Let's get right into it...
Mailbag
Jon, how would you answer the question you posed on Twitter? What would happen to tennis if a group tried to start an ATP Tour the way the Saudi-backed group is trying to come up with an alternative to the PGA? Would the players go for it?
—Michael, D.C.
• First, here’s a primer on the golf contretemps, which, to me, are all kinds of fascinating. Long story short: a group fronted by Greg Norman and backed by a few players—most notably Phil Mickelson—proposed a rival league to the PGA Tour. For a variety of reasons, most players have opted out, but it’s an intriguing story and a reminder that no business is immune to competition.
I imagine a similar proposal in tennis breaking much the same way. As it stands there are provisions banning players from non-sanctioned events held during weeks ATP events are scheduled; so players would have to make a choice. We are all creatures of incentives and, if the money and conditions were right, a breakaway would be tantalizing to a good many players. Others, no doubt, would be loyal to the ATP. As in golf, the choice made by the stars would be critical.
Here’s a variation: what if an organization came along that employed all the players, male and female? This umbrella organization would enable the players to use labor laws from which they cannot currently avail themselves as independent contractors. As employees of this umbrella company, the players could form a proper union and bargain collectively for more money, for more media rights, more the rights to wear hats without a fine, etc.
Four other related points:
a) This is why the PTPA, which we support in theory, is problematic in practice. It’s clear that the ATP's governance model, now decades old, is flawed and, in many respects, undermines player power. But is the PTPA ready to fight the ATP (and the heavy hitters at Proskauer) when it argues that the whole entity is based on a flawed premise and the players have no rights to bargain collectively?
b) Note that Jeff Kessler, arguably the GOAT of player-side sports labor law, has worked for the tournaments, so he would be conflicted and unable to represent or advise players.
c) Andrea Gaudenzi has, to his credit, taken a firm (overdue) stance on conflicts. This could/should have a big impact on the composition of the Board of Directors. And we’ll see the fallout from that.
d) Given the WTA’s stance on China and authoritarianism and human rights, could women’s tennis ever align with anything “Saudi-backed” ? Discuss…
Yikes! Ostapenko beat Kenin in 52 minutes! What’s going on with Kenin?
—Helen, DC
• To Helen’s credit, we joked about this a few days after she sent this note. Not such a bad loss for Kenin in retrospect, as Ostapenko ran the table. And let’s acknowledge this happens quite a bit. You see a match flit across your app or ticker and think yeesh, bad loss. Then you realize that it was more attributable to the opponent playing well. And with each round she wins and each major champion she takes out, the loss looks better and better.
As for Kenin….let’s start by acknowledging that the opponent in question was Ostapenko, who—symmetry!—has spent that last half-decade trying to prove she is no one-Slam wonder. Since Kenin’s standout 2020, it’s been rough going. There’s a lot going on here, not least her on-again, off-again relationship with her father. She is also a COVID victim, both literally and metaphorically. She wins the 2020 Australian Open, has all this momentum and confidence, she’s ready to capitalize….and then lockdown hits.
Kenin is this match within a person. On one side of the net, there is a lot of personal drama and, potentially, instability. There is a game that suffers from a deficit of power. There is a tendency for her to be scathingly be hard on herself. One the other side of the net: here is a player capable of real persistence and fight who possesses—even if she is not always able to deploy—this instinct of “I don’t care what it takes; I am not losing today.”
I heard a commentator remark that this is “a make or break year for her.” I get the sentiment. But I’m not sure I agree. In tennis today—when careers can span 20 years—are there really urgent intervals like this? I would argue “no.” So would Ostapenko.
Loved your answers to [last week‘s Federer discussion]. But…
Point 3 doesn’t make any sense to me; no one who has ever run cross country would not prefer to be 100 yards ahead (as opposed to 100 yards behind) halfway through a race. Once Rafa and Djok emerged, Fed had the opportunity to raise his (prodigious) game as well. Fed had years to figure out how to respond to Rafa’s topspin forehand to his backhand and he couldn’t do it. The results 2010-16 show that his rivals continued to raise their games but he could not raise his (at least not enough to hold off their charge).
Point 4 is a joke. I realize here that you are citing what FedHeads might argue, and not your personal opinion. Sure, if you were comparing Fed to somebody who won more majors and was a moral reprobate, external considerations might come into play. But, versus Rafa….no. And, besides, greatest means…greatest. Jordan vs Lebron is a legit debate, but everyone knows what we are talking about, and it isn’t off-court stuff. Thanks as always for your writing.
—Mike Rosenberger
• Thanks. To refresh….Whether it’s seeing the first mover make mistakes and then adjusting accordingly (see: Napster to Spotify or Xerox to Microsoft) or knowing the “time to beat” or the “score to beat” in other sports, there is a huge advantage to going second or third or, better still, last. Nadal could—and largely did—fashion his game to counteract Federer and take down Federer. Federer did not build his game with Nadal in mind.
And I think most of us are very leery of including character or moral fiber component as a GOAT criteria. It’s wildly subjective. It’s not immediately relevant to titles and records. But I would argue that image impacts history and (awful word alert) legacy. If Ty Cobb weren’t so loathsome, would we not think more highly of him as a baseball player? For that matter, if Margaret Court weren’t a raging bigot. You don’t think that, for a lot of people, Kobe's sexual assault case disqualifies him from GOAT contention? I understand the Rolex play here. The numbers look increasingly bleak for Federer so you need another path forward. (If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law.) But, I agree, it’s not going to win many arguments here.
