LET, LET, LET, LET, LET...

by Overhead Spin

Let - Justin Gimelstob

How many lets will it take before tennis finally calls a fault on Justin Gimelstob?  Clearly, as much as it takes. 

In case you missed it, after almost a year of denying he ever assaulted Mr. Kaplan, Justin Gimelsob pled no contest to felony assault which was then reduced to a misdemeanour charge.  He has been sentenced to 3 years' probation and 60 hours of community service.  

At the time when this incident came to light we were told that we should wait until the legal proceedings had run their course as there was more to this story than meets the eye.  Clearly there isn't as if there was Mr. Gimelstob would have had his day in court where he would have called on witnesses to refute the allegations of Mr. Kaplan and his wife.  The victim impact statement from both Mr. & Mrs. Kaplan tells the tale of a man completely and utterly out of control. 

Apparently, Mr. Gimelstob is such a powerful figure that tennis believes that it needs him.  The deafening silence from the people who say that they are tennis journalists is as someone pointed out on social media today, deafening, defining silence. 

Jon Wertheim attempted to put the ball squarely in the court of Mr. Gimelstob.  In a piece of writing that can only be termed cringe worthy, Mr. Wertheim calls on Mr. Gimelstob to put his tennis colleagues and the sport itself, including the governing body of men's tennis, and the ATP Player Council out of its collective misery by doing the right thing and stepping down. 

No Mr. Wertheim.  That is not how taking responsibility and showing leadership works.  I am all about second chances. After all we have just done the whole Lenten journey (and for those who don't there is Passover) where we are called to forgive etc.  However, Mr. Gimelstob has had many chances.  From his nasty, disgusting remarks a few years ago about Kournikova, to his general all around sleaziness, this man should in no way be representative of a sport that has as one of its tenets the promotion of a wholesome, healthy lifestyle for young people, especially men. 

At a time when the world is striving hard towards decency and holding people to account, it would be detrimental to the sport if someone like Gimelstob was given a pass just because he acted in the heat of the moment.  This was not a  heat in the moment situation.  This was an all out attack on someone who had done nothing to deserve it.  To compound matters even more we are being told that the reason for this display of outright aggression had to do with the death of his father. 

I am sorry, but in the same way that we are being asked to sympathise with Gimelstob, where was the sympathy for Serena Williams when the person who killed her sister in cold blood was released?  That was the same year that she had issues at the US Open where she was deducted a game.  If I recall there were many in the tennis booth who did not shy away from expressing their opinion on this topic.  A little closer to home, how about Kyrgios and the constant call for  him to be placed on suspension or probation.  However, the ATP as an organisation tends not to deal with things that bring the sport into disrepute or indeed tends to engage in the whitewashing of bad behaviour. 

This time around though, tennis needs to take matters into its own hands.  It is time to say goodbye to Gimelstob. 

Double Fault - Sorana Cirstea

In case you missed it, Sorana Cirstea went all touchy feely on the chair umpire in her losing match in Instanbul.  The video which is circulating on social media has fans up in arms as it seems as if for physically assaulting an umpire, i.e. putting her arm on the umpire's body without his permission, Cirstea received a code violation. 

Back track to the 2018 US Open and Serena Williams calling the umpire a thief. For that egregious violation, the umpires on the tennis circuit met and decided that they would not be umpiring any matches featuring Serena Williams.  I am sure that all of us are waiting with baited breath for the results of the ongoing umpire's meeting where they are no doubt discussing the fact that they will no longer umpire any matches featuring Sorana Cirstea ... 

Game, Set, Match - David Ferrer

He was one of my first male tennis loves.  I loved his fight.  I loved his tenacity.  I loved his demeanour.  I am sad that my little honey badger (hat tip to Honey Badger) is no longer playing tennis.  May your retirement be as fruitful as was your tennis life.  

I WANT IT SO BAD

The Spin Team

Bianca Andresscu - BNP Paribas Open Champion 2019

There will be many pieces written about the new flavour of the moment on the WTA Tour, i.e. 18 year old Bianca Andresscu.  There will be talk about her mental toughness.  Her fearless tennis.  Her ability to mix up her game etc. etc etc.  However, what I want to talk about are those 4 words that she uttered to her coach during a coaching visit. 

Down 3-2 in the third Andresscu called her coach down courtside for a visit.  During the interaction while he was trying to calm her down and talk tactics she said to him "I want it so bad".  For me those words defined her mental game more than any ground stroke. 

