Was that Federer's Last Australian Open?

Was it just me or did Roger Federer's victory speech sound like good-bye?

Some have speculated that Federer is still in the game to retake the world's number one ranking and become the oldest number one ever. In some ways it seems like he rightfully should have the number one ranking with this win. True, he didn't play last year's French Open, so he got no ranking points there. But he's won this year's Australian, last year's Wimbledon and other significant tournaments last year, including Indian Wells, Miami and Shanghai. Plus, he's won six straight over his main rival, Rafa Nadal. It seems like a recent head-to-head record in the rankings should be worth something.

But I don't think he'd retire just as soon as he reaches number one. IMHO, it's likelier that he'd choose a year to be his farewell tour to the game. Is 2018 that year? His tears at the end of this year's win didn't seem just like tears of joy. There was no mention of "See you next year," as there so often has been with Federer in the past. Instead, he congratulated Cilic on reaching number three and wished him luck achieving more in the future. And yet Nadal and Federer are indisputably the top two players in the game right now. So is Federer signaling that one of those top spots--his--might soon be vacant?

Federer's longevity, in addition to his pile of Grand Slam victories, has been impressive. Few would have predicted he'd end his four-year drought without a Grand Slam victory from 2012 through 2015 in his early 30s with Grand Slam wins in his mid-30s. The injuries or soreness have finally caught up even with Federer though, as he's missed a few Grand Slams recently due to ailments or to pace himself for a shot at subsequent Slams.

I could be wrong. I had thought he might retire earlier in his 30s. With Nadal still on the tour, there's a chance that Rafa, who has 16 Grand Slam victories to Federer's 20, could catch up to Federer's total and have a chance of being called the all-time greatest unless Federer is around to defend his titles. That might be motivation enough to stick around. And Federer, already an Olympian, could be an Olympian yet again and go for Gold in singles (he already has it doubles), one of the few achievements to elude him, though he's come close--winning Silver in 2012.

Kim Clijsters had a remarkable comeback from becoming a mother to win Grand Slams. Federer is one of the first players on the tour to win Grand Slams after becoming a father. It's possible that he may be tired of the globetrotting and recent injuries and want to settle down with his family as his kids grow up.

Or not! I've been wrong with Federer before. At his post-match press conference, he was asked point blank how long he'd keep playing and said, "I have no idea." Federer also said you have to play each Grand Slam like it's the last one. But as for the travel, he said he didn't mind it and that his wife, Mirka Federer, supported his decision to keep playing. He also explained the emotions were partly from having a tough match after an easy run up to the final round and having to wait all day to play a night match. His nerves after winning may have been frazzled after a long day of wondering how he would feel if he won or lost. Or the accomplishment of winning a 20th Grand Slam could well have been overwhelming. Even Federer's human after all.

It could simply be that, as Chris Evert has often noted, Grand Slam victories become more emotional the older champions become.

Still, that victory speech sounded like farewell--and, if so, is a big gulp moment for us all.

Wozniacki Was and Is a Champion

Tennis may be played on a rectangular court and with angled shots but in some ways the game is all about circles. There's the ball, for starters. Also, there's the way scoring is kept. You start at love, win a game and come back full circle to love again. And consider how players often play on the court, starting at the baseline center mark to serve, serving, getting the return then coming back full circle again and again to the baseline center mark, hopefully looking for an opportunity to finish off the point.

Now Caroline Wozniacki's career has come full circle. She's back at number one, this time with a Grand Slam championship--this year's Australian Open--to boot. It seems like Wozniacki has been on the tour forever but she's only 27--still plenty of time left for dancing those circles of footwork on the court in more tournaments and Grand Slams.

Much criticized for not winning a Grand Slam in her previous more than 60 weeks at number one from October 2010 through the end of January 2012, Wozniacki has been at number one the ninth most ever of any player on the WTA tour. She slumped some in the rankings during the middle of this decade and struggled with some injuries. But then she played well at the end of last year, culminating in her WTA Finals victory, an harbinger of even greater things to come.

