John Farley Spotlight: A Look at the US Open Series Results

With the US Open about to begin this week, I wanted to review the results of the US Open Series (I included Washington) in some quantitative way to see who is going to blow into Flushing Meadows with the most wind in her sails. The winners of each tournament of the series have some obvious momentum: Keys in Stanford, Makarova in DC, Svitolina at the Rogers Cup in Toronto, Muguruza in Cincinnati, and Gavrilova in New Haven. However, to take a broader look at the results in the US Open Series of the WTA top ten plus a few other in-form and possible contenders, I devised this chart below that quantifies these players' results in the series. To be included in the analysis a player had to play in at least two of the tournaments. I awarded points, R32-Winner, to each for each tournament based upon how they fared. Points were awarded accordingly:

Winner - 10
Finalist - 9
Semifinalist - 8
Quarterfinalist - 7
R16 - 6
R32 - 5
R64 - 0

The points were tallied and then a points per tournament figured calculated. Additional points were added to the points per tournament to produce a final index for ranking and comparison. The additional points added were: 0.5 added if the player played 3 tournaments indicating match readiness going into Flushing Meadows and another 0.5 points added if the player made at least the quarterfinals in each tournament played indicating higher consistency in play. The results of these calculations are presented in the table below:

Player/Tourn.	Stanford	Washington	Toronto	Cincinnati	New Haven	Total Points	Pts. per Tourn.	Final Index
Muguruza	Semi		QF	Win		25	8.3	9.3
Halep		QF	Semi	Final		24	8.0	9.0
Wozniacki			Final	QF		16	8.0	8.5
Keys	Win			R16		16	8.0	8.0
Pliskova			QF	Semi		15	7.5	8.0
Svitolina			Win	R16		16	8.0	8.0
Makarova		Win	R16	R16		22	7.3	7.8
Cibulkova			R32	R16	Final	20	6.7	7.2
Kvitova	QF		R32	R32		17	5.7	6.2
Konta			R32	QF		12	6.0	6.0
Kuznetsova			R32	QF		12	6.0	6.0
Kerber			R16	R32		11	5.5	5.5
Williams			R16	R32		11	5.5	5.5
Radwanska			R16	R64	Semi	14	4.7	5.2
Vandeweghe	Final		R64	R64		9	3.0	3.5

(Note: The Connecticut Open final between Gavrilova and Cibulkova was spectacular. They both played well but Gavrilova's play was extraordinarily good. I didn't include Gavrilova in the chart, but if I had she would have 20 points and a 7.2 index, the same as Cibulkova. If she continues that level of play she's a definite candidate for the second week of the US Open fortnight.)

The US Open first-round draw for these players:

Muguruza - Lepchenko
Halep - Sharapova
Wozniacki - Buzarnescu
Keys - Mertens
Pliskova - Linette
Svitolina - Siniakova
Makarova - Bartel
Cibulkova - Cepelova
Kvitova - Jankovic
Konta - Krunic
Kuznetsova - Vondrousova
Kerber - Osaka
Williams - Kuzmova
Radwanska - Martic
Vandeweghe - Riske
(Gavrilova - Kiick)

First, I want to say, I don't make predictions, as enticing as it is to do. Did you pick Kerber to win two slams last year or Ostapenko to win the French this year? Did you pick Muguruza, coming off a disappointing post-Roland Garros 2016 period, to win Wimbledon? Risky business these days making predictions in the WTA. Although the chart indicates various degrees of momentum coming into the US Open and is interesting to see the perspective that it gives, it really means nothing considering recent experience with the slams. So, in a way, this post, like the Seinfeld Show, is a post about nothing. But it does hold some significance for me because in my most recent post, "The End of a Dynasty and the Rise of Garbine Muguruza," I wrote this:

"With the defeat of the matriarch of a dynasty of dominance in women's tennis at Wimbledon 2017, a definitive symbol of the arc of change, the mantle has been formally passed to a new age of players, and, I arguably believe, standing at the peak of the new contours of the landscape of this change is Garbine Muguruza. On the horizon to challenge her are the returns of Serena and Sharapova and the recent return of Azarenka, but I feel them slipping into the dusk of a former time. In her top ten neighborhood are the new #1 Pliskova, Halep, Kerber, Konta, Svitolina, Venus, and others both established and on the rise to test her mettle. And in the upcoming US swing that mettle will be tested. However, if Muguruza can maintain in those tournaments that level she displayed in getting to the Wimbledon final and winning the last nine games to win the title, she will past the test and roll into Flushing Meadows riding a wave that may take her to another title. Those are big ifs, but she has put together now a game that can do it. I really feel she is slowly being blessed with that indomitable specialness we see in the perennial champions - Serena, Venus, Federer, Nadal, and all the others in the past of that ilk, and will emerge as the new dominant force in women's tennis."

