Connect with us

WTA Tour

SIMONA HALEP AND THE IDEA THAT WON’T DIE — BUT NEEDS TO

Saqib Ali

Published

on

by

Matt Zemek

No, Simona Halep doesn’t deserve the Congressional Medal of Honor for beating Oceane Dodin on Thursday in the second round of the Miami Open. Halep was clearly in physical discomfort for much of the match, but not to the point where she couldn’t move or perform basic tennis actions. Her serve was not as forceful as it could have been, the most direct and substantial effect of pain between the right side of her neck and her right shoulder. The source of pain required medical attention multiple times during the match, once as part of a medical timeout and other times as attention during sitdowns.

Yet, not being able to serve as well as possible should not deter the World No. 1 from beating Dodin, who came into this match as a lucky loser with a bad wheel. Had Dodin been physically fit, Halep’s expectations would have been lowered. To be honest, she might not have won. Nevertheless, Halep had to deal with life as it was, not as it otherwise might have been. She was supposed to win this match. There is no need to throw a parade for her.

That said, there is also no need to continue to bang a drum which commentators continue to play on American television. (I can’t speak for commentators in other nations.)

Patrick McEnroe played this drum Friday night during Halep’s Indian Wells semifinal loss to Naomi Osaka. Lindsay Davenport — who is an excellent commentator — compared Halep’s run at No. 1 to Andy Murray’s stay at No. 1 last year.

If only Murray achieved then what Halep has achieved this year. I won’t offer a knee-jerk reaction and abruptly downgrade Davenport as a commentator. She is too consistently good and too levelheaded for me to think less of her. However, let’s just say that Davenport committed an unforced error and had a very rare bad moment behind the microphone.

On no planet do Murray’s 2017 at No. 1 and Halep’s 2018 run at No. 1 represent fundamentally similar journeys.

Halep has consistently been a semifinal-level player on the WTA Tour and came within two games of winning the Australian Open in a high-quality final against Caroline Wozniacki. She did get whacked at the year-end championships last fall, probably the strongest and closest similarity to a normal Andy Murray experience, but her accomplishments as a World No. 1 rate a few notches higher than Murray’s.

Whether it’s Pat McEnroe or Davenport dishing out the commentary, Halep seems to receive more criticism from American TV commentators on her “attitude” and how poorly she handles adverse situations, particularly when an opponent such as Garbine Muguruza (2017 Cincinnati) or Osaka (2018 Indian Wells) hits her off the court and bosses her around.

In 2017, questions about Halep’s attitude were not entirely unwarranted. She was extremely negative in the Toronto semifinals in a manner which frustrated head coach Darren Cahill. It had long been true that Halep got down on herself to a degree which her talents and stature in the sport did not warrant. To be clear, it’s not as though the “attitude” criticism has not contained considerable merit with Halep in the past — it has. It was often a part of the conversation, and reasonably so.

Yet, commentators have to allow for the possibility — and then the reality, if applicable — that athletes can and do evolve.

Halep — by making the Australian Open final and winning one of the matches of the year in the semifinals against Angelique Kerber — announced herself in a bold new way. Then she backed up that result with a semifinal in Doha and another semifinal in Indian Wells, sometimes not playing her best tennis but consistently powering through difficult scoreboard situations to claim three-set triumphs.

Osaka — magnified by her thrashing of a still-rusty Serena Williams earlier this week in Miami — is playing at a very high level. She showed her best form against Halep, something which ought to have minimized a focus on Halep’s attitude. Yet, that didn’t stop Pat McEnroe from using a 2017 lens through which to assess a 2018 player. Now comes this Davenport connection to Murray.

It’s all too much. It is excessive, but worse, it applies to a player who is clearly evolving even as some of her tendencies remain.

The simple truth is that Simona Halep can play very poorly at times. Her game is based on holistic competence — doing a lot of things really well and not being particularly weak in any one area. Halep is a living reminder that there are different ways to win tennis matches. Serena Williams’ or Karolina Pliskova’s serves offer one way. A Madison Keys forehand is another way. Muguruza’s reach and court coverage show another path, Petra Kvitova’s power another, Caroline Wozniacki’s defense and consistency still another.

Halep won’t win cheap points on serve to the degree that Serena or Pliskova will. She won’t belt the ball the way Muguruza or Kvitova or Keys will. She doesn’t fit in a neat and tidy box, which means she has to call upon many resources to win matches. This can create the surface appearance that when things are going badly, it’s because of her attitude, a failure to be resourceful.

Yet, commentators should no longer fall for that trap in 2018 — first, because Halep should have earned the benefit of the doubt with her Australian Open performance and a series of strong results, but second, because her struggles are more due to playing poorly than failing to fight.

