In more general tennis news, anyone have an opinion on the new coaching rules? Previously, coaches weren’t allowed to communicate to their players, beyond simple applause. (The reverse was allowed: players could yell or whatever at their coaches.) This rule was more honored in the breach than the observance. Penalties varied greatly, depending on the umpire. It was often a source of argument between players, because of the subjectivity of the enforcement.
The pro tours are now trying a rule change. Basically, a coach can say short phrases when their player is near. And use hand signals at any time. Still can’t be disruptive or unsportsmanlike, etc.
I’m mixed emotions on this. In terms of how the pros play, I think it’ll be beneficial. The coach works for the player; it’s good that players can get the support they want. But if this gets extended to lower levels, it’s going to be a net negative. I’m particularly concerned about parents and coaches who may not have a juvenile player’s best interest at heart. Some adults observing kids play are not a good influence. In the worst cases, the kid is constantly looking from the court to the adult, which reduces their focus and initiative.
And that actually extends to the pros–if a player is looking to their box too much, it’s going to negatively affect their game. But adult players have the agency to find the level of coaching that works best for them.
I didn’t get to view any matches yesterday, but the obvious big news is Serena Williams defeated Anett Kontaveit, from Estonia and the number 2 seed in split sets 7-6 (7-4), 2-6, 6-2. She’ll play Ajla Tomljanović (Australia) on Friday. I’m unfamiliar with her and given Serena’s recent performance I have no sense of who’s more likely to win.
Going forward from there, in Round 4, the other seeded players have already been eliminated. This whole bracket is upside down, which will make for some exciting tennis. If she gets to the quarter final, Serena could see one of several seeded players.
On the coaching - I don’t mind it, but I don’t want to hear it. I was just watching the Swiatek-Stephens match; they had the coaches boxes miked-up, and you could hear Stephens’ guy yelling the whole time - it was super annoying.
And it wasn’t even some mastermind tactical advice, just basic cheerleading. Seems like much ado about nothing if that’s the ‘coaching’ that happens.
One thing to note about Jimmy Connors is that he played more lower-tier tournaments than Roger which meant his competition was not as stiff as the ones Roger faced/will face when he plays. So although he may have the edge numerically, I don’t know how much it means when the difference is not that great.
But back to the latest tournament. I am interested in seeing how far Kyrgrios goes at the US Open. I saw him at the Citi Open final and he played a solid game with only a few extraneous flourishes. If he can keep his aggression on the court instead off of it, and keep the summer he has been having so far going I would not rule out a final bid.
Nadal lost the first set again, but is winning again.
Stranger, though, he accidentally hit his racket so hard against the ground(reaching for a ball, not out of anger), and it bounced up and hit him in the bridge of his nose or perhaps between his eyes. He’s being treated now for a medical as he was bleeding.
Finally caught up to a bunch of PVR’ed crap so I can finally check out this thread, (always behind, and get spoilered easily if I go online).
Impressed with up and comer Brandon Nakashima (US), beating an admittedly not-in-top-form Gregor Dimitrov. Wish I saw Richard Gasquet’s win - he won’t be around much longer, much like that splendid one-handed backhand, of which I can think of maybe ten players left who hit like that, my favourite example being Carla Suárez Navarro (heh, who retired at last year’s Open) - with a swooping and most definitive flourish, arms ending out wide.
Anyway, enough about bloody one-handed backhands - just watched the Williams sisters lose to a 17 y.o. and a 37 y.o. Not sure if that sets a record in age disparity between partners.
Very likely the last time S + V will be seen together on court. No idea if one or both of them will retire (and from just singles or both). Serena made the announcement, but Venus?
What if we used a weighted system to rank the tournaments — you know, such that winning the Italian Open or Indian Wells would count for less than making it to the finals at Wimbledon, but more than losing in the semifinals — and then looked to that scoreboard to determine who the #1 player in the world is, week after week, year after year?
It was good that the match was competitive and we got to see some very good shots from Serena. Also that last game was of high quality and had a lot of tension. As final matches go, this was a good one that did not end in a double fault or some other kind anticlimactic point. Although she did say “you never know” I think it is rather clear that she is done with the sport. And really, what more does she have to accomplish?
I think that is what UTR tries to do by ranking players not just based on their win/loss record but also against who they compete. Maybe that could be used as a metric to evaluate careers of past players. In the end there is a certain amount of subjectivity in the whole thing, which makes it something fun to argue.
It’s a new standard at all four majors, rather than the "US Open plays a 12-point tiebreak in the final set, while everybody else does the ‘keep playing normally until somebody has a 2-game lead’ " they used to use.
IIRC, in mixed doubles, if the first two sets are tied, they go right to the 18-point (i.e. first to 10) tiebreak. This makes sense, as in majors (outside of the US Open), scores in the final set tend to get into double figures.
As Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic head into the final phases of their careers, I am looking for new(er) players to support. Both guys in that match pinged my radar for the first time. It was great.
