Some final final thoughts on Roland Garros 2023. We’ll spin forward to Wimbledon next week.
• Here are the 50 Parting Thoughts wrapping up the 2023 French Open.
• A few hours after the final, Novak Djokovic made his way to the Tennis Channel. Owing entirely to the guest, this is worth your watch.
Thibault Camus/AP
GOAT: Le debat ... c’est finit.
Dominic C.
• Yes, here lies the GOAT debate, 2010–23. It provided rocket fuel for passion and deepened loyalties. It provided fodder for columnists and grist for social media. It gave commentators a go-to. It fomented hate but, one hopes, also underscored a 24-karat golden era. But now it has passed.
Both the beauty and frustration of this debate: There were no uniformly agreed-upon criteria. But it’s hard to look, objectively, at the facts, and fail to reach the conclusion that Djokovic stands alone. This is, of course, not to detract from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and their achievements. This is not to discount any lane of fandom. But therein lies the answer. If you are now failing to acknowledge Djokovic as the GOAT, you are guided by emotion and not empirical evidence: most majors; most weeks at No. 1; superior head-to-head; triple career slam; now more than 15 years bracketing his first major and his most recent; 15 titles in his past 18 majors.
RIP, GOAT debate.
Jon,
Please explain why it is necessary to have a runner-up, who just lost a match and is devastated, speak to the crowd. No other sport makes the losing team or player do this.
Francisco
• Fair. Judging from the time stamp, I suspect this pertains to Karolína Muchová losing the final, being asked to speak and then crying as she took to the mike on the podium. Honestly? I rather like this tradition. The message: You are not the loser. You are a player who won six matches; a player with whom we got acquainted over the last two weeks; the penultimate player standing out of a field of 128. It didn’t go your way today, but, overall great job! We are celebrating you and the tournament you turned in, even if you didn’t win the biggest trophy.
Hi Jon,
The Big Three are each once-in-a-lifetime champions. Not taking anything away from them. But we expect, with fair reason, each generation to be better than the last. Yet, waiting for the Next Gen of men’s tennis to assert itself has become more like Waiting for Godot. Major after major, match after match, when push comes to shove the entire group of men’s players who aren’t one of the Big Three—who are all much younger and presumably hungrier—just can’t seem to get the job done. Five of the past six majors have been won by either Djokovic or Nadal, both closer to 40 than to 30, and the latter of whom plays with pain-numbing injections on his foot. It just seems to be a little of a shallow future for a sport where it seems current champions have to retire before the new breed can finally lift some trophies on a regular basis. What do you think?
Joey
• This is the inevitable byproduct of sports excellence. We ask “Why hasn’t the rest of the field stepped up? Where’s the competition? What’s with the diluted era—no one has won anything.” I go with the eye test. It tells me that three guys are superior. They are/were professionals. They are/were complete players. They are/were well conditioned. It’s not necessarily an either/or, but give me an hour and I would praise the Big Three for 50 minutes and question the competition for the remaining 10.
Hi Jon,
Hope all is well. Can you perhaps take this Q and answer in your next mailbag?
Why is everyone rooting for Miyu Kato when they were so up against Djokovic in the 2021 U.S. Open for accidentally hitting a line judge? Were the two offenses technically so different that while Djokovic was severely criticized, there is a lot of empathy for Kato as she was disqualified?
Or maybe if you have already answered this Q, can you point me to it?
Thanks much and regards,
Kayezad e Adajania, Mumbai, India
• I am reluctant to go here. My gut: Djokovic deserves nothing but glory this week. But details and distinctions matter. In one case a woman, slight of stature, no history of abuse, on the other side of the net, practicing her backhand, taps a ball that travels 30 yards or so and clips a ball girl looking the other way. In Djokovic’s case, 10 yards away, he slaps a ball that hits a woman in the throat.
This goes way beyond tennis, of course. We are all opposed to injustice and want equality and fairness. Yet so often whataboutism falls short. This is not to condemn Djokovic. This was a lapse; he does 99 other things that warrant affection and praise. But I do think a sign of a healthy society—tennis and more macro—is a capacity to look beyond surface similarities (“All presidents take classified documents!”) and make critical distinctions. Not everything is a double standard. Details matter. Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
Jon,
Have you ever heard of doubles players NOT splitting prize money equally between the two players? Is it a given that it is 50-50?
Thanks, Tom T.
• I have never heard of players splitting the doubles prize money unequally. Strictly as a capitalistic exercise, you would think Jack Sock or Taylor Townsend might say, “I’ll play with you. But we are splitting everything 60-40.” But I suspect the extra gain would be offset by the potential to poison the chemistry. (And the potential to be seen as dirtbag in the locker room.)
I asked a few former players if they had heard of something other than a 50-50 split, and they had not either. Equal prize money! It’s almost like doubles players realize that the benefit harmony and the peace that comes with an equal split is better than the alternative.
Maybe the Carlos Alcaraz–Novak Djokovic semi will revive lagging interest, but, especially on the men’s side, yet another grand slam is passing by with scant attention from U.S. media. If Australia was invisible, the French is in witness protection. Throw in the usual suspects (American men flame out, NBC-Peacock is inscrutable, clay is a hard surface to show on TV) with the Federer-Nadal interregnum and attention, and maybe viewership, are reaching a modern low. I’d venture to say that the (unjustified) default of an anonymous women’s doubles pair for inadvertently striking a ball girl has drawn more eyeballs than the entire men’s draw. In many respects, tennis is in good shape, especially with participation growing. But there are very few moments for the sport to showcase its greatness to a casual audience and when these fall by the wayside it isn’t helpful for the future health of the sport.
All the best,
Leif Wellington Haase
• I have no delusions or illusions about tennis’s popularity or the challenges or the missteps. (And I, too, was slightly unnerved that there was more buzz about a weird ball girl incident than the breathtaking play of Iga Swiatek.) But I wonder whether those are relevant metrics. NBC’s ratings are no longer much of a barometer.
Hi Jon!
Thanks for all of your great tennis insights and reporting. I played and coached NCAA tennis, so I am not a casual fan and for the life of me I cannot understand why tennis TV broadcasts use a high camera angle which distorts the game so much. I have sat courtside at matches and what you see on TV is nothing like what you see in person. The height and spin of the ball, the lateral movement and quickness, the athleticism, the racquet technique, the difficulty of shot and none of that comes across on TV. I do see the occasional court-level camera angle but it is rare. Please let me know if you see the same thing I do and if you have any thoughts on why the court-level camera is not used more.
Best regards,
Dave Fletcher, Santa Rosa, Calif.
• Thanks. No disagreement. Just know that at most events, there is a world feed that is given to the networks. It’s not like Tennis Channel employs its own camerafolk.
Just watched the unfortunate end to the Djokovic-Alcaraz match … feels like people should be talking much more about Alcaraz’s choices re: when to go “beyond redline” for balls, which he does far too often. I’m sure that has an effect on his muscles and cramps!
With warm regards,
Randy
• Alcaraz seemed to attribute the cramps to “tension.” But, yes, running for every ball with that kind of intensity on a hot day surely was a contributing factor as well. I also feel that we need to give Djokovic credit (if that’s the right word), acknowledging that both his aura and his relentlessness from the baseline was a proximate cause. If I’m the Alcaraz camp, I spend a few days doing a comprehensive test, a version of a biological passport. Hydration levels, electrolyte levels, weight distribution and make adjustments accordingly. The good news here: This propensity for cramping is something that can be rectified.
Take us out, Tim:
Amélie Mauresmo used to be one of my favorite players—I loved her beautiful tennis and her backstory as a proud lesbian representative of the sport; however, I must say I am completely gobsmacked by either her sheer tone deafness or complete arrogance?
Her past two years as tournament director for Roland Garros have been an utter disaster and a stark reminder that just because a player is beloved (here’s looking at you, too, Madrid director Feliciano López) doesn’t mean they’re qualified to run a major tennis tournament.
Take, for example, her response after being challenged by doubles champion Ivan Dodig about his poor treatment.
Instead of truly addressing the merits of Dodig’s complaint or fashioning a “win-win” solution for all parties, Mauresmo’s instinctive response was to rebuke Dodig: “This is not acceptable to have this type of language on the court.”
Translation: “How dare you question me or make any suggestions for improvement, you lowly doubles player?” Wow, the arrogance!
Additionally, Mauresmo’s very weak excuse of why only one women’s match was scheduled at night (during the entire tournament) is also equally indicative of either her (1) extreme tone deafness or (2) arrogance.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, is the complete double standard in how major champions Aryna Sabalenka and Naomi Osaka, who both opted out of postmatch press conferences, were treated in regard to their mental health. Osaka was very harshly dealt with (a joint statement was issued by all four majors threatening repercussions for missing press conferences, with no regard for Osaka’s mental health). While Sabalenka, on the other hand, received no pushback at all and was even given a statement of support from the French Federation. The tennis press was also very silent on this double standard so once again, wow!
In conclusion, I still love Mauresmo (the player), but Mauresmo (the tournament director) is a complete disappointment, and her poor leadership skills shouldn’t go unchallenged by the press and powers that be just because she’s “well liked” or part of a protected minority group.