Victories have a way of repeating themselves in tennis. Those who have won against others often find themselves winning against them again and again. It's about ability but also is partly psychological. Wozniacki will have a long time to enjoy this win and her return to number one before the next Grand Slam and Serena's imminent return will raise the bar for everyone in the women's game. But the win should give Wozniacki a confidence boost when the French Open rolls around.

Do Away with Winning by Two Games

The match between Simona Halep and Angelique Kerber was another gritty performance by Halep and hard-earned win to take her to her first Australian Open final. Watching it, I wasn't just impressed by how much steelier her nerve has become under Coach Darren Cahill. I decided all the Grand Slams should have a tiebreaker in their final sets and not require players to win the final set by two games.

Here's why. It's not that I mind watching the longer matches. They can be entertaining, even somewhat spellbinding, when they run long. But that shouldn't be the winning argument. Instead, there are other considerations.

First, in this injury-plagued game, requiring players to win by two in match after match is just too much on the players' bodies. It literally wears them down. Halep mentioned her sore ankle right after her match and how she's looking forward, not to the final, but getting to rest after it. Tiebreakers would give a much more tangible end in sight for the players during a match.

It's not that I prefer shorter matches. I don't. I hate the deciding point gimmick that is used in the Australian in mixed doubles. Games should be won by two points. That makes them more exciting and keeps fitness an important part of the sport. But requiring the whole match to be won by two games can do permanent damage to a player's body. John Isner's 70-68 final set against Nicolas Mahut did a number on both their careers. I think it took away some of their will to fight in the long run, it was so draining.

Requiring a player to win by two in the final set also is unfair. This may be just the once amateur tennis player in me. But it seems there is an inherent advantage to the player who is serving first at 5-5. Yes, there's that same advantage at 4-4. But if the server goes up 5-4, he or she can be tied at 5-5. Then if the server is up 6-5, the other player knows he or she can make things relatively even again by getting to 6-6 and bring the match to a tiebreaker. On the other hand, if the match goes on and on until someone wins by two, it can be draining for the player who is forever the receiver one game down. If everyone is holding serve, the receiver one game down is constantly playing a game of catch up and is likelier to be up against match points sooner. The server who is continually ahead by one game is likelier to get to match points sooner if he or she is doing his or her job and holding serve. Tiebreakers cut through that nonsense and even the playing field.

The main consideration though should be players' health. If the pros' tennis season isn't going to be made any shorter--and with the season-ending championships getting more lucrative and prominent each year for those at the very top it isn't likely to--the least that can be done is grant players this one way of making matches shorter.

Hyeon Chung Is Real Deal

"I didn't just hear that, did I?" My partner called from the kitchen, while I watched Hyeon Chung dismantle Tennys Sandgren.
"I'm afraid you did," I said.
In television commentators' stupid insistence on finding insulting nicknames for players, Chung had just been referred to as "Quadzilla." He also had been referred to during the evening as "the professor" because he wears glasses. Other players call him that, the commentators explained. But his prevailing over an impairment, poor vision, shouldn't be mocked.
There also was the incessant notation about his being the first South Korean to reach as high a ranking in the 20s as he will achieve following his semifinal victory. Why the obsession about where players are from? One of the great things about tennis is that it transcends borders. It is one of the most international sports around. That should be celebrated rather than having fans egged on to root for the player that comes from their country more than the craftsmanship of the players before them. That includes at the Olympics, where excellence rather than mere geography should be the main thing cheered.
And what craftsmanship was on display by Chung in his straight-set victory against Sandgren. Brad Gilbert said his background return is the best in the game and he was right on the money with that comment.
Chung, the champion at the Next Gen event for young players last fall, is slightly older than Sasha Zverev, who he beat in the Australian Open's third round. Chung is 21 and Zverev is 20. Both are among a host of an exciting group of rising stars in the ATP, including 18-year-old Denis Shapovalov and 20-year-old Andrey Rublev, the runner-up at Next Gen in Milan.
Chung also defeated the legendary Novak Djokovic in the Round of 16 at this year's Australian. Djokovic may still be injured but Chung had no easy draw, despite it looking otherwise with his facing Sandgren in the quarters.
Chung is the real deal, in other words. He deserves better than silly nicknames.

