Everyone else has said it, so I might as well join that group. Over the last month, we were witness to the greatest World Cup ever (a claim that I guarantee no one will make after the 2022 edition). There were exciting games, spectacular goals, shocking upsets, new stars, and even a little bit of controversy.
Thinking about this post, there were a number of ways I could've gone. I could've done a countdown of the best games and/or best goals. Even rating the top players and best moments crossed my mind. Then I decided to combine them all into a "best/worst..." breakdown of all the soccer over the past month, knowing full well that the "worst" list will be fairly short.
Thumbs Up
Russia: They did a tremendous job as hosts. For all the concerns people had, they delivered and then some. The first World Cup in Eastern Europe was an overwhelming success! Full stadiums, an incredible atmosphere, and a tremendous run by the home team. Russia getting all the way to the quarterfinals (and taking eventual finalist Croatia to penalty kicks) only added to the excitement. They were the lowest-ranked team in the tournament coming in. But they gained believers with each win, and that upset of Spain at a packed Luzhniki Stadium was one of the highlights of the tournament.
Thumbs Down
Big Names: For all the promos that included Pretty Boy and Messi, you would've thought that Portugal and Argentina were the only teams in the tournament! But, alas, neither of the biggest names in the sport could deliver on the biggest stage. Pretty Boy did nothing after that hat trick against Spain in the opening game, while Argentina was lucky to get out of the group stage. Instead, it was Paul Pogba and Luka Modric and Harry Kane and Romelo Lukaku playing on the final weekend.
Thumbs Up
FOX: Was their first World Cup as the U.S. broadcaster perfect? No. Were they a little too obsessed with certain Portuguese players and a certain national team? Yes. But, overall, I think they did a good job. It was a nice change to have American announcers (it turns out you don't need a British accent to know something about soccer), and I don't know why such a big deal was made about the fact that they had announcers doing the games from LA (NBC does the same thing for the Olympics, BTW). Most importantly, though, they showed a good number of the games on the broadcast network, with the rest of FS1. When the U.S. didn't qualify, they could've just said screw it and done the bare minimum, but they did exactly the opposite instead. And I think their coverage is only going to get better for the next two World Cups (and, don't worry, in 2026, they'll have all the announcers on site).
Thumbs Down
Jorge Perez Navarro: The only real problem I had with FOX's coverage was Jorge Perez Navarro. I couldn't understand a word the guy said! If I wanted to watch the game while having no idea what the announcer was saying, I would've watched Telemundo. And he was openly cheering for Mexico, the team FOX was trying to force down our throats, which further turned me off. I saw some reviews early in the tournament that actually praised him. How? Were those writers watching the same games I was? Or were they watching it on Telemundo and just got confused?
Thumbs Up
Goals: In 64 games, there was a grand total of one that finished 0-0. And that one, which came in the 37th game of the tournament, doesn't even really count, since neither France nor Denmark had any interest in actually scoring in that game. Overall, there were 169 goals in 64 games. We had goals come early, we had goals come late (some of which were game- and group-changing). We had a record for own goals (12, double the previous record) and goals off set pieces (I have no way of confirming this, but it seemed like every goal was off a set piece). All the scoring certainly added to the excitement of the tournament.
Thumbs Down
Alexi Lalas: Sorry FOX, but Mexico is not America's "Other Team," and asking fans of the USMNT to root for Mexico is like asking Yankees fans to root for the Red Sox. Lalas, no doubt inspired by his buddy Landon Donovan, was the biggest culprit. Then, as soon as El Tri was eliminated, he jumped off the Mexican bandwagon nearly as quickly as he jumped on it.
Thumbs Up
Fair Play: Do you know how many red cards there were in the entire tournament? Three! One was for a deliberate hand ball in the box, the other two were second yellows. That's it! Sure, there were at least two that should've been called and weren't (the Mexican guy stepping on Neymar, Pretty Boy elbowing the Iranian guy in the face nowhere near the ball in the open field), but the official total was only three red cards. Whether it was VAR or the style of play or a combination of the two, it was nice to see pretty much every game end 11-on-11.
Thumbs Down
Fair Play Points: It was new for this World Cup, and it was a brutal way for Senegal to be eliminated from the tournament. In FIFA's defense, they needed some way to separate teams that were tied, and I doubt they anticipated it would determine which team would advance and who wouldn't. But it did. And it nearly did in two other groups, as well. There has to be something better than total number of yellow cards, though. Because the "fair play points" didn't seem fair at all. In fact, it was kinda cruel.
Thumbs Up
VAR: Say what you want about the World Cup's other new innovation, but VAR worked. And it's not going anywhere. The reviews weren't disruptive, didn't take very long, and served their purpose. VAR was designed to correct obvious errors, some of which were simply things that happened too quickly for the referee to see. For the most part, it achieved that purpose, even if they still got some calls wrong even after going to VAR. But it's much better than before, when there was nothing you could do about it if the ref missed a call.
Thumbs Down
Traditional Powers: At least they made it here, which is more than I can say about Italy, the Netherlands, the USA, Chile, etc. But none of the pre-tournament favorites did anything worth writing home about. Defending champion Germany fizzled out in group play for the first time ever, losing to both Mexico and South Korea. Argentina barely got out of its group, only advancing on a late goal against Nigeria in its last game before losing to France in the round of 16. Spain and Portugal, meanwhile, after both coming out of a weak Group B, both lost in the round of 16.
Thumbs Up
Croatia: While the traditional powers struggled, Croatia showed it belonged in the conversation after dominating Argentina and finishing group play 3-0. Then they became the first team ever to win consecutive penalty kick shootouts against Denmark in the round of 16 and Russia in the quarterfinals. They went to extra time for the third straight game against England in the semis...and won again, becoming the second-smallest nation ever to reach a World Cup Final (and the smallest since 1950). The fact that they lost the Final to France is irrelevant. Because they took us on an incredible ride and gained a lot of supporters along the way.
Thumbs Down
Diego Maradona: He was there as a guest of FIFA, yet acted like a jerk the entire tournament. From being caught on camera flipping off the Nigerian fans to going off on the officials after Colombia lost to England (apparently Colombia is Argentina's "Other Team"), all he did was draw attention to himself...and not for the right reasons. He's one of the greatest players ever, but his skills as an ambassador leave something to be desired. The Colombia-England thing was probably the last straw for an embarrassed FIFA. Because somebody was conspicuously absent from the VIP box after that.
