Home Blog Page 42

Big tech future breakup plus Google goes gaming with Stadia

It was only a matter of time before Google decided to throw their hat into the gaming world and more than likely make a big mess before retreating. If they make a mess, they’ll wind up leaving an even bigger one in their wake as they have often done. As with display ads, Google is now under investigation as they’ve bullied website publishers to keep rates low only to find they have now cannibalized themselves.

Google will start its Stadia streaming service to challenge the video game industry in November — but initially only as part of a $130 bundle that includes hardware and a pass for a friend.

Google announced the game service in March with few details. On Thursday, Google said it will start advance sales for the limited “Founder’s Edition” bundles right away, though it isn’t saying how many are available. Google won’t offer stand-alone subscriptions, for $10 a month, until next year.

Stadia is Google’s attempt to make traditional video game consoles such as the Xbox and PlayStation obsolete.

Games are stored online, and players can pick up where they left off on traditional computers with Google’s Chrome browsers and Chromebooks running Chrome OS. Players can also use Google’s Pixel phones, but not other phones with the company’s Android operating system. Unlike traditional games, the streaming service requires a constant internet connection to play.

Much like movies and music, the traditional video game industry has been shifting from physical hardware and games to digital downloads and streaming. The makers of leading consoles have their own subscription services as well, while Apple plans one this fall. The U.S. video game industry raked in revenue of $43.4 billion in 2018, up 18 percent from 2017, according to research firm NPD Group.

Video game streaming typically requires a strong connection and more computing power than simply streaming video, since there is real-time interaction between player and game. Google says it is tapping its massive data centers to power the system.

The service will mainly let players play games they buy separately, though some free games will be offered. Stadia will launch with about 30 games to buy, including “Doom Eternal,” ″Assassin’s Creed Odyssey” and “Wolfenstein: Youngblood.”

The “Founder’s Edition” package includes three months of Stadia and a three-month buddy pass that someone else can use. It’ll come with a limited edition controller and a Chromecast Ultra streaming video device. Google says the whole package is worth about $300 but costs $130. It will be available in 14 countries at launch, including the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany.

Next year, Google will offer Stadia Pro for $10 a month and a free version, Stadia Base. With the free version, resolution will be lower, and players won’t get discount on games offered through Pro and the bundle. An optional Stadia controller will sell for $69.

The Wi-Fi-enabled controller has a button that lets players tap Google Assistant to ask questions about the games being played. Another button lets users share gameplay directly to Google’s video streaming service, YouTube.

Google said playing video games will be as simple as pressing a “Play Now” button. Players won’t have to download or install anything.

Sony offers a PlayStation Now streaming service that’s $20 for a one-month subscription or $45 for three months. It offers unlimited access to 750 games for streaming or downloads, which allow for offline play. Microsoft’s $10-a-month Xbox Game Pass offers about 100 games for free download. Microsoft is also working on a streaming service called Project xCloud.

The upcoming Apple Arcade subscription will feature more than 100 games for download, curated by Apple and exclusive to the service. Apple hasn’t announced a price yet. The games can be played on Apple devices only.

google goes gaming with stadia plus future of big tech breakup 2019 images

More From Google Stadia

  • Google announced Baldur’s Gate 3 and Ghost Recon: Breakout for Stadia, the latter with a new trailer. (Don’t worry—the former is also coming to PC.)
  • Other games announced include Gylt, an adventure game from developer Tequila Works, and a multiplayer Overcooked-style game called Get Packed from Moonshine Studios.
  • The Division 2 will be there, too. Ubisoft overload!
  • Stadia Pro is the official service, at $10/month, which will give you access to the service’s games at 4K resolution/60 frames-per-second. This won’t include all the games, though—newer ones will be purchasable separately.
  • The controller is $70 standalone.
  • The Stadia Founder’s Edition will launch later this year for $130. It comes with a Chromecast Ultra, a Stadia controller, a copy of Destiny 2 (along with the new Shadowkeep expansion), and a three-month subscription along with a three-month buddy pass.
  • Other Stadia games include Assassin’s Creed OdysseyDoomDoom Eternal, the new Tomb Raider trilogy, Final Fantasy XVDarksiders GenesisMetro Exodus, and many others.
  • Google says it’ll be one user per Stadia account, tied to your Google ID—you can have a guest account for splitscreen, but other than that, no sharing. A Google spokesperson reached out to say that family sharing is coming in the future.)
  • “At launch, if you’re a Stadia user, you can play Stadia exclusively on Pixel 3 and 3a devices. However, you’ll be able to create your account and make subscription and game purchases from any Android M+ or iOS 11+ device that has access to the Stadia app.”

Is Big Tech headed for a big breakup?

The U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are moving to investigate Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple over their aggressive business practices, and the House Judiciary Committee has announced an unprecedented antitrust probe , promising “a top-to-bottom review of the market power held by giant tech platforms.”

In addition, at least two 2020 presidential hopefuls have expressed support for breaking up some of technology’s biggest players amid concerns they have become too powerful.

Experts say breakups are unlikely in the short term, and Rep. David Cicilline, the Rhode Island Democrat who leads the subcommittee pursuing the House investigation, called such measures a “last resort.” But even without that, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple could face new restrictions on their power.

Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple declined to comment on the investigations.

Here’s a look at the cases that could be brought against them and what their defenses could be.

FACEBOOK

With 2.4 billion users, $56 billion in revenue last year and a name that’s synonymous with social media, Facebook is certainly big. But is it an illegal, competition-crushing monopoly?

Federal regulators are already investigating the company’s privacy practices. But the antitrust question has been rumbling in the background, with critics calling for spinning off WhatsApp and Instagram. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called for breaking up Big Tech, as has Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook. Former Vice President Joe Biden has said that he is open to the idea.

Critics believe a breakup is needed because Facebook can squash competitors either by buying them or using its enormous resources to mimic services they offer — as it’s done with Snapchat, for example.

Facebook executives have been calling broadly for regulation, though nothing that comes close to breaking it up. In a recent statement, the company’s vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, said Facebook “accepts that with success comes accountability. But you don’t enforce accountability by calling for the breakup of a successful American company.” CEO Mark Zuckerberg has called for “new rules” in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.

Facebook has also stressed that it has competitors in messaging and digital communication, including Apple and Google.

New York University law professor Eleanor Fox said that because antitrust law focuses on companies that raise prices too much, and Facebook is free, it will be a tough to break up the business. And Facebook commands less than a quarter of worldwide digital advertising, well behind Google.

Warren, however, has laid out plans for legislation that targets companies with more than $25 billion of annual revenue. It would limit their ability to expand and force parts of their business to operate as separate entities.

GOOGLE

As Google becomes a leading mail provider, search engine and advertising platform, federal regulators are starting to wonder if it needs to be knocked down a bit.

Critics say Google’s dominance in search has allowed it to squash rivals — notably because Google can show its own products above competitors’ or feature its own ads prominently.

Google might argue it doesn’t have an obligation to do business with its rivals at all — an argument that other companies have made when faced with similar challenges, said Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director for Open Markets Institute, which advocates breaking up monopolies.

It’s Google’s technology and Google can use it as it wishes, goes one line of reasoning.

Google has also faced scrutiny over the practices it uses to get its search and other products featured on smartphones. Some say Google imposes too many self-serving regulations on smartphone makers who use Google’s Android operating system.

But Google might simply argue that Android users like Google products and want them on their phones.

Under existing laws, it is difficult to make the case that Google has monopoly power, “even though I think a lot of people think it’s really obvious,” Fox said.

APPLE

Since its opening in 2008, Apple’s pioneering app store has given customers instant access to services that entertain, enlighten and engage. But it’s also a place where Apple controls all the access and sets commission rates for subscriptions and other purchases made through the apps.

If it opens an investigation, the Justice Department is most likely to focus on whether Apple is abusing its veto and pricing power to throttle and gouge its competition. The commissions it collects are also the subject of a consumer lawsuit that the Supreme Court recently cleared to proceed.

App makers periodically allege that they are blocked because Apple wants people to use its own services. In a recent example, several makers of apps for managing the amount of time kids can use their iPhones say they were kicked out of the store not long after Apple introduced its own screen-management controls.

Apple says it typically blocks only apps with buggy software or features that invade users’ privacy. The company likens its rules to merchants deciding what products to carry. Apple also says its store includes apps that compete with its own products, including Google Maps and Google’s Chrome browser.

Also under criticism is the 30 percent cut that Apple pockets on new subscription sign-ups during the first year and a 15 percent slice for renewals. The app store is expected to generate about $16 billion in revenue this year.

Apple says the commissions cover costs for running the app store, including hiring people to review apps.

Antitrust regulators could try to impose requirements that lower Apple’s commissions or, in a worst-case scenario, force it to spin off the app store. The latter option, though, could hurt consumers by making iPhones and other Apple products more cumbersome to use.

Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives likened a breakup to “a complex and almost impossible Siamese twin operation.”

AMAZON

From an online bookseller, Amazon has grown into a gigantic e-commerce player with its tentacles in everything from web hosting to streaming video to groceries.

The European Union’s antitrust chief has been conducting an early-stage probe into whether Amazon is using data to gain an edge on third-party merchants, who are both its customers and rivals. Italy has been looking into whether Amazon abused its dominance by offering preferential treatment to companies that used Amazon’s own delivery-management services.

Cicilline, the congressman, said Amazon has identified bestselling products elsewhere, rolled out replicas under its own brand and then steered customers to its own products over those of its rivals.

When Warren tweeted in April that big tech companies like Amazon should be broken up, Amazon tweeted back: “Walmart is much larger.”

Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos made a similar case in a recent letter to shareholders: “Amazon today remains a small player in global retail. We represent a low single-digit percentage of the retail market, and there are much larger retailers in every country where we operate. And that’s largely because nearly 90% of retail remains offline, in brick and mortar stores.”

But Amazon does dominate online. Market research company eMarketer expects Amazon to account for 52% of all online sales in the U.S. this year, up from 48% last year.

FCC bill blocks spam robocalls plus Huawei offers US a tech warning

We’ve all gotten those several calls in a row or that call where you answer the phone only to have silence and then a hangup. Since those spam robocalls have gotten out of control, the FCC has finally stepped up to give us a little peace from their constant calls and texts. It’s unknown how enforcible it will be, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Federal regulators voted Thursday to give phone companies the right to block unwanted calls without getting customers’ permission first.

The Federal Communications Commission’s move could make call-blocking widespread and help consumers dodge annoying robocalls, which have exploded into a problem that pesters Americans on the level of billions of calls a month.

One caveat: Phone companies don’t actually have to do anything, and they could start charging you if they do — just as they now charge for some caller ID features and other extras. The FCC expects phone companies to offer these tools for free, but it doesn’t require them to.

The rise in debt collectors, telemarketers and, most worrisome, fraudsters ringing up consumers’ phones have led the FCC and Congress to push phone companies to do more. The companies have been slow to act against such automated calls on their own.

Robocalls have increased as cheap software makes it easy to make mass calls. Scammers don’t care if you’ve added your number to the government’s Do Not Call list, and enforcement is negligible. There are 5 billion per month in the U.S., according to call-blocker YouMail. That works out to 14 calls per person.

Thursday’s FCC vote could potentially be a powerful counter against unwanted calls. While call-blocking apps already exist, you have to turn them on or ask for them. Now, along with clarifying that both wireless and landline companies can block unwanted calls without asking customers first, the FCC said that wireless carriers are also allowed to block all callers who aren’t on a customer’s contact list. You would have to request that from your phone company.

On the flip side, the measure might inadvertently lead to blocking of automated calls about flight changes, school closings and appointment reminders, Republican Commissioner Michael O’Rielly warned. Royal Credit Union, a small Midwestern bank, worries that widespread call-blocking would make it harder for their fraud alerts and low-balance warnings to reach customers.

The rules will let consumers “opt out” and ask their phone company not to block anything.

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, criticized the agency Thursday for not requiring that call-blocking services be made free.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai believes phone companies will have an incentive to step up and offer these services for free.

“These robocalls that are being placed on their own networks are a hassle and a cost for them to handle,” Pai said in an interview.

Verizon said it will “evolve” its free call-blocking tool for wireless customers and be able to provide spam alerts and blocking more broadly, but spokesman Richard Young said there will not be “short term across-the-board blocking.” He did not say how Verizon plans to change its offerings for landline customers, who today can sign up for a third-party blocking service.

AT&T did not answer questions about its plans but said it is committed to fighting illegal and unwanted calls. T-Mobile said it hasn’t made a decision yet on whether to make default free call-blocking tools. Sprint, which charges for its call-blocking service, said last week that it was looking at “additional solutions” and was optimistic that the changes would let it “take more aggressive actions.”

There are other attacks against robocalls in the works, like trying to get rid of “spoofed” numbers. That’s when a scammer fakes the number on your phone to look like it’s coming from the same area code you have, in an effort to get you to pick up.

The industry has been working on a system that will ensure that the number that comes up on people’s phones is real. That’s only beginning to roll out, and to work well, all the phone companies have to implement it. There’s no hard government deadline, but Pai has threatened regulatory action if it doesn’t happen this year. Thursday’s vote took procedural steps to make it easier to enforce that threat against major phone companies.

The Senate, with near-unanimous support, passed a bill in May that would give phone companies an 18-month deadline to put this anti-spoof system, called Stir/Shaken, in place, as well as give regulators more tools to go after scammers. But it’s not clear how the bill will fare in the Democrat-controlled House, which has several anti-robocall proposals that go further.

Whatever happens, determined scammers and telemarketers will likely find ways to get through, just as malware on personal computers is still a problem despite antivirus software.

Automated callers could circumvent new safety measures by buying real numbers and using those to call you. They could hack into businesses and hijack the phone lines, then use those to call out. T-Mobile said it has already seen that happen.

“We get things working really well. We’re flagging all these calls as scams. And then the scammers find a new way,” said Grant Castle, vice president of engineering at T-Mobile. “We have to adjust. It is a constant back-and-forth.”

huawei warns us about blocking tech 2019
A Huawei company logo is seen behind tree branches in Beijing, China March 2, 2019. Picture taken March 2, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Lee

Huawei Offers US A Tech Warning

A senior executive for Chinese technology giant Huawei said Thursday that he hopes the company’s animosity with the United States will be resolved and warned that the U.S. would be shooting itself in the foot if it were to shun Chinese technology.

Mika Lauhde, Huawei’s vice-president for cybersecurity and privacy, told media outlets that he hopes for a “positive resolution” of the standoff with the U.S. government and added that his company is not the “nucleus of the issue,” pointing to the wider trade war between the U.S. and China.

The U.S. has imposed sanctions against the world’s No. 1 network equipment provider and second-largest smartphone maker, arguing that it is legally beholden to the Chinese government, which could use the company’s products for cyberespionage. Huawei denies these accusations.

Lauhde said he doesn’t think that the U.S. will be severing all ties with Huawei and other Chinese technology companies, as that would be “driving itself into a corner.”

“If they are disconnecting themselves from everybody, that’s (going to) happen vice versa as well,” he said, alluding to possible Chinese reaction.

Some cybersecurity experts say that Washington, by going as far as warning other countries against working with Huawei actions, will only further encourage China to become more technically self-reliant and will be dividing the world into two tech camps.

Lauhde rejected suggestion of a full split in the tech industry.

“I don’t believe that we would be establishing two different camps,” he told media outlets. “I still believe that we are working together.”

Technical ties between China and Russia, for one, are expanding. Russia’s major mobile operator MTS and Huawei on Wednesday announced a deal to jointly develop 5G networks in Russia. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping attended the ceremony at the Kremlin.

Can St. Louis Blues wear down Boston Bruins for Stanley Cup Finals Game 5?

St. Louis Blues keep knocking out Boston Bruins players for the win in the Stanley Cup finals, but captain Zdeno Chara doesn’t look like he’s ready to be counted out of game 5 on Thursday. He skated with the team in the afternoon and answered two questions.

What is his biggest challenge in playing with this kind of injury?

“At this time of the playoffs, everyone has injuries and there are challenges that you have to overcome to play. I’m no different than any player on either team.”

How did he weigh the risk of further injury when deciding whether to play?

“You don’t think about that. You think about playing. You don’t go into a game thinking you might get hurt.”

That doesn’t answer whether he’ll be on the ice for Game 5, but it sounds promising to Bruins fans. Game 5 will be on Thursday evening.

st louis blues celebrate winning game 4 stanley cup final 2019

Twice the Boston Bruins have been forced to finish a Stanley Cup Final game down a defenseman. The St. Louis Blues won each time.

That’s not a coincidence.

Wearing out opponents and winning the war of attrition has been an ingredient of the Blues’ playoff success. They took advantage of injuries to San Jose’s Erik Karlsson, Joe Pavelski and Tomas Hertl to move on to the final, and with Boston potentially without captain Zdeno Chara for Game 5 Thursday St. Louis is now two victories away from lifting the Stanley Cup as the healthier team.

“We can see it throughout games and throughout series,” Blues captain Alex Pietrangelo said Wednesday. “It’s tough minutes to play against our forward lines when they’re playing the way they can. You can see the momentum we create by our line changes in the offensive zone, we’re just using all four lines. If I was a defenseman, that would be tough to defend against.”

Chara did not go to the arena at all Wednesday, 36 hours after taking a puck to the jaw in Boston’s Game 4 loss that tied the series at two games apiece. Coach Bruce Cassidy didn’t talk to and only briefly texted with the 42-year-old defenseman, who has a facial injury that has been reported to be a broken jaw.

Just like the Sharks series in the Western Conference final, the Blues insist their game plan doesn’t change depending on who’s in or out of the lineup on the other side. That includes Chara, even though missing him on the penalty kill and defensively could make a big difference.

“We prepare for a game from our side,” Conn Smythe Trophy candidate Vladimir Tarasenko said. “We can control our game. We don’t know what’s gonna happen if he’s gonna play or no. We just follow our plan. That’s it.”

The absence of Chara could prove to be the tipping point in a bruising battle between the Bruins and Blues. Boston defenseman Matt Grzelcyk is out with a concussion and St. Louis forward Robert Thomas is out with a suspected hand or wrist injury. Cassidy said Grzelcyk, who practiced in a no-contact jersey Wednesday, is still in concussion protocol and would need to be medically cleared in order to play in Game 5 on Thursday night.

If Boston is without two of its top five defensemen in Chara and Grzelcyk, it would mean bigger roles for John Moore and Connor Clifton and the possibility of Steven Kampfer seeing his first action since Game 1 of the East final. And the Bruins’ entire approach would change.

“You lose a little bit of your team defense, well, maybe you’ve got to create more offense to balance that out,” Cassidy said. “You got a guy that kills penalties well, maybe stay a little more disciplined. Down the line of how can you make up for what he brings without one guy going in there.”

Meanwhile, St. Louis is relatively healthy except for Thomas. The Blues got defenseman Vince Dunn back for Game 4 after he missed almost three weeks after taking a puck to the face in the West final, and he assisted on a goal and drastically improved their puck movement.

“He’s a dynamic player,” coach Craig Berube said. “He can make something out of nothing a lot of times. He’s very good at that. He’s elusive and even coming out of our own end, you feel like there are times when the puck is going to get stopped up and he’ll do something and make a move and a quick play with the puck that breaks a guy out and it’s a great play that we’re going up the ice now.”

It appears rugged Robert Bortuzzo will return to the Blues’ lineup in place of Joel Edmundson, who had his ice time reduced for performance reasons by coach Craig Berube in Game 4 . Bortuzzo came out when Dunn was ready to return but has two goals in the past two rounds despite not being much of a scorer.

Cassidy and Berube have been matching wits all series with roster decisions. From this point on, the right and wrong calls could determine the Cup champion, and the Bruins have faith in Cassidy to push the right buttons and compensate for injuries.

“He kind of knows how to get guys going,” center Patrice Bergeron said. “He has a good read and a good feel on how to do that and how to handle it.”

Berube has tweaked far more in this series than previous rounds, all the while counting on St. Louis to not stray from its straightforward game that thrives off punishes opponents.

“We have to keep pounding them,” forward Patrick Maroon said. “We just got keep doing the same thing. Our team’s not flashy at all. It’s north/south. Dumping it in. Wearing teams down.

“When we don’t do that, their defense is effective in moving up in the play. Odd-man rushes. The D can jump higher. When we’re doing well, we’re limiting their time and space. We’re wearing them down.”

Rafael Nadal ready for Roger Federer at French Open plus Anisimova hits semifinals

The 2019 French Open has been great for tennis fans as they got to see Roger Federer return from his several years’ hiatus, but not to put a crowning achievement on things, he will also face off with King of Clay Rafael Nadal. The only problem for the swiss maestro is that he’s not had the best luck going against Rafa, but that’s not getting into his head.

The two tennis champs have something they’re working for. Nadal wants to get his dozen French Open titles under his belt so expect very intense play from both. The big winners with this match are the fans.

Playing two straight five-set matches ahead of his French Open quarterfinal against Rafael Nadal was certainly not the ideal preparation for Kei Nishikori.

Already exhausted before setting a foot on Court Philippe Chatrier on Tuesday, the Japanese player was handed a ruthless beating by the 11-time Roland Garros champion.

“I mean, that’s for sure I played too much hours on the court this week, last week. I played too much,” Nishikori said after his 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 loss.

In his four previous matches with Nadal on the slow surface, the seventh-seeded Nishikori had managed to win just one set. With the odds stacked against him, fatigue surely did not help his bid to reach the semifinals in Paris for the first time.

Before taking on the 17-time Grand Slam champion, Nishikori had played five-set matches against both Laslo Djere and Benoit Paire. His fourth-round victory over the Frenchman extended over two days, meaning he had a day less than Nadal to recover and get ready for their meeting.

“He was a little bit more tired than usual, no doubt about it,” Nadal said.

Nishikori is the best deciding-set player since the beginning of the Open era in 1968. Against Paire, he won his eighth consecutive five-setter. Overall, he has a 23-6 record in five-set matches. This speaks volumes about his fighting spirit, but he now wants to learn to finish off matches quicker.

“I think I’ve got to keep trying, to work, to finish in straight sets,” he said. “But that means I’m not, maybe, good enough, tennis-wise, and also mental. I think that’s going to be the next step, because I’m always stuck in the quarterfinals in Grand Slams, and I think next goal is to be in semifinal or final.”

Nishikori was runner-up at the 2014 U.S. Open and reached the semifinals twice at Flushing Meadows, but he never progressed beyond the last eight at the three other majors.

roger federer vs rafael nadal french open 2019

Roger Federer vs Rafael Nadal

The way Roger Federer was talking ahead of his battle against Rafael Nadal at the French Open, you would think something especially crazy has to happen for Spain’s “King of Clay” to lose their semifinal.

“Every match needs to be played before it’s decided, and that’s exactly what everybody believes by facing Rafa,” Federer, the 20-time grand slam winner, told reporters. “They know it’s going to be tough but you just never know.

“He might have a problem. He might be sick. You might be playing great for some reason and he is struggling. Maybe there’s incredible wind, rain, 10 rain delays.

“You just don’t know.”

What we do know is that Federer has never beaten Nadal — who owns a record 11 French Open titles and 17 majors — in their five Roland Garros contests. Overall on clay, he trails his newly turned 33-year-old pal 13-2. Nadal holds a 23-15 advantage in the on-court rivalry that has transcended tennis.

rafael nadal vs roger federer total career grand slam wins

Greatest rivalry

But something atypical might not necessarily have to happen Friday for Federer to beat the Spanish left-hander 10 years after he claimed his lone Roland Garros title.

It would unquestionably be one of the biggest wins of his career, especially as he is 37.

Federer, of course, is back in Paris for the first time since 2015, preferring to miss the clay-court major to preserve his body and focus on Wimbledon, where he has won a record eight titles.

But if Federer creates break points and increases his conversion rate, he could very well stun the lefty and progress to a first French Open final since a tight-four set reverse to Nadal in 2011.

Despite the unblemished record in Paris against Federer, only one of Nadal’s victories has been a blowout.

It was, indeed, a huge blowout in 2008, when Federer grabbed a meager four games in a 6-1 6-3 6-0 drubbing that lasted an hour and 48 minutes — exactly three hours fewer than their seismic Wimbledon clash a month later, which was also won by Nadal and is often revered as one of tennis’ greatest ever matches.

Break points key

But in their four other matches in Paris, Federer created more total break points with 54 yet only converted 15 times or 28%. Nadal by contrast earned 50 break points but converted 24 times or 48%.

Even though Federer went an eye-catching 2-for-18 against fellow Swiss Stan Wawrinka in the quarterfinals Tuesday, he lifted his level in the two tiebreaks that heavily influenced the outcome.

Federer also enters the match against Nadal holding an unprecedented five-match winning streak in their head-to-heads. There are additionally no fresh scars from any clay-court losses since their last duel on the surface came in Rome in 2013.

“What I will do is try to do my best so that the victories I have won on this surface against him count for something,” said Nadal. “And he will do his utmost to make sure that his latest victories against me have their weight. And so we’ll see.”

Two days between the quarterfinal and semifinal — their half of the draw began first, a bonus with the inclement weather that has wreaked havoc with the other half — gives Federer not only time to recover from the three-and-a-half hour outing against Wawrinka but more time to practice against a left-hander.

Nadal will be the first left-hander he has confronted this tournament and first since Fernando Verdasco in February in Dubai.

“For me it’s a complete switch around,” said Federer. “Just the way the ball goes out of your strings with different spins, it’s just different.

“So you have to get used to that quickly. Don’t have much time to waste.”

mens tennis singles most successful grand slam wins 2019

Net approaches

Federer accumulated an elevated 60 points at the net against Wawrinka and the tactic mostly paid off. He got joy against Wawrinka serving and volleying on second serves, most notably in the pivotal third set.

He will probably continue to move forward and offer up a drop shot or two instead of remaining on the baseline and rallying with Nadal, who like Federer has dropped a solitary set so far during the fortnight. Nadal, however, is a superior defender than Wawrinka.

“The level of tennis that you need to play always is the highest against Federer,” said Nadal. “And I am playing well, but I need to play very well against him. I hope to be ready to make that happen.”

When Wawrinka was asked for a prediction, he played it safe: “I cannot see the future.”

He is friends with Federer and has a healthy dose of respect for Nadal, too, not to mention knowing the latter’s record at Roland Garros. Nadal crushed him in the 2017 final.

But he said he will be watching on Friday, like hundreds of thousands, if not more, around the world.

Amanda Anisimova french open semifinals beating simona halep

Amanda Anisimova Heads Into Semifinals

Amanda Anisimova smacked one last backhand winner to complete her upset of defending champion Simona Halep in the French Open quarterfinals, flung her racket and covered her mouth with both hands.

Eyes wide, Anisimova then spread her arms with palms up and said, “What?!”

In a tournament filled with surprises, Anisimova provided the latest Thursday. Just 17 and ranked merely 51st, yet possessing the mindset and mien of someone much more experienced and accomplished, the American withstood a late charge by Halep and won 6-2, 6-4 to reach her first Grand Slam semifinal.

“I don’t think it will sink in, at least not for today. Yeah, I mean, it’s crazy,” said Anisimova, who was born in New Jersey to Russian parents and moved to Florida when she was 3. “I really can’t believe the result today. And getting the opportunity to play against Simona, that’s amazing. But how it ended is even crazier to me.”

That’s a fair assessment of the entire tournament. Serena Williams, No. 1 Naomi Osaka and No. 2 Karolina Pliskova lost in the third round; Angelique Kerber and Caroline Wozniacki were gone in the first.

The highest-seeded player in the semifinals is No. 8 Ash Barty, the Australian who will face Anisimova. Barty advanced by beating No. 14 Madison Keys of the United States 6-3, 7-5.

“I felt,” Barty said, “like I was in control.”

The other semifinal is No. 26 Johanna Konta of Britain against unseeded 19-year-old Marketa Vondrousova of the Czech Republic.

Because rain washed out all play Wednesday, the women’s semifinals — normally Thursday, one after another in the main stadium — will be played simultaneously on the second- and third-largest courts Friday morning. The biggest arena will host the men’s semifinals: Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer, and Novak Djokovic vs. Dominic Thiem. It’s the first time the top four men’s seeds are the last four standing at a major tournament since the 2013 Australian Open.

Djokovic stretched his Grand Slam winning streak to 26 matches as he pursues a fourth consecutive major trophy, beating Alexander Zverev 7-5, 6-2, 6-2. Thiem eliminated No. 10 seed Karen Khachanov 6-2, 6-4, 6-2.

“Controlling the points was the key, I think,” said 2018 French Open runner-up Thiem, who made only 12 unforced errors, 25 fewer than Khachanov. “I didn’t miss a lot today.”

Not only has none of the remaining women won a Grand Slam trophy, none has participated in a major final.

“Well,” said Halep, who was seeded third, “nothing surprises me anymore in tennis.”

Still, Anisimova’s rapid rise is noteworthy.

Already the first tennis player born in the 2000s to get to a Slam quarterfinal, she’s now the youngest U.S. woman into the semis at Roland Garros since Jennifer Capriati was 14 in 1990.

Anisimova or Vondrousova could each become the first teenager since Iva Majoli in 1997 to win the French Open, where the slow clay courts require patience from shot to shot, the movement and endurance to get to ball after ball, the smarts to construct points.

Anisimova certainly checked all those boxes Thursday. Facing a former No. 1 and major champ, in the tournament’s largest arena, the teenager was poised as can be.

“She was pretty calm,” said Halep, who acknowledged feeling the stress of trying to win a second consecutive title in Paris. “She showed that she’s able to do good things and big things.”

Yet to drop a set through five matches, Anisimova plays with a confident, take-it-to-the-opponent style. She doesn’t rely on power so much as precision, depositing what she’s called “effortless shots” near lines and often wrong-footing Halep.

And to think: It was in 2016 that Anisimova was the junior runner-up at Roland Garros at 14.

“I actually kind of miss juniors, but, I mean, this is a new phase,” she said, shrugging. “Obviously I respect (Halep) a lot. But I know I’m capable of doing a lot, and I know I can play very well. I mean, I never doubt my abilities. Today that showed.”

Did it ever.

“For a 17-year-old to play that well,” said Chris Evert, who won seven of her 18 major trophies in Paris, “is pretty awesome.”

Most impressive, perhaps, was this: Halep had won 16 return games in a row coming in, but Anisimova saved 6 of 7 break points.

A seven-game run that began at 2-2 in the early going put Anisimova up a set and 3-0 in the second. But from 4-1, Halep made one last push, getting to 4-all.

“Nerves,” Anisimova said, “were kicking in a bit.”

In the next game, she pushed a backhand long and chewed on a thumbnail. That gave Halep a break chance, one point from serving to force a third set.

But it was Anisimova who steeled herself, Halep who stumbled. A forehand into the net, a return that sailed wide and another miscue by Halep let Anisimova hold, before she broke to end it.

“I’m really happy with my performance,” Anisimova said, “because this is one of the best matches I’ve ever played.”

There’s not a long list for comparison, frankly.

After all, this was just the 43rd tour-level match of Anisimova’s nascent career, only her fourth major tournament. It was amusing to hear her mention how many coaches she’s had “throughout my lifetime.”

Barty, who is 23, missed about two years on tour when she switched sports and played cricket. She’s progressing quickly now, though: Her first major quarterfinal came in January at the Australian Open, and now she’s gone a step further.

Against Keys, the 2017 U.S. Open runner-up, Barty used her backhand slice to great effect, helping create errors on the other side of the net.

Barty was asked whether she was shocked that her game, seemingly built for hard courts, is suddenly so good on clay.

“Yes,” she replied, “very much so. I’ve been learning every single day.”

Impeachment pressure pushing Nancy Pelosi to act

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows how to handle political pressure, but the push for Donald Trump’s impeachment is building faster than even she expected. At a meeting on Tuesday night, she offhandedly mentioned that she’s rather see Trump in prison than solely impeached.

