Traveling this week, so a quick column …
Hi Jon,
I know that there were a lot of questions and concerns about the WTA finals in Cancun. Honestly, given all the other things happening in the world, the issues seem small. But do you have any insight into how the top two players in the world met anticlimactically in the semifinals rather than the finals? Could you pass on to the tournament organizers that I am available for next year’s draw party…except that it will be in Saudi Arabia, in which case I won’t be even watching the tournament in protest.
PN
• I don’t want to pile on here. And let’s pause before going further to toast Iga Świątek who—against her best colleagues—didn’t drop a set, didn’t get beset by the conditions and made a hell of a statement. But to the reader’s point, it wasn’t a banner week for the WTA. And it should have been, as this is the tour’s flagship, year-end event. And also its greatest course of revenue.
Five quick thoughts:
1. The WTA has a lot to answer for in terms of scheduling and, for the third straight year post-pandemic, waiting too long to announce a site. This makes marketing and publicity hard. This means negotiating from a position of weakness. This means scheduling conflicts.
2. The WTA, on the other hand, had two other offers—in fact, more than that—that were rejected by various constituents. The Saudi bid was, I’m told, “on the goal line” before internal dissent forced the WTA (corporate locution coming) “to hit the pause button.” There was also a bid from a Czech promoter, but players were concerned the Czech government might not allow players from Russia and Belarus into the country. (Irony: Aryna Sabalenka, the affected singles player, was the most vocal critic of the backup site of Cancun … which was set up to accommodate her.)
3. There are more factions than ever here. The WTA, the board, the players council, the CVC crowd, the PTPA bloc, the Tennis Ventures working group busy mapping out the “aggregation” (you cannot say “merger” or “acquisition” of the WTA and ATP). No matter the decision, there was going to be dissent.
4. In the words of Rob and Fab, blame it on the rain. Better weather (or an indoor site) and a lot of these issues go away.
5. The big question: Now what? I was told the WTA was going to announce that Saudi Arabia would host the event for 2024 to ’26. But the events in the Middle East (and of course, mood in Cancun?) forced a course correction.
Geoff Burke/USA TODAY Sports
Dimitrov has played well this fall and was impressive in Paris but came up short. In some ways, this encapsulates his career—always an easy on-the-eyes game but not quite able to close and win the big titles. Is his shortfall more because of his career timing with the Big Three, just as the loss in Paris was to Djokovic? Or does his game fundamentally lack something physically or mentally? At his career’s end, will Dimitrov best be called the greatest tennis player from Bulgaria?
Cheers, Ken Wells, Newport, RI
• We’ll have plenty of time to praise Novak Djokovic—trust me, it’s coming—and his relentless winning. This was his first event since the U.S. Open … and he had a stomach illness … and he faced a sometimes-hostile crowd (see below) and he played a series of dangerous opponents … and he took still another title.
But let’s spend a moment with Grigor. I don’t disagree that his performance in Paris—he dazzled; he endeared; he ultimately fell short—mirrors his career writ large. But it also gives us a chance to reflect in a more clearheaded way on a fine career. The greatest player from Bulgaria? Sure. But hardly the height of his accolades. Here is a guy who will spend a full 15 years at the sport’s concierge level. He’s won titles, including one biggie. He’s reached the semis of majors. He’s displayed elaborate talent and an easy-on-the-eyes game. He’s described, inevitably, as either a “good guy” or a “great guy.” Literally, find me one person who’s ever spoken less than glowingly about him. (O.K., apart from that reference. Name two.)
Will he be a Hall of Famer? No. Has he struggled against players ranked ahead of him? Yes. Has he sometimes struggled to close matches after holding leads? Yes. Has he sometimes followed up a smashing performance with a hollow one? Sure.
But on balance, triumph defeats disappointment here. The guy was conferred an unfortunate nickname—mostly on the basis of a one-handed backhand and a Wilson racket—that came with unmeetable expectations. Take that early hype out of the equation, and his career would get perceived much differently.
Do you think the ATP will do anything about Zverev this time? Do you think he should be playing? The evidence is pretty damning.
Anon
• We can talk about this more next week. But the simple answer is: no and no. In the absence of a formal, negotiated domestic/partner violence policy, the ATP has essentially said, “We’ll let the legal system guide us.” Well, the legal system has now weighed in with disposition. (Bear in mind: This is a different case —and different alleged survivor—from the one the ATP “inconclusively” investigated.)
Alexander Zverev has been faced abuse allegations twice by two women, one of whom is the mother of his child. You have a court weighing in and imposing a fine. (Leaving aside the question: What is the policy behind the German criminal justice system deciding that an act is sufficiently grave enough to warrant a $500,000 fine, but no other apparent punishment?) While Zverev is entitled, of course, to appeal, how do you justify his continuing to play? No one looks good here.
The French crowds booed Medvedev. Booed Djokovic. They booed Fritz and others so enthusiastically at Roland Garros that it rose to the level of a storyline. Is this still an endearing cultural quirk or is it going too far?
@meganfernandez7
• Rhapsody in boo, we called it at the French Open. And it persisted last week.
A few theories here. The received wisdom—and it’s been the received wisdom since I’ve started covering tennis—is that “the French like to be part of the show.” Roland Garros is, after all, the event where fans stormed the court, Tuscaloosa-style, after Yannick Noah won; where players receive mocking whistles and boots for the most innocuous gestures; where Martina Hingis was jeered so severely she left the court in tears; where play is routinely halted until fans tire of the sports bane that is The Wave.
