2009 Rome Singles Draw

Serena and Venus are on opposite sides of the draw!

Serena hasn't played much since Miami and definitely isn't match tough on the red clay for this season. Also, she has been known to play in tournaments even though she isn't fully recovered from injury. Serena's first match will be against Schnyder. Schnyder has defeated Serena 3 out of 11 times that they have played. One of those wins over Serena came in this event in 2007 and another was on clay as well. If Serena can get past Schnyder, she could face several other players on her side of the draw who have either defeated her before or who have played her really hard, including Kuznetsova, Penneta, Cornet, Dulko, Jankovic, Azarenka, Wozniacki, and Bammer. Other than Azarenka or Bammer, most of these players should have an advantage over an out of form and possibly injured Serena on red clay.

I think Venus is on the easier side of the draw with Safina, Bartoli, Zheng, Suarez Navarro, Petrova, Medina Garrigues, Radwanska, Schiavone, and Ivanovic.

And speaking of Ivanovic, this will be her first clay event since winning last year's French Open. It will be interesting to see how she plays with the pressure of having to defend her French Open title.

Some good news for Serena is that Schnyder has been terrible this year. The win she just had to reach Serena is one of only a few in 2009. Cornet is another player in terrible form. And Bammer hasn't been doing well in 09 either.

Pennetta is playing some excellent tennis, beating Jankovic and basically choking away her semi against Safina in Stuttgart from a set and a break up. It's unfortunate for her she's in Kuzzy's eighth of the draw here, and with tough matches even before then. Jankovic herself might lose in her first match if Dulko keeps her form.

In Serena's quarter, I'm curious to see who comes out of the segment that has Azarenka, Szavay, and Wozniacki.

Schiavone at home (where she beat Serena once, and where's she's bulldog in Fed Cup) is a very tricky and rough first match for Ivanovic especially after time away. Petrova vs. Suarez Navarro is a strong second round pairing.

I paid $9.95 to watch Serena lose 2-6, 6-2, 1-6 to Schnyder on TennisTV.com.

She made too many errors and sometimes it looked like she wasn't moving well.

The last time I paid $9.95 to watch Serena play on TennisTV.com, she lost to Dementieva in Sydney of this year.

It is unlikely that I will pay to see Serena play again.

I probably shouldn't say that because I wouldn't hesitate to pay for a ticket if I had the opportunity to see Serena play in person.

At this point it's safe to say that Patty owns Serena on clay. I think that's three times in a row she's beaten Serena on the surface.

A lot of crowing elsewhere about this loss in the wake of some recent big talk from Serena.

Usually I think Serena will have the last laugh, and I enjoy it when she does. But the one spot I can't see it happening is on European clay. Even Venus has a better chance at the French, and I'm not sold on her (yet) either.

I'm eager to see the result of Venus vs. Ivanovic. It looks like Ivanovic might have her game, or most of it, back. And Safina is still playing solid. Tides may be turning yet more in the topsy turvy top 10.

Thats what Serena gets for opening her mouth. On clay, all bets are off because she can really be exposed since she doesn't slide properly. No matter how poor Patty was playing, Serena's lack of clay court movement can really be taken advantage of. She needs to let the racquet do the talking. Is she better than Safina? Yeah. But Safina is still in the tournament and she isn't. Ummmm..karma perhaps?

Venus has defeated Radwanska the last two times that they have played by overpowering her. However, those wins were on a hardcourt. It will not be so easy tomorrow in the quarterfinals on the red clay. Venus will have to clean up her game because Radwanska is going to make her hit a lot of balls.

Based on Kuznetsova's current from, she should get past Jankovic.

I'm hoping that Safina loses just to prove how ridiculous the current ranking system is.

See this link to an interesting article on the state of the current WTA rankings. I agree with the author.

That's a great article. Not because it piles onto all the bellyaching over the Number One spot of late, but because it puts the current state of affairs into its proper context stretching back a decade. Jankovic and Safina did not randomly show up and cleverly steal the No 1 ranking like thieves in the night by playing a full schedule. Hingis and Davenport each spent back-to-back seasons ranked year-end No 1 long after their Slam-winning days were behind them. They got a pass for it because they HAD won Slams, plural, but as Janet Jackson would say, 'What have you done for me lately?'

