I told myself I wasn't going to get into this. But here I am. The impending drama in Stuttgart seems to be pulling at me. Everybody will be writing about this with their 2 cents worth of opinion. Do I have 3 cents or more to contribute - I'm not sure, but here goes?
Maria Sharapova, like her or not, has almost served out her time imposed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and is scheduled to return to play in the middle of the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart, Wednesday, April 26. She comes in on a highly controversial wildcard that has dollar (Euro) signs rolling big time in the eyes of the organizers. Those Euro signs are also rolling in the eyes of the tournament organizers in Madrid and Rome who also gave her wildcards. The French are balking, dealing with the ethical issue here and as of this writing haven't decided whether or not to give their 2012 and 2014 champion the wildcard. The French are invoking sport integrity. Enough said.
What tennis credentials does this player have that might entice tournament organizers to give her the wildcards? Well, she's won 35 titles, 5 Grand Slams, and is only one of ten women to hold the career Grand Slam. She's been #1 in the rankings five different times for a total of 21 weeks and stood on the Olympic podium in 2012 with a silver medal around her neck. But basically they want her because she's "Maria," and the controversy swirling around her is going to draw people and the press to those tournaments like an object inside the event horizon of a black hole is drawn irrevocably into its center. Some say her return is good for the sport. But only after the whirlwind of controversy finally abates and after she's made a few grunts on the courts of Stuttgart, Madrid, and Rome, will we be able to see how the winds are really blowing.
Players seem to be of different minds on the issue. Some see her as the unfriendly bitch in the locker room who has been given lenient treatment by WADA and special treatment by the tournaments. On the other side, some players feel she has served her time and it is the prerogative of tournaments to do what they want. And in between those extremes, lie a variety of sentiments. I guess for some it simply comes down to what kind of personal interaction they may have had with her.
WADA, I get the impression, is a tough, no-nonsense agency that thoroughly investigates each case of possible doping, holds to a high standard, and is uncompromisingly punitive in taking action. So I am comfortable that WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that handled Sharapova's appeal rigorously reviewed all the different aspects of the Sharapova doping case, and although in the end the CAS found fault, it found "no significant fault," thus reducing her suspension to 15 months, and allowing her to resume her tennis career April 26, 2017. So, I guess, there, I've made a stand.
There is also controversy over whether meldonium is even performance enhancing. Some experts say yes. Some experts say no. I'm no expert, but meldonium, like every drug, must have side effects which could actually be performance reducing I suppose. The major side effect for Sharapova was being banned from playing tennis for 15 months. Now that's a side effect. Quinoa, on the other hand, packed with nutrients, is probably performance enhancing, but since it is not a "drug," WADA doesn't care. (Yea, well they've never smoked Quinoa or put a little between their cheek and gum.) From watching players during sit-downs, I would say that bananas are not on WADA's list. (I'm not sure about banana peels.)
So on the weekend of April 22/23 when the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix tournament draw is announced, will Maria Sharapova's name be listed there, for she is not even allowed to step on the grounds of the tournament until Wednesday the 26th? OR Will her name not be put on the board and not announced until 12:01 AM on the 26th? Oh, the drama. But I'll tell you this, that player whose name is next to Sharapova's on the draw board should consider herself immensely fortunate that she'll be playing possibly the most dangerous floater in the history of tennis because she will be immortalized in tennis trivia for generations to come. "Who was the first player to play Maria Sharapova after her 15-month suspension for doping? Who won and what was the tournament?" (Update: Her first opponent will be Roberta Vinci. Their H2H: Sharapova 2-0. They last played at Indian Wells in 2012, 6-2, 6-1.)
Being the softie that I am, I would like to see not just the players at Stuttgart, but the tennis world generally, open their hearts and minds to Sharapova and genuinely welcome her back. Ordeals like the one Sharapova has been through that ripped her away from the thing she loved most, playing tennis, change people. Be open and give her the opportunity to express that change. We've all made mistakes, and paraphrasing a familiar saying, the player who has not made some mistake or bonehead choice in her career or turned a cold shoulder to another player even one time, cast the first criticism. Compassion should be a hallmark of the noble sport of tennis, for it is far easier and more fulfilling to be big, rather than small.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Monday, April 10, 2017
John Farley Spotlight: Women's Quasi-Professional Tennis Association
Departing from its usual Spotlight on just the WTA, the Spotlight from time to time will fall on the Women's Quasi-Professional Tennis Association (WQPTA) which began a few years ago at the Emery Mills Lawn and Tennis Center in Emery Mills, ME. The Center is mostly lawn but does have two courts, a clubhouse, and a bird sanctuary. The Center is host to numerous tournaments throughout the year with an international field of players from as far away as Canada.