Wanted: Tennis Revolutionaries

Is anyone at this year's Australian a tennis revolutionary?

A revolutionary like Monica Seles, changing the game forever with her much-imitated but seldom-duplicated angles from her two-handers off both sides.

Or a revolutionary like Steffi Graf with her unparalleled footwork and inside-out forehand.

How about a revolutionary like Serena Williams with her Sampras-like serve and much-underrated precision and shot selection?

What about a revolutionary like Martina Navratilova with her fine-tuned fitness and racing-to-the-net all-out attacks?

Federer clearly makes the cut with his Agassi-like raw talent, effortlessness reminiscent of his former coach Stefan Edberg, legendary good health, magic touch and impeccable court smarts.

Nadal--retired in the quarters this year--is another, playing as a leftie though he's naturally right-handed and elevating spins to an art form.

Mertens. Wozniacki. Halep. Karolina Pliskova. Keys. Kerber. Edmund. Cilic. Sandgren. Chung. Federer once again. Berdych with his impressive six victories against the Fed. Step right up, you who are still revolutionaries or who on the verge of becoming one.

I await you, prepared to be wowed!

Retribution for Kerber ... Sort Of

The expectations for Angelique Kerber were so low this year after her number one ranking fell apart and she fell to the 20s in the rankings, that her reaching the quarterfinals looks like retribution.

But then again, you have to truly have had a terrible year for there to be retribution. And Kerber's 2017 wasn't as disastrous as most would have you believe. It just didn't come close to measuring up to her phenomenal 2016, where she won the Australian and U.S. Open and reached the finals of Wimbledon.

Last year she made it to the 4th round of the Australian--not too awful. She also made it to the Round of 16 at Wimbledon where she lost to Garbine Muguruza, who won the tournament. Her first round loss at the French Open was to Ekaterina Makarova, who has been as high as 8 in the world. Her best showing at the French--the quarterfinals in 2012--is a little puzzling, since it seems her game would be well-suited for the clay. In any event, her first round loss at the U.S. Open was to up-and-comer and this year's Aussie Round of 16 player, Naomi Osaka, who could become a future star. So the cries of Kerber being washed up were premature.

Now her reward for getting to the quarters is a match-up with Madison Keys, who has the real makings of a star if she can develop the nerves of a champion. Kerber's had a much tougher draw so far than Keys has had though, defeating Sharapova and Hsieh Su Wei along the way. Should be a great match! My money's on Keys though, despite her easier draw. She has the shot-making ability and youth on her side--22 years to Kerber's 30. Kerber may have run out of gas with the long matches she's had thus far to get to this year's quarters. But hats off to her for getting this far in this year's tournament.

And who knows, maybe she'll defy my expectations or Keys won't live up to her potential and Kerber will wind up advancing much further. This tournament is anyone's to take!

Australian Misses Serena

It's obvious, isn't it? None of the women's players are up to the level of Serena Williams and this year's tournament sorely misses her.

I find myself watching women's matches looking at open down-the-line shots that aren't taken advantage of wondering why didn't the player go for that? Or opportunities to come to the net that aren't taken. Sometimes the players whip one down the line or come to the net, but often their shots go wide or are out. More often, they don't  try at all, going for the safer shot. I've been accustomed to unbelievable shot-making by years of watching Serena on the court. Without her, the game just isn't as exciting.

Granted, there is suspense in wondering who will take advantage of Serena's absence. Will Halep or Wozniacki finally win a Grand Slam? Halep certainly didn't look like a Grand Slam winner in her match-up against Lauren Davis, losing service game after service game. At least she showed some grit in pulling the match out. But she's better at defending and returning serve than she is at serving and attacking. Serena is all about the serve and forward motion.