A few years ago there was a documentary featuring Serena and her then hitting partner Sascha Bajin.  Serena was in the gym and she was having a really hard conversation with Bajin.  She was basically saying that Bajin was not going hard enough in practice with her and she found that to be quite frustrating.  Her next words were significant because it showed the mindset of Serena when she goes on the court.  She said to Bajin "these girls hate me".  Now hate might have been a very harsh way to talk about your work colleagues, but this was the mind of Serena.  She believed then that every single player on the WTA Tour hated her and as a result of that she had to go  harder than anyone else.  It may be true but it just showed what motivates people.  Consider then Andresscu who was fighting so hard because she wanted it so bad.  She wanted this win and it did not matter if she had to fight through cramps, nerves and especially her opponent, but she wanted that title. 

For years as people talked about the new flavour of the month on the WTA Tour, I have always been struck by the fact that this new generation of players did not want it that badly.  I look at Pliskova, huge serve, big game and who just can't seem to get out of her way long enough to do damage on the Tour.  There are others: last year's semi-finalist, Daria Kasatkina seems to have just disappeared from view.  Sloane Stephens with all her accomplishments seems to just flit in and out as she feels.  And the list goes on and on.  

Andresscu first came on my radar when she beat Venus Williams at this year's WTA event in Auckland.  I was struck by the way she played against a champion like Venus and of course I wrote her off as a one hit wonder.  The fact that she lost that final in Auckland kind of settled my opinion of her.  I am glad to see that she has continued her meteoric rise and I do hope that she sticks around. 

The one thing that may be her downfall is her lack of fitness. Many will say that she outlasted 2 of the fittest players on Tour in Svitolina and Kerber, but as we all saw, she was able to hit through those players on the slow hard courts of Indian Wells.  It will be interesting to see how she adapts her game to the slow clay of the European swing.  

While many people will talk about Andresscu's win over Svitolina as a turning point, I think her win against Muguruza was for me the turning point.  Up 6-0, 3-0, Muguruza finally won a game and Andresscu seemed quite annoyed at that.  That showed me how much she really wanted this particular title. 

While writing this piece I happened to speak to my editor and the discussion focused around Federer’s loss and Serena’s desire. My editor intimated that the desire for winning that was so a part of Federer’s run to No. 100 in Dubai is completely different than the intensity and desire that he showed in the Indian Wells final. Some folks will say that perhaps Thiem took away his fight by outplaying him, but it could very well be that Federer having achieved 100 titles became complacent.

Contrasting with another champion in Serena Williams.  I finally got to watch Being Serena.  One of the things that jumped out at me (and I believe I mentioned this in previous articles) is the fact that Serena’s mental game seems to have been softened.  Before all the feminists get on my case, consider Serena’s own words in Being Serena “I don’t know whether I have that fight in me any more”. Serena was not giving up, but she was in that place where she was thinking that there are far more important things in life than winning tennis matches. 

I recall saying last year when Serena came back that one of the things that was missing from her game was her inability to finish off her opponent.  Many people believed that this is something that is inherent in tennis players.  It is not.  It is a mind set.  It is the refusal to lose.  That is something that is ingrained in every professional athlete from the minute they take up a sport and decide to play it professionally.  It is the reason many of us who work in advertising or in any field where success is instrumental in how we perceive ourselves tend to fight tooth and nail and breathe a sigh of relief when we accomplish what we first set out to do.

It used to be the case that players would lose their matches from the time they are in the locker room against Serena.  Not so much any  more.  They can sense that Serena is not performing at an optimum level.  That killer instinct is not there just yet.  Will Serena and Federer, 2 champions who have displayed over many years their will to win say to themselves “I want it so bad” and go out there and get it? That remains to be seen but it will be interesting to see how they navigate their desires, because let us face it, what else do they have to or need to achieve.  What is their want it so bad moment and have they already achieved it?

COACHING CAROUSEL ... AND OTHER STUFF

The Spin Team

Naomi Osaka, World No.1 and holder of the last 2 hard court Slams has parted ways with her coach, Sascha Bajin.  News of this announcement came from Ms. Osaka herself via Twitter. 

Hey everyone, I will no longer be working together with Sascha. I thank him for his work and wish him all the best in the future.

— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@Naomi_Osaka_) February 11, 2019

As there were no signs of a fracture within the team this has come as a complete shock to many, but to the Spin team not so much. Bajin has a track record of splitting with his charges once they have achieved some amount of success with him at the helm. 

It all started with Serena Williams (as does most things in tennis).  Bajin, hitting partner of Serena for many years, is alleged to have wanted to upgrade his role to that of coach.  As Serena already had a coach in Patrick Mouratogolou, Bajin left the Serena camp to try his hand elsewhere.  His first charge was Victoria Azarenka.  Azarenka had some success with Bajin, most notably her victory against Serena in the finals at Indian Wells in 2015. Soon after that victory, their partnership broke up. 

Bajin next went to Caroline Wozniacki.  After successfully partnering with her to win the WTA Year End Championships in 2017, they both called it a day. Wozniacki would then go on to win her lone Slam at the 2018 Australian Open the following year. 