Two Thumbs Up
France: Finally, we have the champions. Les Bleues were the most consistent team throughout the tournament, and they're deserving champions. Their round of 16 victory over Argentina was one of the most entertaining World Cup games I've seen in quite some time, and that's when they really established themselves as the team to beat. They're not going anywhere for a while, either. Kylian Mbappe, who wasn't even alive the other time France won the World Cup 20 years ago, is going to be the next global superstar. And he's already got something the three biggest names in the sport don't. A World Cup gold medal.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Friday, July 13, 2018
With the Olympic Spirit
It's fitting that the World Under-20 Track & Field Championships are currently going on in Finland. Because it was in Finland that one of the most unlikely Olympic men's 100-meter finals took place. Lindy Remigino, who won the gold in those Helsinki Games by the closest margin in Olympic history (watch it here), passed away the other day at the age of 87.
Only 25 men have ever won the Olympic gold medal in the 100 meters, and I'm proud to say that I had a personal connection to one of them. That connection is Manhattan College, the school where I used to work and from which Remigino graduated. In fact, it was the summer between his junior and senior years when he won the Olympics.
I had only met Lindy a few times, so I didn't know him well. But I did know him well enough for him to know who I was and say hello when I saw him at an event. And he was one of the most gracious people I've ever met.
My first extended conversation with him was just before the 60th anniversary of his victory in 2012 (the 66th anniversary is next weekend). I was working on an article to celebrate the anniversary, and he gave me about 20 minutes on the phone (then called me back a few minutes after we hung up because he forgot a detail he wanted me to include!). That article is actually linked on NBC's Olympic site right now, and they pulled quotes from it.
A few weeks later, he sent me a letter thanking me for writing the story. A letter that I have kept ever since. In it, he told me how in 2002, he went back to Helsinki for the 50th anniversary of those Games and served as the U.S. flag bearer at the ceremony in their Olympic Stadium before sitting with then-IOC President Jacques Rogge for the remainder of it. Just the fact that he took the time to do that says all you need to know about the man!
He obviously ranks pretty highly on the list of Manhattan's most famous alumni, and his love for his alma mater was very strong. He frequently returned to campus for track & field reunions and other events. As a two-time Olympic gold medalist (he also ran the third leg on the victorious 4x100 relay), that topic naturally came up pretty often. Yet every time he would tell the story, it seemed new. And he remembered every detail like it was yesterday!
Lindy was also a tremendous ambassador for the sport of track & field as a whole. It wasn't just at Manhattan where he retold his Olympic stories over and over again (in front of captive audiences). Track & field was truly his lifelong passion. Lindy Remigino lived and breathed the sport, and he wanted others to love it just as much as he did. After his running career ended, he became a high school coach for over 40 years, and his teams won more than 30 state championships.
When Manhattan's Athletic Hall of Fame was founded in 1979, Lindy was an obvious selection for the inaugural class. That's just one of the many Halls of Fame into which he's been inducted. The most recent of which was the USA Track & Field Hall of Fame, Class of 2017. While this one's unofficial, he's absolutely in the Hall of Fame of Life, as well.
In that letter, he signed off "With the Olympic Spirit." What a beautiful sentiment! Because while his name will forever be in the history books (and in photographs and on YouTube), that spirit is what will live on the most.
Godspeed, Lindy. With the Olympic Spirit...
Only 25 men have ever won the Olympic gold medal in the 100 meters, and I'm proud to say that I had a personal connection to one of them. That connection is Manhattan College, the school where I used to work and from which Remigino graduated. In fact, it was the summer between his junior and senior years when he won the Olympics.
I had only met Lindy a few times, so I didn't know him well. But I did know him well enough for him to know who I was and say hello when I saw him at an event. And he was one of the most gracious people I've ever met.
My first extended conversation with him was just before the 60th anniversary of his victory in 2012 (the 66th anniversary is next weekend). I was working on an article to celebrate the anniversary, and he gave me about 20 minutes on the phone (then called me back a few minutes after we hung up because he forgot a detail he wanted me to include!). That article is actually linked on NBC's Olympic site right now, and they pulled quotes from it.
A few weeks later, he sent me a letter thanking me for writing the story. A letter that I have kept ever since. In it, he told me how in 2002, he went back to Helsinki for the 50th anniversary of those Games and served as the U.S. flag bearer at the ceremony in their Olympic Stadium before sitting with then-IOC President Jacques Rogge for the remainder of it. Just the fact that he took the time to do that says all you need to know about the man!
He obviously ranks pretty highly on the list of Manhattan's most famous alumni, and his love for his alma mater was very strong. He frequently returned to campus for track & field reunions and other events. As a two-time Olympic gold medalist (he also ran the third leg on the victorious 4x100 relay), that topic naturally came up pretty often. Yet every time he would tell the story, it seemed new. And he remembered every detail like it was yesterday!
Lindy was also a tremendous ambassador for the sport of track & field as a whole. It wasn't just at Manhattan where he retold his Olympic stories over and over again (in front of captive audiences). Track & field was truly his lifelong passion. Lindy Remigino lived and breathed the sport, and he wanted others to love it just as much as he did. After his running career ended, he became a high school coach for over 40 years, and his teams won more than 30 state championships.
When Manhattan's Athletic Hall of Fame was founded in 1979, Lindy was an obvious selection for the inaugural class. That's just one of the many Halls of Fame into which he's been inducted. The most recent of which was the USA Track & Field Hall of Fame, Class of 2017. While this one's unofficial, he's absolutely in the Hall of Fame of Life, as well.
In that letter, he signed off "With the Olympic Spirit." What a beautiful sentiment! Because while his name will forever be in the history books (and in photographs and on YouTube), that spirit is what will live on the most.
Godspeed, Lindy. With the Olympic Spirit...
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
The Hosting Solution
When Graz, Austria, withdrew from the race to host the 2026 Winter Olympics last week, I did a post about it. Then yesterday I saw an article pretty much confirming something that has been generally understood for several months. While not official yet, the 2023 IAAF World Championships are all but guaranteed to be held in Budapest, with an African city likely to be chosen for the 2025 edition.
After the criticism the IAAF received when it decided to award the 2021 Worlds to Eugene without going through a formal bid process, they changed the bid process moving forward. Now, instead of cities submitting bids to host IAAF events, they're doing it the other way around. The IAAF identifies a particular area and invites cities to apply. And if the city's interested, the IAAF chooses a host and works with that city throughout the process. It's an informal collaboration, not a competition.
The rationale for doing this actually makes a lot of sense. First and foremost, it makes the whole process much cheaper. No more months of wining and dining the voters and endless deadlines for submitting bid documents, etc. It also makes things a lot more transparent. The next two editions in Doha and Eugene mark the first time in the event's history that the IAAF World Championships will be held outside Europe twice in a row. They wanted to get back to their European base in 2023, so others need not apply.
