Language matters: It's time to give some respect to tennis

"She's batting a thousand."

"She was aggressive, right out the gate."

"It's like batting practice."

"She did the one-two punch."

"She's waiting in the dugout."

"She's an effective counter-puncher."

"Think of her body as a race car."

"She was eager to get to the finish line."

Baseball, car racing, boxing, horse racing--these are metaphors that are constantly employed (and ones I have frequently heard) to describe tennis players. It annoys me to no end when commentators use one sport as a metaphor for another sport (that is such dead-lazy metaphor creation), but there is a bigger issue at hand than the very weak literacy skills of tennis commentators: Tennis will never gain the respect that these same commentators say they want it to have if they keep using other sports as reference points.

Can you imagine a football commentator saying "He's over the hundred yard line with an ace." Or a baseball commentator saying "It was a smash to right field." Or a boxing commentator announcing "It was an effective kick serve to the left jaw." Or how about a NASCAR announcer saying "Here she comes...she's at 40-love on the clock."

Of course you can't. Because football, baseball, boxing, racing, and soccer commentators and fans do not generally think of their sports as needing a reference point in another sport. And neither should tennis commentators. If you want to say that Sam Stosur's second serves kick like a kangaroo (I stole that line from a poem I once wrote), or that Amalie Mauresmo's backhand flows out of her (a wonderful metaphor I once heard about Mauresmo's entire game, not just her backhand)--not only is that effective use of metaphor, it is metaphor that does not insult tennis by presuming tennis needs a reference point in a "real" sport.

It's time for my annual language rant

I might have just skipped it this year, but then the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour site made it inevitable: One of the headlines on the site earlier today was that a player "Steps Up to the Plate."

I am so weary of hearing sports metaphors used for descriptions of everything from war to political campaigns to school success. I am especially tired of hearing sports metaphors used to describe sports--in fact, using a phrase to describe something in a subset to compare it with something in that set is just about not using a metaphor at all.

Worst of all is the use of other sports "metaphors" to describe tennis, which is already the sports stepchild of many nations. When we say that a tennis player "steps up to the plate," we are comparing tennis with baseball. Again, that is barely using a metaphor at all--kind of a really lazy writer's idea of a metaphor. But we hear that sort of thing all the time with regard to tennis: "right off the bat," "teeing off," "right out the gate," "almost to the finish line." I have even heard tennis compared with auto racing.

Figurative language is supposed to expand the senses. Comparing any two sports within a metaphor is hardly figurative. In the case of tennis, there is more at stake than bad writing: The campaign to gain more respect for tennis is hampered every time it is compared with "real" sports.

Watch your language! How commentators demean tennis

A couple of years ago, an article about the French Open carried this headline: The Top Five Players Who Stepped Up to the Plate at Roland Garros, But Struck Out. The use of a baseball metaphor to talk about just about anything is ridiculously common in the United States. Football metaphors are also very common, and other sports metaphors are also frequently used.

I dislike the idea of constantly using sports metaphors to describe everything from political processes to the weather. Such overuse mirrors an obsessive preoccupation with sports, a misconception that the entire population can relate to sports, and an obvious lack of language skills.

But what I especially dislike is the use of sports metaphors to describe tennis. I have two main objections. First, it’s very poor metaphor construction, though what can you expect form a culture that likes to say “you’re comparing apples with oranges”? Comparing apples with (remember, we compare “with,” not “to”) oranges is really lazy metaphor construction, since they’re both edible fruits, and even approximately the same size.

I’m reminded of the hilarious book Titters, which contains the fake endorsement: Makes Charlotte Bronte look like Emily Bronte! Only that, of course, was an example of making fun of stupid metaphors.

My other objection is more important: Constantly using other sports to describe tennis turns tennis into the stepchild that tennis fans know so well. If you watch a match on television, you’ll hear “near the finish line” (running), “off the tee” (golf), “counter-puncher” (boxing), “swing and a miss” (baseball), “and de-fense” (football, where it exists, unfortunately, because of cheering considerations). If you’re watching the ATP, you’ll hear commentators begin sentences with “If he were a batter” or “If he were a boxer”

If you tune into a football, basketball or baseball game, you’re not going to hear commentators use metaphors involving volleying, serving, slicing, or playing a love game. No one will say “Game, set match.”

Language reflects culture, but it also directs it. Just as commentators calling female players “women” and not “girls” will eventually get people to actually see them as women, leaving other sports out of tennis language will direct people to see tennis as a “legitimate” athletic entity, and not the stepchild of sports.

Aging awsomely

A drink for every occasion.

How it started -> How it ended. pic.twitter.com/KAmG2hvu4O

— Jimmie48 Photography (@JJlovesTennis) May 17, 2025

This past weekend, world number 4 Jasmine Paolini not only showed (yet again) that she's a true member of the Fighting Italian contingent--she also displayed a particular Fighting Italian characteristic--the power of age. Francesca Schiavone was 30 when she won the French Open, and Flavia Pennetta was 33 when she won the U.S. Open. Those were the only majors they won, though Schiavone was a French Open finalist the year after she won the event. And--while Sara Errani achieved a Career Slam in doubles when she was 27--she won Olympic gold in doubles when she was 34. Billie Jean King Cup specialist Roberta Vinci never won a singles major, but she became a finalist at age 32, and she was 31 when she achieved a Career Slam in doubles.

Paolini, age 29, just became the first Italian woman in 40 years to win the Italian Open, and she won it twice, getting both the singles and the doubles trophies. Last year, when she was 28, she reached the finals of both the French Open and Wimbledon. Prior to that, the spirited Italian player was known more as a hardworking journeywoman on the tour. 

What is it about these Italian players that allows them to carry on through the years, and then--when many other players would be retired or winding down--achieve the top awards in professional tennis?

"When. the. moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie..."
"That's Pennetta!" pic.twitter.com/hXbbz1NZOV

— Diane Elayne Dees (@WomenWhoServe) September 13, 2015

When writing about Italians, one is tempted to use a food or wine metaphor. Schiavone once said, when speaking about her game: "Is a mix. It's like Capricciosa pizza. I don't give you Margherita, I give you Capricciosa, different kind of ingredient." I did use a kind of wine as a metaphor when describing Maria Sharapova's second French Open victory, and indeed, Sharapova and champagne seem to go together. 

The Fighting Italians, however, are obviously in the red wine camp. When I think of aged, complex Italian wine, Barolo comes to mind. Nebbiolo grapes are fermented in oak for a couple of months. The wine, depending on the variety, is then aged for as long as long as five years, with some of that process occurring in the bottle.  

The Fighting Italians are definitely Borolo Reserva, which requires maximum aging. Borolo is spicy and complex, and if that doesn't describe Schiavone, Pennetta, Errani, Vinci, and Paolini, I don't know what does. Aged in oak: those years grinding in out on the courts, then aged in the bottle--the maturity that comes when you are determined to reach your highest potential, yet you also know not to take everything too seriously. 

Theoretically, the pressure is now on Paolini to defend (and surpass?) her 2024 French Open and Wimbledon runs. I trust the way Italians age, and the way they handle pressure. Paolini has already won more 1000 tournaments than any of the original four, and the season is still young. Sooner or later, she'll be raising another glass--as well she should.

Didn't we just go through all this with the election?

Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post, who originally wrote about Justin Gimelstob's misogynistic radio rant, just cannot figure out why poor Justin is being chastised.

One comment poster at the New York Daily News likened the so-called sanctions (more like a wink and a nudge) to the goings-on of Communist China and the Communist U.S.S.R. against its enemies. Another poster even thought it was disgraceful that the virtue of "honesty" was being destroyed. That one is at least original--almost all of Gimelstob's other defenders insist he did not mean any of what he said.

