Hey, everyone ...
- Before we start, a profound thank you and fond farewell to Chris Almeida who, for the past few years, has handled this column and contributed his own excellent tennis content. He’s an Alcarazian young talent and the next place he lands will be lucky to get him …
Onward ...
Mailbag
Jon,
I’m sure you saw Matija Pecotić qualifying in Delray and then beating Jack Sock. Anything more you can tell us? Could this be the start of something? Or was this a cool one-off?
J.B., Brooklyn
Here it is mid-February, and we have our 2023 Story of the Year in tennis. Pecotić, a real estate/private equity worker by day, still kindles his tennis dreams. He is 33 and a decade removed from his All-American days at Princeton. The pandemic interrupted his plans to try to make a go of it. But he stays in shape—hitting before work, doing cardio afterward—and can still hit the ball. He lives within driving distance of the Delray Beach Open but isn’t ranked high enough to qualify. Then he happens to be on-site grabbing a racket from a stringer when he learns that he can get a spot as an alternate. He qualifies. And then makes his ATP debut against Jack Sock, once a top-10 player. And, in front of a night crowd, as his backstory rockets around, he wins in three sets. Toni Woods and the tournament (as well as the ATP) did a great job of calling attention to this and passing on this video of Pecotić in his own words. My scattered thoughts:
- This was a tidy reminder of why we love sports: the sheer unpredictability and who’da -scripted-this? nature.
- Expect more of these unlikely stories in the post–Big Three era. We may not have their relentless excellence, but there is still the capacity for awesome stories—that will be amplified.
- I don’t know Pecotić, but we have a number of mutual friends. (Full disclosure: I was teaching at his college when he played there.) I was struck by the number of texts I received last week that alluded to this story and came studded with the phrase “good guy” or “good dude.” This is not, of course, unique to tennis, but reputations matter. This was a fantastic story, made even better by the sense that karma got it right.
Jon,
I liked your recent comment about what’s needed (figuratively) for a player to take on Novak Djokovic: “But where’s the challenger who stands up [and] says, ‘I want to punch this guy in the nose?’” The one player who really seemed to do this was Dominic Thiem. Head to head, Thiem won 5 of his last 7 matches against Novak including three where he won a final set tiebreaker. But of course Thiem is now in a tailspin. Any lessons from his approach to Novak—and whether he himself may revive his career?
Thanks, Rob
Good call. Here’s the Djokovic-Thiem head-to-head. Thiem made matches physical, put pressure on Djokovic’s serve (which has improved demonstrably in the last few years) and, at least on clay, was happy to hang and trade tracer fire. To your question, tennis is better off when Thiem is in form. Violating the no-cheering-in-the-press-box dictate, who doesn’t hope he revives his career? He is such a fine player—and such a thoroughly decent guy—you hope both his body and self-belief cease betraying him. He won the U.S. Open roughly 30 months ago; he is now ranked No. 99.
As I see it, his fate says something about Djokovic, as well. We look at a draw and take “Djokovic against the field.” We look at matchups and expect Djokovic to win every time he plays. And he generally comes through. Situations like Thiem’s reinforce how delicate a career can be. One fluke injury. One fissure in confidence. One personal issue. And poof. It’s just extraordinary that Djokovic (and, yes, Nadal, Federer and Serena) can avoid these slips and sustain excellence. Again, the undulating, mercurial careers of, say, Thiem or Muguruza or Osaka? That’s normal. It’s the 20+ major winners, reliably playing deep into majors, they are the outliers.
Watch tennis with fuboTV. Start your free trial today.
Jon,
I saw Daniil Medvedev won a tournament today. I seem to remember his being defaulted for making racist comments during a match. It seems like everyone has forgotten this. What am I missing?
Charles, NYC
Fair question. But I would submit we ought to show some grace here.
For background, the episode occurred in 2016, and here’s the story if you want to read about it. Maybe start with this: Tennis has a rule whereby the chair umpire cannot hail from the same country as one of the players. Why? Because of the potential appearance of impropriety. So … tennis, structurally, already has already put up safeguards against a fear of partial officiating. If say, an American played a Frenchman, you could not have a French or American chair umpire because of the potentially bad optics.
Is ethnicity the same thing as nationality? No, of course not. Should we expect a non-American, who just turned 20, to grasp these nuances? I would argue no. Was Medvedev’s phrasing and framing appropriate? No—which is why he was defaulted. Is this something to hold against him for years? No.
This was an unfortunate incident all around. But you could argue the system worked. The player was penalized. Medvedev learned from his mistake. Other players no doubt learned a historical lesson too. I would add that reputations are cumulative. Medvedev has done so much good and righteous in the interim—yes, getting to No.1, but I’m talking more about being a likable, self-aware guy—that you are inclined to chalk this up as a mistake and not anything he needs to account for seven years later.
Hi Jon,
I certainly agree with last week’s letter about Stan the Man; impossible not to admire his career and the Stan himself, but how about a similar tip of the hat to my countryman (half Scot here) Andy Murray, for much the same reasons. Not only does he have the same number of majors as Stan, obviously, won in similar style, beating Djoko at the 2012 U.S. Open and Wimbledon 2013 (Raonic in 2016 Wimbledon; ok, not one of the big three), but also has two, count ’em two Olympic Gold medals, beating both Djoko and Federer (a straight set demolition) in 2012, and del Potro—himself a major winner—in 2016. Add to that 14 Masters 1000s—only Agassi and the big three have more—and I think we can say he rose to the occasion like no other player in the “big three” era did. Also, Andy has one title the big three and Stan are unlikely to garner no matter how many others they amass. A knighthood. Haha.
Yours, Gavin Spencer, NYC
Absolutely. It’s a little different insofar as Murray didn’t have the good-to-great surge of Wawrinka, who was camped out on that, say, No. 8–20 zone for almost a decade before his push. The ogre would point out that Wawrinka’s record in major finals is 3–1, while Murray’s is 3–8. The charitable take (Quick: What’s the antonym for ogre?) would note that Murray has won almost three times as many titles and twice the prize money as Stan. But, yes, Murray’s career is an unqualified success. Full credit for both of these guys for rejecting that easy fallback of doing the we’re-not-worthy genuflection and saying. “To good Roger/Rafa/Novak.” Instead they both conveyed—by word and deed—that were coming at the king(s). If they missed, so be it.
Mike Frey/USA TODAY Sports
Jon-
Serious question: what do you think Andy Murray is doing and what is motivating him? I loved watching him in Australia, but it doesn’t change the fact that he lost in the third round and is now ranked No. 70. I’m curious what you make of this?
Steve, L.A.
It’s a matter of expectation. Is Andy Murray going to win another major? Probably not. But he can find reward and fulfillment in smaller milestones—winning some matches and perhaps getting to 50 titles, saving match points as he did Monday and relishing competition. So play on! It’s not unlike Venus Williams. Good for them both, if they still find motivation and joy competing—while unseeded and ranked far lower than they might be accustomed. Last week, a reporter (h/t Kevin Van Valkenberg) asked Tiger Woods whether he could imagine entering events if he didn’t consider himself capable of winning. He could not. Other athletes have different expectations and benchmarks and thresholds. And good for them.
Jon,
I find it surprising that entering 2023, eight of the top ten WTA players have yet to win a major singles title. (And six have never made it to a major final.) Who do you think has the best chance to win a breakthrough major this year? And for that matter, do you think someone outside the top ten is just as likely to break through as a current top ten player? (My heart roots for Ons Jabeur, though I think Coco Gauff might be the wise bet.)
Teddy C., NYC
It’s three, now that Rybakina rose to No. 10 (and there are only four top-10 men who have won majors). But point taken. A lot of this is just circumstantial, no? Osaka is pregnant. Muguruza is slumping. Andreescu is slumping. Barty retired. Halep is suspended. Raducanu was a unicorn. As for the next breakthrough, yes, Jabeur has been to two finals. But I’m with you. I’d predict Gauff. Speaking of predictions …
Jon,
First of all congrats on nailing the predictions. While predicting Djokovic to win isn’t a stretch, the object is to forecast the winner. Not only did you forecast the winner, but the runner-up as well.
You also were correct in predicting Sabalenka to win the women’s singles and Krejčíková and Siniaková to win the doubles.
I also wanted to commend you on a particular point in your 50 observations: No. 32, about asking an athlete about retirement. I didn’t know that Zverev made the prediction about Nadal retiring at the French Open. That is very bad form. I remember in 2002 when Kafelnikov called for Sampras to retire, saying he was hurting his legacy with so many losses. Many in the media were also declaring his career over. We know how that turned out. Sampras won the 2002 U.S. Open, confirming his coach’s point that “greatness doesn’t all of a sudden go away.” I don’t understand the rush to put players out to pasture. I remember an article written for SI by Chris Evert when she was retiring—she said that she felt a player should play past their prime to determine what their prime was.
Speaking of Chris Evert, I read that Sabalenka has won her first four quarterfinal matches in Grand Slam singles. The article mentioned that Chris Evert won her first 48 quarterfinal matches. While the big three are rightfully lauded for their accomplishments, let’s also recognize an underrated record from an all-time great.
Krouse, Reading, PA
- I’ve written before that, for all the topics we explore, it’s the predictions that result in the most grief. You picked Nishioka! You need to turn in your badge, officer! Sometimes, you nail your picks. Other times you whiff. It’s all meant in good fun. Speculation is part of sports. But the periodic reminder: Getting it right doesn’t mean you’re a genius. Getting it wrong doesn’t mean you’re an irredeemable idiot. (But as long as you brought it up, getting the men’s winner, women’s winner and women’s doubles winner is pretty good, no?)
- Again, no one should encourage an athlete to retire. No one should ever use the phrase “tarnish a legacy.” Fans and media can speculate on whether and when an athlete will retire, much as they would whether a politician might run for reelection or step away. Athletes probably should avoid this thought exercise.
- Chris Evert’s career stats should be filed in the humor section. Get a load of this performance timeline. And note that she played Wimbledon 18 times, the U.S. Open 19 times, the French 13 times (winning seven) … and Australia six times.
