In awe of a narky Scottish God

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Jo Konta, Dan Evans and Kyle Edmund each drew a qualifier or lucky loser in R1 of Sydney. Mixed bag. Konta beat Arina Rodionova in two, Evans got the better of Thiago Monteiro in three, but Edmund lost to Matthew Barton after two breakers.
Konta's win was rather scrappy, 5/10 stuff. She will have to play and particularly serve rather better to beat Dasha Gavrilova in R2. Evans next opponent is currently TBC, either Santiago Giraldo or Marcel Granollers.

There is also Doubles action on the full tour this week, and indeed in Sydney where Jamie Murray and Bruno Soares are the top seeds and defending champions. That was their first title together, and a sign of things to come.
Dom Inglot and Florian Mergea are the second seeds for the event in Auckland, whilst Jocelyn Rae and Anna Smith were involved in Hobart but got humped 2&0 by Errani and Flipkens a couple of days ago.

Little going on at Challenger level, not particularly surprisingly as anyone who does well this week would be double-booked (and therefore barred) from the Aussie Open qualies. Lloyd Glasspool doesn't have that to worry about as he got knocked out in q2 in Bangkok (not that he is going to get a chance of playing in Melbourne anyway). Jonny Marray and Adil Shamsdin are also in Thailand, where they are the top seeds. In their case, they don't need to worry about the Slam as the Aussie Open doesn't have a doubles qualifying tournament.
As for Women's Challenger equivalents, just Katie Swan was involved but she lost her opening round of qualifying in Daytona Beach.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Janik wrote: Tennis' gender pay gap is growing, not shrinking.

Interesting here that it was right around 2008 that they really started to diverge, ie the time that Nadal-Federer was perhaps at its peak as a rivalry, plus Djokovic and Murray were breaking through. The ATP and WTA are of course, totally separate organisations with their own responsibility for negotiating sponsors, TV and so on.

Of course there may well be sexist bias on the part of media, sponsors and so on - but whatever it was, the WTA was overcoming it until 2008 to be relatively equal.

But the tours' respective abilities to sell themselves will always depend to a great deal on their most marketable players. The ATP since around 2008 has been in an absolute peak golden era, with three of the greatest players ever, plus another exceptional one in Murray, pushing the sport to new heights with their incredible play. The WTA on the other hand has been in a complete fallow period, with players coming and going as challengers but Serena not having a serious rivalry to generate interest since Venus got poorly and went downhill around that time.

Really, you'd have to be an extremely keen WTA fan to even try to argue that the ATP hasn't been significantly more interesting over the last 8-10 years.

What will be interesting over the next 5-10 years is whether they converge again. With Federer and Nadal surely now past their peaks (although of course both have been written off before) and Djokovic and Murray only likely to have 2-3 more years at their current level, the ATP is surely heading for a slump in interest and popularity given the dearth of adequate replacements for the big four. This might well see the tours converge again in future, especially if the WTA can get itself a rivalry in the Graf-Seles or Venus-Serena league. But if it does, I think it would be far less to do with any change in gender views than it will be that an absolute golden age of men's tennis is now drawing to a close.

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

There is a problem with that argument, in that it isn't the pay at the top that drives the difference - the Slams are equal pay and whilst the ATP Masters Series is better funded than their WTA equivalent that gap is nowhere near the same as the overall ratio.

The main contributors to this difference are the ATP500s to WTA Premiers and particularly ATP250 compared to WTA International events. The 500s pay around double their WTA counterparts, whilst the 250 tournaments are both higher paying (in 2016 the average prize pot was $~600k compared to $~280k) and more numerous (40 to 32) than their WTA equivalents. That works out at nearly treble the money available. The only way this can be put down as the influence of the big four is by way of reflected glory, seeing as they almost never play in such events. Instead these tournaments are generally the preserve of players from 20-100 on either Tour.

