Wimbledon Gentlemen's Qualifying Singles: Who Can Come Through? - UBITENNIS
Connect with us

Editorial

Wimbledon Gentlemen’s Qualifying Singles: Who Can Come Through?

The Wimbledon starts with qualifying on Monday! Who will be the 16 qualifiers that make it to the main draw?

Jakub Bobro

Published

on

The top seed in the qualifying for Wimbledon is rather symbolic. The World No. 100 Alessandro Giannessi hasn’t played on grass since the last Wimbledon qualifying, where he lost to then No. 706 Joe Salisbury. It is safe to say that Giannessi will most likely not make it to the main draw. No. 26 seed Adrian Menendez-Maceiras lost the only match on grass he played this year, and qualified for Wimbledon only in 2012, 5 years ago. The unseeded players in the section are the real contenders – Sam Groth, Simone Bolelli, or Tobias Kamke will make the main draw. Groth – Bolelli is a popcorn first round which makes the broadcasters glad they purchased the streaming rights, even with the absence of Maria Sharapova. Bolelli entered with a protected ranking as he has been out of the tour with injury for 9 months. He hasn’t played on grass for over 2 years, but he made the Round of 32 on three previous occasions. I think Groth will come through this match and go on to qualify. He had a solid showing at the grass challengers, reaching semis at both. Groth’s best result is a 3rd Round, and he could replicate it with the right draw. Tobias Kamke will probably beat Menendez-Maceiras, but his journey will end with Groth. The veteran Aussie should manage to beat any of his potential final round opponents.
My Pick: Sam Groth

 

The qualifier from the second section will come from the match between 2nd seed Santiago Giraldo and Stefanos Tsitsipas. Giraldo reached the 3rd Round on 2 out of 3 of his last appearances at Wimbledon. Tsitsipas seems to have a game suited for grass, and went 1-2 on the surface this year. He lost in semifinals of Junior Wimbledon to Denis Shapovalov but won doubles with Kenneth Raisma beating Shapovalov and Auger Aliassime. It’s his first appearance in qualifying at the age of 18, and Giraldo’s first since 2009. Giraldo’s experience will be the deciding factor in the 3 set endeavor. Yannick Hanfmann could challenge Giraldo, but I see the Colombian continuing. Opponents in the final round have a total of 0 matches won on grass this year, all of them preferring clay.
My Pick: Santiago Giraldo

The biggest contenders for this qualifying spot are also meeting in the first round – No. 21 seed Taylor Fritz and Marco Chiudinelli. Chiudinelli is still in Top 200 at 35, and this will be one of his last solid chances to qualify for a slam. The Swiss beat Fritz just a couple of weeks ago in Stuttgart, so he is my pick. 3rd seed Tennys Sandgren has been on a rise this year, but with little to no experience on the most tricky surface, it’s difficult to see how Sandgren would beat Chiudinelli.
My Pick: Marco Chiudinelli

The unseeded players are not very impressive, so 4th seed Lukas Lacko and 23rd seed Peter Gojowczyk are the main contenders for this ticket into Wimbledon. Lacko will definitely need it, he is defending 115 points from last year, when he qualified and went on to beat Lorenzi and Karlovic before falling to Cilic. Lacko qualified for Stuttgart and Halle, losing to Struff and Mischa Zverev respectively. Gojowczyk won three matches in Stuttgart but lost in Surbiton and Ilkley. The head-to-head is 1-1, with Lacko winning their only match on grass. Lacko has also played in many more slams, and reached Round of 32 at Australian Open, which should give him the edge in a Best-of-Five match in the final round.
My Pick: Lukas Lacko

5th seed Andrey Rublev is the overwhelming favorite to qualify for Wimbledon. The #NextGen Russian lost out to Marcus Willis last year in the second round but should get in this time. Rublev beat Albert Ramos-Vinolas and Mikhail Youzhny in Halle before losing to Karen Khachanov, a fellow young Russian. This performance convinced me that Rublev will beat Joao Domingues, James McGee, and Paul-Henri Mathieu and qualify for his first Wimbledon. Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is also there, almost comically. The 39-year-old Spaniard is trying to break his 6 match losing streak. This will be Mathieu’s last Wimbledon, and just like at Roland Garros, he wasn’t given a wild card. While Mathieu managed to qualify for his home slam, I don’t think he will replicate it. Mathieu retired in Ilkley, so he might be carrying an injury.
My Pick: Andrey Rublev

