Hey, everyone …
Housekeeping:
• Murphy’s Law, tennis corollary. When you take a week off for vacation, one of the sport’s titans announces her retirement. Herewith some thoughts on Serena.
• Here’s a Tennis Channel video in tribute of Serena (h/t Brett Danzer, the producer who did the heavy lifting putting it together).
• New York readers, here’s a local tennis tournament before the U.S. Open.
• Colette Lewis has you covered from the Kalamazoo Junior championships.
• All hail Coco Gauff, the new world No. 1 doubles player.
Onward …
Mailbag
Jon,
Serena Williams has decided to put down her racket. Certainly, she will be missed. Throughout her career, she had her doubters, haters and detractors (and supporters). Yet, she persevered and had a stellar career. There will always be the “what ifs.” What if she had not skipped so many Indian Wells tournaments? How many “sunshine doubles” could she possibly have achieved? What if she had not been ill in 2010? Could she have completed the calendar slam that year having repeated the Australian Open and Wimbledon? But “what ifs” notwithstanding, she had a stellar career, and it can be said that she changed the way the women’s game is played. The game is not played the way it was [if not for] Serena Williams. Power hitters abound and diversity is in full display on the tour. I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks to Serena for giving tennis fans so much to cheer for over the past couple of decades and to wish her success in her future endeavors. Bien hecho Serena! Your thoughts?
Don, Tennessee
• Yes, thanks to Serena Williams. Where to begin? One could—and someone ought to—write a book about her, her complexity, her force, her unprecedented success. The whole idea of “legacy” is often trite and pointless. But it strikes me that in this case, it’s so relevant. Already we see her legacy in the power games played today, as Don mentions. We see it in the makeup of the players today. (And this goes beyond black women; note how many players—male and female, American and non—who grew up in modest circumstances the world over, cite Serena as their exemplar.) We see it in body positivity. We see it in skepticism for conventional paths and conventional thinking.
I find myself repeating this phrase: this is a story that will age well. Thickened by time and perspective, Serena—and I hasten to include Venus—will grow, not shrink. Their achievement will become more titanic. The obstacles they faced will come into sharper relief. The haters will scan even more vile. (Aside: Shamil Tarpishev, Russian tennis ogre, will not want to google himself these days.) The sheer statistical absurdity of this story—two sisters who shared a bedroom become the two best practitioners in a generation in a sport played worldwide?—will be even more pronounced. And the most gratifying part: Serena leaves tennis and the sport not as “polarizing” or “misunderstood” but as a beloved and appreciated figure.
I am also struck by the discussion of the “what ifs.” Don spells some of them out above, but Serena mentioned them as well in her essay. It’s easy to dwell on the hypothetical and missed opportunities. (Especially as she likely will miss her goal by one major.) But, again, with time, it’s the converted opportunities—winning down match point; recovery from injury and trauma; overcoming awkwardness to beat an older sister in the finals of all four majors—that will loom larger. Never mind tennis and never mind sports. You don’t work in any field for a quarter century absent regrets, without work products you wish could take back, regrettable decisions, without errors of omission and commission. Serena’s (relatively few) metaphorical missed first serves—injuries and “lying and fabricating” and the 2009 U.S. Open foot fault and Patrick Mouratoglou coaching—are all part of what made the story so rich.
Hey Jon!
Very much agree with your feeling that The Big Three/Four, Serena, et al., will move on, but tennis will have new stars and story lines, and the sun will continue to rise for tennis fans. But do you think we are actually moving out of a tennis golden age? Global fandom, viewership, sponsorship dollars—think ~2000–2020 will end up being the highwater period for the sport’s global profile? Thinking of MLB from the mid ’70s through the early/mid ’90s, basketball from the mid ’80s through late ’90s, etc.
There will continue to be a great product for people who want it, but think we’re past “peak” tennis in a macro sense?
Thanks!
Mike, Atlanta
• I’m under no delusions about the pains tennis will endure after the departures of four players who have won more than 80 majors among them. There will be years of diminished ratings and revenues and perhaps buzz. I got a message this week about Montreal, saying words to the effect of: “I remember when the finals, reliably, featured Djokovic, Federer or Nadal if not some combination of both—now it’s Hubert Hurkacz and Pablo Carreño Busta?”
