Mailbag: Debating the Hall of Fame Credentials for Maria Sharapova, Simona Halep
While wondering why tennis doesn’t put on a Roger Federer retirement roast with all proceeds going to charity … while thankful Wimbledon and the Lawn Tennis Association will not, I’m told, be enforcing a Russian-Belarusian ban this year … while simultaneously entertaining the twin thoughts that (given the data at this stage), a ban for unvaccinated travelers and the decision to be the only unvaccinated player among your peers (all as you campaign for equal treatment) is indefensible …
… we push onward, in advance of desert tennis.
Who will take over the Davis Cup reins?
We had a handful of questions and comments this week about the U.S. Davis Cup situation. So let’s start there. I was told the USTA is hoping to announce a decision soon, likely during the Indian Wells/Miami swing.
I don’t think anyone is naive about the Davis Cup’s place in the tennis (sports?) hierarchy, but maybe an American push is a way to reinvigorate the competition. And with 10 (!) players ranked within the top 50, this is an important hire, and the USTA needs to pick the right guy. Or guys. I’m told the search committee is open to the possibility of dual coaches, and the possibility of a package deal, whereby a coach and captain come in yoked together.
Who is in the running? Well, first, here is who’s not. Despite the pleading in some corners (i.e., this corner), it doesn’t sound like the USTA is prepared to go off the board and hire someone like Brian Billick (who knows his tennis and knows plenty about team-building). No chance of a player-coach (Rajeev Ram?). I have heard that, despite an executive making preliminary inquiries, there are no women in serious consideration.
I have heard that—even by tennis standards—the conflicts of interest of letting a commentator moonlight as a Davis Cup captain are untenable. There is always interest in Andy Roddick, but he told me he doesn’t have reciprocal interest, not with the Davis Cup in its current format. There is always interest in the “Greatest Generation” from the 1990s, but neither Andre Agassi (Pickleball turncoat! Kidding!) nor Pete Sampras is interested. And Jim Courier did an excellent job but has already held the position. (Michael Chang has three young children but, if game, would be worthy of consideration.)
The USTA has bent over backward to consult with players, which is admirable but complicating. It’s easy to come up with the names of candidates who would be excellent in a vacuum, but are conflicted if they have to choose between their player and a player they don’t coach. James Blake is the name you hear most often, and he would be an unimpeachable choice. If we are handicapping this, I’d put him first, along with Bob Bryan next and a former player of renown. There is likely a solution whereby roles are found for multiple candidates.
Maria Sharapova retired from professional tennis in 2020.
Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports
Jon,
Will Maria Sharapova and Simona Halep not be voted into the Tennis Hall of Fame due to their drug suspensions? Baseball players that used steroids have not been voted in and I wonder how tennis will react to these great players when they are eligible. These players’ drug cases are different but they both have been suspended from playing on the tour. Your thoughts?
Bob Diepold
Charlotte, N.C.
Fair question, but I would push back on the premise. I’m not sure there is a blanket answer of either, “It’s a disqualifying dealbreaker,” or “We believe in mercy.” Totality of the circumstances, as we say in the law. Was this Lance Armstrong—cheating for years, categorically lying, suing whistleblowers whom he knew to be right (which veered into sociopathy)? Or was this, say, Marin Čilić, a man of impeccable reputation, who made—by all counts and documentation—an honest mistake and had his ban reduced?
I would absolutely vote in Sharapova. I still think her doping case was messy. She, of the eponymous candy brand, said with a straight face that she took meldonium for years because of a family history of … diabetes. She showed up for her doping announcement and disparaged the quality of the hotel carpet? She conveniently leaves the drug off her form the year it was banned? Come on. The defense was worse than the crime. And still, a Hall of Fame vote is a cumulative honor. The whole of Sharapova’s career—a career slam, longevity, a spot at No.1, relentless work ethic, conqueress of clay—overwhelms one regrettable mistake. In. Gavel.
The jury is still out on Halep. (An aside: Can we see some data on how often various tribunals shorten the bans given to tennis players? There’s more leniency in tennis than there is in San Francisco criminal courts.) We need to know more about the circumstances of her Roxadustat ban and her defense/alibi. But, again, we’re talking about someone who has been an otherwise honorable, accessible, sporting player for more than a decade. Barring something truly damning to emerge, she, too, gets my vote.
Beyond tennis, I struggle with bright-line Hall of Fame standards. Some bad acts are so bad, you cannot in good conscience let a player in. Others are regrettable but not deal-breakers. This turns into the Double Standards Olympics. (So, cocaine is O.K., but PEDs are not? Betting on a team is forgivable; betting on your own team is not? Bob Hewitt gets ejected, but another bad-faith actor stays?) To which I answer: Yes. Case-by-case approaches are annoying and get us through the turnstiles of everyone’s favorite rhetorical fun ride, the Slippery Slope. But it beats the rigid alternative.
Jon,
I think one of the most interesting tennis players on tour who seems to fly under the radar is Jessica Pegula. Here’s this player who doesn’t have an obviously compelling origin story. She’s not from a war-torn country or grew up playing on public courts in a hardscrabble inner city. She’s the offspring of billionaire parents, and the financing of her career was, likely, almost a rounding error for them.
What makes her compelling is despite her privileged upbringing, she seems to have a fantastic work ethic. She comes across as earnest and down-to-earth, and very un-diva-like. She is a great teammate, as is evidenced by her success in doubles, and, best of all, she continues to make strides in her game despite not desperately needing the lucrative prize money that big tournaments offer. While the “Jessica Pegula Story” is not coming to a theater near you anytime soon, I think she’s a great role model for proving that character and drive can trump wealth in defining one’s athletic success.
Neil Grammer
Toronto
I agree. I talked to Pegula for this piece that ran before the Australian Open and NFL playoffs. The writer never authors the headline, but mine would have been: Jessie Pegula: She’s no Shiv.
Jon,
I read your SI mailbag tonight about Matija Pecotić’s upset of Jack Sock. Another pro tennis upset by a former Princeton player occurred 57 years ago in Indianapolis … remarkably similar to Pecotić’s victory. In the summer of 1966, Chuck DeVoe, a 36-year-old Indianapolis businessman, was given a wild card into the Western Open at the Woodstock Club (DeVoe was a member and later president of the club). Chuck’s first-round opponent, 22-year-old Charlie Pasarell, had just returned from being a quarterfinalist at Wimbledon and was the number-one player in the U.S. in 1967. I’m sure you know Charlie from his Indian Wells days. DeVoe defeated Pasarell 6–2, 9–7. It must rank (along with Pecotić) as one of the greatest pro tennis upsets.
Chuck DeVoe passed away in 2015, but several years before, Mark Miles (who you also probably know from his ATP/CEO days) was a friend of Pasarell’s. Mark invited Charlie to the Indianapolis 500 and the night before hosted a gathering of some Woodstock members next to the tennis courts. When I drove into the club, I saw Chuck and Charlie standing by the court they played on some 45 years before. … I wish I had my camera. Maybe this story makes it in your tennis mailbag.
Jim Bindley
Indianapolis, Ind.
Thank you so much. I knew Chuck a bit from Central Indiana tennis, and I never knew that story.
Hi Jon,
The global nature of tennis is underscored by just how many countries are represented at the top of the sport. Today nine nations are represented in the top 10 ranked women, and 11 nations in the top 13 for men. This isn’t a statistical quirk. Back in June 2019, I found that 16 nations were in the top 17 ranked men and 13 nations in the top 15 for women. Nine countries have won the last nine Davis Cups.
In the face of such truly global competition, It’s another way of celebrating the Big 3s 19 years of dominance. I also wonder if it reveals that a country’s #1 player always feels an extra special pull to succeed—might that be the reason for the regular dispersion of nations at the top, or is it simply that there are too many good players from too many countries for any one nation to regularly dominate?
Rob
Two great questions in one. Yes, the sport’s relentless globalization is an underrated dimension to the Big Three. Fifty years ago, the sport had its pockets—hot pockets, as it were—the U.S., Australia, Western Europe. Now, the top 5 alone is populated with Tunisians, Greeks, Serbs and Norwegians. This deepening, widening pool makes the dominance of three players all the more startling, admirable and statistically improbable.
As for your other point, I think it depends on context. Does Novak Djokovic sweat being the top Serb? No. Does Casper Ruud worry about the other Norwegians challenging his supremacy? Not when the next closest challenger is ranked No. 336. In other cases, being top dog (male or female) not only carries more weight but can also be a motivating factor. There are 10 American men in the top 50. When Taylor Fritz is No. 1, it has real heft. And the plethora of challengers is surely a motivating force.
Quick shots
- The WTA and Morgan Stanley announced a new multiyear global partnership, collectively accelerating their commitment to driving progress for women in sports through this partnership. Morgan Stanley will be the exclusive presenting partner of the WTA’s Come Play initiative, which utilizes tennis to encourage girls to “lead healthy and productive lives on and off the court.”
- In celebration of the WTA’s 50th anniversary and Women’s History Month, Lilly Pulitzer, in partnership with Break the Love, has launched Holding Court and plans to donate $50,000 to WTA charities. Proceeds from Break the Love sales will also be donated to WTA charities.
- Dominic Thiem and Emma Raducanu received two wild-card entries to the Miami Open. The 2020 and ’21 U.S. Open champions will take part in the event that begins March 19. Tennis Channel will carry live coverage of the event, as well as the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells (play begins Wednesday).
- The USTA reported earlier this week that participation in the sport increased by one million players in 2022, the third consecutive year of growth by one million or more in the United States. The organization said there were also significant increases in participation among people of color, which now represents 38% of the U.S. tennis player population (up from 32.5% in ’19).