One woman commented on a blog that she can no longer call herself a feminist (oh, dear) if this is the kind of thing with which feminism concerns itself.

Here are some things to think about for those (including fake feminists) who have obviously never in their lives thought about them before:

"Trash talk" is not harmless; it normalizes hate speech and teaches children that hate speech is acceptable.

Gimelstob, in his original "apology," edited by Tennis Channel, World Team Tennis, etc., made it clear that what he said about Kournikova was not trash talk, anyway--that he really does hate her.

If Gimelstob hates Kournikova, it may be classless for him to talk about it on the radio or it may be exciting, but he could have discussed her personality and failings as a human without hurling a gender insult at her, and without creating a sexually violent metaphor with which to attack her. When you attack a person's gender, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, etc., you are attacking everyone of that gender, race, etc. You are also a bigot. When you display your violent sexual fantasies in public, you are kind of scary.

If you despise someone or have no respect for her, you can find plenty of things to say about her character, her personality, her associations, her history. But no matter how much you hate her, it is still inappropriate to attack her gender.

Pointing out your opinions about WTA players' bodies on a radio program is both sexist and crass.

Suggesting that you consider a woman so much trash but you would receive pleasure from having your brother have sex with her is both sexist and sick. It also implies a strong adherence to the ridiculous sexual double standard (what a surprise), and it reeks of misogyny.

When you have been making sexist comments for years, neither you nor your apologists should be surprised that many women and men finally insist that you stop.

A public figure does not represent only himself, but every organization with which he is involved or who pays him. In Gimelstob's case, that would include Tennis Channel, World Team Tennis, Tennis Warehouse, Wilson, and other entitites. World Team Tennis was founded by Billie Jean King, for god's sake, who risked her entire career to bring about some semblance of gender equality in sports. To be part of the orgainzation she founded and say humiliating things about women is beyond cheeky.

"Jokes" about gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., are usually clumsily masked expressions of hostility.

Taking one small quotation and saying "oh come on, it's not such a big deal," while ignoring the other dozen things Gimelstob said (not to mention years' worth of demeaning comments about women)--not only about Kournikova, but about other members of the tour--is neither rational nor honest.

Azarenka defends Australian Open title and retains top ranking

Top seed Victoria Azarenka had many opponents yesterday in her quest to defend her Australian Open title. The world number 1 had to fight the wind, the sports media, the crowd, and, of course, Li Na. Before the match began, ESPN went to great lengths to set up a black hat/white hat scenario between Azarenka and Li. Commentators took turns talking about how the media and Australian fans consider Azarenka a bad sport because of her ten-minute medical break toward the end of her semifinal against Sloane Stephens. They went on and on about it, "examining" it from this angle, then that angle.

They had some good fortune, too, in that Li was available to wear the "white hat." Li is a beloved figure. Is there anyone who isn't totally enthralled with her? (If you happen to be the one person who isn't totally enthralled with Li Na, please keep it to yourself.) But just imagine if Agnieszka Radwanska had gotten to the final (something that had seemed quite possible until she faced Li): There's no way the ESPN crew could have set up a hero/villain contrast between Azarenka and and the continually sniping Polish star. But with Li, they were good to go.

Darren Cahill had lost a bet with Judy Murray, so he wore a kilt. He was supposed to wear it throughout the men's final, but he backed out. Over and over, the winner of the bet was referred to as "Andy Murray's mother." She is Andy Murray's mother, and proudly so. But Judy Murray is a tennis personality and authority in her own right, but not once was she acknowledged as anything but a player's mother.

Before I talk about the match (really, I'm going to), I want to say something good about ESPN. That's a rare thing, so bear with me. A study about media attitude toward women's sports that many of you may have seen a year or two ago pointed out how different the metaphors are when commentators and writers refer to male athletes and female athletes. Only the men are called "warriors" and are described using extended warrior metaphor.

ESPN broke that mold in its pre-match production piece, which featured the "defender" and the "contender," and presented a number of lengthy statements made by the players that were all about fighting, battle, warrior mentality, and the destruction of an opponent. Even the music was "warrior-like." I think this was probably a first in women's sports, and it was done really well. Neither Li nor Azarenka appeared passive, "pleasant" or "feminine" in the piece. Rather, each looked like she was ready to kick some ass at any cost.

Right before the match began, Azarenka came out of the tunnel with hoodie on and earphones in, accepted her bouquet, and solemnly walked to the court. There were no dreary "leaving the tunnel" interviews--just Azarenka and Li. When Li stepped onto the court, the crowd went wild, and it would continue to go wild for her throughout the match. Azarenka was given a chilly reception, and that was the kindest crowd response she received until the very end. After all, the Australian crowd disliked her even before the semifinal medical break incident occurred. Several times during the match, chair umpire Alison Lang had to ask the crowd to back off. They cheered Azarenka's unforced errors, and consumed her double faults with unbridled glee. Some hurled insults at her. Only the tossing of rotten fruit was missing from the scenario.

Azarenka chose to receive, and Li immediately double-faulted. Li followed the double-fault with a forehand winner up the line. She was broken, but immediately broke back. The improved forehand was already cracking, and the serve out wide to the ad court--which would benefit Li repeatedly throughout the match--was already in place.   

Li missed an overhead when she attempted to go up 3-1, and was broken. There were then three holds in a row, but none from the "against the wind" end. That wouldn't happen for a long time. Li held at love to go up 5-2. Azarenka then held, and on her next serve, Li went down 0-40 because she repeatedly "over-hit" potential (actually, obvious) winners; she was broken at 15.

On Azarenka's serve, Li hit a forehand cross-court winner to get a set  point, but she hit the next ball long. Azarenka then hit a forehand cross-court winner (her first forehand winner, in fact) to gain an ad point. Li saves it--again with a forehand cross-court winner, but the second set point is saved by a stunning volley from the Azarenka racket. Li got a third set point with a backhand winner, but again hits long. On her fourth set point, Li was able to convert and take the set at 6-4 when Azarenka double-faulted.

The importance of taking the first set off of the world number 1 is well known. When Azarenka wins the first set, she wins the whole thing. She has done this 70 consecutive times.

The second set began like the first, with Li's serve getting broken, despite having a game point. Li then had a break point when Azarenka double-faulted, but she hit a lob long and Azarenka was able to hold. The players then exchanged breaks. Then, serving at 1-3, Li attempted to do a quick change of direction with her feet, fell down, and rolled her ankle. She was examined, then had the ankle wrapped. When she returned to the court, she won the game.

At this point, Azarenka was unable to keep the ball in the court, and went down 0-40. But Li was unable to capitalize on this opportunity, and Azarenka held. The crowd had become quite noisy by this time, and Li complained to the chair umpire about people yelling during a point. In a situation like this, people often say that the complaining player "shouldn't let it get to her," but noise made during a point usually does interfere with a player's concentration, and it's something the umpire should handle before a player has to make a complaint.

Somewhat shaken, Li double-faulted twice in a row, but managed not only to hold her serve, but to break her opponent for 4-all. But then the Chinese player began having trouble with net clearance, and made two unforced errors on her own serve. She was broken, and Azarenka held at love to take the second set 6-4.

In the final set, Li was again broken in her first game, but broke back. Li then held her  next service game, but the players had to take a break because the Australia Day fireworks show had started. During the break, Azarenka chatted with the trainer. And--as if the proceedings weren't already strange enough--when the players returned to the court and began playing, Li fell down again, this time, hitting her head on the hard court.

Li got a brief neuro exam to check for concussion (something Azarenka knows all about), and was cracking up as she had to follow the physio's finger and answer questions to determine her orientation. She returned to the match to face a break point, but held with yet another serve out wide.

