Hey Everyone …
Monday we broke off all the discussion about the Jannik Sinner decision. So note today’s column is Sinner-free.
• All manner of Served podcast this week … First, a Quick Served off the Elena Rybakina news. Then an emergency Quick Served off the Sinner news … Then a discussion with tennis integrity CEO Karen Moorhouse.
• Before we start, let’s acknowledge Amanda Anisimova, who won the biggest title of her career on Saturday in Qatar. She sources the win to “a lot of sweat and tears.” Any other news cycle and this is the biggest story in the sport. (One of you noted that the two WTA biggest titles in 2025 have been won by Americans. And Coco Gauff, Emma Navarro, Jess Pegula—the three who started the year in the top 10—were not among them.)
What a moment for @AnisimovaAmanda 😆#QatarTotalEnergiesOpen pic.twitter.com/qzI418demp
— wta (@WTA) February 15, 2025
• Periodically, I have been asked about Doug Adler, the broadcaster who used the term "Guerilla Tennis” during his commentary at the 2017 Australian Open. His use of the term was, erroneously, interpreted as a racial slur; and it cost him his career. Adler’s name came up recently in the context of softened views about “cancel culture.” I reached out to Adler for comment/update and here is the former ESPN tennis analyst's response:
Doug Adler: It’s amazing to see how fast time goes by, but no matter what happens to us, life continues. Eight years ago, after having worked as a tennis commentator, analyst and on-court interviewer at the world’s most prestigious tournaments for 15 years, my career collapsed. It happened in just 13 seconds over two words that sound the same, but mean entirely different things. And just like that … Poof, gone! I was one of the early casualties of cancel culture.
These many years later, I really don’t want to rehash what never should’ve happened. Still, don’t kid yourself: There are moments when I feel pain and anger overwhelming me. What happened was ugly, horrible and bogus in so many ways. I’m certain my feelings about that time will never entirely vanish. But the events of January 2017 hardly define me. These days, I stay away from politics, avoid social media, enjoy quality time with friends and family, exercise regularly and have nothing to do with people looking to ruin the lives of virtuous men and women.
I’m grateful my life is flourishing again. I no longer work in the business, but I’ve been able to overcome the shock of being let go by ESPN, the loneliness of being blackballed from jobs I’d held for years, the vastly inaccurate accusations about my character, having a heart attack only a month after the incident, quadruple bypass surgery, as well as managing my litigation against Disney/ESPN, which settled out of court.
A consistent ray of sunshine throughout all of this has been the New York Post columnist, Phil Mushnick. If you wish to learn more about what happened, Mr. Mushnick’s articles in the Post are the most accurate source—by light-years. Even though he didn’t know me at all and we never met, Mr. Mushnick has displayed an unsurpassed ethical code … at every stage. To this day, he continues pursuing my story. …
So yes, life threw me a wicked curveball and it took me down for a brief time. Difficult as that was, long before that, I’ve known there are things far more important to life—family, friends, authenticity. My father died when I was 17 years old and that gave me a strong and rare source of perspective. More recently, last year I lost my mother and best friend, Phyllis—only three months prior to her 100th birthday. I think about her every day. Mom wasn’t only a champion on the court—she was a winner in the game of life. Like me, she was a tennis player—and a darn good one, the winner of 58 USTA National titles, or as we like to call them, “Gold Balls”!! Considering that the first title came when she was in her 40s, that’s an amazing track record. Win or lose, mom did it with grace under pressure, class, and exceptional determination.
But most importantly, Phyllis Adler loved her son through thick and thin, good and bad. No matter what the situation or what some people were calling me, she knew who I was and could always see the bright side. As she used to say, “Be what you want, be who you are, but always be kind.”
And that’s what I want to leave everyone with who reads this piece: a message of kindness and grace. I pray that what happened to me never happens to anyone else. As I’ve learned from a lifetime in tennis as a frequent net-rusher, it’s always best to keep moving forward!"
Hi Jon,
I’m not sure I agree with you about lets on the serve … something deep inside of me seems to yearn for the point to start cleanly. Ha ha … but I’ll bet we agree on this one.
If you throw it up, you hit it. The server is in complete command of the ball when serving, the one and only time, obviously. He or she gets to choose exactly where the ball is, and when, before hitting it. It just seems silly that you should get a do over if you don’t like your toss. A bad toss is just an unforced error, and you don’t get a do over on an unforced error at any other time, nor should you here. Own your toss, I say!
