Which tennis players would survive Game of Thrones?

Roger Federer would not survive. Elder statesmen come to sticky ends in Westeros. Grace and talent is not enough to keep a man on the Iron Throne.

Maria Sharapova would not survive. Icy queens can scheme their way to the top, but their end will come and it will be ugly. It is known.

Novak Djokovic would not survive. He is too dominant to be allowed to live, and one day someone will usurp him.

Garbiñe Muguruza would not survive. She challenged the queen, and the queen will not stand for it.

Rafael Nadal would not survive.He is too principled and naive, and his best years are behind him. He would be beheaded.

Genie Bouchard would not survive. Not even as the heir apparent to the blonde crown of Nike.

Grigor Dimitrov would not survive. A crown of gold to match his black heart, perhaps?

Victoria Azarenka would not survive. The Seven Kingdoms has not been kind to pregnant women in the past.

Nick Kyrgios would not survive. Likely to be poisoned at his own wedding.

Andy Murray would not survive. The King in the North is a cursed title.

Serena Williams would survive Game of Thrones.

 

 

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts on any other players? Let me know in the comments or on Twitter.

An Open Letter To Nick Kyrgios

Hi Nick,

Thanks for being so honest in press today. It’s refreshing to see. I’m sorry you don’t enjoy being a professional tennis player at the moment. I hope you figure out what you do enjoy, and that it gets better from here.

I don’t know anything about being a professional athlete – hell, I’m not sure I’ve ever been for a run. I don’t know what it’s like to stand on Centre Court against the favourite for the Wimbledon title and mess up a volley. I don’t know anything about having the eyes of the world on you. I don’t know what it’s like to have the international press asking you about your attitude day in, day out, or writing thinkpieces on you. I don’t know what it’s like to hear criticism from world-famous figures.

Here’s what I do know. I know what it’s like to be 21. I know what it’s like to be doing something I’m good at, but don’t particularly enjoy. I know what it’s like to not know what else I could possibly do. I know what it’s like to get in your own head when things start to go wrong. I know what it’s like to have my attitude criticised for not putting my heart and soul into something that it just isn’t in. And I know what it’s like to be told I should feel grateful for what I do have, rather than wondering whether I’d be happier having something else.

I know that all of this sucks.

From a fan’s perspective, it’s a privilege to watch someone with your talent. You’re an extraordinary player, although I think you know that. It’s also uncomfortable to hear commentators and former pros tear strips off you, even when yes, you did look like you wanted to be anywhere but on court today.

Compared to someone like Rafa Nadal aged 21, sure, your attitude sucks. Compared to 21 year olds I know – ones who haven’t lived their entire life trying to excel at one thing, ones who have interests outside of their jobs – it all seems pretty par for the course. You seem unusually normal.

People like John McEnroe and Kitty Chiller appear to struggle with that. You don’t behave like a professional athlete should behave, in their eyes – and in the eyes of a fair chunk of the press and public. I can’t imagine how demoralising that must be. Sitting up in front of a room full of people after a bad day on court. Answering questions that are baited traps. Going on Twitter and seeing so many critical opinions. Honestly, I really feel for you.

“Professional athlete” seems like a weird, weird life. You’re held up as an idol, and slated if you don’t live up to those expectations. Your words are picked over. Your attitude is picked over. Even your body language is picked over as a way to guess your attitude. People who have never done what you do feel entitled to have opinions on how you could do your job better.

To be honest, I get the impression that you have a lot more self-awareness than many of the other players. Also the honesty – I really respect that, and I don’t think I’m alone.

It would be a shame if you walked away from tennis, but it would be a shame if you kept playing and it made you miserable. I hope you find the right solution. I hope you have the right people around you. I hope the rest get off your back. I hope you prove them wrong. I hope you become happier.

Good luck, and thanks for all of it,

Oonagh – A Sympathetic Fan

Wimbledon 2016: The Men

It’s that time of the year again. The BBC has been trailing the green and purple for weeks, I’m having a Pavlovian response every time I hear the music, and the first ball will be served on Centre Court in a matter of hours. So – what’s going to happen? What are the best upcoming matches? Who have I picked to make it through? Can anyone PLEASE challenge Novak Djokovic?

The Draw:

Djokovic definitely has the easiest path of the top 4 seeds. But Djokovic would have the easiest path no matter his draw. Raonic could challenge him in the quarters, but unless the McEnroe Effect is truly exceptional, Djokovic will make the final. And win it.

Federer’s draw is not especially nice, particularly not for a geriatric with back pain. However, I think he’ll play himself in, and make the semis. It’s Wimbledon, he’s Roger Federer, and he’d darn well better make the third round because I’m camping on Thursday night.

The third quarter is sticky. Wawrinka’s due one of his classic early tumbles. If not, I’ve got him up against Tomic in the R16 – I flirted with backing Tomic to come through that, but I just couldn’t stomach it. He’ll then come up against one of (I expect) Berdych, Thiem, and Zverev. I’m picking Thiem for the QF spot, because the boy appears to be running on something other than human energy, and I think he’ll edge Stan for the spot in the semis.

Murray’s going to make the final. The fourth quarter has some absolutely delicious potential for fireworks, and I’m pencilling Kyrgios-Murray into the fourth round. This is dependent on Nick making it past Radek Stepanek, Dustin Brown, and one of Fognini or Lopez, but I think it’ll happen. Then I’m sticking my money on another angsty scrap with Gasquet in the quarters.

First Round Matches:

I have to say, there are fewer R128 matches filling me with breathless anticipation than in Grand Slams past. The ones that I am excited for, though, should be cracking.

• Jack Sock [27] v. Ernests Gulbis
• Borna Coric v. Ivo Karlovic [23]
• Fernando Verdasco v. Bernard Tomic [19]
• Stephane Robert v. Juan Martin del Potro
• Taylor Fritz v. Stan Wawrinka [4]
• John Isner [18] v. Marcos Baghdatis
• Nick Kyrgios [15] v. Radek Stepanek [W]

Britwatch:

I foresee three British men making it out of the first round, and one making it further.

• James Ward has Novak Djokovic first. ‘Nuff said.
• Kyle Edmund has been playing well lately and I think he should beat Adrian Mannarino.
• Bryden Klein is up against Nico Mahut, who is a very good grass court player. Bye, Bryden.
• Alexander Ward has 11th seed David Goffin, so that’s probably the end of the road.
• Marcus Willis is 25 years old, ranked #775, and plays part-time. I wish him all the luck in the world against Ricardas Berankis, because if he beats him he will almost definitely have the privilege of being destroyed by one Roger Federer on Centre Court. I don’t see it happening, though.
• Dan Evans might beat Jan-Lennard Struff.
• Aljaz Bedene could trouble Richard Gasquet. He should not beat him.
• Andy Murray will make the final, where he will lose to Djokovic.

Quarterfinal Picks:

Novak Djokovic [1] v. Milos Raonic [6]

Roger Federer [3] v. Marin Cilic [9]

Dominic Thiem [8] v. Stan Wawrinka [4]

Richard Gasquet [7] v. Andy Murray [2]

The Final:

Novak Djokovic [1] v. Andy Murray [2]

Winner: Novak Djokovic

The first two Slams of the season have shown that it doesn’t matter if a shocking scandal disrupts your sport, or if Biblical storms come streaking through the grounds. However crazy the two weeks of the event, on Sunday afternoon Novak Djokovic will cause Andy Murray to unravel once again.

The United Kingdom may have disintegrated, London may be in flames, an asteroid could have hit Westminster – for all I know, Murray could be representing the proud nation of Scotland by next Sunday. But – barring an exceptional intervention from everyone’s favourite court jester Ivan Lendl – Centre Court will be turned into a dentist’s surgery.

Murray will bare his teeth in that awful patient’s grimace once again, and Djokovic will be smiling with those dead, clinical eyes so reminiscent of the ones you see above the mask as a sterile hand reaches into your mouth and lies to you that you won’t feel a thing…

The final will not be an expression of joy or sportsmanship or the best of Britishness, in a month where that seems so long forgotten. It will be cold, it will be precise, and it will be brutal.

I am dreading it already.

Wimbledon 2015: Grounds Pass Highlights

Being, for one short, blissful summer, out of education, unemployed, and almost entirely without constraints, I’m getting seriously stuck in to the Championships this year. Despite being on site every day last year, my position as ‘Night Housekeeper’ pretty much scuppered any and all chance of watching the tennis. I’m making up for lost time in 2015.
I went up on Tuesday and got in the queue at around 2.30, having absolutely nothing better to do with my afternoon. Wasn’t feeling too hopeful when handed a card marked 10482, but found myself waiting in great company – as has happened every year; either the knowledge that you’re going to be stuck with your neighbours for several hours forces people to bring out the best of their social skills, or committed tennis fans really are a pleasant bunch.
We made it in shortly after 5.30; I’d got quite invested in predicting queue movement and my theory was proved right – Murray’s victory provoked a mass exodus among the grounds pass holders, and we were crossing the bridge to the turnstiles within half an hour.

Once in, I found enough excellent women’s matches and saw enough to easily justify both the £18 post-5pm entrance cost and my conviction that the first week of any Slam is, without a doubt, the better half.

Wandering around, I ran into Sabine Lisicki, double faulting her way through an unexpectedly tough match – there wasn’t a seat available and I’m not tall enough to peer over heads and fencing, so I moved on.

Next up, I found Alizé Cornet and Ana Konjuh, warming up for a brief match. The light was horrible, so only Konjuh proved photographable. Again, it was pretty busy, so I left them to it.

Finally, I found a home for myself. Sesil Karatantcheva (autocorrect has been somewhat aptly changing her first name to “Desolation”) had just dropped the second set to Silvia Soler-Espinosa, and there were plenty of empty seats and a notable Spanish contingent in national football shirts. So I settled in. The tennis was fairly unremarkable, except that the set proved to be one of those in which “hold of return” (term courtesy of The Tennis Island team) became key. After 7 consecutive breaks, Soler-Espinosa clinched it. To anyone who had kept an eye on Karatantcheva’s body language, this was not a massive surprise. Nor was it a surprise to my neighbours, a large group of Spanish fans who appeared to have put money on their own player – all apart from one, who was getting thoroughly slated by his mates. Anyway, the match ended, and I wasn’t ready to go home.

Onwards to the queue for Court 3. Madison Keys is one of my favourite players, and I was desperate to get in to see her. I stuck with the match as she grabbed the second set back off a fairly vocally supported Stefanie Vögele, but it was called for light early in the third.

And that was the end of my impromptu day out at the tennis. Hopefully I’ll be back next week!

Predicting the Unpredictable?

Going into this season, the Slams feel more open than they did last year. Whether that’s a result of the surprise winners among the men, the shaky health of some of the sport’s top players, or the continued emergence of new talent remains to be seen, but it is hard to pick a clear winner on either side, and even harder after the upsets and unexpectedness of last year to make an educated guess at any breakouts.

The Season’s Early Winners

Last season’s revelation, the resurgent Federer, has started where he left off, taking down two of the Young Pretenders on his way to the Brisbane trophy. He has a couple of theoretically dangerous Junior League floaters in his section in the form of Kyrgios and Coric, but has dealt well with the NextGen players so far – if he can maintain stamina and benefits from at least one seed falling before meeting him, he should make the final. Stan Wawrinka, coming in off victory in Chennai as he did last year, has an accessible early draw that becomes les friendly at the QF stage, where he is forecast to meet Kei Nishikori, of US Open impact. I’m not convinced of Wawrinka’s ability to defend his title – his consistency leaves too much to be desired and he frequently seems less than positive about the added pressure that a winning record has brought – but a semifinal run looks highly plausible. Ferrer’s victory in Doha was benefited by some unexpected results elsewhere in the draw, and I don’t have him as a pick for a first major here. Nor am I pencilling in the other early victors of 2015 – while I’d love to see a good showing from Vesely in particular, we may yet be some way off either him or Troicki claiming a Slam. Nor am I going to put money on Heather Watson, despite success in Hobart.  Elsewhere among the women, Sharapova sounds keen to avenge a below par performance in Melbourne last year, and took down Ana Ivanovic for the title after a strong all-round performance in in Brisbane. Halep is coming in fresh off a title in Shenzen and claims not to feel pressure, while Kvitova has a title and a seminfinal under her belt already in 2015, and both seem positive selections for at least a late challenge. The Hopman Cup may only be an exhibition, and a team exercise at that, but Aga Radwanska’s showing on the way to the title alongside Jerzy Janowicz was wonderful, and here’s hoping that her partnership with Navratilova will prove fruitful. Finally, is there anyone who wouldn’t enjoy a deep run from Venus Williams? Her Auckland victory speech was an absolute delight and she deserves all good things.