Azarenka would go on to argue with the chair umpire about a replay decision, and she would also go on to hold the first service game played from the "bad" end of the court. Li served at 3-5 and Azarenka won the match by converting her first break point on Li's serve. A big part of Li's collapse in form was the trouble she had with her footwork in the second half of the match. Was she consciously or unconsciously guarding her injured ankle? That seems likely, and if she was dealing with nerves, that would have made the situation even worse.

After the players shook hands, Azarenka--instead of falling onto the court (there had probably been enough falling onto the court already) and then celebrating her victory--walked to her seat, sat down, and wept. It had been a very long 48 hours. After a while, she went to her box and greeted her team. Then she returned to the court and acknowledged the crowd, but the acknowledgment was very brief. They had been against her the entire match, and--while they were polite once the match was finished--Azarenka knew there was no point in pushing the issue.

To add insult to injury, Azarenka's trophy was engraved incorrectly, with the abbreviation for Belgium on it instead of the abbreviation for Belarus.

In defeating Li Na, Victoria Azarenka not only defended her Australian Open final; she locked in the number 1 ranking. Li, for her part, is now a two-time Australian Open runner-up. She's playing very well, however, with new finesse in her forehand, and has to be considered a contender at the French Open, a tournament she won in 2011.

Last year, when Azarenka won in Melbourne, I shared the significant parallel between her persona and that of Queen Victoria's. "The important thing is not what they think of me, but what I think of them." Indeed.

Get out your earplugs: Sharapova vs. Ivanovic

One shrieks, the other squeaks. The Australian Open women's final is guaranteed to be played at a high pitch, and I am not using a metaphor here. Maria Sharapova's shrieks grow louder as a match progresses, and Ivanovic's Australian Open squeaky shoes grate on the nerves--at least if you are a television viewer (or Daniela Hantuchova).

I miss players like Chris Evert, who dominated with shot-making and without noise. The steely look on Evert's face spoke louder than any scream. With today's power play, it is understandable that a number of players are going to grunt, but I still do not understand how screaming (which many commentators insist on calling grunting, for some reason)--a la Sharapova, Venus Williams and Victoria Azarenka--came to be part of tennis. During the 2005 Sharapova-Williams Wimbledon semifinal, I had to turn off the sound for a while, so intense was the screaming from both players.

Hantuchova was the first player to complain to the umpire about Ivanovic's squeaky shoes, but her complaint fell on deaf ears. Ivanovic does a lot of footwork while her opponent is serving. There is nothing wrong with that--it is natural--but with those shoes, the result is that there are grating squeaks occurring right around the time of the ball toss. I have never heard Ivanovic's shoes squeak before (which doesn't mean they did not squeak--it just means that I do not recall that they did); it appears she is wearing a different type of shoe, or that her type of shoe has some unfortunate friction on the new Melbourne surface.

At any rate, you have been warned: The women's final is going to be loud, and not in a good way. The screaming cannot possibly be good for the Sharapova vocal cords, but she says it is the natural thing for her to do. I have gotten used to it, but I know I will never get used to the shoe-squeaking--here's hoping Ivanovic goes shoe-shopping some time soon.

Four still standing

.@KaPliskova completes the @WTAFinals semifinal lineup 👏

All about her win over Halep --> https://t.co/pu4DXtOjBx pic.twitter.com/rSSFOnRKbf

— WTA (@WTA) November 1, 2019

 

When we talk about "still standing" at the WTA finals, it isn't entirely a metaphor. First Naomi Osaka withdrew because of a shoulder injury, then Bianca Andreescu--who appeared to have a back injury--retired because of a knee injury. Alternate Kiki Bertens took excellent advantage of her status by defeating top seed Ash Barty, but then had to retire in her next match because of illness (which brings back very sad memories of the French Open).

Second alternate Sofia Kenin played today, and what a match it was. She and defending champion Elina Svitolina went at each other in a way that was captivating to watch. The second set tiebreak was a show in itself, with Kenin (who held a set point) saving five match points. But Svitolina was successful on the sixth, and defeated Kenin 7-5, 7-6. Despite losing, Kenin showed yet again why she has rapidly risen up the rankings ladder: She's a good hitter with a variety of shots from which to choose, and she just doesn't give up.

In today's second match, Karolina Pliskova defeated an out-of-sorts Simona Halep in three sets. The Romanian was bageled in the first set, but bolstered by a no-nonsense talk from coach Darren Cahill, she grabbed the second set. Pliskova, however, was just too good in the end.

And speaking of the end--Halep dashed (as only Halep can) to pick up a ball Pliskova had hit into the far ad corner, and she was able to get it over the net, setting up a smash for her opponent. But that smash went awry and hit the top of the net--and then dropped over, giving the Tall Cool One the victory, 6-0, 2-6, 6-4.

In a rather odd (when are the WTA Finals not odd?) semifinal outcome, seeds 7 and 8 will compete in one match, and seeds 1 and 2 will compete in the other:

Belinda Bencic (7) vs. Elina Svitolina (8)
Ashleigh Barty (1) vs. Karolina Pliskova (2)

In doubles,  Timea Babos and Kiki Mladenovic defeated top seeds Elise Mertens and Aryna Sabalenka, and Anna-Lena Groenefeld and Demi Schuurs defeated Chan Hao-Ching and Latisha Chan. Here is the doubles semifinal draw:

Babos/Mladenovic (3) vs. Stosur/Zhang (7)
Hsieh/Strycova (2) vs. Groenefeld/Schuurs (8)

Melanie Oudin, just another "unarmed" winner

Melanie Oudin has no weapons. That's what Jelena Jankovic said when Oudin removed her from the third round of Wimbledon, and that is even what some tennis writers said yesterday when Oudin tossed Elena Dementieva out of the second round of the U.S. Open.

This preoccupation with "weapons" says more about tennis fans and sports writers than it does about the players. And while it is very handy to have a Graf-like forehand or a Davenport-like serve, those attributes are only parts of what tennis talent is about. This obsession with "weapons" is a reflection of the current power trend in tennis, but it does not reflect the spirit of tennis, and it is also somewhat arbitrary in definition.

Many things matter in tennis--serve, volley, groundstrokes, forehand, backhand, footwork, touch, speed, strategy, mental strength. In her time, Chris Evert was thought to hit the ball very hard, but it was her mentality and the accuracy of her strokes that her opponents most feared. Martina Navratilova was physically stronger than her opponents, and that helped her a lot, but it is her volleying for which she will be most remembered.

Certainly, pro players should work to hit the ball as hard as they can (but not all the time!) and to serve as well as they can, but even serving well does not necessarly mean serving with great speed. And shot variety--though it is not considered a "weapon"--is actually one of the biggest so-called weapons of all. Players like Amelie Mauresmo, who can put a lot of topspin on the ball, can throw opponents off in a big way. Mauresmo's deadly slice took her to a Wimbledon championship. Martina Hingis's uncanny anticipation frustrated many a great player. Jelena Jankovic's ability to quickly change both the direction of the ball and the momentum of the point has won her several titles. And then there is the legacy of Justine Henin, which speaks for itself.

But in the current tennis lexicon, a great slice, heavy topspin, superb footwork, and clever strategy are not "weapons." Only those actions related to hard hitting and ball speed are weapons. My take on this arbitrary distinction is that too many tennis fans and members of the tennis media are desperate to prove that tennis is a "real" (meaning, testosterone-loaded) sport. Readers of this blog know how irritated I get when commentators use other sports as metaphors for tennis because such language diminishes tennis (and it is also extremely poor use of metaphor). Baseball isn't comparing itself with tennis, and football writers aren't yelling "Wow--he really hit that one over the net!" Tennis needs to be content with being itself, and that self--though definitely athletic--is also graceful and cerebral.

As for Melanie Oudin, she possesses what may actually be Serena Williams' greatest "weapon": She believes she can win. Without that, all other strengths and skills are meaningless.