The reality of Simona Halep’s career has changed, even though the reality of her in-match limitations remains the same.

Hopefully, her attitude — which enables her to keep winning tough three-set matches such as the one against Dodin on Thursday — will soon be seen as a positive, not the negative force it used to be… and no longer is.

Advertisement

WTA Tour

2019 Evaluation — Wang, Barty and Kontaveit

Matt Zemek

Published

on

Geoff Burke -- USA TODAY Sports

Among WTA players who have not yet made an especially large imprint on the tennis world, three took encouraging steps forward in China: Wang Qiang most of all, followed by Ashleigh Barty and Anett Kontaveit. Qiang made two semifinals to substantially boost her world ranking. Barty once again made the Wuhan semifinals after reaching the 2017 final. Kontaveit made her first Premier 5 final in Wuhan.

While it is true that Aryna Sabalenka has — like Wang, Barty and Kontaveit — never gone past the fourth round at a major, the Belarusian professional has played such imposing tennis for much of the past two months that her star is rapidly rising. Moreover, the fact that the player she lost to at the U.S. Open — Naomi Osaka — then won the tournament only magnified Sabalenka. The 20-year-old has created a sensation on tour.

Wang certainly generated excitement, and Barty has made some small steps forward. Kontaveit just produced, in Wuhan, her best tournament to date. Yet, all three deserve to be seen a few notches below Sabalenka across the board — in terms of achievements, potential and consistency. Sabalenka is not well-established in terms of longevity — before August, she was off the radar relative to the top tier of WTA tennis. Yet, what Sabalenka lacks in familiarity has been compensated for with her meteoric nature of her rise.

Sabalenka is not on the same plane as Wang, Barty or Kontaveit. She has exceeded those three by most reasonable measurements. This is not a criticism of the trio, merely a necessary distinction between a player who has dramatically raised expectations for her career and three other players who sit in a more uncertain position.

Let’s spend a little more time to discuss what might be in store for Wang, Barty and Kontaveit in 2019.

The biggest thing Wang has going for her is that at age 26, she is in that sweet spot between wide-eyed unfamiliarity and the pains of advanced age for an athlete. She has been around the block a few times but has lots of miles yet to travel. Notice how many other players in their mid-20s are improving or have improved this year: Simona Halep performed a lot of heavy lifting before turning 27 in September. Kiki Bertens soared at 26 as well. Sloane Stephens won Miami, made the French Open final, and reached the Montreal final at 25. This is the prime period for most athletes. Wang resides there, and this double taste of success in China could give her the confidence and resources to take the next step in 2019.

The main concern for Wang: The disparity between her results in China (and more broadly, Asia) and her results in other parts of the world is so pronounced that she carries a burden of proof into the new season. It is true that being seeded doesn’t mean that much on the WTA Tour these days. There are so many good players and so few who go deep in most of them. Yet, Wang will be seeded at the Australian Open and has certainly given herself a chance to do well. I very much look forward to seeing more of her in 2019, especially since at 26, she owns a task marked by more urgency than the younger players mentioned next.

One of those players is Ashleigh Barty. I noted in the summer that her Montreal semifinal was very important. She needed to show that she could play well in the middle part of the tennis season, not just autumn, when the points and rankings count just as much but the level of relevance can be diminished (see Caroline Garcia last year). Barty’s Montreal and Wuhan semifinals these past two months show that she can fit into the WTA’s larger architecture of players who occasionally make big runs at important tournaments… but now she has to take that identity to the majors in 2019. If Barty can slightly raise her floor at the Premier 5s and Mandatories while reaching at least one major quarterfinal next year, she will probably be able to say that her career is on the right track.

Next is Anett Kontaveit, the Wuhan finalist. Kontaveit beat Sloane Stephens in Wuhan, which is an impressive win but also the kind of win other WTA players have been able to swipe from Sloane in recent years. Stephens just doesn’t handle the Asian swing all that well. Credit Kontaveit for pouncing on a great opportunity — that’s what autumnal tennis is often about for pros in search of points and prize money infusions — but as an indicator for 2019, it might not mean a lot.

The match in Wuhan which might mean more for Kontaveit was her quarterfinal win over an improving Katerina Siniakova. If Naomi Osaka-Aryna Sabalenka is shaping up to be the Next Great Rivalry (capital letters warranted) in women’s tennis, Kontaveit and Siniakova could play in a lot of quarterfinals and R-16s over the next seven years. Kontaveit snatched that match and that points bounce from Siniakova’s grasp, making her Wuhan visit an unquestioned success.