The Lawn and Tennis Center is about to begin the main draw rounds of its first Slam of the year - the Emery Mills Open - consisting of a 64 player field, 48 from the qualifying rounds, which took about three weeks to complete because bears kept coming onto the courts and disrupting play, and 8 wildcards drawn from players on the ITF Challenger Circuit who have shown to be Challenger-Circuit challenged.
Both courts have Hawk-Eye technology, but it is a bit different from the familiar WTA Hawk-Eye system. Each court actually has a real, well-trained hawk which hovers over the court during play. If there is a challenge, the hawk flies down and scratches out with its talons the perimeter of the ball's landing allowing the chair umpire to make the proper call. However, there was an incident at the last tournament at the Lawn and Tennis Center during a semifinal match when Fern Flebsky, down 4-5, 30-40 in the third, challenged a call on a baseline shot from the second seed Agnes Gronsk. Apparently the hawk got distracted by a mouse in a nearby field and was not available to help the chair umpire make the call so the call of "in" stood. Flebsky, who lost the point and the match, was furious and has since stopped giving her donations to the bird sanctuary.
The Lawn and Tennis Center also installed an advanced technology for retrieving loose balls on the courts. Each court is equipped with a vacuum system that runs down one side of the court and sucks the loose balls from the court, then delivers them to the ball kids at each end of the court by way of a
concave-designed ramp like you might see in a bowling alley. This way you don't have ball kids running around on the courts. However, occasionally the vacuum system sucks the shoes and socks off the feet of the line judges and they have to go and get them from the vacuum retrieval system. The WTA, Spotlight has learned, is considering the system for all its tournaments.
Frank Freen, the Lawn and Tennis Center tournament organizer and maintenance supervisor, had this to say to Spotlight in a recent interview:
"We have a strong field for the Open this year. Fanny Rallots is back with her unique ambidextrous playing style. As most fans know Fanny plays no back hand - she just switches the racket from hand to hand for the forehand shot. The courts and grounds are in good shape for this year's Open and we're hoping soon we'll have a net on both courts. We were also able to purchase an elevated umpire chair for one of the courts. We selected the "Pliskova Proof" model, which has steel plates on the sides and a transparent racket-proof plastic bulb for the chair umpire to sit in. Our opening ceremony entertainment will include Sandy Kettam who can serve three balls at a time, all for aces, one landing on each of the deuce and ad courts and on the deuce side of the court next to it. We're looking forward to record-breaking attendance this year. The weather looks good."
Spotlight was on hand for a few of the finals of the qualifying rounds. In the morning opener on Court 2, which is the one the players prefer because it has no net, Angie Rebrek, who also plays no backhand (she plays only the forehand - if she can't get around on the ball she just lets it go by), won by retirement when her opponent Azur Ugum, after eating four bananas during the sit-down, was unable to get off her bench and return to the court and resume play. Over on Court 1 later in the morning there was some confusion among the players and the chair umpire about how many sets had been played. They decided only one set, not two had been played with Mona Pelah winning 6-0 over Niki Avoklubic. So they played another set with Avoklubic losing again 6-0, but it was brought to their attention by a spectator that indeed two sets had been played before with Avoklubic losing 6-0 in the second set. So Pelah ended up winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 over Avoklubic. It is the first bagel hat-trick in the history of tennis in a best out-of-three format. During the post-match interview, Avoklubic said that the next time she played she was going to use a racket. In a late afternoon match on Court 2, with the score 6-4, 6-5 in favor of her opponent Anna Atnok, Lucille Avorafas, a local player, had to leave because she had a roast in the oven, so the completion of the match was squeezed into the evening session.
We congratulate The Emery Mills Lawn and Tennis Center for hosting the WQPTA events, which hold an important place for certain players in the game. The John Farley Spotlight will now gladly turn its attention back to the WTA.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
The Lawn and Tennis Center is about to begin the main draw rounds of its first Slam of the year - the Emery Mills Open - consisting of a 64 player field, 48 from the qualifying rounds, which took about three weeks to complete because bears kept coming onto the courts and disrupting play, and 8 wildcards drawn from players on the ITF Challenger Circuit who have shown to be Challenger-Circuit challenged.
Both courts have Hawk-Eye technology, but it is a bit different from the familiar WTA Hawk-Eye system. Each court actually has a real, well-trained hawk which hovers over the court during play. If there is a challenge, the hawk flies down and scratches out with its talons the perimeter of the ball's landing allowing the chair umpire to make the proper call. However, there was an incident at the last tournament at the Lawn and Tennis Center during a semifinal match when Fern Flebsky, down 4-5, 30-40 in the third, challenged a call on a baseline shot from the second seed Agnes Gronsk. Apparently the hawk got distracted by a mouse in a nearby field and was not available to help the chair umpire make the call so the call of "in" stood. Flebsky, who lost the point and the match, was furious and has since stopped giving her donations to the bird sanctuary.
The Lawn and Tennis Center also installed an advanced technology for retrieving loose balls on the courts. Each court is equipped with a vacuum system that runs down one side of the court and sucks the loose balls from the court, then delivers them to the ball kids at each end of the court by way of a
concave-designed ramp like you might see in a bowling alley. This way you don't have ball kids running around on the courts. However, occasionally the vacuum system sucks the shoes and socks off the feet of the line judges and they have to go and get them from the vacuum retrieval system. The WTA, Spotlight has learned, is considering the system for all its tournaments.
Frank Freen, the Lawn and Tennis Center tournament organizer and maintenance supervisor, had this to say to Spotlight in a recent interview:
"We have a strong field for the Open this year. Fanny Rallots is back with her unique ambidextrous playing style. As most fans know Fanny plays no back hand - she just switches the racket from hand to hand for the forehand shot. The courts and grounds are in good shape for this year's Open and we're hoping soon we'll have a net on both courts. We were also able to purchase an elevated umpire chair for one of the courts. We selected the "Pliskova Proof" model, which has steel plates on the sides and a transparent racket-proof plastic bulb for the chair umpire to sit in. Our opening ceremony entertainment will include Sandy Kettam who can serve three balls at a time, all for aces, one landing on each of the deuce and ad courts and on the deuce side of the court next to it. We're looking forward to record-breaking attendance this year. The weather looks good."
Spotlight was on hand for a few of the finals of the qualifying rounds. In the morning opener on Court 2, which is the one the players prefer because it has no net, Angie Rebrek, who also plays no backhand (she plays only the forehand - if she can't get around on the ball she just lets it go by), won by retirement when her opponent Azur Ugum, after eating four bananas during the sit-down, was unable to get off her bench and return to the court and resume play. Over on Court 1 later in the morning there was some confusion among the players and the chair umpire about how many sets had been played. They decided only one set, not two had been played with Mona Pelah winning 6-0 over Niki Avoklubic. So they played another set with Avoklubic losing again 6-0, but it was brought to their attention by a spectator that indeed two sets had been played before with Avoklubic losing 6-0 in the second set. So Pelah ended up winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 over Avoklubic. It is the first bagel hat-trick in the history of tennis in a best out-of-three format. During the post-match interview, Avoklubic said that the next time she played she was going to use a racket. In a late afternoon match on Court 2, with the score 6-4, 6-5 in favor of her opponent Anna Atnok, Lucille Avorafas, a local player, had to leave because she had a roast in the oven, so the completion of the match was squeezed into the evening session.
We congratulate The Emery Mills Lawn and Tennis Center for hosting the WQPTA events, which hold an important place for certain players in the game. The John Farley Spotlight will now gladly turn its attention back to the WTA.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Monday, April 3, 2017
The Tennis On-Court Interview - Amazing?
You've probably heard it hundreds of times: "game, set, match _______________" (< your favorite players name here). Then there are the handshakes, a quick exit for the loser, a quick appearance back on the court by the winner applauding herself for the victory with her racket, waving to the crowd, dumping the racket at her seat, perhaps a last bite on the already partly peeled banana, and then back onto the court for the on-court interview. The player comes over for the interview, ebullient after her victory, dripping in sweat, armed with the usual on-court interview cliches, ready to go. A typical interview might go:
Interviewer (I): Congratulations - a hard fought victory today.
Player (P): Thank you. She was playing unbelievable. I'm glad I got the win.
I: The fans really got behind you in that third-set tie break.
P: The fans were amazing. Thank you guys, you were amazing. (applause)
I: What were you thinking when you were match point down in the second set?
P: I tried to stay positive. Play my game. Go for my chances. (more applause). Thank you guys, you are amazing.
I: This is your first victory over a top ten opponent.
P: It's unbelievable. She's a phenomenal player. Amazing I won today.
I: What was going through your mind when you were serving at match point in the tie break?
P: She was returning second serves unbelievable. I really concentrated on getting my first serve in. Amazing I ended it with an ace.
I: So you've made it through to the semi finals. Any thoughts on that?
P: It's amazing. I have a phenomenal team behind me. I'm very happy right now.
I: Give it up for _________________(<player of your choice here), everybody. She's through to the semis. (applause)
OK, so every interview doesn't go like that but, and I've watched a lot of matches and heard a lot of interviews, many of them have that flavor. I don't believe I have exaggerated here. I think that's pretty typical of many on-court interviews. Let's take a closer look and put the spotlight on the player's part in the dialogue. The player used the word "amazing" 6 times, the word "phenomenal" twice, and the word "unbelievable" twice. Now, please, I don't want any player to think I'm criticizing her here. Consider what I'm about to present as an absolutely benevolent nudge toward canning the cliches in your interviews.
Let's consider the word "amazing." Examples of what I think are amazing:
What about the use of phenomenal and unbelievable? OK, in their sense of extraordinary, I'll give the players that one, but, like amazing, they are overused. I know what you're thinking, "lighten up guy." Yea, OK, but some of us who love to watch tennis and who are on the other end of those cameras and microphones during the on-court interviews start to glaze up when those words come rolling out. It's got to the point where they don't mean anything. (I'm moving in the direction of lightening up. Perhaps you've heard this one: "A snail is mugged by two turtles. When the authorities asked the snail what happened, the snail said, 'I don't know, it all happened so fast.')" No?
The on-court interview is over. The player goes back to her bench to pack up her stuff, signs a few autographs, the camera lens, and then heads for the showers to get ready for her press conference. She sits down at the mic and gets her first question:
Press Person: How would you describe your match today?
Player: I felt strong when I came on court today, but I also felt a nice quietness inside. The support from the crowd was quite moving. I was surprised actually since I haven't played here for two years. Yea, she played well, hitting her shots, especially in that second set. I tried some different tactics in the third set, got her out of her rhythm, was able to raise my level and seal it with an ace. That felt good. It was a good win for me today.
You know, I like that - simple words, clean. Some interviews are like that, but some are not, and to the extent that they are not, my post has relevance.
Anyway, that's how I see it. (Amazing Post, eh?)
Interviewer (I): Congratulations - a hard fought victory today.
Player (P): Thank you. She was playing unbelievable. I'm glad I got the win.
I: The fans really got behind you in that third-set tie break.
P: The fans were amazing. Thank you guys, you were amazing. (applause)
I: What were you thinking when you were match point down in the second set?
P: I tried to stay positive. Play my game. Go for my chances. (more applause). Thank you guys, you are amazing.
I: This is your first victory over a top ten opponent.
P: It's unbelievable. She's a phenomenal player. Amazing I won today.
I: What was going through your mind when you were serving at match point in the tie break?
P: She was returning second serves unbelievable. I really concentrated on getting my first serve in. Amazing I ended it with an ace.
I: So you've made it through to the semi finals. Any thoughts on that?
P: It's amazing. I have a phenomenal team behind me. I'm very happy right now.
