• Here’s the 50 Thoughts Wimbledon recap column.
• Here’s the latest podcast episode of Served with Andy Roddick.
• Non-tennis: here’s a pre-Olympic story on Edwin Moses, the world’s most interesting man.
Wrapping up Wimbledon and spinning forward …
Jon, what impressed you the most about Carlos Alcaraz at Wimbledon?
Barbara Adams
• I like a question with a lot of options (and virtually no wrong answers). There is so much to like here, both about the way he handles his tennis and the way he handles his business.
I am still—and I write this 48 hours after the final—gobsmacked by his powers of reset. Imagine this: you are serving for the Wimbledon title against Novak Djokovic, playing supernatural tennis. You have three—successive!—match points. On grass. You squander them. Did we mention Djokovic is the opponent? Whose ability to recover from match points down in a Wimbledon final is already documented.
For so many players this would mean the portals of catastrophe opening. The negative thoughts would begin Operation Brain Invasion. Alcaraz’s reaction? His self-conversation? Keep smiling and effectively say, You silly goose, Carlos. You blew that! Now you have to work an extra few minutes to win a tiebreaker. Which he did.
Wondering why Djokovic received 1300 ranking points for Wimbledon instead of the standard 1200 for the runner-up?
@tcudavid
• Good catch. Do you know who else is wondering about that? Wimbledon. The ATP tinkered with the ranking knobs at Wimbledon, changing the points allocation. (Daniil Medvedev gained 800 points for getting to the semifinals this year; last year he reached the same round and got 720.) I am told the communication was not great here and Wimbledon was not thrilled to learn this post facto in some cases. Wait, you’re using our event to assign points for your rankings, and you have changed the distribution. Is this something you were going to tell us?
Jon, please explain why Daniil Medvedev was allowed to continue playing his semifinal match after cursing out the chair umpire?
Peter
• Well … reputations matter. And, as author Sam Sommers tells us, Situations Matter. If Medvedev isn’t a force of good—and if he acts up not in the Wimbledon semifinal, but on a Wednesday in Cincinnati—does he get defaulted for his semifinal outburst at the chair umpire? Yes and yes.
Roddick and I talked about this on the Served podcast. A courtside source—someone with no reason to lie, and only a casual tennis fan—is convinced he heard Medvedev utter the “F word.” Medvedev contended that he said something incendiary in Russian, but that it was less severe than the small cat line of 2022.
The kneejerk commentary was he was lucky this was a big match, and that he didn’t get bounced. The cynical commentary was that tennis needs to apply its rules uniformly. My take: Medvedev’s reputation—his winning personality, many good deeds and accountability when he does make mistakes—went a long way here.
Where does Djokovic go from here?
Mary Hamm
• The short answer is: home. Then he’ll go to Paris to compete for a gold medal, perhaps the lone missing emblem on his escutcheon. (Note the tortured attempt to avoid the resume cliché, as if top-tier athletes are sitting there nervously, armed with a leather binder, prepared to hand prospective employers their C.V.)
The easy take is that Djokovic’s mortal tennis coil is unfurling. At two majors this year, he has lost—resoundingly—to the sport’s two young stars. At the other, he stopped midway through with a knee injury. I am not prepared to declare his haul of major titles complete. A) Djokovic is extraordinary and B) the structure of tennis—to wit: his soft Wimbledon draw—allows for twists. Assuming his knee improves and he catches a few breaks, how is he not considered a contender at the U.S. Open and in Australia, provided he wants to be?
Something gotta be said about Novak defending Pavvy G, that toxic pugnacious conspiracy theorist ... having insane nasty fans is no knock on a player until that player heralds, follows and says he loves them ...
@rafasboyfriend
• Wow, did I walk into a mess here.
Backstory: if people want to argue and debate and use data, evidence and logic to challenge a point, that’s great. That’s a mark of a community. That’s how we reaffirm—or alter—our views. But years ago, I noticed that this account—I wrongly assumed it was a fervent Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova stan, silly me—was simply vile and wildly disproportionate in outrage, contributing nothing to the discourse other than bile. I didn’t (and don’t) have the time or bandwidth for this kind of negative energy, so I used the block button.
Apparently, over the years, I have missed quite a show. After I made passing reference to this account the other day, I had fans, broadcasters, players and agents—current and retired; Hall of Famers and mortal; men and women—filling me in on its notoriety. Conspiracy theories. Personal attacks. Invective after invective … a depth of nastiness, low even by social media standards, such that the word “troll” doesn’t quite capture it.
I am inclined to give Djokovic a pass here. I can’t imagine he reads everything on social media. I can’t imagine that the same player who (quite rightly) takes issue with disrespectful fans would, wittingly, be amplifying someone with this level of incivility and toxicity. I have to believe he doesn’t know how many of his colleagues this “fan” has insulted and offended. This account would seem to be everything Djokovic stands against and would want to disavow.
I suspect if he knew, he would use the block feature, as so many others within the tennis community already have. Is this guy—I have since learned it’s a man behind the account—entitled to freedom of speech? Yes. Freedom of consequence? No.
Please share your perspective on the number of Wimbledon ticket holders not in their seats for the beginning games of the Djokovic semifinal? Do you regard this as “disrespectful” or not?
@ADAMEWEINBERG
• This came between the men’s semifinal matches. My response was that—although it beats the money grab that is two separate sessions—this is an issue confronting back-to-back big matches. The first match is played. It is long. Fans, understandably, need a break. They step outside to stretch their legs, seek liquid sustenance and/or use the facilities.