If that extra marketability is what is going on to drive the rise, then the ATP should start a sideline in snake oil. They would appear to be good at selling old rope.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Oh I'm sure a lot of it is reflected glory, but that works both directly and indirectly. People might not be daft enough to buy a ticket for, I dunno, Delray Beach thinking they'll see Federer. But those people might have watched more men's tennis than women's more generally because of the big four, and might be aware of say Goffin when they wouldn't know his female ranked equivalent.

Also, without looking at a financial breakdown, I'd have thought that both tours' lower profile events get subsidised by TV deals, title sponsorship and the biggest events. Clearly that gets driven by what's going on the top and would give the ATP more spare money to subsidise 250s and challengers (which can't possibly break even).

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Jo Konta seems to have played much better in Round 2, as she comfortably saw off what could have been a very difficult opponent in Daria Gavrilova. Konta's next opponent is another Daria, this time Kataskina, after she beat Angie Kerber. Kerber has one win and two losses so far this year, which isn't the ideal preparation for defending her title in Melbourne.
In fact, Konta is the only seed left in the top half of the Sydney draw, as Dominika Cibulkova and Svetlana Kuznetsova also went out in R2. However the QF line-up is still strong; Kasatkina vs Konta, Bouchard vs Pavlyuchenkova.
One other positive for Konta, which sounds a negative but isn't, is that reaching the QF of a Premier has not gained her any ranking points as yet. That just shows her consistency, and the strength in depth of her ranking.

[Jimski]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

For once there's a real reason to applaud one of Kyrgios' stunts...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jan/10/nick-kyrgios-controversy-abusive-explanatory-donald-trump-t-shirt

[Etienne]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Tara Moore lost in three sets to Galfi, a top junior who is rising fast through the senior ranks. And Laura Robson was apparently abject in the first set and poor in the second in losing to Hesse.

So, it'll just be Konta, Watson and Broady in the Australian Open main draw.

[Etienne]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Dan Evans has started the season well, and has just levelled at 1-1 against Thiem. It'd be a notable scalp if he could win.

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

It's hard to raise the energy to even be disappointed by results like that for Laura nowadays. It was exactly what one would expect for a player who scrambled into the draw at the last minute as an alternate. Moore might also have lost, but it sounds like she was much more competitive. It does make one wonder about Anne Keothavong's Fed Cup selections.

Meanwhile, in this week's action, there were good wins yesterday for Jo Konta and Dan Evans against Daria Kasatkina and Marcel Granollers respectively. That has set up a very good evening session today in Sydney for British tennis fans; Evans vs Dominic Thiem followed by Konta vs Eugenie Bouchard. Evans is currently going well, double break up in the final set. That first top ten win is tantalisingly close...
Evans and Konta are not the only Brits deep into the Sydney event - J.Murray/Soares are also through to the Semis after a walkover and a straight sets win. They play Cabal/Farah next tomorrow. One bit of bad news, though as Inglot/Mergea went out in the QFs in Auckland.

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Etienne wrote: Dan Evans has started the season well, and has just levelled at 1-1 against Thiem. It'd be a notable scalp if he could win.

Started well, ignoring the failure to win a single set in the Hopman Cup. It sounds like Evo himself is doing just that, as he said he felt rusty in his first round match with Monteiro, as if his season was just starting.

He is now 4-0 up in that decider...

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

And done 6-1, ending with a break to love.
Thiem only dropped two points on serve in the first set, 9/9 behind his first and 7/9 behind the second. He only held serve three times out of nine in sets 2 & 3. That is some turn around by Evans.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Wow! That's some result for Evans.

Konta v Bouchard just started.

Interesting article on the ATP website about how Murray's total time on court was higher in 2016 than before, and substantially higher than that of his competitors. They reckon that's a major contributor to his becoming no.1.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Being on serve doesn't count for much in Konta's matches, does it? The traditional analysis in terms of "being a break up" and so on barely seems relevant.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Konta beats Bouchard 2 and 2. Excellent!

