Submissions have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
As it is written, Wednesday is mailbag day …
• Here is the Wimbledon 2024 midterm grades column.
• Here is the latest Served podcast with Andy Roddick. We recorded the episode on Monday night after Novak Djokovic made some news (more on this below).
Onward …
I woke up to a barrage of texts Tuesday morning about Djokovic’s … what? Cri de coeur? Clapback? Whining? … after defeating Holger Rune in the Round of 16 at Wimbledon. If you are among the 17 people who missed it, here’s his on-court victor’s interview. Quick thoughts:
1. Let’s zig instead of zag and prioritize talking about his tennis. A month ago, Djokovic, fresh from surgery and 37 years old, was unlikely to play this event. A few weeks later, he is annihilating young talent, looking like a player entirely capable of winning an eighth Wimbledon title.
2. Djokovic’s remarkable feat, however, was obscured by his remarks. Like so many athletes (see: The Last Dance), Djokovic feasts on slights—real or perceived. Speaking of perceived …
3. Before we go further. Here’s the thing: I was present at the match and NO ONE was talking about those riotous Danish fans spoiling the night with their jeering and booing. There was no warning from the chair umpire and no ejections from security. It wasn’t mentioned on the broadcast. Comb social media and this went largely unmentioned. But this was a slight in Djokovic’s mind, which was enough.
4. There is something almost admirable about Djokovic throwing convention (decorum?) out the window and using the occasion to focus on his grievance. This was no passing reference either. Even when the interlocutor suggested it was likely a misunderstanding, Djokovic pushed back. He was upset. And he wanted it known. This was a window into Djokovic. Full marks for the honesty. Full marks for the humor. If this is what it takes to find motivation, great.
5. By the same token … shouldn’t this be beneath him? You’re the best men’s player in the sport’s history. You have won this event seven times. Your kids are there. It’s Centre Court. You have played a dynamite match. And you’re calling out a few Holger Rune fans … who might or might be sprinkling boos with the familiar Ruuune cheer? Why?
6. My long-running overall take on Djokovic: He is a force of good. He is smart, worldly and benevolent in obvious ways and in ways most fans will never know. His tennis is peerless. Yet, there are these unforced errors that complicate matters so unnecessarily. These gaffes don’t trigger rage or righteous indignation, so much as they trigger eye rolls. The Adria Tour. The defenestration of the ATP Tour head. The Ben Shelton mocking. And when the question is inevitably raised by his fans, Why doesn’t he have Roger Federer’s or Rafael Nadal’s popularity?, it begs the response, Because they conducted themselves with more discretion/caution.
7. Do you know who loves this? Rune. What a feeble outing against a player he has beaten previously. And no one is talking about this regression.
8. Never mind winning Wimbledon for an eighth time, Djokovic has a real chance at major No. 25, which, of course, would make him the all-time tennis leader. If he achieves this, it would eclipse all other neeewwwsss.
Jon, where did Emma Navarro come from? I consider myself an engaged tennis fan. And I did not hear her name much before this year. She is really solid!
Charles, London
• She is really solid. Where does she come from? She was born in New York in 2001 and hails from South Carolina, where she spent most of her youth. As for lineage, her father is a significant player in tennis circles. But only recently did I make the connection that she is the granddaughter of Frank Navarro, an Ivy League football coach of distinction. Emma graduated from the University of Virginia where she won the NCAA title, so she was known a bit in the U.S. for that achievement.
The bigger issue: She took an unusual—and in retrospect, wise—approach to her career, hoarding points at smaller events, often sub-Tour level, under low-intensity lighting. Which is why Navarro’s emergence seems sudden. Meanwhile, she has developed into a complete, mature and efficient player.
Adjacent: I talked to multiple agents about scheduling. As the sport gets more expensive and majors become so important financially, there is a new approach: stockpile points at lower events near home, win matches and build rankings. Then qualify for majors. Navarro has mastered this. We had a seeded player—a No. 31 seed!—Mariano Navone, who has never won a match outside of clay. We have players ranked, say 75–150, whose ambitions are not to cross oceans and qualify for main draws, but to win smaller events near home. Then they look to break the top 100, and, with that, be eligible for $80,000 minimum at a major.
I’ve heard OJ is thinking of retirement? Any truth to that?
@craigggg
• Was I the last person to realize that the lovely Ons Jabuer shared initials with disgraced O.J. Simpson?
