• On Saturday wheelchair tennis greats Esther Vergeer and Rick Draney received tennis’s ultimate honor at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R.I.
Surrounded by their family, friends, fellow Hall of Famers and their biggest fans, Vergeer and Draney gave thanks to those who helped make their careers Hall of Fame worthy. Relive the moments and explore the videos, photos, and more from their enshrinement weekend, including a special congratulations video from their peers.
• Read this piece on Peng Shuai.
While wondering who else caught the Dunlop product placement in Barbie, we move onward ...
I don’t understand why Ruud and Rublev are playing two consecutive weeks on clay right after Wimbledon and before the North American hardcourt swing.
James, PDX
• Because … tennis. (Because appearance fees.) Here’s a snapshot of tennis. We have this spellbinding weekend, the sport at its most elevated. We have a surprise Wimbledon women’s champion, suggesting that, at any given event, a player can get hot, slalom through a draw and transform their career (life?) … and the men provided No. 1 vs. No. 2, a 20-year-old vs. a 36-year-old, flush with all sorts of plotlines and then a match that exceeded hype and crushed ratings worldwide.
And tennis built on this surge in excitement … how? There were clay court events in Europe. And a grass event in Newport. And the new Wimbledon champion headed to Nice for a mix-gendered team event. And there was a showdown on a court lacking doubles alleys in L.A. Stan Wawrinka sprayed ball kids with champagne.
I saw the outrage over Amarissa Tóth erasing a clay court mark for a contested point and immediately thought of Jimmy Connors doing the same at the 1977 U.S. Open. I think Connors even ran all the way over to his opponent’s side to do it. Is there anything refs can do to address actions like this? It looks like both Connors and Tóth got away with it.
Paul Haskins, Wilmington, N.C.
• First let’s acknowledge that after thundering condemnation—not least from other WTA players, whom, ideally, she will be facing for the next decade—Tóth has issued this apology. Let’s accept it.
This incident in some ways is minor. Barely a day after this spellbinding, sidewinding Wimbledon final, who would have guessed an incident at a 250 event in Hungary would make such news? But there were a lot of nuances here, encapsulating issues of mental health, incompetence and fair play. Social media did its thing. Inevitably this ended up in the insatiable maw of the culture wars. The tournament did itself no favors with its statement. (New rule: If you’re attempting to defuse conflict, a statement with the search terms “Chinese video manipulation” ain’t it.) The WTA offered a statement in response to the statement—“The WTA has zero tolerance for racism in any form or context”—adding another rotation to the news cycle.
Two top-line thoughts: (1) The level of player outrage was extraordinary. Ons Jabeur, Daria Kasatkina, Victoria Azarenka, Martina Navratilova, Daria Saville … when players weigh in so uniformly and passionately it tells you something. A lot of people (myself included) took a cue from them. If they are this upset by the breach in sportsmanship and the treatment of a colleague, we ought to be as well.
(2) Was this cheating? I say yes. A number of you disagreed. (Full disclosure: I’m in a group chat with some former and current players, and there was no consensus.) While an opponent is not obligated to concede or correct chair decisions and line calls they believe to have incorrectly benefited them, that is, of course, the noble path. Especially on clay, where there is forensic evidence. If you want to let a bad call stand, or leave it to your opponent to challenge, that’s acceptable. Sometimes players will encourage their opponent to challenge. At Wimbledon, we saw Jessica Pegula challenge one of her own serves she deemed to be out, though it was called in. Pegula was correct.
Last week Zhang hit a shot that was clearly on the line, and it was called out. Tóth did not choose to intervene. Her prerogative. Play resumed. Several points later, Zhang, still upset about the call, complained. As she pleaded her case, Tóth approached the line. Zhang pleaded with her not to erase the mark. Tóth did so, anyway. This is terribly unsporting. To overdramatize, it is tampering with evidence. To me, it is a form of cheating. Would showing the chair umpire the mark have won Zhang the point retroactively? No. It would, though, establish a dynamic. The umpire would see the error. The next time there was a close call, he would likely be more prone to take an objection seriously.
Hi Jon,
I'm worried about Zhang Shuai and wondering if the WTA is doing anything to assist her. It seems that we are observing a mental breakdown taking place, which is excruciating. The incident in Hungary requires some sort of WTA intervention, I would think. ZS is a lovely person and a super likable tennis pro. Extremely popular with other pros and fans. Can you shed any light on what is going on here?
Thanks.
Valerie Smith, San Jose, Calif.
• I turned this over to Bendou Zhang, who, apart from being a lovely guy, does terrific work as a Chinese tennis writer (and is worth your follow). He responds:
If you have lost more than 10 matches in a row in singles, lost your grandparents and competed more than two seasons unstoppably without going back to home country for resting and recharging, it's very hard for you to be in a good place mentally.
With all that said, in professional tennis, a few wins can change lots of things. If compared with the time of Roland Garros, when Zhang Shuai cried when talking to media, she seemed in a much better state during Wimbledon. She did talk about mental fatigue and has plan going back to China and take a break after losing in the singles, however, she was much happier and looked more motivated after she got a few wins and into the women's doubles semi with Dolehide.
“How does it feel?”
