WORLD NO. 1 ... AND HOW

The Spin Team

It is always difficult to talk or even write about a player when that player keeps throwing curveballs at you, especially when you are trying to define them.  People have different ways of looking at players, and defining them.  Some are warriors because of their fight on court, or the feistiness that comes from how they perform both on and off the court. Others are icy because they show coolness and detachment throughout the course of their careers.  They never seem to be bothered.  With Naomi Osaka, I see all of those attributes and then some.  She is to me the quintessential Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde. 

What history looks like 👀#AusOpen #SleepIsForTheWeak pic.twitter.com/UCqiMmr503

— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) January 26, 2019

In her match against Pliskova, on almost every single point that I watched in the third set, she was screaming at her fist and shouting come ons.  She was as in your face as I have ever seen her.  In her match against Kvitova, there seemed to be some amount of restraint, especially as the match got tight.  This was even more pronounced during the trophy ceremony when neither woman seemed to be enjoying the spotlight that was about to be thrown on them.

Petra appeared less than exuberant about reliving what must undoubtedly have been a tragic situation when she was attacked in  her home, but there was also the look of complete and utter disappointment.  That was understandable, but usually players are able to hide that disappointment either behind tears or a smile.  This time, there was nothing.  On the other side of the court there was Osaka, looking as glum as I have ever seen her.  It could have been because she was dreading the fact that she would have to stand in front of thousands of people and speak or maybe she was sad because she had beaten someone who everyone was rooting for. Who knows but the trophy ceremony was a downer.

The tennis media, always ready with the narratives about players, have taken up the baton (championed by none other than Jon Wertheim) who started the ball rolling that Osaka would now be able to have the celebration that she did not have in New York.  He said this when Osaka was 5-3 up and with 3 match points on the Kvitova serve.  As we now know that was a bit premature as Kvitova would stage a comeback (there is that word again) while Osaka had a monumental brain fart on court.

Watching from the  comfort of my living room, Osaka’s celebration was just as muted as it was in New York.  Never forget that during the trophy ceremony when the announcer wished to make it about the controversy between Serena and the umpire, it was Serena who stopped everyone in their tracks and told the crowd to celebrate Osaka.  Imagine being able to stand on the biggest arena in tennis, swallow your disappointment about losing and tell a crowd of over 30,000 rowdy fans to stop booing and start cheering the champion.  That little nugget of information seemed to have escaped everyone when they write about the US Open.

In the lead up to the Australian Open final, the media, as it does, decided to turn a young woman who had fought and clawed her way from No. 72 in the WTA rankings a year ago into a victim.  They did not celebrate her rise.  They did not celebrate what she and her team were able to do.  They did not talk about her fitness regimen.  They did not talk about her tactics or the improvement in her mental game.  All they did was make her into someone that we needed to feel empathy and pity for, because she did not allegedly get to celebrate a championship win.  If that is not the definition of sexism, I don’t know what it is.  The fact that many women in the tennis media chose to jump on that particular bandwagon really grates on my nerve.

Osaka is not a champion who is going to hit you with her bombast.  She is not going to have cheery responses or fantastic one liners.  She is shy and a bit timid.  That side of her goes off into a place to hide once she steps onto the court.  The difference between the in your face challenger and the almost child is stark.  It reminds me of another entertainer who said a long time ago that she has dual personalities.  She is Beyonce in real life but once she steps onto the stage she is Sasha Fierce.  To me that is Naomi.  It could partially stem from her dual heritage.  Watching her bow solemnly to everyone on the stage, all the while not realizing that she could have placed that huge trophy on the pedestal (why it took everyone so long to realise that she could barely lift the trophy is for another time) a long time before she realized it, shows just how much of an introvert she really is.

She is now the No. 1 ranked female tennis player in the world.  That is a fantastic accomplishment.  It solidifies her growth.  I am hopeful that the WTA, alongside her team, help her to overcome her fear of speaking before large audiences as it is going to get a lot harder from here on in. 

Will have a wrap up post some time soon as there are some intriguing stories that came out of the AO that the Spin Team will be exploring.    

