Hey everyone….
• As we wend our way to Roland Garros 2022+ a grab bag Mailbag….
• It was lost a bit, unfortunately, in the Wimbledon/Russia news, but do read Pam Shriver’s take on inappropriate relationships on the WTA Tour.
• The sad Boris Becker news. This strikes me as a classic case of tennis showing the capacity to accommodate contradictory thoughts at once. The facts aren’t ambiguous and ain’t good and don’t leave much room for sympathy for Boris. But somehow we find it anyway. What a pity someone so fundamentally flawed but fundamentally good finds himself in this place….This column strikes it cleanly.
+ Note the strenuous branding effort to transition from French Open to Roland Garros.
Most of the reader questions still pertained to the Wimbledon ban so here goes…
Mailbag
The elephant in the room is that Wimbledon can't have Princess Kate handing out trophies to Russian and Belarusian players if they get to the finals giving Putin a much needed global propaganda boost. She represents the monarchy which though powerless is still the official UK head of state. Not the Prime Minister. The respective heads of state Biden, Macron, and the Prime Minister of Australia certainly couldn't do that while the horrors of the war continued. Perhaps Wimbledon should let them play, and if a Russian or Belarusian athlete gets to the finals, they can have the awards presented to them by a Wimbledon AELTC official, like it's done at the other slams, and thus avoid that awkward optic. Now that I've solved that conundrum what's next?
—Franklyn
• Or give them the Sebastian Baez virtual trophy presentation. Image and optics and worst-case scenario were undoubtedly part of the consideration here. In the event—an unlikely one to be sure—of a Russian taking the title it would have been excruciating to see Wimbledon and the Royal Box and this great British cultural export celebrate a Russian champion. Putin would have propagandized this? Yes. But he has already propagandized the ban. “See, the West really does hate us. Look at how they discriminate!”
Jon, we haven’t heard from Maria Sharapova in all this. Any idea where she stands?
—Jeff J.
• Several weeks ago I wrote to the Sharapova camp to see if there was interest in commenting. I did not hear back. Let’s leave aside Maria Sharapova’s moral obligation to weigh in. Or whether a celebrity player who spent the majority of their life living in the U.S. while keeping Russian citizenship isn’t singularly well-positioned to weigh in. Let’s simply admire her timing:
• She retires on February 26, 2020. Two weeks later Covid breaks out, suspending tennis (and the world) for the next five months. She can sidestep the professional angst of the pandemic, deciding whether and how hard to practice with the schedule in such disarray.
• During the 2022 Winter Olympics, Russian athletes figured centrally in yet another sports doping scandal. The drug in question? Trimetazidine, which increases blood to the heart. The New York Times was not alone when it noted, “Trimetazidine is a metabolic cousin of meldonium,” which of course was the substance that triggered Sharapova’s 2016 doping positive. As they say in the law, “this is a bad fact” v/v Sharapova’s longstanding defense. A few days after the Beijing Olympics, Russia invades Ukraine and a doping scandal no longer becomes the biggest Russian news item. Sharapova sidesteps a potential controversy.
• On April 20, her 35th birthday, Sharapova announced her pregnancy. This coincided with news of the Wimbledon ban. As a former Wimbledon champ—who, were she still active, would be impacted—Sharapova would have been drawn into this controversial decision. Another fortuitous sidestep.
Jon, do you want to reconsider your optimistic prediction about Djokovic? He played three tournaments in 2022, hasn’t won any and looks very mortal. What makes you so sure the magic isn’t gone?
—Michael R.
• I’m not “sure” the magic remains. But he’s so good; has compiled such a strong body of work; and has such extraordinary powers of perseverance…. I still say the odds of his resuming winning Majors are better than the odds of him never shaking off this torpor. (Note: I write this as he is about to face Monfils in Madrid.)
Two points: 1) Djokovic turns 35 later this month. Because he is the youngest of the Big Three, we tend not to dwell on age. But 35? Shoot, that meets the age eligibility for the senior tours. At some point, athletes’ bodies start to wage acts of insurrection. I was talking to an NBA type this week who analyzed the decline in basketball. It starts small. And it starts with consistency. It shows up first on defense, the inability to react or swivel hips and get in position.
The players can still perform offensively—when they control the motion—so, my friend says, “They are the often last to realize the decline.” I wonder if there isn’t a tennis equivalent. When players dictate, they still feel invincible. It’s when they are put on defense, pushed to corners and asked to anticipate, that age reveals itself….
2) If Djokovic never recovers, never regains “the magic,” as Michael puts it….this will make for one of the more extraordinary stories, almost biblical, in sports history. An athlete on the cusp of history and it slips away because of a volitional decision, a self-imposed absence? Not injury or misfortune or military service but a voluntary decision over vaccination? That would be remarkable….
Re: GOAT status and Graf — I do struggle with the idea of a GOAT being someone who really didn't have the confidence to use a topspin backhand consistently in top-level play. Slice is definitely underused, but topspin is a potent weapon, and I can only imagine how much better Graf could have been with that. I haven't seen this line of discussion ever come up in your mailbags, but it feels like an important consideration when we're talking not just about great players, but GOAT candidates.
—If you end up using any of the text, please name it anonymously... :)
• The Steffi/Monica questions keep coming, a story/debate/flashpoint that still clearly flashes. (Aside: could you make this documentary if neither participated? No. If one participated? Hmmmm….) Anyway, the anonymous reader makes an interesting point. Does Graf’s game somehow undermine her GOAT status? It’s an interesting visceral reaction. But we could just as soon turn this on its head. Doesn’t Graf’s success slicing argue in favor of greatness? Here she was a disruptor, taking a neutral shot, turning it into a weapon, and if you doubt the effectiveness, just look at her Majors count. (You could also see the slice not as an isoalted shot, but as part of a gameplan that set up the devastating forehand.)
Thank you, Deadspin. This is exactly how I feel. And I refuse to watch any tennis event that bans players over Putin's idiocy.
—CM Taylor
• This is what I meant last week by false equivalencies. I’m not sure what a Russian ban has to do with Djokovic’s vaccination status. We all like spotting hypocrisy and double-standards and inconsistencies. But I’m not seeing this linkage.
Here's my problem with the "slippery slope" of banning players from certain countries -- the "nationality" of players is not a fixed thing. I keep going back to that match at Indian Wells, where Victoria Azarenka broke down on court during her match with Elena Rybakina. Azarenka, born in Belarus but living in Florida, will not be able to play at Wimbledon — even though her country of birth is not the actual aggressor in Ukraine. Why not ban German players as well, for the funding they provide to the war effort by continuing to buy oil from Russia? How about British players, since the UK laundered so much Russian money over the years? Should we keep going?
And on the other hand, Elena Rybkina — born in Russia, living in Russia, will be able to play, simply because she accepted a sweetheart deal to play for Kazakhstan back in 2018.
—Helen of DC
• Can we all agree here that one of the big winners are the “Kazakh” players, Rybakina (b. Moscow) and Bublik (b. Gachina Russia) and the Kazakh federation….They not only got the funding as juniors but, despite sharing a country of origin, they get to split-step around the ban.
One angle that I haven't seen anywhere on the reason for the Wimbledon ban: More so than the (very narrow) possibility of a Russian/Belarusian champion, it's aimed at the mentality of the average Russian who feels that Russia is in the right. If the casual Russian fan suddenly sees his/her favorite missing from Wimbledon, it might make him/her take note, wondering why the entire world, including the sports world, is ostracizing Russia. The more the average Russian sees this across various fields, the more he/she might be prompted into asking questions which may lead to taking action.
It's completely unfair to the individual Russian/Belarusian players, but does in part what international sanctions do — which is affect (in a small way in this case) the lives of the average Russian.
Just a few thoughts from someone completely apolitical.
—James in Saigon
• Interesting. Again, I wonder if this achieves the aims or intensifies Russian aggrievement.
Daughter: “Why isn’t Kasatkina playing Wimbledon?”
Dad: “Because the West hates us and discriminates against Russians. They’re moralizing about an 'unprecedented' action but they do the same thing.”
The war in Ukraine is a horrible situation and everyone has been sharing all kinds of thoughts and opinions about what can and should be done by the governing bodies of tennis to show support by those affected. One ideal that I've noticed being brought up by (mostly) Ukrainian players is that Russian players should be made to publicly denounce Putin in order to continue to play. This....I definitely don't agree with AT ALL! By doing this, that action would not only be putting those players, but their families still in Russia in all kinds of danger and peril. People inside the Russian borders that have already spoken out in disagreement of the war in Ukraine... are being found dead in Russia under "mysterious circumstances." If those players are forced to have to speak out and their family go missing and/or get killed (or even the players if they return to Russia), who is going to take the blame for that bloodshed? Will those players that were so in favor of this action be ok if a colleague "mysteriously" disappears? The entire ordeal is a lose-lose situation. What are your thoughts?
—James Davis
• Agree. Can we all agree that eliciting statements—or support or opposition—is not exactly an optimal way to oppose authoritarianism?
Jon, I didn’t see the Boris Becker news until now. Did people in the tennis world know about this all along?
—Charles T.
• This story has popped in and out of the news for years. You sensed this was trouble when one of his defenses entailed seeking diplomatic immunity against a creditor by claiming he was a cultural attache to the Central African Republic I remember this story about Becker, that I mentioned in a recent mailbag, but it's worth mentioning again in light of the news. This isn’t verbatim but it’s close. It’s the 90s and Becker is in the locker room in Monte Carlo telling a top American player about his private flight. The player is thinking, Damn, big spender. I am ranked higher than you are, I’ve made just as much money, and you’re flying private.
Becker cuts the conversation short. “I have to meet the helicopter.”
“What are you talking about?” the player asks.
“Oh,” said Becker. “I flew on one flight. I sent my bags on a later flight.”
When you are flying your suitcases on a separate charter, odds are good your personal finances could stand to be tighter.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK EVERYONE