But will they accept Blue Cross?

Starting next year, Sony Ericsson WTA Tour players will have to pay for some of their medical time-outs. If a player seeks treatment in excess of what the tour decides is enough times (six or seven medical time-outs per season) she will have to pay for it. At small tournaments, she will pay something in the range of $100, and at big ones like the Sony Ericsson Open, she will pay something around $500. There will be no medical fees levied at the four major tournaments.

Regardless of what one thinks of this plan, perhaps we can all agree that Peter Johnston needs a metaphor time-out, and he should probably pay a fee.

"It's kind of a micro life out there"

We like watching tennis because it's exciting and entertaining, but--as I've written before--we also become emotionally involved in the fate of the players because they are, to some extent, presenting little dramas about our own lives. Professional sports competitions, in general, allow us to project our own fears, insecurities, hopes, and triumphs onto the players.

This subject of "sports as micro" was presented today, in a different context, by Laura Siegemund, during a Volvo Car Open press conference, after Siegemund won her quarterfinal match against Anastasija Sevastova.

Siegemund, like so many players on the tour, has been through hard times, including having to take an extended forced break because of torn ligaments. At the press conference, she was asked: "At what point did you kind of learn how to win again?" Her reply got my attention:

"It's not that easy, yeah. People like to always draw like black and white lines. It's not like that at all.  It's a process you're going through, and you get certain opportunities, I would say, throughout a career as well as throughout a match.  It's kind of a micro life out there sometimes, these matches. So you keep getting opportunities, and then you either take them or you don't.

"Different reasons why you don't take them sometimes. Maybe it's lack of courage. Maybe it's too much courage, you know. You can want something too much. That's also what happens to a lot of people, what happened to me."

Well, there you are. Laura Siegemund explains attachment anxiety, just like that. And a tennis match, whether you're playing it or watching it, truly is a kind of micro life. You have a chance to be in charge, and you can take it--and maybe crash, or you can hang around and hope your opponent makes an error all on her own.

Too much fear freezes you; too much confidence causes you to take foolish chances. Excessive attachment to outcome will get you in trouble, one way or the other, which is why we always hear professional players say "I just play it point by point." They are, to return to the Buddhist metaphor--attending to the present. The previous point is a thing of the past, and who knows what's to come in the next point (or game, or set)?

And what does this have to do with the rest of us? Everything. We get opportunities, and we don't take them, but then we get new opportunities. We dwell on the lost opportunities, or we don't. We act with courage and let go of the outcome, or we cling to the outcome and lose the moment.

Deuce.

More top seeds knocked out in Toronto today

Toronto public art

The power went out today at the Rexall Centre in Toronto, and the metaphor could not have been more appropriate. The two top-ranked players in the world, Caroline Wozniacki and Kim Clijsters, were already out of the tournament, as was Marion Bartoli, one of the season's hottest contenders. Today, 3rd seed Vera Zvonareva was eliminated, along with Wimbledon champion Petra Kvitova, 5th seed Maria Sharapova, and French Open champion Li Na.

"You never know how is it going in the head," Kvitova said in an interview earlier this week, dropping a hint that she perhaps wasn't mentally prepared for her first tournament since she won Wimbledon. The 7th seed took some time off, partly because of an abdominal strain that has bothered her since January, and with which she played seven matches at Wimbledon. Today, she brought the "old Kvitova" onto the court, as she hit, then hit harder, while continuing to make errors against a steady Andrea Petkovic. Kvitova's feel for the court just wasn't there, nor was she willing to slow down and change her strategy. It wasn't until Petkovic served for the match, in fact, that the Czech player looked a bit like the woman who plowed through the field at the All England Club. But it was way too little, too late, and Petkovic soundly defeated Kvitova 6-1, 6-2.

If it wasn't going too well in the head for Kvitova, it was going only slightly better for 6th seed Li Na. It's been a while since Li played, too, and it showed, as she was defeated 6-2, 6-4 by 10th seed Sam Stosur, who now has a 4-0 record against the Chinese player. Li was denied a chance to play as scheduled in the second round because she was given a walkover by Peng Shuai.

Vera Zvonareva, seeded 3rd, lost the Carlsbad championship last week to Anieszka Radwanska. They played again today in Toronto, Radwanska won the first set 6-4, then went down 0-4 in the second--then won the match 6-4, 7-5.

The "power outage" continued as qualifier Galina Voskoboeva, who had already taken out 9th seed Marion Bartoli, as well as Flavia Pennetta, went after 5th seed Maria Sharapova today. Voskkoboeva pulled Sharapova forward and backward with drop shots and lobs in what was not only an inspired performance, but was also a study in how to use variety to take control. Things took a bit of a turn, however, when Voskoboeva served for the match at 6-3, 6-4, 40-0. She double-faulted twice, then made two errors. When Sharapova to the ad point, Voskoboeva tossed her racquet, and then she was broken.

This was, of course, "supposed" to be the point at which Sharapova turned the match around against a lower-ranked (135 in the world), choking opponent, but it didn't go that way. Instead, she was broken back, and when Voskoboeva served for the match at 6-4, 6-5, she stayed calm and got the job done.

There was more in this notable 3rd round. Roberta Vinci, who sent top seed Caroline Wozniacki out of Toronto, beat Ana Ivanovic 7-6, 6-2 today. Francesca Schiavone, seeded 8th, lost in straight sets to Lucie Safarova.

Serena Williams had to work hard to win a very entertaining match against qualifier Zheng Jie, who looked better than she has in a long time, after sliding down the rankings because of injuries. Zheng's return of Williams' serve was outstanding, and she won the first set. Williams won the second, and at 3-all in the third, after a couple of momentum swings, it looked like the match could go either way. But then Williams increased the pressure on Zheng, and--as we have seen so many times before--the former world number 1 left the court the winner (4-6, 6-3, 6-3). This was an exciting match, and spectators got to see a lot of expert movement and shot-making.

Finally, 4th seed Victoria Azarenka escaped the fate of the tournament's other top seeds, and defeated qualifier Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez 6-1, 6-2.

Angelique Kerber to face Serena Williams once again on championship day

.@SerenaWilliams closes in on 22nd Grand Slam title!

Makes 9th #Wimbledon final--> https://t.co/ClQJ9axcYi pic.twitter.com/D9gGhzYQFX

— WTA (@WTA) July 7, 2016

Which is greater? To have the confidence that comes only with having already beaten Serena in a major final--or to know that, having beaten her in a major final, she's coming to get you. Perhaps the two somehow neutralize each other. At any rate, 4th seed Angelique Kerber will be balancing on the tip of that spinning coin tomorrow when she and defending champion Serena Williams face off to determine who will be the 2016 Wimbledon champion.

Kerber, who beat Williams to win the Australian Open in a thrilling final, has yet to drop a set in her Wimbledon campaign. For her part, top seed Williams has demonstrated why she is one of the greatest athletes in the world, putting on some tennis demonstrations in the final rounds that made her look unbeatable by anyone. Williams, in a pattern not unusual for her, has gradually "played her way into" the final, becoming more deadly as the stakes got higher.

In short, KareBear has her work cut out for her. But it will be competitive because Kerber is on fire in London the way she was in Melbourne. She'll have to bring one of her better serves (like many WTA players, Kerber's serve can change from match to match), which means getting as many first serves in as possible. The German is not a master of the second serve--few are--and she knows that her opponent will be on the ready to destroy any that are weak.

“This is amazing! I’ve been playing my best tennis and have a great team around me.” @AngeliqueKerber #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/iMTp7VIIsq

— WTA (@WTA) July 7, 2016

Back to the coin metaphor--the flip side is that Kerber is more likely than many handle the Williams serve (when it isn't an ace). Kerber's defensive play gets better all the time, and she can make successful recovery shots in long sequences, especially when they involve her forehand.

