Will there be an Alcaraz three-peat at Indian Wells?

INDIAN WELLS — It was Pat Riley, a successful but hardly humble individual, who created and copyrighted the term “three-peat” back in 1988 after he coached the Los Angeles Lakers to two consecutive NBA titles.

The phrase became both iconic and generic and because Riley never won more than two in a row, perhaps ironic.  

We’ve heard it this week during the BNP Paribas Open in discussions and praise of Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz. True, for Riley—who will turn 80 in a few days—the game was and is basketball, while for the 21-year-old Alcaraz, it is tennis. But victory is what links the two and every other great competitor.

Whether Alcaraz, number 3 in the rankings, accurately can be called great at this stage in what appears destined to be a tremendous career is a matter of judgment. Yet, as he is set to play against Jack Draper in Saturday’s BNP semi-finals, a three-peat at Indian Wells is quite real.

Not only has Alcaraz won at Indian Wells the past two years, but he has also taken 16 straight matches here. The last one was Thursday night in the quarter-finals, where he battled through cold, windy conditions and a slow start to defeat Argentina’s Fernando Cerúndolo 6-3, 7-6 (4).  

Alcaraz long has been touted as the heir apparent to stars such as Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Carlos already has four major championships, a line-up that includes Wimbledon twice, Roland Garros, and a US Open. Although in recent months Jannik Sinner had taken control and risen to the top of the rankings, he is absent from Indian Wells, serving a three-month suspension for violating the Tour’s drug standards.

Alcaraz, as virtually every player on either the men's or women’s tour, appreciates the program and facilities at Indian Wells—and not only because he has done so well here. “I think tennis is a lonely sport,” said Alcaraz. “I’m lucky enough to bring my family with me to tournaments. So sometimes when you have or you feel peaceful in the place you're going, you feel great. That’s this case here. I feel peace. So I just feel great that way with the people that I have around. That’s why it makes this place really beautiful to me, I think that’s why I show my best tennis here.”

Success comes from listening to knowledgeable advisors and, even when things go wrong—as they do for even the best—continuing to believe in yourself.

“Tennis is about not having a great day every day,” said Alcaraz. “So you have to play your best that day.”   

Alcaraz has played his best often enough to have a chance at his own three-peat. Isn’t that the way it’s done, Pat Riley?

Bit of a stunner, Coco defeated by new mom, Bencic, at Indian Wells

INDIAN WELLS — And for the celebration of her 21st birthday, Coco Gauff will have a glass of well, whatever one selects, when she doesn’t feel like celebrating. Which after being eliminated in her third match of the BNP Paribas Open on Wednesday, Gauff does not. 

That she lost to a wildcard, albeit in Belinda Bencic, a wildcard who before taking a maternity leave was ranked as high as fourth, undoubtedly makes the defeat even more distasteful.  Indeed we’ve mentioned this numerous times, every one of the players on either the women’s or men’s tennis tours is superior and is good enough (or bad enough) to win or lose any time out.  Still, Coco’s 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 defeat was a bit of a stunner. 

Playing the first match at Indian Wells on a 70-degree morning—yes, beautiful weather, but rain is forecast for Thursday—Gauff fulfilled the expectations and started well enough, then the serve problems on which she has spent many practice sessions trying to correct showed up again. 

The other American female star, Madison Keys, who at age 30 last month earned an Australian Open victory, fared better Wednesday in the BNP. Keys, in a reverse of Gauff’s fortunes, came back to beat Donna Vekic, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3. 

The men’s matches were scheduled for nighttime at Indian Wells—where fans come as much for the sunshine as for the stars—though that’s not necessarily prime time. It didn’t matter much. Regardless of time, Carlos Alcaraz, ranked No. 3, and the BNP Paribas defending champion, defeated Grigor Dimitrov 6-1, 6-1.

Jim Mora Sr., when coaching in the NFL, famously said when asked about which team would win, “You don’t know, you can’t know, you never will know.” In tennis, we do know that two months ago, Coco Gauff defeated Bencic in three sets at the Australian Open. At the time, Bencic had only recently returned to competition after several months away. 

You assumed by now that Bencic would have improved, and she had. You also assumed Gauff, outranked by only two women, would win once more. Back to Mr. Mora, you don’t know.

“Here,” said Gauff, “ I mean, I lost 6-4 in the fourth round against a tough opponent who’s coming off a 500 win. Obviously, I wanted to do better, want to have better results, but it’s not something I can crush myself on.” 

Gauff was asked about her birthday, which of course always falls during the tournament. “I  really don’t care, I guess, when my birthday is, but I am excited, and obviously I would have loved to be out here [Thursday]. But I’m going to try to either get home tonight or tomorrow just to celebrate with my family.”

Bencic, 28, gave birth to a daughter, Bella, in April 2024. But that has not diminished her desire to be one of the globe’s best in tennis.

“Obviously, I like the work I have put in,” she said. “Yes, for sure, like we were able to do a clean start. It's not easy after maternity leave, you know, to do all the work again. I didn’t have a baby to improve my career. I had a baby because we felt like that’s our purpose in life. That’s what we want. That came at the right time of our lives.”

What would Bud Collins have nicknamed winning Swiatek?

INDIAN WELLS — Iga Swiatek doesn’t need much on the court these days — my goodness she recorded a bagel in her semifinal — other than one of those colorful nicknames invented by the late, great Bud Collins.

He labeled Steffi Graf  “Fraulein Forehand,”  Venus and Serena Williams “Sisters Sledge Hammer. He might have anointed Swiatek the “Polish Rifle,” except that was used for the NFL quarterback Ron Jaworski, who is American.

Swiatek truly is Polish, born in Warsaw, and without question right now the best women’s tennis player in creation.

She turned the final of the BNP Paribas Open into a quick romp Sunday, defeating bewildered Maria Sakkari, 6-4,6-0. 

The match lasted only 1 hour and 8 minutes. Sometimes it seems to take that long to open a new can of tennis balls.

“Sorry I couldn’t put on a better fight,” said Sakkari, who two nights earlier defeated Coco Gauff in a semifinal.

Two years ago, at the same place, Indian Wells Tennis Garden — when you spend millions to build a sports complex among sand dunes and cacti — it was virtually the same. Swiatek defeated Sakkari 6-4, 6-1. 

In the rankings, she means, a place to which she seems intent — and content — never returning. In her week and a half of competition at Indian Wells, the 22-year-old Swiatek lost only 21 games in six matches. 

“She’s aggressive but she’s solid,” Sakkari said, summarizing Swiatek’s incredibly effective tennis.

It’s too early in a career that could last another 15 years or so to predict how Swiatek someday may be judged against the greats, Margaret  Court, Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, Graf, but among the current females, she’s exactly where the number indicates, first.

It would have been interesting to see what would have been, had Gauff defeated Sakkari, but perhaps the best thing about tennis at any level is the actual playing not the promising. When the opportunity presents itself how do you respond

Swiatek’s response across the net is quite apparent and resourceful. She handled herself beautifully. Same thing after the tournament.

“I’m really proud of myself and super happy,” was her comment after literally lifting the crystal championship trophy. “Even though this tournament looked like the scores, maybe I had everything under control. It wasn't from the beginning to the end. I felt really good on the last two matches. Big amount of confidence.”