The political clock is a significant factor in whether majority House Democrats launch any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

There’s increasing pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to at least start an impeachment inquiry into whether Trump obstructed special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigationPelosi is resisting for a number of reasons. But the tick-tock of time is an inexorable one as the 2020 presidential and congressional elections cast a widening shadow over Washington. As it spreads, the window for launching any impeachment proceedings shrinks, making the prospect of doing so beyond December unappetizing for wide swaths of Democrats.

That reality could limit how long Pelosi can say yes or no to impeachment questions stemming from Mueller’s report. Congress typically comes to a virtual halt during a presidential election year, and any formal impeachment proceeding could be a distraction from the fight for the presidency and control of the House and Senate.

“Whatever we do needs to be done in 2019. We need to begin it in 2019. It doesn’t necessarily have to wrap up in 2019,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who serves on the House Judiciary Committee that would consider any such proceedings. “I think when we get into 2020 in the election year, it’s very late.”

That’s the commonality across Democrats divided over what to do now about Trump, described in the Mueller report as repeatedly trying to shut down the investigation. There’s a widespread feeling that the House would have to launch any impeachment proceedings this summer or fall, or it will be too late. There’s also a feeling that Pelosi knows this.

“I think they want to drag out the clock,” said Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, one of the leading liberal groups that called on Pelosi this week to push forward with impeachment.

Pelosi, the daughter and sister of former Baltimore mayors and a congressional veteran herself, on Wednesday made clear she’s well aware of the political clock — and says everything is unfolding as it should.

“We know exactly what path we are on,” Pelosi, a member of Congress during the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, told reporters. “We know exactly what actions we need to take. And while that may take more time than some people want it to take, I respect their impatience.”

In line with her approach, the House is expected next week to hold former White House Counsel Don McGahn and Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. More contempt votes against members of the administration will follow.

Cautioned Pelosi in what’s become a mantra: “One step at a time, as fast as we can move.”

Inside Congress, dozens of congressional Democrats say they want some kind of impeachment proceedings, at some point. But beneath that debate there’s a recognition of the march of time and the plain fact that the available days for any such action are fewer than Congress’ calendar makes it appear.

The schedule has politicos gaming out when, if ever, impeachment proceedings would have to begin and when they become less likely. The calculus starts with the calendar but also moves quickly into the politics. Other regular congressional business looms, such as the federal budget, nominations and more, including whether Republicans can turn back Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexico. Interviews with Democrats inside and outside Congress suggest this political logic: The later it gets in in 2019, the harder impeachment becomes.

Congress is not known for moving swiftly on legislation or investigations. The proceedings against Clinton for lying and obstruction took three months from the time the Republican-led House received prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s report to its vote to impeach the president. Nearly another two months went by before the Senate acquitted Clinton, exacerbating what some veterans see as a nearly unbridgeable rift in the country.

In theory, the House could do what legislators tend to loathe: Cancel or shorten its five-week August recess, or its multi-week recesses in October, November and December to allow for impeachment proceedings. But it’s far from clear the party broadly supports moving to impeachment in the first place, for now.

Sen. Tom Daschle, who was Democratic leader during the Senate’s trial of Clinton, said Congress’ role investigating the administration should be the focus in the short term.

“The closer it gets to the election, the more consequential it would be politically,” he said in a telephone interview. “From an institutional point of view it seems to me that timing is irrelevant.”

Other Pelosi allies see enough time ahead to make impeachment-related decisions.

“I don’t think we have a fear of time, yet,” said Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee introducing legislation to formalize the panel’s investigations.

As for working during recess, she went there.

“We could be in and out and you could still be here two or three days doing what you need to do,” Jackson Lee said. “I was reminded that Watergate really broke in hearings (which were) in August of 1974.”

Donald Trump Mexico tariffs deadline inspires talks

Washington and the White House are scrambling to find a solution to Donald Trump’s tariff threat with Mexico, but most DC insiders are predicting coming hardship and recession for America.

U.S. and Mexican officials labored for a second day Thursday to avert import tariffs that President Donald Trump is threatening to impose as he tries to strong-arm Mexico into stemming the flood of Central American migrants at America’s southern border.

Both sides claimed headway in a lengthy meeting Wednesday, but Trump said a “lot of progress” must still be made to halt the 5% tax on all Mexican goods that he has threatened to impose Monday as part of an escalating tariff regime opposed by many in his own Republican Party.

Underscoring the scope of the border problem, the Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants illegally crossing the border hit the highest level in more than a decade in May: 132,887 apprehensions, including a record 84,542 adults and children traveling together and 11,507 children traveling alone.

Trump, who is currently traveling in Europe, tweeted from Ireland that the Washington talks would continue “with the understanding that, if no agreement is reached, Tariffs at the 5% level will begin on Monday, with monthly increases as per schedule.”

Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard was at the State Department Thursday morning, and additional talks were expected in the afternoon at the White House, though it remained unclear what kind of deal could be struck with Trump out of the country. U.S. officials were preparing for the tariffs to kick in barring major Mexican action.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters in Ireland before leaving for France to attend a D-Day ceremony. “But something pretty dramatic could happen. We’ve told Mexico the tariffs go on. And I mean it, too. And I’m very happy with it.”

Back in Washington, White House spokeswoman Mercedes Schlapp said in an interview that conversations were continuing but “it looks like we’re moving toward this path of tariffs because what we’ve seen so far is that the Mexicans, what they’re proposing, is simply not enough.”

states hit hardest from donald trump mexico tariffs
States that could be hurt most from Donald Trump’s tariffs.

Vice President Mike Pence, who led the discussions Wednesday with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other U.S. officials, echoed Trump: “We made clear to them that President Trump is going to continue to stand firm until we bring this crisis of illegal immigration on our southern border to an end.”

During Wednesday’s talks, the gulf between the countries was clear as Mexico offered small, thus far undisclosed concessions and the U.S. demanded major action. A senior administration official said the U.S. once again pressed Mexico to enter into a “safe third country agreement” that would make it difficult for those who enter Mexico from other countries to claim asylum in the U.S. Mexico has long resisted that request.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting.

Trump officials have also said Mexico can prevent the tariffs by securing its southern border with Guatemala and cracking down on criminal smuggling organizations. But the U.S. has not proposed any concrete metrics to assess whether Mexico is complying, and it is unclear whether even those steps would be enough to satisfy Trump on illegal immigration, a signature issue of his presidency and one that he sees as crucial to his 2020 re-election campaign.

Ebrard, however, described the talks as “cordial” and told reporters at the Mexican Embassy that both sides had acknowledged “the current situation cannot keep going” because of the surge in migrant flows.

Beyond Trump and several White House advisers, few in the administration believe imposing tariffs is a good idea, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations. Those people worry about the negative economic consequences for Americans and believe the tariffs — which would likely spark retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports — would also hurt the administration politically, according to these officials who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The tariffs carry enormous economic implications for both countries, and politically they underscore a major ideological split between Trump and his party. Trump has increasingly relied on tariffs as a bludgeon to try to force other nations to bend to his will, dismissing warnings, including from fellow Republicans, about the likely impacts on American manufacturers and consumers.

Republicans in Congress have been threatening their own confrontation with Trump, warning the White House that they are ready to stand up to the president to try to block his tariffs, which they worry would spike costs to U.S. consumers, harm the economy and imperil a major pending U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal.

The Republican president slammed his critics, accusing Democrats of not wanting to fix U.S. immigration laws. And he went after those who have criticized the tariff threat. A “lot of people, senators included — they have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to tariffs,” Trump said. “They have no — absolutely no idea.”

Trump himself routinely mischaracterizes who pays for tariffs, wrongly insisting it is the countries he levies them on rather than U.S. importers and often American consumers who face higher prices when costs are passed along.

Without a deal, the first tariffs — 5% taxes on imports from Mexico, eventually increasing to 25% — are to go into effect next Monday. Trump has been seething for months about the spike in migrant crossings and has proposed increasingly drastic action, including completely sealing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Most of the migrants trying to enter the U.S. are from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, countries wracked by gangs, violence and poverty.

The stakes are clear: The 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement made trade with Mexico largely duty free. As a result, manufacturers have built up complicated supply chains that straddle the border. Americans bought $378 billion worth of Mexican imports last year, led by auto parts and cars. Mexico is America’s No. 2 export market behind Canada.

The back-and-forth could also imperil the NAFTA revamp, which Trump pressured Mexico and Canada to agree to last year. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement has been signed by all three countries but must be approved by their legislatures.

Donald Trump US air quality and psychic Brexit claims fact check

Donald Trump may still think that climate change was a hoax created by China, but he does firmly believe that the US has the cleanest air in all the world. He also claimed that he foresaw Brexit on his Scotland golf course, but some are left wondering if that was his only way to plug that business.

In remarks Wednesday with Ireland’s Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, he insisted the U.S. has the “cleanest air in the world” and is “setting records environmentally.” That’s not the case. The Obama administration set the records for clean air in 2016, and air quality under Trump has worsened since then.

A look at Trump’s claims during his trip to Europe, also the protests in London and his predictions about Brexit:

Air So Clean

TRUMP: “We have the cleanest air in the world in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president. We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. … We’re setting records environmentally.” — remarks Wednesday.

THE FACTS: The U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn’t gotten better under the Trump administration.

U.S. drinking water is among the best by one leading measure.

Trump’s own Environmental Protection Agency data show that in 2017, among 35 major U.S. cities, there were 729 cases of “unhealthy days for ozone and fine particle pollution.” That’s up 22 percent from 2014 and the worst year since 2012.

The Obama administration, in fact, set records for the fewest air polluted days in 2016. In 2017, after Trump took office, the number of bad air days per metro area went up 20%.

The State of Global Air 2019 report by the Health Effects Institute rated the U.S. as having the eighth cleanest air for particle pollution — which kills 85,000 Americans each year — behind Canada, Scandinavian countries and others.

The U.S. ranks poorly on smog pollution, which kills 24,000 Americans per year. On a scale from the cleanest to the dirtiest, the U.S. is at 123 out of 195 countries measured.

On water, Yale University’s global Environmental Performance Index finds 10 countries tied for the cleanest drinking water, the U.S. among them. On environmental quality overall, the U.S. was 27th, behind a variety of European countries, Canada, Japan, Australia and more. Switzerland was No. 1.

Where Donald Trump Went Wrong On US Air Quality

There are a few important details the president may have overlooked in presenting a clean bill of health for the US environment, so here is a handy reminder.

1) Greenhouse gas emissions

The US is still the world’s second biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, having been overtaken by China more than a decade ago. In per capita terms, however, the US far outstrips China, though it comes below some Middle Eastern states with tiny populations and vast fossil fuel industries. While carbon emissions have been falling, in part because of the switch from coal to gas, Climate Tracker estimates that the US will fail to meet its carbon reduction targets set by Barack Obama, to cut emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

2) Fracking

The US is now one of the world’s biggest gas producers, thanks to fracking, and about half of its oil now comes from the production method, which requires the blasting of dense shale rock with water, sand and chemicals to release the tiny bubbles of fossil fuel trapped inside. This boom has come at a cost, as the vast water requirements are draining some areas dry, and pollutants found near fracking sites include heavy metals, chemicals that disrupt hormones, and particulates. The effects range from memory, learning and IQ deficits to behavioral problems. Leaks of “fugitive” methane are an additional contributor to climate change.

3) Fossil fuel exploration

Not content with the US’s existing conventional oil reserves, and the expansion of the oil and gas industries through fracking, the US fossil fuel industry is seeking new grounds for exploration—among them, the pristine Alaskan wilderness. Drilling in the Alaskan wildlife reserve is a key Trump policy.

4) Fuel efficiency standards

The Trump administration has moved to loosen regulations on fuel efficiency for cars and vans, which were already less stringent than in many other countries. Opponents fear this will increase greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

5) International cooperation

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement of 2015 cannot legally take effect until after the next presidential election, in an irony of timing. However, the effect can already be seen, in the emboldening of other nations considering a withdrawal, such as Brazil, formerly a strong proponent of action at the UN talks, and the increasing influence of fossil fuel lobbyists.

6) Climate denial

With the president claiming climate change to be a “Chinese hoax”, it is perhaps not surprising that the US has some of the highest rates of climate denial in the world, according to polling by YouGov in collaboration with the Guardian. Despite this, a sizeable majority of the US public—nearly six in 10 people—still agree with the science on climate change, and support action to stave off the worst consequences.

7) Water

Despite Trump’s claim to Morgan that “we want the best water, the cleanest water—it’s crystal clean, has to be crystal clean clear”, his recent actions on water have been an attempt to roll back decades of progress on cleaning up the US water supply. Last December, he announced plans to undo or weaken federal rules that protect millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams from pesticide run-off and other pollutants.

8) Air

By rolling back Obama-era measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the Trump administration is also threatening to increase air pollution, as coal-fired power stations will be able to spew out toxins once more, according to 14 states who last year opposed the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans. This is in contrast with China and India, cited by Trump—along with Russia—as having polluted air. Those nations are trying to clean up their pollution with stricter limits on what power plants and other industries can produce.

Fake UK Rallies

TRUMP: “I kept hearing that there would be ‘massive’ rallies against me in the UK, but it was quite the opposite. The big crowds, which the Corrupt Media hates to show, were those that gathered in support of the USA and me.” — tweet Wednesday.

TRUMP: “There were thousands of people (Monday) on the streets cheering. And even coming over today, there were thousands of people cheering and then I heard that there were protests. I said: ‘Where are the protests? I don’t see any protests.’ I did see a small protest today when I came, very small, so a lot of it is fake news, I hate to say. … There was great love. … And I didn’t see the protesters until just a little while ago and it was a very, very small group of people.” — news conference Tuesday with British Prime Minister Theresa May.

THE FACTS: The protests over Trump’s visit were more than just “very, very small.”

Thousands of protesters crowded London’s government district, shouting angry chants as he met May nearby. While police erected barricades to stop protesters from marching past the gates of Downing Street, they could be heard as Trump and May emerged from the prime minister’s official residence for a photo op and before their news conference.

The demonstrators expressed outrage over his lavish welcome and protested him as a danger to the world.

The protests included a giant Trump baby balloon and a robotic likeness of Trump sitting on a golden toilet, cellphone in hand, dubbed “Dump Trump.” The robot made flatulent sounds and recited familiar Trump phrases like “No collusion” and “You are fake news.”

Psychic Trump Foresaw Brexit

TRUMP, referring to how he stood at his Scottish golf resort, Turnberry, on the eve of the Brexit referendum and predicted the British would vote to leave the European Union: “I really predicted what was going to happen. Some of you remember that prediction. It was a strong prediction, made at a certain location, on a development we were opening the day before it happened.” — news conference Tuesday.

THE FACTS: He didn’t predict Brexit the day before it happened.

As when he has told this story before, Trump is mixing up his predictions and his days. Three months before the vote, he did predict accurately that Britain would vote to leave the EU. The day after the 2016 vote — not the day before — he predicted from his Scottish resort that the EU would collapse because of Britain’s withdrawal. That remains to be seen.

‘Dark Phoenix’ has me praying Marvel gives X-Men a long break before rebooting

In all honesty, I didn’t have much hope when I heard that “Dark Phoenix” was going to be the next X-Men movie. Dark Phoenix and Days of Future Past were easily the best comics stories in the X-Men lexicon. The Dark Phoenix Saga has been redone to death in the various X-Men animated incarnations so why did they have to return to a more than used retread?

Dark Thoughts

Ever since the ending of “X-Men: Apocalypse,” after watching Jean Grey defeat the powerful mutant, I’ve had some dark thoughts.

Are they doing “Dark Phoenix” too soon? Are they doing “Dark Phoenix” again? Hasn’t Fox learned its lesson after “X-Men: The Last Stand?” Heck, even the First Class team even made fun of that film. Of all the tons of source material within the X-Men lore, they had to go with Dark Phoenix.

Why?

Why not tackle Mr. Sinister? Why not tackle The Brood? Freedom Force? The Marauders? The Purifiers? Calisto and the Morlocks? They had to go with Dark Phoenix. Spoiler alert before reading on. But I’m sure most X-Men fans have seen this so you can understand where I’m coming from. This isn’t just an excuse to dump on the film. It’s just my frustration coming out when you know they knew better. Even Collider ranked it third from the worst X-Men films and that 23 percent Rotten Tomatoes score was earned. Theaters are already pulling it after it had the second worst Friday dropoff in superhero movie history.

It’s not hard to blame them. Maybe the second time’s the charm for one of the most interesting X-Men storylines not to mention the most interesting character. I technically fell in love with Dark Phoenix in Uncanny X-Men 175 (actually X-Men Classics which I forgot the number) which is one of my first Marvel comic books which I bought upon seeing on a bookstore shelf–after seeing the character on a 90s Marvel card. In the comic, I’ve seen her beautiful costume (I love dark red mixed with gold) and her raw power (being able to blow up Avengers Mansion), even though she was a fake made up by the villain Mastermind. I read the actual Phoenix storyline later on and saw its updated version in the X-Men animated series. There’s really no problem with Fox trying to catch the magic of the storyline. The problem was going at it too soon and going at it half-assed. If there’s anything to learn from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Apocalypse would be Phase 1 and Dark Phoenix would be Phase 2.

General Consensus

I’ll leave the purist point of view for a while and see the film as part of a separate universe cooked up by Director Simon Kinberg and others at Fox. The film is a simple, entertaining popcorn flick with plenty of action, plenty of drama and decent effects. The plot is a bit simplistic and similar to another film which up to now I can’t put my finger on. The plot point where fame gets into Xavier’s head as his X-Men have become popular. The second half of the plot point is where Jean goes dark. The third plot point is a covert alien invasion by shapeshifting aliens who were supposed to be the Skrulls (featured in the recent Captain Marvel). Fox got the outer space involvement part right at least.

Magneto meanwhile just got shoehorned in and actually did the opposite of what he did in “X-Men: The Last Stand.” Magneto turned Jean away while he adopted her in The Last Stand. Yes. Spoilers. It’s been weeks anyway. The difference here is that Jean had no rhyme or reason to her motives in The Last Stand. There wasn’t even any redemption. While here, she’s a scared little girl who felt betrayed and later sacrificed herself in the end.

x men comics premiering dark phoenix

What possessed Jean?

It’s a bit unclear in this film if the weird entity that possessed Jean was the Phoenix Force itself or something else that made Phoenix-empowered Jean go unstable. If it was the Phoenix Force, they just gave the series a massive plot hole as Jean was already the Phoenix in “X-Men: Apocalypse.” Surprise, surprise, another staple of this convoluted film franchise. Imagine their success if Fox did it right.? Anyway, if the force was not the Phoenix Force, it’s okay. But we’ve never been told in the film what it was exactly, just that the aliens considered it a powerful force that destroyed their planet (couldn’t help but be reminded of another cloud that destroys planets). But the aliens want to harness it anyway. Weird motivation. 

Plus, two major characters die in this film which completely ruins whatever timelines the original “X-Men” or “Days of Future Past” have set up. I have always hated this franchise for the convolution. It’s almost like every film after X2 stands alone and are not sequels. 

Final Thoughts

Overall, the “Dark Phoenix” film was okay but forgettable. As forgettable as “X-Men Apocalypse,” even less so. As I’ve said before, we’re all curious at how our favorite mutants would look and work on the big screen, which is why despite my dislike of this film franchise, I still see it (“Deadpool” and “Logan” were great though). However, there was no hope with this one from the start. I mainly watched it out of curiosity with that overwhelming need to pour my thoughts out later on. I think it will be a long time before another X-Men reboot kicks in though. I’m praying that’s the case, at least.

Ron Howard on ‘Pavarotti’ inspiration and becoming a documentarian

Most Ron Howard fans will be surprised to see him adding documentarian to his massive list of films, but no one seems more surprised than the man himself. He said that it was a format he’d always been interested in trying, but something about it intimidated him. Yes, even A-list directors get nervous. Documentaries might look easy, but they are far from that.

It was a series of fortuitous events beginning with advice from director Jonathan Demme and then getting an offer to direct a documentary about Jay-Z’s Made in America music festival. What better way to get your feet wet than covering a festival. He might have been nervous, but it didn’t stop Howard from jumping in feet first and now he’s on his third documentary.

As any documentarian will tell you, once you get the bug, you can’t stop. There’s something about the process of seeing things unfold in front of your eyes without a script. Then letting an audience share that same experience with you. Howard is no longer nervous and will continue making documentaries along with his scripted shows and films. With documentary films, it’s all about the subject matter that will get your passions burning, and Pavarotti seemed to do just that.

Ron Howard doesn’t remember meeting Luciano Pavarotti so much as feeling his presence. “My memory has less to do with my brief handshake and fleeting eye contact with the maestro and more to do with the fact that it was at this giant Golden Globes event with major movie stars and elite television stars,” the film director says. “But even with those people there, when he arrived, he was it. And that was in the early Eighties, before the Three Tenors even. He was beginning to have that kind of impact, at least on the creative community. The fact he was there meant more to all of us than anything.”

ron howard pavarotti photo shoot mttg

Howard even recalls seeing his first opera when he was 4 years old. Just don’t ask him to tell you much about it.

The budding child star and future director was in Austria with his parents to shoot a movie, and they took him to a performance at the Vienna State Opera House.

“I remember this soprano hitting this note in this unbelievable gown,” Howard said, gesturing with his arms to conjure up the scene, “There’s the set, she’s over here on the left in profile, and she’s singing, and she turns back to the actors and everybody’s going crazy, there’s a big ovation. I don’t know what opera it was.”

Not exactly the start of a lifelong love affair with opera. But in a way that makes Howard the perfect director for the new documentary “Pavarotti,” which is being released in the United States on Friday. Part biography and part greatest-hits concert, it aims to introduce Luciano Pavarotti to a new generation as well as to engage those who are already fans.

The Italian lyric tenor, who was born in Modena in 1935 and died of pancreatic cancer in 2007, was considered by many to have the most beautiful voice of his type since Enrico Caruso. He sang at leading opera houses for 40 years, sold millions of records as the “king of the high C’s,” and, with his endearing personality and love of publicity. became a household name in a way no opera star has since.

“We felt like it was a surprising story,” Howard says, including himself with the rest of the doc’s creative team, who helped him make “The Beatles: Eight Days a Week.” “Even though he’s a household name, there was so much that none of us really knew about his life, which turned out to be pretty operatic in its own right. The more I dug into the reading and watching performances, I, as a movie director, felt like the close-ups of him singing were akin to Brando in “A Streetcar Named Desire” or something. He’s so powerful, emotional and expressive.”

“Pavarotti” traces the opera legend’s life from his youth in war-torn Modena, Italy to the world stage through commentary from both of his wives, the daughters from his first marriage, the two surviving Three Tenors, Bono and many others, along with vintage interviews with the late singer. It contains rare footage and recordings, including shots of him performing in a choir with his father before his fame, a clip of him singing in “La Bohème” mere months after his stage debut and handkerchief-clutching performances in locales as varied as Liberty, Missouri, Brazil and Russia. There is also private home video footage he made for his family. Although it skates past a few rough patches in Pavarotti’s life, it provides insight into the singer’s desire to bring opera to everyone and just how he saw the world, prior to his death in 2007. 

“I’d never seen him live, but I was well aware of his stature,” Howard said in a recent interview. “My hope is the film goes a step toward that agenda of his which was to democratize the art form and broaden the audience reach.”

Howard, known for his eclectic range from comedies like “Cocoon” and “Splash” to serious dramas like “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind” (which won him a directing Oscar), said he got involved in the project through producer Nigel Sinclair, with whom he had worked on a documentary called “The Beatles: Eight Days a Week.”

Researching the project, Howard studied the plots of Pavarotti’s signature operas like Puccini’s “La Boheme” and Donizetti’s “L’Elisir d’Amore” and the lyrics to his arias. That gave him an idea about how to structure his film.

“I thought, well, we might be able to use these arias to almost do an opera about Pavarotti that might give us an interesting framework,” he said. “To use the music to share with people his life’s journey.”

And quite a journey it was — from childhood poverty in wartime Italy to a rise to fame and riches; from marriage and three children to years of philandering and finally divorce and remarriage. Artistically, Pavarotti moved from performing mainly on opera stages to singing in large arenas before hundreds of thousands of people — including as part of the Three Tenors with Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras — and finally to collaborating with pop artists like Bono. And he was literally an outsize figure: With his love of food and Italian cooking, he constantly struggled with ballooning weight.

As he got more into it, Howard realized that people may know Pavarotti’s name but even opera buffs might not know the whole of the wild-haired vocal virtuoso’s outsized story, so he worked on making it accessible — much in the same way Pavarotti wanted to make opera itself more accessible. But in the end, Howard says he had a greater goal: “To deepen people’s understanding of how emotional his singing can be.” It’s something he felt firsthand.

pavarotti documentary interview mttg ron howard

“It’s a bittersweet story,” Howard said. “He lived the dream, he became Caruso, his era’s great example of a global superstar as an opera singer. And then he clearly lost his way emotionally.

“I think he set the bar so high for himself I’m not sure he could ever live up to what his ambitions were, for all fronts — life, his art, his personal relationships,” he said.

But Howard sees his film as “ultimately far more celebration than anything else, despite the turbulence that his life knew and his loved ones knew.” He thinks the singer was able to “reinvent himself” when he took up philanthropic causes, starting with his friendship with Prince Diana and involvement in her work for the Red Cross.

His ex-wife, Adua, and their three grown daughters reconciled with Pavarotti before his death, and they are interviewed here. So too is his second wife, Nicoletta, who recorded never-before-seen home movies in which Pavarotti voices regrets for his failings as a husband and father. In all, the filmmakers used more than 50 interviews, both archival and new, and excerpts from more than 20 arias.

The film touches only lightly on the vocal decline of Pavarotti’s later years, which some critics blamed on his loss of interest in the disciplined life of an opera singer.

“He wasn’t quite what he used to be,” Howard said. “Some people who watched him on his farewell tour felt he was relying more on his reputation.”

Howard said working on the film has “definitely” made him more interested in opera, though his tastes in music remain as varied as his choice of movie subjects.

He said he grew up listening to James Taylor, Cat Stevens and Simon and Garfunkel, and that bluegrass was “ingrained in me” from his days as Opie on “The Andy Griffith Show.”

“Andy liked to play, and our makeup guy played the banjo,” he said. “But there’s nothing I get locked into. I’m always popping around. Sometimes I’ll get into a jag of listening to obscure pop music from different countries.”

ron howard on directing pavarotti film mttg

Ron Howard Q&A

What was the biggest surprise about Pavarotti’s life for you?
The sheer joy he had, and the sort of maverick side of his life, whether that had to do with his personal romantic relationships or choosing to sing with pop stars to help bring awareness to opera or to raise money for philanthropic programs. These things caused him a lot of grief. Often, he knew he was going to be criticized and yet he chose to go ahead and engage in whatever it was he believed in, either on principle or commitment to a cause.

In the interview that he did later with his second wife— a year or so before he died — he talks about how it hurts to be criticized. And you then recognize he would still choose to make these controversial decisions, whether they were personal or professional. That’s a brand of courage that I think is useful and important to acknowledge.

How hard was it to get his first wife, Adua, and second wife, Nicoletta, in the same film?
Well, it’s very significant in that it’s the first time that the families have really cooperated with each other to a significant degree. And yes, it was difficult. I don’t think I would’ve done the movie without their cooperation and involvement because I didn’t want to just skip through his career and the headlines. What’s interesting to me is that despite the heartache, his family loves him, misses him and wants him to be well remembered.

Has that bitter dispute over Pavarotti’s estate and will after he died continued or did things get settled out?
There’s a lot of tension. It was very hard to go back and talk about some of these things and hard for them to go back and see the movie. Their participation, to me, is kind of inspiring. It’s almost a lesson in understanding and even forgiving. They’re not forgetting, but they’re really coming to terms with it in a way that’s admirable. And they did some of that when he was alive, which is so powerful and moving to me. They talk about how, on his deathbed, all of them, including ex-lovers who were never married to him, arrived to connect with him. His first wife, as upsetting as it might have been, tried to cook for him one last time. These things were very unexpected for all of us.

Did Plácido Domingo or José Carreras talk about any lingering rivalries with Pavarotti as his fame did eclipse theirs.
No, just as they said on camera, they maintained that it was mostly fun and games. With the Three Tenors, there were some business squabbles and things like that. But all that got ironed out and we didn’t feel it made sense or needed to be in the film.

What I love about that sequence in our movie is that while everybody knows about the Three Tenors, not very many people know why or how the act came to be, that it just began as a way to help get Carreras back out onstage and prove that he could still perform at that level. And boy, does he.

A few negative aspects of Pavarotti’s life that seemed significant weren’t heavily represented in the film. Like the time he was booed at La Scala right at the peak of his fame. His final tour also had many cancelled dates. Did you intend to not go so deep into those parts?
Well, we did mention that he went through a period where he was cancelling tours. On the final tour, we didn’t feel like that was as significant as the way people were responding to his performances. And Bono’s defense was so powerful and passionate that we ultimately decided to focus on that aspect of the final tour.

La Scala was in 1992 when he was at the peak of his fame and long before his death. It generated a lot of negative press. In documentaries you cover the good and the bad so thus my question on that.

Well, that was also in that little period around the time where we say he was kind of having a midlife malaise. One of the critics that we have speaking in the film talks about how he was a little bit out at sea. I think that was around the time. The Tenors had happened, but it’s right around the time where he seemed to have this awakening around philanthropic projects.

And so, you know, you’re right. We didn’t play up that moment. But it wasn’t taken out particularly tactically or strategically. It really was just us trying to cover as much ground as we could and not repeat ourselves.

How did you get your hands on that amazing rare footage?
The family was making a lot of that available. There’s some great footage from the wings when he’s doing “La Fille du Régiment,” where he’s hitting the High Cs. There are, like, seven or eight of them in a row. I don’t think that’s been seen before, at least widely. And we took pains to do a spectacular job mixing the audio.

How was that experience? Audio is such an integral part of film, but it can sometimes be tedious.
Chris Jenkins, who mixed Eight Days a Week, wanted to go back to Abbey Road to mix this. He was almost being superstitious about it, because we had a good experience on The Beatles. So, we’re mixing and suddenly he finds out that in the big hall, the LSO is about to record the next day, so the mics are all set up in the room to record the orchestra. He asks permission to go in and record tracks. He stripped out some of the vocals on some of Luciano’s performances and we recorded it so that we could make the whole thing feel a little bit more in the way we’re accustomed to hearing symphonic recordings.

Zubin Mehta, who conducted the Three Tenors, mentioned that whenever Pavarotti hit a high C, it would cause your ears to vibrate. Did you get that same experience?

I felt that, too, the last time we mixed the Three Tenors. The hairs went up on the back of my neck on our final soundcheck. Certainly, that kind of visceral response from the audience is something we were shooting for.

“Pavarotti” will be in theaters on June 7th.

Apples pulls focus from iPhones to software while Big Tech get Congress probe

Gone are the days of Apple being able to sit back and watch the profits roll in from the iPhone. Sales have been falling so the company has been forced to diversity. Currently, they are pushing new software for Mac, iPhone, iPad along with presenting a new $6K Mac Pro.

Apple, beset by falling iPhone sales, announced upcoming changes to its phone and computer software intended to highlight its increasing emphasis on digital services and to further position it as a fierce guardian of personal privacy.

The revisions previewed Monday during a conference in San Jose, California, included a new feature that will let people log into apps and other services with an Apple ID instead of relying on similar sign-in options from Facebook and Google — two companies that mine data to sell advertising. Apple said it won’t collect tracking information about users from that service.

As part of that feature, Apple will also let users mask their true email addresses when signing into apps and services. That will involve faux email addresses that automatically forward to the user’s personal email. When the next version of the iPhone software comes out this fall, Apple is also promising to give people the option of limiting the time apps can follow their locations and prevent tracking through Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals.

The revisions are part of Apple’s ongoing attempts to differentiate itself from other technology giants, many of whom offer free services in exchange for personal data such as whereabouts and personal interests, which in turn fuels the advertising that generates most of their revenue. Apple, by contrast, makes virtually all its money selling devices and services, making it easier for CEO Tim Cook to embrace “privacy is a fundamental human right” as one of the company’s battle cries in an age of increasingly intrusive technology.

Monday’s software showcase is an annual rite that Apple holds for thousands of programmers at the end of spring. This year, however, Apple is grappling with its biggest challenge since its visionary co-founder, Steve Jobs, died nearly eight years ago.

Although still popular, the iPhone is no longer reliably driving Apple’s profits the way it has for the past decade. Sales have fallen sharply for the past two quarters, and could suffer another blow if China’s government targets the iPhone in retaliation for the trade war being waged by the Trump Administration. Another potential problem looms for Apple. Regulatory complaints and a consumer lawsuit both question whether Apple has been abusing the power of its iPhone app store to thwart competition and gouge smaller technology companies that rely on it to attract users and sell their services.

Apple is trying to adapt by squeezing money from digital services tailored for the more than 900 million iPhones currently in use. The transition includes a Netflix-like video service that Apple teased in March and thrust to center stage again Monday with a preview of one of the new series due out this fall, “For All Mankind.”

But the iPhone remains Apple’s marquee attraction. The next version of its iPhone operating software, iOS 13, manages to offer both privacy features and an aesthetic “dark mode” for the screen — a feature already available on Macs.

Apple executives also claimed that iOS 13 will open apps faster and features a new version of the Face ID system will unlock your phone 30 percent faster. The software also will introduce more artificial intelligence to enable Apple’s digital assistant, Sir, to speak more like a human and, if so assigned, automatically tackle even more tasks, such as reading incoming messages out loud as Apple tries to catch up to the digital assistants made by Google and Amazon. Apple’s improvements in artificial intelligence also hatched a new photo-management tool that picks out the best photos taken on a certain day or in an entire month or year.

Apple Maps will get the biggest makeover of any of the company’s built-in apps. Beginning with iOS 13 the maps will include granular street and place data that Apple says it collected with street and aerial footage — tactics its largest mobile app rival Google has been using for years.

Apple also unveiled several new apps for its smartwatch, including independent apps that don’t rely on the iPhone in another sign of the company’s determination to lessen its dependence on that product. The App Store will be available on the watch, making it possible for people to find and download apps right on their watch — expanding the availability of purchases that generate commissions for Apple.

The iPad will also get its own operating system instead of piggybacking on the iPhone software as Apple tries to cater to consumers who would like the tablet to be able to do more of the things a laptop computer can do.

In its laptop and desktop businesses, Apple is breaking up its iTunes software for computers into three apps: Apple Music, Apple Podcasts and Apple TV. Apple debuted iTunes 16 years ago to sell and manage digital music for the iPod, which paved the way for the iPhone.

Apple has already de-emphasized iTunes on the iPhone and iPad, but now it will do the same on the Mac as well later this year. ITunes will still be available on Macs using older versions of the operating system, as well on all machines running on Microsoft’s Windows.

big tech under investigation probe from congress

Big Tech Under Congressional Probe

The federal government may be warming up its antitrust enforcement machine and pointing it at Big Tech.

On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee announced a sweeping antitrust probe of unspecified technology companies. In a statement, it promised “a top-to-bottom review of the market power held by giant tech platforms,” which would be the first such Congress has ever undertaken.

Earlier in the day, shares of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple dropped significantly after published reports suggested that federal authorities are preparing for investigations into anticompetitive behavior by several of these technology giants.

Facebook’s stock dropped 7.5%. Shares of Google parent Alphabet fell 6.1%. Amazon declined 4.6%. Apple, which has only been mentioned tangentially in these reports, fell 1%.

Some of the underlying developments appear to represent a divvying up of turf between the Department of Justice’s antitrust cops and the Federal Trade Commission, which also holds antitrust authority. The Justice Department would reportedly hold authority over Google and Apple, while the FTC would take point on investigations of Facebook and Amazon.

Over the weekend, multiple reports said the Justice Department was preparing a competition investigation into Google. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed sources to report that the FTC has secured the rights to bring a possible investigation into Facebook .

big tech under congress focus 2019

Investors may have reacted immediately to the uncertainty, but investigations — if any materialize — would take years.

“I think (the speculation) is becoming more real, but antitrust is not a 24-hour event,” said Blair Levin, a fellow with the Brookings Institution who formerly served as chief of staff to a Federal Communications Commission chairman.

It’s clear that the government is paying increasing attention to the actions of big tech companies, he said, but outcomes could take many different forms. Most likely, he said, could be regulation of the companies’ various practices, including privacy policies.

Pressure has been mounting on government to scrutinize the companies for some time, as backlash against tech companies’ reach and power grow in among consumers and politicians. The splitting up of jurisdictions between the FTC and DOJ could be simply a response to the pressure, said Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director for Open Markets Institute, which advocates against monopolies.

“There’s still a long way to go before there is even an investigation,” he said. “And an investigation could be an extended process.”

European authorities have covered ground U.S. regulators have barely considered — resulting in billions of dollars in fines for Google, and lesser fines for other companies.

That’s one model the U.S. could follow, Levin said. But political motivations and laws differ in the U.S., and regulations haven’t nearly caught up with the fast-moving world of the tech industry.

Vaheesan would like to see the government take aim at what Open Markets sees as market dominating practices by the big companies — partially by undoing large acquisitions that tech giants have made, including Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and Google’s of YouTube.

But others think it’s unlikely the government would take such broad action.

“The problem with all this antitrust talk: the consumer isn’t being gouged,” said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities.

Stocks are sinking because investors don’t like uncertainty, he said. But in this case, “the reaction vastly exceeds the potential harm to the company from a fine,” he said.

The FTC is already investigating Facebook for possible privacy violations. The FTC declined to comment and Facebook did not immediately respond to a message for comment. Facebook has set aside $3 billion for a possible fine for that investigation and said it could be as high as $5 billion.

Bad weather halts Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer but Rafa pulls a Nishikori win

UPDATE: Rafael Nadal was able to complete his match against Kei Nishikori with a 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 win advancing him to the semifinals. Roger Federer is also back on the court against Stan Wawrinka leading 2-1 sets with the score tied at 3-3 in the fourth.

The only thing capable of stopping Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer’s progress at the 2019 French Open was bad weather. Federer has had the easier time of it at Roland Garros, but both he and Rafa seems destined to face off for the title.

Defending French Open champion Rafael Nadal looked on the verge of wrapping up a quick win Tuesday to make it to the semifinals for a record-extending 12th time when ominously dark clouds derailed his plans.

Leading 6-1, 6-1, 4-2 against Kei Nishikori on Court Philippe Chatrier, Nadal shook his head in disbelief when tournament organizers took the decision to stop play at the clay-court Grand Slam because a thunderstorm was on its way.

rafael nadal pulling bulge at french open 2019 for roger federer
RAFAEL NADAL (ESP) TENNIS – FRENCH OPEN – ROLAND GARROS – ATP – WTA – ITF – GRAND SLAM – CHAMPIONSHIPS – PARIS – FRANCE – 2018 © TENNIS PHOTO NETWORK

Before that, the closest thing to a hurricane at Roland Garros had been Nadal himself.

In an impressive display of power and consistency, the 17-time Grand Slam champion had methodically picked apart Nishikori with a mix of pinpoint groundstrokes, subtle drop shots and spectacular winners, including an overhead shot with his back to the net that drew loud cheers from the stands.

Meanwhile, former French Open champions Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka were involved in a tight battle on Court Suzanne Lenglen, with Federer leading 7-6 (4), 4-6, 7-6 (5), 3-3 when play was stopped.

Wawrinka beat Federer in straight sets in their last Roland Garros meeting at the same stage four years ago. Until last week, that 2015 match was also the last time Federer played in the clay-court Grand Slam tournament, having missed the 2016 edition to rest a sore back and then skipping the clay season altogether the following two years.

In the women’s draw, Johanna Konta reached the semifinals for the first time after beating last year’s runner-up Sloane Stephens 6-1, 6-4.

Konta served six aces, stepped into the court to crush winners off second serves and never gave the seventh-seeded Stephens time to find her rhythm or groove.

“To play one of the best players in the world and then play at the level I did, I feel really proud of myself,” Konta told the crowd.

Konta has now reached the semifinals at three of the four major tournaments, but has yet to reach a final.

She will next play either unseeded teen Marketa Vondrousova or No. 31 Petra Martic.

roland garros logo for french open 2019

Is It French Open Or Roland Garros? Does It Matter?

Serena Williams and Roger Federer would love to win the French Open again, of course. They’d also be thrilled to win Roland Garros. And they might not know it, but they are doing their best to triumph at what used to officially be the Championnats Internationaux de France, too.

What’s in a name? Things get complicated when it comes to deciding what to call the clay-court Grand Slam tournament being contested now on the southwestern edge of Paris.

English speakers tend to say “French Open,” even though that’s not used by the event itself. Most of the rest of the world refers to “Roland Garros,” the tournament facility named after a World War I fighter pilot.

Williams, an American with an apartment in Paris, and Federer, who is Swiss, are comfortable speaking English and French, so they say both versions. But what hardly ever is uttered — by Williams, Federer or anyone else — is the event’s original name, which translates to “International Championships of France.”

That French phrase is etched on the silver trophies that will be handed to the singles champions on June 8-9. A green board showing a bracket with each day’s results in white chalk says “Internationaux de France 2019.”

Based on interviews with several players and coaches, though, nobody seems to know that name.

“Yo,” said Denis Shapovalov, a Canadian ranked in the top 25, “I’ve never even heard that.”

Maybe that’s why the French Tennis Federation, which operates the tournament, wants the world to use “Roland Garros” — or, more precisely, “Roland-Garros,” owing to the country’s style of hyphenating places named after people. It asked media outlets to use “Roland-Garros,” rather than “French Open.”

It’s “Roland Garros” that’s stamped on the tennis balls and court walls. It’s festooned on hats, shirts and other items sold in merchandise boutiques.

The term “French Open” derives from when Grand Slam tennis tournaments became “open” to professionals in 1968 — as in “U.S. Open” or “Australian Open” — but it is not found on-site in Paris. Oddly enough, the English version of the tournament’s online store does hawk what it calls a “vial of French Open clay” for $22 or 20 euros (the French version calls it “terre battue Roland-Garros”).

“The organizers clearly want everyone to refer to the tournament as ‘Roland-Garros,’” federation spokesman Nicolas Beaudelin said, “because this is … where the tournament is played.”

Think of it as akin to referring to the Masters golf tournament as “Augusta National.”

Most sporting events go by one name. The Super Bowl is the Super Bowl. The World Series is, well, the World Series. The NBA Finals are just that. Same for the Final Four. There are exceptions, to be sure, but not many. The folks who run Wimbledon (“The Championships”) and golf’s British Open (“The Open Championship”) have a hard time getting the globe to adopt their preferred monikers.

Tennis is an international sport: 42 countries were represented in the 2019 men’s draw in Paris, 35 in the women’s. English is generally the lingua franca on tour, but the lone Grand Slam tournament held where that’s not the primary language is proud of the distinction.

Chair umpires call out scores in French, for example. “Deuce” at the other majors becomes “Egalité” in Paris. The score “Forty-Thirty” becomes “Quarante-Trente.” And so on.

This is, after all, a land where the incursion of English into daily life bothers some and, over the years, the government has moved to ban foreign words from official documents, advertising and elsewhere.

Players know there is no easier way to endear oneself to the spectators than to sprinkle post-match interview responses with the occasional French word. Indeed, it’s become de rigueur for champions — from Jim Courier to Rafael Nadal, from Novak Djokovic to Federer and Williams — to deliver victory speeches in what the hosts like to call “la langue de Molière,” referring to the 17th century writer.

Still, there doesn’t seem to be any getting around what Tommy Paul, an American who won the 2015 junior title, observed: “When you watch it on TV in the States, it’s always ‘French Open.’”

After 2016 Olympic gold medalist Monica Puig, who represents Puerto Rico, reached the second round this week, she referenced “Roland Garros” during a session with Spanish-speaking reporters, then switched to “French Open” while being interviewed in English.

Madison Keys, an American who was a semifinalist in Paris last year, figures it’s all a moot point. To her, this tournament by any name would smell as sweet.

“We all know what we’re talking about,” Keys said. “So as long as everyone knows where we’re going, and what we’re doing, and what surface we’re on, I don’t think it really matters.”

Novak Djokovic ready for French Open test from Zverev plus Andy Murray’s return

Unlike his upcoming opponent, Novak Djokovic has had a pretty smooth ride at the 2019 French Open, but he’ll be facing up with Germany’s Alexander Zverev, who will make him work for very point. Andy Murray is back on the courts, and frustration builds at Roland Garros over the no-replay restriction.

Novak Djokovic is into his record 10th consecutive French Open quarterfinal, something not even King of Clay Rafael Nadal has managed to do.

And Djokovic is yet to be challenged at all this year at Roland Garros. Not only hasn’t he lost a set — he’s only twice ceded as many as four games in a set.

Extending his Grand Slam winning streak to 25 matches and closing in on a fourth championship in a row, Djokovic was dominant yet again in the fourth round Monday, beating 45th-ranked Jan-Lennard Struff of Germany 6-3, 6-2, 6-2.

“Everything is coming together beautifully. I’m motivated to fight for the trophy, yes. I mean, that’s why I’m here,” said Djokovic, who owns 15 Slam titles, including one in Paris. “But it’s still a long way to go.”

It’s helped, certainly, that the No. 1-ranked Djokovic has not needed to deal with a single seeded foe yet. That will change now: He faces No. 5 Alexander Zverev for a spot in the semifinals.

Have things been too easy so far? Is it possible that Djokovic hasn’t had the proper preparation for what could be tougher going in the latter portion of the tournament?

“I don’t mind cruising along, to be honest,” he said with a smile. “I have plenty of experience, I think, dealing with situations where you’re facing break points or where it’s tense. I have played plenty of, I think, tight matches in my career, that I can rely on that experience.”

He added: “It’s good to be tested, from that perspective, but at the same time, it’s also good to cruise along and kind of conserve the energy for what’s coming up.”

alexander zverev cheers winning against novak djokovic french open
Alexander Zverev

Djokovic and Zverev have split four previous tour meetings.

Zverev reached his second straight quarterfinal in Paris by coming back to eliminate No. 9 Fabio Fognini 3-6, 6-2, 6-2, 7-6 (5).

He’s only 22, but Zverev has been touted as a future champion for quite some time. He has yet to play in a major semifinal, though, and mentioned Monday that he enjoyed getting to be a bit under the radar so far in this French Open, noting that 20-year-old Stefanos Tsitsipas, the sixth seed, was a subject of more focus until losing in the fourth round to Stan Wawrinka.

“For me,” Zverev said, “it was actually quite a nice thing that not all of the attention … is only going towards my way.”

Unlike Djokovic, he has not exactly had an easy path to the round of eight: Zverev needed to win two five-setters in addition to going four against Fognini.

The other quarterfinal on their half of the draw Wednesday will be No. 4 Dominic Thiem against No. 10 Karen Khachanov, who got past 2009 U.S. Open champion Juan Martin del Potro 7-5, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 to make it to the final eight for the first time at a major.

Thiem advanced by eliminating the last Frenchman in the field, No. 14 Gael Monfils, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2. A man from the host country hasn’t won the French Open since Yannick Noah in 1983.

Rain is forecast for Tuesday, when the men’s quarterfinals will be Roger Federer vs. Wawrinka, and Nadal vs. No. 7 Kei Nishikori, who completed his two-day 6-2, 6-7 (8), 6-2, 6-7 (8), 7-5 fourth-round victory over Benoit Paire of France.

andy murray back to tennis court from injuries

Andy Murray Returns

Three-time major champion Andy Murray is planning to return from hip surgery by competing in doubles at the Queen’s Club tournament this month.

Murray hasn’t played on tour since the Australian Open in January. Play at Queen’s Club starts June 17.

The former No. 1 player says Queen’s Club is the “perfect place” to start his attempted comeback. He has won the singles title at the grass-court event five times.

Murray has been “pain-free for a few months now” and made “good progress” in practice. He calls a doubles appearance with Feliciano Lopez “the next step for me as I try to return to the tour.”

Murray’s 2013 Wimbledon title was the first men’s singles trophy there for Britain in 77 years. He also won that tournament again in 2016, the U.S. Open in 2012 and two Olympic singles gold medals.

no replay frustration at roland garros 2019

French Open No Replay Frustration

There’s a bit of choreography on clay whenever a player disagrees with a line call at the French Open.

The ball lands. The aggrieved player winces and squints at the spot, then scrapes the clay with a racket to underline the mark. The player stands in place, hands on hips, waiting. The chair umpire clambers down to the court, speed-walks over to locate the mark, thinks about it, then renders judgment — by holding an index finger aloft to indicate “Out” or holding a palm flat to indicate “In.” Sometimes, an argument ensues.

Happens every match, it seems. More than once, usually. The whole dance can take mere seconds. Or last several minutes. Or change the complexion of a match entirely, such Martina Hingis’ infamous meltdown against Steffi Graf in the 1999 French Open final, 20 years ago Wednesday.

It’s unique in Grand Slam tennis to Roland Garros, because the other three major tournaments use the Hawk-Eye review system during matches, the way most sports have embraced this sort of thing. The thinking goes: Unlike on the hard courts at the U.S. Open and Australian Open, or the grass courts at Wimbledon, balls leave an indelible imprint on the red dirt, so let’s dispense with any technological assistance and instead just check the mark with our own eyes.

Old-fashioned? Yes. Less than perfect? Of course. Which is why some players are calling for clay tournaments — the French Open, which concludes Sunday, in particular — to make this pas de deux a relic of the past and give chair umpires and line judges some help. After all, television broadcasters often show viewers what Hawk-Eye would have determined.

“They use it for the TV,” 2011 U.S. Open champion Sam Stosur said, “so why can’t you use it for us?”

Still, no one should expect a change anytime soon.

“Of course we’ve thought about it. Technology is something every sport should use, as much as possible,” tournament director Guy Forget said in an interview.

“If we don’t use it — and I don’t think we ever will — it’s … because, historically, we’ve been judging the course of a ball and where it lands on the court by the mark it leaves on the clay,” Forget said. “Would you like to have a court with no chair umpire, no linesmen, just electronic line-calling? Is that something we really want in the future? I think we’d miss something.”

There’s the human element.

The theater of it all.

A certain je ne sais quoi that makes the French Open stand apart from other majors.

And yet …

“I am 100 percent for having replay. They should use it,” said Chris Evert, who won seven of her 18 major trophies in Paris. “Because of the way they sweep the lines on clay courts, sometimes you can’t see for sure if the ball hit the line or not. I also think that some chair umpires vary. They all view whether it’s in or out differently. I’m not calling them cheaters, of course, but it doesn’t look sometimes like it’s all the way out but they go, ‘Out.’”

This is not a new concern. Back in 2013, for example, Sergiy Stakhovsky of Ukraine was fined $2,000 for pulling out his cell phone during a first-round loss at the French Open to snap a photo of a mark he thought was misjudged.

But the chorus seems to be louder now, because of the perception that there have been “so many mistakes from the umpires this year,” said Borna Coric, a Croatian seeded 13th at Roland Garros.

All non-clay ATP tournaments are required to use electronic line-calling; the statistics kept by the men’s tour show that the number of calls reversed on review has been between 28-29% in each of the past five years, including in 2019. At last year’s U.S. Open, the figure for all events was 29.1%.

Could simply be a result of more and more players posting on social media when they believe a ruling was wrong.

“It’s something I’m really trying to push for, because I feel like there’s way too many controversial calls. There’s so many close calls from day-to-day, from every match,” said Denis Shapovalov, a Canadian seeded 20th in Paris. “Sometimes, just, the call is so close, it’s impossible to call it. You need a system to have justice.”

The main objection voiced by Forget and others is whether Hawk-Eye, which has a tiny margin of error, would be accurate enough on clay courts, where the crushed brick gets blown by the air or kicked around by players’ feet and covers lines. And there are, to be sure, players who are just fine with the status quo.

Usually, the discussion wraps up quite quickly, such as on the very last point of three-time major champion Stan Wawrinka’s 5-plus-hour victory Sunday, when his backhand barely landed in, grazing the outside edge of the sideline. He had to wait to celebrate.

“I was just hoping that the umpire would confirm it,” Wawrinka said. “So I was, (for) half a second, not sure.”

That’s nothing compared to the 4½-minute delay over a disputed serve during 2009 U.S. Open champion Juan Martin del Potro’s third-round win over Jordan Thompson on Saturday.

As spectators whistled derisively or jeered, the scene devolved into a sort of existential debate — best had over an espresso and a cigarette, perhaps — about, essentially, what the definition of “line” is and whether, as chair umpire Manuel Absolu posited, one can “imagine there is a mark.”

“There are so many arguments … just like that one,” Thompson said. “If we had Hawk-Eye, it would have been over in 20 seconds, and we would have been back playing.”