FINAL 2

The Spin Team

I started writing about Serena's quarter final against Pliskova and I stopped.  I stopped, not because I did not think that I had anything to add to the conversation, but that I believe my thoughts might get lost in the narrative (there is that word again) about Pliskova and her amazing ability to come back from 5-1 down to beat Serena.  

I love watching Judge Judy.  I watched Judge Judy not because I learn anything of a legal sense but at her ability to read into the motives of the people who appear before her seeking compensation for wrongs that they have allegedly suffered.  One thing that Judge Judy loves to say is this "if it does not make sense, then it is  not true".  I have the same view about Serena losing from 5-1 down because her opponent staged a comeback.  It did not make sense, and therefore it is not true.  

As I said, I won't rehash the match here as the 2 women who actually made it to the final deserve their space. 

Live look at #SleepIsForTheWeak fans praying for more coffee. #AusOpen pic.twitter.com/QU29fCwOxW

— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) January 25, 2019

Naomi Osaka - she of the tan complexion.  I don't know whether she needed to emphasise her colour in that way, but I guess that is how she feels about her dark skin.  She is not black or brown.  She is tan.  In case you missed it, one of Osaka's sponsors, Nissin had a video going the rounds where they had whitewashed her.  After a hue and cry by persons who had seen the video, it was taken down.  I have not seen it so I can't comment, but it is weird how a company felt it was  best to cast Osaka as a white person, rather than a person of colour.  This was similar to the cartoonist in that Australian paper who felt the need to interpret Osaka as a wraith thin white girl and cast Serena as a big black woman with thick lips (but I digress). 

Osaka is into her second Grand Slam final.  It is a testament to her growth as a player.  I never usually liked to give credit to coaches, because I think men get enough accolades, but her coach has done a fantastic job with her and I believe that part of the reason for his success with Osaka stemmed from his time as the hitting partner of Serena.  During this Australian Open swing, I watched the majority of Osaka's matches and I could not  help but compare her mannerisms and her game to Serena's, even to the getting down on bended knee to hit a backhand down the line.  Her constant screams of come on after every single point against Pliskova was as in your face as I have seen her.  It felt at times as if she had something to prove or maybe she was ensuring that Pliskova did not stage another comeback. 

Much will be written about Petra Kvitova and her return from an incident that should have sent her into retirement.  That she is able to come back and find her way into the top of women's tennis with the chance to actually get the long awaited No.1  ranking says a lot about her tenacity and inward fight. 

"It's great that I didn't give up and I was still believeing." -Petra Kvitová on her "second career"#AusOpen #SleepIsForTheWeak pic.twitter.com/6RCFXUWrwQ

— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) January 25, 2019

No story should be told about Petra without delving into why she is where she is.  I find it incredible that no tennis journalist or media house has done any significant story about her attack.  I was recently contacted by a journalist who shared information with me regarding the ongoing case in the Czech Republic.  I have tried to find any evidence of on going court proceedings, but I have not had much luck.  It would seem as if there is some doubt as to the person that the police have charged for this horrific crime as he seems to have an airtight alibi for the time that the incident occurred.   The fact that she has been playing for the past 2 weeks and there has been zero discussion (at least as far that I have seen) about the attack on Kvitova, the upcoming trial etc.,speaks to the lack of journalistic integrity that permeates tennis.  Consider that there were frequent articles written by tennis media regarding Venus' accident, the potential civil trial, the criminal indictment etc.  Tennis media spoke to prosecutors, and the police.  In this instance the silence has been deafening.  

Tonight Petra will play someone who hits the ball just as hard as she does.  Who moves a lot better than she does and who has weathered the storm of some tough matches over this fortnight.  Osaka has been here before.  So has Petra.  I am giving this one to Osaka.  She is hungry and as folks have said elsewhere she wants this one to be about her. 

NARRATIVES AND TALKING POINTS

The Spin Team

Remember her name.  I watched the first set on replay this morning and even though I knew she would give Tsurenko problems, to see her holding her own against a player who is known to frustrate opponents with her speed, Anisimova was just not having it.  A fantastic win for the youngster.  

