Mailbag: Should Djokovic Try for the Golden Slam or Focus His Efforts on the U.S. Open?
Hey, everyone. Some Wimbledon wrap-up and somersaulting topspin forward to hard courts …
Mailbag
Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.
Jon, it seems like Novak Djokovic is still weighing whether to play the Olympics and go for the Golden Slam. If you are advising him, what are you telling him?
—S.K.
• It’s funny, I’m in a group text with a mix of former ATP players, Federer fanatics and Djokovic loyalists. When this came up Sunday, discussions were all over the place.
Side A: This is a historic opportunity. Last time a player won the Grand Slam—Steffi Graf in 1988, of course—she also won the Olympic gold. For a player who loves challenges and loves his country and has little Olympic success to date, this is an opportunity he’ll never have again. Sadly, even if he wins the Grand Slam people will say, “Yeah, but unlike Steffi, he didn’t even try to play the Olympics.”
Side B: This is madness. He is trying to win the Grand Slam, a historic achievement. He's going to jeopardize that by flying to Tokyo, enduring this COVID-19-complicated Games, then flying back across the world to try and win the U.S. Open? No. 1, he should be giving himself the best chance to win the fourth major, not trying to win a gold medal in best-of-three matches. If he falters at the U.S. Open and it’s because he’s jet-lagged or dinged up Tokyo, he’ll never forgive himself.
I have to admit, I lean toward Camp B.
Peter van den Berg/USA TODAY Sports
Watching Wimbledon the past few weeks, especially the drama between [Jelena] Ostapenko and [Ajla] Tomljanović, has made me realize that medical timeouts need to go. Players abuse them to try to disrupt their opponents. MMA, which results in many more injuries than tennis, doesn't allow medical timeouts for the athletes. If you are injured and cannot continue, you have to quit. You have to finish the match with what you got. They can let players take toilet breaks between sets but the stalling tactics are being abused more than ever and they need to stop.
—Raymond
• Much as we all like a firm policy, this injury business is messy. How much latitude do we give players? An immediate MMA-style default for a rolled ankle or a pull that can be taped up? Seems harsh (especially when players aren’t under contract; especially when promoters and TV already complains there is too little predictability; especially when fans, too, want maximum fan sessions). Differentiating between legitimate injuries and lack-of-conditioning injuries is tricky. (Should players get a break if they cramp?) Do we allow trainers to judge what’s a legit injury?
I think you could argue that the system, while imperfect and open to abuse, ultimately works. There is a lot of gray area, perhaps necessarily so. But the players who are seen as abusing the system or taking dubious MTOS at dubious times are called out. They might not suffer a formal penalty, but they suffer in the court of public opinion.
Can you rank 2011, 2015 and 2021 for Djokovic? Which season is most impressive in your opinion?
—Deepak
• Check back in eight weeks? When Djokovic started 2011 he had won one career major and was seen as an annoyance who lacked durability and courage. (See: “Bird flu.”) He turns in a three-major season, thwarting Nadal in particular (who was coming off his own three-major seasons). But if he pulls off the Grand Slam, it’s a totally different level of excellence.
Hey Jon, loved the new book, congrats and all that. Riddle me this: why do tennis people speak of a men’s Big 4 era, which justly includes Andy Murray, and not a Big 5, which would include a three-time Slam winner, Olympic medal winner and Davis cup winner, Stan the Man? [Stanislas] Wawrinka always gets the short end when we discuss this era of men’s tennis.
—David Bloom, Schenectady, N.Y.
• Thanks. You don’t hear Big Four too often these days. 20-20-20-3 is a pretty big range. Murray and Wawrinka each have won three majors, but note the reliability of reaching the business end of a major. Murray made it to 11 major finals. Wawrinka to four—though, of course, he admirably went 3–1 when he got there. Also, I think I’ve mentioned this before, but prize money can be a helpful metric when comparing contemporaries. Murray has won $62 million; Stanislas $35 million—which says a lot about their comparative excellence.
