Article translated from ubitennis.com
Women’s tennis is in an anomalous situation, completely different from the usual Grand Slam build-up.
The reasons are now well-known: the “bubble” engulfing the whole event, the absence of crowds, the very few tournaments played in the weeks leading up to the tournament, as well as, consequently, the total uncertainty surrounding the form of the top players. Such uncertainty has further increased in the last few days, since the first two seeds were defeated on their debut in the only preparatory Premier 5 event (normally played in Cincinnati, but this year taking place at Flushing Meadows). The first seed, Karolina Pliskova, was in fact eliminated by Veronika Kudermetova for 7-5 6-4, while Sofia Kenin was ousted by Alizè Cornet with a 6-1, 7-6 score, a scoreline that could have been even worse, since she saved two match points at 6-1, 5-2 down.
Therefore, at the moment this is the situation on the brink of the US Open: the fitness level of the players who are in New York is still to be ascertained, while we already know that many standouts will be missing. The participation field of the Top 10 is in fact crippled, so much so that one wonders: how much will the next US Open be worth? Will it be considered a “real” Grand Slam event or not? For instance, former Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli has already played down its value. She did so with a hyperbole (“20 of the best 32 in the world will be missing”), but if instead of generic numbers she should had mentioned the real data, perhaps she would have made no less impression. In fact, six of the top eight players in the world will be missing. Here is the list of the absent members of the WTA Top 10:
1. Ashleigh Barty
2. Simona Halep
5. Elina Svitolina
6. Bianca Andreescu
7. Kiki Bertens
8. Belinda Bencic
As a matter of fact, if it weren’t for the presence of Pliskova and Kenin (N.3 and 4 in the rankings), the highest seeds would be players who would normally feature in the Zhuhai Championships, the one whose participants are ranked from No.9-16 in the world. In addition, we know that several lower-ranked players will be missing too, such as Wang Qiang, Pavlyuchenkova, Strycova, Kuznetsova, Zheng, Goerges, Ferro, Zhu, Wang Yafan, Potapova, Bogdan and Stosur.
How much will the intrinsic prestige of the Grand Slam be able to mask these absences? I think that the answer will partly depend on the quality of play. If the lack of so many top players will be particularly felt, and if in general the matches will be underwhelming, that will be one more huge blow to the tournament. However, in the event of multiple top-notch nail-biters (the playing field has all the means to offer such a spectacle), the credibility of the 2020 US Open will be one step closer to being restored.
Aside from everything else, however, regardless of the individual and personal interpretations of each of us (commentators, journalists, enthusiasts), I believe that the definitive answer will be given by history. Let me explain: if in the future the habit of putting an asterisk next to this US Open will persist, underlining that the tournament has had a lot of participants not showing up, inevitably the Slam aura will be tarnished.
On the other hand, if the prevailing trend won’t involve too many negative connotations and/or caveats, in the long run the tournament will end up being “digested” roughly like your average Major. However, it will take years to verify how it will be judged, years that are always necessary to make an evaluation from a historical perspective. As for the near future, I can already picture the diatribes between fans when it comes to the player who will come out as a winner from the US Open 2020: “Oh yeah, to win that Slam was a real accomplishment, wasn’t it?” (ironic tone).
Maybe I’m wrong, but there is an outcome that would immediately overshadow the question, i.e. a Serena Williams win, mainly because, as a whole, Serena’s resumé is untouchable anyway. While talking about the historical milestone that she could reach (equaling Margaret Smith Court’s 24 Majors), no one could have much to object, given that Court boasts 11 Australian Open titles, some of which she won against a less than competitive field.
Let’s take a look, for example at the Australian Championships 1961 draw, which featured less than 50 players at the start, all of them Aussies apart from the Brit Vivienne Cox. Or that of 1964, which took her just four matches to win. By comparing these victories to hers, Williams would be able to add the next US Open to her current 23 Slams while not leaving much room for debates, because Court’s record is ripe with such inconsistencies.
Surely, there will be a further opportunity to tackle this theme after the tournament. At the moment, the hope is that no more last-minute withdrawals will occur, because injuries could come into play just much as Covid-induced cautiousness. As a matter of fact, it should be remembered that the defending champion Bianca Andreescu most likely would not have featured even in a “regular” tournament, as she hasn’t played competitively since October 2019, when she injured her knee at the Shenzhen Masters; from then onwards, she has passed from withdrawal to withdrawal, forced to eschew official matches.
As of right now, there is also some apprehension surrounding Garbiñe Muguruza, who dropped out of the current Cincinnati/New York Premier 5 event due to an ankle issue. Finally, some more withdrawals could be caused by the players testing positive to the virus, which would automatically exclude them and force them to quarantine in their hotel room inside the bubble.