Gavin, NYC
• We agree! There is something counterintuitive about an athlete beginning their motion and, unilaterally, deciding to stop and start over. In baseball, this would be a balk. In football, it’s a false start. Boxers that begin to uncork a punch only to retreat, do so at their peril. The ball goes up, it’s in play. I would heartily endorse a rule against toss-catching. As the British anti-littering campaign puts it …
Back to eliminating lets … I would love to see data here. (Paging tennis treasures Jeff Sackman, Craig O’Shaughnessy, our friends at Hawk-eye, etc.) Can someone tell us what is more statistically likely: a serve ticking the net and dribbling over for a cheap ace? Or a serve ticking the net, losing pace and becoming a sitter for the returner? That is, would eliminating the let advantage the server or returner on balance?
Hey Jon ...
If you remember, we have disagreed in the past over Denis Shapovalov being a Slam contender … let alone Slam winner. For nearly 4 years, I have been correct on my assessment of Denis.
However, after his solid win at the Dallas Open—being victorious over several fine Grand Slam finalists such as Taylor Fritz and Casper Ruud … and semifinalist Tommy Paul—I'm willing to give you another chance.
Do you still have Shapo-Love in his chances for a title at one of the Majors … Or do you think his window is closed despite another tour championship?
All the best,
Michael Funke, Dallas
• I think you are crediting me with Shapo-Love. I will happily cop to that. His run in Dallas was a reminder of his talent and the vast potential of his dynamic, shotmaking-o-rific game. It also served as a reminder that—for all his disappointments over the past few years—he is still only 25.
He would be the first to admit that these last few years haven’t been ideal. I think of him a bit like a one-hander Casper Rune. Splashy game. Big personality. Big maternal influence. Lots of coaching changes. But such a fundamentally talented player—and often such a strong competitor—that, while you wouldn’t want to mortgage your portfolio on his results, you would always want that stock in your index fund.
Big picture thought: Players can blinker on and off. They can rise and fall in the rankings. They can go—and do go —through streaks and slumps. But it’s really folly to write players off or make declarative statements. Madison Keys is only the latest example of this proposition: A major entails winning seven matches. That represents a miniscule band in a player’s career. (Imagine 500 coin tosses: Would you bet against seven straight heads or seven straight tails?) Yes, we are talking about competition and not random events. But it takes so relatively little for a player to completely rewrite their career.
Among the most undercovered stories of current (not just AO) commentary: Sinner has received twice as many ATP fan favorite awards as [Rafael] Nadal, [Novak] Djokovic and [Carlos] Alcaraz combined. This fact suggests many (possibly most) tennis fans do not regard either his play or his personality as bloodless.
As a reporter you might try to understand why so many fans find his play fascinating and his personality charming. It is possible to enjoy both Alcaraz and Sinner; it is not necessary to depreciate one to enhance the other.
Judy K.
• Context: I contrasted (value neutrally) Carlos Alcaraz’s expressiveness and vitality with Sinner’s clinical and subdued disposition. I used the word “bloodless,” which is no insult or deprecation. Bloodless represents poise, self-possession and unflappability. Despite the stakes, Jalen Hurts was bloodless in the pocket last Sunday. (Patrick Mahomes was not.) Pete Samras was bloodless in a way Andre Agassi was not. Chris Evert was bloodless in a way Martina Navratilova was not. Ivan Lendl was bloodless in a way John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors were not. Contrasts make fights.
How’s this for irony: In trying to placate our reader and reassure her that this is not a pejorative term, just a way to animate the Sinner/Alcaraz rivalry, I sparked up the Google machine for an example. This was the first hit I got.
Hi Jon, I understand your rationale on the Davis Cup collision. But to extend the logic, if a player swats a ball into a linesman and the linesman can still call the lines, can the player continue without defaulting? I mean, these players are Greek gods—the speed, the strength, the agility, the VISION to track little fuzzy balls whizzing around at give or take 100 mph, and yet one guy decks his opponent at a routine changeover? Deliberate? Surely not. Careless to the point of unsafe or casual disregard? Yep. As some players now fake injuries to catch a break or break an opponent's rhythm, will they in the future start steamrolling opponents at the changeover? "Oops, sorry, didn't see you there (but you had it coming)."
Martin B.
• Just to be clear: it’s not my rationale. I was just explaining why Carlos Ramos, the chair ump, ruled as he did.
Me? On balance, I probably would have defaulted the player. You can be negligent without intent and still face liability. Again, Novak Djokovic didn’t intend to hit the lineswoman in the throat. But, carelessly, he did—and he was defaulted. Shouldn’t an inadvertently yet carelessly injured opponent be afforded the same treatment?
But Ramos—again, credit his strict constructionist consistency—referenced the rules, which instruct the chair umpire to confer with the neutral doctor. In this case, the doctor determined the aggrieved player (Cristian Garin) was fit to continue. I don’t think this will result in a trend whereby losing players collide violently with opponents, hoping to exploit a loophole. But it did make for a strange scene earlier this month.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Let’s Not Overlook Amanda Anisimova or Denis Shapovalov’s Latest Victories.
