Venus and Serena Williams won doubles gold at the Beijing Olympics despite a less than stellar commitment to Fed Cup. (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)

In last week’s Toss, SI.com tennis producer C.W. Sesno came on to discuss the recent stability at the top of the WTA, a change from the last four years. Here to stay, or another fad? The readers have spoken, but barely: 56 percent of poll takers think the WTA’s top four will remain competitive at the top of the rankings.

This week, tennis blogger Ben Rothenberg joins The Toss to delve into the recent changes the ITF put in place for qualifying for the 2016 Olympics.

Today’s Toss: Should there be separate Olympic qualification requirements for tennis players?

Courtney Nguyen: Thanks for joining me this week, Ben. I don’t know about you, but the “B”, “L”, “U” and “E” keys on my laptop are no longer functioning thanks to Madrid, so let’s do everyone a favor and not talk about that whole mess. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have Olympic fever than a bad case of the blues.

Before we dive into this debate a bit of background is in order. The ITF recently announced a significant change in the qualification rules for the 2016 Olympics. Currently, players must make themselves available for two Davis Cup or Fed Cup ties in the two years before the Olympics, hence Serena Williams’ recent sojourn to Kharkiv, Ukraine in April. But beginning after the London Olympics, players will have to make themselves available to play four times in an Olympic cycle. It’s fairly obvious that the impetus for the change is to use Olympic qualifying as a way to get players to commit more regularly to Davis Cup and Fed Cup, competitions that are run by the ITF. The change hasn’t gone down well with the top players, who have complained that it forces them to play more in a season that is already long and grueling.

We can talk about whether the changes are good or bad but I thought it would be fun to discuss an even broader issue: Should there even be Olympic qualification rules for tennis players? Why not just do a modified direct acceptance scheme (limiting the number of players from a single country) like they do at the Slams, which is based entirely on ranking?

Read More…

After starting 2012 on a 26-match win streak, Victoria Azarenka has seized control of the WTA power void. (Getty Images)

In last week’s Toss , tennis blogger Ben Rothenberg joined to assess Mardy Fish’s decision to skip the London Olympics. The top-ranked American got off to rough start to 2012, but was bailing on London a good idea? Well, sorry Ben, 59 percent of readers thought it was a good idea for the 30-year-old.

This week, SI.com tennis producer C.W. Sesno joins for a look at the stability of the current WTA power regime after the top four women all reached the semifinals for the first time since 2009.

Today’s Toss: Is the WTA finally returning to a time of stability?

Courtney Nguyen: These are odd times for the WTA. Don’t get me wrong, they’re good times. Victoria Azarenka is a No. 1 with bite and she’s consistently being challenged by the rest of the top players, namely, Maria Sharapova who, sitting at No. 2, is trying to reel her in. After four years of talk about volatility and unpredictability, which critics considered symptomatic of a tour that was weak in talent and commitment, we’ve now had four months of extreme stability. Since battling for the No. 1 ranking in the Australian Open final in January, the top two have met in two finals since, which is more than we can say about the men (Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have played only twice this year).

And, really, there’s an argument to be made that the long-standing WTA disorder was put to rest last year. Starting in July, Petra Kvitova cemented her spot among the elite with her first Grand Slam title (at Wimbledon); Serena Williams tore through the North American hard-court season; Sam Stosur, a top-10 stalwart, won the U.S. Open; Agnieszka Radwanska and Azarenka emerged during the fall; and Kvitova wrapped up the year by claiming the WTA Championships.

Read More…

Mardy Fish was up two sets to one in the Olympic gold medal game but lost to Nicolas Massu, leaving Athens with a silver. (Getty Images)

Last week saw one of the closest reader polls in the The Toss’ history. SI.com tennis producer C.W. Sesno joined to debate which streak of seven was more impressive: Rafael Nadal’s seven straight Monte Carlo titles or Novak Djokovic’s seven straight wins over Nadal. The readers tipped Nadal, but barely, and then we got to see the two streaks clash in the Monte Carlo final.

This week, tennis blogger and Toss regular Ben Rothenberg returns for a closer look at some major Olympic news.

Today’s Toss: Is it a good move for top-ranked American Mardy Fish to skip the Olympics?

Courtney Nguyen: Thanks for joining me again for this week’s Toss, Ben. It’s been a week filled with a good amount of tennis news, from the loss of two North American tournaments (San Jose heads to Memphis, Memphis heads to Rio), to prize money hikes at Wimbledon. But one of the most surprising announcements came from Mardy Fish, who announced his intention to play the CitiOpen in Washington D.C. this summer, which effectively meant he planned to skip the London Olympics (the tournaments are held during the same week). During a year when every player has expressed their unabashed excitement and desire to compete in London, Fish’s decision was a shocking one. I mean, it’s the Olympics! Who doesn’t want to play at the Olympics?

I admit, that was definitely my immediate reaction upon hearing the news, but once I settled down and thought about it, Fish’s decision makes sense. First and foremost, it sounds like the fatigue that ruled him out of Davis Cup is more serious than anything that can be cured by sitting on a beach for a week. Fish said this week that doctors are still running tests to figure out what happened and he’s not sure when he’ll be able to return to the tour. At this point, considering his results on clay I’d be surprised to see him at Roland Garros. His confidence is in the tank, his health is questionable and making an early return to the tour just seems ill-advised.

Read More…

Rafael Nadal has won a record seven straight titles at the Monte Carlo Masters. Novak Djokovic has beaten Nadal seven straight times, including most recently in the Australian Open final. (Getty Images)

Last week on The Toss, Chris Oddo joined to lay out his case for a more hands-off approach for chair umpires. Unfortunately for Chris, the readers disagreed, saying umpires should be more assertive in calling a match.

This week, SI.com tennis producer C.W. Sesno joins The Toss to take a look at the streaks of seven.

Today’s Toss: Which streak of seven is more impressive: Novak Djokovic’s seven straight wins over Rafael Nadal, or Nadal’s seven straight titles in Monte Carlo?

C.W. Sesno:  I admit, Courtney, when you gave me the honor of the first shot, I had a hard time deciding which streak was more impressive. But kicking this topic around in the SI.com newsroom, a senior editor said something to the effect of, “Djokovic beat Nadal, seven straight times. That’s all there is to it!”

But let me elaborate on that point. What Djokovic did is more than just beat Nadal in seven straight finals. He flipped the tennis narrative on its head. He turned the mentally indestructible Nadal into an open bottle of nerves, forcing Nadal to admit that a player was in his head and he had no answers. That was a first. In a relatively short period of time, the 24-year-old Serb overthrew the power-that-was and firmly planted himself on the throne.

Djokovic’s victories over Nadal have come on every surface, on every stage. He handed the King of Clay his only two losses on the dirt in 2011, winning in straight sets in Rome and Madrid. He became the first player not named Nadal or Roger Federer to win Wimbledon since 2002. In earning a taste of the grass (literally) with that win over Nadal in the final, Djokovic took over the No. 1 ranking, the only man to ever secure the No. 1 ranking after winning Wimbledon. A year after losing to Nadal in the 2010 U.S. Open final, Djokovic got revenge in 2011, beating Nadal in the final just two days after saving two match points against Federer in an epic five-setter. In 2012, the two met again the Australian Open final, and Djokovic again prevailed, this time in the longest Grand Slam final in history.

Read More…

Caroline Wozniacki was upset with chair umpire Kader Nouni for an overrule he made on match point against Maria Sharapova at the Sony Ericsson Open. (Getty Images)

Last week, The Toss took a look at two effective counterpunchers still chasing their first Grand Slam title: Caroline Wozniacki and Agnieszka Radwanska. Lindsay Gibbs made her case that Radwanska is more likely to win a major first, and the readers reluctantly agreed (38 percent for A-Rad, 27 percent for Wozniacki and 34 percent voting neither would win a major).

This week, tennis writer and blogger Chris Oddo returns to look at a topic stemming from a few recent controversies, one of which involving Wozniacki, a chair umpire, and a match-point overrule.

Today’s Toss: Should chair umpires take a more assertive role in matches or a more hands-off approach?

Courtney Nguyen: Thanks for joining me for The Toss this week, Chris. The last time I invited you into my house for a debate you crushed me rather handily in the readers’ poll. So I’m bringing my A-game today. Much like Agnieszka Radwanska at the hands of Vika, I cannot afford any further humiliation.

This week’s topic arises out of the chorus of complaints we’ve heard over the last few weeks regarding how involved umpires should be in matches. Rafael Nadal and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga complained about the perceived trend among umpires to not actively overrule linecalls for fear of being proven wrong by Hawk-Eye. Then just a few days later, a chair umpire did overrule a call — on match point nonetheless — and Wozniacki complained that he should have stayed out of it because she had no more challenges to use while Maria Sharapova could have challenged the call.

Umpires are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, damned the minute they start climbing that little chair of theirs. So what do we think about this?

Read More…

Agnieszka Radwanska (left) is fresh off a title in Miami, but Caroline Wozniacki leads the head-to-head 5-2. (Alex Grimm/Getty Images)

Last week on The Toss, Ben Rothenberg joined to debate whether Indian Wells or Miami, the only two mixed events with 96-player draws, had the better claim to tennis’ “Fifth Slam” status. Though the debate came during the heart of Miami, 58 percent of readers voted for Indian Wells as the more prestigious event.

Agnieszka Radwanska shocked Maria Sharapova to win the Sony Ericsson Open in what was arguably the biggest title of her career. This week, Lindsay Gibbs, tennis writer and author of the recently released book, Titanic: The Tennis Story, joins to compare Radwanska with another well-known counterpuncher.

Today’s Toss: Which counterpuncher will win a Slam first: Caroline Wozniacki or Agnieszka Radwanska?

Courtney Nguyen: Thanks for joining me, Lindsay, as we revisit a topic that is near and dear to your heart: the potential of Agnieszka Radwanska.

Radwanska and Wozniacki both had solid Miami campaigns, which was particularly important given their shellackings in Indian Wells at the hands of Victoria Azarenka and Ana Ivanovic, respectively. Aga’s made a good argument that she’s the No. 2 player of 2012 and the improvements in her game are remarkable. She seems to be handling pace better than ever and, perhaps most important, she’s learning how to protect her body. An injury-free Radwanska could be a major storyline in 2012, to the extent it’s not already.

Read More…

Roger Federer has won the Indian Wells title four times, and has claimed two titles in Miami. (Getty Images)

Last week on The Toss, Chris Oddo joined to debate which part-timer would have a better 2012: Serena Williams or Kim Clijsters. Sixty percent of readers thought Williams would fare better at the remaining Grand Slam tournaments and the Olympics.

This week, New York Times tennis blogger Ben Rothenberg joins The Toss for a look at the first two non-major joint events of 2012.

Today’s Toss: Which tournament is more deserving of being called “The Fifth Slam”: Indian Wells or Miami?

Courtney Nguyen: Thanks for joining me, Ben. As I understand it, you’re finishing up your own Indian Wells/Miami double, covering both events back-to-back. I did the same last year so I think we’re both in a pretty good position to compare and contrast the tournaments as they exist now. That’s an important advantage as both tournaments — though Indian Wells in particular — keep improving year after year.

What exactly does it mean to be called the “The Fifth Slam”? Because no other tournament will ever be able to match the history or cachet of the four Slams, the bigger joint mandatory tournaments are all chasing each other down to lay claim to the amorphous distinction of being the most prestigious tournament not held in London, New York, Melbourne or Paris. In terms of criteria, the tournaments have to have big draws, be mandatory for both the men and women and, yes, they must be joint. That effectively narrows it down to Indian Wells and Miami, which have the biggest fields outside of the majors (the only two events with 96-player draws) and are also played over the course of two weeks (including qualies), just like the Slams.

I’d say up until a few years ago, Miami had a solid grip on the title. It typically had the better player fields and the hustle and bustle that made it feel like a Slam. But ever since the WTA joined the ATP in making Indian Wells a mandatory event, the Southern California tournament grew in stature. Now, with the help of  tournament owner Larry Ellison and his fan- and player-friendly improvements to the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, I’d say Indian Wells has pulled even, if not edged ahead. And it will only get better.

Read More…

Both hampered by injuries, Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters have been two of the top women to beat during an era of inconsistency in women's tennis. (Getty Images)

The Toss last week took a look at a player who’s struggling in 2012, Mardy Fish, and whether he can turn his season around. Over 75 percent of the readers thought that he wouldn’t get back to his top form from 2011.

This week, tennis writer and blogger Chris Oddo joins the Toss to look at two great players on the women’s side who are also hoping to pick things up in 2012.

Today’s Toss: With a specific focus on the Olympics and remaining majors, who will finish the 2012 season with better results: Serena Williams, or Kim Clijsters?

Courtney Nguyen: For the purposes of this debate, I think it’s important that we limit our criteria to the majors and the Olympics because, quite frankly, who knows what either of these part-time players will plan to do with the remaining portion of their schedules? Nor do I think either would mind: They play for the big titles and leave the others for the rest of the Tour to fight over.

Serena vs. Kim feels like a virtual toss-up, but I’m going to take Kim for no other reason than the sense of urgency. Clijsters has made it clear that 2012 will be her last season on Tour. She’ll retire (again) afterwards and most likely return to her quest of being the world’s most perfect mom. But until then there’s work to do, knowing that this is her last shot at not only the Olympics, but the French Open and Wimbledon as well, I suspect her laser focus will pull her through.

Let’s not forget, she made the Australian Open semifinals on a bum ankle. Had she come through in that third set against Victoria Azarenka, the 2012 WTA season would look a whole lot different than it does now. Bad ankles befell both Kim and Serena in Melbourne but it was Clijsters who had the game that could fight through the injury and still beat Li Na, Caroline Wozniacki, and push Azarenka to three sets. Serena on the other hand fell in the fourth round to Ekaterina Makarova. It’s hard to read into either of these results given we don’t know the comparative severity of the injuries, but I’ve always believed Clijsters’ game, though less powerful and dominant, could withstand more ups and downs in her form. Kim can play with more margin, which makes her less vulnerable to upsets.

Read More…

Mardy Fish lost in the third round of Indian Wells and is just 4-4 on the 2012 season. (Marwan Naamani/Getty Images)

Last week’s Toss was one of the most lopsided reader polls in the series’ history. SI.com’s Bryan Armen Graham joined to debate if the Big Three would continue their stranglehold on Indian Wells, and over 92 percent of readers voted that either Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer would win the tournament.

This week takes a look at a player who broke through in 2011 but has struggled this season including taking an early exit from Indian Wells.

Today’s Toss: Can Mardy Fish turn his season around to remain the top-ranked American?

Courtney Nguyen: Mardy Fish hasn’t beaten anyone inside the top 20 since he scored a win over Rafael Nadal in Cincinnati last year and he came into Indian Wells without back-to-back Tour wins in 2012. He left the tournament just the same. Fish suffered a third-round exit to 24-year-old Matthew Ebden of Australia, a 6-3, 6-4 loss to the 94th ranked player in the world. Add that to a pile of losses this year to players outside of the top 30 that include Mikhail Youzhny, Alejandro Falla, and No. 388 Albano Olivetti. If you watch Fish these days you can see the frustration. He’s muttering to himself incessantly and his body language is more slumped than swagger.

“I’d like to get back to competing better,” Fish said after his loss to Ebden. “Competing at a higher level, competing at a position where I am, and not giving these guys some of their best wins of their career just off me.”

Read More…

Novak Djokovic's 2011 title marked the seventh time in eight years that a Big Three member won at Indian Wells. (Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images)

Last week’s Toss examined whether fifth-ranked Agnieszka Radwanska has what it takes to win a Grand Slam title and/or reach No. 1. Nearly 60 percent of the readers sided with Tennis Grandstand‘s Lindsay Gibbs, who argued that the 23-year-old Pole could achieve at least one of those milestones.

This week we shift our attention to the men’s side at Indian Wells. Roger Federer (three titles), Rafael Nadal (two) and defending champion Novak Djokovic (two) have combined to win seven of the last eight BNP Paribas Opens; only Ivan Ljubicic’s 2010 title broke up the trio’s dominance. With that in mind, SI.com’s Bryan Armen Graham joins in to debate whether Andy Murray or another player from the field could keep the Big Three from making it eight titles in the last nine years.

Today’s Toss: Will one of the Big Three or someone from the rest of the field win the BNP Paribas Open?

Courtney Nguyen: As one who generally loathes the idea of dominance, even when it’s balanced between three great players, I always want the field to shake things up a bit on the ATP Tour. But after reviewing the Indian Wells draw, I just don’t see it happening. In my tournament preview, I tapped Djokovic and Nadal to meet in the final, with the Spaniard ending his seven-match losing streak to the Serb.

Read More…