Mailbag: Kim Clijsters's Return, a Big Three Hypothetical and More

Author:
Jon Wertheim
Publish date:
Feb 19, 2020

Housekeeping:

• Last week’s guest on the podcast, Robbie Koenig, was terrific, talking about the Federer/Nadal Match for Africa.

• Next up: Sonia Kenin and her new life as a major champion.

• Greg Sharko wants you to know that, by winning in Buenos Aires, “Casper Ruud is the first player from Norway to win an ATP Tour title. His father, Christian, was a finalist in 1995 Bastad.”

Onward, Christian Ruud…..

Mailbag

Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.

It was really interesting to watch Kim Clijsters return to the court in Dubai. While she may have been rusty, it seemed like her competitive spirit started to show itself and brought her to another level. Getting to see a player come out of retirement has got to be one of the most compelling occurrences in any sport. Are there any other players (men or women) that have been retired for 4+ years that you feel could make some noise if they came back to the tour?
—Aaron, Illinois

• Chalk this up to another beauty of tennis: the low-risk, high-reward un-un-retirement. (Thus exhausting our inventory of hyphens for the day.) Kim Clijsters was the big tennis story this week. In Dubai, she returned from retirement for a second time and while she didn’t win a match, she was the toast of tennis. At age 36, she challenged Garbine Muguruza—who was playing in a major final barely two weeks ago—and suggested that she still could play at the highest level.

When Clijsters pondered returning, she very rightly changed her thinking from “Why?” to “Why not?” She was not risking any reputational damage. She’s a Hall of Famer whether she gets double-bageled or wins Wimbledon. (Neither is likely.) She’s not really taking the job of someone more deserving. Unlike in team sports, she’s not messing with chemistry or a salary cap. Unlike a combat sport, she’s not risking serious injury. (Sidebar: the new Antoine Fuqua HBO Muhammad Ali documentary is terrific but watching the Ali comeback fights in the 1980s are enough to make you cry.)

We have this horrible (tarnished?) phrase “tarnish your legacy,” the idea that athletes disgrace themselves when they overstay their welcome. I’d resist this. If anything, it’s the opposite. When, say, Patty Schnyder is still winning matches in her 40s, or Justine Henin is getting back to finals after a respite, it amplifies what they’ve done. And when comebacks aren’t successful—Bjorn Borg comes to mind—so what? We remember the peaks, not the valleys.

As for tennis, it’s obviously a deeply personal decision and I’d be careful to avoid outwardly lobbying. Who knows what personal factors are going into the decisions. Women are more likely than men, mostly because they are not daunted by the prospect of playing best-of-three. And because sheer ball-striking counts for so much. Could Amelie Mauresmo still win some matches? Li Na? Ana Ivanovic? I’d suspect so. Then again, there’s a difference between playing well one week; and playing well week-in, week-out.

Anyway, instead of focusing on retirees, maybe we focus instead on those who are involuntarily sidelined—Andy Murray, DelPo, Bianca Andreescu, Azarenka—and wish them well returning.

roger-federer-novak-djokovic — Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports

Here’s a question that maybe has some bearing on who the GOAT is. If one of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic played in the same era but without the other two, how many titles would each have won? 40 for Federer? That’s amazing to think of. I would say Federer would have the most because he was the most consistent, followed closely by Djokovic, with Nadal a distant third. What do you think?
—PJ, Kansas City, Mo.

• Here’s a point that gets lost too often: competition elevates all of us, not just athletes. If there’s no Nadal and Djokovic to push him, who knows what motivates Federer. Maybe he wins 15 majors and quits to be a full-time dad. If there’s no Federer and Nadal to continually humble him—as was the case from 2008-11—maybe Djokovic never gets in shape and never becomes such a consummate professional. If there’s no Federer to humble Nadal on grass, maybe Rafa never prioritizes Wimbledon, and if there’s no Djokovic humbling him in 2011, maybe he never has the will to persist despite injuries.

The point? Yes, we could simply subtract the other two members of the Big Three and do the speculative math. By that reckoning, each might have 40 majors. It’s also possible each would be long retired and living on a beach. Or, without having innovated, fail to meet a challenge posed by the next generation.

I would contend that the presence of two rivals—pushing and resisting and demanding innovations and fresh thinking—may well have ADDED to each one's majors haul, not detracted from it.

If Karolina Pliskova and Garbine Muguruza both retired today, whose career would you consider more successful? Both of them are extraordinarily talented and underachieving former No. 1s yet have starkly different career trajectories.
—Hanlon Walsh, Birmingham, Ala.

• Interesting question about two players seldom riveted together, but similar in many ways. And they have both been coached by Conchita Martinez. Short answer: Majors are the coins of tennis’ realm. Mugu has two (and nearly a third a month ago), while Pliskova has zero. But note that Pliskova has won more titles (16-7) and nearly as much prize money— $19.9 million for her and $20.7 million for Mugu—and leads the head-to-head 8-2.

The moral of the story: for better or worse in 2020, it’s majors uber alles.

I am a regular reader of your Mailbag column, and I have noticed over the last few months a lot of handwringing over the decline in the credentials of more recent Hall of Fame inductees. Without naming names, I would generally agree that many of the inductees from the last few years have resumes that are less impressive than the average inductees of years past. But I think the HOF has been reducing the standards of induction primarily because of the business model it has set up, which apparently requires an induction every single year. After all, the HOF hosts a tennis tournament that is explicitly tied to the enshrinement.

So, if you believe that the HOF must have an enshrinement each and every year and you run out of obviously worthy candidates, you have to start admitting less noteworthy players. I would humbly suggest there are other options that the HOF board hasn’t considered, however. Perhaps they could spread out the induction of obviously worthy players over a couple of years, instead of automatically admitting those players the first year they are eligible (although perhaps risking the wrath of some fans and tennis luminaries by delaying a popular player’s induction). Maybe they could induct more members into the contributor category. Or, just maybe, they could forego any inductions for a few years until they have a candidate or two truly worthy of enshrinement.

The recent rules changes on eligibility help, certainly, but at the end of the day, as long as the HOF insists on annual enshrinements, this is a problem that won’t go away.
—Ed

• I’ll start by again stressing that the Hall of Fame deserves great credit for becoming more of a thing in recent years. Not a day goes by when we don’t get a question about it. More important, you sense that it’s become a real priority, a real barometer for players. A few weeks ago we spoke with 2020 inductee Goran Ivanisevic and you can hear his voice breaking when he talks about the honor—and how close, he realizes, he came to not making it.

Your overall point is valid. If we accept the premise that the Hall of Fame must have an induction ceremony each year, are there alternatives to the current “business model?” Your suggestion is interesting. Why not stagger the inductions? I’ve often wondered: if, hypothetically, Serena and Federer retire the same year—not unreasonable, given that they were born within a few weeks of each other—are we really going to enshrine two players, with fortysomething majors between, at the same ceremony? And what if one of the Bryans continues on, unlikely as that now appears….would we really enshrine them separately? And what if there’s a real imbalance in qualification. If say, Serena, a titaness, and Svetlana Kuznetsova were enshrined the same year, wouldn’t it be awkward for both players?

Here’s what I can’t figure out: tennis is a sport so rich in colorful and meaningful figures in addition to players. Coaches and promoters and journalists. The Hall of Fame scaled back its “contributor” category at a time when other Halls have expanded theirs. Whether it’s Oracene Williams or John McPhee or Jelena Gencic (tennis matriarch to both Djokovic and Seles)…it’s easy to think of figures who were essential and deserve some measure of immortality. Why not expand the wing for these folks, especially in the years when we’re enshrining candidates with only one major on their docket?

What are the chances that Venus Williams will participate in a record breaking sixth Olympic Games in 2020? She has made it clear that it is a cherished goal. Doubles seems to be the only realistic possibility. When I read the qualification rules my head hurts. Would Serena and Venus qualify as a doubles team? It seems unlikely that Serena would want to play both singles and doubles, but might she if women’s doubles was Venus’ only possibility? Or might Serena sacrifice singles for the same reason? Mixed might actually be Venus’ best bet, but with whom? What are the qualification rules? Might Jack Sock be available?
—John Rossitter, Middletown, Conn.

• Venus’s only hope is a wild card. But it’s a valid hope. Using a slot on a 40-year-old woman, trying to set the modern-day record for appearance, who has given her full-throated support for two decades….isn’t that the IDEAL wild card situation? My guess: if Venus is eligible, somehow she and Serena find a way to play together.

