While wondering about the confusion that excellent NYT reporter, Alexandra Stevenson, when reviewing her mentions during the US Open time….
Mailbag
Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at [email protected] or tweet it @jon_wertheim.
Dan Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, requires that all players coming to Australia for the Australian Open must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. In other words, double whammy. Do you think that many players like Novak Djokovic will refuse to come to Australia because of this?
–Richard Guthriel, Melbourne, Australia
• With a sigh of resignation, we will begin here. Richard’s question has been overtaken by Monday’s news that Australia will NOT require vaccinations for players, but will instead have two protocol tracks: one for the vaccinated and one for the unvaccinated. If you are fed up with vaccine spiel, and I am fed up with vaccine spiel, skip this question. But it is newsworthy. It was by far the most important topic of this week. It involves player number one. And he did no, unsurprisingly, have a good timeespecially in Australia, which has faced some of the toughest roadblocks in the world.
A common Mailbag trope is this: tennis must decide if it’s college or jayvee. There is a lot of raw material for the first one. Worldwide appeal. Vital and vibrant stars. A variety of ages, genders, personalities. History. Tradition. Aura. Tennis rocks.
And then sport sabotages itself with, to mix sporting metaphors, these maddening goals of their own. The governance structure makes the Electoral College seem logical and efficient. The rot caused by conflicts of interest persists. Management companies own the events and, by trying to control costs, undermine the very actors they claim to represent. Some broadcasters do not disclose their moonlighting roles or financial interests in the players’ success, coloring in comments. There are no domestic violence policies, so when players are accused of wrongdoing, the whole sport comes to a standstill. We can continue.
Now there is this: At a time when fans, media, and volunteers cannot get through the turnstiles without proof of vaccination, there is no vaccination mandate for players. And instead of taking an ethical stance, tennis has retired, accommodating the embarrassingly large cohort of players who don’t roll up their sleeves. This he said to me as a victory: “Look how much tennis has played, at least in Australia!” I would say the opposite: tennis seems small and socially irresponsible, more willing to spread a virus than to confront the players.
Tennis is positioned even more dubiously given the stance of other sports. Athletes are supposed to set an example to the public. Right now, they have many leagues leaping on themselves to show off their high vaccination rates. (Even the ATP says it “strongly encouraged vaccination both on site and through communication on more than 20 separate occasions … According to other major organizations, the ATP is considering additional incentives to encourage vaccination.”) So why capitulate?
Regardless, Djokovic is this varsity versus jayvee dilemma personified. Do you want to be an imposing and credible world athlete? Or do you want to get thrown with Kyrie Irving, Evander Kane, and Cole Beasley?
In many ways, Djokovic is incredible. As a player, you will probably retire having broken all records. He is charismatic. He is peculiar. He is smart. He is multilingual. You are also, almost deliberately, unable to get out of your own way, undermining your credibility (and your earning potential) in the process. In 2020, he oversaw the Adria Tour, the sport’s response to the Boys party. A year later, Djokovic recovers from this, wins three COVID-era majors, and repairs some reputational damage … only to become the face of the vaccine-skeptical athlete – or, at the very least, show an aversion to correcting. that perception.
Djokovic is shy about his vaccination status and has come up with some false equivalences of “very good people on both sides.” “Whatever you say, I have it, I didn’t, maybe, I don’t know or I’m thinking about it, they will use it against you. There is excessive speculation, also from the media, which bothers me a lot.”
First, who are “they”? In which universe is vaccination “used” against someone, much less against a celebrity? Somehow everyone from Britney Spears to Hugh Jackman to LeBron James has defended themselves from the attack. And the media speculation? This is not idle gossip. This is not pregnancy or myopia or if you have the coriander chromosome. This is a global public health crisis; and the vaccination status of the players will determine if and how events can be held. The Prime Minister of Victoria has called Djokovic by name. That the media DO NOT report on this and even “speculate” given the lack of transparency? It would be an act of negligence. The viability of the sport depends on this.
For a guy who prides himself on a certain ambassador’s carriage … for a guy who, and this is not a hit, wants you to like it … for a guy who positions himself as a leader … too often, he acts disagreeing with those goals. This is not the tennis Twitter. Or Nick Kyrgios. Or Federer fans. This is the mainstream. It’s sad. It is unnecessary.
There is a Djokovic documentary in the works and it should be fantastic. Who wouldn’t want to take an intimate look at a once-in-a-generation athlete? But he also suspects that in a decade or two there will be another Djokovic documentary, 30 by 30 style. He will relive his glories on the court, which I suspect will include retiring with the most majors, even if the 2022 Australian Open is not among them. But, one suspects, there will also be an unavoidable scene when he takes inventory of his unforced errors off the pitch, his denial of goodwill. And he’ll sheepishly say, “Damn, I wish someone had grabbed me by the lapels and stood up straight and said, ‘Dude, you’re better than this!’ ”The same goes for tennis in general.
Now we’ve seen Andy Murray beat Hubert Hurkacz, beat Frances Tiafoe, almost beat Zverev. At what point do we consider him a contender again?
–Charles, CC
• This has been one of the encouraging stories of the fall. In the absence of so many other titans, Murray has filled a void, both with his personality and, more importantly, with his game. “Yoo-hoo. Remember me? Here? Ex No. 1? Multiple major champions? Give up for dead? Trigger metal detectors with my hip? I still have some game in me. “
In addition to wins, you have to like closed calls. Murray isn’t here for a retirement tour or a “ I just want to test my body ” exercise. He desperately wants to win. He rejoices when he does it. He sulks when he doesn’t. His trolling of Tsitsipas for several days was revealing. His fury at losing to Zverev was palpable. This sounds a lot like the guy’s mindset when he was number one.
Tennis Ogre returns with this … we must take into account the difference between the best of three and the best of five. Can Murray win Masters 1000 events? Absolutely. Can you win 21 sets in a span of 14 days? That is a considerably different question.
Opelka had an “ambitious goal” in its interview, one that I would like a journalist to dig deeper into: Are Indian Wells players really required to spend many hours a day in photo shoots?
–Helena from DC
• Most players arrive in Southern California a few days early, even a week early. Some of this is simply due to scheduling – in COVID-free years, there is a soft week for most players. Some of this is the weather. Some of this is geography. Los Angeles is, save traffic, two hours away. You take care of your commercial obligations: take your photo or your commercial in Jimmy Goldstein’s court; visit Nike; visit the WME offices and voila, you have fulfilled your obligations. At least until the US Open.
Jon, thanks for your great coverage of tennis. Medvedev is obviously a great hard court player; Do you think he will ever be able to win Wimbledon or the French Open, and which is more likely? I feel like it should be good on both surfaces.
–@thomas_fanjoy
• I will say Wimbledon simply because Medvedev is, by his own admission, allowing for a bit of a sandbag, no pun intended, an inferior clay court. But I am with you. It is a deceptive engine. Those wild shots may be too flat for clay, but they still penetrate the court. This is meant to be a compliment, but should be better on grass AND clay. Right now, he’s friends with Osaka. A US Open title; a race to the final of the Aussie Open; a 4-5 career record in Paris (though he’s coming off a quarter-final race) and he’s never beaten Manic Monday at Wimbledon.
Why do tennis players apologize for network cables (which are always accidental) but never for pitches (which are always intentional)?
–@roosterie
• “In our small town of Anatevka, how do we keep the balance?
I can tell you that in a word … Tradition. “
This has become a tennis code. It is foolish. It is insincere. (If players really felt guilty about scoring cheap points, they would concede bad decisions that went against their opponents.) At the same time, there is something charming. Like you-don’t-knock-glass in basketball, there is a recognition that luck, not skill, won that particular point.
So… ..Jannick Sinner, 41 tournaments played? Hope for??? Many??? The boy has just turned 20 years old. What could explain 41 tournaments?
–Bob O, Milwaukee, Wis.
• Imagine if there had been a pandemic that would have wiped out part of the program. So that workload would be even more impressive. Oh wait … Some thoughts: Sinner turned pro in 2018 and was already in the top 100 in 2019. (He is now at the 11th highest of his career). So, he had both the opportunity and the motive. Also, we often talk about how many events have come out of the US and the damaging effect on US players. Well, this is the opposite. A young player establishes a base in Monte Carlo and is a 90-minute flight from about half of the events on the calendar. That reduces wear and tear, jet lag and, above all, expenses. It’s a lot easier for him to play 40 events than, say, Jenson Brooksby, let alone a promising South African or South American.
As for some young American players (sort of), if you had to look at specific shots that might need some tweaking or improvement, which of the following do you think would have the biggest advantage?
a) Gauff’s right
b) Tiafoe’s right
c) Brooksby Service
d) Fritz volley
e) Another player / shot
–Bob K., Brooklyn
• I’d say Gauff’s second serve before his right. Frances’s forehand has that hook. But how often does he really get into trouble? Fritz can, and often does, set himself on the baseline. So for sure, I’ll go with Brooksby’s serve, if only because it’s the biggest shot and there’s no hiding or running around it. Having said that, I cannot overstate my respect / appreciation for him and his game. Here was a guy who started the season playing in the nature of tennis. Now, you have to roam the desert for someone who doesn’t see you as a future top 20 player.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
More tennis coverage:
www.si.com
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.