Williams has won 21 major single titles; Kerber has won only the 2016 Australian Open, but--as previously noted--she did it by beating Williams.

To get to the final, Kerber defeated Venus Williams in the semifinal, which gives her the unenviable task of not only having to beat both Williams sisters, but having to beat them back to back.

In the meantime, Venus and Serena reached the women's doubles final by defeating Julia Goerges and Karolina Pliskova in the semifinals. In the quarterfinals, the unseeded Williams sisters defeated 4th seeds Ekaterina Makarova and Elena Vesnina. On the same day, Serena defeated Vesnina in the singles quarterfinal, also. The other last team standing is that of Timea Babos and Yaroslava Shvedova. The 5th seeds defeated Raquel Atawo and Abigail Spears in the semifinals. In the quarterfinals, they took out top seeds and defending champions Martina Hingis and Sania Mirza.

Here are Williams' and Kerber's paths to the final:

SERENA WILLIAMS

round 1--def. Amra Sadikovic
round 2-- def. Christina McHale
round 3--def. Annika Beck
round of 16--def. Svetlana Kuznetsova (13)
quarterfinals--def. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (21)
semifinals--def. Elena Vesnina 


ANGELIQUE KERBER

round 1--def. Laura Robson (wc)
round 2--def. Varvara Lepchenko
round 3--def. Carina Witthoeft
round of 16--def. Misaki Doi
quarterfinals--def. Simona Halep (5)
semifinals--def. Venus Williams (8)

Safina out of Dubai in the 2nd round

There was one great big upset today in Dubai; Virginie Razzano took out 2nd seed Dinara Safina, 6-4, 6-2 (or, as the metaphor-challenged WTA site says: "Dinara Exits Stage Left But Others Sail On"). Safina double-faulted twelve times, and her chronic double-faulting has pretty much made her the new Dementieva.

There was also some illness. Urszula Radwanska, who prevailed over her 9th seeded sister yesterday, had to retire during her match against Camille Pin (making her a really "lucky loser") because of heat illness.

Sara Errani took a set off of Serena Williams, who not only won the match, but delivered Errani a third-set bagel. Venus Williams ran over Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, 6-0, 6-1.

U.S. Open semifinals--a drama in two acts

SATURDAY IS SET. pic.twitter.com/I2cZBvJ1Ma

— US Open Tennis (@usopen) September 8, 2023

In the last couple of days, the U.S. Open has been a bit overwhelming, but not always in a good way. The extreme heat brought back memories of days at the Australian Open when players had to get IV fluids and the old Rebound Ace surface caused the rubber to melt on the wheelchairs. And there was the issue of the first semifinal, which was interrupted for 49 minutes as three environmenal activists were escorted out of the stadium while officials had to deal with a fourth one who had glued his feet to the stadium floor.

Then there was the tennis. 

In Thursday night's first semifinal, Coco Gauff easily dominated Karolina Muchova, whose usual very good serve wasn't there, and who also wasn't bringing her usual shot-making magic. It looked like a case of nerves, yet I did have that niggling feeling that it might also be physical. Muchova had quite a bit of tape on her body, but then, if I were she, I would, too.

Down 1-5, the world number 10 seemed to suddenly "wake up," and proceeded to win three straight games. But Gauff took that set 6-4. She led 1-0 in the second set when play had to be stopped because of a lot of yelling in the stands that turned out to be environmental protesters. As stated above, play was delayed for over three-quarters of an hour while those in charge extricated a protester who was glued to the floor. (You can't make this stuff up.)

During a portion of this "break," Muchova had a medical consultation. When the players returned to the court, they both held serve until Gauff broke Muchova to go up 5-3. But when the world number 6 served for the match and held a match point at 40-30, Muchova--looking totally like herself (i.e., gracefully making what look like impossible shots)--broke her. At 5-all, the match contained all the tension that it lacked earlier. 

Muchova would go on to save five more match points in the final segment of the match, which was as thrilling as anyone could imagine, and which had the crowd in awe of the players. 

Karolina Muchova is not going away! pic.twitter.com/QHX7daxikL

— US Open Tennis (@usopen) September 8, 2023

In the end, though, Gauff simply would not be denied. Having had just about everything thrown at her that can be thrown at an opponent in a tennis match--including at the net and over her head--she remained steady. Near the end, there was a 40-shot rally that fans will be talking about for some time to come. Gauff then ended the whole thing on her sixth match point. Her 6-4, 7-5 victory puts her into the second major final of her career.

This 40-shot rally to set up the sixth and final match point Coco needed to finish off Karelian Muchova and head into her first US Open Final was 🧑🏽‍🍳👅. pic.twitter.com/NfqHvKIJGD

— Bombastic (@nostrabombus) September 8, 2023

And while we might have thought that the second semifinal would be comparatively "normal," we would have been fooled. In that match, Madison Keys, who has been playing at an extremely high level in New York, walked onto the court and proceeded to do what some might consider a magic trick--she bageled the soon-to-be number 1 Aryna Sabalenka. Keys, who hit twelve winners and made only three unforced errors in the set, was totally dominant over a player who is not easily dominated.

Sabalenka--never one to hide her emotions--became increasingly frustrated and angry. And then an image of Dr. David Banner popped into my mind: "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." 

That image proved to be an accurate metaphor. After emphatically losing her first set of the tournament, Sabalenka fought back. Keys went up 5-3 in the second set, but was broken. She then went up 5-4, but her attempt to win the match was destroyed by a series of errors, including a double fault. Sabalenka was able to take the set to ta tiebreak, which she won, 7-1. 

Keys broke to go up 4-2 in the third set, but Sabalenka broke her back. That set also wound up in a tiebreak, which Sabalenka won 10-5. (At the U.S. Open, a 10-point final set tiebreak is played. I see no need for this, and Sabalenka wasn't the first player to think that she'd won the match after she "won" a seven-point tiebreak). 

For what it's worth, the Belarusian star is only the third woman in the Open Era to win a major semifinal after losing the first set 0-6. The others were Steffi Graf (French Open) and Ana Ivanovic (Australian Open).

Sabalenka is 2-3 against Gauff, and 1-2 against her on hard courts.

Paths to the final:

COCO GAUFF (6)
round 1--def. Laura Siegemund
round 2--def. Mirra Andreeva
round 3--def. Elise Mertens (32)
round of 16--def. Caroline Wozniacki
quarterfinals--def. Alona Ostapenko (20)
seminfinals--def. Karolina Muchova (10)

ARYNA SABALENKA (2)
round 1--def. Maryna Zenevska
round 2--def. Jodie Burrage
round 3--def. Clara Burel
round of 16--def. Daria Kasatkina (13)
quarterfinals--def. Zheng Qinwen (23)
semfinals--def. Madison Keys (17)

In other news, defending wheelchair champion Diede de Groot has now won 120 consecutive matches. If that sounds impressive--and it is--bear in mind that her mentor, Esther Vergeer, won 470 consecutive matches.

Some miscellaneous notes about this past week:

The WTA finally announced a location for the 2023 WTA Finals; the event will be held in Cancun, Mexico. Tomas Petera, negotiating for the Czech Republic's bid to have the finals held in Prague, had a lot to say.

Tomas Petera, the man behind CZE bid for the WTA Finals, commented the decision to give the event to Cancun

"the WTA policy makes absolutely no sense to me". "they just prove that they are complete dilettantes".https://t.co/DwO9w00Seq

— Diego Barbiani (@Diego_Barbiani) September 7, 2023

Some advice: If you have no context whatsoever, and even less knowledge of the tour, please refrain from accusing a player of bigotry, and please refrain from automatically believing those with no context and even less knowledge.

And finally--but not at all surprisingly--an ESPN commentator, i.e., someone who is paid very well to say words, told us that she has a hard time with pronunciation; it just isn't her thing, Well, okay.

