At is is written, Wednesday is Mailbag Day so here goes….
Good soldiering: A reminder that Paul Annacone, Genie Bouchard, Steve Weissman and I are doing Tennis Channel pregame shows each morning, 9a ET.
Mailbag
Jon,
Pandemic year aside, isn't this the most wide-open U.S. Open for both the men's and women's fields since, I don't know, ever?
Jason, Austin, TX
Yes, this is the open-est Open. My favorite Week One stat: there was one seeded former winner on the women’s side. And it was Emma Raducanu. And there were five unseeded former winners. (And it would have been a sixth had Angie Kerber, expecting mutter, not withdrawn.) We are coming off a year in which the champion entered the tournament as a qualifier, ranked (as qualifiers are) outside the top 100. We’ve had little clarity since. And, for a change, the men’s draw is a gaping possibility as well.
Here’s a point to consider, one we discussed on-air this morning: the outlier here is that there are four players with 20+ majors among them, routinely reaching the business end of majors. That’s an unprecedented concentration of dominance. The outlier is not: “There are lots of possibilities and permutations in a field of 128 players.”
Hi Jon,
I’ve been reading your column every week since 2000 and have never written in to your “tennis mailbag” until now. I just read your U.S. Open picks and you broke your own cardinal rule, not once, but TWICE. “No one is favored to win a major until they’ve won a major”, yet both your women’s and men’s picks are seeking their first slam. I believe you came up with this policy after a number of times of making this mistake. Short memory or new rule? Thanks!
Kind regards,
Stuart
“All norms are suspended in these extraordinary times.” “Former champs/contenders” is a small subset, especially on the men’s side. If we obey that rule, I suppose you pick Nadal, winner, as he is, of every match he’s played this year at a major. You could also pick Medvedev, the defending champ. On the women’s side? Swiatek is the top seed. Halep is out already. Rybakina won the previous Major. Realistically who else?
John Minchillo/Associated Press
Jon,
I’m following all the Serena coverage and I’m struck one word that is getting thrown around: “drama.” Serena loves the drama! She likes drama on the court! Does anyone think this is a compliment? I’m pretty sure “drama queen” is an insult. I don’t recall anyone saying Connors was being dramatic when he was feeding off the energy of the crowd in his final U.S. Open run or talk of Agassi drama in his farewell U.S. Open. It just feels like one more gendered swipe at a champion who spent her career overcoming such comments. Am I reading too much into seeing this word in every other article?
Paul Haskins, Wilmington, NC
I say this as a middle-aged white guy….but I’ve seen more grievous microagressions.* A) because Serena herself has spoken about her flair for theatrics. If you knew the idea of “dramatic” were anathema, it would be one thing. But the fact that she had alluded to this, gives us pause. B) Between/among her matches, her extended career, her attire, the fact that her life was literally turned into a Hollywood drama…there’s some evidence in favor of the term as well.
Your point is well-taken. Words matter. And we ought to ask whether adjectives we use for one player would be trotted out for players of another gender. But I think perhaps we’re okay here.
* Here’s my pick for microaggression: I’ve heard player after player— Male; female; American; international; Muguruza most poignantly—explain how watching Serena was source of inspiration and a see-it-to-be-it indication that you could confront conventional tennis wisdom and still become a champion. Yet Serena’s impact is reductively presented as “look at how many Black women are in the top 100!” The idea that Serena has only inspired Black women—and the assumption that Black women were necessarily inspired by Serena—is sloppy at best.
Jon,
I always look forward to your seed report, however you usually mention all past champions deserve recognition. Unless I missed it there was no mention of Venus and while she has usually kept herself more understated in a talk of her career have a feeling this may be her last major as well. Hope she gets a mention in one of your columns in the next few weeks.
Thanks, Bob
Fair enough. I have bottomless respect for Venus and the way she is playing on her own terms, going to new cities, relishing the competition. But, apart from her age (42), she hasn’t won a Major since 2008 (!) and hasn’t been beyond the third round since 2017.
Note that the active major winner who has gone the longest without a Major is….Venus. But Svetlana Kuznetsova (2009) who is now 37 and not officially retired qualifies as well.
Jon,
How are doubles teams ranked/seeded when it’s two (mainly) singles players who team up sporadically (or even first time) for a given tournament?
@hugosong
Players can enter on the higher of their singles rankings and/or doubles rankings.
Hi Jon,
Disappointed to see Chris [Evert]'s comment that Serena "doesn't have the most accomplished career", for a couple of reasons. Firstly it seems very ill timed when there's such a mood of goodwill around a titan who could play her last match any day now, secondly because Chris has always spoken fondly on Serena, and also because the remark came straight after Chris said that comparing generations was complicated and meaningless. Of course Serena didn't win 200 titles, but unlike Chris, Serena didn't need to play some Virginia Slims or Liptons 32-player one-week tourney every week of the year to break even. Finally, Serena Williams does not have the most accomplished career in women's tennis? If not her, who? Do you think the comment was taken out of context? Can you think of any other explanation?
Mark
I got caught in some crossfire, enough so that perhaps we ought to address and not ignore this. The taken-out-of-context meter is fairly low so here’s the quote. My default is to back Chrissy. Especially in 2022. I find her to be fair and balanced and reasoned and charitable.
I also reserve some sympathy for her and Martina and Steffi Graf. Even the USTA introduced Serena as “The Greatest of All Time.” If the former champions were to push back (Say: “Wait. I won 18 of these Majors and if we’d known the Australian Open was a big deal, I would’ve picked up more of those.”) it is seen as sour grapes. If not, they sit silent and let their achievements get gets reduced. In contrast to their playing days, they are in a no-win situation.
Jon,
Robert Deutsch/USA TODAY Sports
Fun to see that Coco Gauff has moved into the top ranked spot… in doubles. She still lurks outside the top 10 in singles, but that may not last long. On the question of doubles players and ages, notable that while Coco is 18, the next youngest player in the top 32 in women's doubles is 24—and you have to go all the way down to 46th to find another player younger than 23. Congrats to Coco and her team for helping her be a well-rounded player.
Rob
Amen. Coco achieved this the day before Cincinnati. Then Serena played Raducanu, Rafa returned, Ben (Don’t call him Blake) Shelton beat a top-five player, Coco rolled her ankle….and this achievement didn’t quite get its full due. It speaks well of Gauff’s tennis that she attained that top doubles ranking. It speaks well of her open-mindedness. It speaks well of her flexibility, both with tennis and scheduling.
Jon,
Why do tennis players apologize for net cords (which are always accidental) but never for drop shots (which are always intentional)?
@roostertie
The least sincere gesture on tennis. Some of this is silly social convention. It’s easier to play along than to breach. But I think your use of “intent” is critical. In basketball, in pool, in golf, there’s a difference between a shot you intended and one in which the luck gods smiled on you.
Hi Jon,
Any updates on Alicia Black? I've not heard anything since her surgery. Is Tyra still playing?
@krisnakaboodle
Hurricane Tyra is most certainly still playing, made a $25K semifinal in Saskatoon last month and is just off her WTA career high at 363. I saw her in spring of 2021 at a junior tournament, serving as a coach for a couple of players, which I gathered was to fund her own travels later in the year. I asked about Alicia, was told she was still hoping to come back, but she obviously hasn't. Our paths have not crossed since then; I seem to recall that she might be coaching a bit now.
Jon,
Why aren't there more Grand Slams? Seems to grow the sport around the world, tennis would want additional Grand Slam tournaments in South America, in Africa, in Asia (the Australian Open APAC branding notwithstanding).
Or are we forever stuck with just the four existing Slams, all played on western soil?
Dominic Ciafardini, NY
A few reasons: 1) this is essentially how monopolies and oligopolies roll. They shut out competitors. 2) You could make the case that tennis benefits from scarcity. The more majors, the less special they get, both individually and as a collective. 3) There are venue issues. There aren’t infinite sites that can accommodate three weeks of tennis, feature the requisite television positions, on-site gyms and practice courts. Etc.
ENJOY THE TENNIS, EVERYONE!
Watch the U.S. Open live on ESPN with fuboTV: Start a free trial today!