I'm not sure I agree with this myopic focus on the Slams. As far as prestigious achievements, career milestones, and carving out one's place in tennis history, sure. Being the reigning AO/FO/Wimby/USO champion is its own reward. But for solely determining what the week-in, week-out rankings should be? Why bother having an 11-month-long season, then? Let's just have the four majors and take the rest of the year off.

If I were forced to rank 'unworthy' No 1s despite myself, Safina would be a distant third to Jankovic's and Mauresmo's first stints at the top spot, both of which came with nary a Slam final reached that year. (Mauresmo of course would be a reigning Slam champ by the time she was No 1 again, and Jankovic had at least reached a Slam final and won a couple of titles before reclaiming it herself.) Two Slam finals, a Slam semi, a silver medal, and a handful of Tier I titles all in the past year - incidentally defeating three different No 1s along the way - does not a fluke No 1 make, in my view, only a weaker one. In fact, if not for Serena herself stopping Safina at the USO and AO, who's to say the Russian doesn't win one or even both of them? Surely not an equally-flaky Dementieva and Jankovic. Heh.

Anyhow, post-Rome, I'm hoping we see Venus back into the Top 4 finally. Jankovic is unlikely to pull off the hat-trick (although it would be a neat feat) and Venus has room to improve on last year's QF result. Actually, ideally these two would meet in the final - they always have drawn-out, knock-down fights, including said QF last year.

When Serena made her declaration, I agreed with her, as did plenty of other tennis fans, whether or not they're Serena fans. But then, craptastic! Serena had to go and lose to Schnyder!! I can just picture Oracene rolling her eyes after that one <tee hee>. What is it about the WTA Tour and its ranking system that is so different from the ATP? Sometimes "weak" players (e.g., Marcelo Rios) will reach the number one ranking for a brief period, but has a male equivalent of Jelena Jankovic ever finished the year number one or even held the spot for a significant stretch (say, six months)? I'm too lazy to do all the research to verify, but I can't recall a single ATPer who ended the year number one without winning at least one Slam whereas it seems to happen almost more often than not on the WTA Tour.

Neither Serb made it past the quarters. Yikes! what's going on with those two?? Maybe Ana hasn't gotten over her breakup with Fernando, totally understandable from a gay point of view, but what's Jelena's problem?

If Venus can just get past Radwanska, she has it made! Well, at least if we use Acapulco as a model, where she had 3-setters right up until the semis when she went from sucky to sublime and cruised through the best players at the tourney. If she can win the French, she would shut Serena up by regaining the #1. I don't think anyone would have predicted Venus being Number 1 again after Serena supplanted her and beat her in five consecutive slam finals.

Wow...Venus thrashed Radwanska. Was Aggie injured? So surprising to see such a result from Venus on red clay against a player who gets a lot of balls back. Since I did't see it I'm left to wonder if Radwanska was hampered with injury. Venus usually has a good set and then goes on walkabout so its nice to see her with an easy 1-2 match like this. NOW BEAT DINARA!!!!

Oh yeah...welcome back to the top 3 big sis!!!

Nice to see Svetlana take out Jankovic too. If Svetlana had it together between the ears consistently she'd have so many more big titles. Its ashame she has struggled so with that kind of game.

V is aging well like a fine wine. 70% wins on first serve and 60% wins on second serve is incredible for Venus. Since Zurich last year, her only real bad loss I think was to Carla Suarez Navarro in Melbourne and she really should have won that one. The recent loss to Sabine Liciscki doesn't seem so bad, since this girl looks to be a good player and went on to win Charleston. Venus also lost to Serena at Miami. A loss tomorrow to Dinara wouldn't be a bad loss, but I'm hoping Venus can take a big red clay tourney leading up to the French.

Going way out on a limb here, if Venus wins the French and Wimbledon, I think it won't be quite so clear cut which of the two sisters has the better career.

