Rivalry... What Rivalry?

Throughout history, the WTA has been host to a number of famous rivalries. Tennis fans in the 1970s and 80s experienced the 15-year rivalry of Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. In the 1990s, women’s tennis had the intense rivalry between Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. Lastly, from the late 90s to present day, tennis fans have experienced the sisterly-battle between Venus and Serena Williams. However, the Williams Sisters have met only once since 2010, making it difficult to consider this matchup a rivalry anymore.

A rivalry is the competition for superiority in the same field. Over the past decade, women’s tennis hasn’t seen the development of a marque rivalry between two top players. There were several matchups that still have the potential to become the next great rivalry in women’s tennis; however, over the past few years, the likelihood has diminished. In this blog, I will discuss whether the lack of a highly contested rivalry is bad for women’s tennis, as well as the potential rivalries tennis fans may see in the future.

As women’s tennis said goodbye to players like Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, and Lindsay Davenport, there was a group of young players that seemed posed to take their place at the top. Leading the charge were Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic, who both won major titles and became number one in the world by the age of 20. In addition, players like Caroline Wozniacki, Victoria Azarenka, and Petra Kvitova, who are several years younger than Sharapova and Ivanovic, possess the ability to become the tennis’ next superstar. The future looked bright for the WTA, who was poised to find the game’s next rivalry. However, a rivalry between these players never truly emerged.

The biggest reason for the lack of a rivalry is the inconsistent play by all of these players. Sharapova, the most consistent of these players, has suffered long absences away from the tour due to injury, thus preventing her from sustaining a high level of tennis. Ivanovic, after her maiden grand slam win at Roland Garros in 2008, could not handle the expectations of being No. 1 in the world. Consequently, the Serb has not been able to replicate the form that got her to the top of the women’s game. Conversely, Wozniacki falls into a similar category as former world number ones Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina. The Dane got to number one in the world because of her strong results at the smaller WTA events. However, when it came to the majors, she has not been able to breakthrough. When Wozniacki was the top female player, she protected her ranking, instead of trying to improve her game. As a result, Wozniacki was unable to defend the ranking points she accrued, and has seen her ranking fall from number one in 2011 to No. 18.

Another former world number one Victoria Azarenka has also had her struggles of late. The Belarusian is currently nursing a toe injury, which forced her to pull out of this week’s Sony Open in Miami. Azarenka early on in her career frequently retired in matches because of injury. The two-time Australian Open Champion was beginning to solidify herself as a top 2 player; however, injury would hamper Azarenka’s continued success. Lastly, we have the head-scratcher, Petra Kvitova. Kvitova possesses one of the most powerful games in women’s tennis. Unfortunately, inconsistency is a word commonly used to describe the Czech southpaw. In 2011, Kvitova had one of the most impressive years in WTA history. The Czech won six WTA titles including Wimbledon, the premier mandatory event in Madrid, and the WTA Championships. Since Kvitova’s breakthrough year in 2011, the Czech has struggled to play the imposing tennis that got her to number two in the world.

When considering the rivalry between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, there are several distinctions between the two all-time greats and today’s young players. First, Evert and Navratilova dominated women’s tennis for almost two decades. The two went head-to-head 80 times in their careers, with Navratilova having the slight edge 43-37. Second, both Evert and Navratilova were mentally tougher than all of the other players on tour. Despite Evert and Navratilova’s contrasting styles of play, the two were able to break down opponents both mentally and physically. Many of today’s top players possess the physical prowess to compete at an elite level; however, a select few have the mental fortitude to match. The lack of mentally tough players on the WTA Tour is one of the reasons why Serena Williams has dominated women’s tennis over the past two years. The best players in history all have a similar characteristic: when having an off day on court, they are able to persevere, and battle past the adversity.   

With the lack of a great rivalry on the WTA Tour, I pose the question, “Is it bad for women’s tennis?” My answer to the question is unfortunately yes. The ATP Tour has several intense rivalries, some of the best in history. The rivalries between “The Big Four” bring excitement and intrigue to the sport. From a marketing perspective, an advertisement detailing the championship match between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal for a major title would probably draw a large number of viewers because the rivalry is well known by those who love the sport, and by the occasional viewer. Rivalries are what entice people to watch sports. Whether it’s the New York Giants vs. the Dallas Cowboys, or the Boston Celtics vs. the Los Angeles Lakers, the precedent between athletes or teams is what draws viewers to the sport.

As previously mentioned, the WTA had one of the greatest rivalries in sports history with Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. People knew that every time these women met on the tennis court, it was going to be a battle. Evert and Navratilova are comparable to great sports franchises like the Celtics and the Lakers because it was almost a guarantee that both women would be contesting for the title on championship Sunday. This guarantee is what the women’s game is lacking today.

As a tennis lover, I find some enjoyment in the unpredictability of the women’s game. When the draw is released for a major tournament, I analyze it thoroughly, quarter by quarter, making my predictions for the tournament. However, it never ceases to amaze me when players who were not even on my radar prior to the tournament, cause a massive upset. Take this year’s Australian Open for example. If you had told me before the tournament that Ana Ivanovic was going to beat Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwanska would upset Victoria Azarenka, I probably would have burst out laughing. But that is the unpredictability of the women’s game. As a result of these upsets, players like Eugiene Bouchard and Dominika Cibulkova were able to make the semifinals and finals respectively. Putting my opinion aside, for the occasional tennis viewer, watching the biggest names in the sport lose early in the tournament is a deterrent from watching further. When the top players make an early exit at a tournament, the opportunity to create buzz for a rivalry matchup is lost.

On a positive note, the WTA Tour has another group of talented young women who have the potential to create the next great tennis rivalry. In my blog post, The Next Tennis Superstar, I mentioned three talented women who could make a major impact on the women’s tour. Two of the women I detailed, Sloane Stephens and Eugiene Bouchard, who possess the powerful games that could result in the two meeting for major titles in the future. Both of these players have big forehands, move extremely well, and love the big stage. It is only a matter of time before Stephens and Bouchard become top 10 players and are competing for major titles.

Tennis fans got a taste at this year’s Australian Open of what could develop into the next tennis rivalry. In a second round matchup, Sloane Stephens met the big serving Ajla Tomljanovic, a 20-year-old from Croatia. Both players displayed their large upsides, Stephens with her ability to transition from offense to defense, and Tomljanovic with her hard-hitting strokes. The match was a tight three-setter, with Stephens winning the final four games to take the final set 7-5. Stephens and Tomljanovic exhibited characteristics similar to the Evert/Navratilova rivalry. The American possesses a calm demeanor and great movement similar to Chris Evert; whereas the Croat possesses an imposing game similar to Martina Navratilova. The Stephens/Tomljanovic matchup is one that might develop into a rivalry. However, it will take consistency by both players for a rivalry to develop.

The WTA Tour is due for another great tennis rivalry. As a big supporter of women’s tennis, I believe having a rivalry between two superstars can only help the sport. Women’s tennis has so many talented players that are hindered by inconsistent play. If the players mentioned in this post could tightened up their games, and play more consistent tennis, the WTA Tour could have marque rivalries similar to the men’s tour.

Do you think the lack of a rivalry is hurting the women’s game? Which matchup do you think could develop into the next rivalry? Please let me know in the comments section below.

In my next blog, I am beginning a new blog series Buy, Sell, or Hold.

Enjoyed this post? Email it to a friend or share it on your social media page. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on tennis with you!

    

        

Serena and Roger: 17 And Counting

Roger Federer has accomplished just about everything during his illustrious 16-year professional career. The Swiss maestro has won 17 grand slam titles, 78 ATP titles, and an Olympic gold medal, which he won with countrymen Stanislas Wawrinka at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In addition, Federer holds several Open Era records including weeks at world No. 1 (302), reaching every Grand Slam final at least five times, and appearing in 10 straight grand slam finals, 24 overall. As one of seven men in history to complete the career Grand Slam, Roger Federer is arguably the greatest male tennis player of all-time. For a man that had won more grand slams titles than any player in history, I wonder, “How does Roger Federer stay motivated now that he is the one holding the record?” In this blog, I will be discussing Federer’s chances of winning more grand slam titles by analyzing his recent form.  

 

Roger Federer

Grand Slam Titles

Australian Open: 4 Singles

French Open: 1 Singles

Wimbledon: 7 Singles

U.S. Open: 5 Singles

Olympic Gold Medals: 1 Doubles

Career Prize Money: $80,748,177 (as of 3/17/14)

After Federer won his seventh Wimbledon in 2012, there was a noticeable decline in his game. For the first time in career, Federer began to look his age. The areas of Federer’s game that saw the biggest decline were his movement, serve, and forehand. During his matches, Federer appeared to be a step slower than usual. When pulled out wide to the forehand side, Federer was either unable to get to the ball, or gave opponents a weak reply. Additionally, Federer’s serve, which was known for it’s pinpoint accuracy, was now the source of uncharacteristic unforced errors. As a result of the decline in Federer’s game, questions about retirement began to seep its way into his press conferences.              

The 2013 season was definitely a year to forget for Roger Federer. For the first time since 2003, he failed to reach a grand slam final. Moreover, Federer’s record 36 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal streak was broken following a shocking second-round loss to Sergiy Stakhovsky. In the 19 tournaments Federer played throughout the year, he managed to win only one title, the pre-Wimbledon tune-up in Halle. Federer would finish 2013 ranked No. 6 in the world, his lowest year-end ranking in 11 years.

At the conclusion of a disastrous season, I had two questions regarding Roger Federer game: “Is the decline in his play due to his age, and can he turn it around in 2014?” In the offseason, Federer made several drastic changes regarding his game. The first change Federer made was the type of racquet he used. Federer for many years used a racquet that was far smaller than most of the players on tour at 90 square inches. The switch to a racquet with a larger racquet head (98 sq. inches) will provide Federer with a larger sweet spot, and added power to his shots. Conversely, switching to a different frame requires a fair amount of time to adjust, and could result in even more inconsistent play.

A perfect example of someone who struggled following a racquet change was world No. 2 Novak Djokovic. It took the Serb almost a year to become comfortable with the change from a Wilson racquet to a Head frame. Federer began playing with a different frame following his early Wimbledon loss; however, he quickly went back to the smaller frame because of how uncomfortable he felt. Making a racquet change in the brief offseason is a decision Federer believes is necessary in order to continue playing high-level tennis. I believe a tennis racquet is like a spouse. You must know it, understand it, and trust it, or else the relationship is not going to last.

The second change Roger Federer made was a coaching change. In the offseason, Federer hired tennis legend Stefan Edberg. With coach Severin Luthi, the Swiss Davis Cup captain, still at the helm, Federer hired Edberg part-time to offer insight on ways to improve Federer’s game. One area the six-time major champion Edberg can definitely help Federer is the serve-and-volley. Edberg is arguably the best serve-and-volley player in history. Advising Federer to establish a better relationship with the net would be wise strategically because Federer possesses excellent volleying skills. In addition, with today’s players being so strong from the baseline, the serve-and-volley will allow Federer to end points quicker, thus preserving his body from the wear-and-tear of prolonged rallies. Roger Federer has racked up a lot of miles on his body during his 16-year professional career. The addition of the serve-and-volley to his game will allow Federer to remain competitive with the younger, and stronger baseliners on tour.

Another area Stefan Edberg can help Federer is the backhand groundstroke. Edberg, contrary to Federer, possessed a strong backhand, and a much weaker forehand. What Edberg can improve in Federer’s game is the consistency and the variety of his backhand. By helping Federer get more margin on the backhand groundstroke, Federer will be able to keep more balls in play, as well as use the backhand as a set up shot to run around and hit a forehand. The use of variety on the backhand will help Federer in multiple ways. Federer possesses one of the most beautiful one-handed backhand slices in history. Incorporating the slice frequently in rallies will allow Federer to transition to the net, while offering a change of pace shot that can be used offensively or defensively. Initially, I was uncertain about how much Stefan Edberg could actually offer Roger Federer. However, after analyzing the weaknesses in Federer’s game, I realized that Stefan Edberg could be a great coach for Federer. The partnership is slated to continue through the 2014 season. I look forward to seeing in the coming months the effect Edberg has on Federer’s game.

Based on what I have seen from Roger Federer in 2014, reporters should begin using a different “r” word during his press conferences, resurgence. Off to his best start since the 2012 season, Federer is 19-3 this year, with a 4-2 record against top 10 opponents. After falling to No. 8 in the world rankings following the Australian Open, Federer went on to win the ATP 500 event in Dubai, beating Djokovic in the final. Federer’s impressive run continued at the BNP Paribas Open last week, where he nearly captured his fifth title at the masters’ series event. As a result of his strong play, Federer has risen to No. 5, with no points to defend at this week’s Sony Open.

The resurgence in Federer’s game is primarily due to the improvement of his health. For a large portion of the 2013 season, Federer was nursing a back injury. The injury was sustained during last year’s BNP Paribas Open, and resulted in the future Hall-of-Famer taking a seven-week break in the spring. Federer detailed that he reinjured his back after Wimbledon, and it hampered him for the rest of the year. For a player like Federer, who has rarely dealt with prolonged injuries during his career, managing the back injury was a relatively new experience for the Swiss champion. The doubt that crept into Federer’s game last season has since been replaced by the confidence tennis fans are accustomed to from the all-time great.

The question is, “Can Federer win another major?” Similar to part one of the blog series, I strongly believe that Federer can win more grand slam titles. A better question to ask would be, “Which major gives Federer the best chance of capturing another Grand Slam title(s)?” Federer has the greatest opportunities at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open because both events are played on faster court surfaces, which are better suited for the Federer game. The Australian Open is definitely not out of the question either because Federer is still one of the best hard-court players in the world. However, the two factors that could prevent Federer from increasing his grand slam tally are further injury problems and a dwindling desire to win. If Federer can manage both of these factors, 20 career majors is certainly a possibility.

How many more majors do you think Roger Federer can win? Please let me know in the comments section below.

In my next blog, I will discuss the lack of a great rivalry on the WTA Tour.

Enjoyed this post? Email it to a friend or share it on your social media page. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on tennis with you!

Indian Wells: Paradise In The Desert

The BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells has always held a special place in my heart. As a child, I remember watching the tournament, then known as the Pacific Life Open, and saying to my parents, “I am going to go there some day!” My intrigue for the tournament was not solely based on the world-class tennis that was exhibited during the two-week event. Moreover, the pristine facility, the gorgeous 360-degree mountain views, and the thrilling atmosphere are the features that fostered my love for Indian Wells. On March 10, my dream of attending the BNP Paribas Open became a reality. In this blog I will present my overall thoughts on attending tennis’ “5^th Major” for the first time.

Venturing to the Indian Wells Tennis Garden midway through the afternoon Monday, I couldn’t help but notice the breathtaking scenery and tournament facilities. In addition to the mountain views, which provide a one-of-a-kind backdrop, the sheer magnitude of the Indian Wells Tennis Garden left me in amazement. Despite religiously attending the U.S. Open for the past six years, nothing could have prepared me for what I experienced at the BNP Paribas Open.

When entering the tournament gates, the first feature I acknowledged was the intimacy of the facility. Unlike any tournament I have attended previously, the BNP Paribas Open allows spectators to get up-close with the players. For example, making my way to the practice courts, I almost had a run in with the worlds No. 10 Frenchmen Jo-Wilfred Tsonga! A majority of the 20 practice courts provide courtside seating for fans to marvel in the ability of their favorite players. Furthermore, with the practice courts being side-by-side to one another, I was able to observe several of the worlds best at one time.

Making my way to the outer practice courts, I spotted the hard-hitting Belgian, Yanina Wickmayer on Practice Court 8. The world No. 56 was practicing her serve, which in my opinion should be more of a weapon given her height. While watching Wickmayer, I thought to myself, “Why hasn’t she left for Miami yet?” The Belgian fell in the second round to Czech player, Lucie Safarova three days prior.

Practicing beside Wickmayer on Practice Court 9 was the red-hot Romanian, Simona Halep. Halep has shown great form in recent months, making her first grand slam quarterfinal at the Australian Open, and winning the biggest title of her career in Doha last month. Since Halep made her breakthrough in 2010, I have been impressed with her game. Halep is a great mover, with solid groundstrokes and a decent serve given her diminutive build. Unfortunately, Halep’s practice session ended shortly after I arrived; however, the quality of the session is definitely indicative of her recent success on the WTA Tour.

As I was leaving the practice courts, I noticed two male tennis players enjoying a game of Frisbee on the field adjacent to Stadium 1. Despite being eliminated from the singles event, Americans Sam Querrey and Steve Johnson displayed their strong Frisbee skills for fans. Spectators who attend the event often see players warming up or playing a pick-up game of soccer on this field. Even though I was excited to see Querrey and Johnson, I was disappointed in the lack of players present on the field.

The event’s intimacy didn’t end at the practice courts. Next to the Tennis Channel Desk is the Stadium Plaza. The Stadium Plaza allows spectators to sit back and watch the matches on Stadiums 1-3. For those who were unable to watch the matches inside the stadium courts, the plaza is the perfect spot to enjoy the exciting atmosphere without missing a minute of the action.

Spectators who were on the grounds at the conclusion of the day session experienced quite a blockbuster. The fourth and final match of the day session on Stadium 1 was the hotly contested match between Rafael Nadal and Ukrainian Alexandr Dolgopolov. Prior to the match, most fans, myself included, expected Nadal to win easily in straight sets. In their five previous meetings, Dolgopolov never managed to take a set off of Nadal. Much to the spectators’ surprise, the match that transpired was far from the expected result.

When Nadal dropped the opening set to Dolgopolov, the murmurs began amongst the spectators. Sitting in one of the dining areas just outside the brand new Stadium 2, I noticed spectators beginning to rush to the nearest television to watch the conclusion of what might be a potential upset. When Nadal forced a third and final set, the crowd both inside and outside of Stadium 1 let out a huge roar. What the fans didn’t realize was the best tennis of the match was yet to come.

Most lower-ranked players, when they are on the verge of an upset crumble under the pressure. Dolgopolov played inspired tennis, rushing out to a 5-2 lead in the decider. During the changeover, I asked myself, “Can he actually win this match?” Coming into the match, Dolgopolov had four top-10 victories, over Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, and David Ferrer twice. However, after a shaky service game at 5-3, Nadal would level the match at 5-all. After relatively easy holds from both players, the match would reach its ultimate stage, a final set tiebreak. The heavily Nadal-favored crowd was at the edge of their seats, liking his chances of winning the match.

After exchanging service points, Nadal would go up 4-2 in the tiebreaker. The spectators sitting around me in the dining area could sense victory. However, Dolgopolov with an impressive inside-out forehand and two unreturned serves, the Ukrainian had his first lead of the tiebreaker 5-4. At 5-5, Nadal would miss a routine forehand approach shot, leaving the crowd stunned. Dolgopolov would step up the service line, with a chance to serve out the match. In that moment I said to myself, “He is going to hit an ace.” After a powerful first serve up the tee, what was originally called an ace was challenged by Nadal. Unaware of the challenge, the fans were already applauding the Ukrainian on the upset. Shockingly, the challenge revealed the serve was out by one millimeter! The crowd’s applause quickly became a collective laughter because of how close the call was. Following a slight grin, Dolgopolov was able to refocus and close out the match with another aggressive inside-out forehand. Even though I would have loved to be inside Stadium 1 to watch the match, the experience I had sitting with countless tennis-lovers is something that I will remember for the rest of my life.

After several hours of waiting, it was finally time to head inside Stadium 1 and watch some court-side action!  Walking into Stadium 1, my first impression was how large, yet intimate the stadium was. As the second-largest tennis stadium in the world, the 16,100 seat Stadium 1 doesn’t have a bad seat in the house. Similar to the U.S. Open, spectators are able to clearly see the ball, whether they are court-side, or in the last row of the grandstand.

The night session began with former world No. 1 Ana Ivanovic against talented American Sloane Stephens. Ivanovic and Stephens have played twice before, at the U.S. Open, with both meetings going in favor of the Serb. Entering the match, I liked Stephens chances of pulling off the upset. Despite struggling in the tournaments leading up to Indian Wells, Stephens played well in her first match in the desert, dispatching talented Croat Ajla Tomljanovic 6-4 6-0. Ivanovic, on the other hand, struggled in her opening match against Elina Svitolina of the Ukraine, having to fight hard to win in a third-set tiebreaker.   

         

Analyzing the playing styles of Ivanovic and Stephens, both players possess similar strengths and weaknesses. They have arguably the two biggest forehands in the game, as well as above average serves, which can get them out of trouble. Conversely, Ivanovic more so than Stephens, struggles on the backhand wing. Both players’ backhands are more of a rally shot than one that can produce winners.

Throughout the match, despite the close score line, Stephens was the better player. Even though Stephens failed to execute on several easy put away shots, the American constructed the points well, using her forehand to dictate play. Ivanovic looked unsettled throughout the match, which was the result of Stephens’s strong play. Even with the crowd strongly supporting the Serb; Ivanovic was never able to establish any sort of momentum. As a result, Stephens eliminated Ivanovic in 1 hour and 42 minutes, 7-6(3) 6-4.

Overall, my experience at the BNP Paribas Open far exceeded my expectations. The Indian Wells Tennis Garden offers tennis fans the first-class tennis of a grand slam, with the intimacy of a smaller professional tournament. The facility was the perfect place to enjoy the sport that I love. I strongly recommended that you attend this tournament at least once in your lifetime. The BNP Paribas Open definitely lives up to “The 5^th Major” nickname.         

How do you feel about the BNP Paribas Open? In the future, should it become the 5^th major? Let me know in the Comments Section.

In my next blog, I will discuss Roger Federer chances of winning additional titles.

Enjoyed this post? If you did, email it to a friend or share it on your social media page. I look forward to continue sharing my thoughts on tennis with you!