First Ball In, 8/27: Stories We Tell Ourselves

NEW YORK—The schedule was conspicuously thin at the U.S. Open on Wednesday: No Serena, no Djokovic, no Federer, no Murray, no Genie, no Jo, no La Monf, not even a CiCi. But that’s par for the course on the first Wednesday here. The Open, unlike the rest of the majors, spreads the first round over three days, and six sessions—Wimbledon gets it done in two sessions. The original reason was to give as many star players as possible a chance to hang around until Saturday, when CBS began its Labor Day weekend broadcasts.

But with CBS bowing out next year, and ESPN taking over from start to finish, there’s no reason to stick with this pointlessly bloated schedule. The players who have to wait until Wednesday to begin don’t like it, and fans get less for their money. Plus, if you’re struggling to fit the event into two weeks, the way the Open is, it doesn’t make sense to get off to such a slow start. We’ll see what happens. Change, even change that’s obviously for the better, doesn’t happen easily around here.

“There’s a lot of things I could say that are different, have changed, better or worse. That’s just a matter of, I don’t know, just things. I don’t know.”

This was Sloane Stephens’ concluding assessment today of how her career has gone since she beat Serena Williams at the Australian Open 20 months ago. Stephens arrived at this analysis while picking up her stuff and heading for the door of the interview room. She couldn’t get out of there fast enough, which was hardly a surprise. Sloane had finished one of the most disappointing matches of her career, losing to 96th-ranked Johanna Larsson after being up 7-5, 3-0.

On paper, Sloane’s words in her presser sound positive: “Everyone has their ups and downs.” “I’m looking forward to the next tournament.” “The girl I played played a good match.” “There’s room for improvement.” But the delivery wasn't optimistic; it was exasperated. If an interview transcript could just say “Eyeroll,” this would have been the time for the transcribers to do it.

What are the “things” Stephens can improve? It’s obvious from this match that she struggles while playing with a lead. Even in the first set, she gave a way an early break before fighting back to win it. On the surface, her intensity and aggression drop when she’s ahead. But the deeper reason may be a lack of belief. Instead of gaining in confidence as she front-runs, Sloane looks as if she’s waiting for something horrible to happen.

On the technical side, what was notable today was how far Stephens lets the ball drop before she makes contact with her forehand. She doesn’t quite get up to it in time to take it at the top of the bounce. She has the timing and ball-striking skills to do better.

“French Open was a long time ago and different surface and just different tournament. I didn’t lose here because of the French Open or something. I think it’s more about last couple of weeks than what was three or four months ago.”

This was Agnieszka Radwanska trying to explain her second-round defeat here at the hands of Shuai Peng. There has been speculation from some of us over the last year or two that Aga has been adversely affected by a couple of crushing Grand Slam defeats—first to Sabine Lisicki at Wimbledon in 2013, and then to Dominika Cibulkova in Australia in 2014. In a confused sort of way, that was the question Radwanska was trying to answer above. She had been asked whether her performances at other majors were linked to this one. She obviously didn’t see a connection.

Aga, unfortunately for us in the media, lacks a narrative, an explanation for her shortcomings at the Slams. What, aside from her lack of size and power, is her deeper flaw?  Watching today, I didn’t see one; I just thought she was outplayed, and that’s how Radwanska saw it, too.

“I didn’t play bad today,” she said. “I think it was just her day. I really did try my best, and I was fighting until the end. I just couldn’t do it.”

Why can’t we ever be satisfied with the plain, boring truth of the matter?

“When the stakes get higher, I hit harder. It’s just my instinct.”

Venus Williams certainly hit hard in her quick and fairly clean 6-1, 6-4 win over Timea Bacsinsky this evening. Venus avoided the sluggishness that can creep up on her after a long match, like the one she had in the first round against Kimiko Date-Krumm. Tonight Williams hit 20 winners, made 19 errors, and bombed a 117-M.P.H. serve late in the second set. She even exploded for a bit of vintage Venus defense to offense, drilling a backhand down the line and following it up with a forehand winner that she hit while running forward at top speed.

Venus said she was inspired by her sister Serena’s play on Tuesday night. Can she stay on track for a third all-Williams final here, 12 years after the last one? That’s a lot to ask of the 34-year-old, but she could certainly win her next match, which will be against Sara Errani. They’ve played three times, and Venus hasn’t lost more than three games in any set against her.

See Thursday’s Order of Play here.

Vika says she needs matches, and needs to hit balls. She hit a lot of them in her first match, a grinding three-set win over Misaki Doi. And she’ll probably hit a fair share against McHale, a born baseliner. Let’s hope for McHale’s sake that it’s closer than the last time played, in Doha in 2013, when Azarenka handed her a double bagel. Winner: Azarenka

Do you like one-handed backhands, hit by smooth European veterans? They’ll be out early on Court 5 tomorrow. I’ll pick the German, who has a spolier’s date with John Isner in the next round. Winner: Kohlschreiber

In the age of 32 seeds, a No. 9 vs. a No. 42 is, relatively speaking, a competitive second-round match. Ivanovic has had her best season in years, but she has been vulnerable early at the last two majors. She and Pliskova have never played. Winner: Ivanovic

No. 1 vs. No. 81 doesn’t sounds like a dogfight, and this probably won’t be. Serena hasn’t lost here since 2011, though it’s true, she has never played King during that time. Winner: Williams

Querrey, strangely enough, is 3-0 lifetime against Garcia Lopez. All three matches went to 6-4 in the third set, so I’d settle in for this one over on Court 17; it could go the distance. Winner: Garcia Lopez

These two have played six times; Djokovic has won five, all of them in straight sets. His only loss was eight years ago, on carpet, in Paris, in two tiebreakers. The Frenchman is a heavy baseline hitter, but he’s past his prime, and even in his prime he didn’t have the power, from the ground or in the brain, to beat Djokovic in three-of-five. Winner: Djokovic

Here we go with round two. Last year the late spot on Court 17 was reserved for another U.S. teen of the moment, Vicky Duval. She lost. But what fun would it be to pick Bellis to do the same? Winner: Bellis

Keep this on the upset backburner. Cirstea can implode, and has had an awful season, but she’s a quality ball-striker on the right night. She and Bouchard play the late match, which could leave either of them a little flat. They’ve never faced each other. Winner: Bouchard

Photos by Anita Aguilar