So you see the significance for me. Her mettle has been tested during the US Open series and she sits at the top of the chart. If she wins the US Open, I believe she has then unequivocally passed the test of mettle and established herself as the new dominant force in women's tennis. She has drawn Lepchenko, as you read, in the first round of the US Open.

What does it all mean? Ya Da Ya Da Ya Da.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

The End of a Dynasty and The Rise of Garbine Muguruza

On Saturday, July 15 with the roof closed on Center Court and with each ground stroke cracking like an explosion of fireworks, Garbine Muguruza beat Venus Williams for the 2017 Wimbledon Title. At 4-5, 15-40 and serving, Muguruza saved the two set points, swinging match momentum behind her and cruised to a 7-5, 6-0 victory, winning 9 consecutive games. Since Serena won the first Williams Grand Slam in 1999, Venus and Serena have accounted for approximately 45% of Grand Slam victories up to The US Open in 2015. Since then, with wins only at Wimbledon 2016 and the 2017 Australian Open by Serena, that level has dropped to 25%. Over those years they combined for 330 weeks at number one. At this time neither is number one. As Bob Dylan put it in his song, The Times They Are A - Changing, "...the present now will later be past, the order is rapidly fadin'..."

We are in the midst of this change in women's tennis.  It began with Muguruza roaring back to challenge Serena in the second set in the final at Wimbledon in 2015, continued with Serena's loss in the semis at the US Open that year, became more clear with the rise of Angelique Kerber in 2016 to number one, underscored by the surprise victory of Jelena Ostapenko at the French Open this year, and now, with the defeat of the matriarch of a dynasty of dominance in women's tennis at Wimbledon 2017, a definitive symbol of the arc of this change, the mantle has been formally passed to a new age of players, and, I arguably believe, standing at the peak of the new contours of the landscape of this change is Garbine Muguruza.

"Congratulations. Don't be sad. You'll be holding this trophy very, very soon believe me." Little did Serena know that these words she spoke to runner up Muguruza during her ceremonial speech, Wimbledon 2015, would in some way doom her sister to a defeat that would herald this change. Muguruza now proudly holds the trophy and there are indications she may rise to be the next dominant force in women's tennis. Many will point to her inconsistency in performance and lack of mental toughness in the tournaments after her victory at the French Open up to Wimbledon 2017, but as waves on the ocean rise but fall only to gather more water to rise even higher, a player may rise and fall the same way and in doing so learn more. Emerging from months of struggle after her victory at Roland Garros, Muguruza has grown in confidence and stability with a better understanding of her own self-referral dynamics on court, gathering strength to rise even higher. The test is can she keep rising, perhaps falling sometimes, but gathering more strength with each fall to exceed, at some point, a threshold creating a wave with enough majesty and power that just keeps on rolling? I believe she can.

On the horizon to challenge her are the returns of Serena and Sharapova and the recent return of Azarenka, but I feel them slipping into the dusk of a former time. In her top ten neighborhood are the new #1 Pliskova, Halep, Kerber, Konta, Svitolina, Venus, and others both established and on the rise to test her mettle. And in the upcoming US swing that mettle will be tested. However, if Muguruza can maintain in those tournaments that level she displayed in getting to the Wimbledon final and winning the last nine games to win the title, she will past the test and roll into Flushing Meadows riding a wave that may take her to another title. Those are big ifs, but she has put together now a game that can do it. I really feel she is slowly being blessed with that indomitable specialness we see in the perennial champions - Serena, Venus, Federer, Nadal, and all the others in the past of that ilk, and will emerge as the new dominant force in women's tennis.

A few years ago I had just tuned into a match and I watched this player whom I had never seen before
move from the court to her bench for the sit-down. I say move because it wasn't just a walk, it was a strut, that signature strut of an athlete in top form exuding power and confidence. I thought to myself, "She's got it. She's going to be a star." It was Garbine Muguruza. This past Saturday, Day 12 at Wimbledon, with that same strut, I watched her circle Center Court with the Venus Rosewater Dish, sharing her moment of glory with the crowd. I was right.