And for the bettors who followed the advice of Zachary Cohen in one of the tennis publications to parlay Swiatek and Carlos Alcaraz, who defeated Daniil Medved, 7-6, 6-1. Big money. 

Wonder if Cohen has a decent backhand?

Injury too much for Rafa; out of Indian Wells

Rafael Nadal could beat them all, Roger Federer, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, could beat practically every opponent he faced. Except one. His own body.   

The problem for Rafa the last year isn’t another guy on the court, it is himself getting on the court.

He was going to return to competition this week at the BNP Paribas Open, which started Wednesday at Indian Wells, supposedly having recovered at last from the hip injury suffered at the 2023 Australian Open. Yes, 2023, 13 months ago.

Everything was lined up. He would start against one-time Wimbledon finalist, Milos Ronicl, the Canadian, who also had hip trouble, if not as severe as Rafa.

Then Wednesday night, the BNP and Nadal announced he had withdrawn.

There were the usual condolences. “It is with great sadness that I have to withdraw from this amazing tournament,” was Nadal's statement.

There also were the usual questions.

Is this, as people suggested during the long absence, the end of Nadal’s brilliant career?

Even before the fateful Australian Open Nadal had a series of injuries, disappointing but not surprising for someone who this May will be 38 and plays tennis as aggressively as an NFL linebacker plays defense.`

Then came the big one, the hip.

Rafa was special, along with Federer and Djokovic, one of the Big Three in the men’s game, so important in a sport where there are no home teams but there are home fans, whose appreciation soars on the skills and personalities of athletes from around the globe. It didn’t matter to the public that Nadal was from Spain — in fact it was a part of his appeal— only that he could chase a backhand down the line and return it with a flourish and hit a thundering forehand for a winner.

There are no home games in the individual sports of tennis, golf, and boxing. There are, however, home fans. They find their guy, or lady, and stay loyal until the end.

Which this could be for Nadal, who has won 22 Grand Slam tournaments, two fewer than Djokovic, who after all his nonsense about his refusal to be vaccinated, returns to Indian Wells.

You dare not predict the future, especially in sports, but one suspects we may never see the return of Rafa Nadal at Indian Wells. Or any other tournament.

He spoke in his apology of sadness. That’s a word all too appropriate for all of tennis.

Fritz does what he never thought possible

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — This was early, about the time the uproar had been silenced into disbelief, their hero — good grief — having lost the opening four games when one of his super fans, the type who wave Spanish flags, shouted plaintively, “Let’s go Rafa.”

But on Sunday, Rafael Nadal wasn’t going anywhere. Except to his first loss in 21 matches this year, beaten 6-3, 7-6 (6) by Taylor Fritz, the guy who now may be going places.

Nobody goes undefeated (in the NFL, yes, the ‘72 Dolphins were the exception), particularly in a spurt where you’re traveling around the world and playing hurt, which Nadal was Sunday. So many types of courts. So many different opponents. So whlle Rafa, with his 21 Grand Slam championships, always is a story, Fritz in many ways is a bigger one.

Especially since he virtually grew up at Indian Wells, the desert resort owned by Larry Ellison (he was in the stands Sunday) a hundred miles or so from Fritz’s home in San Diego. Especially since Fritz, 24, is the first American to win the tournament since Andre Agassi some 20 years ago.

It’s a bit overboard to say this was a generational change for the sport in America, but the U.S. has been looking for some men who can perform like Jim Courier — who was there in the Tennis Channel booth at the BNP Paribas Open. Or Pete Sampras. Or Michael Chang. Or Andre Agassi. Or Andy Roddick (the last American to win a major, the 2003 U.S. Open).

Fritz wasn’t thinking so grandiosely. But this victory over the 35-year Nadal (whether or not Nadal had to call for the trainer after getting skunked in he first set) was transcendental in the hoping, the hype, and finally the win. Now, does Francis Tiafoe burst through the door?

Fritz, whose mother and father were tennis pros, said as a kid he thrilled to the cheers he heard for the great players and wanted to earn some on his own. Those came inside 23,000-seat Stadium One, where in an earlier match Iga Swiatek pounded wind-blown Maria Sakkari in the women’s final, 6-4, 6-1.

Fritz, who’s built like an outside linebacker, tweaked an ankle in his semifinal win on Saturday, but he wasn’t going to sit out a chance for glory. If Nadal could play with pain, a kid trying for a breakthrough was no less determined to be across the net.

“Yeah, I mean, I'm just so lucky I was able to go out there, play really well,” said Fritz, “and not be hindered at all by something that I thought.”

Fritz was asked if he could put into words his emotions, and he tried mightily.

”I mean, no. It's like after the match I kept saying, I'm going to cuss, but I said no effing way, no effing way, I can't believe it's real. I signed the camera, I just put question marks. Stunned. Couldn't even believe it. Seriously, this is like a childhood dream come true, like a wild dream you never expect to actually happen. It really hasn't even sunk in.”

It will, and he’ll become a target, the player everyone will want to beat, the way Fritz wanted to beat the big guns.

“I think to do it against Rafa in the end that's like the, I don't know, icing on the cake,” said Fritz. “It's just insane. Someone that I watched like dominate, win everything.

“I didn't watch a ton of tennis growing up, but it's tough to not know these guys, knowing they're literally winning everything, their Grand Slam finals, all their battles. It's insane to even be on the same court with these people, much less be able to beat one of them, to win such a big tournament. To do it here in Indian Wells, as well, the combination of all these crazy things that I never thought possible.”

But as we found out and Taylor Fritz showed, they are possible.

Fritz wins, and Rafa enters the picture

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Taylor Fritz was talking about what some would say was the biggest win of a growing career, and there over his shoulder in the interview room at Indian Wells was a television shot of, yes, Rafael Nadal.

That’s the way it is in tennis, a sport where you virtually aren’t allowed to get your moments without somebody else intruding, if unintentionally.

There’s always another game, another match, especially at the BNP Paribas Open, where the action is compressed to a point you wonder not so much who’s on the court but who isn’t.

On Saturday, in the usual 80-degree-plus temperature of the California desert in March, Fritz, the underdog if only barely, knocked off Andrey Rublev, 7-5, 6-4.

Then in the other half of a doubleheader that filled the 23,000-seat Stadium One, Rafa (phew) made it by fellow Spaniard Carlos Alcaraz, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3.

That puts Fritz and Nadal into the Sunday final of an event that’s a notch or two down from the Grand Slams. They’ll play following the women’s final between Iga Swiatek and Maria Sakkari.

The action really is compressed, and yes, the ladies deserve a separate day for their own final. But unless the Gregorian calendar can be revised, things aren’t going to change.

What’s changed for Fritz, the native southern Californian (lower case, he didn’t attend any university, much less USC), is that he’s become as effective with the forehand as the backhand.

That’s according to Andrey Rublev, whom Fritz defeated.

Rublev, higher ranked (eighth) than Fritz (16th), is the Russian who with a felt-tip pen a few weeks ago scribbled an anti-war message on a television camera lens.