Likewise, the senior World Championships have never been in Africa. And, after a successful World U-18 Championships last year in Nairobi, they know that an African city can handle an event of this magnitude. So, they want the 2025 Championships in Africa. If a city on another continent was considering a bid, now they know to wait until 2027. (BTW, one of the reasons they went to Eugene without the formal bid was because the World Championships have never been in the United States and they wanted to make sure they changed that.)
Budapest did a tremendous job hosting the Swimming World Championships last year, and I'm sure they'll do a tremendous job hosting the 2023 Track & Field World Championships. Just as I have no doubt that when Budapest finally does host an Olympics, it'll be an amazing Games.
It was Budapest, of course, that indirectly did the IOC a huge favor by dropping out of the race for the 2024 Games, leaving them the opportunity to do the Paris/LA dual-awarding last September. And it was Budapest that gave me an idea for what could solve the IOC's current predicament...mainly, the fact that no one wants to host the Winter Olympics!
IOC President Thomas Bach hoped his "Olympic Agenda 2020" reforms would put cities at ease about the costs and encourage more bidders. It hasn't worked. So maybe it's time to try something new. Maybe it's worth taking a page out of the IAAF's book and reach out to cities/countries/regions instead of the other way around. I'm not saying it'll work. But it's a way to avoid being stuck having three straight Games in the same part of Asia.
With the next Summer Olympics not being awarded until 2025, this is the perfect time to implement such a system. The four Olympics from 2016-28 will have been on four different continents (South America, Asia, Europe, North America). Maybe for 2032, you shoot for Australia before coming back to Europe in 2036, then Asia and the Americas again in 2040 and 2044, with the next Olympics in Europe following in 2048. And Africa could also cycle in their at some point, which it should.
In the Winter, things are tougher, but the rotation starting in 2026 could go Europe-North America-Europe-Asia-Europe, etc. That wouldn't entirely alleviate the problem of cities not wanting to host. But it would make for a much simpler, much more transparent system. And it would give cities (especially those in Europe) plenty of time to drum up the money and necessary support to pursue a bid.
Of course, there's one element of this plan that wouldn't work. You can't take the vote away from IOC members. For many of them, choosing the host city is the one significant contribution they make. They enjoy all the perks that come with IOC membership, and that host city vote is the best perk of all.
I'm not suggesting they don't vote on a host city, though. I'm simply suggesting that you narrow the field of candidates to those from a specific region. That's easier said than done when getting cities to bid period has been a tough task. But concentrating the bids on a certain area could actually go a long way in taking some of the politics out of it, too.
This isn't that crazy an idea, either. After Germany edged South Africa by one vote for the rights to host the 2006 World Cup, FIFA implemented a similar system for future World Cups. Only African countries were able to bid for the 2010 World Cup, which obviously went to South Africa, and the 2014 World Cup was limited to South American bidders. Although, when Brazil ended up being the only candidate, they changed it to the current system where the last two continents to host can't bid (for the 2030 World Cup, Asia and CONCACAF aren't eligible).
So maybe that's actually the solution. The IOC has always tried to rotate between continents until they were left with no choice for 2022. There's nothing in writing, though. If something was in writing, however, then they could potentially avoid the embarrassment of the last two Winter Olympic bid cycles.
Although, "guaranteeing" the Olympics will be in Europe in a given year doesn't guarantee there will be bidders. But, like I said the other day, make it a collaboration, not a competition. Make cities (and their residents) see the benefit. And one way to do that is eliminating the costly bid process that doesn't even ensure your success.
After the criticism the IAAF received when it decided to award the 2021 Worlds to Eugene without going through a formal bid process, they changed the bid process moving forward. Now, instead of cities submitting bids to host IAAF events, they're doing it the other way around. The IAAF identifies a particular area and invites cities to apply. And if the city's interested, the IAAF chooses a host and works with that city throughout the process. It's an informal collaboration, not a competition.
The rationale for doing this actually makes a lot of sense. First and foremost, it makes the whole process much cheaper. No more months of wining and dining the voters and endless deadlines for submitting bid documents, etc. It also makes things a lot more transparent. The next two editions in Doha and Eugene mark the first time in the event's history that the IAAF World Championships will be held outside Europe twice in a row. They wanted to get back to their European base in 2023, so others need not apply.
Likewise, the senior World Championships have never been in Africa. And, after a successful World U-18 Championships last year in Nairobi, they know that an African city can handle an event of this magnitude. So, they want the 2025 Championships in Africa. If a city on another continent was considering a bid, now they know to wait until 2027. (BTW, one of the reasons they went to Eugene without the formal bid was because the World Championships have never been in the United States and they wanted to make sure they changed that.)
Budapest did a tremendous job hosting the Swimming World Championships last year, and I'm sure they'll do a tremendous job hosting the 2023 Track & Field World Championships. Just as I have no doubt that when Budapest finally does host an Olympics, it'll be an amazing Games.
It was Budapest, of course, that indirectly did the IOC a huge favor by dropping out of the race for the 2024 Games, leaving them the opportunity to do the Paris/LA dual-awarding last September. And it was Budapest that gave me an idea for what could solve the IOC's current predicament...mainly, the fact that no one wants to host the Winter Olympics!
IOC President Thomas Bach hoped his "Olympic Agenda 2020" reforms would put cities at ease about the costs and encourage more bidders. It hasn't worked. So maybe it's time to try something new. Maybe it's worth taking a page out of the IAAF's book and reach out to cities/countries/regions instead of the other way around. I'm not saying it'll work. But it's a way to avoid being stuck having three straight Games in the same part of Asia.
With the next Summer Olympics not being awarded until 2025, this is the perfect time to implement such a system. The four Olympics from 2016-28 will have been on four different continents (South America, Asia, Europe, North America). Maybe for 2032, you shoot for Australia before coming back to Europe in 2036, then Asia and the Americas again in 2040 and 2044, with the next Olympics in Europe following in 2048. And Africa could also cycle in their at some point, which it should.
In the Winter, things are tougher, but the rotation starting in 2026 could go Europe-North America-Europe-Asia-Europe, etc. That wouldn't entirely alleviate the problem of cities not wanting to host. But it would make for a much simpler, much more transparent system. And it would give cities (especially those in Europe) plenty of time to drum up the money and necessary support to pursue a bid.
Of course, there's one element of this plan that wouldn't work. You can't take the vote away from IOC members. For many of them, choosing the host city is the one significant contribution they make. They enjoy all the perks that come with IOC membership, and that host city vote is the best perk of all.
