Hey everyone …
• Here’s the latest Served podcast:
• Here’s Andy Roddick on Armchair Expert:
• I’m hearing that the WTA is on the verge of major sponsor announcement, a well-regarded car company to replace Hologic.
• I had the good fortune of interviewing former U.S. Open tournament director Stacey Allaster onstage at the Columbia University Sports Management Conference last week. There was a lot of wisdom and great tidbits for tennis fans, including this: The U.S. Open was surprised by President Donald Trump’s visit to the tournament. (Note to sponsors: It would be great to keep the partner apprised of visits from prominent elected officials.) The USTA did, however, have a plan in place for what would happen if fans threw sex toys on the court, as is (was?) the rage in other sports.
Onward …
Let’s start on a sad note. It was shaping up as a typical fall tennis week with some far-flung tournaments, withdrawals and vacation posts to social media. There was a comically well-paying exhibition in Saudi Arabia where Jannik Sinner made more money for beating Carlos Alcaraz in a best-of-three performance than he did for beating Alcaraz to win Wimbledon.
Then, Holger Rune tore his Achilles tendon. First, all sympathy to Rune. Never mind that, per his own social media post, he is unlikely to play again until 2027. Any injured athlete will tell you that the worst part of getting injured is not the physical pain (or financial hit in an individual sport) but the emotional and existential trauma. Here’s a 22-year-old whose entire career trajectory—his life even?—has, suddenly, changed dramatically. Send him your best wishes. Be kind to him on social media.
Inevitably, this led to a discussion about the ATP schedule and the untenable demands put on players, the physical grind of tennis in 2025 and the failure of the tours to take meaningful action—heaps of credit to Taylor Fritz for engaging with a fan and laying out the specifics.
Correlation is not causation. It’s impossible to draw a direct line from the ATP’s risible schedule to Rune’s injury. However, common sense mixed with data suggests that players are paying a price for an 11-month schedule, the ball-surface mix-and-match and a reluctance to change format, despite a changing level of physicality and technology.
At some point, perception becomes reality. Both tours need to be aware that any injuries will be reflexively attributed to an unwillingness to adjust the schedule in a meaningful way.
In a related point, we need more data. Information about surfaces, how string technology affects the body and the impacts of rally length need to be examined. If anyone is interested in a research project, I’d love to see a study correlating physical injury and illness with travel. Anyone who spends significant time on the road knows the rigors on the body, compromise to the immune system and the sleep challenges that come with it. Fly private and stay at five-star hotels? It doesn’t matter much. As tennis players pinball across continents and time zones (in a way their forebears never did), I wonder about the effect of this variable.
Jon is it me or is the field getting younger? You have Alcaraz and Sinner. You have Coco [Gauff] and [Iga] Świątek and even [Aryna] Sabalenka is only 27? Where are the thirtysomethings?
Renee
• Funny, I was writing about this very topic and speaking with some coaches. My take: It’s more about the renaissance of the kids and twentysomethings than the decline of the old folk. But here are my five best-informed theories:
1) Training has adjusted for the realities of the modern pro game. There was once a thinking that the sport had gotten so unrelentingly physical that only fully mature bodies could handle the grind. Rafael Nadal, Stan Wawrinka, Novak Djokovic or even Márton Fucsovics was never going to lose to some kid who looked like he just walked out of algebra class. Now? Teens are building strength and conditioning at an earlier age, spending more time in the gym and less time on the court.
2) The absence of Roger Federer, Andy Murray, Nadal, and Serena, and the decline of Djokovic, Venus, and Wawrinka have changed the math. When players in their 30s hold more than 100 major titles, the sport will indeed seem older. When they start retiring, inevitably, the average age at the top will decline.
3) The pathways to the pros make it easier to execute the transition. With pro and junior events held at the same sites, more wild cards going to kids and $75,000 events open to teens, the jump becomes easier.
4) One of the great challenges to young players is (or at least was) the international nature of tennis—not just the expenses, but the mental toll of all the displacement. Now you have federations (think Canada with regards to Victoria Mboko) intentionally taking players all over the world, setting up training blocks overseas, and even supplying them with international coaches. Suddenly, a young person turns pro, and jet lag and time differences are no longer obstacles to success.
5) Note that the trend is happening at a time when more players are picking the college route. You might think that would delay a pro career (and would, counterintuitively, militate in favor of older players), but there are college players like Peyton Stearns, Learner Tien or Ben Shelton who didn’t spend four years on campus. They play for a year or two, winning a ton of matches, learning how to deal with hostile crowds and turning pro with emotional maturity, but they’re still only 19 or 20.
We got a lot of chatter about Peng Shuai and our column last week. Strip away the trolls and the loudest 5% on the fringes and margins, and you are left with 90% of tennis fans who can have a reasonable and reasoned discussion about a complex issue and set of facts.
• I still maintain that we should all be deeply uncomfortable that the whereabouts of a once-prominent player has basically been reduced to a dim rumor, that censorship seems to have prevailed over freedom, that a tour that took such a firm and principled stance—i.e. it could not do business in a place that acted so inconsistently with its morals and values—reversed course so quickly and comprehensively.
The counterargument is completely valid. The WTA, ultimately, is a business. No business operates in ideal conditions; there are always moral compromises and unpleasantries. As one former WTA player texted me last week: “What are we supposed to do? Not play [China] and watch the tour completely fall apart financially. What good does that do?”
It would have been preferable if there had been a creative solution or strategy, one that didn’t destroy the WTA financially but also didn’t compromise its credibility. It would have been preferable if other businesses and leagues (starting with the ATP) joined the march. It would have been preferable if the marketplace had rewarded the WTA’s courage of conviction and a sponsor had emerged to stanch the China losses.
Back in the real world, the WTA had a tough hand to play. Even deep inside the WTA, there was a debate. To some, this was an embarrassment, eroding credibility. To others, it was the only financially responsible decision.
Lost in all this: The player at the center of it has, at a minimum, become a cipher, absent from the discussion, and, it seems, absent from public life.
RE Peng Shuai, good for you. Well done.
RE [Valentin] Vacherot: Another point that, frankly, I’ve not heard expressed: how much does this say about the level of tennis being played at the Challenger and Qualies level? I suspect it says a good bit, but Vacherot’s won/loss going forwards will tell us whether that “good bit” tells us, in fact, a lot, or that it’s an “on any given day” thing and not more.
Skip Schwarzman
Philly, where good things happen
• Good things do indeed happen in Philly. (In addition to the pretzels and murals, it’s where I met my wife.)
Anyway, where were we? Oh, right … Vacherot. Yes, it will be interesting to see where he goes from here*. Was this lightning in a bottle? Has greatness been unlocked, a la Pat Rafter in the mid-90s? Or is this an Aslan Karatsev situation, where there’s a breakthrough, a sustained period of top-50 ball, then a retreat—that is, not a fluke, but not a future major winner.
You’re right, though. What a validation of the level of the Challenger/qualies. This player’s ranking disqualified him from the U.S. Open qualies. Less than two months later, he beat Djokovic en route to a Masters 1000 title, 1000 points and $1.1 million. It gives a renewed appreciation for the level of tennis played by those—male and female—with triple-digit rankings. It’s hardened into a tennis cliché, but the margins truly are that thin.
*I hate to write this because she is a) lovely, b) still a teenager and c) might still be smarting from a wrist injury. But in the spirit of “fair and balanced,” are we not duty-bound to note that since her stunning win in Canada, Mboko has gone 0–4 and has dropped eight consecutive sets?
So last night (Oct. 13) Jeopardy had a category on tennis backhands. One of the questions (answers?) about lobs asked, essentially, what is the opposite of topspin? Naturally I shouted out “backspin,” but Ken Jennings assured America that the answer was “underspin.” I've been watching tennis for over 40 years and never heard the term “underspin.” Before I write an indignant email to whichever intern monitors the Jeopardy email address, can you confirm that I am indeed in the right?
P.R.
• I’m with you, or simply flat. I just saw this thread dedicated to discussion about the episode.
Jon, why are you not writing about Conchita Martínez and the Hall of Fame? She won a major, won an Olympic medal and has now been a top coach for many years.
[Name withheld]
• I am not writing about Conchita Martínez’s absence from the Hall of Fame because Conchita Martínez is IN the Hall of Fame. As she should be. Perhaps because of the COVID-19 lockdown, her induction may have gotten a bit lost in the mist.
To be clear, she was inducted on the basis of her playing, but the idea of a combo designation is the subject of our reader riff ...
Bret Corbridge, take us out …
(And do so knowing that I am totally on board. This is like a player-contributor combo, the same rubric under which I would give a nod to Juan Carlos Ferrero, Brad Gilbert, etc.)
Jon,
Hall of Fame time, so once AGAIN, my annual “pleading the cause” for Vitas Gerulaitis. I know he never achieved the No. 1 ranking (No. 3). He played in three slam finals, winning in Australia, when the “prestige” of winning in Australia is [not] quite what it is today ... but a win nonetheless. With Sandy Mayer, he won Wimbledon doubles. He won the WCT Championships. He won 25 other top level tournaments.
Many of his regular competitors he had to compete against are in the HOF ... and he was competitive with them. He has wins over Arthur Ashe, Tony Roche, John Newcombe, Ilie Năstase, Guillermo Vilas (on clay in Rome!), John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors (after losing 16 in a row). Ironically, I think Bjorn Borg did beat Vitas 17 times in a row, and after that great achievement, Bjorn retired! (Kidding.) Maybe not noteworthy regarding induction qualifications, but Vitas was respected and liked by these men.
And I hope another of his contemporaries, Mary Carillo, gets in this year. I know Vitas was “honored” with the Eugene Scott Award for his “impact” on the game of tennis. To me, he deserves more recognition as a player. Not the immensely stellar playing career of McEnroe, Connors, Borg, but they got in the HOF easily. There are many one-slam winners in the HOF—not saying they should not be—but if they are in, why not Vitas (why not Vitas, why not Vitas, why not Vitas)? Goran Ivanišević, Yannick Noah ... even Michael Chang and Andy Roddick. I think Vitas’s tennis record compares favorably to these men (I think Roddick is the only one of them that got to No. 1).
Why not Vitas, why not Vitas, why not Vitas? Don’t know if my “campaigning” was influential or not, but even the Doobie Brothers made the Hall of Fame!!!
Next up ... Thomas Muster ...
As always, I enjoy reading your thoughts.
More Tennis on Sports Illustrated
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Why Holger Rune’s Injury Sparked a Schedule Debate.