🚨🚨🚨 UPSET ALERT!!! @AnisimovaAmanda topples 24th seed Tsurenko to reach her first 3R of a major.#GameSetMatch #AusOpen pic.twitter.com/O8bagKoopW

— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) January 16, 2019

There are some days when I am watching tennis that I really appreciate the commentary.  It can be quite insightful. If you are not familiar with the nuances of what is happening on court, it is quite exciting to watch a tennis match and hear experts give you information on the players and little tidbits of knowledge that helps to enhance your understanding of the game or particular players. If done well, commentary can make a match better.

Sometimes the commentary will get quite heated. It is always interesting to listen to commentators discuss how the sport is being managed. Who can forget Davenport’s recent critique of the WTA and how it always seems to be caught on the back foot when it comes to the changing face of the game?

All this is to say that unlike some, I appreciate commentators.  They do provide context (sometimes). While we go on and on about conflicts of interest in tennis, it can be helpful to hear their perspectives on why Player A is having such a difficult time against Player B. Commentators know more than they may be able to share but every now and then, their insights can be revealing.

Narratives always arise when commentators discuss a body of work for players.  There are some instances when that narrative focuses only on the bad behavior and leaves out the backstory that might provide context for that bad behavior.  As an example, every single time that Serena Williams steps on the court this year, the issue of her US Open dispute with Carlos Ramos becomes the talking point.  If they take the time to even talk about her issues at the US Open, there is never any mention made of the 2004 match against Capriati, which brought in the challenge system.  There is also never any mention made of her triumphant return to the winner’s circle in 2008 and the fact that the US Open is the tournament at which she won her first Grand Slam title.  Those could be valuable and helpful talking points, but they are never mentioned.  However, you will always hear these talking points about Serena: the 2009 foot-fault call, the 2011 hindrance call and the most recent one, the “diatribe” against Carlos Ramos.

The narrative of Serena and her issues at the US Open should include all of the talking points about her complete body of work at that particular event. Maybe then a discussion could be had about why Serena has no such issues at the other tournaments or majors. Perhaps a psychologist could be added to the booth to explore why the US Open has been such a challenge. Framed another way: why is the US Open a problematic tournament for the WTA's reigning slam champion? 

In comparison, the narrative around Sharapova is similarly selective but with an interest in providing a far more sympathetic picture.  Banned from the sport for 18 months for an anti-doping violation, the commentators have been at pains to try and mitigate this and spin it into an injury situation.  The fact that Sharapova has been out with an injury for less time than she was out for the anti-doping violation seems to have been lost on everyone.  Yes, she was injured.  That, however, is not the reason for her poor play since her return.  One could argue that as she is now prohibited from using Meldonium, that might be one of reasons for her poor play.  Yet, that never comes up. That assumption should be a part of the discussion about Sharapova’s fluctuating form. However, if you listen to the commentators, it’s clear that they have accepted Sharapova’s own defense of her use of Meldonium, rather than their own sports’ anti-doping body.  

I am sure that most commentators believe that they are being judicious when they discuss a player, but as we have seen from this year’s Australian Open, sometimes players have to take to social media to destroy the narratives and the talking points (see Bernard Tomic on Lleyton Hewitt and Nick Kyrgios on Roger Rasheed and company).

So, it’s noteworthy to see which players get the benefits of commentators holding back and which do not. Take Karolina Pliskova, who is now being coached by commentator turned coach, Rennae Stubbs.  Pliskova absolutely destroyed her racquet on an umpire’s chair and was fined.  If you are watching a Pliskova match, you never hear one word about that particular offence.  I have scoured the internet and can only recall one instance when Pliskova was asked about this behavior in public.  She actually celebrated her behavior and thought it was good for the game. Compare that to her own critical comments about Serena and you quickly begin to see that there is a double standard about what is good for the sport. 

I hope that commentators can be critical and complimentary about a player by bringing all the relevant talking points into their narratives. Focusing on only the negative or only the positive makes their bias fairly obvious to any thoughtful listener or watcher.  I can only hope for fair coverage, alas, that is not to be and probably will never be.