Fritz, 24 (born Oct. 28, 1997), is exactly a week younger than Rublev, one of those bits of trivia that contribute to sporting interest.

His mother, Kathy May, was a tennis champion; His father, Guy, played professionally and coached. Taylor’s destiny was decided early. His success came later as a pro, Fritz battling all those eastern Europeans.

He played Nadal a couple of years back, but Rafa was more experienced, polished, and effective, toying with Fritz.

“I remember I felt like he kind of just played high spinny balls to me,” said Fritz about that match. “He like actually just gave me a lot of forehands in my favorite spot, like the shoulder-high one to like kind of slap flat, and I think he literally just kept doing it until like I missed eventually. I felt like almost baiting me to go for it.

“But yeah, I mean, I kind of beat myself trying to fire off winners against him. So I think my level's so much higher than then, so I won't, maybe won't be feeling like I need to pull the trigger so much, need to do so much. Like, I can kind of just play more within myself.”

Fritz is the first American male player to reach the Indian Wells finals since John Isner in 2012. The fact that it will be against Nadal, who is unbeaten in 20 matches this season (including that record-setting 21st major at the Australian Open), is another issue.

Still, he has taken a step beyond, and he’s satisfied as well he should be.

“When I hit (the final shot),” he said, “as soon as I hit the ball I was like, I think that's going to be good enough to win the point, and then, yeah, as soon as I saw that he hit it and it wasn't going to go on the court, I was just like, you know, so much relief and like, I mean, I just couldn't, you know, couldn't believe it.

“Those moments are like the reason why I wanted to be an athlete, wanted to play professional tennis. It's the best part of it all.”

Even when Rafa Nadal enters the picture.

Fritz likes the video — and his place in Indian Wells semis

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — This is how it is in tennis these days. Taylor Fritz has reached the Indian Wells semifinals and ranks first among American male players, but he’s still a distant second in popularity to the controversial video posted by his girlfriend.

Don’t you just love it? Fritz does, but others involved in his sport (the old boys) do not.

The hot news (in 87-degree weather, seemingly everything’s hot): Fritz, the 24-year-old from over the hill in San Diego, defeated his own nightmares (three double faults back-to-back-to-back in the second set) and Mimi Kecmanovic of Serbia, 7-6(5), 3-6, 6-1.

So, for a second straight BNP Paribas tournament (the last one, a mere five months ago, was a drop-in due to COVID-19), Fritz is in the final four.

In one semi on Saturday, he’ll face Andrey Rublev, who defeated Grigor Dimitrov, 7-5. 6-2. In the other, a couple of Spaniards, young Carlos Alcaraz and not-so-young Rafael Nadal, face each other.

So you say tennis is nothing but hitting balls across a net (as compared to golf, hitting balls in a pasture)? That’s where Fritz’s gal, Morgan Riddle, enters the scene — or more accurately, her TikTok video enters the screen. 

It shows life on the tour, and it’s registered something like 3.7 million views. It’s aimed at non-tennis people, with explanations of the game’s scoring system (of course some quips about “love”) and a bit of self-indulgence. It mentions the importance of the Grand Slams; Fritz did make the fourth round of the Australian.

“I know tennis is relatively uncool and unknown in America,” Riddle said of the reason for the project. That in the video Riddle says she gets to have “champagne and strawberries and cream” at Wimbledon, as well as “getting to wear really cute outfits,” irritated some critics.  

At Indian Wells earlier in the week, Fritz said he believes the video is good for the sport. “I think what she did was awesome for our sport," he said. “It got a ton of people looking at it.

"I’m the one that’s a professional tennis player, I’m the one that does this for a living. I 100 percent agree with everything in that video.”

The win over Kecmanovic was no less agreeable, even with all those uncharacteristic double faults.

“I have no idea what that was,” said Fritz. “I've never done that in my life. Like, I actually have no idea. I literally forgot how to play.

“I really could have easily let that bother me a lot, let it affect me in the third set. I kind of just tried to laugh it off and forget about it. Kind of embarrassing. I think a lot of people saw that.”

Like everyone spread about 16,000-seat Stadium One, and those watching live on Tennis Channel.

“Yeah, I just regrouped in the third. I just told myself it was a fluke, that's not going to happen again. Told myself I had lots of chances to break serve in the second set. He only had the one where I literally forgot how to play tennis. I told myself to regroup, do the same thing.

“I did in the second set, take care of my serve, win those break points. That's what I did.”   

It worked, obviously, and quickly enough there was Fritz, like an actor at curtain call, his arms out, thanking the cheering fans.

“I have a lot of family here,” said Fritz. “I played Easter Bowl here when I was a kid. A lot of history. My dad is the coach at College of the Desert here. I'd come here when I was a kid for the tournament.

“Just a place I'm really familiar with it. It feels like a second home, really.”

No controversial videos, just acceptance.

This is what makes Rafa great, says Kyrgios

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Nick Kyrgios threw his racquet at the court, a symbolic gesture of frustration. Why not? In his mind, he already had thrown away his biggest match of the season.

Sport is awash in possibilities — the what-ifs, could-haves and should-haves. We learned that long ago, so it does no good to think Kyrgios looked very much as if he would defeat Rafael Nadal.

Because he didn’t.

Just the way over two months no one has defeated Nadal, from the Australian Open to Thursday’s quarterfinal in the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells.

Rafa’s 7-6 (0), 5-7, 6-4 triumph in the sweltering 85-degree weather of the Coachella Valley — yes, it’s dry heat, but in a three-hour match, who cares? — gave him a mark of 19-0 for 2022.

And it gave Kyrgios, the 25-year-old Aussie with such athletic ability, and we’re told such potential, the agonizing second thoughts that inhabit the disappointed.

“That one hit pretty hard,” conceded Kyrgios, who got into the tournament as a wild card.

“I felt like, honestly, I was the one to end the streak. I felt like I was playing well. I felt like I did everything right in the first set that I planned to do. I sat down with my coach, myself, and I had a game plan, and everything was working. Two points away from the first set, I don't know how he got out of that game. 5-4, 30-15, just kept replaying that point over and over and … over again.”

Rafa got out of it because, at 35, he has the experience and most significantly the wherewithal. In short, been there, done that.

Nadal has won more than 400 matches, on clay — all those French Opens — on grass and as the surface is at Indian Wells, hard court.

“And competing, competing,” reminded Kyrgios about Nadal’s persistence.

“Somehow snagged the second and a couple points in the third that just, a couple break points. One of them I couldn't do anything on and two, I just missed a backhand by who knows, three inches. That's all it is against Rafa all the time.”

You don’t give Nadal an opportunity. The way you don’t give Tom Brady or didn’t give a younger LeBron James an opportunity. They’ll find a way to beat you, or to let you beat yourself.

“I did it emotionally and mentally,” explained Nadal about winning when others might not have won. “I was ready to keep fighting. So happy with the victory and of course happy with the level of the set.”

Analysts sought reasons, breaking down the little things, the response to some of Kyrgios’ errors, forced or unforced, or to Rafa’s own errors. No one, however, took issue with Kyrgios getting blanked, shut out in the first-set tiebreak. When’s the last time anybody, much less a quality player like Kyrgios, failed to score a tiebreak point?

