First: much respect to Mark and Ken. This is the wildest recreational tennis story you will hear.
And before we get to the mailbag, here’s An Ode to Clay by reader Fernando:
What is Clay? It is tactic. It is point construction. It is defense. It is consistency. It is perseverance. It is stamina. It rewards the serve, but not disproportionately. It is rallies. It is creativity. It is athleticism. It is innovation. It is determination. It is perseverance. It is … The Surface of Truth.
Mailbag
When I first read that Wimbledon might try to require that Medvedev (and I assume all Russian/Belarusian players) denounce Putin and the Russian government in order to play the tournament, I thought I was reading an Onion headline. Now the Boston Marathon has barred Russian athletes from running. So, I guess this kind of lunacy is both real and spreading. I find myself incredulous, furious and profoundly sad. This is so not a good look for Western democracies. This policy does not help Ukraine or any Ukrainians and it certainly has no effect on Russia. It just adds to the misery of wholly innocent Russians. I certainly hope that Wimbledon officials do not actually implement any ban against Russian/Belarusian players.
—Lucy M.
• We should start by noting that Wimbledon has not yet adopted this policy. It’s simply been discussed. And we should note that the intent is understandable. This is a war where one side is clearly in the wrong morally. Right-thinking people want to support Ukraine and take a stand against Russian aggression. Putin is a vulgar, dangerous, brutal, delusional narcissist, etc.
But I agree with Lucy: this policy fails for all sorts of reasons. Ethically, it’s a slippery slope. (Do we punish Chinese players if they don't denounce Xi and the CCP?) Is it not “stooping to their level” to conflate a country’s citizenry with a country’s government? Does this policy not fuel Russia’s victim complex?
Above all, I just don’t think it works. Go through the rationales for punishment—deterrence, incapacitation, even retribution—and what is the justification? I wrote this piece a few weeks back on Russia v. global sports. An agent made this point: “We’re talking about a country—a person, really—who is invading another country, who wants to be a superpower. We think they’re going to reconsider because their ice-skaters can’t be in a championship?” Same goes for tennis.
I have seen you rightly reassure readers that tennis’ popularity will persist after the Big 3 and Williams sisters are all retired. All this hoopla about Tiger Woods at the Masters has me wondering if the same could be said for golf when Tiger is no longer playing.
—Ian Scott, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 1) Tennis doesn’t have a Tiger type TV driver. You are literally talking about two different programs: a golf tournament with Tiger and one without. Yes, Serena and the Big Three are better for ratings. But it’s not an audience that swings by half or double based on whether one of this cohort is playing.
2) What does tennis have that golf doesn’t? Two genders playing simultaneously, comparably engaging most fans.
Seven years ago, a fan wrote to you in your August 19, 2015 mailbag (I've cut parts of it because it's lengthy) but the full link is here. The subject was Kyrgios:
"I see from your Twitter feed that you've finally acknowledged that Nick Kyrgios's on-court behavior has crossed a line. Sadly, it's you (and guys like you) who created the Kyrgios monster. If Kyrgios crossed a line this week, it's partly because so many people in the media continued to cheer on his "youthful exuberance" every time he approached that line."
I was impressed with your response at the time, which included the below:
"Sadly, I think Judy raises a fair point. When those of us defended Kyrgios in the past in the name of charisma and personality and color, we were enabling the behavior that led to last to week’s abomination."
Seven years have passed with many more controversies. In the last three tournaments, he's abused umpires with no contrition. The ATP say they'll take this more seriously, and we await whether they'll be true to their word. But how do those in the media feel? You acknowledged their role in enabling him 7 years ago. Is this still the case? If not, what has changed? When Kyrgios inevitably films himself on instagram being nice to a ballkid, will the story be about how he's both good and bad, a "complicated figure?"
The mental health defense of Kyrgios is one that bothers me. I believe anyone struggling with mental health deserves empathy, including Kyrgios BUT his bullying inflicts pain on others. The people that are subject to his abuse deserve empathy too.
