Victoria Azarenka and *that* timeout

By now you'll have read the pieces chastising, excoriating or otherwise pouring scorn on Vika and her infamous MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent.


You'll have read all the incensed calls for her disqualification, the cries of 'bushleague' and variously coloured J'accuses of a system that allows for such MTOs.

And you'll likely also have read the many pieces at least appearing to cede to the demands of impartiality/balance by highlighting the triumph of her will and nerve in exceptionally difficult circumstances whilst continuing to use the same emotive language about a MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent.

You'll probably also have read the pieces that are a little less severe in tone, perhaps even garnering some sympathy for her but nonetheless proclaiming that some kind of tipping point has been reached and that something ought to be done.

You may even have read the Economist piece that actually attempted to grapple with the complexities of that "something"- without, to its credit, piling on anyone - though come away feeling that its slightly prosaic, academic handling of the issue hadn't actually solved very much, and, well, what business it was of the Economist anyway.

Having had some time to reflect you'd probably have concluded that it wasn't really the Economist's fault. That it was well within the stylistic remit of a column entitled 'Game Theory' to come up with a somewhat dry, detached piece that read more like a business proposal, within which the principal actors are referred to as 'Mr' and 'Ms'. And that the cost/benefit analysis of applying various restrictions to MTOs-that-are-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent had essentially proven the point that no one solution would appease or satisfy everyone (or indeed anyone).

If you were inclined to be at all fair at this point, you might accept that Vika had bought at least some of this on herself. That by electing to take a MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent at such a conspicuous moment she had after all violated the spirit of the game.

You may even have conceded that there was such a prevalence of this sort of thing on tour that whatever she might have said afterwards it was probably fair to assume that she could have lasted another game and was simply looking to break the hoodoo by getting off court.

In which case, you'd still be left wondering why her MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent was being subjected to such unique scrutiny.

Why neither Novak, Janko, Rafa, Mary Pierce and countless other players, though much vilified for doing much the same, have never had to endure anything quite like Vika's post match presser in which barely a single question was raised about the particulars of the match and which felt more akin to an interrogation.

And whether such a good-cop-bad-cop interrogation was even appropriate for a MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent; or whether it, and not the latter, was in fact 'bushleague'.

You would probably also have thought that it was Vika's own clumsy handling of the incident that had, in part, escalated things to this level. That her (right) answers to questions not actually put to her by Sam Smith and the multiple clarifications and damage control she engaged in afterwards had actually made things worse.

You might also have felt that, whatever else the case, Vika does need to come to better terms with the press who, much like an MTO-that-is-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent, are very much part of the scenery, and though far from perfect, do also offer certain very tangible benefits to someone in her position.



Of course, many people didn't think she was being clumsy or inaccurate. They seemed to find it much easier to believe that she was admitting to a) choking (true), b) taking an MTO for choking (not true), and c) cheating or something far worse (both counterproductive and highly unlikely).

They didn't seem to think it was at all relevant or important that Sam Smith's questions were both ambiguous and vague, and that English isn't, after all, Vika's mother tongue.

Or that she may not have come out expecting to be questioned about a MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent, and as a result answered a question she only assumed she had heard.

You might, in any case, have thought it very evident that she plainly wasn't answering the questions Smith had posed, and found it most odd, therefore, that this should be lost on trained professionals that regard English as their mother-tongue; people well-versed in both the art of writing and the conducting of interviews, who might, by virtue of their trade, reasonably be expected to have an above average grasp of comprehension, but who, instead, mistakenly saw this as an unmistakeable confession of cheating.

You may even have thought that her answer to the wrong question was less a function of how the question was put - and that were it even to be put with absolute clarity, and were Vika to speak the Queen's English, that this was simply something that players do from time to time. And that if you had cast your mind back just 24 hours prior, to Federer's match against Tsonga, you might remember Roger making much the same mistake: speaking at length to Jim Courier on how he'd performed early on in a set without once referencing the breaker that had preceded it - in response to a question about precisely that breaker and nothing more.

You may also have thought that it isn't that surprising that a player should make such an error in the immediate aftermath of a match, and how in different circumstances other players might have been given the benefit of the doubt, but that Victoria Azarenka under these circumstances almost certainly wouldn't.

Of course if you were more generous you may have actually believed her story about a locked rib and the breathing trouble it was causing her.

You might also have wondered just how many people that were panning her had even experienced a panic attack (or even knew what one was), much less tried to play GS tennis through it.

You might, in any case, have thought that once the medics who appraised her during the MTO-that-was-completely-within-the-rules-and-not-without-precedent had confirmed her side of the story, and the tournament director had satisfied himself that there really was nothing either peculiar nor remiss about the affair, that that ought to have been the end of it.

And that perhaps the fact that that wasn't the end of it had something to do with her a) playing a darling of the American (and much of the international) media, b) being a woman and c) being Victoria Azarenka; that this maybe wouldn't be happening if even one of those were untrue.

And that elevating it to the level of a global scandal with a somewhat misogynistic edge to it, in the same week that tennis continues to feel the reverberations of the biggest drugs scandal sport has ever seen, wasn't perhaps the most proportionate or helpful way of dealing with the fallout.

You might, in other words, have thought that Victoria Azarenka has a lot to answer for, but that all of that is far worse.

(Image: Telegraph)

Read More...

Murray vs Federer - A plea for sanity.

Ever since Murray won his maiden Slam last year there's been an eruption of speculation on what bearing this might have on his chances of success at this year's AO and, indeed, throughout the rest of 2013.

This isn't about the shrill, garden-variety hyperbole of the Brit press which might be expected to gather pace after a 76 year male Slam champion drought, nor that very committed periphery of fans that consider Fedal all too "mainstream" and seek to usher in the "edgier" age of 'Novandy' by any means necessary (it's of trifling significance, OF COURSE, that both Federer and Rafa were Slam winners in 2012 too).

But even beyond excesses like this (seriously, read it), our more acceptable appetite for "change" appears to have led many (I believe) to over-inflate their well-meaning prognosis of Murray's coming year.

Such an appetite is, of course, natural; change is exciting, inevitable and often challenges our most sacred tenets - witnessing it can be as hypnotic as it is traumatic.

But it should not be sought at any cost (I'd much rather see Vika/Masha step it up vs Serena the way, say, Stosur did in 2011 than see Serena hobble out of the event in the name of "change") and should always be grounded in reality.

Murray's success opposite Fed prior to Wimbledon last year was at the Masters (three set) level and born largely of frustrating Fed into errors. Yes, that's a gross oversimplification, but, as with all gross oversimplifications, has its basis in reality.

Yet anyone that's followed the evolution of his game - particularly (but not exclusively) after Lendl's involvement - will know that that somewhat threadbare characterisation is in need of revision.

He's still not, for my money, getting the free points he should with his 1st serve, but there can be no doubting his improved FH and more frequent attempts at shortening points.

The problem is many of those changes are optimisations rather than wholesale revision. Or to put it another way, adjustments bolted on to the edifice of his existing game, rather than some radical, fairy-tale attempt to rebuild his game from the ground up.

You could argue in similar terms of Wozniacki. While it's only right to exhort her to play with more aggression, it's rather silly to expect her to reemerge from a period of 'reorientation' as, say, Sabine Lisicki.

The facets of the game Murray grew up with, may continue to go through adjustments, but will remain, with very few exceptions, as organic to him as that glaring birthmark of his.

And therein lies the rub: for when the pressure is on, players will, almost without fail, default back to their old less-nuanced selves; stripped down of any and all intricacies they will, no doubt, have worked so hard to introduce.

It's just easier at that point in the game not to fight physics.



His previous Slam matches vs Federer have mostly seen the latter come out lightening fast smothering any rhythm Murray might have created right out of the blocks.

And TBH, a large part of Fed's focus will be on bringing exactly that about: to whip, carve and maybe even coax Murray into that pliable, more compliant version of opponent against which he's had so many wins at this level and can more comfortably close the remainder of the match out.

Of course the great expectation is that Murray's new 'enSlammed' status as well as his win at the OG will bolster him enough for him to see the occasion in an entirely new light: that such regression will either be minimal, or won't take place at all. His performance in the Wimbledon final does actually give us some confidence in that regard (though pretending Fed wasn't exhausted at the OG? Too far)

And it's certainly right to say he would/should now be disappointed at repeating the same mistakes against Fed (or anyone) at every Slam going forward (He can hardly be expected to be content with "just" another SF having already made a number of those playing pre-Lendl tennis)

But we need to stop pretending that he's turned into Optimus Prime - or even Ernests Gulbis.

Or that the nature of his matchup vs Fed has so radically changed as to render Murray the "overwhelming favourite".

He's not the overwhelming favourite. He may not even *be* the favourite.