I'm not suggesting they don't vote on a host city, though. I'm simply suggesting that you narrow the field of candidates to those from a specific region. That's easier said than done when getting cities to bid period has been a tough task. But concentrating the bids on a certain area could actually go a long way in taking some of the politics out of it, too.
This isn't that crazy an idea, either. After Germany edged South Africa by one vote for the rights to host the 2006 World Cup, FIFA implemented a similar system for future World Cups. Only African countries were able to bid for the 2010 World Cup, which obviously went to South Africa, and the 2014 World Cup was limited to South American bidders. Although, when Brazil ended up being the only candidate, they changed it to the current system where the last two continents to host can't bid (for the 2030 World Cup, Asia and CONCACAF aren't eligible).
So maybe that's actually the solution. The IOC has always tried to rotate between continents until they were left with no choice for 2022. There's nothing in writing, though. If something was in writing, however, then they could potentially avoid the embarrassment of the last two Winter Olympic bid cycles.
Although, "guaranteeing" the Olympics will be in Europe in a given year doesn't guarantee there will be bidders. But, like I said the other day, make it a collaboration, not a competition. Make cities (and their residents) see the benefit. And one way to do that is eliminating the costly bid process that doesn't even ensure your success.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
2018 Joe Brackets All*Star Teams
Ever since MLB moved All*Star voting exclusively online a few years ago, the fans have done a really good job. I think it's probably because they include the stats on the ballot, a feature I really like. But whatever the reason is, people are definitely taking a harder look and voting for guys who actually deserve to be there as opposed to stuffing the ballot box with players from their favorite team (I'm looking at you, Royals fans).
With that being said, I have no problem with the fact that Bryce Harper is going to start the All*Star Game with a .211 batting average. The game is in Washington, and he's the face of the Nationals' franchise. It's the All*Star Game, and the biggest star on the home team always has a place there. Do his numbers warrant a selection? Probably not. But you're not gonna find many people complaining that the All*Star hosts will be represented in the starting lineup by their most popular player. And if Harper's the only one of the 17 fan-elected starters who's even remotely questionable, I'd say the fans did a great job.
It's a near certainty that the starting lineups have changed since the polls closed on Thursday. But, since we have no idea who was caught and by whom, I'm going with the vote leaders as of the last update as my starters.
You'll also notice that my AL roster is very top heavy. That's because the five playoff teams are that much better than everybody else. In fact, I've got at least three All*Stars from all five playoff teams and only one from each of the other 10. That will probably change due to Gleyber Torres' injury, but he's eligible to come off the DL on Sunday, so he doesn't technically have to be replaced on the All*Star roster yet (although he likely will be). And, yes, I had to get a little creative with the team reps in the AL. But I was able to do it while still following the 12 pitcher rule (and somehow still managed to get all three Astros starters in there!).
The National League, meanwhile, is far less top heavy. In fact, I've got more members of the last-place Cincinnati Reds making the squad than the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks. I also watch the NL far less than I watch the AL, so I have a much larger margin for error there. And, since they have two extra spots to fill because of no DH, the team reps are much easier to put in there.
As for the starting pitchers, I think they're both pretty easy. Max Scherzer started for the NL last year, and he should again. Not only is he the ace of the team hosting the game, he's arguably the best pitcher in the National League.
In the American League, it's a much tougher choice. Mainly because there are so many good options. But I was able to narrow it down to two--Justin Verlander, the best pitcher in the AL for the first six weeks of the season, and Luis Severino, the best pitcher in the AL over the last six weeks. I can easily see A.J. Hinch going with his own guy, but I think Severino is the clear choice.
And with that, here we go...
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Wilson Ramos, Rays; Salvador Perez, Royals
1B: *-Jose Abreu, White Sox; Mitch Moreland, Red Sox
2B: *-Jose Altuve, Astros; Gleyber Torres, Yankees (injured, will likely be replaced)
SS: *-Manny Machado, Orioles; Jean Segura, Mariners
3B: *-Jose Ramirez, Indians; Miguel Andujar, Yankees
OF: *-Mookie Betts, Red Sox; *-Mike Trout, Angels; *-Aaron Judge, Yankees; Andrew Benintendi, Red Sox; Michael Brantley, Indians; Nicholas Castellanos, Tigers; Eddie Rosario, Twins
DH: *-J.D. Martinez, Red Sox; Shin-Soo Choo, Rangers
SP: Chris Sale, Red Sox; Corey Kluber, Indians; Gerrit Cole, Astros; Charlie Morton, Astros; Justin Verlander, Astros; Luis Severino, Yankees; James Paxton, Mariners; J.A. Happ, Blue Jays
RP: Craig Kimbrel, Red Sox; Aroldis Chapman, Yankees; Blake Treinen, Athletics; Edwin Diaz, Mariners
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Buster Posey, Giants; J.T. Realmuto, Marlins
1B: *-Freddie Freeman, Braves; Jose Martinez, Cardinals
2B: *-Ozzie Albies, Braves; Javier Baez, Cubs; Scooter Gennett, Reds
SS: *-Brandon Crawford, Giants; Trevor Story, Rockies
3B: *-Nolan Arenado, Rockies; Eugenio Suarez, Reds; Max Muncy, Dodgers
OF: *-Nick Markakis, Braves; *-Matt Kemp, Dodgers; *-Bryce Harper, Nationals; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; Lorenzo Cain, Brewers; Odubel Herrera, Phillies; Corey Dickerson, Pirates
SP: Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks; Sean Newcomb, Braves; Jon Lester, Cubs; Jacob de Grom, Mets; Aaron Nola, Phillies; Miles Mikolas, Cardinals; Michael Wacha, Cardinals; Max Scherzer, Nationals
RP: Brandon Morrow, Cubs; Josh Hader, Brewers; Brad Hand, Padres; Sean Doolittle, Nationals
AL Final Vote: Francisco Lindor, Indians (SS); George Springer, Astros (OF); Andrelton Simmons, Angels (SS); Eduardo Escobar, Twins (SS); Dee Gordon, Mariners (2B)
NL Final Vote: Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks (1B); Kris Bryant, Cubs (3B); Brian Anderson, Marlins (3B); Christian Yelich, Brewers (OF); Andrew McCutchen, Giants (OF)
My AL lineup is: Betts-LF, Altuve-2B, Trout-CF, Martinez-DH, Judge-RF, Ramirez-3B, Machado-SS, Abreu-1B, Ramos-C, Severino-P. My NL lineup is: Blackmon-DH, Harper-CF, Arenado-3B, Freeman-1B, Kemp-LF, Markakis-RF, Posey-C, Crawford-SS, Albies-2B, Scherzer-P.