But then Montreal sold out for Hurkacz–Carreño Busta, who responded by playing a top-notch final. Just as hours earlier, Toronto packed the stands to watch Simona Halep beat Beatriz Haddad Maia. And the moral is, yes, Canada is awesome. But it’s also this: There are so many factors militating toward tennis’s long-term success. Here we have a global sport. Played by men and women. Of all ages. Sports, as an industry, is thriving. Problematic as it is, sports gambling benefits tennis.
“Who is going to replace Michael Jordan?” was a rhetorical question two decades ago. Until it wasn’t and Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Steph Curry, et al. arrived. Who is going to replace Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi? After a few rough years, the answer emerged: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. In a few years, we could have Coco Gauff and Carlos Alcaraz on pace for double-digit majors. Or some lefty with an ambitious uncle from an island. Or some Serbian comer … the sport always wins.
Hi, Jon
As Serena Williams announced her retirement and exited her, most likely, last professional tennis match in Canada, I am wondering why we still seem unable or unwilling to “dethrone” Margaret Court. Yes, she won 24 Grand Slam singles titles, but about half of them BEFORE the Open Era. Yes, she refuses to grant humanity to LGBTQ people, but we don’t need to cling to her tennis achievements to repudiate intolerant beliefs she upholds with other people, religious or not. What about holding Martina Navratilova, with 59 titles in her Grand Slam salad bowl, as THE standard? Match that, anyone. If one argues that comparing Björn Borg and Rafael Nadal is analogous to comparing apples and elephants, shouldn’t the same apply with “before Open Era” (if you won last year, just show up for the final to play against a tired rival) and “Open Era” (if you won last year, you still need to earn your spot to the final like everyone else)? If the logic holds, Serena Williams is the tennis player with the most Grand Slam titles in singles … so far. End of debate until Rafael Nadal matches or surpasses her record. Proposed temporary tagline: Steffi was as great as Rafa, Serena is greater, and Martina is the greatest. Just saying in case we want to evolve as Serena has chosen to do.
Regards, L. Pereira, British Columbia (Canada)
• If confirmation bias/halo effect were a return of serve, I’d be Novak Djokovic. I take a backseat to no one in my fondness for Martina. And I find Margaret Court repellent. This probably bleeds over to my assessment of their respective places in history.
You’re right that comparing to Serena to Margaret Court is like comparing Tom Brady to Johnny Unitas. Might as well be a different sport. I think a lot of us—I include former players here—had the same reaction to Serena so publicly setting her sights on Margaret Court’s record. “You hardly need this to cement your historic greatness, but if that’s what keeps you motivated and active, go for it.” That Serena has failed to win a 24th major undercuts her GOAT candidacy not at all.
One side note … a point in favor of Martina and Chris Evert: Had the Australian Open held the significance and heft it does now—if majors won were such a heavily weighted criterion—they would have shifted their schedules accordingly. In a sense, for them, the goalposts of history were moved. The corollary: Margaret Court’s Australia-heavy résumé should be weighted accordingly in the other direction. Almost half her majors came at a major the best players often skipped.
Jon,
Any thought on why Kyrgios has been wearing random mis-matched Nike on the court this entire season? And random basketball gear during interviews? Really has piqued my interest. Nike is known for its strict guidelines for sponsored athletes.
I doubt they would have dropped someone like Nick, who courts (no pun intended) controversy on a regular basis. But I also doubt his contract says he can wear whatever he wants to. Everyone else is in their Nike “uniforms” and Kyrgios is wearing whatever he found on the floor of his room. Inquiring minds want to know.
Betty Scott, San Francisco
• What was it Jay-Z (or Jay-zed, as they once said on the BBC when he was in the Royal Box) said? Ah, yes, “Check out my swag, yo. I walk like a ballplayer. … No matter where you go, you are what you are, player.”
I was told that Nick Kyrgios has special dispensation from Nike and freedom to depart from tennis attire in some cases and contexts (e.g., press conferences and practice courts). There’s a recognition that his NBA attire—often Jordan brand, which is Nike anyway—is part of his appeal.
Jon,
What are your thoughts on Serena’s Vogue article? it was poignant, reflective, introspective and yet—made me feel she wants to move forward rather than anything else? I highly recommend the article to anyone who loves tennis. Is New York the swan song?
Deepak (New York)
• In reverse order … I can’t imagine New York is not the swan song. But she did leave the door open. And, given her relationship with conventional wisdom/her fondness for keeping ’em guessing, who knows? Could she pop up this fall to play some exhibitions? Could she play a doubles-only event? Hell, could she enter Paris 2024 in doubles with Venus? Would not put any of it past her.
And, yes, I thought that Vogue article was quite extraordinary. For a figure who sometimes can be quite opaque—read her Wimbledon press conference transcript for a study in deflection—this was candid, heartfelt and offered real insight about her past and present as well as her future. A mix of macro and micro, pitch-perfect in tone, filled with insight for casual fans but also tennis hardcore types … and overall, a reveal we don’t often get.
Jon,
I came across the following tweet from Adam Baldwin and wonder if you have a reaction:
"Every tournament that denied Novak Djokovic entry because he chose bodily autonomy is an *asterisk* tournament. Likewise are their prize winners *asterisk* prize winners. Novak is a GOAT! Shame on the sheep."
Before you jump in with “but Adam Baldwin is not a tennis writer nor expert,” I will remind you and others that most people including yourself are not scientists nor epidemiologists or virologists but have had plenty to say about Novak’s vaccination, public health threats, dangers posed by such people to the rest of the society and so on. Many of them/you also held forth on immigration rules, court matters in Australia, and other points although they/you are also not legal experts, either.
Would the French Open winner have an asterisk if Rafa was forced to not play for some weird reason (banning knicker-tugging and face-touching before service, for an absurd example)? I’d think so.
K. Gerard Smith
• I don’t want to relitigate this every week. But I will indulge your analogy. If face-touching were, demonstrably, going to reduce deaths and spread a message of shared social responsibility and respect for science amid a global pandemic … and billions of people worldwide ceased face-touching to no ill effect … and face-touching was approved by regulatory agencies worldwide as effective … and if 99 of the top 100 players agreed not to face-touch, sometimes eagerly and sometimes grudgingly … and Nadal nevertheless said, “Nah, I’m gonna face-touch anyway” … and if, as a result of this recalcitrance/certitude/science skepticism, another player won the French Open in his absence? … I don’t think, among most fans, there would be an asterisk. … I think that for every Adam Baldwin and Ted Cruz and Twitter warrior trumpeting this as an act of “courage” and disparaging “sheep” and Dr. Anthony Fauci and the inconsistent policies of the U.S. government, incalculably more observers would wonder why on Earth Nadal had persisted in taking a stance at once irresponsible and self-defeating.
I do want to say this about Djokovic, because it comes up so often. He is a wonderful player. He may well retire as the best ever. He does so much good. For going on two decades, I have covered him and interviewed him for TV and print and never had anything but pleasant, professional interactions with him. I don’t agree with how he has conducted himself during COVID-19. That’s all.
Hello Jon,
I hope you are well. What will tennis do in the coming years when they no longer have men’s players to put into the Hall of Fame? The Big Three, Murray, and Wawrinka are still playing, and I’m not sure anyone else is going to qualify (Cilic and Delpo being the only major winners that are either retired or close to retiring). Does tennis hall of fame have a five-year wait period before nomination? Even if they didn’t, after those players get in, there is going to be some time before the next crop of Hall of Fame–worthy players retire. Does HoF just not have men’s inductees for a while (which is fine, but just kinda weird)? They certainly can’t lower the eligibility requirements just because of the Big Three era, right? It begs the fun hypothetical question, “If the eligibility was lowered, what players get in? The dangerous Delpo, Söderling, Berdych or Tsonga? The consistently tenacious Ferrer?
Respectfully,
Anthony, Brookline, Mass.
• Yes, the absurd concentration of success—one example: the Big Three plus Murray (aka the Big Four) have won every Wimbledon for the last 20 years—will impact the Hall of the Fame. There will either be some lean years for male enshrinees, or the barriers to entry will dip considerably. Do note that there is an entire other gender eligible for enshrinement. If some years there are no men, but there is, say, Maria Sharapova and Caroline Wozniacki, so be it. Do note there are doubles players like the Bryan Brothers who will be eligible. And it would be nice to see more attention paid to nonplayers. Say what you will about Richard Williams, he is the subject of the all-time highest-grossing tennis movie. If he’s good enough for Hollywood, perhaps he ought to be good enough for Newport?
HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