The lesson of Martina Hingis

Photo by Diane Elayne Dees

I began following the WTA when I was a very young woman, and after many years—having lived through Chris and Martina, and Steffi and Monica, I felt burned out. I left the WTA behind, but I was lured back by Martina Hingis. Who was this other Martina that I heard about all the time? I had to find out.

It turned out that she was exactly what I wanted to see—a prodigy who could read the court like a complex story, and who relied on her way-beyond-her-years instincts. “Plays like Hingis” is now part of the tennis vernacular, and it refers to those players who see the tennis court as a kind of board game and can provide ongoing strategy to advance their games. Anna Chakvetadze was such a player, as is Dasha Kasatkina.

The young Hingis, however, had her problems. Her emotional maturity wasn’t as advanced as her tennis maturity, she had chronic foot issues (which she said were caused by her shoes), and then she had the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena, and several who followed them, used power to get around Hingis’s cleverness, thus rendering her less effective. I would rather watch a Martina Hingis (or a Patty Schnyder or a Simona Halep) over a power player any day, but tennis equipment changed, as did tennis culture.

Having undergone two foot surgeries, Hingis retired from pro tennis in 2003, at the age of 22. It was a surprising turn of events, despite what we knew about her struggles. But two years later, she made a crack at returning. It didn’t go well, so she confirmed her retirement. But then, in 2006, she made a very dramatic return by reaching the quarterfinals of the Australain Open, an event she had won three times. She also won her first-ever major mixed doubles title in Melbourne.

Hingis did so well in her comeback that she qualified for the WTA Finals. In 2007, Hingis again reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open, and for the second year in a row, she was eliminated by Kim Clijsters. Later that year, she would have to deal with injuries again, but she would also have to deal with something much worse: A cocaine metabolite had been discovered in a drug test she had taken that summer. The amount of metabolyte was so small, Hingis insisted that contamination was the cause.

The ITF responded by giving the Swiss star a two-year suspension (the “Katy Perry defense” was unknown at the time). Hingis responded by retiring from the sport. It was a sad, nasty occurrence, but one couldn’t blame her for just saying to hell with the whole thing.

Hingis returned to exhibition play and to World Team Tennis in 2010, and in 2013, she returned to the WTA tour as a doubles-only player, and she also did a bit of coaching. her third career has been a resounding success. She is currently ranked number 1 in the world in doubles, just as she was 20 years ago. And in closing that circle, this week, the great Martina Hingis retired from professional tennis. Again. And, we can assume, for the final time.

In her very lengthy career, Martina Hingis won five singles majors, and was seven times a runnerup. She won 13 doubles majors and was a runnerup on three occasions. Hingis also won seven majors in mixed doubles. She won 43 singles titles in her career, and has won 64 doubles titles; however, by the end of the week, that number is likely to jump to 65, as she and partner Chan Yung-Jan are very likely to win the WTA Finals in Singapore. The Swiss master reached the number 1 ranking in both singles and doubles, and she has won so many awards and broken so many records, I don't have the space to list them.

The 37-year-old Hingis, who is also an accomplished horsewoman, says that she knows she will continue to be involved in tennis. I wouldn't be surprised if she returned to coaching.

Many of us watched Martina Hingis grow up, and some of what we saw wasn't pretty. But she persevered--through emotional immaturity, to serious injuries, to a major change in the game that threatened to leave her behind, to a highly questionable drug ban, to the rigors of making two comebacks. She persevered. She accepted what she could do well and what she could no longer do quite as well as she once had. And though I don't usually use this metaphor, in Hingis's case, it's appropriate to say that she kept getting back on the horse.

Quick and clever on and off the court, Martina Hingis never really gave up--she just took breaks. Whether she was a teen phenom, a Spice Girl, a comeback wonder, or an enduring legend enjoying a late career zenith, she adjusted to the times, and believed in her talent. There is much to learn from Hingis's unusual career arc, and for that, we can be grateful. But we can be even more grateful that for two decades, we watched the Swiss Miss light up the tour with the brilliance of her tennis.

Looking back on a bizarre 2020--my top 10

"I've done what my team told me to do. I trusted them for the whole tournament."

Look back on the best @rolandgarros memories with @iga_swiatek in the Champions Corner 🏆 --> https://t.co/Deu9n3gN6W pic.twitter.com/SrKGjBaWcx

— wta (@WTA) November 2, 2020

Perhaps there was a stranger tennis year than 2020, but I don’t recall it, and I’ve been paying attention for a long time. We had no Wimbledon (not a great loss, from my standpoint, though very bad for the sport), we had bubbles, bubbles in bubbles, spontaneously produced exhibition matches, an absent defending champion, and some heartbreaking retirements. The talented Ons Jabeur became the first Arab player to reach a major quarterfinal (Australian Open). Petra Kvitova defied her own long-held expectations and reached the semifinals of the French Open, and Garbine Muguruza reached the final of the Australian Open. Oh—and, of course, Tsvetana Pironkova popped up (with an improved game) after a three-year absence from the tour, and reached the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open.

Here is my list of the top 2020 occurrences and phenomena, in ascending order:

10. The Original 9—Women with Spine: 2020 marked the 50th anniversary of the act that would change tennis forever. Nine determined women each gave promoter Gladys Heldman one dollar to seal a contract to compete in a women’s-only tournament in Houston. This simple transaction led to the eventual formation of the Women’s Tennis Association, arguably the most successful women’s sports organization in the world.

But it wasn’t an easy decision. When the Original 9 made it clear that getting 1/8 of the prize money given to men was unacceptable, and that they would have to break away, they were threatened with being banned from majors and from all meaningful tournaments. Male players who the women thought were their friends turned against them (no one ever mentions it, but Arthur Ashe was a leader of the charge against women earning any kind of reasonable prize money). So, knowing that they would probably have no career to which they could return, these nine brave women changed the sports world for women.

To celebrate the Original 9, the WTA put together a very fine series of articles, tributes and media about the women and the history that they made. The International Tennis Hall of Fame presented an Original 9 exhibit, and there were a number of charity events and panel discussions dedicated to the recognition of the Original 9.

9. Diede De Very Good: We call Diede De Groot “Diede De Great,” but this year, she had what, for her, was a slump. The defending champion at both the Australian Open and the French Open, she won neither of them. In Australia, De Groot was upset in the opening round by China’s Zhenzhen Zhu, playing in the first major of her career. At the French Open, the Dutch star was upset in the semifinals by Momoko Ohtani of Japan. Yui Kamiji of Japan won both titles.

De Groot and her partner, Aniek Van Koot, were the defending champions at all four majors (Wimbledon, of course, was not played, nor were the Paralympic Games). They won the French Open, but lost the Australian Open to Yui Kamiji and Jordanne Whiley. De Groot teamed with Marjolein Buis (Van Koot did not play) for the U.S. Open, and they made it to the final, but were defeated by Kamiji and Whiley.

One obvious problem with De Groot’s 2020 tennis was the disintegration of her serve. She double-faulted repeatedly, which cost her a lot of games. One hopes that the serving issue (often caused by nerves) will be resolved by 2021.

8 Look who’s back!: During many periods throughout her career, it seemed like Victoria Azarenka just couldn’t catch a break. Injuries (a few of them out of the ordinary), ongoing sexism, a vicious child custody battle—so many things kept getting in her way. It hasn’t looked that good for the Belarusian star in the last few years, but—after a shaky start—2020 was a different story. Azarenka withdrew from the Australian Open for personal reasons. She won the Western & Southern Open, and then reached the final of the U.S. Open.

7. We’re here!: Are they ever. Elena Rybakina, Coco Gauff, Dayana Yastremska, Karaolina Muchova, Leylah Fernandez, Iga Swiatek, Anett Kontaveit—we’ve been watching them for a while. This year, there were even more upstarts with which established players had to contend.

Jennifer Brady began 2020 by beating both Maria Sharapova and Ash Barty in Brisbane, where she was a qualifier. She upset Elina Svitolina in Dubai, and reached the semifinals, a first for her at a Premier event. She was also the only player to go undefeated at the Credit One Bank Invitational in Charleston. Brady won her first WTA title in Lexington, then reached the semifinals of the U.S. Open. In the 2019 off-season, the U.S. player, determined, she said, to maximize her potential, trained in Germany, and emerged with increased fitness. She’s definitely someone to watch in 2021.

A couple of dramatic introductions occurred at the French Open, when Italian player Martina Trevisan and Nadia Podoroska of Argentina blazed through the first week of the event, and then reached the quarterfinals and semifinals, respectively.

Trevisan wasn’t fooling around. She took out Coco Gauff, Maria Sakkari and Kiki Bertens. Podoroska’s story was even more dramatic: She was a qualifier, so she had to win three matches before the tournament even began. In the main draw, she upset the likes of an on-fire Yulia Putintseva and 3rd seed Elina Svitolina. Both of these amazing players were eventually defeated by someone on that “watch” list (more on that later).

6. It was the best of seasons, it was the worst of seasons: Timea Babos and Kiki Mladenovic, one of the two hottest doubles teams on the tour, had a rather dramatic season. They won both the Australian Open and the French Open. Unfortunately, though they were the top seeds, they were forced to withdraw from the U.S. Open when the county government stepped in and declared that their “bubble within a bubble” status disqualified them (an ATP player who had also been double-bubbled because of a Covid contact had been allowed to play the day before).

And now, a brief interlude to present my metaphor for 2020:

 

5. It hurts to say goodbye: The great Maria Sharapova retired this year, and that would have been enough for me, in terms of sadness, but so many other players also chose 2020 to say goodbye. Caroline Wozniacki retired from the sport, as did Julia Goerges. But these stars weren’t the only ones to leave: We also lost Ekaterina Makarova, Magdalena Rybarikova, Johanna Larsson, Pauline Parmentier, Teliana Pereira, Jamie Hampton, Vania King, Silvia Soler-Espinosa, Jessica Moore, Rika Fujiwara, and Anna Tatishvili.

4. The strength behind the mask: Naomi Osaka won her second U.S. Open title this year, further establishing herself as the player to beat at a major. She also further established herself as a force for equality and justice, which was a breath of fresh air. Not that long ago, Osaka was an awkward young woman who was afraid to speak in front of a crowd, but then she found her voice, and what a voice it is. Tennis history will long remember the U.S. Open champion’s array of face masks; each represented an individual who was murdered by the police. Osaka brought seven masks to New York, and she was able to wear every one of them.

3. The value of attitude: Perhaps no one on the tour is a better “forgetter” than Sofia Kenin. She makes a mistake, she moves on. She loses a big point, she moves on. She loses a tournament, she moves on. This mindset has enabled the U.S. star to scrap her way to the top five (she is currently number 4 in the world). It also helped her to win the 2020 Australian Open and to reach the final of the French Open. Kenin possesses a wide variety of skills and an aggressive style that do a lot to create a champion. But her other “weapon,” mental toughness, is just as significant.

2. Time violation: Covid-19, and the accompanying denial and mismanagement of it, wreaked havoc on everything this year, including professional tennis. Several elite players opted not to play at the U.S. Open, including world number 1 Ash Barty, Simona Halep, Elina Svitolina, Kiki Bertens, and defending champion Bianca Andreescu. Andreescu, who seems perpetually injured, missed the entire 2020 season (a source of great disappointment for me). Barty, after reaching the semifinals of the Australian Open, also opted out of the remainder of the season because of the pandemic.

The Wimbledon event was canceled, and the French Open was rescheduled so that it began shortly after the U.S. Open ended. On the up side, some exhibition events popped up, including the entertaining Credit One Bank Invitational in Charleston (from which Andreescu also withdrew). For the most part, the U.S. Open was credited with having handled health and safety issues well; the French Open, not so much. There was no Fed Cup (now the Billie Jean King Cup) and no Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The pandemic is still raging, so it remains to be seen what type of damage it will do to the 2021 season.

1. The Wonder Woman sequel arrives early: We knew that Iga Swiatek was very talented. What we didn’t know was that she would go to Paris and mow down the anticipated champion, Simona Halep. And we didn’t know that she would play seven matches without dropping a set, losing only 28 games—and make it all look effortless. But that’s what happened, and it was stunning. Moreover, the Polish teen (not unlike that other young wonder, Andreescu) appeared to have such a good time doing it. Swiatek is now number 17 in the world—keep an eye on that number.

Players who inspire

For many years, I've been inspired by some of the stories on both the ATP and WTA tours. Players like Tommy Haas, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, and Brian Baker are players who remind us that great difficulties--from big injuries and illness to being dismissed as "not a contender"--can be overcome.

On the WTA tour, there have been, and still are many, inspiring women. Billie Jean King risked her entire career, and lost several so-called ATP friendships, when she led the movement that established the WTA. Martina Navratilova defected from her country, thought she would never see her family again, and lived in fear for many years. Jennifer Capriati, whose time had supposedly "passed," returned to the tour after experiencing some rough adolescent years, and won three majors.

Jana Novotna inspired by overcoming what some consider the biggest choke of all time, and winning Wimbledon. Kim Clijsters' body was so beaten up by tennis, she retired, had a baby, then gave it another go. In her second career, Clijsters won three majors.

Jelena Dokic inspired simply by pushing her way through a wall of abuse and horror, and emerging with grace and dignity. And then there was Monica Seles, who lived in a hell created by a number of factors, including lax security. Seles, after being stabbed while playing in a match, came back two years later and won the Australian Open.

If you're looking for inspiration, it's still there. It's there in the form of Li Na, who Ieft the tour for a couple of years, then returned and faced down her country's tradition of controlling athletes' professional lives and denying them much of their prize money. She changed Chinese tennis forever. Li then sustained a number of serious injuries, only to bound back at an "advanced" age and win the French Open and to become a two-time Australian Open finalist. She also became one of the sport's most beloved figures because of  her candor and delicious sense of humor.

It's there in the form of Venus Williams, who suffered for seven years from an undiagnosed illness (which, by the way, even though I'm a mental health professional, I could have diagnosed with relative ease--her symptoms were textbook obvious). A series of doctors told Williams everything from "it's a mystery" to "it's in your head." She was so tired, she could hardly play, but she kept going, and had, she said, "only my will" to allow her to carry on. Williams finally received appropriate treatment, and is back on the tour, doing well, and winning big doubles titles.

I know we like to give Sam Stosur a hard time, but she, too, was smacked down with a double illness, suffered extreme fatigue for a long time, but came back to reach the final of the French Open, and eventually, to win the U.S. Open.

Let's not forget Maria Sharapova, whose doctors somehow failed to notice a tear in her rotator cuff. Sharapova continued to play, which did more damage to her shoulder. She had surgery, went through rehab, then had to go through rehab a second time. She returned to the tour with reduced confidence and all kinds of problems with her serve, which had been such a great strength before she was injured. 

We kept hearing that "no one" is ever the same again after rotator cuff surgery, and that the Russian's great days were over, but Sharapova went on to complete a Career Slam when she won the French Open in 2012. Sharapova, it turns out, is "someone," but some of us already knew that.

Flavia Pennetta, one of the great Fighting Italians, decided to pay a surprise visit to her then-fiance several years ago, only she was the one who got the surprise. She found him with another woman, and eventually turned her very public emotional pain into a very strong will to compete at the highest level she could. And despite having several injuries, Pennetta's life lesson helped to make an already impressive career even greater.