—Rohit Sudarshan, Washington, DC
• I am struck that it’s been seven years and the discussion is essentially unchanged. We—and, more crucially, he—remain stuck in this loop. “He’s really talented….but he self-sabotages and doesn’t act professionally…but he’s upfront about his ambivalence about it all and is so refreshingly colorful….but he also behaves like a knucklehead….but he’s open about his mental health struggles and sensitivities and is cool to kids….but then he behaves so insensitively toward others.”
It’s a challenging balance covering the guy; just as, I suspect, it’s a challenging balance being a fan. As the reader references, yes, the mental health dimension gives some additional pause. But only to a point. There is a lot here; and yet there is little to see here. Kyrgios is what he is. And until further notice or evidence to the contrary, I’m not sure what more there is to say. He is blazingly talented, capable of beating anyone in a match. He is also sensationally unprofessional, incapable of winning seven straight matches. (So not only is he not a credible Slam contender; he is unlikely to be seeded, further undermining his chance of success.) He is open (admirably open, even) about his struggles and challenges. He has also, clearly, not overcome them. He is capable of kindness; he is also capable of being an indefensible bully—precisely the kind of bully he rails against.
I just find that there’s such a cowardice to it all. Even accounting for mental health, he’s just such an anti-sportsman. He won’t commit to the job, perhaps because he’s afraid of failure. When he loses, he seldom does it with dignity or without drama. He rails against the “hate” and the toxicity of social media; and then he whips out his phone to disparage others. He rails against bullying; but then he humiliates others. He is the kid in college who says, “I got trashed last night and didn’t study and still passed! I am so smart! Imagine my grades if I actually studied like you losers!” We all know those kids. Sometimes they grow out of it and realize their potential. Sometimes they never do.
It's taken efforts like a final set breaker in Oz (to Berrettini) and a cracked rib suffered by Rafa in Indian Wells to stop Alcaraz this year. How much more impressive will this break-out story get? Does he win a major this year?
—Chris Mahoney, Kingston, Ontario
• Just to be clear: Nadal had the cracked rib. (Which would seem to undermine Alcaraz. “The other guy was beat up like someone who’d been in a car crash; and you couldn’t close him out?”) And can Alcaraz win a major? Unquestionably. Does he? I’m not quite there. You have three active players with more than 60 Majors among them. You also have a recent No. 1 who’s made four major finals in the last 30 months.
But can we agree on this: been a while since an emerging player has made this kind of an impact. From the reverence in the locker room to the weakness-free game we all see with our eyes, to the precocious poise that lands on the right side of confidence/arrogance….there’s nothing to suggest he ISN’T a future champion.
Was Opelka/Isner the tallest final in tennis history?? It has to be.
—LT (Toronto)
• Narrowly beating out Schwartzman/Rochus. The throwaway line goes something like this: “That this match a) featured a break of serve and b) played out on clay is proof that someone has a sense of humor.” But, truthfully, it’s testament to both players. Yes, they are both tall. They also contain tennis multitudes.
Are we seeing a big momentum change in Canadian tennis? FAA and Shapo have been losing early, Leylah Fernandez also had short runs in IW and Miami and Andreescu doesn’t seem to be returning anytime soon.
It’s bad enough we’re already trading at a 30% discount to the greenback but now we don’t even have tennis bragging rights anymore. Do you see this as a blip or a concerning trend?
—Neil Grammer, Toronto
• I like the strength of your tennis more than the strength of your dollar. Bad news/good news. As Neil points out, it’s been rough going for Canadian tennis of late. Shapovalov remains a works in progress, if not regress. He had a strong Aussie Open, reaching the quarters before losing to Nadal in five. He has since lost five of his last 10 matches; four of them to players outside the top 40. Felix won his first title but hasn’t built on it. Andreescu hasn’t played in 2022. Neither has Milos Raonic. More optimistically….a) Andreecsu is coming back as a wild card entrant into Stuttgart; b) Fernandez won a title this year already in Mexico and will be fine; c) It’s April. We only have one Major in the books. These last few weeks have been rough. But we still have three Majors to go.
+ I don’t want to pick on Shapo’s former coach Mikhail Youzhny, who always cut a professional figure as a player. But I’m not sure his signature gesture, the Russian military salute, has aged particularly well.
I saw in one of your recent mailbags that Steffi Graff won 78% of all the finals she ever played and it made me want to delve into the records more. People seem to ignore her and just say Serena Williams is the GOAT and it is basically a slam dunk. A look at their records makes it interesting and while I get it Serena has won the most Grand Slam titles there are other things you could consider. Serena beats Graf in Grand Slam titles 23 to 22 and their record in Grand Slam finals is basically the same. Graf is 22-9 and Serena is 23-10. Graf won 90% of her Grand Slam tournament matches, Serena won 87% of them. Graf won the Grand Slam (all four in the calendar year) in 1988 and added the Olympic Gold medal that year which is something Serena did not accomplish. Graf made 13 consecutive (winning 9) Grand Slam Finals (1987-1990) which nobody has ever done including the "Big Three" of tennis. That is an incredible display of tennis dominance in my opinion. Graf has won 107 tennis titles compared to Serena's 73 even though Graf retired at age 30 due to injuries. So while I have no problem with saying Serena is the GOAT I will say that it is by a very slim margin and I think Graf's low profile after retirement has basically caused people to diminish her in the tennis media (ESPN, Tennis Channel, etc). Your thoughts on the comparison of these two great players.
—Bob Diepold, Charlotte NC
• A lot of good points here. This would make for a good hour-special on Tennis Channel. But some shorthand:
1) Longevity should count for something here. Graf won her last Major at 30 and was gone by the end of the summer. Serena won her first Major in 1999. She won her most recent—note we didn’t say last—in 2017.
2) Doubles should count for something here. (A big point in Martina’s favor.) Serena has won double-digit Major titles and Olympic gold in doubles. Graf WAS a Major doubles champ. But has nowhere near Serena’s record.
3) Historical context should count for something. Martina and Chris Evert never bothered venturing to Australia. Who knows how many more Majors they would have won had they known the Aussie Open would figure so prominently in the future. Conversely, Serena is competing against players from everywhere—when earth’s population is nearly twice what it was in 1980.
4) Bob’s last point is dead on. I’m not sure this is unique to tennis but it seems especially pronounced. A player’s post-retirement prominence has all sorts of bearing on perception. I’m always amazed at how many fans think John McEnroe was a Big Three level player, unaware that he was done winning by age 25 and that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have each won more titles a single Major than McEnroe did at all of them. Why the inflated status? Because —and this is in no way a knock—McEnroe has remained prominent in his post-tennis life. Graf has been—again, no knock—a total cipher post-tennis. Good for her for living the life she wants. But her legacy suffers for it.
Are you at all concerned with the wild amount of pressure being placed on Emma Raducanu right now by the tennis world? It's incredible what she accomplished in such a short period of time but I really worry that this poor kid won't be able to handle it. I mean, who could? I'm old enough to remember Jennifer Capriati burning out way back when and that was before social media. It's amazing to me how tennis sometimes tends to screw up good things!
—Keith Jacobson
• We talk about Capriati as a “cautionary tale” and it is sloppy shorthand. But, truly, players and their teams have learned from that. There is a real sensitivity now to avoid (over)burdening young players and managing expectations and not treating them as ATMs. (Coinbase accounts? Maybe we need to update this?)
I also think tennis benefits greatly from this trend of longevity. If I have Raducanu’s ear, I say look, “You can retire tomorrow and you’ll do so as a Major champ. In some ways, it’s all house money now. If that’s not enough and you want more, great! And you have so much time to achieve it. Serena Williams is out there, still apparently hungry, in her 40s. That’s more than your lifetime from now. What you achieved in New York was, perhaps, the greatest tennis outlier. You earned it. It made you financially comfortable for life. Now the universe is snapping back. But just keep working hard. Time is your ally.”
Shots
Reader Paul Fein has a new book: “The Fein Points of Tennis: Technique and Tactics to Unleash Your Talent” a finalist in the Foreword Reviews 2021 INDIES book competition in the Adventure, Sports, and Recreation category.
Here is the link -- 2021 Foreword INDIES Finalists in Adventure, Sports & Recreation (Adult Nonfiction)
