Hey everyone …
• Here’s a tribute to Rafael Nadal off last week’s retirement announcement.
• Here’s an emergency Served podcast. With zero objectivity, I thought Andy Roddick was outstanding here.
• Here’s the latest Served episode.
• Here's the 60 Minutes interview with Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
• Pro tennis comes to South Dakota.
Onward …
When the greatest of the greats retire, I ask myself, What is the most head-scratching stat that will baffle tennis historians in the future? Going 14–0 in the Roland Garros finals, while losing just seven sets in those championship matches? That’s got to be about as untouchable a milestone as exists in the sport.
Ted Cornwell, Minneapolis
• I think you win. The one I cited on the Served podcast: The Australian Open is the worst of Nadal’s four majors and based on his Aussie Open stats alone, he would be in the Hall of Fame. Here’s another one: Nadal is, of course, currently second on the all-time men’s major singles titles list. Take away Australia, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open and Nadal would be No. 3. That is, he’s won more Roland Garros titles than all but two men’s players have won total majors.
Jon, I saw you asked, “Where is Peng Shuai?” Good on you for asking. But who actually knows the answer?
JG, Sydney
• I think it’s important to step back and consider the sweep of this. In 2021, A WTA player—active at the time—made a lengthy and detailed allegation of sexual abuse. She named names. She provided dates. She told her story with metaphor and emotion and an astonishing level of specificity.
Within hours, not only was her account scraped from social media within China, but one couldn’t find references to Peng online. Search engines blocked her name. Typing in tennis terms like “Wimbledon” didn’t work either, evidence of what’s called “The Great Firewall.”
The WTA, quite rightly and reasonably, demanded answers. Not only were these answers slow in coming, but the responses only fueled concern. This is not speculation. This was the WTA CEO’s public characterization.
Eventually, the WTA demanded China undertake a “full, fair and transparent investigation” into Peng’s allegation. Which, of course, was an extravagantly romantic notion. The world’s most powerful institutions can’t get transparency from China. You think this country is acquiescing to the women’s tennis tour? But it was a moral stance and the WTA got its plaudits. Apple, Starbucks and the USOC all hold their noses and do business with an authoritarian, opaque government that Human Rights Watch says is committing crimes against humanity against the Uyghur population. But the WTA showed a spine.
When its demand for transparency was not honored, the WTA pulled its business from China. Yes, it was the height of COVID-19 shutdowns and the events wouldn’t have been held anyway. Yes, this struck some as grandstanding. Yes, it was craftily worded as a “suspension” and not a boycott. Still, it was the honorable stance. Especially as Peng Shuai remained cloaked in mystery. In vague terms, she apologized for a misunderstanding in an email attributed to Peng. When she appeared publicly, it was in the presence of minders from the Communist Party. Once effusive, her social media profile was nonexistent. No WTA players reported having success making contact with her.
Fast forward a year. The WTA’s finances were in a state of collapse. There were no creative solutions for offsetting the loss of China’s revenues. Some board members and advisors began to exert pressure. There was (euphemism alert) a strategic split of opinion among WTA executives. The private equity vultures were circling. The same board members and inner circle types who did victory laps touting the WTA’s “principles over profit” courage were now suggesting that a return to China was essential.
In May 2023, the WTA announced that it was resuming business in China. This represented a complete reversal (betrayal?) of the principles-over-profit talking point. It’s not as though the Peng riddle has been solved. As WTA CEO Steve Simon told me at the time, “We have received multiple confirmations that Peng is currently safe and comfortable, but we have not yet had the opportunity to meet with her personally.”
Inexplicably, amid this capitulation, the return to China did not include resuming the WTA Finals in Shenzhen, the whole reason the tour sold its soul and parked its showcase event in an authoritarian country in the first place. As The Economist put it, the WTA “admits defeat in push for women’s rights.” (What’s more, the same tour that had pulled its business over concerns about ethics and misogyny had now relocated its finals to—wait for it—Saudi Arabia, a country that, while improving, still has an objectively appalling record on women’s rights, human rights and LGBTQ rights.)
And, more crucially, what of Peng Shuai? A question that has quickly become an afterthought. Well, the good news is that the worst fears are unfounded. She is living in China. She makes occasional appearances. Allegedly, she hit tennis balls on the court in Beijing a few days before this year’s WTA event.
But beyond that? Few seem to know. Few—including the WTA—have offered a clear and concrete explanation that would reassure the public. Even the most cursory Google searches reveal astonishingly little.