Amen, Urban Suede. There are good reasons for only using data for the past year--would you really want Federer to still be #1 on the men's side, which he probably would be if you went back two, and certainly if you go back three? Plus, it's critical for the health of the tour that players be encouraged to play at least the Tier I tournaments. One thing that's often repeated which is simply false is that Safina is being rewarded for quantity rather than quality. In fact, Safina has played only one more tournament than Serena over the past year.

The reason that Safina is in the #1 spot is consistency. She's made 11 finals in 18 tournaments over the past year, winning four of them including three Tier I's. Serena has made four finals, winning two of them. Granted, three of these finals were slams, but Serena's performance outside the slams was pretty uninspiring. Overall, Serena was 46-12 (.793), Safina 63-16 (.797).

Do I believe Safina's a better player? No, but I don't think it's outrageous that she should be ranked higher right now.

As far as the ranking systems go, I haven't rigorously evaluated them, but the framework is extremely similar to the ATP. I think the difference in results is a peculiarity of the WTA in that the Tier I's are being won by an almost entirely different set of players than the Slams. On the men's side, the players who dominate the slams also dominate the masters events (except Murray lately). It's odd, because it seems like the difference between majors and other tournaments should be bigger on the men's side where they play 5 sets. Maybe there are just an abnormal number of hopeless headcases on the women's side. It might be that nerves play a bigger role in women's tennis because most of them are much more vulnerable on serve, making it harder to hold leads.

And like I've said before, I don't really understand all this hand-wringing over something that doesn't matter. It seems kind of like getting all worked up because the guy who wins the "batting title" in the American League isn't really the best hitter.

Back to Rome--mdterp, I agree with your comments about Sveta, but...with the Williams sisters always vulnerable to a bad day on clay, you never know. It's not like anybody else is so much tougher than Sveta. Somebody has to win the French Open. Maybe Dinara, Elena and Jelena are better competitors, but you'd think it would help Sveta that she's beaten them all three on clay this year. Ana still seems to be way off form. Who else is there? Vera Zvonareva? Caroline Wozniacki?

Looks like Sveta is coming up to the French better than anybody. And well deserved too. Strange, for all of her issues about confidence and focus, she's hitting some of her best ball now without a coach, which you'd think would be a necessity for someone like her. She's been to the Final atthe French before, and with no Justine around, she just might go all the way this time.

I disagree with the battle title comparison. The batting title is based solely on average during the regular season, no weighting for extra base hits or hits with RISP, and hits in the all-important postseason aren't even factored in. It is a nifty individual distinction in a team sport, nothing more. The top ranking in tennis is an another beast entirely because being number one in an individual sport is (and should be) a tremendous honor. Reaching number one carries with it some serious bragging rights in terms of a player's place in tennis history, not to mention it kicks in some serious ka-ching from endorsements.

I didn't realize that Dinara was so consistent -- 11 finals out of 18 tournaments is pretty amazing. So the current rankings, with Dinara @ #1 and Serena @ #2, are understandable. What bothers me is the frequency that a Slam-less player ends the year at number one. If it happens once (Martina H), OK, that might be written off as an aberration. But when Hingis pulled off that trick a 2nd year in a row, and Lindsay and Jelena manage it too, then there's something wrong with the system. As for the charge that the focus on the Slams is myopic, gotta disagree. A decade from now, a player will be remembered for 2 things: Grand Slam titles and years at number one. Off the top of their head, a typical knowledgeable tennis fan can name who won the 1999 Slams. But even a tennis journalist might have a tough time remembering who won Rome or Stuttgart 10 years ago.

The WTA Tour has always lagged behind the gents in the credibility department. For decades they pumped out the shameless propaganda of "depth in women's tennis" <serious eye-roll>. Then there was the pathetic marketing ploy that the average fan could "relate more" to women's tennis <give that Richard Krajicek a big high-5>. The unworthiness of too many of their recent number one's is yet one more blow to the WTA's credibility.