Day 4 is already upon us and Spin's Picks are highlighted in red

S. Halep [1] vs S. Kenin
A. Cornet vs V. Williams
C. Suárez Navarro [23] vs D. Yastremska
E. Bouchard vs S. Williams [16]

T. Bacsinszky vs N. Vikhlyantseva
J. Konta vs G. Muguruza [18]
C. Giorgi [27] vs I. Swiatek
M. Brengle vs Ka. Pliskova [7]

N. Osaka [4] vs T. Zidansek
L. Siegemund vs S. Hsieh [28]
Q. Wang [21] vs A. Krunic
B. Andreescu vs A. Sevastova [13]

E. Mertens [12] vs M. Gasparyan
A. Potapova vs M. Keys [17]
S. Zhang vs Kr. Pliskova
V. Kuzmova vs E. Svitolina [6]

What to Watch:
Suarez-Navaroo v Yastremska - the  youngster has impressed me but I think the guile of the Spaniard will win on the day
Bouchard v Williams (S) - can the confident Canadian overcome the champion.  She will put up a fight but I don't think she is quite at 2014 level just yet 
Gaspartyan v. Mertens - I am picking Gasparyan in this one because I think she has a much better all around game than Mertens' previous opponent, Schmiedlova
Andreescu v. Sevastova - I like Andreescu.  Big hitter and really good game. Sevastova will have her hands full but I think she will use her experience and pull this one off

VINDICATION?

The Spin Team 

Katie Boulter - Great Britain

In case you missed it, today ESPN published an article where they did a bit of investigative journalism regarding Serena's claim that sexism was at the heart of Carlos Ramos' treatment of her at the US Open. 

According to the article, the journalists reviewed over 200 matches (100 men and 100 women).  They indicated that they were only able to view matches that had been broadcast on television.  Notwithstanding, the report is fantastic in the way that it shows the arbitrary way in which umpires do their jobs.  If you watch as much tennis as I do, (and if you are reading this blog then no doubt you do), then you will also agree with the premise that is expressed in the piece.  It makes for very interesting reading and I hope that the commentators on ESPN would perhaps review their talking points in relation to what happened at the USO. 

I did not get to see many matches from Day 2 but I did see Serena (looked fantastic) and I did see Keys' match.  I was quite disappointed with the Schmiedlova result as I thought she had been playing well since the latter part of last year.  Mertens stayed tough and did what she needed to do.  Venus Williams struggled through a third set.  I will no doubt need to watch that particular match to see just how much she had to fight through that one.  

I guess I will need to revisit the Azarenka situation at some point.  All I will say at this time is that it is hard to get your game where you need it to be after being away from the game for such a long time, and for the reasons that she was out.  It could not have been easy.  Siegemund is a very tough opponent for anyone to get, but especially someone who does not have a lot of confidence in her game at the moment. 

Simona Halep battled her way past Kanepi and a blister and Tomljanovic lost a winnable match. 

Day 3 sees the bottom half of the draw taking to the courts.  Spin's Picks are in red:

P. Kvitova [8] vs I. Begu

B. Bencic vs Y. Putintseva

L. Tsurenko [24] vs A. Anisimova

K. Boulter vs A. Sabalenka [11]

A. Barty [15] vs Y. Wang

A. Sharma vs M. Sakkari

M. Sharapova [30] vs R. Peterson

J. Larsson vs C. Wozniacki [3]

S. Stephens [5] vs T. Babos

M. Vondrousova vs P. Martic [31]

A. Kontaveit [20] vs A. Sasnovich

A. Pavlyuchenkova vs K. Bertens [9]

D. Collins vs S. Vickery

Z. Hives vs C. Garcia [19]

D. Vekic [29] vs K. Birrell 

B. Haddad Maia vs A. Kerber [2]

What to Watch

Bencic v. Putintseva - 2 fiery players with a lot to prove

Boulter v. Sabalenka - I am really loving Boulter's fight

Anisimova v Tsurenko - offence against defence and youth vs experience

Stephens v. Babos - former doubles partners going at each other 

Haddad Maia v Kerber - Haddad can crush the ball but Kerber will no doubt force the errors 

SOUNDING OFF

The Spin Team

Astra Sharma

The Spin Team

The US Open ended in September 2018.  During that time many pundits have written copious articles about Serena Williams and to a lesser extent the winner of the tournament, Naomi Osaka.  Players have been asked repeatedly about their views on Serena and most of them have not shied away from giving their thoughts on whether the treatment meted out to Serena at the US Open was sexist.  As a matter of fact, they have agreed that the umpire was correct in his judgment and that Serena's behaviour brought the sport into disrepute.  These are the same players who toed the WTA party line when asked to give their views on Sharapova's doping issues. 

But that is not what I want to talk about today.  I want to talk about the lack of leadership in the WTA and how that seems to be impacting the game.  There is a video making the rounds of Lindsay Davenport speaking truth regarding the lack of leadership in the WTA.  Hopman Cup, the exhibition mixed doubles tournament that has been around for over 100 years had its final season this year.  This tournament is being replaced by the ATP cup.  Apparently, the powers that be, when coming up with this event, did not bother to check in with the WTA to see whether they would be interested in being a part of this event.  

In case you missed it, there are usually 3 events that commence the Australian Open swing.  Auckland, Brisbane and Sydney.  Starting next year there will be a 24-man team event which will foreshadow the AO swing.  These are all men's events.  Read more on the event here

As I understand it, the WTA events that take place in Brisbane and Sydney will still be happening, however, the women's tour was not asked to be a part of restructuring of the lead up events in Australia. From what Davenport has said, they had no idea that this was even happening. 

Unfortunately, this has been the story of the WTA for quite a number of years.  In 2007 when Venus Williams advocated for equal prize money, at no other point that I can recall (and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), has there been discussions with the women's Tour as it relates to scheduling or any other concerns that affect professional tennis.  If I recall correctly, it was said at some point in the not too distant past, that the women just waited until the men have reached out to tournament directors and advocated. Then they simply asked for the same thing as the men.

The most recent issue that the WTA has taken up has to do with changing the rules as it affects women who have taken time off to have a family.  One would think that an organisation that represents female athletes would have had these issues written into its governing rules, but not the WTA, apparently. I took the opportunity to look at the WTA website to try and see if I perhaps missed some important information regarding the various issues that have caught the Tour on its back foot. Based upon the leadership I saw; I can't say that I am surprised as to the reason why. 

There are 11 persons who sit on the WTA Board of Directors (including its CEO Steve Simon).  Of that number only 3 are women.  They are Lisa Graham, Vanessa Webb and Dianne Hayes.  They are all listed as Player Class director. I don't know what that means in the grand scheme of things, but it is instructive to note that there is not one person of colour on the Board of Directors on a Tour that has as much diversity as the WTA Tour.  The fact that there are only 3 women on the Board may also reflect why an organisation tasked with looking out for the affairs of women is always caught defending its decisions, which generally are never in the best interests of the women that it seeks to represent. 

In the 2018 WTA media guide, the members of the Players' Council are identified as: Azarenka, Konta, Stosur, Williams (Venus), Safarova, Boserup, Falconi and Erakovic.  Did you know their names as easily as you probably knew who represents the men? It also lists a Tournament Council who’s made up entirely of men. The Executive team does include some female representation, but as with every organisation, the executives on the front line generally follow the dictates of the Board of Directors. 

Perhaps the reason why the Tour seems always to be caught on the back foot is because the persons in power don't have the foresight to anticipate the needs of its members.  Maybe the time has come for a seminal change in the way the WTA organisation, tasked with providing oversight for female professional athletes, starts to do the job for which they have been tasked to do.

From the issue of court assignments at the Majors, rankings and seedings for women returning from maternity leave, and clothing designed for women having health issues, the WTA continues to drop the ball in relation to these and many others. Rather than censoring the free speech of the women on Tour, the Tour should turn an eye unto themselves and determine if they need to diversify those who lead the organisation, so they can anticipate and lead rather than simply respond to the changing environment for women’s tennis.

It is always the simple things that tell the story.  One of the reasons why the men’s game is so damn popular and people can identify male players and they get lots of press coverage is because people can actually see them.  I missed the Ostapenko match last night and I just went to ESPN to catch it on replay.  Of the 43 matches that are currently listed under replay, 27 of those are men’s matches.  If people can always see what you have to offer, it creates an interest in what you are offering, but if the only time we get to see a player like Sakkari or Ostapenko is when they make it to the later rounds of an event, then the WTA is not doing its  job.

Day One Reflections

Julia Georges served for the match and lost to Danielle Collins in what was a nail biter of a match.  Whether it was the heat, her opponent or just Georges being Georges, the fact remains that Georges is one of those players with unfulfilled ambitions, a la Lisicki.  All the game in the world but mental game goes completely off the boil. 

I saw Sharma for the first time last night and I am impressed.  Interesting to see how she develops over the next few years. 

Ostapenko continues to disappoint.  I am not quite sure what else can be written about her really dismal performance since winning the French Open.  Maybe it was indeed a fluke win?

Caroline Garcia struggled in her match against Ponchet.  Her compatriot Mladenovic was literally annihilated by Donna Vekic.  Neither woman seems quite as invested in their tennis as in recent years and perhaps this can be attributable to the fact that there seems to be a lot of issues going on off court, or perhaps they have reached the zenith of their tennis and now require outside forces to perform a reset.  They both deserve better, especially Mladenovic, from their tennis. 

Spin's Day 2 Picks and what to watch are below:-

S. Halep [1] vs K. Kanepi - not sure which draw god Halep has offended but she continues to get her nemesis. Hopefully she would have learned something from her prior experiences, but I don't believe so. 

S. Kenin vs V. Kudermetova

A. Cornet vs L. Arruabarrena

V. Williams vs M. Buzarnescu [25]

C. Suárez Navarro [23] vs C. Burel

S. Stosur vs D. Yastremska

E. Bouchard vs S. Peng

T. Maria vs S. Williams [16]

D. Kasatkina [10] vs T. Bacsinszky

N. Vikhlyantseva vs V. Lepchenko

J. Konta vs A. Tomljanovic

S. Zheng vs G. Muguruza [18]

C. Giorgi [27] vs D. Jakupovic

I. Swiatek vs A. Bogdan

M. Brengle vs M. Doi

K. Muchova vs Ka. Pliskova [7]

N. Osaka [4] vs M. Linette

T. Zidansek vs D. Gavrilova

L. Siegemund vs V. Azarenka

S. Voegele vs S. Hsieh [28]

Q. Wang [21] vs F. Ferro

Z. Diyas vs A. Krunic

B. Andreescu vs W. Osuigwe

M. Barthel vs A. Sevastova [13]

E. Mertens [12] vs A. Schmiedlova

L. Zhu vs M. Gasparyan

P. Parmentier vs A. Potapova

D. Aiava vs M. Keys [17]

D. Cibulkova [26] vs S. Zhang

Kr. Pliskova vs A. Blinkova

V. Kuzmova vs K. Kozlova

V. Golubic vs E. Svitolina [6]

Lots of tasty matches in this side of the draw.  The following matches should bring some amount of excitement:-

Zhang v. Cibulkova 
Sevastova v. Barthel
Schmiedlova v. Mertens (come for the backhands)
Hsieh v. Voegele (Hsieh is the better version of Radwanska)
Williams (V) v. Buzarnescu (because its Venus)

JUXTAPOSITION - MURRAY, GIMELSTOB AND TENNIS

The Spin Team

In a few hours 64 men and women who have honed their skills for much of their lives take to the courts in Melbourne Australia to compete for the men’s and women’s singles Grand Slam title at the Australian Open.  I am really looking forward to the first Slam of the year and will be cheering from the comfort of my living room as play gets underway later today.

However, there are 2 things that have happened in tennis in recent times which begs me to put on my keyboard warrior mantle and “talk” about it.  A few years ago, Ben Rothenberg of the New York Times did a piece on female athletes and their decision to resist bulking up.  The nuances of the article were lost on many people.  I recall that there was one word that came up in our discussion on the Realz podcast and that was juxtaposition. The placement of the discussion of Serena’s muscles and the comment of Radwanska’s coach, “It’s our decision to keep her as the smallest player in the top 10,” said Tomasz Wiktorowski, the coach of Agnieszka Radwanska, who is listed at 5 feet 8 and 123 pounds. “Because, first of all she’s a woman, and she wants to be a woman.” Putting these two things together said far more than the text about what was to be valued in women athletes.

It is now 2019 and I can’t help but see the juxtaposition of Andy Murray’s retirement announcement and the continued elevation of Justin Gimelstob on the ATP Player Council.  The loss of one and continued rise of the other in tennis is just bad optics. The silence from the tennis media about Gimelstob is even worse.

Murray, long lauded by tennis media for his style of play, his penchant for speaking out in support of women’s tennis and given a pass for most of his career for his on-court behavior, as just Murray being Murray, is leaving the sport as a result of constant pain in his hip.  While I may have had issues with Murray’s on-court behavior on a few occasions, I never really sat down to watch his matches, so I was never been exposed to his behavior for long periods.  However, I have appreciated his standing up and speaking out in support of the women’s game. For that, he deserves all the accolades that he is getting.

On the other hand, there is Justin Gimelstob, allowed to keep his job, after saying this about Anna Kournikova. “She’s a bitch," "Hate's a very strong word. I just despise her to the maximum level just below hate." “If she’s not crying by the time she walks off the court then I did not do my job." Asked if he would ever have an affair with her, he said: "Definitely not. I have no attraction to her. She has a great body but her face is a five. I really have no interest in her … I wouldn’t mind having my younger brother, who’s a kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits of that.” (credit "The Telegraph")

Recently, Gimelstob has been embroiled in an allegation of domestic violence against his wife and a restraining order is now in place.  In addition. Mr. Gimelstob is also facing charges of assault against a male acquaintance. At the same time, Gimelstob has remained on the ATP Player Board, after a failed vote to have him removed. The current World No.1, Novak Djokovic, is toeing the party line by stating that the allegations are just that … allegations.

Throughout Justin’s legal saga, none of his colleagues at Tennis Channel, or indeed in the tennis media have spent any time discussing this issue in the same way they spent time discussing the motor vehicle accident involving Venus Williams and the subsequent civil trial. For Venus, it too was an allegation of wrong doing. Where was the silence until the facts were known?

When you consider the hand wringing of tennis media when Serena Williams does something that is considered unsportsmanlike, their silence about Gimelstob’s obviously destructive behavior speaks volumes. The hypocrisy from the tennis punditry is blatant for all to see.  There have been instances of violence emanating from the men’s Tour and the quickness with which the media is ready to excuse the poor behavior of these male players, while at the same time calling for people like Serena Williams to be banned from the sport is reprehensible. 

Clearly, the powers that be have failed to see the juxtaposition of who wins and loses in tennis. We lose Andy Murray who flew the flag for his country and for women’s tennis as high as it would go.  Who sometimes during the course of his career showed his heart and his love and hate for this sport and who at all times left it all on the court. Yet, keep Justin Gimelstob, a man who never accomplished much in his professional life, except for what he gained through the accomplishments of women. We see what the ATP is willing to forgive or nurture, and to what it is willing to turn a blind eye or fail to imitate for the better.

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Spin's Picks and What to watch on Day one is below.  Enjoy the tennis.

P. Kvitova [8] vs M. Rybarikova
I. Begu vs A. Petkovic
B. Bencic vs K. Siniakova - toss up 
Y. Putintseva vs B. Strycova [32]

L. Tsurenko [24] vs E. Alexandrova
M. Niculescu vs A. Anisimova - the youngster impressed in Auckland 
K. Boulter vs E. Makarova - impressive losing performance against Serena at Hopman Cup. 
A. Kalinskaya vs A. Sabalenka [11]

A. Barty [15] vs L. Kumkhum - may potentially prove to be a blockbuster of a match
E. Perez vs Y. Wang
A. Sharma vs P. Hon
M. Sakkari vs J. Ostapenko [22] - if Sakkari is on her game this will not be an upset, howver, if Ostapenko finds her 2017 French Open form and her backhand ... watch out

M. Sharapova [30] vs H. Dart - If Sharapova is still having shoulder issues then an upset will be in the making.  If Dart is healthy she can play her way to victory. 
S. Cirstea vs R. Peterson - 2 players with great games but lots of injury issues. 
V. Lapko vs J. Larsson
A. Van Uytvanck vs C. Wozniacki [3]

S. Stephens [5] vs T. Townsend
O. Jabeur vs T. Babos
M. Vondrousova vs E. Rodina
H. Watson vs P. Martic [31]

A. Kontaveit [20] vs S. Sorribes Tormo
K. Flipkens vs A. Sasnovich
M. Puig vs A. Pavlyuchenkova
A. Riske vs K. Bertens [9]

J. Goerges [14] vs D. Collins - could be an upset on this one. 
Y. Bonaventure vs S. Vickery
B. Mattek-Sands vs Z. Hives
J. Ponchet vs C. Garcia [19]

D. Vekic [29] vs K. Mladenovic
P. Badosa Gibert vs K. Birrell 
B. Haddad Maia vs B. Pera
P. Hercog vs A. Kerber [2]

Popcorn Matches to Watch

Hart v. Sharapova

Barty v Kumkhum

Georges v. Collins

Vekic v. Mladenovic (which Kiki will show up is always an adventure)

Sakkari v Ostapenko

Putintseva v. Strycova (bring your beer to this one)

Bencic v Siniakova

NEW YEAR ... NEW BEGINNINGS?

Happy New Year Everyone.

The tennis season has started in much the same way that it ended.  Discussions surrounding Roger Federer and Serena Williams.  Not necessarily in that order but usually juxtaposed when discussions arise as to their impact on the game, whether it be negatively or positively.  I won't really join that discussion, except to say that I absolutely loved the mixed doubles match between them at this year's Hopman Cup and clearly tennis fans worldwide loved it as well. 

Each year as the tennis year starts fresh, I am always amazed at the interest of tennis fans on the other side of the equator.  The love that these fans show to tennis always makes me wonder what drives that love.  I have been watching matches in Auckland and Brisbane and the turnout is usually very good.  The interest that they show after a spectacular point is usually appreciated and they come out decked out in their colours to support their players. 

I look at the faces of the fans and their is rapt attention being paid to what is happening on court and they are really invested in the outcome of the match.  The rapturous applause as Serena Williams made her way to the court for her singles and mixed doubles match was good to see.  In the same way that the packed stands for Venus' match in Auckland was also a welcome sight.  Venus speaks clearly about the love that is shown to her in Auckland and is the reason why she keeps coming back.

Ever since I have been watching tennis, I can only recall 3 instances when either Williams Sister was met with disdain in Australia.  The first concerned Serena's 2010 match against Justine Henin, and her 2003 match against Kim Clijsters.  For Venus it was her match where she had to withdraw after playing a few points (I can't remember the name of her opponent). 

It struck me that perhaps the reason why both Venus and Serena and indeed why sportspeople are welcomed in this part of the world is because the public itself has a sporting tradition.  From rugby, to football, to tennis, persons from the land Down Under take sports very seriously.  They believe in recognising those athletes who have honed their skills and perform at the highest level.  I believe that is the reason why someone as seemingly abhorrent as Margaret Court continues to enjoy accolades.  These accolades were afforded to her as a result of her work on the court and it is perhaps the reason why no one is in any hurry to see Margaret Court arena renamed. 

Compare the behaviour of spectators at the Australian Open to those at the US Open.  At the US Open there is the constant chatter, the clacking of knives and forks and the general lack of attention that is being paid to professional athletes as they perform.  No doubt there are tennis fans who come for the tennis, but they are usually pushed to the side as corporate spectators, who are there to be seen, hog the spotlight. 

As the new tennis season gets  under way let us first and foremost remember that the men and women who play this sport are professional athletes.  They entertain us, and for that we need to give them the respect they deserve. 

The Spin team is hoping to write more about tennis and there are even plans to attend a few tournaments (more on that as the year progresses).