I: Give it up for _________________(<player of your choice here), everybody. She's through to the semis. (applause)
OK, so every interview doesn't go like that but, and I've watched a lot of matches and heard a lot of interviews, many of them have that flavor. I don't believe I have exaggerated here. I think that's pretty typical of many on-court interviews. Let's take a closer look and put the spotlight on the player's part in the dialogue. The player used the word "amazing" 6 times, the word "phenomenal" twice, and the word "unbelievable" twice. Now, please, I don't want any player to think I'm criticizing her here. Consider what I'm about to present as an absolutely benevolent nudge toward canning the cliches in your interviews.
Let's consider the word "amazing." Examples of what I think are amazing:
- You are sitting with a good friend at an outside cafe table, talking easily, sipping your latte or herbal tea. Sunlight drops around you off the table umbrella, the sky is bright blue, the leaves in the few trees around flutter softly in a light breeze. Little bits of conversation are heard now and then as people walk by and waiters attend to their tables. You look around and experience the perfection of the stillness of the moment. This stillness is taking place within immense movement. As you share, perhaps, some intimate thoughts with your friend in this stillness, the Earth is spinning at the rate of 1,040 mph. At the same time, it is orbiting the sun at the rate of 67,000 mph and orbiting with the rest of our solar system around our Milky Way Galaxy at 483,000 mph. And while it is doing all that it is moving through space with the rest of our galaxy at 1.3 million mph in the direction of the constellation Hydra. Yet, we experience this sublime stillness. To me, that is amazing. It reminds me of some lines from the Neil Young song, Comes a Time:
"Oh, this old world keeps spinning round.
It's a wonder tall trees ain't layin' down."
- Once the pre-frontal cortex of the human brain has reached full maturity at the age of 25, our human brain and the human nervous system have the capacity, when sufficiently refined, to enable us to experience the infinity of the Universe, to know the structuring dynamics of the Universe, and to live our lives in full accord with the impulses arising from these structuring dynamics that manage and guide the entire, ever-expanding galactic Universe. Now that is amazing. In fact, the word amazing doesn't fully capture the immensity of the experience.
- Now I think most tennis fans would agree with me on my next example of "amazing." The legend, Roger Federer, age 35, 17-time grand slam champion, having not won a grand slam since 2012, 1-3 down in the 5th set of the final with Rafa Nadal, elevates his game into the magic of the zone to take the next 5 games, wins The Australian Open, 2017, and his 18th Grand Slam. Then for an encore, Federer flying high, swoops in and takes the "Sunshine Double," winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back for the third time, taking out in the finals, respectively, Stan Wawrinka and Rafa Nadal again 6-4, 6-3. Now that is amazing.
However, I don't see that some fans in the stands of a tennis tournament cheering and supporting a player is amazing. Some would argue that at a Fed Cup game, it would be amazing if the home crowd suddenly started cheering for an opposing player, banging their drums and blowing their horns and conches in support of her when she stepped to the serving line. I might have to budge on that one, although mutinous might be a better word, but otherwise, uh, uh.
What about the use of phenomenal and unbelievable? OK, in their sense of extraordinary, I'll give the players that one, but, like amazing, they are overused. I know what you're thinking, "lighten up guy." Yea, OK, but some of us who love to watch tennis and who are on the other end of those cameras and microphones during the on-court interviews start to glaze up when those words come rolling out. It's got to the point where they don't mean anything. (I'm moving in the direction of lightening up. Perhaps you've heard this one: "A snail is mugged by two turtles. When the authorities asked the snail what happened, the snail said, 'I don't know, it all happened so fast.')" No?
The on-court interview is over. The player goes back to her bench to pack up her stuff, signs a few autographs, the camera lens, and then heads for the showers to get ready for her press conference. She sits down at the mic and gets her first question:
Press Person: How would you describe your match today?
Player: I felt strong when I came on court today, but I also felt a nice quietness inside. The support from the crowd was quite moving. I was surprised actually since I haven't played here for two years. Yea, she played well, hitting her shots, especially in that second set. I tried some different tactics in the third set, got her out of her rhythm, was able to raise my level and seal it with an ace. That felt good. It was a good win for me today.
You know, I like that - simple words, clean. Some interviews are like that, but some are not, and to the extent that they are not, my post has relevance.
Anyway, that's how I see it. (Amazing Post, eh?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)