Tennis Anyone?

Well, it’s that time of year for the Canadian Open tennis. This is the second oldest active tournament on the tour, with only Wimbledon being older.

18 year old wild card Victoria Mboko started the year ranked 333rd in the world. She started the Canadian Open ranked 85th I believe, and after winning today’s final, she will be 25th in the world! Quite a jump!



She beat 4 players in this event that have at least one Grand Slam title each. Osaka played a great first set, but seemed to fail under the pressure after that.

She now leapfrogs Leyla Fernandez to be the top ranked Canadian female player.

This is a bittersweet event for Canadian tennis fans. We saw Bianca Andreescu win but get injured (yet again) in the process. The two top Canadian men (Denis and Felix) both lost their first matches. Leyla Fernandez lost her first match, but Gabe Dialo had a pretty good run though.

But a couple of retirements hit hard. Genie Bouchard retired after winning her first round match, which was pretty amazing actually. I was always cheering for her to come back but she was never able to reach the heights of that 2014 season. But the big one for me is seeing the end of Vasek Posposil’s career. I’ve always liked his game style, and he’s been a rock in Davis Cup ties over the years.



Winner of one Grand Slam doubles titles with Jack Sock at Wimbledon. He and fellow Canadian Milos Roanic played a semifinal at the Canadian Open years ago, with Milos coming out on top (he lost the final to Rafa).

Now watching the men’s final between Shelton and Khachanov.

Six weeks back, young Ms Mboko fell at the last in Wimbledon qualies (def. Priscilla Hon, AUS...). Then the phone rings - and she's a "lucky loser". Backs that up with a first round win. Now she's taking Montreal! That is quite a trajectory - we'll be hearing a lot more about her: well done!

Of course we hear more about these young players here in Canada than in other countries, so we knew she was on the rise already. She started the year playing ITF events and was winning a lot there, and winning tends to mean more winning, but no one expected this. Now the last Canadian player to win this event, went on to win the US Open later in the year, so here's hoping we have some more magic coming.

I know after she played Gauff a while back, after Mboko took the first set and Gauf went on to win, Gauff said "I felt like I was playing myself" out there, so that was high praise from one of the best movers in the women's game. Mboko's defending was great through this whole event. There was one particular shot where Osaka hit a drop shot that she absolutely knew was a winner - she hit is and basically started walking off the court, but that was premature. Mboko got to it and hit a winner - she basically ended up nearly diving for it. Reminder that she did all this after injuring her dominant wrist in the semifinal, had an MRI yesterday and wasn't sure she was even going to be able to play, but did with the wrist heavily wrapped.

Now for some less positive things...

While it was good to see Osaka back playing well (at least for the rest of the event up to the second set in the final), it was a bit frustrating to watch her throw temper tantrums on the court. I understand we all get frustrated, and maybe she is more used to having the crowd on her side, but she had to have known that the Canadians would be backing the Canadian, but it seemed to really bother her (in a way I've never seen happen before). She threw her racquet a couple of times, threw the ball, and even got a warning at one point.

After the semifinals, Osaka was told in her press conference that Mboko considered that she was her idol that she "grew up watching" which tells you again how young Mboko is. Osaka said she thought that was cute and always wanted to be in a position to be looked up to. I guess the saying you should never meet your idols might apply here, because during the ceremony, Osaka's speech was the shortest I've ever seen as a runner up - she said she wouldn't speak much and thanked the tournament organizers, and that was basically it.

She didn't even congratulate Mboko for the win, didn't talk about even her own team, or anything. Mboko seemed quite hurt with all that, and I thought it was a disgusting display of poor sportsmanship. I know those scenarios are hard, but that's part of sport. To do that to someone who you were just told idolizes you is astounding.

What makes it even more surprising is that Osaka herself had her first huge win experience turn into a nightmare because of spoiled brat Serena back in 2018 at the US Open, when Williams had a meltdown after getting caught cheating. So if anyone should be aware of how bad it feels when your opponent starts acting out, it should be Osaka. I lost a lot of respect for her yesterday...

Ben Shelton comes through in the men's final. I'll admit it wasn't the result I wanted, but Ben displayed some excellent sportsmanship during the match, giving Khachanov repeated first serves when the line calling system went wonky for a while (kudos to Fergus Murphy for being a steady hand as always through that drama). Ben came on the tour being quite cocky, but has matured quite a lot, so I'll give him credit for that.

Correction - she did thanks her team. But it all went by so fast I missed it - here is the totality of her speech:



And a classy reply from Mboko when she was asked about the diss...

^This - I've always needed to deal with some bias where Li'l Ms Sunshine is concerned - I know she's had her struggles, so I'm just leaving it there now.
Btw I didn't know VM was born in USA! 😂

Osaka has now apologized...I guess the social media scrutiny made her realize she wasn't going to get away with it.

On a more local note, played a singles match last night. Hot, humid, and I'm totally beat today, even though we have a family BBQ!

Got up 5-2 in the first, and ended up winning 7-5 - way to keep it close, AL!

Then lost the second 7-5. Instead of playing the third, the tournament has us play a 10 point tie break. I lost that 14-12, so close. 2 1/2 hours. But to be honest, the winner had to play again right after, and I was so beat I was relieved I didn't have to play again!

I play again Sunday, so can't have too many margaritas today...

Toronto Star today.
https://www.thestar.com/sports/tenn...&utm_source=copy-link&utm_campaign=user-share

I had too many margaritas…😉

Not really…but we spent the whole day outside in the heat, and it took a toll.

Played 2 matches today, one against a player who is much better than I am, and last year he double bagled me, but this year I managed to get one game each set. Yeah baby! 🤦

Then I warmed up with another player for 30 minutes before their match, and I was ready to head home. But then they told me I had another match. It’s hot and humid, with a dash of wildfire smoke, and I was already feeling nauseous and lightheaded. Got behind early in the first and lost that 6-3, then got up 4-2in the second before I started to fade…lost 7-5 and I am now completely knackered.

Mens league tomorrow, but at least that’s doubles…

August 19 sees the USO pioneering a new mixed dubbo format. So... how do we feel about that? For myself, I can appreciate the annoyance of the previous champs, and the possible consternation of the other GS tournos. Maybe too, a few middle-ranking pros are losing a moderate payday. But there's a lot to commend it too. The fans want to see the top singles players some more; and it lets the short-set, no-ad scoring proponents blow off some steam. The modern pro game doesn't need MxD either way; and we will all still get to enjoy mixed back at our clubs, just like in Victorian England (and I expect for many of the same reasons...).
So, I'm ready to give the USO a chance on this. Anyone other thoughts?

I hate it. After (predictably) a few singles players dropped out last week (one was Sinner's original partner, Navarro) the US Open gave the partners of those dropouts a couple of days to find new partners. They stated that the teams would be ranked based on singles rankings combined, which meant Sara Errani from Italy, currently the #4 ranked female doubles player in the world, was going to need a wild card to even be in this event. This is nonsensical.

I'm all for more singles players playing doubles, but taking a Grand Slam title and turning it into basically an exhibition match, which is what you are doing when you completely ignore the doubles ranking list to seed the teams or even allow then to play, is not the way to do it.

Unfortunately the way tennis has evolved is that far fewer singles players play doubles than they used to. For singles players the game is more physically demanding than it has ever been, and it's no surprise that the singles players who do play doubles, are often the younger players. Even then if they go deep, they sometimes drop out of doubles to focus in singles.

I play both singles and doubles, and they are very different games. The basic skill sets are needed for both, but doubles is such a different game with different strategies, shot selections, and definitely more skill required at the net. Unfortunately what you tend to see with modern singles players playing doubles, is that they play singles on the doubles court. They both stay back and rally from the baseline, because that's what singles tennis basically is now. It's not "real" doubles play at all, so I guess we'll see if this exhibition event has singles players actually playing doubles or not.

I've never understood why doubles isn't more popular with fans. The points are often far quicker, and more entertaining. In an era where tennis is always talking about speeding the game up because fans have short attention spans, doubles is an ideal thing to promote because it is so fast. I've been to the final of the Canadian Open 3 times. Saw Roger, Rafa, and Novack all win that event, and in every final they always had the men's doubles final before the singles. The stadium was always half empty for the doubles, even when the best men's doubles team of all time was in the final (Bryan brothers), yet it was packed for the singles. Tickets were not cheap and people didn't even bother coming for half of what they paid for. Very puzzling. I remember the Bryans saying that they were thankful that so many showed up for the doubles, when the place was half empty, so it's not exclusive to Canada certainly.

On the channel that covers tennis most of the time here (TSN) they rarely show doubles, and yet people complain to them all the time that they are not showing it. They say it's because no one watches, but how can we when they never show it? In Cinci a Canadian team (Canadian and NZ technically, but both players are Canadian) won the women's doubles, but no coverage of that on broadcast TV or even their own on-line streaming service that offers more options.

In the end, this is not the way to make doubles more popular IMO, and it's a slap in the face to those who are doubles specialists. If they want more singles players to play doubles, make the prize money attractive to the singles players - as it stands it is a small fraction of what the singles titles pay, and that small fraction is split between 2 players on the team.

Speaking of Errani...#2 seeds downed by doubles specialists...



Through to the semis...

So many good points made here. I'd like to extract a couple of themes that the USO's initiative is scrambling together.

Tempting the fans with marquee players: could achieve more eyeballs, and the top dubs players might still win. (Forza Italia!)

Messing with the scoring formats: my hope is, this is the rod that conducts that bit of lightning harmlessly away. I never liked it, because mini-sets etc take away the (sorry...) the narrative arc of the contest. Perhaps the Tik Tok generation just can't manage it, sigh...

I would feel very, very different though if they ever started tinkering with the men's or women's x2 contests. But I don't think that will happen, not least because that's where the specialists actually do make their living.

I don't disparage the mixed format - I love playing it, and so do millions - but it does have the air of a luxury extra in the modern pro context, so i was in fact relieved to see that USO were not planning to simply can it.

Separate issue - why don't more people watch doubles in general, even when they already paid to do just that? No idea - it's a head-scratcher for sure. For now, I just observe that people who have actually played in schools or clubs need much less persuading, and they immediately understand that it's a different game, with its own richness. So, as so often, the answer probably lies through getting more folks up and playing, however elementary the level.

Well, there's already a different format for mixed scoring wise, as in some contests they use no ad scoring. There's also frequently a different system for men's and women's doubles, where they use a match tie break at one set each, and don't play a third set (like in Cinci). It's confusing from one event to the next that the system is different, so although I agree with you that these short sets are garbage (I didn't even like them when they started that whole next gen event) I think standardizing the system across the events would help the spectators know what's going on.

Not sure the doubles players would think of it as a luxury extra, but I see your point. With all the talk from top players in recent years about spreading the wealth down the draw, I think taking away prize money from those who do play doubles either primarily or exclusively, is not a good thing. Top tennis players make a lot, but compared to other sports it's still not a really well paying sport.

Take the 100th ranked player in any large pro team sport, and what a 100th place tennis player makes (even in singles) is peanuts in comparison.

Again if the sport wants to attract top singles players to doubles, make it financially worth their while to do so...to me that is the root of the issue. Making mixed an exhibition thing is not going to solve the problem...

”I think this one is also for all the doubles players that couldn’t play this tournament. I think this one is also for them.”
- Sara Errani today, with a nicely-judged comment after another USO victory!

I saw the two semis and the final, and the best team certainly won, which I am very happy about. Honestly they probably had the easiest major they have ever won. It wasn't terribly competitive, and yes the final went to a tie break, but that was more nerves on the Italian team than how the others played. Anyone who thought top singles players could just come in and steamroll the doubles people, this should be a wake up call on that. If there were any more top doubles teams there, the top singles players wouldn't likely have made it far at all.

Of the matches that I saw, with 4 different teams, the best non-doubles player was Casper Rudd. He was solid at the net for the most part and knows how to poach, and to put the ball away when he does so. Casper could be a solid doubles player. For a former #1 doubles player, Pegula looked pretty lost out there at times.

Iga was a perfect example of a singles player playing singles on the doubles court. She served from a singles position, leaving the whole corner wide open for a deep return, which burned her many times (I love it when people give me that whole corner to return into!). In the semi her volleys weren't bad by any means, but they were not putting the ball away at all - she improved on this quite a bit in the final. She also stayed back far too much both during points and on the serve - Vavassori aced her out wide a bunch of times, and she didn't adjust her return position. I thought it was interesting in one interview with Casper, she said their agents talked to each other to see if they would be interested in playing, and when Iga agreed she said she had no idea what she was signing up for (what the format as). So this seemed more like a lark to these players than anything.

So when these people asked themselves how they were going to attract these top players, prize money is obviously a part of this. Here's the breakdown for 2024:



Winning mixed team splits $200k. Here's 2025:



Winning mixed team splits 5 times that much! Now if on top of giving these top singles players direct entry and seeding, without them having any doubles ranking, and giving them a shortened event wasn't enough to entice them, and they knew they needed that huge payout to attract these top players, haven't they just admitted that the prize money just isn't enough the way they did it before?

Look at what the singles 128 players made last year - the same payout for making the first round in singles, as what each player who wins a grand slam title earns? How the hell does that make any sense?

So if they really want to attract these players, they probably didn't need all this extra stuff, just increase the prize money., It would take time to get the singles players to increase their doubles ranking, but eventually if the money is there, they will come. And it will be much higher quality tennis than this debacle was.

The US Open is trying to fix a more structural problem with a lot of bells and whistles. Was it entertaining, yes to a point, but it was not good tennis. The novelty of seeing these top singles people playing will wear off soon enough if the quality isn't there and they are getting beat all the time.

IMO this all part of a larger structural issue in tennis - the schedule. Part of the reason you need big money for this week is that there are other events going on, so if a top singles player has a chance of picking up another title somewhere else, with a decent payday, they can't offer a fraction of what that title would give them, and expect them to show up.

I do hope that the other majors do not follow suit with this...I realize the US Open wants to fill seats, and they did that for a couple of days, but I don't think this is any sort of long term solution for doubles.

^ All great points here, and I think all us fans here should be appreciative for such a clear analysis - wish I could write/dictate like that. I think USO has made an omelette here, perhaps deliberately. It is for sure about getting more backsides down and even more about eyeballs, especially via social media, and hence getting greenbacks to breed. They should be honest and open about that - it's no shame. Instead, the justifications given out have varied with the days of the week, and I think the tour de force above shows they don't hold water. You certainly don't "fix a more structural problem with a lot of bells and whistles".

I would like to see less of the pie, not more, being given to the twenty or so players with recognition - I think Murray and Djoker failed to agree on that one, but I side with the Scotsman. I would like to see men's and women's all-out competition in doubles, with prizes that do more to attract and reward the art. I also want the mixed game that makes for so much enjoyment at club level given a welcome when schedules permit.

But now, I would be unsurprised if this is forgotten very soon - it's time for the big one! Will Vicky M be the new Coco?? All this and much more, very soon!