Epilogue: As we know Venus and Serena brought a new game to women's tennis. They raised the bar. The game of the Williams sisters made the other women on tour better players. Referring to Venus after her defeat in the final, Ben Rothenberg, freelance writer for the NY Times, tweeted in part, "...she didn't need to win to validate anything...she remains a transcendent, ageless champ." And, of course, the same can be said of Serena. Although this dynasty of dominance appears to have ended, they will continue to play, a mother and an aunt, and for that... we are grateful.


Anyway, that's how I see it.

John Farley Spotlight: Odds and Ends Before Wimbledon

As probably most writers do, I have a computer file full of little notes (some undecipherable for their original intent), post ideas, parody possibilities, and, well, just stuff. I decided I didn't want to look at them anymore, get rid of them, so I stuck them together and this is what came out:

Did You Ever Notice?

•  That during on-court coaching sit-downs, players seem to be more interested in watching the kiss cam on the stadium screen than listening to their coaches. Sam: "Garbine are you listening to me?" Garbine: "Sam, look, that's so sweet."
•  That a kind of commentatorese has developed among many match commentators that flips sentence structure. In English we are used to reading or hearing sentences that have the usual sequence: subject, verb, and predicate. Many commentators flip the structure in such a way that we get commentary like: "One of her more entertaining facial expressions, Ostapenko." or "Not the same player who got bageled in the first set, Petkovic." or "That's a run of four straight games, amazing for her, Giorgi." or "Cute little jump backhand, Krunic." or "Well, that racquet's had it, Vandeweghe." 

I'll Bet You Didn't Know:

• The International Tennis Federation (ITF) defines the official diameter of a tennis ball as 6.54-6.86 cm (2.57-2.70 inches). Balls must have masses in the range of 56.0-59.6 g (1.98-2.10 ounces).
• A ball is tested for bounce by dropping it from a height of 254 cm (100 inches) onto concrete. A bounce between 135 and 147 cm (53 and 58 inches) is acceptable if taking place at sea level at 20 degrees C (68 F) with relative humidity of 60%. No kidding. Of course at 95% humidity on grass you'll get a ball that hits and then just skims along the grass while you embarrassingly swing and miss.
• A "short" ball, that you've heard so much about, is one defined by The World Tennis Ball Monitoring Agency (WTBMA) as between 1.0 and 2.50 inches in diameter. These are the balls players look to tee off on. Under the regulations, a ball under 1 inch in diameter is too short and usually taken out of play. If, during play, the chair umpire suspects a ball has gotten too short, he/she will direct a ball kid to get a ruler and check the ball's diameter. If the ball measures under 1 inch, it is deemed unplayable and the previous point is replayed with a new ball, unless each player is under 5'3," in which case play may continue with the short ball.

Why Do You Players...?

• Hit your shoes with your racquets on grass and hard courts as if you're still playing on clay?
• Blow on your hands between points?  The players that immediately come to mind are Siegemund and Radwanska, although many other players are blowing too.
• Play points with a ball on your hip tucked up under your underpants? So, if the first serve is in play, then you have to run around the court the rest of the point with a ball sloshing around in your underpants. I don't get it. This non-aerodynamic bulge on your hip is doing nothing for your flow around the court. I've noticed the Williams sisters don't do this. Ditch the hip ball. The ball kid is very happy to deliver quickly to you another ball after a blown first serve, and unless you have a Kontaesque serving routine, you will not be hearing from the chair umpire about a time violation.
• Hit overheads, easy volleys, and real short balls so often right back to your opponent instead of to the open court, often getting passed? This drives all couch observers crazy requiring a second round of munchies and a double of the house libation.
• Eat bananas at sit-downs? Potassium aside, bananas are heavy and hard to digest and may make you sluggish on court. I never noticed Chiquita to be a big sponsor of tennis. Why not mangoes (napkins available from ball kids), watermelons, maybe a fruit salad? And what is that stuff you're sucking out of those thin plastic packages?