Pennetta's friend, Francesca Schiavone, used to get to finals and then lose them. She did this over and over. But in 2010, when her opponent was considered a "lock" (well, not by all of us) to win the French Open, Schiavone--now armed with total belief in herself--took home La Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in what I think may have been the greatest ending to a French Open of all time.

We don't have to go very far back for inspiration: there's Vika Azarenka's 2013 Australian Open victory. Works for me.

Still looking for inspiration? Gentle Reader, I give you Serena Williams. Williams has had to put up with a barrage of racist and sexist insults hurled at her for years, as well as constant accusations that she "must be" a doper. Her biggest challenge, however, came in 2010 when a bottle thrown by a drunken football fan cut her foot and she had to have surgery. What followed was a second surgery, and then a hematoma, Williams developed a pulmonary embolism and could have very well died. She was off of the tour for months, and she wasn't young anymore (in tennis terms).

Her response? She returned to the tour and not-so-slowly got back her form. In  the second half of 2012, she did what no one had ever done before: She won Wimbledon, an Olympic gold medal (two, actually--she and Venus won doubles gold), the U.S. Open, and the WTA Championships--just like that. Anyone who pulled that off would be an extraordinary tennis professional, but Williams did it after going through a physical and mental challenge that might have taken the bite out of many other players, and caused them to retire from the sport.

Well, you might be thinking, if I had their money, I might have  more strength and courage, too. People with money can get a lot more help. Yes--and no. For all of her wealth, Venus Williams couldn't find a doctor who knew anything about autoimmune disease. Maria Sharapova's "expert" doctors couldn't diagnose a serious rotator cuff tear. Money helps, to be sure, but it can't buy inner strength, it can't buy courage, it can't buy belief.  Apparently, it can't even buy competent medical help.

I think that we like to watch tennis because it's such a complex and beautiful game. But I think we also like to watch it because it's an individual sport, and each player must ultimately be in charge of herself. An individual sport like tennis provides every imaginable metaphor for the challenges of living that affect you and me the same as they affect a Serena Williams or a Maria Sharapova. We all lose belief, we all want to give up, we all think we aren't good enough. Venus and Serena, Flavia and Francesca, Vika and Maria, Sam Stosur, Big Sister Na....they are star athletes, yes, but they are also teachers.

We may not connect our feelings of determination to the memory of seeing Maria Sharapova's joy over winning the French Open. We may not ask "What would Serena do?" But we are influenced by the strength of these athletes. And so we, too, become teachers.

How commentators dishonor professional tennis

I am continually amazed by the unprofessional things that tennis commentators say and, and equally amazed that they are allowed to say them. Though a lot of people don't think language is very important (I've been "reprimanded," and even attacked, for pointing out sexist language in the tennis world--and in other worlds--because "that's what you want to spend your time complaining about?," "there are bigger fish to fry," etc.), but it is. Very. In fact, there is no more significant currency among us than our words. Through language, we express knowledge, respect and empathy--or the lack of them

Also, saying words is the major part of some jobs; for example, the job of tennis commentator. It is reasonable to expect a professional to do a good job handling a major part of her or his job.

But many tennis commentators do not appear to care that much about any of these factors. These are the areas in which commentators fail us again and again:

Mispronouncing players' names

This is not a problem in other sports, but it's a huge one in professional tennis. I listen mostly to U.S. and British commentators, and they constantly mispronounce players' names. Sometimes they even brag about how they mispronounce players' names, which is both disrespectful (as is mispronouncing names in the first place) and arrogant. 

It would seem that people who have been exposed to eastern European names for many years would learn that there are set patterns for pronouncing those names. The patterns are clear, and it doesn't take a Ph.D. to recognize them. But in every match I watch, there is at least one commentator who will (surprisingly) correctly pronounce an eastern European name, and then turn right around and mispronounce another one in which the same pronunciation pattern exists. There is only one explanation for this, and it isn't a nice one.

(Years ago, an ABC commentator did a not very amusing (and somewhat physically creepy) interview with a young player about her "difficult" name, and she explained how to pronounce it. After the recorded interview was shown, the commentator proceeded to again pronounce the player's name incorrectly. Draw your own conclusion.)

So commentators, when it comes to pronouncing names, are either disrespectful, not very bright--or both. But there is another factor involved. If they cannot learn the (rather simple) patterns of pronunciation, or if they come across a name that especially stumps them, all they have to do is check the WTA pronunciation guide. Obviously, they do not, so one has to wonder whether laziness is also at play. (Or maybe they just don't care.)

And it isn't just commentators. A few years ago, I had two tennis journalists (one of whom is quite well known) "correct" me (and argue with me) when I correctly pronounced a German player's name. I wish that players would follow the lead of Dinara Safina and Julia Goerges, and insist on being called by their correct names. But that doesn't mean that it's the players' job to make sure that their names are pronounced correctly--it's the job of the individuals who are paid to do the pronouncing.

Using sexist language

Calling any female over 18 a "girl" is sexist, and calling women in their late 20s and early 30s "girls" is very sexist. Calling tennis pros "young ladies" infantilizes them; that is a term that we use (well, I don't) for female children, and its connotation is obvious.

Then there's the issue of commentators discussing "tennis" when what they mean is "men's tennis." They are not the only ones who do it--I recall being asked "What's wrong with American tennis?, " and when I said "Are you kidding?! Serena, Venus, Sofia, Madison, etc." the answer was "Oh, you know, I meant the men."

Andy Murray sums it up nicely in this interview:

Using other offensive language

A friend once said to me, "I hate political correctness." My response was to tell tell him that "I hate the term 'political correctness.'" Yes, there have been a couple of terribly stupid (and damaging) things done by people who didn't have a clue about the subject (the horrible "niggardly" incident comes to mind), but in general, a call for a change in language is a call for respect to be paid to a member of a particular group. 

Often--very often--that group is the group known as "women and girls." But tennis commentators manage to offend other groups, too, by using terms and expressions that are offensive. The most common of these is the declaration that a player "has gone walkabout" when she suddenly mentally checks out of a match. This term originated among commentators when Evonne Goolagong was on the tour. Goolagong is an Aboriginal Australian, and the walkabout is an Aboriginal rite of passage in which an adolescent male makes a journey to the wilderness. 

Mainstream society did not understand (or want to understand) the walkabout, so those who participated in it were thought to be lazy, transient, etc. To apply this  twisted meaning of the term to Goolagong was flat-out racist (commentators also called her "the little chocolate drop").  To continue to use it to describe a player's little mental vacation is still an offense against Aboriginal people.

A term that commentators often use is that a player took her or his opponent "to the woodshed." This is a direct reference to a truly horrible type of child abuse, and it has no business being in the sports lexicon. Neither does the often-used (I heard it all week in Rome) term, "she got a scalp." That is, of course, a reference to an especially cruel practice performed during some wars in world history, and--as recently as the 19th Century--a practice sanctioned by the U.S. government against Native Americans. 

Using lame metaphors that elevate other sports over tennis

Way back in the day, some women wrote and illustrated a very funny book called Titters. On the back cover were some hilarious fake blurbs, one of which said "Makes Charlotte Bronte look like Emily Bronte!" Well, that's the kind of metaphors that tennis commentators use all the time. Terms like "get to the finish line," "she teed off," "that's just batting practice for her," and "if that were a baseball pitch....," make tennis subordinate to almost all other sports. Football, basketball, golf, and baseball commentators are not using tennis metaphors to describe what's going on on the field, the court, the greens, and the diamond.

Also, it is just terrible metaphor construction, and makes Charlotte Bronte look like Emily Bronte--minus the satire.

Words are very important, and commentators have an important job in which words are almost everything. Tennis, and especially women's tennis, deserves better.