It's still, at its core, the same battle of wills between Fed trying to impose himself on the one hand and Murray attempting to seize the initiative earlier on in the rallies - and not regressing into his comfort zone of passive, pre-Lendl tennis.

And if Fed's service at this event is anything to go by, that battle will be 50/50 at best.

If Murray wins, it'll be because he's successfully executed the gameplan that was custom built, and fine tuned to, both the strengths AND the limitations
of his, and only his game.

Not because he's turned into Robin Soderling.

Signed, a Murray fan.

(Image: Sky Sports)

Read More...

On Taste and Perception

Sorry, no. This isn't the first time we've seen a player overreact and I doubt it'll be the last.

Oh sure, it was OTT, unnecessary and, as Sloane would have it, "so disrespectful".

But quite a lot of the backlash seemed to be coming from fans rallying to Venus' defence. Which, however well-intentioned, seems, ultimately, to me to be ill-conceived.


Venus' own smirking eyes actually conveyed all necessary levels of disdain and derision in a far more economic yet powerful and exacting way. But not otherwise giving us any reason to think she felt especially slighted.

Why would she?

Thing is, it's Maria Sharapova - probably a mistake to expect her (or indeed most players) to abide by the specifics of the protocol you've set up to honour *your* fan hierarchy.

Some people even suggested the opposite: that it was an illustration of the esteem she holds Venus in. I'm not sure I go that far.

But what's far more telling is the inability of most outlets to frame the affair outside of the context of Masha's relationship with the Williamses. - some even going as far as to suggest "Sharapova reacted as if in order to slay Serena, she first had to get Venus".

If you say so.

She may simply have been overjoyed at playing her best spell of tennis in ages (more than one commentator has alluded to the parallels with her win here in 2008). And at not serving 20+ DFs per match. Or 70+ UFEs. Just a thought.

Perhaps I'd be more convinced if I saw similar levels of outrage at Rafa, Serena, Novak, Ana and countless other players doing much the same - and more. But you don't.

As for Novak's shirt ripping after his (actually) epic win over Stan today, well, you either like that sort of thing or you don't. Or, you're largely indifferent to it, but indulge him a little for playing a 5 hour 5 setter. Either way, it comes down to that slippery thing known as taste.

I'm not especially fond of it, but again, there's no shortage of counter examples of similarly extravagant exhibitions from others, or, indeed, commendable behaviour from Novak.

I guess what i'm saying is, I don't much care; tastes, values and perceptions differ, and jousting about the pseudo-ethics of it all doesn't always feel relevant, helpful or necessary.

Read More...

Sometimes "stuff" just happens.

I don't think you can deny that there's something up with Novak. He's not been himself since the start of the clay court season.




What began as a "one off" in MC (put down rightly to the passing of a beloved grandfather) continued largely unquestioned into Madrid (where he was at war with the surface) before morphing into something altogether more gruesome in the final of Rome (where one of his smashes was so poor it almost landed on his foot) - what I think of as his single worst performance this year.

And to be honest, he's been off ever since.

Nothing so obviously hellish as Rome - more a certain listlessness and inability to summon his best during moments of crisis, all of which stands in stark contrast to his stretch of 'form' (not even sure that's the right word for it any more) last year.

If we are to believe the words of his former coach Jelena Gencic, "personal problems" lie at the root of it.

That may well be. But as Novak indicated, "everyone" battles with those from time to time. And I will never not flinch and cringe (fringe?) at the instinctual drive of some to explain away a spell of poor play or even a single upset whenever a top player is involved. Upsets happen, "stuff" happens, giving birth to aliens happens - even to the best of the best - can we not let that just be?

It's entirely reasonable and healthy to want to put forward reasons of course. Provided we accept that what we're proposing as a root cause is an approximation of an approximation based on little or no knowledge of something that may not even be slightly true - wholesale conjecture in other words.

I'm a big fan of conjecture - until, that is, we dress it up and start pretending it's something more than that.

This isn't Novak's doing (although you could argue his former coach has invited much of the speculation). And whilst his fans obviously contribute to it, it's bigger and very different in nature to fandom - in fact, no single party is to blame.


It's a conglomerate comprised of media, fans, bloggers, the bloke at the bus stand, and other talking heads - and its relentless drive to rationalise and categorise everything from the sublime to the trivial into neatly labelled unthreatening manilla folders is almost pathological (I know this, because I'm part of it too).