With that being said, I have no problem with the fact that Bryce Harper is going to start the All*Star Game with a .211 batting average. The game is in Washington, and he's the face of the Nationals' franchise. It's the All*Star Game, and the biggest star on the home team always has a place there. Do his numbers warrant a selection? Probably not. But you're not gonna find many people complaining that the All*Star hosts will be represented in the starting lineup by their most popular player. And if Harper's the only one of the 17 fan-elected starters who's even remotely questionable, I'd say the fans did a great job.
It's a near certainty that the starting lineups have changed since the polls closed on Thursday. But, since we have no idea who was caught and by whom, I'm going with the vote leaders as of the last update as my starters.
You'll also notice that my AL roster is very top heavy. That's because the five playoff teams are that much better than everybody else. In fact, I've got at least three All*Stars from all five playoff teams and only one from each of the other 10. That will probably change due to Gleyber Torres' injury, but he's eligible to come off the DL on Sunday, so he doesn't technically have to be replaced on the All*Star roster yet (although he likely will be). And, yes, I had to get a little creative with the team reps in the AL. But I was able to do it while still following the 12 pitcher rule (and somehow still managed to get all three Astros starters in there!).
The National League, meanwhile, is far less top heavy. In fact, I've got more members of the last-place Cincinnati Reds making the squad than the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks. I also watch the NL far less than I watch the AL, so I have a much larger margin for error there. And, since they have two extra spots to fill because of no DH, the team reps are much easier to put in there.
As for the starting pitchers, I think they're both pretty easy. Max Scherzer started for the NL last year, and he should again. Not only is he the ace of the team hosting the game, he's arguably the best pitcher in the National League.
In the American League, it's a much tougher choice. Mainly because there are so many good options. But I was able to narrow it down to two--Justin Verlander, the best pitcher in the AL for the first six weeks of the season, and Luis Severino, the best pitcher in the AL over the last six weeks. I can easily see A.J. Hinch going with his own guy, but I think Severino is the clear choice.
And with that, here we go...
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Wilson Ramos, Rays; Salvador Perez, Royals
1B: *-Jose Abreu, White Sox; Mitch Moreland, Red Sox
2B: *-Jose Altuve, Astros; Gleyber Torres, Yankees (injured, will likely be replaced)
SS: *-Manny Machado, Orioles; Jean Segura, Mariners
3B: *-Jose Ramirez, Indians; Miguel Andujar, Yankees
OF: *-Mookie Betts, Red Sox; *-Mike Trout, Angels; *-Aaron Judge, Yankees; Andrew Benintendi, Red Sox; Michael Brantley, Indians; Nicholas Castellanos, Tigers; Eddie Rosario, Twins
DH: *-J.D. Martinez, Red Sox; Shin-Soo Choo, Rangers
SP: Chris Sale, Red Sox; Corey Kluber, Indians; Gerrit Cole, Astros; Charlie Morton, Astros; Justin Verlander, Astros; Luis Severino, Yankees; James Paxton, Mariners; J.A. Happ, Blue Jays
RP: Craig Kimbrel, Red Sox; Aroldis Chapman, Yankees; Blake Treinen, Athletics; Edwin Diaz, Mariners
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Buster Posey, Giants; J.T. Realmuto, Marlins
1B: *-Freddie Freeman, Braves; Jose Martinez, Cardinals
2B: *-Ozzie Albies, Braves; Javier Baez, Cubs; Scooter Gennett, Reds
SS: *-Brandon Crawford, Giants; Trevor Story, Rockies
3B: *-Nolan Arenado, Rockies; Eugenio Suarez, Reds; Max Muncy, Dodgers
OF: *-Nick Markakis, Braves; *-Matt Kemp, Dodgers; *-Bryce Harper, Nationals; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; Lorenzo Cain, Brewers; Odubel Herrera, Phillies; Corey Dickerson, Pirates
SP: Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks; Sean Newcomb, Braves; Jon Lester, Cubs; Jacob de Grom, Mets; Aaron Nola, Phillies; Miles Mikolas, Cardinals; Michael Wacha, Cardinals; Max Scherzer, Nationals
RP: Brandon Morrow, Cubs; Josh Hader, Brewers; Brad Hand, Padres; Sean Doolittle, Nationals
AL Final Vote: Francisco Lindor, Indians (SS); George Springer, Astros (OF); Andrelton Simmons, Angels (SS); Eduardo Escobar, Twins (SS); Dee Gordon, Mariners (2B)
NL Final Vote: Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks (1B); Kris Bryant, Cubs (3B); Brian Anderson, Marlins (3B); Christian Yelich, Brewers (OF); Andrew McCutchen, Giants (OF)
My AL lineup is: Betts-LF, Altuve-2B, Trout-CF, Martinez-DH, Judge-RF, Ramirez-3B, Machado-SS, Abreu-1B, Ramos-C, Severino-P. My NL lineup is: Blackmon-DH, Harper-CF, Arenado-3B, Freeman-1B, Kemp-LF, Markakis-RF, Posey-C, Crawford-SS, Albies-2B, Scherzer-P.
Friday, July 6, 2018
Winter Games Deja Vu
Here we go again. Graz, Austria announced today that it has withdrawn from the race to be the host city of the 2026 Winter Olympics, bringing the initial list of seven candidate cities down to five. Like Sion, Switzerland, Graz backed out because they couldn't get the government support. And of the remaining five, we may end up losing a few more because of the dreaded referendum.
Of the remaining options, Sapporo, which would be a third straight Winter Olympics in Asia, has said they would rather host in 2030; Calgary may get shuttered because Edmonton's one of the World Cup host cities; and Stockholm's bid, which I think is still considered the favorite, may also end up facing a referendum. So, for a second straight Winter Games, we could end up with a two-horse race between whichever Italian city ends up getting chosen and Erzurum, Turkey. We could end up seeing them go to Turkey by default. Not exactly what the IOC had in mind when they said they wanted a "more traditional" host.
After the debacle of the 2022 bid and, to a lesser extent, the Paris/LA joint-awarding situation, the IOC tried to change the perception of hosting the Olympics. All cities (and, more importantly, the taxpayers in those cities) were seeing were the price tags for Sochi and Tokyo and the empty venues in Rio and PyeongChang. Cities don't see the benefit, especially when the Olympics are seven years after the host-city vote, so they're taking a hard pass.
The Winter Olympics have become that party you want to be invited to, but you hope is at somebody else's house. You don't mind going. You just don't want to do all the setup and cleanup. And you'd rather not pay for it yourself.
