Tennis Mailbag: Extreme Heat, Coverage Complaints and More From the Australian Open

As it is written, Wednesday is mailbag day.

• Served’s “Quick Served” episodes recapping the Australian Open are here. Go back and listen if you’ve missed any. We’ll do a full wrap on Sunday in the U.S.

• Good soldiering: Tennis Channel, as usual, is doing its cracking pregame show from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. ET.

• A few of you have asked about how to send questions. At some point, we’ll add a link to the column again. But for now, it’s probably easiest to DM me on X or Instagram.

• ICYMI, here’s the Australian Open midterms grades column.

• Here’s a master class in tennis investigative reporting from The Athletic.

Onward …

Most of this week’s questions weren’t questions at all. They were complaints about ESPN’s tiered avarice (see below) and conspiracy theories about the Jannik Sinner–Eliot Spizzirri match, which turned when the heat stress scale index hit 5.0 and the roof closed.

We all like a juicy conspiracy, but this one was wild. Sorry, folks, there was nothing corrupt here. Sinner, by his own admission, was lucky to win. Spizzirri comported himself so admirably both during play and in the post-match press conference, where—with more incentive than anyone to see corruption—doused the feverish talk.

A) At the start of the session, we were all told that the heat index would spike in midafternoon (i.e., precisely when it did).

B) Many pointed out that if Sinner had exquisite luck getting a break just when his legs turned to jelly, he had lousy luck having to play that session to begin with.

C) The heat index is an objective measurement. For all his unchecked power down here, Craig Tiley had no more control over the 5.0 reading than he does over rainfall.

D) But what about the video of Tiley conferring with Sinner’s coach Darren Cahill, who happens to be an Aussie? Talking to a player’s coach—explaining the situation—during a stop in play is both standard and professional. If anything, it would be surprising if there had not been some sort of conversation and communication.

E) But as a thought exercise, let’s game this out. First, it’s an open secret that Tiley is in line for the chieftain job at the USTA. Is he really going to jeopardize this career move by playing dirty pool over Sinner’s scheduling?

And if there were really corrupt motives, wouldn’t the tournament just as likely want Sinner out as in? Despite his ranking and place in the sport, he’s not exactly a ratings driver. An admirable college player beating the defending champ is a compelling story for ESPN, the Australian Open’s biggest TV partner. And Sinner’s exit would’ve cleared the way for Alex de Minaur (it’s been a minute since there’s been a homegrown male champion, perhaps you’ve heard) and/or Carlos Alcaraz, who is a ratings driver. Even if you are to conspiracy theories what Learner Tien is to lefty shotmaking (i.e., an avid and skilled practitioner), this one doesn’t add up.

Jon, I know it will not be easy, but you need to slam Disney for this. You need to sign up for ESPN UNLIMITED to watch [Iva] Jović vs. [Aryna Sabalenka]. I already pay tons to Spectrum and we have Disney+ at an additional cost—which should include ESPN streaming content but alas it does NOT. ESPN is CRUSHING THE AMERICAN TENNIS FAN. THIS IS INSANE!!!

Jaygee, NYC

• Even more than the heat rule, scheduling, ascent of Tien and L’Affaire Whoop, I received the most DMs, mail and missives about the ESPN coverage, especially the tiering. A few points:

A) Direct your outrage at the suits, not the talent. John McEnroe has no more to do with these pricing and programming decisions than Alcaraz does with the prices of U.S. Open tickets.

B) We live in late-stage capitalism. The biggest check wins. Especially when you’re a tennis organization and need to clean up your balance sheets after COVID-19, but the tournament really suffers. It’s not just that fans—committed and casual alike—can’t access your product. It’s that the associations become tainted. Most fans don’t understand the dealmaking in modern media (who can?) and don’t differentiate among greedy parties.

C) As the reader writes, the big loser here is the American fan. How is this sport supposed to grow, tennis to inch in from the mainstream, ratings to improve, players to emerge in the U.S. and brands to get exposure when the fundamental product is so maddeningly difficult to find?

This is a fan complaint at every year’s Australian Open. But it seems especially bad—at least, judging by your responses—in 2026. Which is mystifying since there have never been more platforms, streams and workarounds. ESPN, as I understand it, has one more year on the deal. Maybe the situation will improve in 2028?

I need to weigh in on the great controversy. Of course, cheese with apple pie is a thing! Here in Wisconsin, America's Dairyland, I went to many a church potluck as a child where many an older lady took a piece of apple pie and a wedge of cheese. Now, I can’t say I ever saw anyone melt the cheese, but, absolutely, Jess Pegula, it is a thing. Don’t be ashamed! The bigger surprise is that the pride of Rock Island, Ill., Madison Keys, had no knowledge—she ain’t far from America’s Dairyland.

David W. Wisconsin

• You said it, not me!

Novak Djokovic advanced to the semifinals of the Australian Open after Lorenzo Musetti retired due to injury. | Mike Frey-Imagn Images

Hi Jon

Another major, another ball hit with full force and with spite in the direction of the officials/ballkids/spectators by Novak Djokovic. This one didn’t make contact, but what’s the rule here? Whether it makes contact or not, unless it’s accidental and during game play, shouldn’t it be an automatic penalty? The ball is travelling at least 100km an hour and therefore is potentially dangerous and hit so deliberately. Sidebar: Is this filed in the “why doesn’t Novak get the love” dossier?

Joey

• I believe Djokovic is a towering champion and, fundamentally, a good person. I also believe he is a human being, which is to say complicated and flawed. And even his most ardent fans must concede this was shabby, impetuous, potentially catastrophic and, above all, dangerous. Letting off steam is healthy. Yell. Rip your shirt. Curse. Scream at your box. Hitting a ball without a compass is indefensible.

I suppose it was a bit of insight into Djokovic. How passionate he is about competing. How maddening tennis can be. But also how impervious he is to history. He, of course, is barely five years removed from being defaulted from a major (one he likely would have won), causing great embarrassment as well as—and too often we elide this—pain to another human being. If you or I had an unfortunate encounter, say, driving under a bridge, we would be triply cautious on that route moving forward, adjusting our behavior accordingly.

Again, this is not a blanket condemnation. Serena Williams is an extraordinary champion, but that didn’t insulate her from criticism when she threatened to asphyxiate a lineswoman with a tennis ball. We all make mistakes. But this was quite something to behold given Djokovic’s history. (Do note, Djokovic was full of remorse afterwards and was fined $10,000.)

So you only get defaulted if the ball (or racket) happens to strike someone? A number of you noted the absurdity of the rule. Martina Navratilova and I spoke about this on Tennis Channel. Preempting the pushback, yes, in criminal law, if someone shoots me and misses, it’s not murder; it’s the lesser charge of attempted murder. But here, in theory, we are punishing the act itself, not the result. If we are thinking (as we do) that rifling a ball indiscriminately is bad, why parse the punishment into whether it happens to hit someone? And if we are trying to deter and disincentivize bad behavior, shouldn’t we punish the behavior, not the result?

The reductio ad absurdum came a few years ago at Wimbledon. Frustrated by what he later characterized as “bullying,” Stefanos Tsitsipas was playing Nick Kyrgios and swatted a ball into the crowd. It grazed a spectator on the ricochet. The discussion was whether he should or shouldn’t be sanctioned because someone was hit on the bounce, not on the fly. Come on.

Hello Jon. My question is this: Can you possibly provide an inside peek into the relationship between [Stan] Wawrinka and [Roger] Federer? The latter was nowhere near the former’s ceremony in 2022 nor was there any social media statement. As for Federer, this being Wawrinka’s last year and all, I was expecting some engagement from him seeing that he was in Melbourne for his own farewell.
Any thoughts?

Best,
Sanjeet, Dijon/Zurich

• Well, I think it’s fair to say this relationship has had its ups and downs and tense moments through the years. (Not unusual given that this is a 20-plus year relationship of two players parked at the top of the sport who faced each other 26 times.) Also, bear in mind that Basel and Geneva are not far apart geographically, but are two very different places with distinct cultures, languages, etc. Informed speculation: There is no bad blood or ill will, but the relationship has ebbed and flowed and is not, perhaps, as close as it’s been portrayed.

More generally, this is always an awkward dynamic. It’s one thing if Maria Sharapova invites Serena Williams to induct her into the Hall of Fame, a lovely gesture on both their parts. But otherwise it can be tricky. If Player X attends a retirement ceremony, it risks deflecting attention. If she doesn’t attend, fans read it as a slight.

This is an amalgam question but a few of you have asked a version of this: How is that tennis saw two stars—Jannik Sinner and Iga Świątek—get popped for doping in the span of months. And then, in the year-plus since, we’ve had virtually no players of note popped. Max Purcell and his curious intravenous infusions is the lone sanction against a player currently in the top 100. What gives?

• Let’s acknowledge the statistical fluke (or is it?) here. There were two high-profile sanctions, and then virtually nothing since? There are a number of ways to answer this. But let’s rule out a few theories. No, the thresholds for triggering a positive test didn’t materially change. No, there is no conspiracy to cover positives. (We’re talking blind samples sent to independent labs, etc.) No, tennis didn’t suddenly change the incentive structure. We put this to the ITIA and—to their true credit—they responded:
“Those two cases in particular made everyone in the sport pay more attention to the anti-doping requirements and what could go wrong. As a result, we have seen more engagement and questions coming from within the sport. From our side, we’ve also taken the opportunity to look at how we can provide more support. We have provided more resources with advice and tips and launched a WhatsApp-based platform to make it easier for players to ask us questions directly.”

What’s the deal with the ATP-WTA merger? Happening or not?

Bryan S.

• We’ve been hearing for months that it’s “on the 1-yard line.” I wonder if that meant 99 yards to go, not three feet. Seriously, A) let’s be clear, this is not a merging of tours per se, but a joint commercial venture. B) I hear that these discussions were proceeding apace, then went sideways in Turin last November. The WTA’s deal with Mercedes complicated the proposed split. New WTA executive personnel have become skeptical of the deal terms, which obviously skew heavily toward the ATP.

And the CVC private equity play—not philanthropy!—is also a complicating factor. (A discussion for another time: The CVC investment, which subsidized equal prize money so the tournaments didn’t have to, remains a mystifying move by the tour.)

Anyway, at this point, we’d settle for a joint ATP-WTA app!

Hey Jon

I really hope Amélie Mauresmo watched Stan Wawrinka’s post-match speech with Craig Tiley and took some good notes.

Duane Wright, D.C.

A) Amen. Though if Wawrinka keeps up this level of play, he won’t require a wild card. (For casual fans, the reader means that Roland Garros—and its tournament director, Amélie Mauresmo—should gift Wawrinka, a former champ, a wild card. As was the case in Australia.)

B) This should have been a no-brainer months ago. Should wild cards go to former champions, playing for the final time, still capable of winning five-setters at majors? Absolutely! In fact, it’s hard to come up with a more fitting use. Wild cards to meh players from other countries that happen to hold majors? If not outright corrupt, it is, at a minimum, gross.

ENJOY THE POINTY END OF AUSTRALIAN OPEN, EVERYONE!

More Tennis on Sports Illustrated