Connect with us

Culture

Jack Draper’s tennis: How embracing variety took him to Indian Wells title

Published

on

Jack Draper’s tennis: How embracing variety took him to Indian Wells title

When reflecting on his favourite moment of 2024 in December, Jack Draper didn’t pick reaching the U.S. Open semifinal, winning his first and second ATP Tour titles, or beating Carlos Alcaraz.

He picked the aftermath of his most disappointing defeat of the year, a loss to qualifier Jesper de Jong at the French Open in May.

“When I came home from Paris, I was all over the place thinking: ‘I need to get my s— together, what am I doing? I’m not fulfilling my potential. I’m not the player I want to be,’” he told a small group of reporters in a pub in west London just before Christmas.

“When I look back over this year, that’s something that actually brings me the most satisfaction. The most joy is working out certain situations and then turning into a different player.”

Draper, 23, was ranked No. 40 and having an identity crisis about his game. He had brought on former world No. 6 Wayne Ferreira to support his main coach James Trotman, and Ferreira wanted Draper to use his bulky 6ft 4in (193cm) frame more. But after a disappointing clay-court season, Draper decided instead to lean on his other talents: soft hands, athleticism, and a heavy forehand that he could blast through the court or kick up above an opponent’s shoulders.

Advertisement

“Wayne wanted me to try to be braver,” he said.

“I suppose I needed that, but at the same time, I needed to understand that that’s not the player I am as well. One of my main attributes as a player is my ability to move well for my size, and be able to get that one more ball back in court.

“That’s how I won matches when I was younger, when I was small.”

Draper and Ferreira split after the grass-court season, and while Draper took some of Ferreira’s advice to heart by not being so “one-paced,” he has embraced the natural variety he possesses and stormed up the tennis ranks ever since.

Last Sunday, Draper won the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells. It is his first ATP Masters 1,000 title — the rung just below the Grand Slams — and it moved him into the ATP top 10 for the first time. The slow, grippy hard courts in the Californian desert reward players who can mix up their shots; witness Alcaraz, who Draper stunned in the semifinals despite being on the ropes in the third set. The 21-year-old Spaniard is perhaps the most dexterous player in the world and a two-time Indian Wells champion.

Advertisement

During the Indian Wells final against Holger Rune, Draper demonstrated his mental strategy, centering his vision on his thumb at changes of ends. Because he is so open about discussing the mental side of the game — including on-court anxiety — and his misfortune with injuries, the texture of his tennis and its specifics sometimes get overlooked. In the California Desert, it was in full bloom.


Draper’s flashing forehand was just one component of his success at Indian Wells. (Clive Brunskill / Getty Images)

Draper’s forehand is his most devastating ground stroke, but his backhand is his most reliable. Like another tennis southpaw, Rafael Nadal, Draper is a natural right-hander who plays left-handed, so he finds natural stability on the two-handed backhand.

“I think that really helps me, because my forehand has been improving all the time,” he said in a news conference after beating Alcaraz on Saturday. “My forehand is naturally the shot where I’m not as comfortable. It’s always been my backhand which I can hit with my eyes closed.”

Draper’s solidity on the backhand side is discomfiting for his opponents. Against most lefties, the go-to play for a right-hander is to try and get into a cross-court rally in which they hit their forehand to their opponent’s backhand, which is typically the weaker shot.

“I really have no problem against any player with their forehand into my backhand,” Draper continued. “Usually that’s something where players struggle, but with myself, that’s a big strength.”

Advertisement

According to data from TennisViz and Tennis Data Innovations (TDI), we can see that over the last year, opponents won 42.8 percent of points when hitting cross-court forehands against Draper, compared to the tour average of 45 percent. Last week at Indian Wells, this figure for Draper’s opponents was even lower, down at 41.7 percent — a significant drop below the average for one of the most important and regularly deployed shots in tennis.

By contrast, Draper’s forehand was even more devastating than usual, particularly against Rune in a one-sided final. When hitting it from the middle of the court, with the choice to go to his opponent’s forehand or backhand, Draper destroyed Rune’s forehand, winning 100 percent of points behind that play.

Draper has worked with Trotman on his movement to stabilize the forehand, acknowledging that he used to struggle when anyone went after it — as he did to Rune Sunday.

“Any pace into it was a problem,” he told a small group of reporters on a video call.

“I remember when I played Carlos Alcaraz here a couple of years ago, I felt like I couldn’t hit the skin off a rice pudding. So I just feel like I’ve come a long way with that.