As for Jabeur, I’m not sure if it’s a rumor, per se. She has openly talked about her desire to start a family and the burdens tennis places on her. She turns 30 next month, not decrepit—especially not by tennis’s current actuarial tables—but not young.
Jabeur—and, to be clear, this is no criticism—is an emblem of a bigger problem. Players are fried.
How many players have not complained about the demands of the job and/or addressed, admirably, their mental health challenges? Maybe it’s social media. Maybe it’s two-week events that consign players to their competitive bubbles or, worse, maroon them in far-flung locations to marinate in defeat. Maybe it’s agents pressuring players to capitalize on commercial opportunities when they would rather be on a beach. Maybe it’s team members providing unhealthy relationships. Whatever the cause, it is an existential problem that both tours, but the WTA in particular, ought to address with more urgency. It’s not an employee-employer relationship, of course, but if I am the WTA, I am doing everything in my power to make sure someone like Jabeur puts off retirement for as long as possible.
Hello Jon!
With the recent surge of dramatic tennis theater in Melbourne, Paris, and now London … where players are coming back to force a fifth set from two sets to none, or two sets to one down …
Do you think there will be a time when female tennis players will play best of five matches in the Slams? Do you think this should be a consideration in the future?
All the best,
Mike from Dallas
• I don’t. Players—all players—need fewer demands placed on them, not more. We have so many injuries and burnout already, best-of-five will only exacerbate that. I seldom, if ever, hear women advocating for this.
To me, the best point in favor of the five-set format is not the equal-work-equal-pay flawed argument. It is what Mike alludes to. We think about classic matches and inevitably they are five-setters. We talk in heroic terms about marathons and comebacks down 0–2. The women foreclose this by playing best-of-three matches. But, on a balance of interests, it’s not enough to change the format.
This is a terrible decision. It has always been disgusting that the poor kids had to handle the gross, sweaty towels. Have there been problems with the current system where the player has to handle their own sweaty towels?
@boo2youtoo
• Context: Yesterday, I noted this agenda item from the recent ATP Board meeting. “Following recent changes to the implementation of the serve clock aimed at enhancing the pace of play during matches, the Board approved a rule change to permit players to request and be handed towels between points, as was customary before the Covid-19 pandemic. All ATP tournaments must accommodate this provision. This rule change will take effect starting after Wimbledon.”
This announcement triggered much reaction, very little of it positive. The move is tied to the service clock. If players don’t have to schlep over to their towel repository, it will save them a few seconds. But, yes, it’s a bad look. Literally. The optics are bad. The hygiene is bad. The likelihood of controversy (and viral clips) is bad. Of all the issues the sport must address, this one should be wiped away like a bead of sweat.
Jon, what is the deal with [Alexander] Zverev’s second-round press conference … seems like the journalists might have been snubbing him, but why?
Lilas Pratt, Marietta, GA
• Here’s the unvarnished truth: especially during the happily chaotic early rounds, so much of the coverage depends on timing. I don’t know precisely what happened here, but my strong suspicion is that a crackerjack match was happening simultaneously. So, his press conference was sparsely attended. That’s all. I think we all get the implication of the linked story—Zverev has somehow become a pariah because of his legal issues; the media is intentionally overlooking his achievements as a statement of protest. But I don’t think that’s the case.
Hi Jon,
The subject of tennis books occasionally pops up in the mailbag. (You once recommended [Godrdon] Forbes’s A Handful of Summers, which had me in stitches.) So I thought I’d submit Alvaro Enrigue’s Sudden Death as a literary fiction option, and Heiner Gillmeister’s Tennis: A Cultural History, as a historical one, to the book list.
And then there’s Martina Navratilova’s Jordan Myles mystery series, which are … there. (I’d love to hear you ask her about those novels.)
Ryan, Monterey, CA
• Thanks much. Martina added amanuensis to her resume and a vast battery of skills and interests. She recalls those three books as a collaboration. She and the author would discuss the plot and what would and would not ring authentic. It sounds not dissimilar to screenwriting. Bring in the expert as an executive producer to glean insight (and some celebrity buzz.)
Given the collegiate success this year, have you asked your ESPN colleagues what their plans are to put the NCAA tournament on TV this fall and next spring?
@JTWEETSTENIS
• Over to you, ESPN. Your larger point is a strong one. College tennis would be—and should be—an excellent television product.
ENJOY THESE FINAL ROUNDS, EVERYONE!
