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