It's imperative that the IOC figures out a way to change that. The need to make the idea of hosting the Olympics (especially the Winter Games, where there's a limited number of places you can hold them to begin with) attractive again. Otherwise, they're gonna keep running into this same problem over and over again. You'll have three straight Games in Asia and Winter Olympics in cities that don't have any snow with the closest mountains 100 miles away (whoever thought Beijing 2.0 was a good idea was incredibly wrong).
They revamped the bid process, making it shorter and less expensive. It hasn't worked. They revised the Host City Contract, changing the requirements and lessening the financial burden on the host city and country. It hasn't worked. They pretty much flat out begged cities to focus on existing venues and only build stuff that's needed. That hasn't worked either. Nothing has worked!
Western Europe and North America are extremely important to the Olympic Movement. Most of the top sporting countries are in Western Europe, and most of the IOC's money comes from NBC. They know that they don't want to make these biannual trips to the Far East, and that no one likes the awkward start times that result from the time difference (the athletes don't like morning finals, TV doesn't like events taking place overnight). But, when that's the only option, they have no choice.
I give the IOC credit for trying with their reforms. They're trying to get the message across that hosting the Olympics can be a good thing. Look at Barcelona. Look at London. Look at Salt Lake City. But those positives are drowned out by the anti-Olympic groups that pop up in every potential bid city and every failed referendum. To put it bluntly, that message isn't getting across. So it's on them to change it. Otherwise, they'll continue having this same problem.
For a long time, the IOC has been viewed by most of the general public as an elitist Boys Club. There's a good reason for that. The IOC has a ridiculous list of VIP perks for its members, some of which are completely unnecessary, that host cities are expected to fulfill. Once someone who's opposed to the idea gets their hands on one of those documents, it's pretty easy to get other people on their side. And the politicians, even if they personally see the benefit, can't offer their support if the voters don't offer theirs.
Instead of focusing on how cities can help the Olympics, they should emphasize how the Olympics can help the city. Because the Olympics can be the ultimate help me help you. The money doesn't need to be spent on venues that will only be used for two weeks and then either torn down or sit there unused. But it can be used to improve the roads or the subway or the airport. Or it can be used to build hotels. That benefits everybody. (Not to mention the amount of jobs that would be created and the amount of visitors that'll come into the city at Games-time.)
Unfortunately, no one has that perception of the Olympics. The only message that gets across is the negative one. It's the "anywhere but here" mindset from people who'd rather see their tax dollars spent on something else. (Even Olympics that have a good amount of private funding run into opposition!) And that's why the IOC repeatedly finds itself in this predicament. Because even the people who see the benefit and support an Olympic bid are drowned out by the protesters.
Or maybe we just need to come to terms with the fact that this is the new reality. Maybe getting governmental support for an Olympic bid in a Western democracy is going to be an uphill battle no matter what. Maybe the anti-Olympic groups will gain enough traction to force a referendum (or get the city to pull out before it can fail one). Although, who knows?, maybe one day one of those referendums might actually pass.
Of the remaining options, Sapporo, which would be a third straight Winter Olympics in Asia, has said they would rather host in 2030; Calgary may get shuttered because Edmonton's one of the World Cup host cities; and Stockholm's bid, which I think is still considered the favorite, may also end up facing a referendum. So, for a second straight Winter Games, we could end up with a two-horse race between whichever Italian city ends up getting chosen and Erzurum, Turkey. We could end up seeing them go to Turkey by default. Not exactly what the IOC had in mind when they said they wanted a "more traditional" host.
After the debacle of the 2022 bid and, to a lesser extent, the Paris/LA joint-awarding situation, the IOC tried to change the perception of hosting the Olympics. All cities (and, more importantly, the taxpayers in those cities) were seeing were the price tags for Sochi and Tokyo and the empty venues in Rio and PyeongChang. Cities don't see the benefit, especially when the Olympics are seven years after the host-city vote, so they're taking a hard pass.
The Winter Olympics have become that party you want to be invited to, but you hope is at somebody else's house. You don't mind going. You just don't want to do all the setup and cleanup. And you'd rather not pay for it yourself.
It's imperative that the IOC figures out a way to change that. The need to make the idea of hosting the Olympics (especially the Winter Games, where there's a limited number of places you can hold them to begin with) attractive again. Otherwise, they're gonna keep running into this same problem over and over again. You'll have three straight Games in Asia and Winter Olympics in cities that don't have any snow with the closest mountains 100 miles away (whoever thought Beijing 2.0 was a good idea was incredibly wrong).
They revamped the bid process, making it shorter and less expensive. It hasn't worked. They revised the Host City Contract, changing the requirements and lessening the financial burden on the host city and country. It hasn't worked. They pretty much flat out begged cities to focus on existing venues and only build stuff that's needed. That hasn't worked either. Nothing has worked!
Western Europe and North America are extremely important to the Olympic Movement. Most of the top sporting countries are in Western Europe, and most of the IOC's money comes from NBC. They know that they don't want to make these biannual trips to the Far East, and that no one likes the awkward start times that result from the time difference (the athletes don't like morning finals, TV doesn't like events taking place overnight). But, when that's the only option, they have no choice.
I give the IOC credit for trying with their reforms. They're trying to get the message across that hosting the Olympics can be a good thing. Look at Barcelona. Look at London. Look at Salt Lake City. But those positives are drowned out by the anti-Olympic groups that pop up in every potential bid city and every failed referendum. To put it bluntly, that message isn't getting across. So it's on them to change it. Otherwise, they'll continue having this same problem.
For a long time, the IOC has been viewed by most of the general public as an elitist Boys Club. There's a good reason for that. The IOC has a ridiculous list of VIP perks for its members, some of which are completely unnecessary, that host cities are expected to fulfill. Once someone who's opposed to the idea gets their hands on one of those documents, it's pretty easy to get other people on their side. And the politicians, even if they personally see the benefit, can't offer their support if the voters don't offer theirs.
Instead of focusing on how cities can help the Olympics, they should emphasize how the Olympics can help the city. Because the Olympics can be the ultimate help me help you. The money doesn't need to be spent on venues that will only be used for two weeks and then either torn down or sit there unused. But it can be used to improve the roads or the subway or the airport. Or it can be used to build hotels. That benefits everybody. (Not to mention the amount of jobs that would be created and the amount of visitors that'll come into the city at Games-time.)