Bajin then linked up with Naomi Osaka, then just a young and upcoming player.  Their results were minimal at first, but then Osaka had a maiden title run at Indian Wells in 2018, followed by a huge win at the US Open, and followed up that victory with a win at this year’s Australian Open. 

Separate and apart from the X's and O's, Bajin learned everything at the feet of Serena when it comes to mental toughness.  

I am never one to ascribe a professional tennis player's success to any man, but in the Osaka/Bajin situation it is hard not to ascribe her growth and development as an elite player to Bajin's tutelage.  Bajin spent the better part of 10 years sitting in meetings and working every day with Serena Williams.  As much as people talk about him being a part of Serena's team and how much he has done since parting with Serena, few credit Serena with Bajin’s success. Prior to joining her team, Bajin was an unknown player ranked in the low 900s. Imagine how much he must have learned from being around Serena: training with her, listening to her, and learning from her. He has taken that knowledge and experience and crafted it into a winning formula on the WTA circuit, so much so that he was voted Coach of the Year over the likes of Nigel Sears, Sven Gronefeld, and Tobin Beltz.

What then drives the No. 1 ranked player in the world to literally cut off her nose to spite her face?  What made her make such an unprofessional decision about her pro career?  Was it driven by her? Was there a disagreement over tactics (I can't actually believe that part)?  Was it over money? 

I don't know what the player/coach salary partnership looks like. If you know, please share what you know of that dynamic.  Do coaches get paid a percentage of winnings? Do they get paid at an hourly rate?  Do they have confidentiality contracts, i.e. that they can't divulge the inner workings of Player A if the relationship ends and they go to work for Player B, essentially a non-compete clause?  With all the movements in tennis, one wonders whether this is something that players have ever had to discuss. 

Bajin brought a level of toughness to Osaka's game.  She was confident on court and she played like it.  To make this decision after having so much success leaves me pondering why. 

 In other head scratching news, Sloane Stephens also announced that has parted ways with Kamau Murray.  Again, the questions as to why these decisions are made are interesting to me (and to many others) if only because in other sports coaching changes are usually followed by announcements as to why it is happening.  The coaches usually give a press conference and take questions from the media and players usually do the same thing.  In tennis there seems to be a code of silence and mostly what comes to you is gossip and innuendo. Already there are whisperings and allegations being made of doping as regards the Osaka/Bajin split.  Frankly, as far as I am concerned if there were more openness in the coverage of tennis, then whisperings like this would not happen.  The sport definitely needs to be more transparent when things of this nature are discussed.

I know folks will say that other sports are not like tennis as it is a player/coach relationship, however, tennis likes to compare itself to golf, and in golf, when there are changes in coaching (caddy changes), these are well publicized with players discussing in detail at times why the former relationship has ended.

The WTA has taken steps to focus on the coaches on the WTA circuit.  As I set out earlier, Bajin was voted Coach of the Year.  The allegations that are now being raised about him must be nipped in the proverbial bud.  Allegations of doping in any sport is a death sentence.  Allegations of doping against a person whose livelihood is dependent on a professional athlete hiring him could be fatal.  The WTA should not stay silent on this issue. 

Petra Kvitova

This columnist is no fan of Kvitova.  The media's tactic of telling us of her innocence goes against what we know of Kvitova.  That being said, the Spin team sympathises with her regarding the attack that almost placed her into retirement.  I have been following the news updates of the trial and I have a few questions:

There is no doubt that Petra, a multi-millionaire athlete, would perhaps live in a community that is adequately secured.  After all, she has 2 Wimbledon trophies, as well as numerous other trophies in her home that she might wish to keep secure. She may also have thousands of dollars’ worth of tennis equipment, as well as jewelry etc., that every young woman worth millions might have.  Therefore, I find it strange that she opened her door to someone who claims to be there to fix her boiler.  In her sworn testimony, she indicated that she thought it was doping control.  Knowing how doping control works, the date and time would have been what she had provided to the whereabouts folks, so that is understandable.  However, once she knew that it was not doping control, one would think that her security would have announced that the boiler people were there to fix her boiler.  Was her boiler broken?  Was she expecting someone to come and fix it at that time?  In short, was this a scheduled visit?  

Leaving that part off for a minute, once she allowed this person inside her home, he then attacks her, but leaves after she gave him money.  

Not only has she seen his face, she can now identify him.  Thank goodness that he did not kill her, but why pay him?  Was he asking for money? Why did he leave without doing any further harm after she gave him money?  From my experience of the law, that is generally not how criminals operate. I suspect there is more to the story and it may take us years to get to the truth.

Coaching Changes

Finally, in a coaching change which could potentially see some movement where her ranking is concerned, Monica Puig has announced that is now working with Kamau Murray.  Hopefully Pica Power will finally become a thing.

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