Kontaveit’s biggest regret from 2018 was either her limp 2018 Roland Garros performance against Stephens in the fourth round, on her preferred clay surface, or her almost-but-not-quite loss to Carla Suarez Navarro in the fourth round of the Australian Open. Kontaveit was a set and 4-1 up. She lost the second set but battled back and served for the match late in the third, but got broken and eventually fell 8-6 in the decider. Kontaveit could learn from these setbacks or become weighed down by them. Her 2019 season doesn’t have to reach stratospheric heights; it merely needs to reveal a steadier set of responses to big situations, resulting in consistently improved results.

Continue Reading

WTA Tour

Many Songs to Sing in Beijing and the Asian Swing

Matt Zemek

Published

on

Geoff Burke -- USA TODAY Sports

What is my biggest takeaway from the China Open in Beijing, the centerpiece of the WTA’s “Asian Swing”?

I have lots of choices, all of them good.

I could focus on the Beijing champion, Caroline Wozniacki… but I chose to do that in this piece on Sunday. 

I could focus on Wang Qiang, who stacked together semifinals in Beijing and Wuhan to rocket into a seeded position for the 2019 Australian Open. Yet, I wrote about her here at Tennis With An Accent.

I could focus on Naomi Osaka and Aryna Sabalenka, two women who did not win the title — or even make the final — but who nevertheless produced solid weeks under the circumstances and kept themselves centrally on the radar screens of tennis fans headed into 2019.

I could focus on Anastasija Sevastova, who made the semifinals at the U.S. Open and, mere weeks later, reached a Premier Mandatory final in Beijing. I made note of how rare that feat was — and is — in this piece at TWAA. 

Yet, while all those stories are good choices as a foremost Beijing headliner, I was struck by a dynamic at this tournament which transcended a single player. It was most profoundly embodied by the two finalists — Wozniacki and Sevastova — but it flowed through the tournament, which once again left very few seeded players entering the latter stages. Only two of the top eight seeds made the quarterfinals: Wozniacki (seeded second) and eighth-seeded Naomi Osaka.

Maybe, you might tell me, the inability of power hitters to more regularly impose their games on counterpunchers or change-up artists is a sign that the WTA’s depth isn’t as special as I think it is.

We could debate that point, but it is a fair one. I can certainly understand why someone would look at Karolina Pliskova or Garbine Muguruza and wonder why those players can’t throw down the “big babe tennis” template and dominate more often. That is a reasonable inclination.

However, I have believed for a long time — having seen so many monochromatic women’s matches (in years before this new ocean of quality depth emerged, I might add) — that women’s tennis was waiting for more players to exhibit more variety in spin, placement, angle, and raw pace. WTA tennis, even in the midst of Serena Williams’ dominance of the tour in 2015, had a place for players who could play in a different way.

The 2018 China Open reaffirmed that.

At the U.S. Open, the hitters ruled. Serena, Osaka, and Madison Keys all made the semifinals, with Sevastova being the one exception. In Wuhan, Sabalenka blitzed the field and won the final against Anett Kontaveit, who also hits the cover off the ball and does not play tennis with a velvet glove.

Beijing changed the equation.

It not only elevated Wozniacki to the title and Sevastova to a Premier Mandatory final; the China Open showed in previous rounds how “less is more” in some instances.

Wang Qiang might have illustrated this principle better than most — not just by reaching the semifinals, but when considering the people she defeated to get there.

Wang handled Jelena Ostapenko, Pliskova, and Sabalenka on her road to the semis. You might say, with legitimate reason, that Sabalenka was a bit drained after winning Wuhan. You would not be wrong. Nevertheless:

  1. Sabalenka led Wang 3-0 in the first set. It took a lot of work for Wang to come back.
  2. Wang wasn’t exactly fresh as a daisy. She made the Wuhan semis and had to retire against Kontaveit.

Wang showed very clearly in Beijing that power and speed — while great qualities to have as a hitter of a tennis ball — don’t represent the first, best or only solutions on court.

Wang did what many WTA players are good at doing these days: She turned an opponent’s power and pace into weaknesses by running down shots and redirecting the ball into open spaces. The hitters hit hard, but that meant Wang’s replies came back at them with interest. Hitting hard wasn’t necessarily an advantage. Wang loved the pace which was thrown at her.

When Wang reached the semifinals against Wozniacki, she went up against a completely different kind of opponent. Had Wang played a different assortment of opponents before the semifinals, she might have been more prepared for the shifting of gears Wozniacki required her to make. She wasn’t. Wozniacki’s spins and an overall reduction in pace threw Wang off balance. A temporary infusion of patience enabled Wang to compete well at the start of the second set, but that 15- to 20-minute pocket of play was the most Wang could offer. She lost eight of the first nine games of the match and each of the last four games of the match in a 6-1, 6-3 loss. Wozniacki didn’t give Wang the pace she wanted. Less was more for the Dane who managed to reign this past week.

Yes, Osaka was not physically healthy by the end of this tournament. Yes, Serena didn’t play. Yes, at the 2019 Australian Open, the hitters might once again rule. However, this Premier Mandatory event was controlled by the change-up artists, after a 2018 Montreal tournament (to cite merely one example out of many) in which counterpunchers claimed the four semifinal spots.

There is a place for many playing styles on the WTA Tour. That is a great and healthy message to take away from this now-concluded tournament.

Continue Reading

WTA Tour

Wozniacki Provides the Bookend to a Luminous Chapter

Matt Zemek

Published

on

Geoff Burke -- USA TODAY Sports

What do you do after you finally secure the prize you have been chasing your whole career?

What do you do when the cathartic triumph you constantly wondered about — would it ever come? — finally arrives?

For much of 2018, Caroline Wozniacki offered an incomplete answer to this question. In the first half of the season, in the “sunshine swing” of Indian Wells and Miami, she didn’t play close to her best… but who cared, right? She had won the Australian Open in a memorable and well-played final against Simona Halep. She deserved a pass from every commentator. The need to make some sort of statement in the United States this past March was not acutely felt.

Then came clay and grass. Wozniacki’s results were quite respectable — she won Eastbourne on lawns, in fact — but that Eastbourne win the week before the start of Wimbledon did not facilitate supreme preparedness or create maximum freshness for The Championships. She was bounced in week one by Ekaterina Makarova, the noted sniper with a penchant for taking out top-10 players at big tournaments.

Wozniacki didn’t fall off the face of the earth, but she didn’t light it on fire. Again: So what? She had her Australian Open. She had her major. Viewed in context, her year was still an extraordinary, shimmering success… and hardcourts — always her best surface — lay ahead.

That’s when Wozniacki’s body failed to cooperate.

Leg and knee injuries hampered Denmark’s superstar throughout the summer hardcourt season. The calculus was not complicated: Wozniacki depends on movement and the consistency it fosters. If she can’t move supremely well, she can’t play supremely well. Anything she did from Canada through the U.S. Open could not be evaluated on its raw merits. Wozniacki needed time to heal. She needed to be patient in a year when — in January in Melbourne — her patience was profoundly rewarded.

How fitting, then, that after another period of waiting, Wozniacki would finally and firmly answer the question raised at the start of this piece.

What do you do after you finally secure the prize you have been chasing your whole career?

You bookend that early-season achievement in Australia with a late-season Premier Mandatory championship in Beijing, your first Premier Mandatory title in seven years.

Wozniacki did precisely that with her win over Anastasija Sevastova in the China Open final on Sunday.

Yes, the last time Wozniacki won a Mandatory trophy was in 2011 at Indian Wells. The last time Wozniacki won either a Premier Mandatory or Premier 5 event was 2011. She had won Dubai weeks before her Indian Wells conquest.

In those weeks — seven years ago — Wozniacki roared through the deserts of both the Middle East and the inland portion of Southern California, en route to two of the more satisfying championships of a career which now owns three Premier Mandatory trophies (the 2010 China Open being the other). Over the next several years, Wozniacki walked through the deserts of drought, coming close to winning signature titles a number of times but not crossing the threshold.

Recall the 2014 U.S. Open final, when Serena Williams easily brushed her aside. Recall the 2017 Miami final, when Jo Konta — then coached by Wim Fissette — caught fire. Sometimes luckless, sometimes outplayed, sometimes a little bit of both at the same time, Wozniacki kept waiting for the tournament when all the pieces would fall into place for her.

That moment finally arrived in Melbourne.

Then, after a year of fits and starts — and the injuries which held her back — Wozniacki remained patient with her body and her game.

The result: Six match wins in Beijing, 12 sets won, zero sets lost. She never even needed a tiebreaker — she was that much better than the field. She beat four players — Sevastova in the final, but also Wang Qiang, Wuhan finalist Anett Kontaveit, and rising young Czech Katerina Siniakova — who were playing extremely strong tennis when they entered their respective matches with Wozniacki.

Caroline’s brand of tennis sunshine was more luminous than each of theirs.

As a result, a year which began with a first-ever major title has been bookended by a first Premier Mandatory trophy since 2011.

If she wins the WTA Finals in Singapore to collect three hugely prestigious trophies, this year of championships for Caroline Wozniacki will become an even more remarkable journey… but that is an act of looking ahead.

After this title in Beijing, Wozniacki has so much to look back on and admire.

She deserves to enjoy the view.

Continue Reading

Trending