I propose that the next interviewer to ask a Slam champion how it feels to win be banished to covering a nonsport such as Tiddlywinks, curling or race walking.
James Stuchell, Savannah, Ga.
• I hope I’m not violating confidences here, but I remember before the London Olympics, NBC held a meeting for all the announcers. We gathered in a big room for these tribal secrets. The first rule for everyone doing an interview: “Do. Not. Ask. ‘How. Does. It. Feel?'”
My codicil to this: Do not ask “How excited are you?” There’s no numerical answer. (“How excited am I? Sixty-two!”) The only answer? “Very.” Or “Well, very.” Or “Oh, wow, yeah, very.”
Then, after this leading question, the obvious pivot is for the player to explain why, which beckons the cliché parade. “My team and I have been working so hard. … It was a great atmosphere out there. … It was a great battle, but I have to refocus for my next match.”
Now having said that, these interviews are harder than you might think. A question that works well for player A is a dud for player B. There can be language barriers preventing insight—literally dialogue getting lost in translation. When athletes are walking off the court or have just completed a five-hour match, there is a limited scope of acceptable topics. (“Great match, Carlos. Tell me about your mother.” … “Congrats, Marketa. What were your favorite books as a child and what does that say about you?”)
Want to see a strong postmatch interview? Watch this with Novak Djokovic:
Hi Jon,
This question is a little late, but maybe you have an opinion. Why does Wimbledon stick with line judges when even 500-level tournaments have switched to electronic line calls. Surely Wimbledon has the money to install the required cameras. Is it that they so value tradition that they’re proud of being behind the times? I would have thought that it would be embarrassing for challenges to show how poor some of the line calls were. At the very least, they could have allowed unlimited challenges to make the system more like electronic line calling. Instead, they stubbornly stuck to three challenges and required players to focus some of their energy on where the ball bounces, how many challenges they have left … instead of focusing on their game.
Ananth
• Amen. We all respect tradition. But let’s proceed on an assumption that competition is the underlying point of sport events. If so, there’s a central question: is this in service of maximum fairness and accuracy? I think a lot of us are uneasy about the mechanization here and the job loss. But isn’t optimizing fairness and accuracy more important? (Sidebar: We were talking about this on Tennis Channel, and Martina recalled instances of linespeople literally napping during matches.) The reader is right: Time and again during Wimbledon the imperfection of the human eye was exposed, and technology proved the linespeople wrong.
And yes: If you are stubbornly intent on using humans, at least get rid of the game show aspect and limiting challenges. We have enough data points here. Players do not abuse the system. The initial fear—almost 20 years old—that a limit on challenges was needed to dissuade players from questioning every point is unfounded.
Max Cressy: Any idea what is going on with our beloved living fossil? He has a 1–13 record since heading outdoors after the mini-indoor season; losses on hard, grass, clay, you name it. And now, a first-round defeat as defending champion in Newport to someone who won his first career main-draw match. He’ll need to qualify for the U.S. Open after being seeded last year, right?
Is he carrying some injuries? Are players on to his game? I’ve always wondered if he had the right coach. Who can even coach serve-and-volley these days? He’s a treasure, and I hope he gets his game back in gear.
P.S. The USTA should give him a wild card if for no other reason than to have a serve-and-volleyer in the main draw.
Mr. Nolan
• I’m all for the wild card. I believe someone else (Sharko?) noted this on Twitter recently. But Cressy is 15th in serving. He is 83rd in returning. Suggesting the serve-and-volley approach is not the issue.
Howdy Jon,
I would love to hear your perspective on a pervasive player practice that, for me, is right up there with excessive grunting. Seemingly now every player, whether low in the rankings or world No. 1, must, after every point, look to their box for validation. Even after serving a single fault! I haven’t seen the need for this much virtual hand-holding and visual assurances since my mom dropped me off for my first day of kindergarten. You seldom, if ever, saw players do this “back in the day.” I’m having a tougher time supporting the notion that tennis is an individual sport. I get we all need a little lift now and then, but after every single point? Am I “grumpy old man”-ing this too much?
Bob Fuller, Bloomfield Township, Michigan
• Yes and no. I agree that, more and more, we see “the box” as this vital center. Players look to “the box” for validation and commiseration after every point. They yell at the box to offload anger. (“You’re giving me nothing!”) Some players demand that every team member sits in a particular configuration—and get upset when members leave for the restroom or fail to sit in their assigned seats.
Unlike grunting or taking excessive time between points, all this staring has little impact on their viewing experience or the opponent. If anything, when my opponents are constantly looking to their coach (much less their parents) am I not fueled with optimism that their confidence levels and ability to self-correct are perhaps lacking?
Y’know, Wimbledon used to have a theme song, back in the NBC days. And it was glorious.
Jason Rainey
• Thanks. Earworm in 3, 2, 1 …
Shots
• The USTA Foundation (USTAF) has contributed approximately $300,000 to the South Los Angeles community, with a total renovation of eight Los Angeles City tennis courts located within Harvard Park. The philanthropic support is part of USTAF’s National Court Refurbishment program, which is anticipated to provide $3.3 million in funding over the next three years across the country with the goal of renovating 250 courts in under-resourced communities.
