple enough.

But on the other hand. I woke up in a tent in rural Wyoming. I went to sleep in a bed on the 30th floor of a hotel surrounded by the lights of the city. The sun rose, the sun set, and everything was different.

To put it another way: if I don’t see the world with constant wonder, am I genuinely seeing it?

Witnessing a total solar eclipse was not like a miracle. It was an actual miracle. It was without exaggeration the most amazing thing I have ever seen. It was like staring into the eye of God.

If the last several days have gone as planned, I have driven up north from Colorado into northern Wyoming, camped for a couple of days, driven back south into the path of eclipse totality, witnessed a total eclipse for the first time in my life, then headed into South Dakota, a state I’ve never been to before, to spend the night and reflect on my adventures.

As I write this (several days ahead of time), I’m deeply excited. There’s a way that the world has been new to me this summer. I am excited to take that newness to new places.