Nadal, as is his right, wanted to reflect on the result, the victory. The rest is trivia, except for the guys and girls in the press box.

“For me, it was one more match,” said Nadal .“Honestly, no, it's another match of quarterfinals of a Masters 1000 in a big stadium, one of the best stadiums in the world, in front of a great crowd, great opponent in front.

“So for me it was like this, another (hard-fought) match that I needed to play, to play well to go through. I enjoy these kinds of matches. I enjoy the challenges. And today, I was able to keep going, and that makes me happy and makes me proud.”

Rafa said he wasn’t aware Kyrgios hurled his racquet after the final point. What Kyrgios was aware of was his opponent.

“He's too good, I guess.,” Kyrgios said. “He played a few points well and he got out of it and that's what he does. That's what makes him great.”

Exactly.

Just win, baby — and Nadal, Fritz do just that

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Rafael Nadal keeps beating everyone he plays, and as sporting philosophers from Al Davis (“Just win, baby”) to Herman Edwards (“You play to win the game”) have told us, not much else matters. 

Sure, his victory over the 6-foot-11 Reilly Opelka in the BNP Paribas Open tournament was narrow. But it was a victory, the only sort of result Rafa has provided this year.

He won 7-6 (3), 7-6 (5) on (what else?) an 80-degree-plus Wednesday afternoon in the desert, extending his streak since the start of year (and including the Australian Open) to 18-0.

Not only does that represent perfection, it sets up a Thursday match against the guy who is part athlete (a very large part) and part entertainer, the Australian Nick Kyrgios, who says he’d rather be in the NBA on a basketball court than in an open on a tennis court.

The way basketball people used to get excited about a matchup between LeBron James and Steph Curry in the golden days of the Lakers way back in 2019, tennis folk are anticipating Rafa vs. Nick.

And not because it’s the only thing they have. The almost local kid, Taylor Fritz of San Diego, was a winner, defeating Alex de Minauer 3-6, 6-4, 7-6 (5).

So, no Roger (sob) or Novak (No-vax) but some intriguing competitors. At least to some mavens. The writer in the Desert Sun even called Nadal-Kyrgios “must see” tennis.” Wow.

Records in tennis may not be as accurate as those in, say, baseball, but apparently Guillermo Vilas of Argentina won 34 straight matches in the 1970s and Djokovic 53 straight in 2010-11.

Rafa, then, has a long way to go, and even though he’s a mere 35, it’s doubtful he’ll get to the big numbers. Still, 17 without a blemish is not unimpressive.

Similar to any top-line athlete, he says he’s unconcerned with all the numbers except the ones on his scorecard at the conclusion of a match. Is that the Spanish version of “just win, baby”?

Asked if he was happy that he won in straight sets, Nadal had a response often repeated in a career that has produced 401 victories (a record 21 in Grand Slams): “Happy to win. Doesn’t matter how many sets.“

Unless maybe it’s the fifth set of a four-hour Wimbledon semifinal, and recovery tie for the final would be limited. Not that things like that ever affected Rafa.

“But I am happy of course to be in the quarterfinals of this great tournament, playing better without a doubt,” he added. “That's my best match of the tournament. Happy the way that I was able to play during the whole match. I only played one bad game with myself. For the rest, I think I played solid. I did what I had to do against a very difficult player to play, like Reilly.”

Nadal, a four-time winner at Indian Wells, has a winning record against Kyrgios as he has against virtually everyone else.

“(Thursday) is going to be a tough match, but we are in quarterfinals of Indian Wells,” he said. “I have to expect a very tough opponent.”

It’s difficult to say what Fritz expected against de Minauer, but he was behind quickly. Strange thoughts then creep through one’s mind.

”We were talking about this after the match,” said Fritz, who then used a term that makes some athletes cringe. “I'll choke some matches here and there, for sure. A lot of people do. But then I'll also clutch out a lot of matches like I have the last two days, and this one felt really — honestly, the last two third-set breakers I played have been really solid for me, not a lot I did wrong either one.”

Not when you’re the winner.

Isner's win brings back memories — and brings up hopes

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — There was John Isner, the bill of his cap turned the wrong way, as if he were a baseball catcher and not a tennis player. He had overcome an 87-degree temperature and Diego Schwartzman, 7-5, 6-3, in a third-round match of the BNP Paribas Open.

Meaning he’ll move on.

But for so many of us, John Isner provides an excuse to look back, remembering both his own historic match at Wimbledon and, for no particular reason, a time when Americans could win major tournaments.

Maybe they still are capable.

Not Isner, admittedly. True, he reached the Wimbledon semifinals in 2018, but now he’s 36.

If a U.S. player is to break through, it will be somebody like Taylor Fritz or Francis Tiafoe, both 24.

Isner is still a player, as verified by his victory Tuesday over Schwartzman, who once was as high as eighth in the ATP rankings. He was one of four U.S. players to advance, including Fritz, who beat Alex de Minaur of Australia, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6 (2).

Fortunately or unfortunately, nationality plays an important role in tennis, alongside personality. With no team (other than the Davis Cup), the sport relies on fans supporting their men or women.

The greats, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, built an international reputation and following, but for the majority of tennis players where you’re from often counts as much as how you perform.

For a long time, the game seemingly belonged to American men. Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Michael Chang won majors in the 1980s and 90s. But no U.S. player has taken a major since Andy Roddick won the U.S Open in 2003 — 19 years ago.

Isner made his run, with that big serve, but it wasn’t to be. His plaque on the wall at Wimbledon is for that 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68 victory over Nicolas Mahut that took more than 11 hours in 2010.

Wimbledon then changed the tie-break rules, so that record will remain forever.

So, at times, does it appear will the record for America going winless in majors.

The potential is out there, numerous fine young American tennis players, one of whom, Jenson Brooksby, upset a major finalist, Stefanos Tsitsipas, here on Monday night. Potential, but so what? When will it be realized, if ever? And why won’t it be realized?

The United States has more people (other than a couple of Asian nations), better facilities and supposedly a love of sports. Yes, “love” is the tennis term for “nothing,” yet it shouldn’t be applied here.

The explanations for America’s ineffectiveness at Wimbledon, Australia or the U.S. Open — we’ll concede, no chance on the clay at Roland-Garros — are based on the thought that tennis is a minor sport.

Russians play tennis, Serbs play tennis, Spaniards play tennis. Americans play football, baseball, basketball, hockey and golf. Maybe it was Tiger Woods, or maybe it was stars from other sports in pro-ams, but golf has the popularity that tennis seeks.

The U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York City draws more than 500,000 spectators. It’s an event as much as a championship. Does it help any kid in the country become the U.S. Open winner? See the blanks.

Fritz has been touted since he dominated others at Torrey Pines High School in San Diego. His father is involved in the U.S. national tennis teaching program. His mother, Kathy May, was a tremendous player. He turned down a scholarship at USC to turn pro.

Five years later, with an improved forehand, Fritz said, “I expect a lot more of myself.

“I think just my level as a player has gone up. I feel I have gone up several levels, so yeah, I expect a lot more of myself. Six months ago, I think I was ranked almost 40, and now I’m between 15 and 20.”

No one wants him to play a marathon match like Isner — just do something Isner hasn’t, win a Grand Slam.

Medvedev’s loss was Djokovic’s gain

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — So the unvaccinated Serb who isn’t even here because he’s unvaccinated will slip back atop the men’s rankings because the Russian who is here came apart in his match against the Frenchman.

Yes, tennis is very international. And at times quite nonsensical.

At the start of the second week of the BNP Paribas Open at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, it was more a case of what didn’t happen than what did.

You like warmth? It was 86 degrees around 3 p.m. Monday.

You like upsets? Gael Monfils came from a set down and beat Daniil Medvedev, 4-6. 6-3, 6-2.

You like familiarity? Our old (relatively speaking) pal Rafael Nadal defeated Dan Evans, 7-5, 6-3, and now has won 17 straight matches and a total of 400 his career.

The ranking system in both men’s and women’s tennis seems part hopscotch, part quantum physics. Sure, victories are the most important element, but it’s also a matter of when and against whom. And don’t take time off for illness or injury, or you’re likely to plummet to where they’ll never find you on the chart.

This was a prelude to deal with Novak Djokovic, who won’t follow procedures in preventing Covid-19, and his opponent, Medvedev.

Novak loves Indian Wells and won it a few times. But he cannot play in the great state of California, as he could not in the great land of Australia because he is adamant about not receiving a vaccination.

That didn’t temporarily displace him from No. 1 in the rankings, Medvedev did. But Medvedev’s loss Monday means Djokovic gets the last laugh by regaining first place.

“He steps up the level a little bit,” Medvedev said, alluding to Monfils. “I couldn’t find it. I’m actually playing a little bit bad, which for me is not a bad thing.

“Yeah. I just couldn't find my rhythm and completely lost it in the third set because, I think actually first match and first set maybe played even a little bit bad, not a bad thing with me. So I think I got a little bit too confident in that, OK? I'm starting to feel my rhythm.

“Maybe should have paid more attention to small details, which, yeah, in the third set is really tough to get it back, and, yeah, it was going easy for him.”

Asked if there was added pressure because of the No. 1 ranking. Medvedev said, “Definitely not pressure. I thought it could give me more motivation, well, I have been motivated. It's just that, yeah, as I say, I didn't find my best tennis. Well, now I know l’m going to lose the No. 1. When I play my best tennis, it’s tough to beat me.”

Monfils, 35, has always been among the game’s most recognized players, agile and quick if not always consistent. A year ago he married Elina Svitolna, one of the top female competitors, and because she is Ukrainian as much in the headlines for her nationality as for her tennis.

He has been around, heard all the questions, given all the answers.

Monfils tried to downplay the win, realizing that at this stage — he beat Nadal 13 years ago — it’s as much a grind as a game.

“It's tough because you guys make it,” Monfils said, meaning the media.

“I make it like a good win, you know? But tough. I played a great player, of course, one of the best players. I just felt good today. Tactically, I was good. I'm full of confidence, of course, so you know, I'm just happy to win this match.”

 As happy as Medvedev was unhappy to lose his — and fall from No. 1.

Indian Wells is not "Tennis Paradise" for Osaka

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — It was 83 degrees by late afternoon on Sunday in the desert, warm enough to dry Naomi Osaka’s tears. Assuming she hadn’t blown town.

After coming unglued once again.

“Tennis Paradise” is the slogan for the magnificent sporting complex not far from Palm Springs where the BNP Paribas Open is held annually.

That depends on your definition of paradise.

Years ago, it was the place where Serena Williams was booed viciously by spectators when Williams withdrew from a semifinal match against older sister Venus.

Then Saturday night, a heckler got to traumatized Naomi Osaka a few moments after Veronika Kudermetova got to her, 6-0, 6-3 in a second-round match of the 2022 BNP.

The guy shouted, “Naomi, you suck.” Not very kind, and hardly expected from the tennis clientele, but not quite the sort of remark that would have you sobbing.

Unlike baseball, however, there is crying in tennis, usually joyful after a championship at the U.S. Open, which Osaka has won, or Wimbledon.

But these were tears of anger. Or disappointment. Or misery. Or frustration.

Tears during a post-match interview over the stadium public address system. Tears that even had the individual conducting the interview, Andrew Krasny of the Tennis Channel, consoling Osaka with the words “We love you here.”

At least everybody but one person.

We’ll get to Osaka shortly after we get to fans, whose displeasure and intent on acting obnoxious, inherent in baseball, football and basketball, has expanded to golf and tennis.

Which can be considered both unfortunate — quiet on the tee, please — and in a way advantageous.

If you want to fill the arenas, ballparks and galleries, you’re going to have to accept someone mocking Bryson DeChambeau.

Or belittling Osaka. As improper and unsympathetic as that may be.

Most times, the comments are swallowed up by the noise of the crowd. And if they’re not, well, among the first things a young athlete is taught is to ignore the disparagement, the so-called bench-jockeying from opposing players who spare no possible insult.

Osaka is 24, a four-time Grand Slam winner whose fame, or infamy of late, is less from the shots off her racquets than from her general well-being.

At the French Open in May, Osaka first refused to attend a media conference and then withdrew from the tournament, citing mental health problems, a story that became larger than any triumph.

Returning to tennis, Osaka was beaten in the third round of U.S. Open last fall, then left the sport again, explaining she no longer found satisfaction in playing.

She returned to the tour in Australia in January, apparently more upbeat, but lost to Amanda Anisiimova, the American, in the third round.

Indian Wells was only Osaka’s third tournament in six months. She insisted she needed matches to get into shape, but she played only two here.

Kudermetova broke Osaka’s serve in the opening game, and the spectator’s shout came as Osaka prepared to return serve. She approached the chair umpire, Paula Vieira Souza, and appeared to ask about having the spectator ejected, but Souza did nothing,.

Kudermetova held serve, and Osaka began to tear up as she prepared to serve the next game.

“To be honest, I’ve gotten heckled before, and it didn’t really bother me,” Osaka said. “But, like, heckled here? I watched a video of Venus and Serena getting heckled here, and if you’ve never watched it, you should watch it.

“And I don’t know why, but it went into my head, and it got replayed a lot.”

Of course, in Tennis Paradise, a little bit of hell always gets attention.

Badosa wins a match that was matchless

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — It took two and a half years to get tennis back to Indian Wells, and once it returned it seemed determined never to end.

On a Sunday blessed by the weather that makes the California desert so attractive in early autumn, Paula Badosa and Victoria Azarenka played a match that would be attractive any time, any place.

Badosa, a 23-year-old Spaniard, outlasted — and the term is more than a cliché in this instance — Azarenka, 7-6 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (2), to win the BNP Paribas Open.

The final took 3 hours 4 minutes, the longest ladies’ match ever at Indian Wells. And had it been at a Grand Slam, say Wimbledon or the U.S. Open rather than the tournament nicknamed “The Fifth Slam,” it could have been historic.

Commenting for the Tennis Channel, Lindsay Davenport, who did win those two Slams, the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, described the match as one of the best she had seen.