Unfortunately, no one has that perception of the Olympics. The only message that gets across is the negative one. It's the "anywhere but here" mindset from people who'd rather see their tax dollars spent on something else. (Even Olympics that have a good amount of private funding run into opposition!) And that's why the IOC repeatedly finds itself in this predicament. Because even the people who see the benefit and support an Olympic bid are drowned out by the protesters.
Or maybe we just need to come to terms with the fact that this is the new reality. Maybe getting governmental support for an Olympic bid in a Western democracy is going to be an uphill battle no matter what. Maybe the anti-Olympic groups will gain enough traction to force a referendum (or get the city to pull out before it can fail one). Although, who knows?, maybe one day one of those referendums might actually pass.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
No Place For This In Sports
While we've all been wrapped up in the World Cup, qualifying for next year's Basketball World Cup is well underway. This is the first time FIBA is using a qualifying system similar to the one FIFA uses where certain dates are blocked out each national team gets to play home games during qualifying. Well, anyway, there was an Asian qualifier between Australia and the Philippines yesterday that descended into pure chaos.
If you haven't heard about it, there was an all-out brawl in the third quarter that left the Philippines with just three players. The video is disturbing. Mainly because what happened is completely disgusting. Regardless of the reason for the fight and how/why it escalated, the behavior of the Filipino players during and especially afterwards is completely reprehensible. See for yourself below:
Like I said, disturbing. And I think the Australian TV commentators summed up the feelings we all had. There's absolutely no place for any of that in sports.
For their part, the Australians acknowledged their role and expressed regret. And, frankly, I don't think Australia was out of control at all. Sure No. 7 (who happens to play for the Milwaukee Bucks) went over-the-top. But all of their actions were in the heat of the moment. And they showed a certain degree of restraint, too.
I wish I could say the Filipino team showed the same restraint. But you can plainly see about four guys jumping over those boards in front of the bench just so they could join in, and they promptly threw haymakers. Then it continued off the court. Somebody threw a chair at one of the Aussies. A freakin' chair! That's assault! Thank God he wasn't injured.
The game was in Manila, which only made matters worse. Because the fans were loving every minute of it. They were egging the players on and cheering this absolutely grotesque display. They high-fived the ejected players as they went to the locker room. That's not even the worst part, though. Want to know how badly the Filipino players just ignored the ideas of sportsmanship and decorum? They were laughing and smiling while posing for selfies with fans on the court as the officials tried to sort out this mess.
But did the Philippines show any sense of remorse for their behavior? Of course not! The head coach and the country's president released statements apologizing for the incident, but somebody from their basketball federation didn't think they had done anything wrong at all. In his statement, he actually said he was "proud of the way our boys stood their ground." Is he serious?! That's nearly as embarrassing as the brawl itself.
When FIBA moved the date of the World Cup (which until this year was always in the same year as soccer's) and changed the qualifying process, one of the reasons they gave was because teams didn't get to play home games and have a true home court advantage. Well, FIBA, you got what you wanted. And this ugly incident was the result.
FIBA has already started the disciplinary process, and they've got their work cut out for them. Because simply suspending players isn't enough. There needs to be a clear message sent that this is completely unacceptable. And that message needs to be a strong one.
Australia isn't blameless. The four players involved should be suspended, with the guy from the Bucks receiving several games. And I'm sure the federation will be fined, too. But that should be the extent of the punishment for the Aussies. They were embarrassed by their role in the fight and showed genuine regret about it.
There needs to be severe penalties for the Philippines, though. And not just for the nine players who thought they were Manny Pacquiao. The federation needs to be held accountable for the incident and its behavior afterwards. Because, ultimately, the Filipino Basketball Federation is responsible for the reprehensible conduct of both its players and its fans.
Here's what I would do. The Philippines is disqualified from the tournament. They'd already advanced to the next round (as had Australia), but they must forfeit their remaining games. With the number of lengthy suspensions their players are going to receive, they wouldn't have anybody left to play those games anyway. There's more though. I'd also disqualify them from Olympic qualifying. If you think that doesn't sound like that big a deal, keep in mind the Philippines hosted one of the three final qualifying tournaments for the Rio Games.
Speaking of hosting games, they're not allowed to do that for a while, either. This doesn't get anywhere near as out of hand if not for the fans, whose behavior was just as deplorable (the chair wasn't thrown by a player). So, the Philippines also has to play a certain number of home games, whatever number that is, at a neutral site. That's something FIFA does all the time, so there's a precedent for it. And it's the only appropriate thing to do. Because simply fining the federation isn't nearly enough.
What happened in Manila between Australia and the Philippines was regrettable in every sense of the word. FIBA needs to make it clear that scenes like this are unacceptable. And coming down hard on the Philippines is the only way to do that.
If you haven't heard about it, there was an all-out brawl in the third quarter that left the Philippines with just three players. The video is disturbing. Mainly because what happened is completely disgusting. Regardless of the reason for the fight and how/why it escalated, the behavior of the Filipino players during and especially afterwards is completely reprehensible. See for yourself below:
Like I said, disturbing. And I think the Australian TV commentators summed up the feelings we all had. There's absolutely no place for any of that in sports.
For their part, the Australians acknowledged their role and expressed regret. And, frankly, I don't think Australia was out of control at all. Sure No. 7 (who happens to play for the Milwaukee Bucks) went over-the-top. But all of their actions were in the heat of the moment. And they showed a certain degree of restraint, too.
I wish I could say the Filipino team showed the same restraint. But you can plainly see about four guys jumping over those boards in front of the bench just so they could join in, and they promptly threw haymakers. Then it continued off the court. Somebody threw a chair at one of the Aussies. A freakin' chair! That's assault! Thank God he wasn't injured.
The game was in Manila, which only made matters worse. Because the fans were loving every minute of it. They were egging the players on and cheering this absolutely grotesque display. They high-fived the ejected players as they went to the locker room. That's not even the worst part, though. Want to know how badly the Filipino players just ignored the ideas of sportsmanship and decorum? They were laughing and smiling while posing for selfies with fans on the court as the officials tried to sort out this mess.
But did the Philippines show any sense of remorse for their behavior? Of course not! The head coach and the country's president released statements apologizing for the incident, but somebody from their basketball federation didn't think they had done anything wrong at all. In his statement, he actually said he was "proud of the way our boys stood their ground." Is he serious?! That's nearly as embarrassing as the brawl itself.
When FIBA moved the date of the World Cup (which until this year was always in the same year as soccer's) and changed the qualifying process, one of the reasons they gave was because teams didn't get to play home games and have a true home court advantage. Well, FIBA, you got what you wanted. And this ugly incident was the result.