Here is a player described to me years ago by a Chinese sports executive as “maybe the most outspoken” Chinese athlete. Yet, she is out of the public eye. She does not have a listed agent. She does not seem to post on social media. I am told that, within China, you can still find no reference to her allegations on search engines.
In the case of Peng Shuai, there was an erasure so serious that the WTA demanded that the Chinese government (!) investigate. As the WTA abandoned that demand and made an invertebrate return, you would think that it would at least endeavor to douse any lingering concern and show that its initial reason for leaving China has been satisfactorily addressed. Feature Peng Shuai in a pre-tournament media event. Invite her to present a trophy. Pose her with gold medalist Zheng Qinwen in a promotional campaign. Show that she is happy and safe and suffered no adverse consequences from this ordeal. I was told last week that the WTA’s position from 2023—there are assurances she is safe, but no direct contact—is unchanged.
Where is Peng Shuai? She is in China. And, there, one hopes she is safe, free and happy. The fact that no one seems able to confirm this? That so few still have direct contact with her? That, within China, people are still blocked from accessing this narrative online? I don’t know how someone can look at this entire saga and not, at a minimum, find it deeply uncomfortable.
Jon,
I was really shaken watching the stream of F-bombs by Frances Tiafoe in Shanghai following his match. Maybe it was just because the stadium was mostly empty, but it was so foul and disrespectful and shocking to the umpire. I know he apologized shortly afterward but still ... Do you think a suspension/fine is warranted and if so, what would be appropriate according to ATP rules?
Thank you,
Dominic Ciafardini. NY
• Here’s an understatement: This was not Tiafoe’s finest moment. In fact, this was indefensible. And, to Tiafoe’s credit, he knew it as soon as he cooled off.
Some scattered thoughts:
1) This sounds like something a scolding parent would say, but as I watched the video, my overriding thought was: You’re so much better than this. This was beneath Tiafoe. And, it was surprising he debased himself like this.
2) For a guy who loves the NBA, he knows he’s lucky he plays tennis. Adam Silver sees a player address an official like this and there’s a 10-game suspension coming immediately. To Dominic’s question, what’s a fair penalty? The ATP set quite the precedent when it docked Alexander Zverev only $40,000 for this act of chilling violence. Tiafoe used profanity. But you can’t dock him more than the guy who went full lumberjack on an umpire’s chair. (Even if chair umpires are, apparently, the reason he has never won a major.)
3) The ATP tolerates way too much official abuse. Far more often than not, the folks in the chair make the right call. Players simply misdirect their frustration to the third person on the court. This is not new (see: John McEnroe or Ilie Năstase) but this has been bubbling for too long. Every time the ATP whitewashes, the line of acceptable behavior moves a little lower.
4) The shot clock needs an offseason examination. We get it. Matches take too long. There has to be a disincentive for slow play. Nadal and Novak Djokovic were two grievous offenders and in the era that will follow them, the ATP can pick up the pace without angering two legends. That said, timing is always going to be arbitrary and subject to the mood and cadence of a match. This embrace of the shot clock that starts three seconds after the prior point ends has caused the unfortunate restoration of the policy of ball kids handling soiled/sweaty/snotty towels. It encourages the fake ball tosses to buy extra time. The chair should be able to use subjective judgment to assess good-faith and bad-faith efforts.
5) Reputations matter. Tiafoe is, crassly, good people. He has accumulated a boatload of goodwill through the years. As a result, this was seen as a bad incident, but one that was out of character and not a window into a dark soul. Treat people the right way—as this guy has for years—and when you lapse, it’s seen as just that … a lapse.
6) Tiafoe owes Nadal a fruit basket. Were it not for Nadal’s retirement announcement, this would have gotten considerably more play.
Jon,
I awoke to the stunning tennis news, and I have to tell you I’m absolutely floored to learn that the Davis Cup still exists.
P.
• Well played. Nadal’s retirement announcement might mark the most significant Davis Cup news in months.
I heard you and Andy [Roddick] make a joke about this once. What’s your drink of choice?
• I’m not sure what episode you’re referring to. But since you asked—and since the recency effect is a bugbear of mine—I have a new favorite drink: a Wisconsin old fashioned. Trust me.
Colby Staley take us out!
Hey Jon, I follow the ITF futures a lot and I noticed today in the Winston-Salem qualifying round that Ryan Haviland (who is 43) is playing Nikola Parichkov (19). By doing a quick Google search, I found that this is the second-biggest age difference in a professional match since 1990! The only one bigger was when Thomas Muster was attempting a comeback and he played Dominic Thiem at 25 years 11 months 1 day (according to this link).
ON THAT NOTE … HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Revisiting the Disappearance of Peng Shuai.