Apropos of nothing on this 86-degree afternoon except the idea that greatness attracts, nine-time Grand Slam winner Monica Seles was part of the crowd that filled a good part of the 16,100-seat main stadium at Indian Wells Tennis Garden.

Held for years in March — it will be back in March 2022, not that far away — the tournament was wiped off the sports map in 2020 because of Covid-19. The tennis people and BNP decided to try a one-off return this October. No Serena Williams, Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal. No Novak Djokovic, a former Indian Wells winner, who chose not to enter. And early on, no Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev, who lost in the first few days.

But the tournament not only survived, it prospered. So the men’s final, in which Cameron Norrie defeated Nikoloz Basilashvili, 3-6. 6-4, 6-1, wasn’t what they call glamour stuff in Hollywood, 150 miles up Interstate 5.

But, ah, the women’s match was brilliant.

Azarenka, 32, is from Belarus, but she lives in southern Cal and twice previously won Indian Wells singles.

While she wasn’t pleased with the result of this match, she was pleased it was held — and that it was so competitive.

As Chris Clarey of the New York Times pointed out, both Azarenka and Badosa were stuck in long quarantines when they went in January to play in the Australian Open.

On Sunday, they remarkably — and deservedly — ended up facing each other in what will turn out to be the final event of the tennis season, an event that came through persistence and hard work by the BNP and Indian Wells staffers.

When someone told Azarenka the tennis Sunday was extraordinary, she said, “I would agree with comparing it to the match of the year. I think the entire match, the quality of tennis was super high level.

“We were both going for our shots, really pushing each other to the max. I think that's what made it super entertaining, that competitive spirit, really fighting for every ball, not giving in anywhere. It's very challenging to maintain that. I think that we both did that really well.”

Badosa, younger, seemed stronger in the last game, not holding anything back. She called the match a roller coaster, the way she would take charge and then lose control.

The majority of fans cheered loudly for Azarenka, but they never held their cheers or applause for Badosa following a big shot.

“I was playing Vika,” said Badosa, using the name by which the players call Azarenka. “She's a great champion. I‘ve admired her since I was a little girl, so that's another thing.

“Yeah, it was amazing. I'm still a little bit in shock about what happened right now. But in that moment, I was super excited and super proud of what I did after three hours fighting on court.”

The BNP people should be no less proud of the fact that the tournament was played.

Of the Giants, McEnroe and officiating

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — What happened at the final pitch of that agonizing Giants-Dodgers playoff, the arguable call on the last pitch that left fans outraged and players bewildered, wouldn’t happen in tennis.

But it used to happen. Or have you forgotten John McEnroe?

John’s not down here in the desert at the BNP Paribas tournament, but his spirit is. When McEnroe played, and he was great — as he still is as a TV commentator — John would challenge virtually every line call with his inimitable observation, “You cannot be serious.”

Now, at least at this BNP, the calls are made electronically. No lines people, no Serena Williams blistering a cowering female official with language that wouldn’t pass a censor.

But tennis is absolute. The courts are painted on the surface. The ball is either in or out. And the replays prove it to the fans, in attendance — clapping rhythmically as the picture comes into view — or watching on TV.

We can be serious.

Baseball is more judgmental.  Did the Giants’ Wilmer Flores check his swing on what would become the ultimate pitch of the 2021 San Francisco season?

He thought he did. Thousands of Giants fans thought he did. But with two outs, the Dodgers leading 2-1 and the tying run on base, first base ump Gabe Morales raised a thumb.

Game over. For the Giants, year over. Outrage beginning. But why? Was there outrage over Mookie Betts’ four hits?

The Dodgers were the better team, are the better team. They’ve got all those Cy Young Award winners and MVPs. Their payroll reflects the quality of the roster.

I’ve said it before: Cars, wine and ballplayers — you get what you pay for, with exceptions.

The Dodgers are paying around $200 million for their roster, the Giants around $140 million. Questionable calls by officials? They will be a part of all sports, until as has happened in tennis, humans are eliminated from the process, which you hope is never. Every human errs.

Henry (Red) Sanders, the football coach at UCLA half a century ago, insisted, “When my team makes as few mistakes as the officials, we’ll win every game.”

The Giants won more games than predicted, but in the end they couldn’t win the game they needed against the dreaded Dodgers, who if it hadn’t been for a comparable situation in reverse would have finished the regular season a game in front of the Giants instead of a game behind.

Not that it matters now, except for the health of Dodgers manager Dave Roberts, who became apoplectic over the call. In that game, on July 22 at Dodger Stadium, L.A. was ahead 3-2, with two outs in the ninth. The Giants had the bases loaded. Dodgers reliever Kenley Jansen threw a 3-2 pitch at which Darin Ruf seemed to swing and miss to end the game.

Not so fast. The umpire decided it was not a swing and the game was tied. Roberts screamed and was ejected, and the Giants eventually won.

Good teams, good players somehow find a way.

When there was an obvious missed call against Roger Federer, he would shake it off and win the next point.

When the 49ers were collecting Super Bowl trophies, earning the label “Team of the ‘80s,” nothing appeared to bother them, whether it was flight problems, officiating or the opposing team. But when the losses grew in the ‘90s, so did the complaints — excuses if you will.

The pressures in big-time sports are enormous. Failure is never far away. Then again, neither is success.

A month ago, Daniil Medvedev won the U.S. Open over Novak Djokovic. A few days after that, he was upset by Grigor Dimitrov here at Indian Wells.

Whatever the game, you hit the shots or throw the pitches and do your best to ignore the line calls.

Whether they’re made by an electronic device or by man.

Azarenka’s still here — very much so

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — That song “I’m Still Here,” from a Sondheim musical, seems so perfect for Victoria Azarenka, who despite everything — including a child custody battle that kept her in courtrooms and off the courts — is very much still here.

Still in the game, while some of her rivals — Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams — are not.

Also, still in the BNP Paribas Open, where Friday she plays Jelena Ostapenko in a semifinal.

The one nicknamed Vika is a lady of substance. She’s earned millions in a career that pushed her to No. 1 not that long ago and included wins in two Australian Opens.

She’s from Belarus but spends so much time in southern California that she owns a home in West Los Angeles. She’s known for her backhand and persistence. And her independence.

It’s not easy — or sometimes not fair — for women sporting stars who are fighting two battles against the clock, wanting to play well virtually forever but also, before it gets too late, wanting to have a family. Or perhaps not wanting to have a family.

Azarenka gave birth to a son, Leo, in December 2016 but then broke up with the father, Billy McKeague, in August 2017. But because Azarenka is not an American citizen and McKeague is, she was prevented from taking the baby with her on the road to play tennis — and most tennis is on the road.

Azarenka was forced to withdraw from from the remaining tournaments that year, explaining in April 2018, “I wouldn't wish that on anybody to go through what I've been going through.”

The Daily Mail in London reported that the only way Azarenka could play in the U.S. Open that year is if “I leave Leo behind and enter in tournaments outside the United States, where most are, or in California, which I'm not willing to do.”

At the beginning of 2018, it was reported Azarenka had won an early round of the U.S. custody proceedings, with an L.A. judge ruling that the case should take place in Belarus, rather than Los Angeles County.