And the booing isn’t specific to a venue. Booing was a theme in Bercy last week. What’s going on? I wonder whether this isn’t a gesture that has slightly different meanings in different cultures. Booing is booing. But there is more of a playful edge in France, more sarcastic than angry or outraged. I wonder whether there isn’t some misplaced jealousy here, and the state of French tennis doesn’t provide some license. (“We don’t have a player in the top 20, so we can offload some of our frustration and try to take everyone else down a peg.”)
Jon, I just came across this story in the Washington Post about the WNBA and media coverage. I wonder about the state of media relations in the WTA. Are there similar challenges?
Louie
• Interesting question. I would start by saying that there is a world of difference between team/league sports and individual sports. Individual sports, by definition, have more self-determination and less structure/infrastructure. In full disclosure: Sadly, I attend fewer tennis events than I used to—which seems par for the course in media—and often when I am there, it’s for television, which is different from being in the press room. But a few overarching thoughts from the cheap seats:
1. Overall, the players on both tours are great. Some are more outspoken than others. Some are more comfortable than others. Some, of course, are speaking in their native tongue while others are not. But overall—from the top of the pyramid to the middle; older and younger; all over the world—I sense an overall mutual respect, even an overall warmth, between the players and the media, the interrogators and the interrogatees.
2. Press conferences are a suboptimal format, but we have yet to figure out a better alternative. Bringing in a player to assess a win or a defeat tends to yield the same cautious questions and stock answers. (I was happy to get the win. … I needed to trust my game. … I tried to stay aggressive. … I lost my focus a bit. … I’m disappointed and not thinking ahead right now.) Personally, so often you want to ask a player a personal or multipart or sensitive question; and a large group session—with transcripts sent worldwide—is antithetical to that.
On the other hand, these postmatch sessions serve a purpose. In the long run, access benefits everyone (not least the tournaments that are putting up the money to stage the event). And short of opening locker rooms—obviously problematic as well—I’m not sure there’s a better solution.
3. The WTA (and ATP) media relations folks are often in a tight spot, caught between and among players, agents, managers and media members. Overall, no complaints there either. Not every request for access is honored. Not every interview granted results in a glowing story. But it’s all a balance and, overall, there is a level of professionalism and respect.
4. Here comes my gripe: Reilly Opelka—nice to see him back, by the way—has never been asked what it feels like to win Wimbledon. Why? Because the media differentiates among players and are aware that, for all his gifts, he has never been a Wimbledon champion. It would be nice if some reciprocal effort were made. “The media” is not a monolith. It contains multitudes. Like any workforce, some members are better and savvier and more honorable than others. A dumb question should reflect on the person who asked it, not on the entire room. The provocateur from the gossip rag or site should not be conflated with the majority of hard-working, conscientious journalists in the press room. Everyone benefits when people are viewed as individuals, not a bloc.
This new snowflake generation is pathetic.
@fabtac2012
• For context: This was sent after Djokovic beat Andrey Rublev in the semis of Paris, a day after beating Holger Rune in the Paris quarters. Two minds here: Djokovic is the outlier here. Not the rest of the field. They are normal; he is the statistical freak. If “not beating Djokovic” is grounds for condemnation, the entire sport of tennis over the last 15 years is in trouble.
And yet—and I’ve quietly heard this from coaches, and from agents, and from former champions—there is a sense of collective disappointment in the field. Not so much the results as the overall attitude. You wish more players projected less a sense of hero worship (save that for when the guy retires) and more a sense of “I’m willing to go to some dark and deep places, but I am not losing this damn match.”
Occasionally we get glimpses. Alcaraz in the Wimbledon final is an obvious example. But too often—you see it in body language; in remarks; in shanks at 4–4 in final set—the opposition projects, “I’ll try my best against an amazing opponent, and we’ll see what happens,” and not “I don’t care what it takes, I am staring this guy down and he’s gonna blink.”
Hi Jon,
Better chance at winning a Golden Grand Slam next year: Iga, Coco, Djokovic, or Alcaraz? Or is there a wildcard answer?
Stanley Martin, Jr.
• By golden grand slam, we are talking about all four majors plus an Olympic gold. Which reminds us: Steffi Graf—who did this in 1988—was extraordinary, and her legacy, unfortunately, suffers for postretirement absence. Discuss: If she were coaching or broadcasting or otherwise present, would we not think of her playing career differently? The 2024 Olympics are less than a year away, and, for the second time in four cycles, they will be held at a major venue (Roland Garros).
As for your question, it’s a little like asking about the Powerball winner. A golden slam is a preposterously difficult achievement, the blackest of black diamonds. I suppose if you are going to handicap the race, you should go with the guy who has won 24 majors and come within one match of winning the Grand Slam twice in the last three years—though Djokovic has never won Olympic gold and, as he himself admits, sometimes he can want something too much.
I pause here because it sounds like we are knocking extraordinary players. But I worry that Alcaraz has a “stay healthy the entire season” problem. Iga has a grass problem. Coco Gauff has an Iga problem.
Shots
Tennis Channel is promoting longtime marketing executive Neil Roberts to the position of vice president of marketing and brand partnerships. Based in the network’s Los Angeles–area headquarters, he will continue to report to Bill Simon, executive vice president, COO and CFO.
Have a good week, everyone.