I think the idea of stuff "just happening" unfettered, uncontrolled and untamed by narrative (or even basic laws of cause+effect) simply terrifies them.

But that's exactly the reason why most of us (including myself) love sport.

Sport knows nothing of fandom or ideology. It simply plays out on a level playing field unencumbered by agenda. Sometimes it's even chaotic. And therein lies its power to enthrall. Imposing a narrative on that actually feels like an insult. Sport's simply too big for that, and Novak's too good for it.

I daresay something personal *is* troubling him. I've got no reason to doubt it - Gencic isn't his mouthpiece but does seem
to know the family well enough (and Novak certainly hasn't denied it).

But it could equally be the natural decompression that follows 18 months of near-perpetual ecstasy (and an acute awareness of just how difficult that might be to replicate).

Or even a combination of both - they're not mutually exclusive you know.

I could, of course, be completely wrong. But, as of now, we simply don't know. And unless Novak himself says any different, I prefer to leave it that way.

Isn't that, after all, why they call such things "personal"?

(Photos: Getty)



Read More...

GOLD MEDAL THAT IS GOLDEN AND MADE OF GOLD THAT IS NOT SILVER

ECSTATIC.

But I still think there's an entirely healthy middle ground between (1) the idea that Murray's Olympic win means he's now certain to beat Fedalovic in a 5 set Slam final, and (2) that it has no bearing on anything at all because it's "not the same thing" (equally childish).

Too early to be thinking that way, right? I should still be partaying in the Stella-McCartnicated afterglow of the biggest win of his career, I know.

Fine. But if he goes down in a tight (or not so tight) 5 set final (or even semi final) to, say, Rafael Nadal at the USO, the same tabloid contingent retweeting pictures of his head on a stamp now, will begin (again) to raise the most horrible doubts about his ability to bring his best against the best.

It wouldn't be the first time.

What this "means" (a LOT - some would say its uniqueness precludes it from even Slam comparisons) should not be confused with the *expectation* it sets - they're two entirely different (albeit hopelessly tangled) issues.

(Photo: AP)

Read More...

Aga Saga.

Alas, Aga. So close.



It may surprise you to know that I was initially with her on this.

Much as I like Vika, and much as I do believe she was injured, perhaps she did carry on a little too much in between points in a way which a no-nonsense nature like Aga's just can't tolerate.

As we've seen with Nole, if a player is grimacing/writhing around in agony, but making athletic winners of the highest order only moments later, people (and it seems players) will talk – silly to expect otherwise. And Aga seemed to me to be well within her rights to convey her distaste, which she did eminently well with that hydrochloric handshake –  designed as it was for maximal-effect.

That ought to have been the end of the matter.

Putting out your (unsolicited) personal opinion re your (former) bestie and new tennis Queen Bee a whole week after the incident suggests to me that something else is at work and that perhaps that "something" has been brewing for some time.

Jealousy? Nah. There's a healthy rivalry there but nothing so malicious.

My own view (for what it's worth) is that this is simply new territory for Aga. Her recent success and career-high #6 ranking seem to have galvanised her into feeling she now has a certain licence to shoot off in this way.

Nothing especially wrong with that but it doesn't mean she'll always best know how (or when) to shoot nor, indeed (as in this case), when she's overshot.

Besides, as many have already noted, you have only yourself to blame if you were unable to put away an "injured" opponent (though one wonders what exactly they expect 'weaponless' Aga to put anyone away with).

Vika's cryptic (or not so cryptic) reaction:

just laughing out loud….thats it what i can say….its getting more and more funny…have a good week and enjoy girls

— victoria azarenka (@vika7) February 23, 2012

Read More...

Not to rain on anyone’s parade but….

Much as I like her, and much as I’ve waited for this moment, Vika is not “this years Nole”, nor is it very meaningful to make pronouncements on how well she’s coping with being top dog until she repeats the show she put on in Doha at a venue like  IW or Miami – or better still, RG.

Not that I think she’s not capable of doing precisely that, nor has this week been anything other than majorly convincing.

It’s just that the more she’s bigged up now, the greater she’ll be made to pay for it when she next takes a fall – often exclusively by the people responsible for the bigging up. It would please me greatly if that didn’t happen at a high-visibility venue like Miami, which is why I’d be happy for her to have taken a fall either here or at Dubai next week.

We might also remember that Halep/Aga/Sam ≠ Serena/Petra

 

Sam? I dunno what to say to you.

(pic: getty)

Read More...