How did the Warriors get here?

How did we get here? 

More specifically, how did they get here? The Warriors, that is, to Game 7 of the first round of the playoffs. This wasn’t supposed to happen, not after they finally won a road game at Sacramento and seemingly proved they had restored their excellence and our faith. 

A game at home, Chase Center, where they almost always win, and it would be on to the next round. But as we were reminded, almost leaves room for doubt, and defeat, a 118-99, defeat. And so Sunday in Sacramento there would be a final game for the Warriors’ postseason. And maybe for the season.

The Kings were favored, and why not. They had a better regular season record, earning the home-court advantage. They are younger and seemingly stronger. Father time is an unbeatable opponent. Steph Curry is 35. It all catches up with you.  

Sports are predictable. And unpredictable. The belief here was once the Warriors got a victory on the road, at Sacramento, they would be fine, that that experience and championships — and cheering at Chase — would make the difference. That wasn’t the situation in Game 6.

They were out of it before the second quarter began, a disappointment as well as a shock.

Was it surprising, with the Warriors down more than a dozen points and a loss inevitable, that the crowd at Chase was determinedly heading for the exits, apparently unconcerned there might not be another home game until next fall? The fans were not accustomed to what they had seen.  

It was Dick Motta, coaching in the 1970s, who popularized the phrase, “It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings,’ and certainly as the Warriors’ Klay Thompson pointed out the Dubs very much understand what they need to do, shoot, rebound and most of all play alert defense. But knowing and doing are not the same.

And if knowing is a factor the advantage would go to Mike Brown, in his first year as Kings coach, who spent the previous six seasons as assistant and interim head coach with the Warriors. He and his staff decided to go with a smaller lineup in Game 6, a maneuver that allowed Sacramento to get more open shots and also to harass the Warrior offense, Golden State shooting only 37 percent.      

NBA playoffs have a history of teams alternating wins and losses. The Warriors, aware of what some might say is desperation, assumingly would perform better — as they did in the three straight wins over the Kings earlier in the series. Dubs coach Steve Kerr said his team needed once more to be the aggressor.

He also said, perhaps as much for the fans as the players, “We’ve won Game 7s before. We know what to do.”

If they win, the Warriors get the Lakers, If they don’t they get months to remember and reflect.

Draymond: Man of thoughts, words — and actions

On that podcast hosted by the man-about-town, defensive wizard and too-often controversial Draymond Green, he forthrightly pointed out that most of us — meaning virtually everyone but the players — don’t understand the game of pro basketball.

No argument here. Only a note of appreciation for the fact Mr. Green not only understands but is able to put that understanding into effect.

A couple of days earlier, Friday to be specific, Draymond was paying a price as much for his reputation as for his (shall I say aggressive?) method of play, stomping on the chest of Sacramento’s Domantas Sabonis.

And so in Game 3 of the first round, with Draymond viewing, the Warriors won. Then Sunday, with Draymond subbing — he played one second less than 31 minutes and chipped in with 12 points and 10 rebounds — the Warriors won again, but barely, 126-125.

The first two games were at Sacramento and the last two were at Chase Center in San Francisco. With three games remaining, at max, two on the Kings’ home floor, the Warriors’ dynasty — if four championships in six years are to be judged a dynasty in sports — crumbles but holds.

The Kings supposedly have the edge. What the Warriors have is the experience, the been-there-done-that feeling. They also have Steph Curry, who scored many of his 32 points Sunday when it seemed everything was going wrong offensively, and the bad boy-good thinker, Draymond Green.

Green is not quite the individual portrayed or at least imagined. On the court, it’s true that he goes hard and reckless, fiercely perhaps, but in interviews, he’s calm and reflective. Although he’s always determined to get the proper result, victory.

Coaches and athletes talk about winning cultures, about the old Yankees and newer Lakers. The Warriors over the last decade have established a winning culture. They’re one of the teams always mentioned on ESPN, one of the teams that have earned a place in history.  

Who knows what will happen in the final three (or two) games of this Warriors-Kings playoff series. But it has already been memorable. First Draymond gets suspended. Then in Game 4, which they also managed to win, in the final seconds the Dubs receive a technical foul for calling a timeout they didn’t have — like Michigan’s Chris Webber in the 1992 NCAA final.

Steph did that, but Kerr said he should be blamed for what might have been a costly bit of miscommunication but turned out to be trivial.

Curry reminded everybody of the objective.

“We talk a lot around here about doing whatever it takes to win, and everybody being flexible on what their role is,” Curry said. “It’s just being ready, no matter what the situation calls for, the versatility of our team.”    

Off the bench or in the starting lineup.

Win would get swagger back for Warriors

The Warriors say they are alright, and probably they are. A win Monday night over the Kings in Sacramento, and they’ve gained home-court advantage in the first round of the NBA playoffs.

They would also regain the swagger and belief a defending champion is supposed to put on display. 

But what if they lose, as they did on Saturday night? What if the Kings are the new Warriors, the way the Warriors a few years ago became the new Lakers? What if this is the season of change? What if this dynasty, like all dynasties, will end?

After all, the Kings had a better regular season record than the Warriors, the reason Sacramento has a possible four playoff games at Golden 1 Center, which for the Dubs is so close, roughly 90 miles away from Chase Center in San Francisco, but at the same time so far away.

Yes, it was loud Saturday night in Sacramento, but it’s always loud when a team that hasn’t been in the postseason in forever (well, 16 years) qualifies and is at home. That’s expected, but it’s also expected that a franchise that has multiple championships should not be affected.

Have you ever heard of Malik Monk? Before Saturday, that is. He’s averaging 11.7 points a game. He scored 32 and was 14 of 14 on free throws, taking advantage of a team that prides itself on defense but fouls all too frequently.

All that considered, the Warriors only lost, 126-123. And in a locker room more resigned than stunned, the reaction was almost a shrug. These things happen in the NBA, so let’s figure out why.   

"That first game is kind of a feeling-out process,” said the Warriors’ Steph Curry, “and we controlled the game for a good 32, 33 minutes. They went on a run at the end of the third, start of the fourth, and they got into it.”

Which wouldn’t have mattered if the Kings weren’t getting the ball into the basket, but they were. De’Aaron Fox getting 38 points formed a considerable 1-2 punch when adding Monk’s 32. 

What made the Warriors feel upbeat on a night of noise and defeat was the return of the missing Andrew Wiggins. He had been gone since February because of the mysterious family situation. He played 28 minutes, scored 17 points, and had a career playoff high of four blocked shots.

“We told him how happy we are to have him back,” said Warriors coach Steve Kerr, who gave Wiggins a half hug as the player left the court.

Curry had 30 but couldn’t hit a jump shot with seconds left to play.

“All in all," said Kerr, “to come out here with a 10-point lead in the second half, have a chance to win late, I like where we are. I think we’re in a pretty good place.”

If not as good a place had they won.

An operatic reminder of death in the boxing ring

There’s an opera at the Met in New York, “Champion,” about boxing. Really about one fight and two men, one of whom would die from the result of that fight, the other who unleashed the fatal blows and was known to inhabit gay bars.

If that doesn’t create a modern libretto, well, Verdi didn’t have to deal with a 10-count after a knockdown.

A New York Times piece about the arrival of “Champion,” was a reminder of an era three decades past when I was employed by United Press International, known as a wire service in a room full of clattering teletype machines.

It was a Saturday night on March 24, 1962. Not only would there be a world championship bout at Madison Square Garden, but on another channel, an earlier hour, Wake Forest would play UCLA in the third-place game of the NCAA basketball tournament at Louisville. Which was also the same night as the game between the schools that won in the semis-Ohio State and the eventual champ, Cincinnati.

I did say the era was different.

Emile Griffith, originally from the Virgin Islands, and Benny (Kid) Paret, from Cuba, had fought twice previously, each winning one.  

Griffith’s clothes, actions, and relationships earned him a reputation as a homosexual, which in that era was not acceptable in most sports, especially the manly art of self-defense, as in the present. Griffith kept his lifestyle as secret as possible. There were rumors and sniggers. And little until the weigh-in     

Then, closeup after their weights had been recorded Paret, who could be cocky, called Griffith “maricon,” a Spanish word which translates as “queer” or faggot. Never awakening, Paret died 10 days later from a brain hemorrhage.

When Griffith got Paret in a corner he was unstoppable and unforgiving, pounding Paret’s head until he collapsed. We saw him carried out, never awakening, and he died 10 days later.  

It was sad and stunning, a televised shock to us all.

We would find out years later, it also was retribution. In 2005, Griffith told The New York Times that Paret’s taunts had “touched something inside.”

“I’m sorry but he called me a name, so I did what I had to do.”

Mickelson gets one more Masters memory

AUGUSTA, Ga. — He told us he was hesitant to say too much, which was so unlike Phil Mickelson. But that’s OK. His game told us everything we needed to know, almost.

It told us at 52, after the money losses, after in effect jumping ship — well leaving a lifetime link to the PGA Tour to hook up with the contentious LIV Tour — and after slipping past his 50th birthday, Mickelson still is one of golf’s main men.

This 87th Masters, which came to a stunning conclusion Sunday, belonged as much to Mickelson the outcast, as it did to Jon Rahm, the champion. 

That Rahm, who began the final round two strokes behind the guy who led from virtually the first shot of the tournament, Brooks Koepka, ended up the winner wasn’t the shock. He had been atop the world rankings most of the spring, and through history, many leads have been squandered — blown, if you choose — on an Augusta National course full of promise and heartbreak.

You know the saying: The Masters doesn’t begin until the back nine on Sunday.

That’s when 52-year-old Phil Mickelson, a three-time Masters champ and a six-time majors champ, made his run. He was 1-under for 54 holes. He was 8-under for 72 holes. Yes, a 7-under-65, the low round of the day. May I add, wow?

What Mickelson added was, “I had so much fun today. I feel I’ve been hitting these types of quality shots but have not been staying focused and preset for the upcoming shot, and I make a lot of mistakes; Kind of like you saw Thursday, and that cost me a bunch of shots.”

Not so many he couldn’t soar up the leaderboard to finish second, at 280, only four behind Rahm, who had a 69, Saturday. Not so many that in the group press conference, he couldn’t revert to the cocky kid who always came up with a smart-aleck response. Not so many we couldn’t think of the times when Phil was challenging Tiger.

Woods, who made the cut for a 23rd straight time in a Masters but withdrew Sunday morning because of plantar fasciitis, aggravated by long rounds Friday and Saturday.

Mickelson, stashed away on the Saudi-financed LIV Tour, had not been noticed of late. Other than when he made the tour switch with what seemed a lot of guilt, calling the Saudis “bad mothers.”

Why did he join them? He wanted leverage against the PGA Tour, after questioning how purse money was distributed. Mickelson has made millions as a golf pro, but he’s also lost millions at the gambling tables or betting on sporting events.

Whatever, he was gone, an aging star who almost disappeared — as did another tour jumper, Koepka, since the LIV didn’t have any attention and until a few weeks ago had no U.S. TV coverage. Fortunately, the four major championships were unconcerned with affiliations. They just cared if you could play.

As re-learned, Mickelson very much could.

“I’m hopeful this kind of catapults me into playing the rest of the year the way I believe I’m playing,” he said. “I worked hard in the off-season to get ready.”

Asked what he learned about himself, Mickelson said, “It’s not so much what I’ve learned. I was thinking when you come here to Augusta, you end up having a sense of gratitude. It’s hard not to, right? This is what we strive for. There’s a kind of calm that comes over you.”

“The fact that we get to play and compete in this Masters. I think we’ve all been appreciative of that,” Mickelson added. “I love everything about this, because it’s what I dreamed of as a kid to be a part of and I’ve got so many great memories wrapped up here at Augusta.”   

Especially this one.

Masters: Tales of Koepka and Tiger

AUGUSTA, Ga. — Part of the deal. Brooks Koepka said it. He understands you can’t do a thing about the weather, major golf championship or not. He also understands how to play the game, whatever the conditions.

As indicated by his place on the scoreboard, which is better than anyone else’s through a Masters which was supposed to be over, but like one those old European films that just keeps going and going.

Then again it is over. Probably. Technically. Koepka is running away with the thing — sorry, sloshing away. It’s been wet — “Super difficult,” said Koepka. “Ball’s not going anywhere.”

However, Koepka, who’s already won two U.S. Opens and a PGA Championship, almost certainly is going on to a victory and the green jacket presented to Masters winners.

When on this cold (55 degrees) soggy Saturday play was suspended yet again, Koepka had a four-shot lead over Jon Rahm and 30 holes remaining. Yes, there’s a lot of golf left but the other guys are the ones struggling, not Koepka, who like most who win the Masters, turns the par-fives into fours and never blinks.

The only real question when Friday’s worrisome second round, the one halted because of falling trees and fleeing spectators, resumed Saturday morning was whether Tiger Woods would retain his impressive record of never missing a Masters cut. He would.

Woods has now expanded his streak to 23 in a row. From 1997, the year he won the first of his five Masters, and shares the mark with Gary Player (1959-1982) and Fred Couples (1983-2007). 

"I've always loved this golf course, and I love playing this event," Woods said Saturday. "Obviously I've missed a couple with some injuries, but I've always wanted to be here. I've loved it.”

He’d love to win again and tie Jack Nicklaus’ total of six championships, but his body is against him after that 2021 car accident, and so is time. Woods is 47,  which is 15 years older than Koepka, who, having recovered from his own injuries, a knee requiring surgery, appears as strong and no less eager than a couple years back.

“I’m not too concerned with playing 30 holes,” Koepka said of his Sunday round, which after the storms is supposed to be held in acceptable weather.

“I’m pretty sure I’ll be up for it, considering it is the Masters.”

If he isn’t there’s something very wrong.

Could Bennett be the first amateur to win the Masters?

AUGUSTA, Ga. —  “Yeah,” Sam Bennett’s pals told him. “Hope you get low amateur. That’s pretty much all they were saying.” Because there wasn’t much more they could say.

Sure, they could have suggested he could make history. Fulfill a wish of the man who founded the Masters, Bobby Jones, do the unprecedented if not the impossible, and give the Masters an amateur winner.  But let’s be realistic.    

Golf, especially the major at the championships, belongs to the pros, to the men who have spent years of practice and competition earning their niche.  

So even though Bennett, 23, a senior at Texas A&M and the U.S. Amateur champion, was 8-under par and temporarily in third place when Friday’s second round came to a jolting suspension because of falling pine trees and falling rain, he’s not going to finish on top. 

Not with three-time major winner Brooks Koepka in first place and likely to stay there. Not with the sad tale of Ken Venturi being retold every time an amateur works his way up the Masters’ leaderboard.

“I haven’t played great this college season,” said Bennett, who shot 68-68—136 (Koepka was 132) and was efficient if not great in his first rounds of his first Masters. 

“I don’t have a pretty swing like some of the other amateurs. But it’s golf, not a golf swing (that counts).” 

Venturi had one of the prettiest swings ever. He grew up playing Harding Park in San Francisco and after time at San Jose State and the U.S. Army had developed into arguably the best golfer in the U.S., pro or amateur.

Three rounds into the 1956 Masters, Venturi was four shots ahead. Oh, the excitement. Oh, the disappointment. Venturi finished with an 80 and in second by a shot to Jackie Burke Jr.  

In those days Bay Area writers didn’t travel. When he arrived home Venturi, who was swarmed by reporters from what then were a half-dozen reporters, was asked what went wrong.

Years later Venturi told Golf Digest his mistake was trying to 2-putt every green. But originally there was the contention that playing partner Sam Snead had, contrary to accepted golf etiquette, intentionally rattled Venturi. It sounded like an excuse, which it wasn’t meant to be. 

Venturi went on to win the 1964 U.S. Open and had a fine career as a broadcaster for CBS. And has come as close to finishing first in the Masters as any amateur.

That’s not to dissuade Bennett from continuing to try. The guy has plenty of desire, and just incidentally a few tattoos, including words of advice from his late father. “One on my left arm,” Bennett explained. “I see it every time I grip a club. It’s right there, ‘Don’t wait to do something.’” 

The golf world has waited the tournament’s entire 87 years for an amateur to win the Masters. You have to be patient, but isn’t there a limit?

“Everything I’ve done in my golf career, playing in these big tournaments,” said Bennett. “has led me to succeed this week and leading forward.”

Nothing wrong with that attitude.

Masters: Old names, new games

AUGUSTA, Ga. — They’re knee-deep in nostalgia at the Masters. The opening shots of round one Thursday were struck by guys in their 70s and 80s, former champions Gary Player, 87, Jack Nicklaus, 83, and Tom Watson, 73, who once shot in the 60’s.

Then after waking up the echoes, providing a few moments to recall how it was, the year’s first major steps back quickly to the way it is. To a new generation, to names like Viktor Hovland, Jon Rahm, and straight from his self-chosen disappearance on the LIV Tour, Brooks Koepka. Big hitters, boomers, and big names. That’s usually been the case at the Masters, where the grass, with an exception, is short and the tee shots long, where you can score low.      

It was the late Tony Lema, who said in so many words, the U.S. Open, where the fairways are narrow and the hazards severe, is hard work, a struggle, but the Masters is a pleasurable bit of recreation, entirely almost predictable, and fully enjoyable.   

In golf and tennis, the fans want success for the favorites and at the Masters that’s what they get, Nicklaus won six times, Tiger Woods five, and Arnold Palmer four. 

Eighteen holes into the 2023 Masters, Hovland, Rahm and Koepka are tied at 67, five-under par. Koepka has won three majors but none since he took the money and fled to the Saudi-finance LIV Tour — LIV in Roman numerals is 40, the number of holes for that tour’s tournaments.    

Rahm has won a U.S. Open and for most of this season was No. 1 in world rankings. Hovland, the Swede, seemingly always is in the contest. Not an anonymous soul in the group, normal for a Masters. The event brings out the best of the best.  

No, Woods, tied for 54th or something like that after a two-over 74, isn’t up there, but, hey Tiger is 47 and dare we remind you again, only two years away from that car accident which, if it didn’t take his life, took away much of the strength in his legs. 

Of the three tied for the leader, Koepka may be the most surprising, to us, not to himself. He did it with back-to-back U.S.Opens and a PGA, but other than being mentioned as a footnote in the war between the PGA and LIV tours there’s hardly been a word about his play. There was, however, television coverage of his lifestyle in the Netflix series Full Swing.    

Koepka, whose swing is very full, was told in one episode of the show that his game appeared to be far away from a great Masters round.    

“Anytime with something like that,” Koepka insisted. “You don’t see everything right, a lot of it was injury-based. They (the doctors) told me after (knee) surgery it was going to be pretty much a year and a half; I mean getting out of bed takes 15 minutes.”

Then, asked if the LIV issue puts more pressure on him in the Masters than when he’d been on the PGA Tour Koepka said, “I don’t really think about things like that. It’s just a major.”  

Hard to imagine Jack or Tiger saying that.

Masters irretrievably part of our sporting landscape

AGUSTA, Ga. — The location seems part cathedral and part real estate development.  The name, which he did not choose, embarrassed Bobby Jones, the man who was responsible for the creation of the tournament.

And yet because of history and some mystery — how do you get into the club; how do you get a ticket — the Masters irretrievably has become part of our sporting landscape

As the late, very great Dan Jenkins wrote, the Masters is the championship of nothing, no league or nation or continent, and yet for golf, it may be the center of everything, loaded with names and memories.

The Masters is where enlisted men from nearby Fort Gordon, having finished their assignment posting numbers on the scoreboard, jumped into the gallery following a pro named Palmer. And still wearing their uniforms, unintentionally started Arnie's Army.

The Masters is where years later another young guy named Tiger Woods shook up his opponents and because of his style and success — and race, a black man in what primarily had been a white man’s activity — shook up a sport that can always use some shaking.

Down here near the banks of the Savannah River, familiarity, contrary to the cliché, breeds not contempt but appreciation. The same venue, many of the same competitors, on television, the same comforting reminders from the words of CBS’ Jim Nantz.

So many athletes and fans, people who have been there and with exception done that, and whether they ever swung a club or a racquet, or know a double bogey from a double fault, say the only two events they would like to attend once are the Masters and Wimbledon.

Magical names where over the decades there have been so many wonderful games, where stories of the losers — Greg Norman, Jana Novotna — were more compelling than those of the winners.

The stories leading up to this Masters, involved, of course, Tiger, now 47, and still as always will be recovering from the vehicle crash of February 2021 — a sheriff’s deputy said Woods was lucky to survive — defending Masters champ.

Scottie Scheffler and the LIV Tour remain at war with the PGA Tour.

Not that anybody outside of the players, particularly Michelson and Brooks Koepka and the LIV and PGA Tour really cares about the war.

Golf, like tennis, is constructed on personalities, who’s playing and where. Watson defected from the PGA Tour and joined the Saudi-funded LIV Tour, only an issue if Bubba can’t enter a tournament because of his affiliation.

And the Masters, happily for all, especially fans of the Masters, has no restrictions. If the golfers themselves can’t get along, well, that’s their problem.

For the rest of us, the only problem may be the weather for this Masters, so inviting from the beginning, is supposed to turn nasty by Friday. Unfortunately, thunderstorms also are part of Masters tradition.

Warriors show they’re still winners

Two games previously, the coach took a few verbal shots at his team, which hadn’t kept the opposition from taking literal shots that went through the hoop. But this time Steve Kerr’s unhappiness was with someone in the media who wondered if Kerr was surprised by the way his team ended up after trailing big.   

Not really, Kerr responded in so many words, “These guys know how to win. Look what they’ve done. They’re winners.” And as we have learned, winners find a way to win.  

Whether the calls go against them. Whether they’re down 20 points. Or one hole with two to play. Or 15-40 in the third set.

It may be a quality they’re born with, it may be one they develop, but it is one that exists forever, one to be relied on, and one to be feared by the other team. Or other guy or woman, in individual sports.  A quality to be appreciated even if never quite understood.

These may not be the Warriors a few years back, who turned practically every third quarter into a personal festival, although Wednesday night against the frazzled New Orleans Pelicans there were more than a few tantalizing hints.

It was the game of the season for some Warriors fans, one to be treasured, one which brought back memories and in a way, with the playoffs coming, brought up possibilities. The Warriors came back from 20 points down.

It was one in which the required stars, the leaders, after halftime performed with the skill and gusto that made them stars and leaders.

Steph Curry throwing them in as well (39 points) as well as throwing them to teammates ( 8 assists, 8 rebounds).  Draymond Green throwing caution to the wind, coming close to a technical, but more significantly getting people on course.

“For the offense to work,” Chris Mullen, the Warriors Hall of Famer told the TV audience, “it has to flow. But it won’t flow when you’re making turnovers.”

This has been a difficult season for the Warriors, with Klay Thompson coming back from his injuries and then Curry getting hurt. Kevon Looney has played well as usual at what would be the center position. Gary Payton picked up as a spare part in a trade, had recovered from his injury, and played in two games, a boost to the defense.

They’ve had their run, becoming the most dominant team since the Lakers. Maybe they could fit together all the pieces one more time.

Winners never forget how to win.

Rybakina, Sabalenka shine on a gray day at the BNP

INDIAN WELLS — The women finally got their time in the, well if there was any sun at the BNP Paribas Open, until it came late disguised as a big, gray blob of clouds for the Sunday final.

Which is yet another reminder you don’t know what you’ll get in weather or sports.

Aryna Sabalenka had never lost to Elena Rybakina. True they had played only four times, but perfection is perfection. And this winter Sabalenka virtually didn’t lose to anyone. 

She was an impressive 17-1 overall, a figure which would have made the good, old Warriors and eccentric New England Patriots envious.

You know where we’re going on this one, of course, Rybakina beat Sabalenka. It took a while, 2 hours, 3 minutes, and the score was 7-6 (11), 6-4. But now Rybakina has a victory over her nemesis as well as something no less significant, the 2022 Wimbledon title.

It definitely went right for her. And now the 24-year-old Sabalenka has the realization that when everything is going her way, as she observed Friday when the semifinal was delayed by an electrical problem at Indian Wells, it all could go wrong.

Everything definitely went well for Carlos Alcaraz in the men’s final that followed the ladies’ match. The day brightened, although it didn’t make you reach for the sunscreen, and the 19-year-old Alcaraz of Spain thumped Russia’s Daniil Medvedev, 6-3, 6-2.

The victory elevated Alcaraz to first in the men’s ranking. Sabalenka, the Belarusian, was aiming for the same position in the women’s, but the loss to Rybakina will keep her second until further competition.

 “A tough loss,” conceded Sabalenka, “but she played unbelievable tennis. I would say I didn’t serve great.

A big failing when the best part of your game is the serve.   

“She deserves it,” said Sabalenka, a good sport in a sport infamous for bad actors and actresses. “She’s a great player. Hopefully next time I will do a little bit better.”  

At that level, they’re all great players, all too capable of knocking you down and out. Only two days earlier, Iga Swiatek was beaten by Rybakina.

Tennis is a pastime of mobility and instability. One match you’re getting all the bounces and the net cord drops, the next you’re getting in a car to the airport. Only a few days ago Iga Swiatek, the ladies' top player (according to rankings), was moving past one opponent after another, unbeatable.  

Until Friday’s semis when she was defeated by the lady who was on her way to the trophy.  

The 23-year-old Rybakina was born in Moscow, as in Russia, but lists her home country as Kazakhstan. Her racquets don’t seem to mind.

“The important thing is the first set,” said Rybakina, emphasizing the obvious. She was down 4-2 quickly, but forced a tiebreaker that went, well if not as long as Isner-Nicolas Mahut in 2010 Wimbledon territory, but plenty long.

“We both had chances. In the end, it went my way.”

It turned out to be the winning way.

From Medvedev, no apology, no mercy

INDIAN WELLS — No apologies this time from Daniil Medvedev. In a way, no mercy either.

The guy with consecutive I’s in his first name is also the guy who’s now with 19 consecutive victories, the most recent over Frances Tiafoe, 7-6, 7-6 (4) Saturday in the semifinals of the BNP Paribas Open.

Medvedev, 27, a Russian although that hardly matters in a sport as international as tennis — he speaks English better than many Americans — is full of opinions if not necessarily himself.

He challenged the fans at the 2019 U.S. Open in New York. He whined about the playing surface in 2023 here at Indian Wells (later backing off and saying he had acted immaturely).

Sunday the challenge will be sporting, when in the final Medvedev faces Carlos Alcaraz, the 19-year-old U.S. Open champion, who in the second BNP semi, defeated Jannik Sinner, 7-6(4), 6-3.

A year ago, Medvedev, a former No. 1 and U.S. Open champion, was in a slump. Or a funk. Whatever, he was losing and the tennis folk were coming up with all sorts of reasons, not including the inescapable fact he had undergone hernia surgery.  

But as verified by his current streak that two weekends included a win over No. 1 Novak Djokovic in the Dubai final, his game is in full recovery.

Before the semi, Medvedev conceded he was in a zone — as if with a steak of almost  20 straight people would expect something else.

“First of all, I’m really happy to win. It was a crazy match even the ending, tough. I still feel not stressed, but it’s definitely better to win 7-5, 6-3, because then you get the energy level down. But I know how to go through it, so that’s not a problem.”

The only problem for Tiafoe, one of the young American stars, is that while he’s improved tremendously over the last two or three years, he is better than dozens of others on the circuit, he’s a notch behind people like Medvedev and Djokovic. And despite all the work and support, always may be.

The U.S. hasn’t had a Grand Slam champion since Andy Roddick in 2003. It did have an Indian Wells winner in 2022, Taylor Fritz, and a runner-up this year, Tiafoe.

Before the semi, Tiafoe pointed out, “The more you put yourself in position, the more you have the chances to win.”

This was another chance, but it ended up as Medvedev’s win. Not that he had escaped the pressure.  

“I mean it’s just another opportunity,” he said about making the final — repeating what seemingly every tennis player says about every match.

“The question is ‘Did I advance my position?’ Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.” 

Nineteen wins in a row have to be considered an advance. It’s hardly a regression.

Sabalenka was thinking: 'What could go wrong?'

INDIAN WELLS — The man on the microphone, which appeared to be the one piece of electronic equipment working correctly, kept asking for patience and telling us that everything would be fine, making it sound like we were waiting for a BART train and not a tennis match.

The buzzers and horns that let us know a ball might be long or wide, outside the lines were inoperative.

Minutes were clicking away. Five, 10, 15.

Up in the glass-walled media boxes, someone shouted, “They’ve kept score for a hundred years without electricity.”

The first two women’s semifinalists in BNP Paribas Open, Aryna Sabalenka and Maria Sakkari, couldn’t even walk across the court, never mind hitting a few warmup balls.

“For a second I was thinking, oops, something is going to go wrong today,” said Sabalenka. “It’s not going to be the same.”

Very little went wrong, if anything, on Friday for Sabalenka, who beat Sakkari 6-2, 6-3 as the tennis mavens choose to point out, book a place in the final.

In contrast, nothing seemingly went wrong for Iga Swiatek, the one at the top of the heap in women’s tennis. At least until Friday evening, when she was blitzed by Elena Rybackina, 6-2, 6-2.

That left Swiatek a bit bewildered and the writers and announcers understandably asking, how the heck did this happen?