The Towel

• Like Linus of Peanuts fame, players once on court carry their towels around like security blankets and part with them only when they actually have to play or argue with the chair umpire. Provided by the tournament organizers and well-adorned with the tournament logo, the "towel" has come to be a major on-court weapon on the level of an infuriating service routine or distracting Mattek-Sands type attire. To mess with the rhythm of their opponents, players may go to it between each point, indicating their towel need by a swirl-type motion in front of the face, a gesture for which every ball kid is on alert. Once the towel is in hand the player wipes her face, the back of her neck, her arms, both legs, her racquet handle, and anything else within a 50 yard radius that has sweat. Having tossed the towel then back to the ball kid and waited for her/him to drop three balls on her racquet, she returns to the serving line only 8 minutes and 40 seconds over the 20-second serving time limit. The chair umpire is awakened and play resumes.
• Let's consider for a moment the condition of the towel after a three-set match, 6-4, 6-7, 7-6. of 3 hours and 27 minutes. According to the World Towel Sweat Assessment Association (WTSAA), in a match of 36 games like this one, the towel would have undergone, on average, a minimum of 216 swiping episodes. One can only recoil at the thought of the level of disgusting yuckiness of the towel, which, after the completion of the match, is tossed to an imploring, adoring fan who, thrilled that she has in hand a memento from her favorite WTA star after fighting off other adoring fans for it, returns home to proudly display it on the living room mantle next to the picture of her grandmother and grandfather or something. Yuck! The player has given up her security blanket, yes, but only for another one waiting for her in the shower area, which hopefully is not slippery from some cleansing agent.
•  I was thinking, "why is it we only see the towel in the sport of tennis?" Suppose the towel were used in other sports. Let's look at baseball. Here's the scene: It's the bottom of the ninth inning in a game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at Fenway Park in Boston. The score is 4-3 Yankees. Jackie Bradley, Jr is on second base after hitting an opposite field rope off the Green Monster in left field. With two outs Mookie Betts hits a shot into the gap in left center field for a double scoring Bradley Jr. with the tying run. Cut to the radio announcer: "Betts on second with the winning run. He's calling for the towel folks. Time has been called. The drama is escalating. A bat boy is running out with the towel now. Betts towels down as the Yankee pitcher, Chapman, circles the mound impatiently. The bat boy is running back with the towel, stumbles, but he's alright. A win here would put the Sox only one game behind the Yanks. Pedroia steps to the plate."  I'll leave the rest of the game to your imagination. Visually, I think it would be hilarious. Imagine also a center fielder on a hot August afternoon making a long run to snag a fly ball with a diving catch at the warning track. He calls for the towel. The bat boy runs out to center field, waits for the player to towel down, and then runs back to the dugout. What's baseball waiting for?  How about soccer/world football? Imagine the teams are tied after the 5 penalty kicks and it's down to sudden death between Real Madrid and Bayem Munich. Cristiano Ronaldo is about to approach the ball and Manual Neuer, the goalkeeper, calls for the towel. Eh...I don't think so. Soccer fans are too riot-prone for a move like that. 

Types of Matches:

• Most Boring:

1. The Unforced Error Match - seemingly no strategy, no discernible tactics, each waiting for the other to miss, balls flying long, into the net, into the tramlines, and almost no winners. I saw a first-round match in Miami this year during which there was not one winner between the players in the first four games.
2. The Power Match - match principally characterized by aces, unreturnables, and short replies with quick put-aways by two big hitters. Yawn.

• Fun to Watch:

1. Rally Match - characterized by long rallies, inventive shot-making by "non-power" players who move quickly and gracefully around the court.
2. Kyrgios-Style Obvious Tank Match - no elaboration required.

• Commentary/No Commentary:

1. Commentary - Here you have the opportunity to hear somebody describe to you what you're already watching. If you're watching it on a computer screen with headphones which I often do (especially these days with no WTA Media Platform available - hey Steve get on it will you), it's kind of a cozy experience. You feel like you're sharing the experience with someone but you don't get to talk, and most times you actually find a high degree of similarity between what they're describing and what you're seeing. The commentators have often come to my rescue by identifying celebrities in the court side boxes the camera pans who I recognize but just can't come up with the name.  At one of the majors recently the camera couldn't take it's eye off of, oh, what's her name, Million Dollar Baby? "And there's Hilary Swank taking in the match." Thank you. It was right on the tip of my tongue.
2. No Commentary - It's the first round of a tournament, Court 631, only a 10 minute train ride from the main stadium, and apparently not worth spending the money to pay a commentator. Perhaps a few of the players' friends and maybe family in the seats if that. You hear the balls being hit, grunts from the players, the chair umpire yelling "time," the "fault" calls from the lines judges, and some background noises of cows mooing in a nearby field. The void created by no commentary is both kind of spooky and peaceful. Sometimes I find myself doing the commentary in my head. "Wonder why she doesn't where a hat? They both have the same outfits. That's a lot of physio tape. What's that chair umpire's name?. That looked in to me. That was a loud plane. How does she play with that ponytail flopping around?" Well, needless to say the WTA has not called me about doing commentary, but it did ask me if I wanted to help them get up their media platform. We are negotiating a salary.