Television, however, wants live action. So the next match goes off 15 minutes or so later. And when it does, the players walk into a venue partially filled, and with less atmosphere than a Walmart warehouse. Eventually, though, the fans returned. And the match—like, Djokovic, the winner—closed strong.
What was your best match of the tournament?
MasterMike
•I’d say the best sheer performance was Alcaraz in the men’s final. The best match was the Jasmine Paolini-Donna Vekić women’s semifinal. Even in the final winner-take-all tiebreak, you had no clue who would prevail. You didn’t ask but the shot of the tournament (Month? Year? Tennis eternity?) was this beauty from Lorenzo Musetti.
How many items did you come up with that didn’t make your 50 list? If so, give us some examples.
Charlie Tuker
• Fifty is a round number and the goal is to mix serious with trivial. But, sure, there are stories and items everywhere. Off the top of my head … I heard a compelling anecdote about Erin Routliffe, the New Zealander doubles player. A year ago, she lost in the first round, was essentially partnerless and cried in defeat wondering whether/where/how to continue. Here, she came within a few points of winning the doubles title, and leaves ranked No.1 in the world.
How about a nod to the wild pre-tournament tweet that the player who drew Veronika Kudermetova would win the title? That player was … Barbora Krejčíková.
Speaking of credit-where-due predictions, hat tip to Patrick McEnroe. Despite Djokovic’s three major titles in 2023, McEnroe picked him to win zero majors in ’24. (And by inference, no more for the rest of his career.) That’s a bold pick and invites potential repercussions from Djokovic’s, ahem, passionate fan base. And it’s three-fourths of the way to coming to fruition.
I agree [Krejčíková] is a shoo-in [for the Hall of Fame], but Jon, why isn’t Ana Ivanović in yet? A slam, two other slam finals, No. 1 in the world, a return to the top 10 after her loss of form and well-liked. I would have thought she’d be in by now.
@magicmikewrites
• Ivanovic has one major and ascended to No.1. Fifteen titles are on the light side. She totally maxes out on good-people points. No real doubles success, though, and a lot of bad losses in majors. I’d say her Hall of Fame case is borderline. It wouldn’t be an outrage if she got in, and not a miscarriage of justice if she continued to be denied.
Jon, have you changed your mind on coaching during matches? I remember you were very opposed several years ago. Have you come around?
Steve T.
• I still don’t like it. I would still rather have the players problem-solve. Some of it is foundational to tennis. Some of it is simply the optics. When Coco Gauff—such a bright and resourceful player—pleads with her (older male) coaches for counsel and complains they are not giving her anything … well, no one looks good here.
That said, coaching is here. And it is not the game-changer many of us predicted. Does, say, Alcaraz, benefit from being told where to serve or how to change his return positioning? Sure. Does it win him matches? No.
I’m so enjoying these players who obviously love playing tennis! Ash Barty was the same, and Lorenzo Musetti is a delight to watch too! So free with his incredible shots in the semi today.
@amandahlondon
• This was in reference to an observation about Paolini and Alcaraz wearing perma-smiles on the court. Apart from the good vibes conveyed and the likability-with-the-public factor, (Hey, I’m having a good time. I’m lucky to be doing this for a living. I hope you are reveling in the experience because I sure am!) this is so effective in terms of competition.
You are giving no satisfaction to the opposition. I don’t want to pick on Vekić, but when you are crying late in a Wimbledon semifinal—after you saved a match point, you’re doing great, this match is there to be won—you are conferring on your opponent a huge advantage. This isn’t merely a tell. It’s a full-on announcement.
Trivia! Who is the last non-Big Three to win consecutive majors in men’s singles?
@ranbdogamer02
• Hmm. Andre Agassi, if I’m reading this right. The 1999 U.S. Open and 2000 Australian Open, no? Here’s my trivia question: Who was the last WTA player to win back-to-back?
I love this trivia question from a Canadian friend: Who are the players to beat Djokovic in a major final multiple times? (Hint: not whom you might think.)
Is Jasmine Paolini the MVP for the WTA for 2024? Did I just really ask that question?
Donna K
• You did really ask it—that I can say with certainty. As for MVP, we are only in July but you must win a major to be in consideration. But Paolini has, without question, been the WTA revelation of 2024. And brava to her.
Jon, thanks for the link to Taylor Townsend's awesome self-interview. But I still can't get over that ESPN cut away from the trophy presentation/post-match interviews after an American player won a Wimbledon doubles championship. If Tennis Channel has rebroadcast it I'd love to know about it.
Thanks.
• First off, you can catch Townsend on Tennis Channel throughout the year. Second, watch her videos and you will not be disappointed.
Shots:
• Congrats to the Wimbledon Survivor pool winners.
• Roger T. Jones of Waterbury Center, VT take us out:
Very much to my chagrin, I have been forced by a recent heart bypass operation to acknowledge I am quasi-officially an old guy. Cassandra-like that gives me the right to inveigh against all forms of stupidity and, Cassandra-like, to be ignored by the rest of the world.
In vain, I have hoped that young men would realize just how ridiculous they look when they wear their baseball hats backward; the style seems to have persisted already through several generational changes. I was dismayed to watch a recent Wimbledon match in which not just one, but both players insisted on looking moronic by turning their caps backwards.
Wimbledon, a bastion of tradition, needs a rule to stop this, but I realize that one more addition to the dress code may seem fascistic and unduly authoritarian, so I've come up with what I think is a good workaround. To wit, you may wear your baseball cap however you want to, but whether serving or returning you will be obliged to begin every point with the bill of your cap facing the net.
Please pass this along to the powers that be with whom you communicate regularly.
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: The Top Storylines From 2024 Wimbledon.
