Did Bad Seeding Mess Up the French Open?
Finishing up Roland Garros and spinning forward to Wimbledon ...
a) Here’s the 50 Thoughts column.
b) Note a great reader riff at the end.
c) Your nontennis recommended read … “First Phone” by Catherine Pearlman.
Mailbag
Okay, Jon. The French Open is in the book. The King of Clay is still king. Iga Swiatek is a force. So who wins Wimbledon?
—Marion Halligan
• Here’s my first prediction for Wimbledon: It will be Wimbledon. Despite the depleted field, this will NOT be to a major what Velveeta is to cheese. It will be the real thing; and history will recall it as such. When Novak Djokovic wins it will not matter less than his previous titles.
Anyway, who wins? Djokovic and Iga. Let’s look at the men’s draw. Even if we assume Nadal plays (which I would not) … we’re talking Djokovic in a field with no Russians, no Roger Federer, no Alexander Zverev, no Matteo Berrettini. And Rafael Nadal hasn’t won on grass since 2010. Don’t look now: Djokovic is to Wimbledon ’13 to present what Federer was ’03–12. I would not only pick him. I would pick him against the field.
And Swiatek has not only forgotten how to lose, but her game is well suited for grass. The Federerian movement, the Ash Barty–like gears, the athleticism. She already proved as much when she won the juniors. Not unlike Federer, there’s also the question of “what’s the alternative? Ironically, I might be inclined to pick a Swiatek–Coco Gauff final.
Hi Jon I remember back in 2000, being astounded by Pete Sampras’ 13-2 record in Grand Slam finals. 14-0 in Roland Garros finals? That’s a whole new level of astonishment. (Perhaps even more astoundingly, Nadal has only lost seven sets in those 14 finals.)
—Teddy C., NYC
• Tennis Channel’s crack research team—and, I believe, Ben Rothenberg as well—note that Venus and Serena Williams are also 14–0 in finals come as a doubles team. Here’s another Rafa nugget: He has won 23 of his last 26 finals. And in one of those, he had a fractured rib.
Iga’s point of having a sports psychologist seems valid. Whenever it comes to Nadal, his unknown injuries are exaggerated by him and his team. That’s the way Nadal influences his opponents. Opponents are always playing with a mind set that Nadal is injured but he is not. The way he is playing French open 2022, no one believes that he is injured. Sad at the affairs of this sport.
—Annaji
• Strangely, this email came Sunday, after Nadal went chapter and verse about numbing injections and the like. Two points really quickly:
a) It’s just a taboo but simply wrong to speculate about someone else’s injury. Very easy to make judgments about pain and durability from afar.
b) I found this video helpful, describing the syndrome that has been troubling Nadal for almost two decades now.
A Djokovic/Nadal quarterfinal at Roland Garros is nonsense. Tournament Directors should know better and change their seeding policies to consider surface and history (and also common sense). But why aren’t seeds 1 and 4 always in the same half of the draw, and seeds 2 and 3 in the other half? Zverev should have been in the bottom half with Medvedev. And why are seeds 5-8 randomly spread across the 4 quarters? Could you imagine March Madness operating that way? Or the NBA Playoffs? Adam Silver: “I know you finished 1st in the regular season with the best record, Phoenix Suns, but we’re going to have you play the 5th seed in the first round of the playoffs, instead of the 8th seed. Cool?” It’s even worse for tennis players since there is not a home court advantage (except Rafa at Chatrier, of course).
For top players, the ranking points and prize money for reaching the semifinals and finals in Grand Slams are huge rewards. Plus, two more rounds of building confidence and refining his game could have made a difference for Novak this time, as there wasn’t much separating the two.
—Dave H.
• It boils down to this: Are seeds predictive? Or are they meant to reflect merit and reward past performance (and give credence to the ATP and WTA 52-week rankings)? If the latter, you run the risk of Djokovic, Nadal and Carlos Alcaraz in the same half.
One effect: It felt like Nadal played the event in the reverse for the last three rounds: final (Djokovic), semis (Zverev), and quarters (Casper Ruud).
Enjoyed your 50 thoughts. One minor pet peeve to pass on to TC: when a match ends and the players are coming to the net to shake hands, the camera invariably cuts away to some random crowd scenes—just when we want to see the players' faces, see e.g Djokvic/Nadal at RG.
—@jsl26jeff
• Dirty secret: The feed is usually provided by the host. ESPN and Tennis Channel and Eurovision, etc. simply take the local feed and work off it. But your point is well taken. My pet peeve: The cameras zoom in on figures in the crowd. You—the fan; the producers; the nonlocal broadcasters—are often unsure whether this is a local celebrity. Or just a rando. Then you think to yourself, “Wait, I think that was Thierry Henry. Wasn’t it?”
Interesting point you made here about how limiting media access benefits nobody. But also, as you noted, those with access sometimes ask vapid and/or vaguely offensive questions, and that also benefits nobody. Something has to give, yes?
—@roh_tweets
• No. We’re talking about different things. The press conferences—often quite lively and informative and pleasant—are tainted by yutzes asking questions about cosmetics to female players or whether Casper Rudd is a friendly ghost.
I’m talking about access to walkways and lounges where media who cover the sport consistently—Chris Clarey and Simon Briggs and Reem Abulleil–types—are (or were) permitted access. No one takes selfies. No one asks for autographs. Everyone respects boundaries. But it is an effective place to meet with agents and coaches and pick up the details that make coverage richer and—most critically—benefit the fans, i.e., the folks generating the passion (and footing the bill).
For the French Open to unilaterally and abruptly say, “Yeah, we’re not doing that,” was really shabby. For them to frame it as a mental health concern—characterize the day-in, day-out media, collectively, as antithetical to mental health—was shabbier. This isn’t just media whining. Agents and publicists and coaches were disappointed, too. As were some players. For every Nadal or Naomi Osaka who, rightfully, needs to manage the media onslaught, there are dozens of Jil Teichmans and Rajeev Rams happy to introduce themselves to the world.
What happened to Zverev was awful. But I want to ask you about something that happened earlier in the match. He was given a warning for an audible obscenity. He seemed to protest it and then he turned away from the chair. If he had done it again and gotten a point penalty, wouldn’t he have been suspended from tennis in accordance with the terms of his probation?
—Jethro
• We were talking about this in Tennis Channel–landia. As it was explained to me, Zverev’s probation pertains to acts and code violations directed toward others, so his swearing in frustration is differentiated from, say, his swearing at an official. My question: If this investigation comes back with a finding of guilt or some culpability—triggering a suspension—would it be concurrent with injury absence?
• I didn’t have space for this in the 50 Thoughts column, but I got a gander at the fines list for the 2022 French Open. FWIW, 16 men were fined a total of $48,000. Ten women were fined a total of $32,500. Irina-Camelia Begu’s $10,000 was the largest ding.
Thirty years after the Seles stabbing and this can happen—at a major?
—Mark, Bali
• There are only a certain number of security personnel. If someone is hell-bent on getting on the court, it’s tough to prevent. But, yes, given the 1993 event that echoes so loudly in tennis, it’s especially jarring to watch an interloper breach security and run around the court.
A friend of mine and I were talking about what would qualify as having a successful tennis career for the average player (focusing purely on singles players). We'd love to hear what you and/or other Tennis Channel contributors think. I don't think I have ever seen this being discussed on Tennis Channel or written about by tennis-focused journalists.
We came up with a few criteria:
1) Longevity: a 10 to 15-year career.
2) Ranking: had anywhere between four to eight year-end ranking finishes in the top 100.
3) Titles: one tour-level title or five to 10 challenger titles.
4) Win/Loss record: around 50% winning record (slightly above). Includes tour-level and challenger-level matches.
5) Major record: have close to 50% winning record (ie. has mostly 2nd and 3rd round finishes).
Feel free to change anything we came up with and/or add any of your criteria.
—Peter, Chicago
• It’s an interesting thought exercise. But it’s so personal and subjective. Some players are doing cartwheels when they reach the top 100. Others are bitterly disappointed they’re not top 20. It’s also circumstantial. James Blake went to college with only vague designs of becoming a pro. For him to become a top-five player was a towering achievement. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, to pick a name, was a dominant junior champ. She’ll tell you it took her years to come to peace with her results—plenty of fourth-round appearances but no major titles. Players become parents and suffer injuries and lose motivation. How does that redefine their parameters for success? I hear a number of players talk about qualifying for the ATP pension. That’s a benchmark/goal for some. But for what we would call—disparagingly, perhaps, we need a better term—a journeyman or woman, I think personal standards really vary.
Jon, I love you but I thought that your criticism of Mauresmo was a tad politically correct. It’s not sexist to say that Nadal vs. Djokovic is a bigger draw than any of the womens’ QFs. I hope we can make comparisons on a match-by-match basis based on the players and their stories, rather than turning it into a gender-equality issue.