If I've "wrong-footed" you with some of the above stuff, I apologize. Next time, maybe I'll deliver it right into your wheelhouse of expectations, but probably not.


Anyway, that's how I see it.

John Farley Spotlight: The French Open: Who's in Your Conversation?

The French Open, Roland Garros, is upon us. The high hopes of the qualifiers are now energizing the city as the main draw players alight on the "la Ville Lumiere" and take to the practice courts. And it is this time each year that Madame Anais Flournoy hosts in her palatial accommodations located in Saint Germain-des-Pres in the 6th Arrondissement on the beautiful Seine, the most prestigious of the pre-tournament social events where tennis journalists, broadcast commentators, tournament organizers, tennis sports legends, sponsors, and tennis association and federation biggie-wigs come together to discuss which WTA players should be in the conversation for Roland Garros.

I was quite surprised a few weeks ago when I received an invitation from Madame Flournoy to attend the event. I immediately accepted the invitation and made my travel plans. The invitation made it clear that the event was not a formal affair and that casual dress was preferred. Not being sure what to wear, I thought I'd get in touch with Bethanie Mattek-Sands to see what she thought. Not being able to reach her, I decided to just go with some pleated, beige slacks and a blue-striped banded collar shirt. In her invitation Madame Flournoy explained that bloggers were not usually invited to attend, but I was given a wildcard because she had quite enjoyed a number of blog posts I had written on the WTA. After securing modest accommodations, I flew to Paris, took in some sights, and grabbed a taxi to Madame Flournoy's residence.

I was greeted warmly by an attendant, somewhat hesitatingly put on my name tag which read [John Farley: (wc) Blogger], and graciously given some information on how the event is organized. As is the event custom, the guests are grouped according to whom they feel should be included in the conversation to make the Roland Garros final. Looking out over the very spacious area I noticed banners on poles around the room with players names on them with a group gathered around each banner. At quick glance of the banners I saw the names Radwanska, Muguruza, Svitolina, Williams, Halep, Mladenovic, Wozniacki, Kerber, Konta, Kuznetsova, Vandeweghe, and others. (I learned later that the Vandeweghe contingent had "crashed the party" and brought their own pole and banner.).

Around the room there were a few familiar faces I had seen on the TV or computer screen - mostly Tennis Channel commentators - Tracy Austin, Brett Haber, Paul Annacone, Justin Gimelstob, Lindsay Davenport, and others. I saw Tracy Austin talking to Justine Henin under the Svitolina banner. Ben Rothenberg, freelance writer for The New York Times, had just joined the group. So I thought I'd mingle and go over there and catch their conversation. Austin and Henin were talking about Rothenberg's hair. ("He looks like he just lets the north wind comb his hair. No, I heard roto-rooter does his hair.") Everybody chuckled. Old joke I thought, anyway Svitolina has won 4 tournaments this year and they're talking about Rothenberg's hair?

I decided to move on. But as I was mingling I thought to myself: "Ok, Kerber is in a funk, Serena is pregnant, Halep turned her ankle in Rome, Muguruza's got a pain in the neck which hopefully isn't Sam Sumyk, Radwanska lost in the first round of Stuttgart and didn't play Madrid and Rome because of injury, Cibulkova didn't make it beyond the 2nd round in either Madrid or Rome, Konta got bounced early in Stuttgart and Madrid reaching only the R16 in Rome, Keys didn't make it past the first round at either Madrid or Rome and hasn't gone deep since her wrist surgery, Wozniacki retired in a first-round match in Strasbourg, and Camila Giorgi is now ranked #99." Yea, so who has a convincing conversation? (May the injured heal quickly.)

I decided to stop thinking and mingle some more. I dropped by the Karolina Pliskova banner where an argument was ensuing between arch supporters and a waiter (serving rich French pastries and glasses of Chateau Lafite Rothschild) who felt Kristina Mladenovic's (the French #1) recent gain of momentum put her at a higher level in the conversation. Like kids on the playground they went at it in the best English they could muster:

Pliskova Supporters (PS): "She's ranked #3 in the world and #2 in the Porsche Road to Singapore."
Waiter (W): (imagine French accent) "But we are talking about who is the hotter player now. Kristina was in the finals in both Stuttgart and Madrid. Pliskova lost in the first round in Prague to Giorgi and in the second round in Madrid."
PS: "Yes, but Kristina lost in the first round in Rome."
W:  "She was exhausted from all those finals - a mere nothing, not even a blip in her momentum."
PS: "Karolina won in Doha and reached the semis in both Indian Wells and Miami."
W:  "My point exactly, she's on a slide. Kristina is on the rise."
PS: "What? Karolina reached the QFs in Rome.  She has a bigger game that can take out more players. She's been in the US Open Final.  She's been there."
W:  "She was knocked out in the first round here last year. She doesn't have a clay game."
PS: "Yea well, Mladenovic only made it to the 3rd round here last year."
W:  "She had a bad draw. Had to play Serena. Anyway, that was last year. She's more French now a year later."