Section No. 6 is perhaps the weakest section. None of the 8 players in this section registered a single win on grass this season, so there isn’t a clear favorite. Go Soeda is the highest seed, but lost to Glasspool and Fritz in straight sets in the lead-up. Ilya Ivashka is coming in the best form, winning the Fergana Challenger. However, it was played on hard courts, and Ivashka has only played two matches on grass in his career, not winning a set in either. Grega Zemlja reached the 3rd round at Wimbledon before but has been struggling with injury. I would put my money on Ivashka of this line-up. The Belorussian is 196 cm tall, which warrants him a certain advantage on grass. This section is mostly a coin toss, and I can’t see the qualifier from this section doing particularly well in the main draw.
My Pick: Ilya Ivashka

Following Section No. 6 is another section that’s hard to predict. Seeds Kavcic and Robert both prefer clay. I could see Akira Santillan make his way to the final round past Kudla and Kavcic. It is true that Kudla reached the 4th Round just two years ago, but went winless in the lead-up. The American has been struggling overall, and his ranking has been declining. I could be wrong, this could be a great restart point for his career. However, Santillan scored wins over J.P. Smith, Hiroki Moriya, and Stefan Kozlov in Surbiton, which makes him the favorite in my eyes. As to who will meet him in the final round, it will probably be Tim Smyczek or Andrew Whittington. I think it is time for the 20-year-old who switched from representing Australia to Japan in 2015 to make some waves by qualifying for his first slam and come into the tennis public eye.
My Pick: Akira Santillan

The last section of the top half has three big contenders, all fighting for one final round spot. Lukas Rosol is more of an honorary and nostalgic contender. The hard-hitting Czech has fallen out of Top 200, is 1-2 on grass this season, but the memories of his incredible victory over Rafael Nadal don’t allow me to leave him out. In an all-American serve bonanza, Reilly Opelka and Rajeev Ram have been drawn against each other in the opening round. 19-year-old Opelka has been consistently rising and could be on the verge of Top 100 by U.S. Open. Opelka went 3-3 on grass, taking losses to Thompson, Copil, and Shapovalov. Rajeev Ram lost to Daniil Medvedev in straight sets, his only match since Roland Garros. I think that 2 years after his Junior Wimbledon title, Opelka could qualify for the main draw and be impactful. No one in the top part won a match on grass, and the 8th seed Darian King has not won since March.
My Pick: Reilly Opelka

Illya Marchenko seems to be the overwhelming favorite to qualify despite a not-so-great grass season, going 2-3. The Ukranian has been struggling this year, and with his flat game, he could put it together at Wimbledon. Benjamin Becker is very far from his former heights, 31st seed Andrej Martin has never enjoyed success outside of clay. Marcus Willis seems to be his only real challenger, as he earned wins over Kudla and Ebden, and took Groth and De Minaur to three sets. That match does not have a clear winner, and I am sure that Willis will have the crowd pushing him to summon his best tennis.
My Pick: Illya Marchenko

The overall theme of this section is players trying to prove themselves. Sasha Bublik will want to show everyone that Australian Open wasn’t a one off. Oscar Otte, who rose from No. 521 at the beginning of the year to No. 170, will want to prove that he can transfer his success to grass. Daniel Brands and Luca Vanni will want to prove that they are still here and capable of stringing wins together. Both have been struggling to do so recently. I believe Sasha Bublik has the best chance to prove his point, and he will be the one to qualify.
My Pick: Alexander Bublik

In Section 11, all 8 players seem to be contenders. 11th seed Sergiy Stakhovsky went 4-2 on grass and also qualified for Paris (coincidentally facing Kenny de Schepper in both Paris and London). Stakhovsky’s biggest success came on grass when he upset Roger Federer at the 2013 Wimbledon. De Schepper scored wins over Marchenko and Norrie. His loss to Stakhovsky at Roland Garros was decided in the final set tiebreak, which must give the Frenchman hope and a craving for revenge. Wild card Edward Corrie went winless in the grass season but took a set in all three matches. A battle of generation will be conducted between 18th seed Jurgen Melzer and Alex De Minaur. Melzer is 18 years older than the Australian, also twice his age. De Minaur won their previous meeting last year in Eckental, and his wins on grass should give him the confidence to beat Melzer. He certainly has the game for it. I think it will be a final round between Stakhovsky and De Minaur, where the Ukranian will come through. De Minaur lost in the final of Junior Wimbledon last year, and it seems he will now lose in the final qualifying round.
My Pick: Sergiy Stakhovsky