FIBA has already started the disciplinary process, and they've got their work cut out for them. Because simply suspending players isn't enough. There needs to be a clear message sent that this is completely unacceptable. And that message needs to be a strong one.
Australia isn't blameless. The four players involved should be suspended, with the guy from the Bucks receiving several games. And I'm sure the federation will be fined, too. But that should be the extent of the punishment for the Aussies. They were embarrassed by their role in the fight and showed genuine regret about it.
There needs to be severe penalties for the Philippines, though. And not just for the nine players who thought they were Manny Pacquiao. The federation needs to be held accountable for the incident and its behavior afterwards. Because, ultimately, the Filipino Basketball Federation is responsible for the reprehensible conduct of both its players and its fans.
Here's what I would do. The Philippines is disqualified from the tournament. They'd already advanced to the next round (as had Australia), but they must forfeit their remaining games. With the number of lengthy suspensions their players are going to receive, they wouldn't have anybody left to play those games anyway. There's more though. I'd also disqualify them from Olympic qualifying. If you think that doesn't sound like that big a deal, keep in mind the Philippines hosted one of the three final qualifying tournaments for the Rio Games.
Speaking of hosting games, they're not allowed to do that for a while, either. This doesn't get anywhere near as out of hand if not for the fans, whose behavior was just as deplorable (the chair wasn't thrown by a player). So, the Philippines also has to play a certain number of home games, whatever number that is, at a neutral site. That's something FIFA does all the time, so there's a precedent for it. And it's the only appropriate thing to do. Because simply fining the federation isn't nearly enough.
What happened in Manila between Australia and the Philippines was regrettable in every sense of the word. FIBA needs to make it clear that scenes like this are unacceptable. And coming down hard on the Philippines is the only way to do that.
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Wimbledon Ready
OK, who was the genius that scheduled the World Cup final at the same time as the Wimbledon finals? The late game has been at 2:00 all tournament, then, suddenly, the final starts at 11:00?! C'mon FIFA. You're only giving Roger two hours. That's gonna be cutting it close. And I don't care how big a blowout the women's final is. They'd be hard-pressed to finish even a 6-0, 6-1 rout in under an hour.
Anyway, First World problems I guess. And I went on my rant about Serena being seeded yesterday, so now it's time to get down to business. Because it's time for the most prestigious tournament in tennis. It's a historic Wimbledon, too, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Open Era.
On the men's side, the Big Four have combined to win the past 15 Wimbledon titles (and make 23 of the 30 appearances in the final during that span, with Andy Roddick accounting for three of the other seven). Andy Murray hasn't played since last year's Wimbledon due to a hip injury, and it just forced him to withdraw from this year's Championships. So, the Big Four is down to a Big Three.
That shouldn't matter too much, though. Because Federer and Nadal enter Wimbledon as the clear favorites. Roger sat out the French Open last year to prepare for Wimbledon, and it paid off with his eighth Wimbledon title. He took the same approach this year (why waste your energy in Paris when you're just gonna lose to Nadal anyway?), which only helps his chances to repeat.
Roger's gotten smarter in his old age (full disclosure, we're actually the same age). By not playing the clay court season, he's not putting that extra toll on his body. And his game has always been better suited to Wimbledon than anywhere else (he's won eight titles for a reason). Nadal knows that, too. Which is why Federer was seeded No. 1 and goes into the tournament as the favorite.
And, just like the French Open was Rafa vs. the Field, I think this Wimbledon will be a case of Roger vs. the Field. It's not the same guarantee that Nadal is in Paris, but it'll be a major upset if Federer loses before the semifinals, if at all. Marin Cilic, his final opponent last year and at this year's Australian Open, would be his semifinal opponent, but most of the players who can challenge Federer are in the bottom half of the draw, which also plays to his advantage.
Nadal hasn't gotten past the fourth round here since 2011, and he's lost to some pretty random people along the way thru the years. So, yes, it would be a surprise to see him make a deep run. Especially with Del Potro awaiting in the quarters (assuming he gets there) and possible semifinal matchup with either Djokovic or Alexander Zverev (who may be ready for his breakout Grand Slam).
I also like John Isner's draw and think this might finally be his chance to go far in a Major. Isner is the perfect grass court player, but he always plays a long match (this is the eighth anniversary of 70-68) that takes a lot out of him and kills him moving forward. But if he can avoid that, a semifinal against Federer definitely seems possible.
No one's knocking Roger off his perch, though. He defends a Wimbledon title for the first time since his five in a row from 2003-07 and earns career Grand Slam title No. 21.
At the French Open, everyone was pretty confident with their picks. Nadal on the men's side, no clue on the women's side. That's no different heading into Wimbledon. Garbine Muguruza is the defending champion, but you've got so many former champs and legitimate contenders in the field that it's completely wide open.
Both Williams sisters are in the bottom half of the draw, which has a very American feel (and, conveniently, will play on the 4th of July). Sloane Stephens returned from injury at Wimbledon last year. She lost in the first round, then won the US Open and made the French Open final. She's seeded fourth and has all the goods to make another final run here. That is, if she can get by Venus, Serena and Madison Keys, who are all looming.
Serena ended up with a pretty good draw, so, if her health is there, a deep run doesn't seem out of the question. After she withdrew from the French Open mid-tournament with a shoulder injury, though, you have to legitimately wonder if she can make it through seven matches, though. There's also the very real possibility that No. 2 Caroline Wozniacki might actually do something at Wimbledon for the first time in her career. Woz is a different player since finally winning that first Grand Slam title.
Speaking of winning a first Grand Slam title, world No. 1 Simona Halep has also gotten that monkey off her back. Her game isn't suited great for the grass courts, but her draw is pretty favorable. Although, she'll have to deal with British favorite Johanna Konta in the fourth round before a potential quarterfinal matchup with Maria Sharapova, assuming Sharapova beats two-time champ Petra Kvitova. Maria hasn't been here in two years, but made the semis in her last appearance in 2015. And, of course, won the title in 2004 (which, as is pointed out repeatedly, is still her only win over Serena).
Muguruza, meanwhile, has a decent looking draw herself. She does have two former finalists (Eugenie Bouchard, Angelique Kerber) in her quarter, but Bouchard had to qualify and Kerber, despite being seeded 11th, has a much trickier road and could be out of gas by the time she faces Muguruza. She's a former No. 1 and two-time Grand Slam champion, though, so don't count her out totally.
There are so many women you can see making a deep run, but you can also see almost all of them crashing out early, too, which makes picking a winner even more difficult. But, if I had to pick somebody, I'll say Muguruza defends her title by beating Stephens in the final. Whether that's done before the World Cup third-place game starts is a completely different issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)