Anyway, I bailed at that point, but before I did I took a glass of the Rothschild just to say I actually sipped a wine that expensive.

Journalists were at a high level of alertness and taking notes like crazy. I mean, you don't want to be left out of the conversation about who's in the conversation. I saw Jon Wertheim, tennis journalist for Sports Illustrated, making the banner rounds probably looking for material for one of those elegant collages he pieces together for Tennis Channel. Madame Flournoy was flitting about enjoying reminiscing with some of the tennis legends the days when there were only four or five banners at the event. I noticed Mary Carillo was herding a group of them over to the photo-shoot area. They were all still looking pretty good. Not a make-up girl in sight.( By the way, the most number of French Open wins is held by Chris Evert at 7.)

I wasn't sure where to go next - so many options. I caught sight of the Halep banner so I wandered over there still sipping the Rothschild. Darren Cahill, Halep's coach, was there. I knew coaches were not invited to the event so I figured he was invited in his capacity as a Tennis Channel commentator. Anyway, he was talking with Katrina Adams, USTA President and Steve Simon, WTA CEO. I figured that might be a juicy exchange so I nonchalantly made my ear available to the conversation. To my delight and surprise actually, Cahill and Adams weren't talking players but were giving Simon an earful about the WTA Media Platform not yet being operational. I thought now there's something worthy of conversation. I was eagerly awaiting Simon's response, but just then Madame Flournoy got on the microphone to thank everyone for coming and, as she said, "thrilling all of Paris with their presence." She also mentioned that the attendants would be bringing out Chocolate Grand Marnier Souffles to the buffet tables. (Simon - saved by the Belle) I wasn't sure how the Rothschild would go with the Grand Marnier, so I backed off the souffle. Cahill, Adams, and Simon headed to the buffet tables, so I went looking for a new banner to hang out at.

I looked around. I was surprised to see a Kvitova banner so I headed over there. She put herself in the conversation with an announcement that her name was on the official entry list for Roland Garros. Her banner groupies said she was definitely on track for Wimbledon and would make a last minute decision soon on Roland Garros. The Wimbledon conversation will definitely have a different flavor with Azarenka, Sharapova, and Kvitova in there. Talk is cheap they say but not with those three. Meanwhile, back to the French.

I noticed Courtney Nyugen, writer for the WTA and the queen of eclectic twitter minutiae, surfing the banner locales. I thought if she's looking for a guest for her next webcast, WTA Insider, I volunteer. Might be refreshing to get a perspective on this event from the only blogger in the house. I lost sight of her as she got consumed by the overflowing Muguruza banner crowd.

I walked over to an inviting sofa to relax. As I sat there the banners were coming down and the groups dispersing. Time to go I thought. I found Madame Flournoy, thanked her for the invitation, and promised her I'd send her the blog post that came out of my visit. As banner bearers passed by, she graciously saw me to the door. I stepped out into the glittering Paris night and hailed down a taxi. As I was chauffeured of sorts back to my hotel, I tried to take it all in.

So who does have a convincing conversation? Of course there are the names of those on a obvious hot streak - Svitolina, Mladenovic, Halep, Karolina Pliskova, and maybe a few others, but there are so many who could take it. That's what makes this year's Roland Garros so exciting. Recently in a post-match interview Simona Halep was asked who she felt the favorite was for winning the French. After making the point that it was definitely not her, she said, "about 15 players." I agree with her in spirit but not in quantity. The number could easily be twice that. These days nobody comes out of nowhere. The radar is full of players bulging with the potential. Who knows who may get tapped by the magic wand of good fortune from mother nature and roll through those 7 matches (or more) and emerge from the pack hoisting the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen Trophy.

Epilogue: The movie shown on my flight back to the states was "The Conversation," an Academy Award nominated film by Francis Ford Coppola. It was about a guy who professionally eavesdropped on people's conversations. What can I say?



Anyway, that's how I see it.