Section 12 is one of the weaker ones found in the draw. Despite a weak lead-up, I see 12th seed Ruben Bemelmans charging through to the main draw. Last year, Bemelmans went 0-2 on grass, but qualified for Wimbledon anyway. Mathias Bourgue found success on the European clay challengers, but I don’t expect it to translate onto grass in a major way. I think it will give him confidence which should help him beat Krueger but ultimately lose to Bemelmans. The Belgian will then go on to beat Gerald Melzer in the final round. The younger of the Melzer brothers doesn’t like grass, but the favorable draw should help him get there.
My Pick: Ruben Bemelmans

It really comes down to two players in this section. John-Patrick Smith and Bjorn Fratangelo will battle for the main draw spot in the final round. Smith went through qualification to reach semifinals in Nottingham and lose to Sam Groth. Fratangelo’s best surface is clay, but he consistently reached quarterfinals in Nottingham and Ilkley. The Australian’s lefty serve and volley style has the most impact on grass, and I believe that he will rise to the occasion, and defeat Fratangelo. This would be the second Wimbledon main draw in John-Patrick Smith’s career.
My Pick: John-Patrick Smith

14th seed Maximilian Marterer is the favorite to qualify, as he qualified for Halle and pushed Steve Johnson to three sets in Stuttgart. A #NextGen match was drawn between Duckhee Lee and Elias Ymer, but since Ymer prefers clay, and Lee is in a run of bad form, it may turn out to be underwhelming. British wild card stands out due to his wins over De Minaur and Marchenko. I expect the 18-year-old Brit to get to the final qualifying round and make a match of it against Marterer.
My Pick: Maximilian Marterer

No big name jumps out at you in this section, and there are no outright favorites. Ryan Storrie and Neil Pauffley faced each other in pre-qualifying. Italians Travaglia and Caruso stayed on European clay. 15th seed Peter Polansky went winless on grass. 20-year-old Quentin Halys got wins over Novikov and Kravchuk in Ilkley, and I think he could be the one to take advantage of one of the weaker sections.
My Pick: Quentin Halys

The final section is headed by Konstantin Kravchuk. The Russian had a poor showing on grass, going 1-3. To be fair, he lost to Lacko, Copil, and Halys, no real surprises. He should definitely win his opening match over Matteo Donati. The No. 293 hasn’t played a match on grass in 2 years. 19-year-old Stefan Kozlov had a great grass season, which started off slowly with a loss in Surbiton. In Rosmalen, Kozlov beat Dustin Brown before losing to eventual finalist Ivo Karlovic. It was all topped off by a great performance at the Queen’s Club, where the American reached second round out of qualifying. Kozlov beat De Schepper, Herbert, and Steve Johnson. Kozlov is the favorite for me, and if he continues his form from Queen’s, he could get some wins in the main draw.
My Pick: Stefan Kozlov

Editorial

Nothing Tops Star Power At U.S. Open

Charleston Post and Courier columnist James Beck reflects on this year’s US Open.

Published

on

The Arthur Ashe Stadium (via Twitter, @usopen)

NEW YORK — Tennis is still all about who’s playing the game.

 

Parents watch their kids grow up through their junior tennis days. Then maybe college tennis.

But when it comes to watching big-time tennis such as at the U.S. Open, nothing tops star power. That was never more evident than Friday and Saturday in Arthur Ashe Stadium.

NEW YORK CROWD UNSURE ABOUT MEDVEDEV

Russia’s Daniil Medvedev is red hot this summer, first on the U.S. Open series where he lost in two finals before winning in Cincinnati. And then he made the U.S. Open final.

But the New York crowd doesn’t get very excited about the 6’6″ wonder. Empty seats were plentiful Friday afternoon when Medvedev knocked off Grigor Dimitrov in the first men’s semifinal. Even if the crowds weren’t excited about Medvedev, they should have been thrilled to see Dimitrov. Obviously, the fans weren’t too happy that Dimitrov had taken down Roger Federer in the quarterfinals.