The Best of the Rest

Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams, perhaps the obvious choices for champion, are not coming in having shown their best form: Djokovic has had some sort of flu, and Serena is yet to look fully awake on a competitive court in 2015. However, if Serena wakes up and Djokovic survives the ill health, these two could easily walk away with Daphne and Norman. Nadal might be onto something when he suggests that he would be lying if he said he feels ready to win after a dubious start to the season, succumbing to yet another sub-100 ranked player in Doha, yet winning the doubles title. Still, this is the man who has claimed not to be the favourite at Roland Garros for as long as I can recall. His tentative recovery period  – and the fact that it is no longer possible to rule out his losing to any player – could provide an opening for Tomas Berdych. After an exhausting and at times demoralising 2014, Murray has plenty to prove; it might take a little while for him and his new coaching setup to do so, or it could be instant success – he says he feels confident in his fitness, which has been key in the past. Wozniacki has a hideous draw, with Taylor Townsend – who pushed her at points in Auckland – followed by the winner of the Best First Round Match In History between Sloane Stephens and Vika Azarenka (I could not have written a better script). Players such as Bouchard, Raonic, and Nishikori have to back up last season’s breakthroughs, while 2014’s nearly squad, starring players like Dimitrov and Ivanovic will surely be in the mix up to the second week.

With 2014 providing 16 different Grand Slam finalists, predictions simply aren’t as clear-cut as they were. With the added difficulty of Melbourne coming only two weeks into the new season and many players being as yet unspecified quantities, there’s every chance I’m barking up entirely the wrong tree. However, I will go so far as to predict that I have at the very least mentioned the name of both the men’s and the women’s champions above.

Tennis: A Personal History

I planned to try to avoid writing too much from a personal perspective on here, although my opinions crop up frequently. However, I saw this post on GameSetMatchWTA yesterday and loved the idea. So here’s my Q&A with myself.

1) How did you become a tennis fan?
This is a boring answer: I’m not entirely sure. It was definitely based around Wimbledon-watching, particularly in the Early Fed Years, but I’m pretty sure what clinched it – for reasons unknown – was catching the very tail end of the 2005 Roland Garros Final and thinking “This is a different way of playing. I like this guy.”

2) What is the first tennis match you remember watching?
1999. Lindsay Davenport vs. Steffi Graf. I scarcely recall the match (which is forgiveable, as I was 5 years old) and have no memories of Graf whatsoever – however, I strongly remember Davenport receiving the trophy.

3) What is your favourite tennis memory?
Okay so on a tennis court, it has to be the incident in the 2013 Roland Garros SF where Djokovic hit the net – I laughed so hard at Rafa’s reaction, even though the moment was so tense! Off-court though, I worked as a member of the housekeeping staff at Wimbledon this year, and was lucky enough to be working on the Aorangi practice courts during International Week. No time in my life has been as exciting as those three days surrounded by the professionals: I was lucky enough to see (off the top of my head) Federer, Nadal, Serena, Venus, Djokovic, Sharapova, Dimitrov, Tsonga, Gulbis, Berdych, Ivanovic, Lisicki, Li, Bouchard, Wawrinka, Kerber, Keys, Ferrer, Hewitt, Jankovic, Kvitova, Azarenka and Murray both at practise and just around and about – I’ll be honest, it almost became too much at times and my professionalism hung by a thread.