Wozniacki looked better than Halep did in her most recent match against Rybarikova, a decisive victory. I've become accustomed though to domination on the tour by one player and I just don't see a dominant player on the women's side yet. Svitolina may battle through her nerves and take the tournament but she doesn't own the court like Serena does. But Serena has set the bar so high, that tennis absent her was bound to be anticlimactic.

When Serena returns, count on her to be the favorite again. This field of players hasn't advanced the game above Serena's level during her absence, IMHO. And while there have been signs of some great players possibly to come, like 15-year-old Marta Kostyuk, who made it to the third round, the current crop seems to be in a lull, waiting for the next great champ to come along.

Come Off It with "Come Ons!"

I miss Chris Evert. No, not the commentator. I mean the ice queen champion of the groundies on the tennis tour. There was no screaming "Come On!" after she won points. She just stood straight when things weren't going her way, cast a steely gaze at her opponent and fought on to the end--usually winning, unless her opponent was Navratilova. And at the end, when she won and sprinted up to shake her opponents' hands, there weren't the obligatory fist pumps and screaming that seem to be de rigeur with today's victors.

Not that I mind some noise. I don't have a problem with the players grunting during the points. Evert may not have done that, but Jimmy Connors certainly did. It's a sign the players are giving it his or her all to hit the fool out of the ball a la Monica Seles through Serena Williams.

But why yell, "Come on!" It's so obnoxious. Lleyton Hewitt started it, as far as I can tell. The yell typically is bellowed after the player wins a point these days, like he or she can't believe the opponent is playing a close match. Everyone does it now, even the once gentlemanly Roger Federer.

And why, "Come on!" How about yelling, "Hooray!" instead? Or "Way to go!" or even the slightly less sportsmanlike "Yes!" Something positive. It would be refreshing. I'm waiting for the new generation of players to either calm down and not yell after every good point, which frankly looks silly when the player ends up losing, or substitute it with something positive.

I said all players are doing it, but there may be a few exceptions. Venus Williams may be one of the rare player who doesn't scream come on. And her record's not too shabby--seven Grand Slam victories. So how about the other tour players coming off it with their incessant, "Come ons!"

Are Line Judges Really Necessary?

Is the use of line judges in tennis as unnecessary as horses for modern-day transportation? Or might it soon become as obsolete? Sure, line judges add a certain zest to tennis matches, with their shrieks of "Out." And they give the umpire something to do when the line judges forget where they should be standing during tiebreakers and need some instruction.

But, really, with shot spot, couldn't the umpire, who seems to have little to do aside from calling net courts or occasionally overruling calls, simply look at shot spots of all close calls? Maybe this technology isn't available yet, though Next Gen Finals' reliance on technology rather than line judges suggests otherwise. Shot spot does seem to be unbelievably slow, particularly at the Australian Open. And the crowds seem to enjoy clapping while, as slow as a dial-up modum, shot spot shows whether the ball is in or not.

If shot spot can show whether one stroke is out though, couldn't it do so for all of them? Is the tour nudging technology in that direction? If such technology became available, it would have the advantage of being 100 percent accurate instead of the haphazard system that exists today, where players are allotted three challenges per set plus an additional challenge for a tiebreaker.

The current system results in players not challenging some questionable balls because they're running low on or have run out of challenges. If the umpire isn't going to check all calls, couldn't he or she at least check all close ones? Why make it a matter of tough luck if the player has run out of challenges and letting balls that have gone out slip by, as though they were good?

The unfairness of the present system is particularly the case in final sets when there isn't a tiebreaker, as is the case at the Australian Open. In the match between Simona Halep and Lauren Davis, which went into double-digit games, they didn't get extra challenges just because their final set ran long.

Some might say, well, shot spot might break in the middle of a match and where would you be. But I've yet to see a match where it's broken. And if it did, the match could be postponed, as with a rain delay.

Maybe line judges won't be replaced by automation. But it at least seems worth considering.