But, suddenly, when Rafa Nadal took center court for the second semifinal, fans were everywhere. That was for a match against a relative newcomer to big-time tennis. Matteo Berrettini could play, but he was no equal for Nadal.

NADAL MAKES EMPTY SEATS DISAPPEAR

Yet, it was time to be sure you were in the correct seat. The empty seats had disappeared.

The U.S. Open had switched gears. It had gone from the frenzied atmosphere of young

Americans Coco Gaulf, Caty McNally and Taylor Townsend to a different reality.

The old-timers, better known as all-timers, might be nearing the end of the road in big-time tennis. Yes, the list includes even Serena Williams.

Nadal took care of his end of the bargain with the fans by turning away Berrettini in sraight sets to secure his day, and a spot in the final against Medvedev.

Serena couldn’t save her day in Saturday’s women’s final, despite the efforts of a packed stadium of wildly cheering supporters. Nineteen-year-old Canadian Bianca Andreescu simply was better on this day.

ANDREESCU MIGHT BE FOR REAL

Of course, Andreescu has plenty of time to set records and win fans. Serena rallied from 5-1 down in the second set, and appeared headed for another possible magical win when she tied the set at 5-5.

In the end, Serena failed again in her attempt to win a record-tying 24th  Grand Slam title in a 6-3, 7-5 loss to Andreescu.

Serena might have made 2018 champion Naomi Osaka’s career a year earlier when Serena couldn’t notch Grand Slam title No. 24 then, either. Now, Andreescu may be ready to make her mark on the game. Getting by Serena was a big step. Andreescu might join the all-timers one day.

When another Grand Slam season gets underway in January in Australia, the tennis world really might be turned upside down. Novak Djokovic’s early departure along with the 38-year-old Federer’s and Stan Wawrinka’s losses in the next round were shocking, along with the early collapse of all of  the super women’s stars except Serena.

SERENA, FEDERER AND NADAL IN A DIFFERENT WORLD

The young women’s stars such as Osaka, Sloane Stephens, Madison Keys, Simona Halep and Ashleigh Barty, along with Medvedev, Berrettini, Dominic Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Felix Auger-Aliassime among the men aren’t likely to evolve into all-time stars the way Serena,  Federer and Nadal have.

That’s just the reality of big-time tennis. Serena, Federer and Nadal are players for the ages, just like Rod Laver was. Their fan bases are in for a major change, or they can switch to the sometimes unpredictability of this new group.

James Beck is the long-time tennis columnist for the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier newspaper. He can be reached at Jamesbecktennis@gmail.com. See his Post and Courier columns at 

http://www.postandcourier.com/search/?l=25&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&q=james+beck&nsa=eedition

Continue Reading

Editorial

2019 US Open: A common road led by contrasting routes for Dominik Koepfer and Hyeon Chung

Published

on

Hyeon Chung, 2019 US Open
Photo Credit: Tata Open Maharashtra/Twitter

Amid the huddle of early-round exits and some scattered withdrawals, a couple of players made the most of opportunities they received at the 2019 US Open. Dominik Koepfer and Hyeon Chung came through the qualifying rounds to win their initial couple of rounds with conviction and make their way forward even as rest of the playing field blew open around them.

 

Being qualifiers is the denominator common to them this week. Yet, in a way, the 23-year-old Chung is trudging a familiar route as compared with the 25-year-old Koepfer who is a relative newer face to watch at the Slams.

In 2018, Chung had made it to his first semi-final at a Major – at the Australian Open – taking down then six-time champion Novak Djokovic in the fourth round. The 2017 Next Gen ATP Finals’ titlist reached a career-high of 19 in the world after his Australian Open jaunt in 2018. Koepfer, on the other hand, is yet to break into the top-100 – with a career-high of no. 113 attained in the second-week of August. His best result at the Majors – before his fourth-round appearance at the US Open – was reaching the second round at Wimbledon this year.

None of these differences in the respective roads they have travelled on the Tour mattered as they tried to make it to the main draw. Chung’s injuries that kept him away from the circuit (for almost five months this year) meant he had to start from scratch, at the Challenger level. Koepfer’s being a mainstay on the Challenger circuit – for now – meant he, too, would start from the same position.