Azarenka may have lost time, but once again across a net she showed she could win matches.

To make things more uncomfortable, tennis — all sports — had to go through quarantines and suspensions during the second half of 2020.

What Azarenka went through surprised many, Victoria herself. She upset Serena in the semifinal of the 2020 U.S. Open before losing to Naomi Osaka in the final. After all the hassles, she was a success again..

Then, at last in 2021, Azarenka was awarded custody of Leo. Mother and son are a happy duo around area swimming pools when Victoria is at leisure in a place she knows well, having won the BNP a few times previously.

Azarenka was asked if getting this far at Indian Wells, however she does against Ostopenko, gives her a different viewpoint of a season that, because of the custody situation, was less than she would want.

“I don't think I'll be looking at this and kind of look back into the season,” she said. “I think the more important is to actually look right now what I'm able to do. Not necessarily look forward, but it's almost like reassurance here.

“The results are coming. That's the measure, right? How else are you going to measure your progress? In tennis, unfortunately, it's all by the results, especially that measure from the outside. For yourself, you can put little goals and try to climb that ladder. In the end of the day, results is going to determine how well you performed, which sometimes can be tricky.”

Victoria Azarenka isn’t going away. She’s still here.

Indian Wells: Few fans, and now no Medvedev

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — “It’s quarter to three, there’s no one in the place except you and me…” Yes, Sinatra, about the end of a brief episode.

Now it’s quarter to three on a Wednesday, and while there were more than you and me at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, it didn’t seem like many more.

Maybe 1,500 people were scattered about the 16,100-seat Stadium 1, other than Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York the largest tennis facility in the world.

It was a classic autumn afternoon in the California desert, 78 degrees, and while the match that just finished wasn’t classic, it was interesting — and surprising.

Grigor Dimitrov, waking up the echoes, upset the No. 1 seed, and winner of the recent U.S. Open, Daniil Medvedev, 4-6, 6-4. 6-3.

Not a good tournament for Medvedev, struggling to get atop the rankings over Novak Djokovic, whom he stunned in the final of the Open two and a half weeks ago.

Not a particularly good tournament for the BNP Paribas Open, mainly for reasons beyond its control.

The fact the BNP even was held, following a delay of two and a half years because of Covid-19, is a tribute to the sponsors and the ATP and WTA, respectively the associations in charge of big-time pro tennis.

The BNP always had been in early spring. The decision to take a chance with a temporary October return was dangerous and courageous, breaking tradition and battling issues. Proof of vaccination was required to enter the grounds; children under 12 could not be vaccinated, a factor that contributed to a lack of attendance.

And as we’re aware, fall means football, especially for television. The BNP has been on the Tennis Channel, but other than the true fans, who even cared?

And with changes because of time and injuries, the big guns, the players who made Indian Wells a must-see event — Roger Federer, Serena Williams, Rafael Nadal — were missing, one reason the fans are missing.

A mid-afternoon match on Wednesday never is going to pack the place, but you’d have thought a match between a man who is No. 2 in the world and one, Dimitrov, who four years ago was No. 3, might draw.

Or maybe, given all the factors, you wouldn’t have thought that.

What a disappointed Medvedev — who was up a set and a break — thought was that the loss to the 28th-ranked Dimitrov could be blamed on a lot of things, including Dimitrov.

A lack of fans was not among them, however.

“Tennis is not about just one thing,” said Medvedev, a Russian whose English, while fine, is not perfect. “First of all, I mean, to lose four times the serve is just unacceptable. Yeah, that's why I lost the set.

“I don't remember myself losing three service games, even four service games ever, I guess, on hard courts. That shows how slow this court is and the conditions, more like clay, I would say, which I don't like, because to lose four times the serve is just unacceptable. Yeah, that's why I lost the set.”

The sun bothered him, too. He likes night matches. Hey, a great player adapts. Or does he want lights at Wimbledon?

“Second,“ said Medvedev, “I knew that during the day, much tougher to control the ball for me, especially on the serve. That's what we saw in some moments I couldn't pass my first serve. That's why I was asking to play at night, but this time it was not possible because I had a day off where other and were supposed to play today, so they were playing late at night. That's completely normal, but I knew it's not going to advantage me.”

He did offer kind words about Dimitrov.

“Grigor, going to be straightforward, if he plays like this, like he did starting from (down)  4-1, he's going to win the tournament. But let's see the final result of the tournament.”

When the stands will be full.

After a dark and stormy night, the sun shines at Indian Wells

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — "Ladies and gentlemen," said the guy with the microphone at courtside, "Andy Murray."

Indeed, it was, specifically, Sir Andrew Baron Murray OBE. Except instead of entering, he was departing.

A quick turn, a wave of appreciation to fans who had just seen another one of their favorites lose in semi-rapid fashion — Leylah Fernandez was the other — and the BNP Paribas Open was without another top attraction.

That's the way it is so often is in tennis, where the talent is relatively balanced — especially with no Serena, Roger or Rafa — and a double fault or wide backhand may be the difference between staying around or moving on.

It's been said perhaps all too often: Tennis is as much a sport of names as much as games. It's Hollywood in sneakers, a legitimate analogy down here in the desert where streets are names for Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra.

The star system is paramount, and that is why Leylah Fernandez, who got prime time during the U.S. Open, got most of the cheers Tuesday on Stadium Court One, even though Shelby Rogers got their match, 2-6, 6-1, 7-6 (4), to advance to the quarterfinals.

A short time later, Alexander Zerev, who was a finalist in this year's U.S. Open, which did get him some status even if it didn't get him the title, defeated Murray, 6-4, 7-6. Promoting a tennis tournament ain't easy even if the tournament's held at Larry Ellison's expensive and magnificent facility near Palm Springs.

This comeback year — the BNP used to be in March, until it was halted by the Covid-19 surge in 2020 — it happens to be the same time and not too far away from the Giants-Dodgers playoffs.

Then on Monday night, it had weather woes. Up in L.A. for Game 3, there was high wind. Down here, we had rain in the desert. In October. Tuesday, as a sparse few spectators huddled under stairways and entrance tunnels, I was tempted to borrow from Snoopy, the familiar beagle and begin a story, "It was a dark and stormy night...”

Of course, Tuesday, like the lyrics of a song, the clouds were gone from around 10,000-foot Mount San Jacinto, skies were blue and the athletes and fans could shed their jackets and their doubts.

Poor Francis Tiafoe, the American. He got soaked literally and figuratively, beaten by Hubert Hurkacz, 6-3, 6-2. The match started in a downpour at 6:10 p.m., and after starts and stops and splashes and drips ended in a mist at 9:15.

Tough luck for the contestants and fans, but the next morning the courts were dry, and Rogers was en route to a victory over Fernandez.

"She's had such an incredible season," Rogers said of Fernandez.

Rogers' season was maybe less incredible, but it included an upset of the world's number 2 ranked female player, Ash Barty, in the U.S. Open.

"I thought it was an incredible battle (Tuesday). And we both played really well at times. It was a sort of tug-of-war at times. It was really about who was dictating play."

But it usually is. Once in a while, a great counter-puncher takes the match. Usually, it's the player who has control.

So often in sports the comments deal with possibility and no reality, about what might have been had a ball not gone out. So perhaps it is best to ignore the idea that Murray, working his way back from two knee surgeries, would have returned to the top 100 with a victory over Hurkacz.

"I don't want to get back to the top 100," Murray said. "I want to get back to the top 10."

Laylah Fernandez is almost already is there.

Will Leylah become the star that women’s tennis needs?

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — She’s Canadian, which in these days of proscribed determinations means she can’t be America’s Tennis Sweetheart.

So, we concede and declare Leylah Fernandez North America’s sweetheart.

That works doesn’t it? Especially now that citizens of the United States are permitted again to cross the border and also play baseball up there against the Blue Jays — until they were eliminated.

However she’s listed, there’s no question Fernandez is what the game never has too much of, a young, aggressive player loaded with personality and confidence who’s not afraid to make a comment or hit a sliced backhand.

The non-tennis types — meaning most of us — were unaware of Fernandez until the U.S. Open a few weeks back when, defying predictions if not logic, she turned up in the finals days after turning 19.

That she was beaten by another of the new generation, 18-year-old Emma Raducanu, who also was born in Canada but then moved to England, did nothing to diminish Fernandez’s prospects or popularity.

Is it too much to say that fans at the Open in New York loved the young lady almost as much as the Yankees? Probably, but who cares?

Fernandez has reached the third round of the BNP Paribas Open, and on Monday night in a third-round match she’ll play Shelby Rogers of the U.S., who if she doesn’t have Fernandez’s backstory has some big-time wins, including one over top-ranked Ash Barty in the recent U.S. Open.

It’s the sort of match that tennis can use any time but particularly when it’s going against the fourth game of the Giants-Dodgers playoff 125 miles up the interstate at Dodger Stadium.

Raducanu was here at Indian Wells, oh so briefly, losing her opening match — after which the London Daily Express criticized her for breaking up with her coach.

That’s unlikely to happen for Fernandez. Her coach is her father, Jorge, a one-time soccer player from Ecuador.

“Every day we just got to keep working hard, we got to keep going for it,” Fernandez said after one of her victories at the Open.

“Nothing’s impossible. There’s no limit to what I can do. I’m glad that right now everything’s going well. My dad would tell me all the time there’s no limit to my potential to what I can do.”

So true, but the tennis battlegrounds are littered with the optimism of those who won quickly and then disappeared from the rankings. It’s one thing to get there; it’s something else to stay there.

Consistency is the mark of champions, especially in tennis where the venues and opponents continue to change. Monday morning at Indian Wells, 20 miles from Palm Springs, the weather was perfect. By afternoon, the wind was sweeping through the San Gorgonio Pass.

Fernandez didn’t exactly sweep through her second-round match Sunday night, outlasting the ninth seed, Anastasia Pavlyuchena, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4.

Now, after the Open, in every match Fernandez carries a burden of expectations, hers as much as those of fans and media.

“I did not play my best tennis,” said Fernandez, “made a few mistakes here and there, and she took advantage of it. I was glad I was able to fight back in the second set and figure a way to get the ball back in one more time, take my chances when I got them.”

With the advancing age (40) and not infrequent injuries of Serena Williams, tennis — mainly women’s tennis, North American women’s tennis — will require a new player of charisma and talent to attract fans the way Serena did.

Maybe that player is Leylah Fernandez. Maybe not.

“I am a person who is an introvert, likes puzzles.” said Fernandez after the second round of the BNP. ”I like figuring things out, Sudoku, Rubik's cubes, figuring out problems.”

Tennis is waiting to find out if Fernandez will be able to solve the question of whether she’ll be a star.

BNP Paribas is back — facing Giants-Dodgers

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — They brought back the tennis tournament, known as the fifth Slam — yes, a bit of an overstatement — after a Covid-19 halt that made you wonder if it ever would return.

Which is not that much of an overstatement these confusing days of masks, vaccines and protests.

The BNP Paribas Open not only finds itself going against the Dodgers-Giants playoff up Interstate 10 — of considerably greater interest down here in Dodgers’ territory — but also losing one of its prime attractions, Emma Raducanu, ousted after her first match.

The BNP was played for years in March, the first tournament of note after the Australian Open, a perfect time and perfect place — the desert near Palm Springs, 125 miles southeast of L.A. — to get stars and get attention.

But you know what has happened, and the happenings began at the BNP or, as it also is called, Indian Wells.

In the early spring of 2020, it was the first sporting event cancelled because of the coronavirus. There was disbelief. Then, as the weeks moved on and the NBA and baseball were derailed, dismay. Golf followed. So did soccer.

Now the renaissance, in a manner of speaking. The weather is spectacular — the high temperature at 4 p.m. Sunday was 88 degrees. The tennis isn’t bad either, Andy Murray rallying to beat Carlos Alcarez, the precocious 18-year-old Spaniard, 5-7, 6-3, 6-2.

Along with the U.S. Open in September, the BNP is on a new track without an older generation. No Roger Federer, of course, out because of knee surgery. No Rafael Nadal, left foot injury. No Serena Williams, calf injury. No Novak Djokovic — he decided the tournament he once described as his favorite wasn’t worth flying from one continent to another.

Long ago, the people who controlled another sport based on individual performance, golf, would complain when the media, then known as the press, emphasized who wasn’t entered over who was entered.

The reason is obvious. That’s who people wanted to see, primarily Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus and later Tiger Woods. It didn’t mean the others aren’t any good. They were damn good. They just didn’t prove exciting enough to fill the seats or push up the TV ratings.

Murray and Alcarez met on Indian Wells No. 2 stadium court. The crowd grew as the match progressed, but it never packed the place.

Alcarez was a quarterfinalist in this year’s U.S. Open, Impressive although nothing to make anyone believe he’s the new Nadal — and even if he is, potential is not to be compared with results.

Murray has some of those results. He’s won three Grand Slams, and although that’s not close to the 20 each for Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. he’s the breaker, the first man from Britain in 77 years to win Wimbledon.

If that isn’t special, nothing is.

Andy had debilitating injuries and considered retirement. Finally he submitted to hip surgery, and his dedication was reflected in a comeback effort in a match that lasted nearly five hours in the recent U.S. Open.

His effort was praised highly and deservedly in the British press, but he’s now 33 and much nearer the end of a brilliant career than the beginning.

Murray is back. The BNP Paribas is back, in the same venue, the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, built by Larry Ellison, if being held in an unusual situation, against an historic baseball rivalry.

And just for the heck of it, a few days ago the Warriors and Lakers played an NBA exhibition game in Los Angeles.

Tennis, baseball, basketball. We’ve been told too much of a good thing can be wonderful. We’ll find out from the way the BNP Paribas tennis tournament gets treated by the media and by the fans.

At Indian Wells, the Lucky Loser is not so lucky against Raonic

By Art Spander
For Maven Sports

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — The description, “Lucky Loser,” seems an oxymoron; army intelligence, jumbo shrimp, lucky loser. Except this is tennis, not the military or crustaceans.

Read the full story here.

Copyright 2019, The Maven