Hi Jon, after seeing the news of Juan Martin del Potro’s retirement, I was struck with the overwhelming feeling of “what if”. What if he hadn’t had that wrist issue that derailed his career and he played the spoiler to the Big 3 on more occasions, or perhaps become part of the big 4? He certainly had the fire power and skill, particularly on hard courts. Thinking through the “sliding door” scenarios you could see a handful of slams trophies on his shelf and a much different tally of slams for Roger, Rafa and Novak. Thoughts?
—Aaron Mayfield, Chicago
• Sure. Let’s play this counterfactual game. I think most of us agree that, were it not for his physical breakdown, he would have won more than one Major. The ceiling was just too high. That combination of Hammer-of-Thor forehand plus deceptively good movement and there would surely have been a few times he was simply unbeatable for seven straight matches.But I wouldn’t go overboard here. How many matches out of ten does he beat an ascending Djokovic on hard courts? Nadal on clay? Federer and then Djokovic on grass? Does DelPo win two or three more Majors? Sure, potentially. That puts him at Murray and Wawrinka level. Awesome. Hall of Fame worthy. But it doesn’t much disrupt the Big Three.
One of you asked for this. Here is a link to the Tennis Channel DelPo video essay.
Federer has said previously he hoped some tournaments would consider five set finals again at best of three set tournaments, much like those he and Nadal would win in 2005 (Miami, Rome, Basel, etc). That ATP era (similar to the 1990s - see clay events) provided more opportunities for finalists to square off under five set conditions before a slam, and set up more than a few favorites for championship runs at slams (favorites and past favorites with some muscle memory). Do you think this would be worth revisiting, in light of an era where our conversations are dominated by three players rather than broadening the sport beyond three guys that play their hearts out even as their playing days will hit the history books sooner than many would like? I feel as if the sport being above players has lost out to discussions of greatness, and we always fall off the cliff. Davis Cup five setters under tough conditions, other five set opportunities, are things of the past!
—Andrew Miller, Silver Spring, Maryland
• The dirty secret: top players like best-of-five—and should—for reasons of probability. More cushion. More chance for a regression to the mean. Greater sample size. A lesser player can hang with one of the Big Boys for an hour. Not for two hours. We see this often.
I said this a few weeks ago: my concern over best-of-five was always about the physical wear-and-tear placed on players. Not short attention spans. Or accommodating television. But the players don’t seem to mind the grind. So I defer to them. If the players want to lobby for more best-of-five matches—returning, as you note, to many TMS finals in the early 2000s—well, inshallah.
I'm a huge tennis fan and I've been following the Novak Djokovic anti-vax story. I consider myself a very open minded person and always want to examine all points of view before I make my choices. Now that Novak has announced that he feels so strongly about not being vaccinated that he is willing to forego majors because of the information he has regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. So here's my question Novak:
What are you basing your decision on? Who have you spoken to? What have you read? Show me the data. Please share with us what has brought you to this monumental decision. Think of the number of people you could impact with the platform you have. Anti-vaxxers and Vaxxers ALL need to know. For our own safety and the safety of our loved ones!
—With Joy, Twyla
• Valid points and good questions, all.
Truth serum: like so many of you, I am trying to find some balance w/r/t covering Djokovic. We are tired of discussing it. He’s made his choice. He’s either admirably committed to the bit, or he’s recalcitrant. Meanwhile, we’d rather be talking about Ostapenko or Felix or Charlie Alcaraz than immunology and CDC data.
The flip side: this is an extraordinary fact pattern. Here we have an athlete on the threshold of history. And he is diminishing his own chances—volitionally—because, amid a global pandemic, he won’t get vaccinated, as 99 of his other top 100 colleagues have done. Without (re)litigating this, and regardless of your level of support/opposition to Djokovic, can we all agree this is an historic story?
With all the noises related to the pandemic (heavens, Djokovic is providing multiple volumes!), it's so romantic to follow Tsonga against Simon in France!
—Ng in Vancouver
• Precisely the kind of story/result overshadowed by the drumbeat of Djokovic news.
Shots, Miscellany
• Katie Haas has been named CEO of the Western & Southern Open, one of only five premier events globally to host an ATP Masters 1000 and WTA 1000 tournament in the same week at the same venue. Haas is currently the only female to hold the Chief Executive role at such a professional tennis event.
• Two more Americans - Mackenzie McDonald and Tommy Paul - have been added to the field of the Fayez Sarofim & Co. U.S. Men’s Clay Court Championship, an ATP 250 tournament that will take place April 2-10 at River Oaks Country Club.
McDonald, a former NCAA champion, and Paul, a former junior Grand Slam tournament winner, join a half dozen other Americans in committing to play the only North American clay court tournament. Jenson Brooksby, Taylor Fritz, John Isner, Reilly Opelka, Sam Querrey and Frances Tiafoe have already been announced as tournament participants.
• Your periodic link to Javier Palenque in his mission to bring greater accountability to the USTA.