Oh, I miscounted Dinara has been in 10 out of 18 finals, not 11, but it's still pretty good. While I don't see the year end #1 as being inherently more significant than being #1 over any other one-year period, it's easy to check, and while it hasn't happened in a long time on the men's side, it has happened. Connors finished 1975 and 1977 as #1 without a major title and McEnroe did it 1982. Probably worth noting that the circumstances for Connors were similar to the modern women's game--there were few tournaments that attracted all the top players, and the best player in the world was a guy who played a very light schedule.

I think the mandatory master's events play a significant role in the more satisfying ATP rankings. The masters events always have most, if not all, the top players whereas sometimes the WTA Tier I's can have pretty anemic fields.

A good, tight win for Dinara today. Anybody see the match?

I saw bits and pieces of all three sets. Dinara ground Venus down.

Dinara's sustained power and the heightened bounce/spin of her shots slowly wears out an opponent if they don't put her down for the count in two sets. (Similar things happened to Pennetta the other week in Stuttgart.) Venus had her chances, she was far ahead in the first set before winning a tiebreak. In the second, she was up 2-0.

Then she want on a Vintage Venus Vacation. Those walkabouts are costliest on clay, because she doesn't tend to have the endurance to tough it out against the steadier top 10ers.

But, I will take positives from this: Venus has better endurance now on clay than she did a year or two ago when it was Jankovic (inferior to Safina to me at least) grinding her down. The Acupulco tournament helped her fitness. And she was responsible for most of the brilliant points or inspired play today -- some of her volleys were fantastic. I'm not counting her out at the French.

Dinara and the Kuz are likely to be the faves going into Roland Garros. We have Madrid next week, but they have now reached the finals of two tourneys in a row. Kuz may be the stronger player, but...even though Dinara has been a no-show at major finals, I don't think she'd be so intimidated if her opponent in Paris was Kuz.

If Dinara goes far at the French, I'm going to be curious to see whether she goes deep by winning epic matches like she did last year. It's double-edged. It could hurt if she runs into a sharp opponent in the late stages who has logged less court time. But if she plays someone like Kuzzy and the match goes deep into a third, my money is on Dinara.

It appears Azarenka's game doesn't fully translate to clay. It's not ugly like Sharapova's. But Kanepi proved moonballs can draw errors from Vika's forehand side, and I figure Kuzzy drove that point home today. I'm still looking forward to seeing more of Azarenka this year. Her game is refreshingly solid, and I really like the way she moves the ball around.

The two top players with the biggest question marks at the moment are Serena and Ana Ivanovic. Serena could deliver anything. But Ivanovic looks headed for even more of a crash than she's already had. She's going into the French with a lousy second half of 08, and a middling 09, and she just pulled out of the final warmup tourney in Madrid after a bewildering loss to Radwanska (she was 4-0 up in the third against an injured opponent) in Rome. Things look rocky in the land of smiles.

Two-hander,

I am going to have to disagree with you on Azarenka. It is almost as if she and Sharapova are the same player. They both are tall and blond with hard, solid, and flat groundstrokes on both sides. They both have a grunt that is more of a "scream". The only difference that I see between Sharapova and Azarenka is that Azarenka's movement is slightly better.

I am enjoying watching Kuznetsova play. She has always had one of the best forehands in the women's game, a good serve, and moved well. But apparently, she has improved her backhand. The first set in her quarterfinal match against Jankovic was flawless, especially off of the backhand side. Kuznetsova is hitting some huge backhands and I think she will defeat Safina in the final.

I don't think Kuznetsova will win the French Open. She should do well, but like Dementieva leading into this year's Australian Open, and like Jankovic leading into most majors, Kuznetsova will likely peak too soon. Jankovic is usually a favorite leading into a grand slam because she does well in many of the warm up events, only to lose to someone who probably didn't play as many events before the major tournament.

Dementieva did the same thing before the Australian Open. She won two tournaments before the Australian Open, defeating Serena easily in one of them. She then loses to Serena in the semifinals. Serena goes on to win the whole thing.