4) And the reverse?
The low point has to have been the first round of Wimbledon 2013. I had queued for Court 1 tickets – the previous year I’d decided to go for the QFs thinking “there’s no way I won’t get to see either Rafa or Fed” based on their form over the previous 6 years; the Horrible Second Round match against Rosol had wrecked that (we got to see Federer demolish Youzhny in a match where he appealed to Agassi – seated in the Royal Box – for tips, and watched an intense and brilliant match between Murray and Ferrer, so it wasn’t all bad). So anyway. The following year we decided that we’d go for the first round and be guaranteed to see him play. The result was that I had front row seats to a truly horrible match against Steve Darcis. It wasn’t even like the previous year where Rosol (whose name I have only recently begun to be able to pronounce again) outplayed him so extraordinarily – it was just a bad match. The BBC definitely has footage somewhere of my appalled and shell-shocked reactions. And then to cap it all off, the next match – Wawrinka vs. Hewitt – did not go at all the way I wanted either. All very upsetting. A bad day.

5) Your favourite ATP player?
This is a question I hate answering. It’s Rafa Nadal. Of course it’s Rafa – but the contenders are many. I’m very much a fan of the sport rather than the individuals, but Rafa was the player who got me into tennis. The interest in the sport has grown beyond all rational bounds, but the love abides. Also, he does things like this with his face.

6) Your favourite WTA player?
Oh now this is impossible – I don’t have clear favourites on the WTA tour and enjoy watching more for the quality of the play than supporting individuals. I’m going to go with Caroline Wozniacki, because she’s charming and easier to relate to than many of the others. But there’s stiff competition from others – it feels cruel to leave out Laura Robson, for example. And it’s always a privilege to watch players like Serena and Sharapova at the tops of their respective games.

7) Which player do you wish could un-retire?
I have three answers here. A) I would have loved to watch Agassi at the top of his game: I love a character on the court, and I love characterful play. I think I’d have enjoyed that. B) Same goes for Martina Navratilova – she’s won too many titles and I wish I could have had the opportunity to witness that. C) Bjorn Borg. If he was playing today, or Rafa was playing back then, imagine the French Opens.

8) Which player do you never want to retire?
Another tough question. I’d like to watch Federer play forever. His game is too beautiful to be deprived of. However it’s got to be Rafa, less because of my so-great appreciation of him and more because I fear the manner of his retirement. If he’s forced (or takes the decision) to leave the game through injury, it will break my heart – and I anticipate that this is likely to be how it ends. The frequency of the injury breaks in this last year has been frankly concerning, and (though nobody predicted 2013) it seems like it may be a matter of time until the competitive hunger which defines him begins to lose the battle with his ailing body.

9) What was the most stressful match you’ve watched?
Again, three contenders. Firstly, the previously-mentioned 2012 second round Rosol-Nadal fiasco. I made myself pretty ill from stress watching this one out. Secondly, the (also mentioned before) 2013 Roland Garros semifinal. I was already pretty ill at the start of that match, and only really managed to focus on it in the final set, stuck in my room alone, watching on my laptop, screaming at the screen and feeling like death was coming for me. The final contender is THAT Australian Open final. You know the one. 2012. The only reason this doesn’t top the list is because I was watching it on record (having gone on a full media blackout to avoid knowing the result) about half an hour behind, and I stupidly tried to Google the time difference between London and Melbourne: of course the first thing which came up was the final score.

10) What about the best live tennis match you’ve watched?
Ho hum. Murray-Ferrer, Wimbledon 2012. Tightly contested, great fun, tense. I was reasonably impartial at this point – the Murray-love was yet to blossom.

11) Which is your favourite of the Slams?
Roland Garros. God, I love clay. It’s so interesting. I might say Wimbledon if there was more of a grass court season beforehand. So check with me again in a couple of years’ time.

12) Who do you feel is the best male player never to win a Major?
I’m only qualified to answer out of the tour of the last 5 years – I don’t have the knowledge of previous generations. There’s something about Tsonga – he has the game, surely, but his head is streaky and therefore is unreliable.

