Category: Uncategorized (So Far)

Calling Rafael Nadal the best clay-court player of all time is kind of like calling the Sun the brightest star in our solar system.

La Décima

In Sunday’s final of Roland Garros, there was a remarkable moment when Stan Wawrinka–down love-40 in his first service game in the second set, having lost the first set 6-2 without ever having really managed to get a toehold–turned his back to his opponent, Rafael Nadal, then took one of the balls he was serving with, held it and dug his teeth into it the way one would bite into an apple, and if ever there was a clearer statement of “My opponent will not be beaten today,” I have never seen it.

To Wawrinka’s credit, he battled on. He did not give up. He did not tank the final two sets. He played his best, but it was clear from the first points of the match that his four-and-a-half-hour, five-set war against Andy Murray two days prior had left his legs a little heavy, whereas Rafael Nadal had struggled to beat Dominic Thiem in the semis exactly as much as he’d struggled against all the other players he’d faced over this fortnight, which is to say not at all. On this day against Wawrinka in the final, it seemed possible that Nadal could have worn a heavy steel chain around his neck and a patch over one eye, like something out of “Harrison Bergeron,” and still won in straight sets, so much better was he than everyone else in the tournament.

Nadal ran through the tournament without losing a set. No one even managed to push him to a tiebreak. Over the course of seven matches, he lost a total of 35 games. He just turned 31 years old, and he was as dominant as he has ever been. It is not too soon to begin speculating about La Undécima.

Surely the other top players have been paying attention that the dominant players of this season have been Federer and Nadal, two great champions both thought to have been past their primes. They both took substantial, injury-enforced breaks at the end of last season. Their subsequent dominance is no coincidence.

One wonders how long before this insight filters down among the rest of the top players. High-level tennis is a brutally physical sport. Are the other top players brave enough to reach the obvious conclusion, that they will do better if they play less? The ATP wouldn’t like it, but might the players start to think that playing their best and maintaining their health and thereby prolonging their careers is better than the alternative? If the players are wise, we will soon see a substantial shift in how players–at least players around or older than 30–schedule themselves.

Since the election in November, we’ve turned our attention to how to live (and possibly even thrive?) in a society that’s deeply out of balance. Last week, I asserted that most people in our society are unhappy most of the time. Let me assert today that a society made up of mostly unhappy people is far more likely to seek out conflict rather than cooperation than one comprised of people who are in balance.

Consider, for example, President Trump’s decision last week to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. A recent national poll found that seven out of ten Americans support remaining in the agreement, and that a majority of self-identified Democrats, Republicans and independents all want to stay in the accord.

Trump’s decision to pull the country out of the accord, contrary to what a majority of Americans want, reflects my essential point that as a people out of balance, we are prone to or even seek out conflict. Trump, as someone who thrives in chaos, seeks (one hopes unconsciously) to sow seeds of chaos.

So what do we do about it? How do we alter that dynamic? If people out of balance are far more likely to seek conflict rather than cooperation, and if our society is succumbing to the impact of constant conflict, indeed, appears to be descending into chaos (and would you dare to claim otherwise?), then the single most radical and effective thing we can do as individuals is to short-circuit that dynamic by seeking balance within ourselves.

Forty-three years ago today, three days past my father’s forty-third birthday, his son was born. I was born forty-three years ago today.

(As birthday gifts go, that must have been something.)

It is not unusual for men to measure ourselves by our fathers. Today I am the same age my father was when I was born. What can I learn through my imagination of what he felt, who he was that day?

Like my father, I stand at the beginning of a new chapter in my life. Like my father, it’s clear what a key feature will be. On that day forty-three years ago, my father certainly knew that this helpless little creature would be a central, defining part of his life forever onward.

For me, today is marked not a presence but an absence. Something that was a central part of my life for many many years will soon be no more. Where I lose clarity is in that absence, in the void of what was there. How do I navigate when the major feature in my life is not what is there, but what is not?

Like my father forty-three years ago today, what I was is no more. For him, there was an eight-pound-whatever-ounce baby that told him, “Count this among the things that define you. You are now the father of an infant son.”

I see no such defining feature, only the negative space where what once was no longer is. What will fill that space? Who will I be?

Jelena Ostapenko

Jelena Ostapenko turns 20 tomorrow. Pretty nice way to celebrate, playing your first Slam semi-final. I knew nothing about her except that she was young. And then I watched some of her match against Wozniacki and I was like:

Oh.

My.

God.

By the time most top athletes hit the pro level, the joy in their play–the actual play in their play–is gone. It’s a job. Maybe one they love, but a job. But there are players for whom there’s a kind of “Let’s see if I can do this” joyous discovery, something almost childlike. I see that when I watch Steph Curry shoot his long threes. It’s like he’s as delighted by his abilities as the rest of us.

My sense is that Ostapenko’s hitting-the-cover-off-the-ball power is similarly borne on the back of joy. It’s like she’s curious just how powerfully she can hit the ball, and is thrilled every time she pulls it off. It’s a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Again and again, the pressure of being on the radar has proven too much for the players on the women’s tour, so it is premature to say that Ostapenko is the real deal. But she’s definitely definitely definitely one to watch.

Novak Djokovic

Yesterday, I said about the impending Thiem-Djokovic match, “I predict it won’t be nearly as one-sided [as their match in Rome]. Thiem will come in with a gameplan. He may not yet fully have the tools to execute, but I predict we’ll see no 6-0 sets in this match.” What I meant was that I didn’t think it would be one-sided in Djokovic’s favor. That it might be one-sided the other way literally never occurred to me. I did not expect that Djokovic would play one hard-fought set and then fold. When I said “no 6-0 sets” I meant no 6-0 sets that Thiem was on the losing end of. It never, ever occurred to me that it might go the other way.

Djokovic simply tanked the final set. You could see it. He wore a look of utter shellshock, his mind clearly screaming inside his head, and he was obviously just trying to get off the court as quickly as possible. To think that a year ago he seemed invincible, and now he seems lost, frightened, bereft.

I’m sure by now he is carrying that feeling off the court as well, and I wish him the best.

Now we’re in the meat of the tournament.

Also, my life is pretty much off the rails right now, so it’s a testament to how much I love you that I’m still writing and publishing today. With that in mind, you might notice a little … saltiness in the today’s writing.

The Men

Murray – Khachanov: Murray in straights, three, four and four. Khachanov has a huge power game, but he lacks the finesse right now to beat someone with as many tools as Murray. Khachanov is only 21; expect big things from him as his game matures.

Nishikori – Verdasco: Nishikori wins by the improbable score of 0-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-0. They showed basically none of this match on the TV, so I have no insight to offer. Maybe Nishikori needed a set to get his legs under him after his five-setter against Chung the round previous?

Wawrinka – Monfils: Wawrinka in two tough sets and an easy final one. There is no player whom I want to punch as much as I do Monfils. He has physical gifts that no one–and I mean no one–else on tour can touch. But he is a goddamn headcase, and it makes me angry to see someone squander gifts like that. Yeah, I know, can you really call it squander when you’re talking about one of the top twenty players in the world? In Monfils case, you certainly can. Every time I see him bend over after a point, as though either winded or else convincing himself that he’s hurt, I want to kick him in the balls. “People would kill for your skills, you fucking baby!” I want to shriek at him.

So fuck him. I’m glad Wawrinka won.

Cilic – Anderson: Anderson retired down 3-0 in the second set. Haven’t seen a moment of Cilic play, but I note that he hasn’t even come close to losing a set. He’s apparently not someone to disregard in the next round.

Nadal – Bautista Agut: 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 to Nadal. Holy crap is he playing well. I watched a little of this, until it became clear that there was no real competition here. I found myself asking, “Can I articulate what it is that has Rafa beating Bautista Agut so handily?” Interestingly, the main thing I can come up with is that Rafa is simply across-the-board better. Which is pretty fascinating, if you really think about it. Bautista Agut was the 17-seed here. Can you imagine being one of the twenty best practitioners in the world at something, and there still being people who are head-and-shoulders better than you? Talk about the far extremes of the bell curve, eh?

Thiem – Zeballos: I saw none of it, but notice that Thiem still hasn’t lost a set, and the 6-1, 6-3, 6-1 scoreline here suggests he’s getting stronger as the tournament goes on.

Djokovic – Ramos-Vinolas: A first set tiebreak, and then two straightforward sets for Djokovic. Can a week or so working with Agassi really have gotten his head back on straight?

Carreno Busta – Raonic: No idea. I don’t think I could pick Carreno Busta out in a crowd.

One quick quarterfinal preview: Four interesting matches, but it is the Djokovic-Thiem match that most has my interest. After what Djokovic did to Thiem in Rome, one wonders just what kind of different match we’ll see here. I predict it won’t be nearly as one-sided. Thiem will come in with a gameplan. He may not yet fully have the tools to execute, but I predict we’ll see no 6-0 sets in this match.

The Women

Here I’m only going to talk about two matches.

Mladenovic – Muguruza: If you were wanting to make the case that the women’s game is vastly inferior to the men’s, this would be the match to point to. On paper, it looked good: Last year’s champion versus one of France’s darlings, who happens to be playing well right now. But it was crappy tennis all around. Mugu was barely a factor in the first set, losing 6-1. Somehow Mladenovic managed to lose the second set, mostly on the back of Mugu finally hitting some winners and Mladenovic starting to double-fault by the fistful. But the third set, sweet Jesus. Mladenovic was averaging two double-faults per service game and somehow she managed to win. Really think about that. She was giving Mugu two free points per game on her serve, and still Mugu couldn’t win. Do you have any idea how poorly Mugu had to play for this to be true? Good god. And these are ostensibly two of the best players in the game. Remember when I asserted that some matches, the only reason there’s a winner is that the rules dictate it be so, otherwise both players would lose. Bingo.

Bacsinszky – Venus: Bacsinszky was up 5-1 in the first set and lost the set. I figured this was just one more case of a so-called top women’s player lacking anything like the mental toughness to win, so I gave up on the match. Then she got it together and won two and one the rest of the way. Interesting. Don’t know what else to say about that, because I didn’t see it.

Other thoughts: Halep won 6-1, 6-1. Hasn’t dropped a set yet. Maybe it’s her year.

Venus looked strong through three rounds and not bad in the fourth. Clay is her weakest surface, but grass is her strongest. Serena remains out, the field remains wide open: Is it possible Venus could win Wimbledon?

The Men

Novak Djokovic found himself down two sets to one against Diego Schwartzman and not exactly looking like a champion. Then fatigue and a strained oblique took away Schwartzman’s effectiveness, and he lost the last two sets 6-1, 6-1. Last year, Novak would have dispatched a player like Schwartzman–particularly one with as weak a second serve as Schwartzman–in straight sets.

The other top players didn’t share Djokovic’s struggles. Against Nikoloz Basilashvili, Rafa Nadal won the first 11 games and only lost one the entire match. Basilashvili is a solid player. If the rest of the field isn’t looking at that result and saying, “Oh dear God,” then I’m in awe of their confidence.

Thiem handled Steve Johnson comfortably in three sets, 6-1, 7-6 (4), 6-3. Dimitrov went out in straight sets to Pablo Carreno Busta.

And, sadly, the Roadrunner saw his French Open, and who knows how much of his grass court season, come to a premature end as he slid into the tarp at the end of the court and badly hurt his ankle. Word is that an MRI was negative, that he suffered neither a broken bone nor any kind of severe ligament damage, but it was a shame to see him go down like that. He was up 5-4 and serving for the first set when it happened. I like the Roadrunner. He made the quarterfinals here last year, and looked like he would be making the Round of 16, where he’d likely have met Thiem. Last year they played in the quarterfinals, with Thiem winning 4-6, 7-6 (7), 6-4, 6-1.

Murray battled DelPo through two tough sets before sealing the third with a bagel. Wawrinka beat Fognini comfortably, winning the first set in a tiebreak and then going love and 2 the rest of the way. I haven’t been taking Cilic too seriously but he beat Feliciano Lopez in three comfortable sets and hasn’t dropped a set so far.

The Women

Venus moved forward against Elise Mertens three and one to set up a round of 16 clash against Timea Bacsinszky. Mugu is, kind of to my surprise, still alive, having beaten Putinseva 7-5, 6-2.

Bethanie Mattek-Sands. I asked if perhaps Sam Stosur was beatable. Not apparently, not by Mattek-Sands. Stosur beat her 6-2, 6-2. Stosur’s return-of-serve was simply more than Mattek-Sands could handle.

Halep went through in straights. Cici Bellis’ run came to an end against Caroline Wozniacki. Though Cici won the second set and got to 3-3 in the third, it seemed at that point like she was saying to herself, “Damn, I’ve got a chance to beat a former world number one,” and then her head exploded and she went meekly out the rest of the way.

Kristina Mladenovic’s match against Shelby Rogers was the match of the round. By the third set, Mladenovic looked beaten. She had won the first set 7-5, but then Shelby Rogers upped her first-serve percentage and was able to take the second set 6-4. It looked like Shelby was going to knock Kristina out. After Rogers held serve to start the third set, we saw three straight breaks to give Rogers a 3-1 lead. She held to 4-1, held again to 5-2, and got to serve for the match at 5-3. And then the wheels came off. She got broken at love, somehow held after Mladenovic evened things at 5-5, but then got broken at love again, now spraying unforced errors. In the final game she kept playing into Mladenovic’s strength, the forehand, to lose the match.

It is our observation that most people (in America, at least–we can’t speak intelligently about the rest of the world) are unhappy most of the time.

It is our further observation that it just doesn’t have to be this way. Life doesn’t have to be this hard.

Now, we’re making no claims that these observations are in any way unique to us. The Buddha said the same things 2,500 years ago.

If the Buddha (and Jesus, and Muhammad, and whatever other enlightened sages you’d like to point to) couldn’t teach people that they don’t need to suffer, why are we so arrogant to think we have anything useful to add?

In part, it’s that every voice that offers a path to any level of awakening is valuable–maybe one of those voices will speak to you. (I’d practiced both Zen and Vipassana meditation prior to meeting Jerry, but it was the simple practice of centering that unlocked the door for me.)

It’s also that modern technology can serve to amplify a voice in a way that has never been possible before. (Unfortunately, as we’ve seen through such phenomena as online bullying and fake news, this cuts both ways.)

But more than anything, it’s that we feel we’ve been called to help, and believe we can help.

The Men

No Major Upsets. Nadal, Djokovic and Thiem all got through comfortably in straight sets, as did Wawrinka, Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and Lucas Pouille. Murray, Raonic and Goffin needed four sets to advance.

Kyrgios. Up a set and a break against Kevin Anderson, serving at 4-2 in the second … and then he won three games the rest of the way to lose in four sets. I was going to call him “Infuriating Nick Kyrgios,” but in his post-match press conference he admitted he’s been feeling a lot of grief since the recent death of his grandfather, and I know grief well enough to understand that it absolves him of an awful lot.

The Women

Far Less Carnage Than I Expected. Most of the remaining top-16 seeds won. Exceptions were Pavlyuchenkova, whom I thank for losing so I don’t have to type her name again, and Madison Keys, who started spraying so many unforced errors (6-1 in the third), it was downright strange. Pressure?

Petra Kvitova lost to one of my favorite players, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, in two tiebreaks. Hard to see that as that bad of a result for Petra. These were her first competitive matches this year; she’s allowed to be a little bit off.

Bethanie Mattek-Sands. I’ve liked her ever since I watched her play Serena in the 2015 US Open. In that match, she came out serving and volleying, and for a while Serena was a little off-balance. She also has the most fun fashion sense of anyone in the women’s game. For reasons I can’t quite figure out, she’s not much of a singles player, but she’s sure fun to watch. She plays Sam Stosur in the next round. Perhaps Stosur is beatable?

About a year ago, I asked this question: “How do you guide yourself through the tournament so that you maximize your chances of seeing something remarkable and, if not remarkable, at least beautiful?”

I’ve watched a lot of tennis tournaments since then, sometimes obsessively, and my answer is that you guide yourself by the storylines you witness going into the tournament, extrapolate from there into the way you tell the impending story, and then temper your answer by your own sense of aesthetics.

What do I mean? I think of the storyline as the emergent cultural narrative going into the event, that is, what the sport’s commentators are in aggregate talking about. Then you create your own guiding narrative, which may or may not agree with the aggregate conversation. Something like, “Tina the Llama is the one-seed, but I think she’s overrated right now, still floating along on her results from months and months ago, so instead I suspect that Yertle the Turtle is more likely to win.” And then you bring your aesthetics into play. You might choose to ignore what you see as the key storyline if what it points to doesn’t really appeal to you. That is, even you’ve worked out that Yertle the Turtle is most likely to win, you might instead watch Gretchen the Gnu because you like her game more, even though she’ll find a way to lose by the fourth round.

A real-world example: during Djokovic’s Era of Invincibility, the culmination of which was his victory at Roland Garros last year, an era that ended in apparent burn-out soon thereafter, the dominant storyline dictated that it was Djokovic’s matches that were the obvious ones to watch. After all, he was attempting to complete his career Grand Slam, would be holding all four Slams at once, and looked like he’d soon be threatening Federer’s record of career Slam wins. But for me, there was something so inevitable about his success during that time that his matches were only really compelling if he was playing against an opponent whom I enjoyed watching. Otherwise it felt kind of like watching a YouTube video of a train crashing into a giant cardboard box full of other, smaller boxes: Yes, I suppose it was sort of spectacular in its way, but the carnage was a little too obvious and expected to stay entertaining for long.

So where does all that point me this year?

The dominant storyline on the men’s side is resurgent Rafa Nadal’s pursuit of his tenth French Open championship. For me, that’s interesting enough that it will guide much of the time I spend watching. After him, I’ll watch his two most obvious rivals, Thiem and Djokovic. They’re in the same half of the draw as Rafa (and the same quarter as each other), so there’s kind of a void if I’m watching in anticipation of a certain match-up in the final. If I watch someone on the other side of the draw, it’ll be dictated by how the tournament shakes up; because I really don’t think Murray has it this year, there’s no obvious choice ahead of time.

On the women’s side, I’d written off pretty much everyone who isn’t Venus Williams as being worth watching in the early rounds, because with the women’s game being so inconsistent (its champions prefer the term “wide open”), there wasn’t really any compelling storyline going into the tournament to guide my watching.

But thankfully, a worthwhile storyline arose on Friday, when Petra Kvitova held a press conference and announced to the surprise of everyone that her hand had healed sufficiently from the wounds she suffered when she was attacked in her home back in December that she was going to play in the French. No one is expecting her to go too terribly far–she hasn’t played a competitive match since late last year, and anyway grass is her strongest surface. But still, after such a horrible event, and after the initial talk that she might never regain sufficient function in her hand to play competitively again, her early-round matches are clearly worth checking out this year, and also let’s wish her well.