“Well, I don’t know,” was Swiatek’s response. “Honestly, I feel like it’s more me and kind of my mistakes. For sure, Elena played great, and I feel like against her I have to play better.” 

Swiatek certainly did on Friday.

“I’m also not feeling 100 percent physically. I have a little discomfort in my rib, and we’re gonna consult with the medical team. For sure I’m going to use these days off before Miami (the next event), so now I actually have one more day.”

Both of last year’s Indian Well champs failed to get to the last step this time, Taylor Fritz losing in the quarters.

The way Sabalenka has been rolling her victory over Swiatek isn’t quite a shock. She’s 17-1 this year (the loss in Dubai stopped a 13-match win streak) and now is using her head as well as her booming serve.

“I wasn’t going for the lines,” said Sabalenka. “I’m not that good at tennis.”  

Some might argue with that idea. She was fine at keeping her cool after the delay.

“Stuff like that can happen,” said Sabalenka. “And I remind myself that’s OK. So I just have to calm myself and relax until they fix the system.”

Something different. 

“I understand now I can control myself in these situations. I can switch my focus and bring myself back. My goal is to keep winning.”

No matter what goes with the electronic scoring, or what doesn’t.

A day of a lot of tennis is too much for Fritz

INDIAN WELLS — That problem for Taylor Fritz, the town reminding him he was the defending champ in the BNP Paribas Open? It’s no longer around.

Neither is Fritz.  

Jannik Sinner, an Italian who moved from a possible career in skiing to a definite career in tennis, ousted Fritz, 6-4, 4-6, 6-2 Thursday in their quarterfinal at Indian Wells Tennis Garden.

You can debate whether it was an upset — Fritz was fifth in the ATP rankings, Sinner, 13th — there is no question for the fans shouting for the guy from southern California, it was a disappointment.

Whether you liked the results from this Thursday when the temperature would reach 72, you had the format and the entertainment.

The term March Madness has been copyrighted by the NCAA for another sport that uses nets and balls, so we’ll just refer to what was almost nine hours of activity as Racquet Revelry.

It began a good time before noon — you hate to describe matches involving the women’s Wimbledon champ and the No. 1 player in the women’s rankings — as warm up competition.

It closed after 8 p.m., not quite closing time around Palm Springs, but you’d better move quickly.

Elena Rybakina, who in July won Wimbledon, defeated Karolina Muchova, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4.

Then the sun set especially on ex-champ, Fritz.

Then, after the lights came on, Carlos Alcaraz, the No. 1 and also the Wimbledon champ, defeated the man who he had never previously beaten, Félix Auger-Aliassime, 6-4, 6-4.

Is that enough for you? It was more than enough for the 25-year-old Fritz, who was knocked out by a kid even younger, Sinner, who’s 21.

Asked if there was anything positive he could take from the match, Fritz said. “Not really. No, it’s a tough match. You know, I found a way to get back in it and into the third and got it back. I don’t know. I put myself in a decent chance to win, but in the end, I just couldn’t make it happen.”

Fritz said the wind, which often blows in the desert, increased in the afternoon which had an effect on the match.

“Obviously I wanted to keep going. I wanted to defend.”

And hear his friends and neighbors remind him he was a champion. 

Which he was.

At Indian Wells Tiafoe feels the vibes

INDIAN WELLS — Tennis is as much a battle against yourself as against the person across the net, a struggle to become a winner while trying to hit winners, to build belief maybe long after building a better backhand.

It’s a sport in which, because of the seeding system, the best prospects, the new kids, if you will, start off with the worst chances. An activity the late Jim Murray wrote in which the young are not pampered. They’re devoured.

Sure there are exceptions, such as Carlos Alcaraz, the Spaniard, who last summer at age 19 won a Grand Slam tournament, the U.S. Open, but for most the climb is exhausting and perhaps unrewarding.

That’s why it was exciting to see (and in post-match comments) hear the delight in Francis Tiafoe on Wednesday after he beat a former champion Britain’s Cameron Norrie 6-4, 6-4 in their quarterfinal of the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells.

You probably know the back story. Tiafoe is the son of a laborer who moved from war-torn Sierra Leone to America where Frances was born and through connections on a project building a tennis complex near Baltimore, was able to get lessons for the boy.

Frances’ natural athletic ability came out quickly enough. Yet despite optimistic predictions from the tennis establishment both Tiafoe and Taylor Fritz, each now 25, would be on the world stage immediately. They needed time. They were normal.

They also turned out to live up to expectations, theirs as much as ours. Fritz, a Californian who virtually was born with a silver racquet in his (fore) hand — his mother Kathy May, was in the U.S. Open doubles quarterfinals — took this BNP event a year ago, defeating Rafael Nadal in the final.

That doesn’t mean his longtime friend and rival, Tiafoe, will take it this year. Not with the Russian, Medvedev, a winner Wednesday after whining Tuesday about the speed of the courts at Indian Wells — “freaking slow” — as his next opponent.

Still, after beating Norrie, Tiafoe acted as a man unburdened. And as we have learned, you’re better when you’re not feeling the pressure. And when you are feeling relaxed.

Tiafoe knows fully what he is doing and how he’s doing it with assistance on this day of clouds, rain, sunshine and help from a crowd fully intending to be partial to Tiafoe. “I just think there are vibes all around.” 

Tiafoe again was asked why he has gone farther at Indian Wells than in any previous Masters 1000 event — the most prestigious and prestigious on the ATP Tour. 

“Every win builds more and more confidence. I’m using my speed a lot more to be aggressive, not just to react to balls. I’ve been super happy being here. You know I have a lot left in the tank.” 

Which he will need the next two rounds, daring to think he might get that far.

Indian Wells defending champ plays like one

INDIAN WELLS — The only trouble with being the defending champion is that everyone keeps reminding you that you’re the defending champion. As Taylor Fritz has learned at the BNP Paris Tennis Open where, yes, he is defending champion.

Fritz also is sort of a local, having lived, worked out and competed in this desert community. Which makes it well, worse hardly is the appropriate word when, in fact, you’re adding a footnote to success.

The defending champ — last reference — played like one Monday in the BNP Paribas Open, defeating Sebastian Baez of Argentina, 6-1, 6-2. Since the match was only 1 hour, 10 minutes, you might say, borrowing the cliché, that Fritz hardly raised a sweat. But on a day when the thermometer reached 82 degrees Fahrenheit all you needed to perspire was to blink your eyes.

Which is all Baez had time to do against Fritz, who at No. 5 is the highest American in the men’s rankings, damn impressive for an American who’s 25. Or any age.

Some would provide a disclaimer on the one-sided Fritz victory, pointing out Baez is a clay court specialist, and the courts at Indian Wells are very hard indeed.  No thanks.

Rafael Nadal felt most comfortable (and was most successful) on clay courts. But he also won on the grass at Wimbledon and the hard courts everywhere. 

If you can play, you can play whatever the surface or conditions.

Fritz, the son of two tennis parents (his mother Kathy May reached the quarters at the U.S. Open) can play. He and Francis Tiafoe — and now maybe newbie Ben Shelton — are supposed to be the future of U.S. men’s tennis, part of the so-called “Next Gen.”

Maybe, but Monday, Fritz was magnificent. Then again, Baez was bewildered.

Fritz’s problem would seem to be his own body. Two weeks ago after a match in the humidity of Acapulco, Mexico, Fritz had severe cramps. And throughout his career, he’s had numerous injuries.

“I have no idea why,” said Fritz when asked if he could explain the ailments. “I think I’ve been very lucky, but obviously I do recover from things very quickly. I think a lot of that has to do with my willpower, and like I hate to be out.  I hate to be injured.”

For the time, Fritz is healthy and thinking positively. He’s done his best to avoid the praise from the gang. He appears wise and experienced enough not to fall into the trap of arrogance.

 “Like every hour or so people keep telling me I’m defending here. But I am trying to take it how it is. You know we start over at zero.  I’m trying to have good results, trying to put myself in the best position to end the year at the highest spot.”

A win in a match that barely went two hours would seem Taylor Fritz is headed in the proper direction.

Indian Wells proves tennis is very much alive

INDIAN WELLS — Google the cover of the May 1994 Sports Illustrated with the headline “Is Tennis Dying?” and you get the response, no good matches.

Which is a kick (if not a kick serve) and certainly incorrect. How about Federer-Nadal at Wimbledon? Or any match involving Serena Williams, especially that U.S. Open final against sister Venus.

Indeed, the Google reference was to items that in content were similar or connected to that cover, which showed a tennis ball shaped like a question mark, which some 30 years later is available from Amazon for 4.50. 

Tennis never has been more alive, in part because of the great players. In part, because the promoters, the U.S. Open in the late summer, the BNP Paribas Open now underway as always at Indian Wells just down the road from Palm Springs, understand both the sport and the sporting public.

Tennis no longer is just a game, it’s a part, a moveable feast — literally with the restaurants on the grounds. 

You wonder how many people in the record crowds here have picked up a racquet--probably a great many, he says answering his own question — but unquestionably they have picked up the vibe.

Tennis is constructed on personality, names and fame. All sports are, of course, but tennis — and golf — lack a home team. Thus it better not lack individual stars, new kids on the block as it were, as the recent greats put on years as they pick up trophies.

Indian Wells Tennis Garden — yes, a pretentious label but we’re hardly in the borough of subtlety — was built on a hunk of desert, Larry Ellison’s gift to the pastime as much as to himself.

It was 80 degrees Sunday at Indian Wells, perfect for America’s top-ranked women’s player. Jessica Pegula defeated Anastasia Potapova 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 and the almost-birthday girl, she turns 19 on Monday, CoCo Gauff, won over Linda Noskova, 6-4, 6-3

No surprises there, but an apparent surprise in the men’s when qualifier Cristian Garin of Chile shocked third-seeded Casper Ruud of Norway 6-4, 7-6 (2) at the BNP Paribas Open on Sunday for his first win over a top-five player in nearly two years.

Garin, ranked No. 97, had 39 winners while Ruud, ranked No. 4, managed just 15 winners against 29 unforced errors in a match that lasted 1 hour, 59 minutes.

“Casper is one of the players that I really admire,” Garin said. “I’m so happy to be playing like that, being aggressive, going to the net. That’s the way that I like to play and the only way that I have to beat these kinds of players.”

Just the other day Ruud, a two-time Grand Slam finalist, said he watches golf on television and regrets he is unable to enter a pro-am like the Pebble Beach AT&T because he is preoccupied with tennis. At least until now.

Djokovic absence at Indian Wells; no shot in the arm

Novak Djokovic did it honorably this time. No headlines or deadlines. No warnings or need for deportation.

Just crushed hopes and disappointment for fans and sponsors — and no less important for a group so tied to the sport, The Tennis Channel. 

Djokovic, tops in the world, is not going to play in the BNP Paribas tournament, which begins this week at Indian Wells in the California desert.

No major announcement. No minor one either. Only a paragraph that Djokovic has withdrawn and would be replaced by Nikoloz Basilashvili.

As if Basilashvili, while excellent, was a not quite satisfactory substitute for the world’s No. 1.  As if anyone else would be.

Djokovic is not afraid of Daniil Medvedev, who defeated him a few days ago in the final in Dubai. Or anyone else in the draw.

He’s afraid of receiving a vaccination for COVID-19, which understandably remains a requirement for foreigners, such as Djokovic, a Serbian, to enter the United States.

A year ago Australia had the restriction, and after arriving there for the Australian Open and languishing in a holding area finally was sent out of the country.  This year he was allowed back and — you decide whether it was poetic justice or great forehands, won the event for a 10th time — his 22nd Grand Slam.

Tennis and golf are dependent on individuals. It’s the stars who fill the seats and boost the TV ratings; the people with their names on the marquee for the fame they earned. 

Djokovic has won Indian Wells as almost everything else he’s played everywhere on the globe. It’s a game without borders. He was a welcome entrant along with aces such as Roger Federer, now retired, and Rafael Nadal, now injured.

Before the pandemic. 

The argument is if a person chooses not to be vaccinated, well it’s his or her life and the only person affected is the one who refuses.

Except a tennis player, like other athletes, is both a possible carrier of the disease and of course a symbol.

Questioned about a stand that too many appears as dangerous as it is perplexing — did Rafa or Roger refuse? — Djokovic a year ago spoke to the BBC.

“I was never against vaccinations,” he had insisted, saying he had been vaccinated as a child. “But I’ve always supported the freedom to choose what you put in your body.”

As others have the freedom to choose whether they want to pay attention to Djokovic.

The difficulty is if you care about tennis, about any sport for that matter, because they’re so interconnected, in relationship, in judgment, it’s hard not to care.  

Our lives are engulfed in Television — yes ESPN, Fox, NBC Tennis Channel, The Golf Channel, seems linked.  The moment Steph Curry leaves a court in Boston, there’s Novak Djokovic stepping onto a court somewhere except anywhere in the U.S., including Indian Wells.

Which is too bad for the tournament and the sport.

Sporting changes: Clocks and no cuts

Major League Baseball has changed, apparently for the better. No wasting of time. You’re on a clock

At some tournaments, the PGA Tour is going to change. No cuts meaning everyone plays the full 72 holes. Whether that will be for the better is still uncertain.

And who knows what the next moves might be in NFL and NBA rules? 

Still, three strikes and you’re out and first down and ten. Or were those altered by some committee to keep us guessing?

Adaptation, we’re told, is the only way to survive. Baseball adapted, with time restrictions and — unfortunately — a runner on second to start extra innings.

The issue is our impatience. If something doesn’t appear to be happening, we’ll switch channels. Or walk out of the ballpark. Or off the course.

The wonderful part of sports is the unknown.  There’s no script, only possibilities.  You invest your time and hope for the best, like rolling the dice or turning over the cards.

Sometimes you hit the jackpot. A buzzer-beater by Steph Curry, other times the Warriors are down by 15 going into the fourth quarter. And they keep throwing the ball out of bounds instead of into the basket.

We need every game to be exciting, rewarding and quick; need every match to be for a championship, even a contrived one; need the stars on the ice or fairway or floor, or court. 

What we don’t need are all these injuries. Curry’s out, although almost ready to return. LeBron’s out. Rafael Nadal’s out, missing California (Indian Wells) and Florida. The Dodgers’ Gavin Lux is out for the season, and we’re a month away from the season even starting.

Golf’s problem, if you want to call it that, and the players don’t, is that the only injuries are to egos and bank accounts. Or is that not unique to that competition?  

In the early 1960s a few people with a lot of money wanted to get into pro football and, unable to be accepted by the NFL, formed their own group, the American Football League. They waved bankrolls and promises around, stealing (figuratively) NFL vets and draft picks and forcing a merger. Yes, there was this game that came to be known as the Bowl.

This generation’s AFL is the LIV. The difference is it's golf, not football (LIV is the Roman numeral for 54, the length of tournaments, rather than the PGA Tour’s 72.) The similarity is that some individuals are determined through millions and millions of Saudi Arabian dollars to bring about a merger.

What they have brought about is a decision by the PGA Tour to emulate the LIV and not reduce a tournament field through a halfway cut as has been done seemingly forever. 

Maybe not as momentous a switch as bringing a clock to baseball, until now a timeless game, but nevertheless a change.

Did someone say “Good old days”?

Jon Rahm, golf’s new conquistador

PACIFIC PALISADES — Do we simply add a Roman numeral to the late, great Seve Ballesteros? Call Jon Rahm the Spanish Armada II? The new Conquistador?

The Tour has ended its annual stay in the Golden West (yes, the U.S. Open will be here in June, but that’s a bit different) and Mr. Rahm claimed most of the gold along with a first place in the world rankings.

He earned $3.6 million alone with the victory Sunday in the Genesis Invitational at historic Riviera Country Club, to highlight a two-month stretch that also included wins at the Sentry in Maui (from seven shots back) and American Express in Palm Desert.

Toss in a third at the WM Phoenix Open, and Rahm has earned $9 million hitting a little white ball in two months.

In addition, Rahm won the Farmers Open in 2017 at Torrey Pines in San Diego and the U. S. Open at Torrey in 2021. 

West may be best for Jon, but it’s off to Florida and waypoints. Of course, both areas have beaches and palm trees.

Rahm’s winning total was a 17-under par 267 after a final-round 69. That also was ahead of the 269 by the local, Max Homa, who won the event two years back, and three up on another local, Patrick Cantlay.

Rahm graduated from Arizona State, Homa from Cal, and Cantlay for a while was at UCLA, making the Genesis seem much like a Pac-12 Conference competition.

Rahm was delighted with the way he responded to the back nine, making birdies at 12 and 16 just when the tournament appeared to be getting away.

“I’ve never had three PGA Tour wins in a season and to do it this early on is incredible, and to do it at this golf course,” Rahm said. “Talk about the history of Riviera as a golf course, the history of Tiger Woods as a player, those two combined in this tournament, it’s a pretty big deal. As a historian of the game, to be able to win a tournament hosted by Tiger and the one hosted by Jack [Nicklaus] as well, it’s pretty incredible.”

That word also applies to Rahm’s play quite an ability to adapt to different style courses. Kapalua, in Maui, is hilly and relatedly wide; the courses for the American Express are in the desert, while Riviera is a 100-year classic with narrow fairways and deep bunkers.

The locations will change. Rahm’s thoughts will not.

“Obviously I've been extremely disciplined my whole career, but right now I'm seeing the dividends of a lot of the hard work over the years,” said Rahm. “So just keep doing the small things and keep enjoying it, having fun. Obviously, when you're playing good it's really fun and when you're winning tournaments, extremely fun, but got to enjoy the tough moments as well. Try to take it all in and, like I said, keep doing the little things properly every day and hopefully I can keep putting myself in position to win.”

Sounds easy — when it works.