Is Stefanos Tsitsipas the Favorite In Paris?
Hey everyone:
• I'll have a separate column coming on Wimbledon's ban of Russian players. That's why the news isn't addressed here.
• If you missed it, here’s Simon Briggs on the secret society of tennis umpires.
• Hat tips to Kim Clijsters (see reader riff at the end) and Tommy Robredo, who recently closed out their careers. J-W Tsonga is next.
• Sung Woo has a new tennis book.
A spring has sprung Mailbag….
Mailbag
I think it is way too early to write off Djokovic, but his post match interview, where he said that he ran out of gas in the third set of Monte Carlo, made me wonder— could he have long COVID? Here is an unvaccinated athlete who claims to have had COVID twice. Vaccines not only decrease the risk of serious disease but also the risk of long COVID. Just a thought—time will tell…
—Anna, Longmeadow, MA
• I had not thought of that. Let’s put aside another disquisition about public health and social responsibility and risk assessment and work on the assumption that his slow start owes simply to a lack of match play.
My tepid take goes like this: “In a weird way, this is such tribute to Djokovic. He has barely played in the last six months. He has had all sorts of stressors in his life, yes, many of them of his own creation. His “flow” is nil. His match play has been minimal. Regardless of his fitness level, it hasn’t been tested in competition. He is almost 35 and playing opponents half his age. The idea that we expected him to resume blitzkrieging through draws says a lot about the standard he’s set and our expectations of him."
Want a real hot take? “In a weird way, he benefits from this blip insofar as we all now can admit that perhaps we took him for granted. He didn’t just roll out of bed and win matches. He was a precise machine; and we see just how much so, when he drops a gear and needs an oil change. We also see how good the competition was/is. One level from peak and even the best players are vulnerable.”
I am with you. I don’t think Djokovic is done. I don’t think he’s done playing top-shelf tennis. I don’t think he’s done winning Majors. But I do think that he could take a while to gear back up. That this rust he is trying to deoxidize—is that the right science term?—did not owe to physical injury or mental health crisis, but was caused by his own volitional decision-making….well that only adds a level to it all.
Disagree. Russians are causing pain and suffering across Europe. Go watch the video of the mother identifying her son that Russian soldiers threw in a well. If Medvedev can't condemn that then I say enjoy playing tennis in Moscow against your fellow Russians.
—@markhershey7
• Again, immorally and amorally and inhumanely as Russia is acting….do we really want to make individuals disavow or repudiate someone or something when doing so threatens the safety of the athletes and their families?
Also, let’s be careful about making equivalencies that are not the false variety. “You want to know about hardship? Ask the Ukrainians. Medvedev can survive without playing a few lousy tournaments.” Those instincts and impulses are understandable. But it’s not really relevant. This isn’t an either/or. This isn’t a suffering Olympics. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrific and vile and tragic. It doesn’t mean that visiting smaller hardship on Russian citizens is therefore okay.
Steffi Graf absolutely does not get the recognition she deserves. I wished she would attend more events to keep her name in the discussion, but of all the GOATs, she is the one who has cared the least about records and numbers. She strictly focused on being the best competitor.
—@drderekpricedba
• More than two decades after her retirement—and nearly three days (to the day) after the dark episode in Hamburg—Steffi Graf, her legacy and her place in history remains a hot topic. I was astonished not only by how many of you weighed in but how widely divergent the responses were. From GOAT to asterisk.
I want to sidestep the GOAT argument and focus on the other point. Unless there is something patently unfair and statistically dirty—comparing a record amassed over 162 games of baseball versus 156; comparing a time posted by an athlete later revealed to be doping—there are seldom asterisks in sports. You play the hand you’re dealt. You can only beat the players put before you in a draw. You can only control what you can control.
The Graf/Seles rivalry—and its historical implications—remains tennis’ tragic counterfactual. How would it have played out had it not been snuffed out by a madman and incompetent security. Seles was 19 (!) at the time of the incident. She had won nine Majors already. You can note the head-to-head trends here. That Seles was—and is—an absolutely delightful human being only adds more emotion to this.
Yet none of this ought to count against Graf or undermine what she achieved. It’s unfair to her. It sets a terrible precedent. What if Federer hits that first serve in the 2019 Wimbledon final? What if the lineswoman is a foot to the left and Djokovic doesn’t hit her at the 2020 U.S. Open? What if Nadal closes out Federer in the 2017 Aussie Open final? What if Serena had delayed childbirth? What if she had decided at a young age to aspire to the WNBA? What if Venus gets her autoimmune diagnoses earlier? What if Player X had stayed healthy or Player Y had not fallen in love.
Sports (life?) are filled with unexpected tests and butterfly effects and fluke occurrences and randomness and sliding doors and small moments that become seismic. We can ask ourselves hypotheticals and wonder. But we can’t assume facts not in evidence to make judgements about want DID actually occur.
Graf would have nowhere near the titles she does now if Monica Seles wasn’t brutally sidelined at her peak. Graf couldn’t touch her at the time. It would likely be Seles as part of the GOAT conversation instead.
—@redredwein
• Perhaps so. And perhaps Graf would have risen to the challenge and never lost again. And perhaps both would have discovered cricket the next week and quit tennis. Who knows? We can entertain all sorts of possibilities. And we should. It’s fun. It’s healthy. It underscores the role of luck. But it’s hard to take the hypotheticals and use them to dilute what actually happened.
Jon, I didn’t see the Boris Becker news until now. Did people in the tennis world know about this all along?
—Charles T.
• This story has popped in and out of the news for years. You sensed this was trouble when one of his defenses entailed seeking diplomatic immunity against a creditor by claiming he was a cultural attache to the Central African Republic. I remember this story about Becker, illustrative in retrospect. This isn’t verbatim but it’s close: It’s the 90s and Becker is in the locker room in Monte Carlo telling a top American player about his private flight. The player is thinking, Damn, big spender. I am ranked higher than you are, I’ve made just as much money, and you’re flying private.
Becker cuts the conversation short. “I have to meet the helicopter.” “What are you talking about?” the player asks. “Oh,” said Becker. “I flew on one flight. I sent my bags on a later flight.” When you are flying your suitcases on a separate charter, odds are good your personal finances could stand to be tighter.
Tsitsipas is the early French Open favorite considering his great run last year, unknown impact of injury to Nadal and Djoker's relative lack of competitiveness due to vax status?
—@vicktorious
• “Broken record” is one of those retronyms, a phrase in need of updating. (“Spotify track stuck on repeat?”) We talk about this all the time, but the distinction between best-of-three and best-of-five is so severe. It’s a check on my optimism for Alcaraz, at least in the near term. It’s why I will take a dinged-up Nadal and a rusty Djokovic over the field. It’s why I don’t think you can be a favorite to win a Slam until you’ve first won a Slam.
In Tsitisipas’ case, he is 23 now and has played more than 50 best-of-five matches. But, well, read this FiveThirtyEight piece: Here’s One More Reason It Might Be Tough To Stop Novak Djokovic’s Calendar-Year Grand Slam.
You wrote "Martina and Chris Evert never bothered venturing to Australia." Really JW? Yes, there were a few years in the late 1970s when they skipped the Australian Open and the draw was relatively weak. But Martina won three Aussie singles titles, Chris won two. Both of them lost championship finals to Evonne Goolagong down under before winning there. There's more but you get the point.
—D. Rabbitt, Morrisville, NC
• Yeah, that was meant as an exaggeration, but it was sloppy and a few of you (rightly) called me out. Here, for the record, are the stats:
Borg: one appearance
McEnroe: five appearances
Connors: two appearance (won in 1974)
Martina: three titles in 10 appearances (for comparison, she played Wimbledon 23 times and the U.S. Open 21 times)
Chris: six appearances (two titles)
Read your column as I faithfully do. You noted, as I've heard others state, that "Chris and Martina rarely ventured to Australia." I would love it if we could have a discussion about that, because I feel like that's a misappropriated sentiment that may have been true in the 1970s that followed that generation of pros until their retirement. However, during the peak of the Chris and Martina show such a sentiment isn't fair to them or the tournament. No one-hit wonders winning here.
1980 — Mandlikova d Wendy Turnbull
1981 — Navratilova d Evert
1982 — Evert d. Navratilova
1983 — Navratilova d Jordan
1984 — Evert d Sukova (who beat Navratilova in the SF)
1985 — Navratilova d Evert in what may one of their most underappreciated matches -- Look for it on YouTube -- it's high quality!
1986 — tournament not held
1987 — Mandlikova d Navratilova
1988 -- Graf d Evert (who beat Navratilova in the SF)
1989 -- Graf d Sukova (who beat Navratilova in the QF)
• I have a great deal of sympathy for Chrissy and Martina especially here. If they complain about this, it’s perceived as sour grapes. But they got a raw deal here. At some point the metrics changed retroactively and “Majors won” became THE benchmark for measuring a career. Quite apart from their sporadically entering Australia, even when they played they did not build it up as one of the year’s four tentpoles, tailoring their schedule accordingly. If I were them I’m be muttering to myself, “Shit, now you tell me Slams would be the end-all, be-all. Would have been nice to know in advance. Maybe I would have played less doubles. Maybe I would have trained to peak four times a year. Maybe I would have played a lighter schedule. You’re judging me on today’s standards and not the standards of my time.”
Shots
• FINALLY…The Tennis Hall of Fame has created an Iconic Moments poll for Fans. The first category “Most Epic Rivalries.” Play along here. These are their options for Most Epic Rivalry:
1. Jimmy Connors – John McEnroe – Bjorn Borg
2. Rafa Nadal – Roger Federer – Novak Djokovic
3. Chris Evert – Martina Navratilova
4. Steffi Graf – Monica Seles
5. Pete Sampras — Andre Agassi
6. Billie Jean King – Margaret Court
7. Rod Laver – Ken Rosewall
8. Venus Williams – Serena Williams
• I’ll distinguish between a men’s and women’s. For the women, I’ll take No. 3. And I’m not sure there’s much of another choice. The contrasts. The durability. The ebbs and flows. The fact that they landed, fittingly, with the same count of Majors and a head-to-head of 43-37. I would add that their post-career friendship says a lot about the binding powers of rivalry. For the men, how do you not pick No. 2?
Take us out, Robert of NY:
When Kim Clijsters announced her comeback in 2019, I was admittedly very confused by her decision. I thought there's no way after three kids she could contend for majors. I further worried she would be setting herself up for colossal disappointment, and that she could tarnish her legacy. Of course, her return ultimately proved to be short-lived, as it coincided exactly with the pandemic, coupled with a spate of injuries.
Still, I find myself now reconsidering her comeback, and I think we can all learn from her brief return to the game. There's something to be said about living free of the opinion of others—not worrying about "tarnishing one's legacy," which really is such a ridiculous idea—and doing something you love as a challenge to yourself. As Kim described it, this was her "marathon." While she may not have the wins to show for it, I greatly admire her effort to pursue what she loved and challenge herself in new ways, all while carrying herself with her signature humility and grace. We should all be so brave. Here's hoping she sticks around the tennis world in her next chapter—the sport is better with her in its orbit.
More Tennis Coverage:
