The Sharapova dilemma

GLAMOUR is an essential part of sport. Everyone loves to read or talk about those teams or those individuals who sprinkle magic dust in our hearts and minds on a regular basis.

Maria Sharapova has always been one of the “glamour girls” of tennis, ever since she became the third-youngest woman to win a Grand Slam title when she stormed her way to glory at Wimbledon in 2004 at the age of 18.

From her grunting on court to her Sugarpova candy line to her tremendous competitive spirit, Sharapova has always been in the news.

Lately, of course, her career has been mired in controversy. She only returned to top-flight tennis in April after being banned for testing positive for the metabolic modulator meldonium at last year’s Australian Open.

Her comeback has been further hampered by a thigh and arm injury.

But on Monday night, Sharapova, dressed in a stylish black outfit, was back in the limelight, dazzling the crowds in New York with a victory over second seed Simona Halep at the US Open.

“Behind all these crystals and little black dresses this girl has a lot of grit and she’s not going anywhere. Prime time, baby,” Sharapova told the crowd, who cheered as only New Yorkers can.

Last night she went one step further, beating Hungary’s Timea Babos in another tough match.

Of course there will be fierce debate over whether Sharapova should even have been granted a wild card, and whether she should have been banned for longer, or even permanently.

Other respected figures in the sport, like 18-time Grand Slam champion Chris Evert, for example, feel that Sharapova should be given wild cards into regular events, but not Grand Slam tournaments and that she should qualify for those.

But the fact is that Sharapova has star power and tennis, like every sport, needs every star it can get. The crowds in New York have welcomed her back with open arms and the debate will only intensify, especially if she actually goes on to win the title. Interesting times for tennis...