John Farley Spotlight: A Letter to Steve Simon, WTA CEO

Dear Steve,

I want to congratulate you on the direction you are taking the WTA. With the level of attention now on women's tennis, it is obviously time the WTA had its own media platform, able to control its global broadcasting. I remember reading some announcement at the end of last year that with the new platform we will be able to see all the WTA tournaments and have the option to view multiple courts. Mouthwatering words to me. However, not apparent is a defendable reason for the delay of the launch of the media platform. The delay is now into the 2nd quarter of the year. There has been a troubling lack of transparency coming from the WTA regarding this delay, which leads me to believe there has been a breakdown in the coordination of the parties that had to come together to make this happen. I and your subscriber base, current and future, don't know. We are bewildered. Let's look at this a little more closely.

You were quoted last year as saying, "We're embarking this year on an initiative that is a long time coming.." Well you can say that again. It is May 8, the Mutua Madrid Open has begun, Rome and Roland Garros are just around the tennis season corner, and the WTA Media Platform, which was due to be launched and operational by January 1, 2017, is still not up. You described this time as a "dark period" of "short-term" pain. I have to tell you Steve it's not short-term anymore and many computer, mobile device, and TV screens of tennis fans are darker than ever from a want of tennis tournament matches. One WTA announcement encouraged fans to "stay tuned." Stay tuned to what - pirated or illicit on-line streams or betting sites? (On my computer, I watched Mladenovic and Sharapova in Stuttgart on a betting site that displayed the betting odds on each player in the upper right-hand corner. It was very interesting to watch the odds change from just point to point. The visual of the match was what I would describe as staccato-choppy)

You also said the "gap in streaming coverage was unavoidable," and that a "bumpy transition was inevitable." This I don't understand - unavoidable and inevitable?  Why? The contract with PERFORM, one of the world's leading digital sports content group, was set over 3 years ago to kick in the beginning of 2017. You knew 3 years ago you had to be ready at the beginning of 2017. The five-year, 30 country television deal to begin January 1, 2017 with beIN Sports was cut in April last year and announced during the French Open in May, a full 8-9 months before you knew you had to be operational by the end of the year. With all that time to coordinate all parties and all operational dynamics for the January launch, why was a gap unavoidable and inevitable?

In October of last year you said, "We're in the first step. We just put our toe into the water of this entire project..." What? The WTA was just in a first step then when long ago it made the commitment to launch January 1?" We just put our toe into the water..?" I would have thought that toe would have been put in years ago really, and that you should be by now trying to keep your head above water working out any kinks from the launch.

To get some answers to my questions and to get clarification on the WTA's situation, I called your US Headquarters in St. Petersburg and was told the launch team was led by a woman in your London Office. (I won't mention names) I emailed her with my questions on February 6, 2017. After patiently waiting 10 days or so and having got no response, I again called your St. Petersburg offices to see if someone there could give me some answers. I got back a robo email from "information" a few days later (Feb. 16) describing how wonderful the new site will be ("thrills, suspense, and fun moments on and off the court") and to be patient, for it will all be worth it. So in trying to get some relevant input from the WTA for my post, I got essentially nothing, which seems to be consistent with a nonchalance other writers of the tennis scene have noticed in the WTA's public relation responses.

I like to keep things in perspective. We live in a world of geopolitical upheaval, alternative facts, virtual realities, governments governing through social media, and other dangers and absurdities that form our experiential landscape that calls to us to do something that will change these trends toward the creation of a better world. In that context, missing the matches of a few professional women's tennis tournaments is not such a big deal, but it's nice to have the enjoyment of that distraction.

I think it's time to come clean with the patient tennis fans who will be forming the subscriber base of your new media platform and with the many broadcast commentators and sports writers who present the WTA action to the world.  Come clean means to explain the reasons the WTA was not ready to launch the platform on January 1, why, well into 2017, it is still not ready, and to provide a realistic date for the launch. I realize bringing many parties together to accomplish your goal is and has been a delicate endeavor and only so much information can be divulged, but certainly within that context you can provide some explanation to end this lingering bewilderment among your fans. We are eagerly awaiting your announcement.

Best wishes for a successful launch, respectfully,

John Farley


PS: I recently read a tweet by Jon Wertheim: "Tough questions for Steve Simon..." Jon was referring to an interview you had with Mary Carillo. I watched the short interview. The "tough" questions she asked, as you may remember, were in regard to players grunting and on-court coaching. I tweeted in response: "The tough question to S. Simon is why isn't the WTA Media Platform operational that was due to be up Jan.1."  I got a robust response from the twitter community agreeing with me. They want answers Steve, not appeasement.