Advertisement

“I think a lot of it has to do with my positioning, with my body. I’ve worked on that feeling of being balanced a lot on the forehand and not lifting off. I still lift off some forehands, but I feel like most of the time my commitment is to go through the ball and to feel like I’m hurting off that shot instead of it just being a kind of average, spinny ball.”

In that match against Alcaraz, he lost 6-2, 2-0 by retirement. Things looked very different in their semifinal.


Despite Draper’s evolution as a player, there is still no weapon in his game bigger than his serve. That too developed relatively late, since Draper was only 5 feet 6 inches until a handy growth spurt in his mid-teens.

Speaking after his devastating serving display against Rune, Draper said: “My rhythm and my placement has been really, really good. And it’s obviously a huge, huge part of my game. If I can get that right, that sets me up well for the rest of my tennis.”

At Indian Wells, Draper improved his second-serve points won from 52 percent over the last year to 54 percent. He also used his accuracy to account for the slower courts’ effect on his speed, winning 78 percent of points behind serves to the T on the deuce side, and 83 percent on the ad; 40 and 39 percent of those serves went unreturned, respectively.

Advertisement

The serving display gave him the platform to play with more of the variety he has been striving for, mixing up his pace and coming to the net at various points. Against Ben Shelton in last week’s quarterfinals, Draper somehow manoeuvred his body to hit a volley that was flying towards his chest, fell down, and got back up to win the point.

Against Rune, Draper showcased some outstanding defense to go alongside his devastating attack, winning 43 percent of points when defending, per the TDI “steal score” metric. Draper’s average in the past 52 weeks is 35 percent. It was his rich mix of attacking and defending options, rather than a brute force approach, that took him to the title.

Draper is one of many ATP players who are facing up to how Alcaraz and world No. 1 Jannik Sinner have reconfigured tennis, but he appears better placed to embrace that change than some of his peers in the rankings. 1990s-born players, including world No. 2 Alexander Zverev, No. 4 Taylor Fritz and No. 6 Casper Ruud have openly said that they feel ill-positioned to adjust to the huge hitting and court coverage. Draper has studied them both carefully and gotten to know them well, too; Sinner is a friend and former doubles partner, while Draper was planning on spending the most recent off-season with Alcaraz in Spain before a hip injury intervened.

Draper is ranked No. 3 by his 2025 results, and has won 13 of his 15 matches this year, including 10 of the last 11. He heads to Miami as one of the tournament favorites, and then has very few points to defend during the clay-court swing. But the biggest challenge is the Grand Slams — the biggest tournaments in the world which bring the elongated five-set format in which Draper has struggled more in the past. His recent form, however, is making him believe he is on his way.

“I can compete consistently against top players in the world. I feel like I belong completely,” he said.

Advertisement

(Top photo: Andy Abeyta / The Desert Sun via Imagn Images)

Culture

This Poem About Monet’s “Water Lilies” Reflects on the Powers and Limits of Art

Published

on

This Poem About Monet’s “Water Lilies” Reflects on the Powers and Limits of Art

Advertisement

In the midst of the world’s unrelenting horribleness, it’s important to make room for beauty. True! But also something of a truism, an idea that comes to hand a little too easily to be trusted. The proclamation that art matters — that, in difficult times, it helps — can sound like a shopworn self-care mantra.

So instead of musing on generalities, maybe we should focus our attention on a particular aesthetic experience. Instead of declaring the importance of art, we could look at a painting. Or we could read a poem.

A poem, as it happens, about looking at a painting.

Advertisement

Hayden did not take the act of seeing for granted. His eyesight was so poor that he described himself as “purblind”; as a child he was teased for his thick-framed glasses. Monet’s Giverny paintings, whose blurriness is sometimes ascribed to the painter’s cataracts, may have revealed to the poet not so much a new way of looking as one that he already knew.

Read in isolation, this short poem might seem to celebrate — and to exemplify — an art divorced from politics. Monet’s depiction of his garden, like the garden itself, offers a refuge from the world.

Advertisement

Claude Monet in his garden in 1915.

Advertisement

“Ceux de Chez Nous,” by Sacha Guitry, via Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

But “Selma” and “Saigon” don’t just represent headlines to be pushed aside on the way to the museum. They point toward the turmoil that preoccupied the poetry of Hayden and many of his contemporaries.

Advertisement

“Monet’s ‘Waterlilies’” was published in a 1970 collection called “Words in the Mourning Time.” The title poem is an anguished response to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and to the deepening quagmire in Vietnam. Another poem in the volume is a long elegy for Malcolm X. Throughout his career (he died in 1980, at 66), Hayden returned frequently to the struggles and tragedies of Black Americans, including his own family.