13) And on the women’s tour?
Same applies – of current players, I’d say Radwanska. Her game is so beautiful to watch when it’s at its peak.

14) And finally: what is the top item on your tennis bucket list?
To visit all the Slams at least once. I’ve got Wimbledon down, though I’m sure I’ll be back. Roland Garros is (hopefully) next, and after that I’ll steel myself and my bank account for the other two.

The Guard: A Change Is Gonna Come

This was meant to be written/posted prior to yesterday’s final but that somehow didn’t materialise. So it’s been finished off and updated accordingly, but hundreds of people, often of the Proper, Well-Established Writer and/or Actual Journalist types have written pretty similar things in the last 12 hours. Ah well.

---

 

I’ll be honest, I’m sick of the phrase “changing of the guard”. It’s been everywhere this year. The commentators love it, the journalists even more – it’s featured in my twitter feed about twice an hour over the last 4 days.

Is the era of the Big Four over? Can Federer genuinely challenge for Grand Slams any more? Do the rest of the players on the tour believe they are capable of winning the sport’s biggest titles? Does Nadal have the physical capacity to remain at the top? Will Murray’s back surgery permanently impact his ability to keep up with the other top players?

We’ve heard all this before – Australia and Stan Wawrinka arguably shook things up for the first time in five years, before some semblance of normality returned for Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Journalists and pundits need a narrative, and the story of dominance in men’s tennis, always fascinating in a game where individual rivalries are responsible for so much of the sport’s appeal, has been the topic of the last decade. In the face of a year where two of the Major titles have been taken by first-time winners, it’s easy to begin speaking of an imminent “changing of the guard”, of the rise of the youngsters, and the fall of a generation of greats.

The “Big Four” mentality has been well-established since 2008, when Murray joined the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic triad at the top of the rankings. This was the same year that Djokovic broke Federer and Nadal’s Grand Slam stranglehold in Australia at a point at which the eleven previous Majors had been won by the pair, Murray reached his first Major final, and the idea of a Big Four was mooted. But before that year, there had been several years of Federer-Nadal symbiosis. I have distinct recollections of a “changing of the guard” being brought up at that point; commentators discussed Djokovic in terms of “the young pretender” and “tennis’ next big thing”, even then implying that Federer would lose his touch at the top and that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry would take the place of the previous one. The adaptable and evolved Federer, however, is still very much present despite years of persistent reports of his forthcoming retirement. Nadal continues to build his medical files and trophy haul in tandem. Murray has had an admittedly weak year, but as someone who’s had major back surgery and isn’t even reliant on my physical capacity in order to carry out my job, I’m hardly surprised. Djokovic’s “slump” this year (44-7 record so far, including victories at Wimbledon, Miami, Indian Wells and Rome) firstly must be viewed in relative terms, and secondly is coincident with some real changes in his personal life – he’s gone from “winner of 6 Grand Slam titles” to “7-time Grand Slam winning husband and father-to-be Novak Djokovic”.

Immense credit is due, of course, to the rest of the players on the tour who have had such fantastic success at the biggest tournaments this year – not just Wawrinka and Cilic, the unexpected Major winners. The “next generation” players, particularly Nishikori – in spite of his painful retirement in Madrid and slightly limp last match in New York – Dimitrov and Raonic (Dimitrov making the QFs in Australia and SFs in Wimbledon, Raonic also making Wimbledon SFs and winning the US Open Series over the summer), made their first genuine threats to the top. And Cilic’s comments after both his victory and his SF upset of Federer demonstrate the presence of new, positive mentalities in the locker room, perhaps of a perception that the other players who are, in fact, among the top 50 practitioners of their craft worldwide, do have the capacity and opportunity to challenge the legends of their time.

However, the crucial idea is that they can challenge these players for the titles. The Big Four are not done yet. Fifty percent of this year’s Slams have been won by players ranked from 5-15, rather than 1-4, but 5 of the 7 Masters 1000 titles yet played have been taken by the supposed Old Guard. Even at the Majors, of the 8 GS final berths available in the course of a year, 5 were still claimed by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Those brought to tennis by the excitement of the present era, who cling blindly to certain players and who dread their retirement as an impending oblivion, need not tear their hair out yet. Who knows, perhaps a transition period, with the presence of new faces in the final stages of tennis’ major tournaments, will afford us the opportunities to find new favourites. As for me, I’m hoping for Djokovic to win in Australia in 2015, Rafa to make it 10 at Roland Garros, Fed to finally clinch #18 at Wimbledon, and Murray to reclaim his US Open title. They can all retire after that.

Grand Slams: Why Week One is The Good Stuff.

So the first week of the 2014 US Open drew to a close last night in noteworthy fashion. The weather was dramatic and the scorelines unexpected. With Federer and Dimitrov playing frankly poor first sets – though both managed to rectify the situation – and Ferrer, Jankovic and Sharapova, the latter in one of the most enjoyable matches I’ve seen this year, all departing the scene, the board is set in somewhat unexpected fashion for the coming week. Yesterday provided the tournament’s first major episode of meteorological drama, but not of disruption on the courts: the last 7 days have prompted me to further musings as to whether I prefer the first or the second week of a Slam.

I don’t have the opportunity to watch nearly as much tennis as I’d like – my flat is not equipped with a television – and therefore I’m limited to following mostly via twitter and the various available apps. They’re great resources, particularly during Slams when I can listen to the radio commentary, but I’m restricted to watching, say, one or two early round matches, semis, and the finals if I can manage it. So here’s the question: for a largely non-visual tennis fanatic, which week of a Slam is more interesting?

Week One – The Pros:
– There are SO MANY matches. The tennis is constant, and there is always something happening; if you follow more than a handful of players, there’s little to no time spent hopelessly refreshing pages with no new information. It’s almost more exciting during Australia or the USO – I wake daily up to a barrage of results from my selected favourites.
– There are new players to become aware of. Short of something pretty extraordinary, for example Nick Kyrgios’ run to the Wimbledon QFs a few weeks back, people who only tune in to the later stages of a tournament miss things. I spent a dull seminar in January following Kyrgios’ match against Benoit Paire, and then kept an eye on his results: come the summer, I anticipated a potential R32 upset, and my glee in being proved right took the edge off the sting of yet another weak campaign from Nadal. Or look at CiCi Bellis – while there’s no making certain predictions in sport, those who noted her surprising first round victory now have something to keep an eye on over the next, who knows, even 15 years.
– Combining these two previous points, here’s the best thing: the more you follow, the more there is to see. Over the last few years, my interest in tennis has snowballed from a slightly obsessive devotion to Nadal and Federer – and an interest in the wider ATP tour insofar as it affected them – into a fascination which frankly bores the majority of my acquaintances. Naturally, the highlights come 4 times a year: all the best players, men and women, are playing the same tournament and the wider world takes interest.

Week One – The Cons:
– The top seeds are rarely forced to really bring it, and there’s a pretty strong argument that watching Djokovic roll over yet another player for the loss of 7 games or fewer is not showcasing the sport at its best.
– There are scheduling clashes. Trying to keep track of 3 or 4 matches at once, when two are getting scarcely any coverage as they’re on an outside court or neither player is ranked in the Top 10 or there are obvious cases of the Big Stars handing out a pasting on a show court, can be pretty frustrating. But – thanks to IBM SlamTracker and the apps – it’s doable.

There’s more quirk, and I’m pretty sure that’s what I like. By the final, even of the strangest tournaments, they’ve usually evened out a fair bit. Take the men’s Wimbledon draw this year: Nadal upset (though was it?) in the first week, Murray losing earlier than at least the British media had anticipated, young players excelling, and then at the end, we find ourselves watching Djokovic-Federer: one or other of them has been in the final every year since 2003. That was a fantastic match, and that’s what you expect – or hope – to see when two of the best players to have ever played the game play for the title of what’s probably still tennis’ most prestigious championship.

Of course I want to see the blockbuster games. They’re what got me and probably most of the population who care about tennis into the sport. But there’s so much more to be seen in the game, and the first week of a Grand Slam seems to me to be the best place to see it.