Anyway, that's how I see it.

John Farley Spotlight: Tennis: A Hold To Love

She hears those words, "game, set, match," and she heads to the net for the handshake, but it wasn't her name she heard after those words. She put everything she had into that match. She drew more from herself than she thought she had. As she heads to the net, those few shots, those few moments that could have made the difference fly through her head. She feels the disappointment, yet as she clasps hands at the net, she gives a smile, perhaps some words of encouragement to her opponent as she moves on to the next round. Then she packs up her bag and heads for the locker room. A wave to an appreciative crowd and a few autographs belie the sadness she feels. She wasn't picked to win, but in that 6-4, 5-7, 6-7 loss she left her heart on that court, even some blood and skin, maybe a few tears.

Then the next day she reads a tennis sports writer's account of the match that her opponent had swatted her aside, dumped her out of, brushed her aside, dismissed her, or sent her packing among others. These are terms I often see in match accounts by tennis sports writers.

Swatted her aside? I get the image of a mosquito or a fly buzzing around on the other side of the net, a minor annoyance that a ball kid has to come out and shoo away from time to time. Recently I read a sports writers account of a game where a player was "swatted aside" and the score was 7-5, 6-4. Swatted aside? Are you kidding? We're talking a net one service break per set. Must have been a huge mosquito.

Dumped her out of? Here I get the image of a Waste Management truck coming onto the court, scooping up the opponent, exiting the stadium, and depositing her in the nearest dumpster along with the empty popcorn bags and hot dog wrappers.

Brushed her aside? Here I get the image of the court maintenance men coming onto the court with brooms and sweeping the opponent off the court, down the hallway, and into the locker room. How humiliating? Maybe the writer would now like to have his or her name air-brushed off the article.

Dismissed her? You may go now. What? Is she in second grade and the bell just rang? I guess the writer thought the winner was a former elementary school teacher or something.

Sent her packing? Maybe she wasn't leaving right away. Maybe she had a doubles match later that day or the next or just wanted to hang around a while and take in the sights.

There are other zingers too I've seen like crushed, pushed aside, cut down, and demolished. All these terms denigrate the losing player. They feel badly enough, then they have to read this! There are terms though that sports writers have used that are respectful of the losing player - overcame, triumphed, emerged victorious, battled through, and edged for example. Even if the score were somewhat lopsided, the writer can give an accurate account of the match while using terms that acknowledge the effort a player made even in losing. We know and the players know that a score is not necessarily an indication of the closeness of a match, and if a writer has not seen the match, but knows only the score, they should not be presumptuous of the nature of the contest. All players should be treated fairly, win or lose.

Also, I would like to see tennis sports writers and tennis commentators put a stop to an apparent beginning-of-tournament tradition of formally calling the "probable" R16, quarterfinal, semifinal, and even final match-ups. The attitude at the beginning of a tournament among writers and commentators should be player parity. We know we are in an era of women's tennis where the margins are minute far into the rankings. (Charleston: Laura Siegemund beats Venus Williams, Fanny Stollar beats Elena Vesnina. Biel Bienne: Marketa Vondrousova beats Barbora Strycova and goes on to win the title. Stuttgart: Anett Kontaveit beats Garbine Muguruza, Anastasija Sevastova beats Johanna Konta, Laura Siegemund beats Svetlana Kuznetsova, then Karolina Pliskova, then Simona Halep and then beats Kristina Mladenovic, winning the tournament. Prague: Camila Giorgi beats #1 seed Karolina Pliskova. Did you predict those?)  Maybe predictions play for good press, but they are not consistent with the inherent nobility of the sport.

Some may have forgotten, but, at its core, the language of tennis, both vocal and visual, attempts to soften some of the stings of competition. It's a sport where a lost game may give you love, an adverse net cord bounce gets you an apology, and a clean service game gives you a hold to love. But some of the terms used by some writers to describe a player's defeat are, at best, more than mildly incongruent with this spirit of the language of the sport, and the calling of "probable" match-ups is an insult to the other players in the draw and even discouraging.

Our player, who just lost that close match, 6-4, 5-7, 6-7 must now pull herself together, find the "positives" as they say, in that defeat, and move on to the next tournament where we hope the writers write fairly and kindly, and the match-up predictors keep it to themselves. This is only what would be expected of the representatives of this most noble sport, where the dignity of every player can be assured in a hold to love.

Anyway, that's how I see it.