I thoroughly enjoyed your article, Pete Sampras Is Doing Just Fine—what a lovely prose! As you ended the article with some discussion of his relatively friendly relationship with all three players who exceeded his Slam total, one thing struck me: Sampras seemed to have at best a cold and sometimes hostile relationship with his rival Agassi. The infamous doubles exhibition starring him and [Andre] Agassi and [Roger] Federer and [Rafael] Nadal comes to mind. When I conflate this (and none too friendly relationships between Sampras, [Jim] Courier, [Michael] Chang, Agassi) with the similarly frosty relationship that [John] McEnroe had with [Jimmy] Connors, and at the same time, the very respectful and even quite friendly relationship between Nadal and Federer (and reasonably respectful relationship between Djokovic and the other two), I am struck with this contrast. Is it the times we are in today? Are today's stars faking it due to corporate pressures? Or are we Americans too individualistic and cannot get along?
—VK
• Thanks. Two theories. First, never mind the reductive discussion about whether they are “good guys“ or friends. … Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all recognize that they are better for the existence of the others. How can you hate rivals when they are also the source of your motivation and thus surpassing achievement? I also wonder if the Big Three haven’t done some sort of mental cost-benefit analysis. It is not worth the agitation, time, mental energy (social media vitriol?) to actively and openly dislike another player.
Seeing all these players’ withdrawals from the Olympics, I cannot help but think that we need to have a conversation about whether tennis is a proper Olympic sport. I recognize how much the Games mean to certain players. But the reality is that it is not tennis’s crowning achievement. Players’ approach to these Games have demonstrated they view the Olympics as a neat and novel experience more so than tennis’s ultimate prize. I am particularly struck by the contrast in how many players have foregone the Olympics because of the restrictions or stateside tournaments when compared to what they were willing to endure to play in the Australian Open (AO prize money notwithstanding). If an Olympic gold is not one of the ultimate achievements in your sport, it does not belong in the Olympics.
—Robert, New Orleans
• The 2024 Games will be held at Roland Garros. Within a time zone or two of most players. Without post-Wimbledon jetlag. Without, one hopes, a pandemic depriving the Games of fans and fun. Chalk the Tokyo tennis malaise up to extenuating circumstances.
Hola Jon! Greetings from Guadalajara México. A reflection and a prophecy. Reflection: Roger Federer has been reached by Father Time. Sure, he may win here or there from now on until his retirement, and this is very possible because of his unbelievable greatness and talent. But watching the match today against Hubert Hurkacz, those half-steps lost against a player at his tennis’ prime, makes all of us who are past our 30’s smile with the proper understanding and comprehension. Congratulations Roger, what a ride! And then, the prophecy: By 2035 (Extra note: Forget the iPhones and so, we will be connected to everything by a device projecting in 3D and attached to our brains…no more bricks in our hands), there will be a new Grand Slam champion with 25 to 30 trophies. He or she will be inspired by this wonderful generation of the Big Three and Serena. We’ll see, hopefully!
—Carlos A.
• Love it but disagree. If someone, say Jannik Sinner, went on a tear right now, it would still be the mid-2030s before he reached 20 majors. We are in for a long reset. After Djokovic goes, it’s going to be a lot of Boris Becker/Stefan Edberg/Maria Sharapova types of careers; John McEnroe/Mats Wilander/Andre Agassi at the high end. A half dozen majors will be gilded.
I envision jaded fans saying, “Good player and all. But not great. Didn’t even win double-digit majors.” We are in an absurd era of concentrated wealth. And unlike income inequality—which perpetuates until pitchforks come out—this trend will correct and reverse.
Carlos might be right. Anticipating the counterargument, if someone had said in 2002, “Before he turns 50, Sampras will be in fourth place,” you would have demanded they adjust their medication. Never say never in sports. But this is basic math. I can’t imagine another 20-major winner in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong—on multiple counts.
What’s the deductible on a $141 million insurance policy payout anyway? What if I bundle it with my home and auto?
Anyway, where does Fed go from here? When the inevitable retirement announcement comes eventually, do you think it’s effective immediately? I kind of suspect he wants a grand tour send-off, a ceremony at each major, but what do I know. Hopefully it’s just one farewell tour, unlike Elton John. That guy is on farewell tour No. 7 or 8 at this point.
—Cheerio, P.
• Great first question. I was expecting a feature on the Liability Policy Cassandra who had the foresight to buy that policy. Get on that, Schaap!*
Where does Federer go from here? I keep hearing: He himself is genuinely unsure. I think it distills to this: What is his threshold for enjoying the trappings of being Roger Federer, and embracing competition and enjoying tennis … while reconciling results that will fall short of the standard to which he is accustomed. I could see him retiring in the next few months. I could see him playing on considerably longer, content that the benefits outweigh the liabilities.
*Departing from my fallback of avoiding specific media commentary, Jeremy—full disclosure: a friend—is the epitome of a pro’s pro and tennis is lucky to have him. As long as we are in Andrew Marchand/Richard Deitsch/Jimmy Traina mode:
I'm far from a John McEnroe apologist—he has expressed some cringeworthy opinions before—but I'm perplexed by the outrage over his comments about Emma Raducanu…"It appears it just got a little bit too much…"
Um, yeah, it does appear that way. She looked like she was having an anxiety attack, a sudden realization of just how big the moment was. What did Raducanu have to say about it?
“I was playing the best tennis of my life in front of an amazing crowd this week and I think the whole experience caught up with me." Soooo, what Mac said! She goes on: “At the end of the first set, after some super intense rallies, I started to breathe heavily and felt dizzy." Yep, a super intense rally can do that to tennis players. Experience and increased conditioning will probably help that. McEnroe didn't criticize her. He didn't downplay her situation, be it mental, emotional, physical or a mix of all three. He didn't attribute it to her gender and he didn't disparage mental health. What exactly did he say that was so harsh?
—Shayne, Louisville
• Yeah, I’ll bite here. We’re all for heightened sensitivity. We’re for acknowledging that words have power and we should choose them carefully. We’re all for treading especially lightly here—teenager, mental health dimension, someone unaccustomed to scrutiny. But at the risk of sounding like an old man, we also need some “outrage guardrails.” I woke up last week to some “Can you believe what McEnroe said?' ” texts and DMs. Bracing for Stephen A. Smith–level insensitivity, I read his remarks and … could not work up much indignation.
His remarks:
“I feel bad for Emma, obviously. It appears it just got a little bit too much, as is understandable, particularly with what we’ve been talking about this over the last six weeks with [Naomi] Osaka not even here. … How much can players handle? It makes you look at the guys that have been around and the girls for so long—how well they can handle it. Hopefully she’ll learn from this experience. … Maybe it’s not a shame this has happened right now when she is 18. I played this tournament at 18, and in a way I was happy I lost. I was able to understand what it would take to make it.”
I’m open to the suggestion I’m missing something. But when do we get to the offensive part?
Is Denis Shapavolov [sic] this era's Fernando Gonzalez? Big hitter. Lacks finesse. Missing point management. Capable of big results in Slams and can threaten almost anyone if he is on form? Yet, brutal to watch when he is off?
—Michael
• That’s a little harsh. And I say this as someone who was gonzo for Gonzo. Shapovalov has a more complete game, the southpaw look, a better backhand, and is only 22. (Gonzo reached a major final, but I suspect his career will pale in comparison to Shapo’s.)
How likely is it that the Australian Open will be held next year? How likely is it that players will want to participate? Wimbledon in a hotel bubble without your family seems to have been a hard enough ask.
—Helen of DC
• Two different discussions. The Aussie Open will be held. The critical question: How many players will be willing to endure the quarantine of 2021 in 2022? Especially when vaccinated. Especially after three majors without a hard quarantine.
These past weeks, I heard from multiple players who were—quite reasonably—upset about the Wimbledon protocols. They played before full crowds at the end and watch hordes of unmasked fans gather … and yet they had to stay at one hotel apart from their spouses and kids? If they are upset by that—and then play a U.S. Open in “normal conditions”—how many are likely to go to Australia for severe isolating? Tennis Australia—savvy as it is—is surely negotiating with the government for sports carve-outs.
Did you know Simona Halep is defending champion at the Hungarian Grand Prix in Budapest, and the Prague Open this week? Grand Prix was last held in 2013. If there had been further calendar wonkiness, like an event that Simona had won in 2019 and just wasn’t held last year because of COVID, then she could be defending at three in one week! Ha. Thought you might find it interesting. And turns out she isn’t playing either.
—Dave in MN
• Great pull. And a nice excuse to praise Halep (who is perilously close to exile from the top 10). What a quietly awesome career, both quality and quantity.