Safina, Dementieva, Jankovic, and Kuznetsova are all scheduled to play next week in Madrid. Most of them have done well and or made it far into the draws of the other tournaments leading into the French Open and they will probably do well next week. Unfortunately, this may be a disadvantage at the French Open.

I have noticed that over the past year or so, the WTA favorites at the majors do well, but they don't win, unless their last name is Williams. Since clay is not the best surface for either Williams sister, I wouldn't be surprised if the winner of this year's French Open is a surprise! Maybe Ivanovic will actually defend her title?

Just to clarify, Safina, Dementieva, Jankovic, and Kuznetsova along with every other top player is scheduled to play in Madrid next week because it's a mandatory tournament. Madrid has the same status as Indian Wells and Miami. I don't think you can opt to skip it unless you have a legitimate medical reason, as Ivanovic appears to.

Kuzzy looks great and super fit, but still doesn't have it between the ears. She can really go on error sprees. Ivanovic seems a lost cause to me when it comes to winning this year's French.

In my book, Dinara is the favorite at Roland Garros. Also, she's been delivering on her #1 ranking thus far in the clay season. She's put in the work. Her game is impressive when it's firing. Her ball toss is so damn high and groundstroke swings so huge that her game is really labored-looking when it isn't working so well. Even then though, she's solid on clay in a way she isn't on hard courts. On clay, Dinara re-angles or changes the dimensions of the court better than the other women. She's comfortable playing behind the baseline. Someone needs to drop shot her more -- if they can do it well.

Dedric, I hear you about Azarenka. I was completely put off by her initially for the Sharapova Jr. factor. But this year I think her strokes look more fluid than mechanical Maria's ever were (not as powerful though), and in rallies I like how she changes the direction of the ball. There's something natural about her as an athlete that I don't think became evident until she started working with this new coach, who seems excellent. To me, she shows signs of developing into an occasional major winner and solid long-term force. But I can see being turned off by her.

Speaking of coaches, Safina's is relentlessly negative. Corina Morariu on the Tennis Channel was really annoyed by it while calling the match today, but it seems to get results.

An interesting thing I read recently is that Serena hasn't really had a strong red clay result in at least five years. For her to turn the tide on clay the way things are looking this year would be a big feat -- more of a surprise than the Australian in 06, though she wasn't ranked then. I don't see it happening. Serena seems to be the hard court player par excellence while Venus is sublime-good on natural surfaces (sublime on grass, good on clay).

The result of this match has me convinced the French is still wide open. Had Kuzzie won I'd put more faith in her that she was the favorite, even though once again a tier 1 is tons different from a grand slam. So Dinara struggles to beat Venus on her worst surface, then thrashes a red hot clay playing Kuznetsova. Which one of them will show up at the French? Serena I don't think is winning shit. Venus I think can get far but is too inconsistent. Jankovic, Ivanovic, and Demented are not playing up to par right now. This thing is wide open. Its just a matter of who will have it together enough for 2 weeks to be able to raise that trophy at the end. Playing wise right now that looks like Safina and Kuznetsova. But given that Safina has yet to win a slam and Kuznetsova seems to fold on the big stage, who the hell knows. I'd love it if one of the youngsters steps up and plays with no fear and takes it out of nowhere. Someone needs to step it up playing wise and mentally because I'm tired of relying on the oldie but goodies simply because of grand slam experience. Although, because its clay my thoughts about Venus or Serena decrease quite a bit. They can really be exposed on this surface that neutralizes their power.

I agree. Safina is the woman to beat. She really impressed me with her play this week. Clay is her best surface and with Jankovic and Ivanovic not up to snuff, she is the favorite. That said, I'm pretty happy with V's performance so far this clay court season. She won a small red clay court tourney and then lost tight matches to the eventual winners of Charleston and Rome. Not too shabby. Here's hoping for more good results in Madrid.

As much as I think Serena's chances are nil, it's when you count her out the most that she seems to really deliver, so I'd still put her in the mix for the French.

By the way, where was Dementieva this week? It's not like her to skip out on popular tournaments. Perhaps she's learned how to pace herself finally.