Advertisement

Robert Hayden in 1971.

Jack Stubbs/The Ann Arbor News, via MLive

Born in Detroit in 1913, Hayden, the first Black American to hold the office now known as poet laureate of the United States, was part of a generation of poets — Gwendolyn Brooks, Dudley Randall, Margaret Danner and others — who came of age between the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s and the Black Arts movement of the ’60s.

Advertisement

A poet of modernist sensibilities and moderate temperament, he didn’t adopt the revolutionary rhetoric of the times, and was criticized by some of his more radical peers for the quietness of his voice and the formality of his diction.

But his contemplative style makes room for passion.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Frankenstein’s Many Adaptations Over the Years

Published

on

Frankenstein’s Many Adaptations Over the Years

Ever since the mad scientist Frankenstein cried, “It’s alive!” in the 1931 classic film directed by James Whale, pop culture has never been the same.

Few works of fiction have inspired more adaptations, re-imaginings, parodies and riffs than Mary Shelley’s tragic 1818 Gothic novel, “Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus,” the tale of Victor Frankenstein, who, in his crazed quest to create life, builds a grotesque creature that he rejects immediately.

Advertisement

The story was first borrowed for the screen in 1910 — in a single-reel silent — and has directly or indirectly spawned hundreds of movies and TV shows in many genres. Each one, including Guillermo del Toro’s new “Frankenstein,” streaming on Netflix, comes with the same unspoken agreement: that we collectively share a core understanding of the legend.

Here’s a look at the many ways the central themes that Shelley explored, as she provocatively plumbed the human condition, have been examined and repurposed time and again onscreen.

“I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.”— Victor Frankenstein, Chapter 3

Advertisement

The Mad-Scientist Creator

Shelley was profuse in her descriptions of the scientist’s relentless mind-set as he pursued his creation, his fixation on generating life blinding him to all the ramifications.

Advertisement

Sound familiar? Perhaps no single line in cinema has distilled this point better than in the 1993 blockbuster “Jurassic Park,” when Dr. Ian Malcolm tells John Hammond, the eccentric C.E.O. with a God complex, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Among the beloved interpretations that offer a maniacal, morally muddled scientist is “The Curse of Frankenstein” (1957), the first in the Hammer series.

“Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” (1994), directed by Kenneth Branagh, is generally considered the most straightforward adaptation of the book.

Advertisement

More inventive variations include the flamboyant Dr. Frank-N-Furter, who creates a “perfect man” in the 1975 camp favorite “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

In Alex Garland’s 2015 thriller, “Ex Machina,” a reclusive, self-obsessed C.E.O. builds a bevy of female-like humanoids.

Advertisement

And in the 1985 horror comedy “Re-Animator,” a medical student develops a substance that revives dead tissue.

Then there are the 1971 Italian gothic “Lady Frankenstein” and the 2023 thriller “Birth/Rebirth,” in which the madman is in fact a madwoman.

“With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet.”— Victor Frankenstein, Chapter 5

Advertisement

The Moment of Reanimation

Shelley is surprisingly vague about how her scientist actually accomplishes his task, leaving remarkable room for interpretation. In a conversation with The New York Times, del Toro explained that he had embraced this ambiguity as an opportunity for imagination, saying, “I wanted to detail every anatomical step I could in how he put the creature together.”

Advertisement

Filmmakers have reimagined reanimation again and again. See Mel Brooks’s affectionate 1974 spoof, “Young Frankenstein,” which stages that groundbreaking scene from Whale’s first movie in greater detail.

Other memorable Frankensteinian resurrections include the 1987 sci-fi action movie “RoboCop,” when a murdered police officer is rebooted as a computerized cyborg law enforcer.

In the 2012 Tim Burton animated “Frankenweenie,” a young scientist revives his beloved dog by harnessing lighting.

Advertisement

And in the 2019 psychologically bleak thriller “Depraved,” an Army surgeon, grappling with trauma, pieces together a bundle of body parts known as Adam.

“Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”— The creature, Chapter 15

Advertisement

The Wretched Creature

In Shelley’s telling, the creature has yellow skin, flowing black hair, white teeth and watery eyes, and speaks eloquently, but is otherwise unimaginably repulsive, allowing us to fill in the blanks. Del Toro envisions an articulate, otherworldly being with no stitches, almost like a stone sculpture.

It was Whale’s 1931 “Frankenstein” — based on a 1927 play by Peggy Webling — and his 1935 “Bride of Frankenstein” that have perhaps shaped the story’s legacy more than the novel. Only loosely tethered to the original text, these films introduced the imagery that continues to prevail: a lumbering monster with a block head and neck bolts, talking like a caveman.

Advertisement

In Tim Burton’s 1990 modern fairy tale “Edward Scissorhands,” a tender humanoid remains unfinished when its creator dies, leaving it with scissor-bladed prototypes for hands.

In David Cronenberg’s 1986 body horror, “The Fly,” a scientist deteriorates slowly into a grotesque insectlike monster after his experiment goes wrong.

Advertisement

In the 1973 blaxploitation “Blackenstein,” a Vietnam veteran who lost his limbs gets new ones surgically attached in a procedure that is sabotaged.

Conversely, in some films, the mad scientist’s experiment results in a thing of beauty: as in “Ex Machina” and Pedro Almodóvar’s 2011 thriller, “The Skin I Live In,” in which an obsessive plastic surgeon keeps a beautiful woman imprisoned in his home.

And in Yorgos Lanthimos’s 2023 sci-fi dramedy, “Poor Things,” a Victorian-era woman is brought back to life after her brain is swapped with that of a fetus.

Advertisement

“I am an unfortunate and deserted creature; I look around, and I have no relation or friend upon earth.”— The creature, Chapter 15

The All-Consuming Isolation

Advertisement

The creature in “Frankenstein” has become practically synonymous with the concept of isolation: a beast so tortured by its own existence, so ghastly it repels any chance of connection, that it’s hopelessly adrift and alone.

What’s easily forgotten in Shelley’s tale is that Victor is also destroyed by profound isolation, though his is a prison of his own making. Unlike most takes on the story, there is no Igor-like sidekick present for the monster’s creation. Victor works in seclusion and protects his horrible secret, making him complicit in the demise of everyone he loves.

The theme of the creator or the creation wallowing in isolation, physically and emotionally, is present across adaptations. In Steven Spielberg’s 2001 adventure, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” a family adopts, then abandons a sentient humanoid robot boy programmed to love.

Advertisement

In the 2003 psychological horror “May,” a lonely woman with a lazy eye who was ostracized growing up resolves to make her own friend, literally.

And in the 1995 Japanese animated cyberpunk “Ghost in the Shell,” a first-of-its-kind cyborg with a human soul struggles with its place amid humanity.

Advertisement

“Shall each man find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?”— The creature, Chapter 20

The Desperate Need for Companionship

In concert with themes of isolation, the creators and creations contend with the idea of companionship in most “Frankenstein”-related tales — whether romantic, familial or societal.

Advertisement

In the novel, Victor’s family and his love interest, Elizabeth, are desperate for him to return from his experiments and rejoin their lives. When the creature demands a romantic partner and Victor reneges, the creature escalates a vengeful rampage.

That subplot is the basis for Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein,” which does offer a partner, though there is no happily ever after for either.

Advertisement

Sometimes the monster finds love with a human, as in “Edward Scissorhands” or the 2024 horror romance “Lisa Frankenstein,” in which a woman falls for a reanimated 19th-century corpse.

In plenty of other adaptations, the mission is to restore a companion who once was. In the 1990 black comedy “Frankenhooker,” a science whiz uses the body parts of streetwalkers to bring back his fiancée, also Elizabeth, after she is chewed up by a lawn mower.

In John Hughes’s 1985 comedy, “Weird Science,” a couple of nerdy teenage boys watch Whale’s 1931 classic and decide to create a beautiful woman to elevate their social standing.

Advertisement

While the plot can skew sexual — as with “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” “Ex Machina” and “Frankenhooker” — it can also skew poignant. In the 1991 sci-fi action blockbuster “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” a fatherlike bond forms between a troubled teenage boy and the cyborg sent to protect him.

Or the creature may be part of a wholesome, albeit freakish, family, most famously in the hit 1960s shows “The Addams Family,” with Lurch as the family’s block-headed butler, and “The Munsters,” with Herman Munster as a nearly identical replica of Whale’s creature.

Advertisement

In Shelley’s novel, the creature devotes itself to secretly observing the blind man and his family as they bond over music and stories. While sitcom families like the Munsters and the Addamses may seem silly by comparison, it’s a life that Shelley’s creature could only have dreamed of — and in fact did.

Continue Reading

Culture

Test Your Knowledge of Family-History Novels That Were Adapted as Movies or TV Series

Published

on

Test Your Knowledge of Family-History Novels That Were Adapted as Movies or TV Series

“Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,” Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel, has been adapted into a stage musical that was itself made into a two-part feature film. In all versions, what is the name of the witch Elphaba’s younger sister, whom she accompanies to Shiz University?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending