Hey everyone.
• We’ll start with Ukraine in a second. A few of you asked about contributions. A tennis source in Kyiv sends this link.
• Tennis fanatic—and wonderful human being—Dick Vitale is going through a rough patch. We collaborated on this piece last recently and his benefit is next week.
• Speaking of good people (and Floridians) in less than good times, Chris Evert has this update.
• A few of you noted this scathing takedown of Tennis Australia. I don’t agree with everything. But it’s worth a read.
First Thoughts
Lots of questions and comments about the Ukraine crisis and its impact on tennis. This story is changing by the hour. I will link this from Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and this from Elina Svitolina. But surely the news has cycled by the time you’re reading this. Some top line thoughts …
• I have very mixed feelings about the idea—one that seems to be gaining traction, at least informally and on group texts—of blanket-banning all Russian payers. On some level, it’s absurd. We would be punishing Daniil Medvedev or Daria Kasatkina for the bad acts of their (nondemocratic) government. (We have our issues with China, but no one suggests banning Chinese players. Why? Because we don’t conflate individuals with an authoritarian regime.) This is not the same as banning Russian films at Cannes or Russia from Eurovision or the Russian team at ice skating events. This is new territory for tennis. This probably doesn’t pass legal muster and strikes me as unduly harsh. At the same time … this is an extraordinary situation, an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. Maybe this is a way to get the attention of a monstrous strongman—a way to exert pressure and pain and humiliation. Here’s how a former player put it to me Monday: “Clearly not their fault. But [Putin] gets full credit for every Russian sports success (a lot of it based on drugs and blatant cheating, to boot). And it helps build the narrative that keeps him in power. In the meantime he carpet-bombs innocent civilians. There is no ambiguity here. Ban them all. Some things are much bigger than sports.” Me? Remove events from Russia. Ban Russian teams (i.e., Davis Cup) from competition. Make athletes compete without a flag. I’m all for it. But we should be able to find a better solution than banning individual athletes.
• Sergiy Stakhovsky and I agree on some matters and disagree about others. But I’ve always enjoyed speaking with him over the years. A few years ago, he wrote this piece on Ukraine for Sports Illustrated. Last week, we were in touch. And then we weren’t. And then this flitted across my social media feed. Whether it’s him, or the Klitschko brothers or common citizens. Imagine living your life one day, and the next picking up a rifle to defend your country.
• Spare a thought for Daniil Medvedev. He becomes the first man outside the Big Four to take over the No. 1 ranking. What else happens that week? He loses to Nadal for the second time in a month. That’s a bummer. And then, rather than celebrating his achievement, most of the discussion centers around the aggression his home country and the proposal that Russian players pay for their government’s brutal attack on a sovereign country.
• Why isn’t Player X more critical of loathsome Lukashenko? Why isn’t Player Y unequivocally repudiating Putin? Here’s a reason: They have family in those countries and are afraid of retaliation. Belarus and Russia are not democracies. These are not countries where the rule of law prevails. Absent the full context, I’d submit we go easy on athletes whom we might think could be more forceful in their condemnation. We don’t know their personal situations. We should leave open the possibility they need to be very careful about angering the wrong autocrat.
• You know who got off easy this week? Sasha Zverev. In a conventional week, we are still discussing his indefensible, violent tantrum, and the drumbeat calling for a lengthy suspension grows louder. This week? It’s not only merely a footnote; it’s that outrage over an athlete acting like an entitled, violent jerk almost seems like a luxury.
Mailbag
Hi Jon, I just watched Zverev’s outburst at the Mexican Open. Plenty of stars have thrown racquet tantrums, but what he did is about as close as you can get to hurting someone with your racquet without actually hitting them. It’s pretty clear he was trying to intimidate the chair umpire and scare him. He succeeded as the umpire quickly exited the chair as soon as he had a chance to. Zverev was rightfully ejected from the tournament, but I think the ATP needs to go further and suspend him. Maybe I’m generalizing too much, but after reading about the allegations of abuse from his ex-girlfriend and now seeing this, it’s very clear he has a serious anger issue that needs to be addressed before he’s allowed to continue playing. What do you think?
—Kobi
• O.K., we’ll take one Zverev question. Me? I’m out on him. The domestic violence allegations against him are brutal, as we’ve written before. They come from a named source. They are specific. There are lengthy. They are bolstered by contemporaneous witnesses, images and a consistent timeline. That doesn’t mean there’s guilt. But it also doesn’t mean you can just throw up your hands and say, “Why didn’t she go to the cops?” Or “It’s he-said-she-said.”
Under investigation for an act of violence, sponsors running for the hills, your camp in crisis management mode … it’s indicative of much more than a momentary lapse in judgment to then do what he did last week. He needs help. He needs to be somewhere other than the tennis community for a while.
Why is he still playing? A lot of you asked this. One reason: The ATP Tour is not the NBA or NFL or Premier League. It’s a partnership half-owned and half-governed by players. “Why don’t they suspend Zverev?” Because half of “they” is composed of players.
Jon, I saw that Pickleball, the PTPA and the USTA CEO position were on your agenda list, I have to know: what were the other topics?
—Patrick, L.A.
• Hah! This is a fun group that meets in NYC to talk tennis a few times a year. An executive, a former top player, a coach. I can’t give away too much but—and I don’t make the topics—I believe the top three others were:
1. “Djokovic.”
2. “Baby Z. conduct.” (obviously Zverev)
3. “U.S. men, who’s the next one?”
I realize Connors isn't really in the GOAT discussion, but it’s still pretty amazing that Nadal trails Connors by 18 fewer titles in his career and 231 fewer match wins. (That’s more match wins than Tsitsipas’ entire career so far!)
—Paul R.
• Fair point. Devil’s advocacy: This was a different time, when the sport was less brutal physically and the events were bunched together. I pulled this at random but check out Connors’s 1979 in which he went 79-12—and is credited with winning $45,000. Going from Memphis to New Orleans to Tulsa to Vegas to Dallas … that’s a lot different than going from Melbourne to Rotterdam to Dubai to Acapulco. It stands to reason players entered more events, and therefore won more events.
Last week you suggested that if Juan Martín del Potro had won two or three more Slams he would be Hall of Fame worthy. Every year there are debates about who is "worthy" of enshrinement, but based on precedent, isn't it likely that he will make it to Newport?
Let’s compare his career record to that of recent inductee Michael Stich. Both were one-slam wonders who made infrequent visits to the semis and finals at other times. But I’d say Delpo’s career was superior in other ways. Despite the injuries, he finished the year in the top ten more times than Stich, won two Olympic medals in singles, and had several wins against the big three at major tournaments and the Olympics. Plus, he was beloved on tour, so his election would be very popular with his former rivals. Worthy or not, the “Tower of Tandil” is probably in, right?
—D. Rabbitt, Morrisville, N.C.
• I’m not sure where I said it. To be clear, DelPo is a no-brainer. We’re talking Stephen Hawking applying to the University of Phoenix. First, the facts: a Major, another final, Indian Wells, Olympic medals, Davis Cup success, all-surface success. Given the current standards: not even a debate. Quite apart from that: The least Tennis Karma can do is book this man a Newport date.
Given the international nature of the ATP and WTA tours, this was undoubtedly a difficult week with Putin starting a hot war in Europe. As a momentary distraction from following the updating feed on The Guardian’s website, I watched Rafa win yet another final in Acapulco. This adds to one of the great, under-appreciated statistics about Rafa over the last five years or so. He has now won his last 11 finals in a row, as well as 16 of his last 17, and 22 of his last 24! Performance in finals seems like a good metric to capture “meeting the moment” or some nebulous notion of “clutch performance”. I think this is one of the most concrete examples of just how tough a competitor Rafa is....we have to assume that his opponent in each of those finals was playing quite well to reach that point in the tournament, so for him to consistently get the job done is nothing short of amazing to me. Does this record reveal anything else about Rafa to you?
—Paul, Chicago
• Yes, absolutely. I would like to see tennis results weighted for the quality of opponent. Beating Max Cressy in the final of the Melbourne tuneup is one thing; beating Medvedev in the Australian Open final is another. But yes, his record in finals is indicative of this ineffable I-will-not-leave-the-court-without-winning quality.
Should the ATP Tour have a tennis tournament like the PGA Tour’s Waste Management Open, where they let the crowd have a big loud party? Wouldn’t that be hugely popular with younger tennis fans?
—Matt from Orange, Calif.
• Should the PGA have an event like Acapulco? Even if I have to pay my own way, I vow to go there in 2023. Between this spirited event and the Guadalajara event, I’m thinking Mexico needs to continue this tennis energy.
I know you are watching Ukraine right now as I am. Just wanted to say that it’s extraordinary really that the ATP is doing business as usual in China.
—Russell
• Duly noted.
John P. of San Francisco: Take us out:
Since you seem to be contractually obligated to discuss the GOAT question in your mailbag each and every week, please allow me to provide some grist for the mill, which you can use next week. These points for Federer do not necessarily sway the argument in his favor, but nevertheless I believe they should be brought up MUCH more often than they are:
1. Although there are 4 major tournaments each year, I don't think there's much question or dispute as to which one is the most important and prestigious. As with golf (The Masters) all tennis Majors are not created equal: Wimbledon towers over the rest. Federer has won it 8 times; and was a finalist 4 other times (losing 2 of them when the margin of victory/defeat was agonizingly infinitesimal). That is far and away the best of all time; making him the Grandest Champion of the Grandest tournament (Sampras is #2, Djokovic is currently #3). Much like Tom Brady is considered the best mostly because of his Super Bowl bona fides, which overshadow any QB records that others may hold, it seems to me that Federer's Wimbledon record is the ultimate achievement in tennis. Although it's a bummer that 3 of his losses were to Djokovic, he still owns 2 more titles and therefore stands above Djokovic on the mystical podium. (Similarly, no one would ever argue that Eli Manning is greater than Brady, even though Brady lost to him in two Super Bowls.) Since everyone is so fixated on the total number of Grand Slams won, I think it's reasonable to also fixate on who won the most important tournament the most times.
2. Federer won Wimbledon 5 straight times: 2003-2007 (and was a finalist for a 6th). Federer won the US Open 5 straight times: 2004-2008 (and was a finalist for a 6th). I don't believe those require additional comment, but I'll add one anyway: These metrics show that he did the Wimbledon/US Open Double 4 STRAIGHT YEARS: 2004-2007. Good Gawd! Even as I type these words, I find them hard to fathom.
Honorable mention: Federer is the only one of the Big 3 that played Pete Sampras in Center Court and won. I repeat: He beat PETE SAMPRAS at Wimbledon, preventing him from winning #8 and thus protecting a record he would set years later. As a bonus, he won the match with that epic service return winner off of the best server ever on his home court; ask your colleague Steve Flink how he feels about THAT....