In doing so, the sport has made levellers out of them. Their past results do not matter. It is how they do against the opponent of the day that matters. Three qualifying rounds followed by the sterner main-draw test that also comes by way of lengthier matches. In this regard, Chung has already faced two such difficult matches in his first two rounds this week against Ernesto Escobedo and Fernando Verdasco in which he had to play five-setters to extricate himself.

The draw’s narrowing has also meant the task ahead of them has gotten harder. This is also where their paths diverge once again. If Tulane University alumnus in Koepfer is the equivalent of a dark horse, Chung’s previous experience makes him a dangerous floater.

If the two end up being truthful to this tag of theirs, the chaos component at this year’s US Open will be the accentuation separating itself from the monotonous.

Continue Reading

Editorial

2019 US Open, And The Growth In The Divide Between Players And Officials

The 2019 US Open has barely begun but off-court news surrounding the sport’s refereeing officials have reverberated more than the on-court results.

Published

on

Nick Kyrgios, Steve Johnson, 2019 US Open
Photo Credit: Andrew Ong/USTA

Argentinian chair umpire Damian Steiner was removed by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) for giving interviews without consulting the ATP about accepting those. Among the players, Nick Kyrgios and Serena Williams continued with their less-than-respectful behaviour. Kyrgios towards the ATP which docked him $113,000 in fines for his rants against Fergus Murphy in Cincinnati. And, Williams towards Carlos Ramos, who umpired her 2018 US Open final against Naomi Osaka.

 

These incidents are revealing of the dichotomy spanning the players and the officials’ positions. Let us look at the players’ side of this chasm first. Kyrgios’ had no remorse about his behaviour against Murphy. Neither was he upset about being fined. Nonetheless, he attempted to duck from his mistakes by blaming the ATP for the penalty.

“Not at all. The ATP is pretty corrupt anyway, so I’m not fussed about it at all,” Kyrgios replied to a question about the fine in his post-match press conference. He, then, turned into a quasi-interrogator as if perplexed by the question, and the fine. His rhetorical question was, “I got fined 113K for what? Why are we talking about something that happened three weeks ago when I just chopped up someone first round?”

Kyrgios’ lackadaisical approach towards rectifying his errors was infuriating. But perhaps not to the same level as the exasperation evoked by Williams’ words, in her press conference.

After her first-round win over Maria Sharapova, Williams, in response to a question about Ramos not umpiring her matches at the event this year, chose to be snarky instead of giving a straight answer. “Yeah, I don’t know who that is,” she stated impassively as though the person and the events of the previous year did not concern or involve her.

Now, imagine a scenario in which either Murphy or Ramos, or both wanted to speak up and finally decide to share their vexations about receiving such attitude from the players in an interview. They cannot even do that without seeking permission from the sport’s governing authorities. Moreover, a message was sent in making an example out of Steiner that umpires did not have the backing of their job if they decided to forgo the rules.

The game’s viewers may take it as in indication that tennis’ rules belonged to the “never to be broken” category. However, this move will only embolden the players to be more abrasive and impolite to the umpires. Instead of looking at them as maintainers of the game for the duration of the match.

Case in point: Stefanos Tsitsipas’ ranting at Damien Dumussois when the Frenchman asked him to quicken his time at change of ends. “You have something against me. You’re French, probably. … You’re all weirdos,” he went on, insulting not only the umpire but also his nationality, and his countrymen.

Undoubtedly, it was said in momentary anger because of how the match was turning against him. Yet, if the rules are to be so correctly enforced – and they were in this instance, in Dumussois asking the eighth-seed to speed up – players ought not to complain.

However, grievances – actual and perceived – are bound to come up. As such, sanctioning players with fines (and even suspension) for raging at the umpires is a stop-gap remedy. Players will not – and did not – hesitate to fulfil the terms of their punishment. They will also continue with their tirades, as and when things do not go their way in a match.

On the other hand, for the umpires, this is like a repetitive cycle of viciousness. Tennis’ managerial authorities need to incorporate a system in which the umpires get to openly communicate about the players’ misconduct without being isolated, and treated as the sport’s second-rung members.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending