Tiafoe Isn’t Kyrgios

I can’t begin to count the number of times Frances Tiafoe has been compared to Nick Kyrgios by television commentators. The comparison seems inapt to me. Kyrgios is so negative on the court so often, cursing and muttering to himself all too often when things go wrong and throwing his racquet down when he loses various points plus periodically saying he wants to soon retire from the sport and raise a family. Which is all his choice of course and some people enjoy.

Yes, Kyrgios has gotten his act more together on the court this year than he has in any year past, getting to the finals of Wimbledon this year. And he’s a great talent, that much is evident, as he showed winning the Australian men’s doubles this year. He was no slouch at this year’s U.S. Open either and his ranking is rising.

But Tiafoe is so much more positive, often smiling wryly on the court and thoroughly enjoying the sport, bringing a joy to the game and fans alike. All who are left in the tournament—Alcaraz, Ruud, Swiatek and Jabeur—impress me as being more kindred spirits to Tiafoe than Kyrgios. 

Yes, Tiafoe and Kyrgios are both winners, but I’m rooting for joyful players like Tiafoe every time.

A Game Penalty Is Too Severe

Almost all credit to Naomi Osaka for her first Grand Slam win: 6-2, 6-4 against Serena Williams. This one should prompt a reexamination of code violations and how they're applied, though. That's where part of the credit unfortunately wasn't due to Osaka's excellent play but instead the application of and the code violations themselves.

First the application of the code violations wasn't fair. A code violation for coaching at a critical stage in a Grand Slam event is extreme, especially when coaching from players' boxes is so common, even though Serena unqualifiedly denied she'd ever been coached from the player's box. A code violation for a broken racquet seems fair but not one for calling someone a thief, especially when the comment is made as a throwaway line as the player is walking away and obviously has given up any name-calling and is ready to get back to play. So, since two code violations were wrongly applied, Serena shouldn't have been penalized a point.

But even if there are to be penalties, they should be much more measured. A point penalty should be on the third code violation, not the second. It seems much too abrupt on the second. And a penalty for a whole game on the third violation and every subsequent violation is patently absurd. It's just too much and throws the momentum of the match too much in favor of the other player. A point penalty on the third violation and every subsequent violation would be enough to get the point across to the offending player that he or she is risking throwing away the momentum of the match. An umpire still would need to exercise great discretion in awarding a code violation that results in a point penalty, however, even if the rules were changed to this extent. Otherwise, the umpire still could unduly shift the momentum of the match on some basis other than play.

The tennis establishment can be slow to change its rules though. If a game still will be lost on a third code violation, it has to be done in only extreme circumstances, which simply weren't present in this match. Serena had a passionate exchange, yes. There need to be code violations to end the discussion at some point if it gets too out of hand. But it really didn't. It fell far short of anything John McEnroe did in his heyday. There does, as Serena pointed out to the tournament referee, seem to be a double standard though between how the code violations were applied to her versus how they are applied on the men's tour.

All of that said, it shouldn't be overlooked that Osaka played a great match, showing great poise even with the crowd roaring boos against her in her last service game. She got emotional  at the trophy presentation before Serena graciously got them to hush. It must have been a bittersweet moment for Osaka, beating her idol. All in all though, Osaka showed the poise of a champion. With her winning personality, reminiscent to me in her ebullience in the early rounds at the U.S. Open of Monica Seles when she first came on the scene, one can only hope that Osaka might quickly become a crowd favorite. Regardless, if she can play like she did against Serena Williams consistently, Osaka might look forward to racking up some far less controversial Grand Slam victories. Chris Evert has said she's waiting for the next up-and-coming women's Grand Slam champion who can win multiple Grand Slam championships. Could Osaka be the one?

No Such Thing As G.O.A.T.

I can't be the only one who was annoyed by the G.O.A.T. signs for Roger Federer. Maybe even Roger was annoyed. If anyone deserves that title--shorthand for greatest of all time, it's Serena Williams.
Sure, Roger so far has won 20 Grand Slams (three less than Serena). But once he was a great sportsman. Not so much anymore. Certainly, his remarks after losing to Kevin Anderson didn't make him the greatest sportsman of all time. "I had my chances and I blew them," he said according to The Guardian. "So that's my problem." Charming! Hats off to the winner!
And he wasn't the greatest of all time on that day when he lost to Anderson in this year's quarters at Wimbledon. That day was part of "all time."
Rafa Nadal may have a shot at G.O.A.T. one day, if we're to accept the dehumanizing-sounding acronym. Already he has a record 11 French Opens and 17 Grand Slams total, and is a few years younger than Federer. But even he didn't win all the time on the clay at Roland Garros--Novak Djokovic and Robin Soderling have beaten him there. On those days, he wasn't the greatest of all time on clay!
Djokovic, greatest of all the time at this year's Wimbledon final, though not every point, is creeping up the Grand Slam list with 13, just behind Pete Sampras' 14: 4th on the Grand Slam list in the Open era. He eats grass after winning and yells a lot on the court after big points though. That's not so great.
Then there's Serena. It's harder to make a case for her not being G.O.A.T. Why doesn't she have those signs instead of Roger? Her 23 Grand Slam titles are more impressive than Margaret Court's 24: 11 of Court's 24 were at the Australian Open when many tennis players didn't compete there, as Chris Evert has pointed out.
Yes, Steffi Graf had 23 and a Golden Slam, but how many would she have had if Seles hadn't been stabbed? Maybe Monica Seles would have kept beating Graf and everyone else on tour with her game-changing angled shots that made her my personal G.O.A.T. on the women's side. Maybe everyone has a personal G.O.A.T. and there isn't really a one writ large for everyone. Mats Wilander would be my G.O.A.T. on the men's side. Such a winsome winner!
As for whether Serena is G.O.A.T., I have to wonder too,whether Martina Navratilova would have won 36 Grand Slams instead of her 18 had Chris Evert retired the moment she realized how great Navratilova would be. (Her equal--Evert had 18 too. And yet some would argue they weren't equals. The debate is part of the fun of considering their completely different approaches to the game. Navratilova was superior at net. Evert at the baseline.)
Angelique Kerber was G.O.A.T. at this year's Wimbledon final, just as she has been at two other Grand Slam finals. Like Evert commentated, every day is a new day in sport. And Navratilova noted that the seeds don't really matter--not on any given day.
So many different champions. Maybe they're all G.O.A.T.s in their own way.
No, that can't be! The acronym grates on my nerves too much for it to be true! It's part of the media hype surrounding tennis stars to boost ratings when matches aren't competitive, I suspect. I'd much rather watch close rivalries, sit back, enjoy the match and not root for either side to emerge as G.O.A.T. Just enjoy the tennis.
I wonder whether G.O.A.T. rubs any other spectators the wrong way.

'I Hope to See You Next Year'

"I hope to see you next year," Roger Federer said in accepting the finalist trophy at the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells, Calif., probably the biggest tournament outside of the majors and the end-of-the-year finals. They were welcome words for those who had missed any such promise at the Australian Open, though not exactly a resounding promise. Still, Federer sounded satisfied with his game, despite Juan Martin del Potro breaking his 17-match winning streak.

Del Potro's win was the second greatest of his career, after winning the U.S. Open in 2009, though winning the Silver medal in the 2016 Olympics is up there. Del Potro spoke of hoping to see fans next year, a poignant reminder of his battles with injuries, which have prevented him from playing for long stretches. He's now beaten Federer seven times, something to be proud of in and of itself. Who knows what greatness awaits him? He's still relatively young--29-years-old. Federer at 36 has shown great things are possible for professional tennis players into their 30s as long as they're able to avoid injuries.

Who knows? Maybe if he avoids injuries, Federer will be accomplishing great things in tennis in his 40s. But this must have been a disappointing loss, despite Federer's gracious, though grim-faced, award ceremony speech. Del Potro beat Federer at last year's U.S. Open too. Impossible as it seems, he's starting to look like he might have Federer's number. But he'll need much more decisive, consistent results against Federer to bear that prediction out, if Federer sticks around long enough for that to happen.

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.