—Kevin Kane, Kingston, Ontario
• Go back and read the quote in context. She wasn’t pitting a women’s match against a Nadal-Djokovic match. She was making a blanket comparison. It was, at a minimum, really sloppy. Maybe her people shouldn’t have put her in this position. Maybe we should cut her slack for speaking in a second language. Maybe she’s a rookie at the job and should be applauded for speaking from the heart and resisting bland offend-no-one talking points as some of her counterparts do. But this isn’t about political correctness.
Again it distills to this. We all love the Big Three. We will never see them again. Someday soon the pendulum will swing back. We’ll have a Ruud-Rublev final versus another Gauff-Swiatek rivalry installment. Instead of a short-term “who deserves more?” discussion, why not treat everyone equally, working on the assumption that this is cyclical. And that the sport’s great virtue is that men and women compete simultaneously and most fans are fans of both.
Imagine telling Sampras after he won his 14th Grand Slam at the 2002 US Open, in the next 20 years, a player will win 14 French Opens and eight other Grand Slams. And two other guys will win 20 Grand Slams.
—@mathewsgreg1
• Imagine telling Federer in 2018: “Dude, great job on sitting 20 majors. Incredible. But in four years it’s entirely possible you’ll have the bronze medal.” As deep as the divisions go, can we all agree it’s been great theater?
I’m already yelling “cut the sh#t” at Iga Swiatek. She needs to lose all the racket/hand raising when her opponent serves or she’s on the road to becoming the Justine Henin of her generation. Yeah, she may win a lot of titles, but EVERYONE will cheer against her.
—Your Friend in DC
• I’d put it in the category of Nadal’s mannerisms and Djokovic’s ball-bouncing. Annoying. Wish they didn’t do it. But nothing nefarious. And they are otherwise so sporting and known for fair play, that it’s hard to muster much outrage.
Great read; but a mention of Rohan Bopanna, 42 years old, reaching semi-finals at French Open should have found a place in 50 thoughts!
—@darth_pariksith
• Amen.
If every player in the draw took the SAT, who would get the highest score?
—Brian T. New York
• Great question. That can only get us in trouble. Andrea Petkovic on the verbal. Otherwise, rather than make a bad guess, I’ll leave that oval blank.
After winning his 50th French Open by defeating the grandson of Robin Soderling, Rafael Nadal smiled broadly and said "ees unbeleebabull, no?"
Roger Federer was quoted as saying "What's that, sonny?" and Nadal's old nemesis Novak Djokovic simply stated "[The heck with] that guy."
—Chris B.
• Funny. Except that if you gave a choice of who would most likely be playing in 2058, I take Djokovic over the field.
Speaking of overshadowing, Federico Fellini passed away on the same day as…River Phoenix.
—@soccer_tennis—1
• Well played. Surely there is a … story/podcast/doc on this topic.
This may not be the most dynamic question, but is there anywhere in Florida where you can watch tour-level pros practice? Thanks and always enjoy your work.
—David
• Not an undynamic question at all. There’s nothing formal. But go to the right club or facility and, yes, you can watch pros practicing. Which can be as instructive as watching them compete. But I love the idea. Why wouldn’t IMG Academy or Saddlebrook or the Lake Nona facility set up a formal way for fans to watch pros practice? The players would have total discretion—if they didn’t want an audience, they wouldn’t have one.
Neil Sehgal—what a good dude—take us out:
Hi Jon,I'm a grad student at Harvard and really enjoy reading your tennis articles. I read your 50 parting French Open thoughts article yesterday and thought the point about winning a set 6-0 was interesting, so I thought I'd quickly try to check it out.I used data on 181,614 men's singles matches going back to 1968 from Jeff Sackman and for simplicity's sake I just looked at the second set score for matches where the first set score was either 6-0 or 6-1.
When a player wins the first set 6-1, the 4 most common second set scores and their frequencies are:
6-2 18.2%
6-4 17.9%
6-3 15.7%
6-1 12.1%
When a player wins the first set 6-0, the 4 most common second set scores and frequencies are:
6-2 18.2%
6-3 17.8%
6-1 16.6%
6-4 14.3%
Obviously a better analysis would look at more than just the first set vs second set score and use some statistical tests but I think this quick little snapshot is enough to suggest that nothing interesting is going on at a significant level.
More Tennis Coverage:
