FO 2017: NO FAVOURITES?

Is the FO 2017 favourite in the picture?

   French Open or Roland Garros, the second Grand Slam series tournament of the year, is approaching. Yet, it has so far been talked about by tennis people in terms of Sharapova receiving a wildcard into it or not, or in terms of Federer competing or not. With Serena Williams temporary resigning the tennis Olimp to enjoy her maternity leave, and Andy Murray not winning anything significant this year, these No.1 players are not considered to be candidates for winning the trophy. Naturally, all the top ten athletes of both male and female part of the draw have equal chances for success. The truth is that reaching the quarterfinals would already be success for them. Will this Grand Slam reveal the future GOAT of reestablish the reputation of well-known public's pets?

So, who are real candidates for capturing the clay trophy?

This year the betting agencies will have hard times settling the rates for the tennis matches victories. On the one hand, there is great Nadal, still the King of Clay, having made history by winning the 10th Barcelona trophy and the 10th Monte Carlo trophy this year alone! Then there is immortal Federer, suprising everyone with Australian Open, Miami and Indian Wells titles this year, proving that 35 is the new 25 for those who are talented. Still, they both are rather doubtful favourites. Partly because that would have been too obvious and not the way tennis works, partly because they both have done so much this year - put too much effort and got too much satisfaction to "stay hungry" for more, as Federer said. Though, we still have good chances of seeing one of the good old epic Nadal-Federer finals. 
Wawrinca, Del Potro, Raonic, Djokovic, Nishikori, and even Dimitrov are still among those closest to victory candidates  - always very close, sometimes the winners, sometimes lacking the final touch. They all have good chances under certain conditions, provided their part of the draw is not too tough or some NextGen underdog plays as if it's the last match of his life. There is also a solid, highly reputable, mostly Spanish "old school" -Ferrer, Verdasco, Almagro, Ramos-Vinolas, Bautista-Agut, Lopez, all showing stable good results - usually not good enough to win the title.
NextGen guys, in my humble opinion, have more chances to make sensatious news this year. Kyrgios, Thiem, Zverev, Edmund, Khachanov are to show their much anticipated advance this time. The question is - how tough can they stay under the two weeks' ultimate performance pressure?

All the "single" ladies...  

Who's gonna take over Serena's throne?

... also have good chances. As statistics shows, not only top ten female players are subject to success - the first 50 in the rankings can boast about the same chances. Kerber is not likely to retain her top ranking for too long with out-of-play Williams still dominating her. Having put all her strength and persistence into persuing her Grand Slam goal and moving up in the rankings, she's been displaying lack of character or expressiveness recently. She is closely followed by Pliskova, Halep, Cibulkova, Muguruza, Keys, and Konta, who are equally good but not extraordinary to be considered among undoubted favourites. In most cases their game is powerful and fast, but not inventive or unpredictable. Radwanska could have outwitted all of them for her chance, but her game is lacking power and speed instead. Sharapova is expected to contribute to the rivalry tension, but having had too little professional tour practice this year, she's not likely to stay determined and stable all the way down the final. 
As for the female NextGen, it is too vague to define and give the same credit as that of the male one. With Elena Vesnina dominating in Indian Wells Masters, Laura Siegemund winning Stuttgart, and Elina Svitolina capturing the Istanbul title, there is no clear or consistent tendency in female tennis as to who's the next winner. So, there is no end to the speculations as to whether the tennis world will welcome the next "break-through" (like Muguruza last year) or some runner-up from the top will come in possession of the long-desired title.  And who knows how long the triumph will last?   

MARIA ON DEFENSE

 

First round press-conference, Porsche Tennis Grand Prix Stuttgart 2017

Tennis world has been discussing and anticipating Maria Sharapova's return and its attending circumstances. Most top tennis players and analytics expressed their criticism of the wild cards she was given and the WTA's welcoming attitude towards her return. That's why her triumphant first match with Roberta Vinci was a serious trial for Maria wherein she had to prove that her performance was up to the mark without the usage of any banned substances, and her shape was good enough to bring her to the top of the rankings again. 
Having shown pretty good condition for someone out of professional tour for fifteen months, Sharapova won several subsequent matches and made her way well into the semi-finals, where she was unexpectedly defeated by Kristina Mladenovic, though showed persistence and character. This can be considered quite an achievement for someone under the same circumstances as Sharapova, though Maria's part of the draw didn't have any of the potential long-term threats for Maria like Serena Williams, Vika Azarenka, Anna Ivanovic or Angelique Kerber. Even inconvenient Agnieszka Radwanska was dismissed at the very beginning of the tournament. Female tennis, however, is often called unpredictable. Before the ban, while being in her best shape and leading in score, Maria was known for sudden twists in her game. The first after-match press-conference showed that it's not the title that everyone was expecting of her, it's Sharapova's comment of all the opinions on her comeback that everyone was eager to hear.
At the premier press-conference after her match with Vinci, Maria was even more composed and defensive than she was on court. She was evidently expecting all the unpleasant questions about her failing the doping test and her collegues being not supportive. She looked tense and often asked to repeat the questions that had to do with the sensitive topics for her. For example, when asked about the potential unwelcoming reception on the part of the audience, Maria spoke about her return in general. When asked about her collegues disapproving reaction to her wildcards, she spoke about getting a wildcard and her history with the tournament, and said the draw was tough with so many good players competing. To the direct question whether she considered the wildcards to be justified or sending the wrong message to the young generation, Maria said she still had to win matches to get the trophies and it sounded like wildcards weren't such a big deal, or that it was up to the tournament directors, not to her to make that kind of decisions. To many other provocative questions the journalists asked, Maria kept replying that it wasn't her job to have some opinion about the remarks of her fellow-players. Her job was to play tennis which she was doing. She pointed out she had no control over what other people were saying, and didn't agree to share her agent's opinion about the tennis girls who criticised her. She said building or destroying relations with her collegues was pointless as it wasn't going to influence her game. She avoided answering many of the questions directly, insisting that all she was concerned about was playing tennis and concentrating on her game. Every time she was asked a general question unrelated to the doping ban, she looked obviously relieved and answered easily and sincerely. Every time, and those times prevailed, she was asked a doping ban or wildcard return-related question, she had to compose herself and take some effort to return the question much in the same way she would do to return a tennis ball to her opponent on court. 
So, obviously, Sharapova survived both her first match and her first post-return press-conference with dignity, without making any scandalous claims or returning the unpleasant comments. It's only the outcome of the tournament that confirmed the reason of everybody's protest against Sharapova's wildcards. The winner, Laura Siegemund of Germany, got a wildcard as a home player. She was lucky to get it and use it to the full, though had a good chance not to. Instead, some other German player didn't get the wildcard Sharapova was given. Surely, Maria Sharapova looks full of dignity saying her job's only to play tennis and that's it. It's not her, it's the tournament directors who are after Maria offering wildcards. It's her agent who's entitled to his own opinion beyond her control. It's not doping, it's some misunderstanding with the health medication and WTA new directives. It's Maria on her defense - nothing personal, only tennis.