The other interesting battle: who won’t be there for the Americans. Serena and Kenin are virtual locks. After that, the results in the next 90 days will be very interesting. As for the men, it’s unclear how many eligible men (Isner? Querrey?) will accept the offer.

I know your position on ball kids handling players' towels, but it shocks me (and as a parent outrages me) that in this heightened period of virus-fear players still get to just toss their towels drenched in various bodily fluids to ballkids. I don't assume it's because the governing tennis body is aware that the coronavirus doesn't infect children, it's obviously a totally negligent disregard for health and safety of these kids. I as a parent would not allow my child to be a ballkid under these circumstances. There should be some form of body to represent the interests of these children.
—Peter, Hungary

• Towel racks (and bio-waste receptacles) at the back courts would solve this. And provide a sponsorship opportunity. For now (and especially now), asking anyone—much less unpaid kids—to handle the blood, sweat, tears (and worse) of well-paid adult athletes is unsightly, unseemly and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I’m always struck by this: the ATP and WTA trainers come out to the court, wearing gloves, as they should, before ministering to player. Yet I’ve seen players wipe their sweat and then fire a loogey into a towel, before flinging the snot-rag to an unsuspecting bare-handed ballkid. Yuck. May the offending player be quarantined on a cruise ship for two weeks. And may the tennis administrators, who bear blame too, be forced to watch CDC training videos.

Is K.A. done?
—J.B., Portland

• Kevin Anderson? Nah. Though he’s more than a big server, these hurlers of thunderbolts can stay around until their late 30s. Ivo Karlovic is exhibit A.

As many of you know, I find the injury-o-rama—and the collective shrug by the administrators—deeply distressing. What does it say about a sport when so many players can’t make it through a season (including the teenager who is the defending U.S. Open champ) without injury. But the flip side: the players do seem to get these years back on the tail end of their careers. It’s been a rough slog for Kevin Anderson, but should he wish, he could certain keep going. (Bear in mind, too, for players who went to the college route—a la Isner and Danielle Collins—the math can be more favorable as well.)

Jon, I am very happy to see the resurrection of my countryman Vasek Pospisil's career as I have been following him since his junior days. I know he had often been plagued by injuries but perhaps he put those behind him for good. Do you have some insight into his latest resurgence? Is it just a series of lucky wins or is he finally playing up to his potential? Is it going to last? Is it a "buy" recommendation on the way to a 52-week (or longer) high?

Would love to hear your take on it. Still love your column after all these years.
—Les Banas, Las Vegas

• Hey thanks kindly. Without even asking to know the price, I’d buy Pospisil. Wasn’t it only three years ago—right around this time of year—that he beat Andy Murray, then the world’s No.1 player?

Pospisil has—and always has had—a store of talent. It’s mostly been a question of his staying healthy. Now that he’s back in business, he’s beaten Medvedev (indoors!) and Shapovalov and Goffin. And that’s just this month. Big talent. Big game. Big Heart (which, actually, sometimes works against him in critical moment.) And for all the detours on his journey, he’s still in his 20s. Buy, Mortimer!

Jon: Love the Mailbag and your work on TC. The channel really is the best, and your work appreciated. Question: I’ve witnessed many matches where a wrong “out” line call is overturned by replay. All well and good and certainly an improvement but… the point then has to be replayed, which negates who had the advantage, sometimes a severe advantage. In matches where a single point can mean the difference between winning and losing (and sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars) this seems to be a grave injustice. Especially considering automatic line calling is available. Watching the NextGen tournament showed that the automated system works extremely well and I’m sure the players appreciate the added fairness to their matches. Why, at least at the majors and 1000 level tournaments, is automatic line calling not being used?
—Eli, in California

• Good news: automated line calling is being used more often and on clay. Tennis deserves a lot of credit for getting this right. (Note the role replay has played in this baseball cheating scandal.)

As for your question, it’s really a judgment call. Could Player X have made a play on the ball, but for the errant call? If it’s a serve, the thinking is usually that the “out” call hindered the receiver and thus a replay is in order. For something like a topspin lob that rainbows over Player X’s head, the call usually stands. The obvious case: Player X lets the ball go or stops the point. If the call is overruled, the opponent takes the point.