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

That means she'll still have over 3000 "live" points (edit: 3110 in fact, if she loses the Sydney final to A Radwanska) even after deducting the 780 from last year's run to the Aussie SF. So she'll not only be officially ranked 9th next week (on 3890 points), but her "live" ranking next week after notionally dropping those Aussie points will still be 11th. So much progress since she got that far at the Aussie, when those 780 points were a huge proportion of her total.

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Well done to Jo and Dan.
I think I rate Evans chances of beating Andrey Kuznetsov in his Semi higher than Konta's hopes of toppling Aga Radwanska in the Women's Final, mind. Radwanska looks like a horrible stylistic match-up for Jo.

[Etienne]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Kuznetsov has been aided by two walkovers so far, so clearly beatable.

The second of Konta's defeats against Radwanska was closer than the scoreline suggests. She has a chance I think.

[Janik]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Evariste Euler Gauss wrote: That means she'll still have over 3000 "live" points (edit: 3110 in fact, if she loses the Sydney final to A Radwanska) even after deducting the 780 from last year's run to the Aussie SF. So she'll not only be officially ranked 9th next week (on 3890 points), but her "live" ranking next week after notionally dropping those Aussie points will still be 11th. So much progress since she got that far at the Aussie, when those 780 points were a huge proportion of her total.

Chances are Konta will end up losing some, as her draw in Melbourne could hardly be tougher. If things go to seeding*, from R3 onwards reads Wozniacki, Cibulkova, Serena, Radwanska, Kerber.
* - actually, if things go to seeding it reads lose to Cibulkova in R4. But you know what I mean.
Watson and Broady play the Aussie seeds Stosur and Gavrilova respectively. Both Brits have a chance of springing an upset there.

Murray's route to the final is OKish, baring another potential QF meeting with Nishikori, which went wrong in New York recently. His nominal opponents are Querrey, Pouille, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Djokovic.
Other British men's draws are Bedene vs Estella Burgos, Evans vs Bagnis and Edmund vs Giraldo. All decent given the possibilities.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

I'm not going to mention the current score in the Sydney women's singles final for fear of jinxing.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Murray's route to the final is OKish, baring another potential QF meeting with Nishikori,

I'm glad you focused (correctly in my utterly non-expert view) on Nishikori, rather than (as most of the media have) Federer, who would have to out-perform his seeding both against (notionally) Berdych in R3 and Nishikori in R4 to be the potential QF oppo for Murray.

A nice thing about Federer's draw is that he faces qualifiers in both R1 and R2 (i.e. his "32nd" of the draw consists of him and three qualifiers). Nice memorable day out for the qualifiers in question, to tell their grandkids about in due course.

Interesting high-powered potential QF between Raonic and (if he gets there in place of Monfils) Nadal, in Novak's half of the draw.

[ad hoc]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

If she'd lost from there it would still have been your fault. You can't cheat the jinx like that.

Anyway, gratulálok Johanna!

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

... and Konta is the Sydney champion, beating Aga 4 and 2. Awesome.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

If she'd lost from there it would still have been your fault. You can't cheat the jinx like that

Ha, that did worry me! Nice Hungarian (I assume!).

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

By ranking, Wozniacki as no.17 seed is the toughest possible R3 oppo Konta could have drawn, and of course Konta only just missed by top 8 seedings by 1 place (or only by time to look at it another way - one week is it - as she will be ranked ahead of no.8 seed Kuznetsova on Monday), which would have meant a R3 opponent ranked 25 or higher, as well as nobody like Cibulkova in R4.

But with regard to Wozniacki, I note that she has actually made it into the 3rd round in only 2 of the last 8 slams (admittedly she played in only 7 of them), which includes failing to reach R3 of the last two Aussies.

[Etienne]

In awe of a narky Scottish God

Evans won the first set 6-2, but is a break down in the second.