Mailbag: U.S. Open Final Offered a Glimpse at Tennis Without the Big Three

The absence of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the later rounds of the 2020 U.S. Open presented an opportunity for players like Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev. Plus, more on the role of coaches in the final match; the 2020 French Open allowing fans and more.

Hey, everyone:

1) We posted the podcast early this week. Dominic Thiem was our first guest, discussing his maiden and most unusual major title. Dr. Sian Beilock, the president of Barnard and an expert on choking, was our second guest. He was superfantastisch; she was superfantastic.

2) Again, if you want the Mailbag sent newsletter style each Weds., shoot me an email at the Mailbag address.

3) Lots of post-U.S. Open questions, so let’s go fast….

Onward…

Mailbag

Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.

If this is what Grand Slam tennis will look like without the Big Three, I have to admit I am not excited. Yes, it was a very exciting match. However, while nerves are very understandable, I think I found the semis and final to be more nauseating than exhilarating…. This was thrilling but it was not good. I can really see other people saying the exact opposite here, but I am curious to know how you now feel about the future after the Big Three.
—Shlomo Kreitman

• I don’t think you can divorce the two points. That is: it was a shaky final precisely because of the Big Three. The opportunity their absence presented. The pressure to break through and years of noses pressed to the glass. The first final for Thiem entering as a favorite. The knowledge for both players that, in defeat, you leave disappointed. (Losing to Nadal in Paris or Djokovic in Melbourne, you say, “Too good.” That wasn’t going to be the case Sunday.) It also didn’t help that there were no fans to buoy players when they began flailing.

As for the future after the Big Three? Yes, there will be a dip. Yes—as ESPN’s U.S. Open ratings suggest—casual fans may molt like snakeskin. There will be some compelling matches, but they won’t have historical context. There will be ugly matches that will trigger laments of “We so miss the Big Three.” Here’s a wish list:

1) Someone asserts himself. What we don’t want: a rotating door a la 2002. This we know: individual sports thrive when there are assertive stars.

2) More personality and contrast. Part of what makes the Big Three so compelling: the tennis and the relentless winning. But it’s also what each represents and the way they conduct themselves.

3) A gradual (then sudden) end to a golden era. Women’s tennis—by accident or design—ought to be a guide here. Serena is still there, challenging. But she hasn’t won a major in almost four years and her schedule is quite sparse. She’s still Serena and exists on a different plane. But in the last few years, there’s been room on stage for others. Osaka, most obviously. But also Barty and Coco Gauff and Andreescu and Halep, etc. If the Big Three all retired tomorrow en masse, it would be very different (and less desirable) than a staggered fade-out.

4) An acknowledgement that this decline is a necessary evil, a cost of doing business. You have three towering champions and, inevitably, there will be an adjustment period when they exit. The NBA went through this with Michael Jordan. Companies go through this when successful CEOs depart. Inevitably, there’s a lull. But it sure beats the alternative.

5) Some realism. They will hold four majors a year. They will give out trophies on the second Sunday. Until that stops, the sport will persist. The next era is unlikely to feature three guys with 20/19/17 majors. But at one point there was hand-wringing about what tennis would look like after Chris-Martina, McEnroe/Connors/Borg, Sampras-Agassi. We evolve.

American media personnel highlight Serena Williams to no end. I urge y’all to stop this obsession with The Williams sisters. I like them both. I acknowledge that they’ve achieved great success amidst hardships. But the white-privileged players too. No player white, Black, brown have had a free/easy pass to Grand Slam Glory. Moreover, tennis is a Global Sport. It’s NOT just Williams. It’s NOT just the American media and reporters.
—Sahana

• There’s a longer essay here. And I don’t dismiss your sentiment. But, speaking only for myself, this story remains, somehow, UNDERTOLD, one of these secrets in plain sight. You have a global undertaking. The two best practitioners of the last quarter-century are sisters from the most unlikely origins. They broke through as teens in the 1990s. And are still playing with a combined age of 79. And in the meantime, the composition of the women’s game has changed on account of their influence. Most underrated story in sports.

One of the reasons I follow tennis is to observe manifestations of the best in humans that few other outlets provided. Tennis is special because it only allows those with the very best of human abilities to bubble up in order to achieve spotlight. Some of the examples of these qualities from the past few decades: McEnroe (intensity), Williams (power), Nadal (stamina), Federer (ingenuity). Now, this sport is graced by the descent of Daniil Medvedev upon it, who embodies the most powerful combination of physical and inner beauty. Do you agree?
—Alex Gorbounov, Cary, N.C.

• Whoa, didn’t see that twist coming there at the end. Might be a little early to include Medvedev in the Federer/Nadal/Serena/McEnroe canon. But no accounting for taste. I do see how Medvedev endears. Sometimes he recalls Cosmo Kramer; other times Jack Kramer. Everything from his technique to his sense of humor is sui generis. He is 6’6” but plays much smaller—come to think of it, so does his countryman Karen Khachanov. Again, Alex scans a little purple perhaps. But you’ll have fun backing Medvedev.

One good aspect about the upcoming French Open TV coverage is that, given how the VIPs are often not in their seats, social distance seating will look the same as normal seating in any other year! Thanks for the great coverage of the W&S and the U.S. Open.
—Troy

• Well played. If you’re playing Chatrier, it will seem like a normal match. Especially at lunch time. Serious point about French Open TV coverage: Tennis Channel has you covered first ball to last.

Vika gets to stay in a house with her family? How does that work? Thought everyone had to stay in the same hotel? Or is this some other bubble variant?
—Helen of DC

• Players had the option to stay at a private residence. Vika chose that option. (As did Osaka, by the way.) Most players did not. This option is not available to players at the French, even those with residences in Paris. Which is slightly perplexing given that, as I write this, fans will be permitted on-site. Which leads to….

Jon, help me understand: players are not allowed to stay in private residences during the French Open, even if it’s their own home. But fans are permitted in the stadium. How does that make sense?
—Jeff, Brooklyn

• This is much discussed. And not simply because Serena Williams is among those with a home in Paris. One answer: the tournament is confident that the fans will be socially-distanced from the players. The other: unlike the U.S. Open and ESPN, the French Open has no nine-figure TV partner, and thus ticket revenue is essential.

Hi Jon. Long, long, long-time reader. My issue with best-of-five vs. best-of-three is about the difference between non-majors and majors. Why on earth are matches 67% longer during the majors? The majors are like tennis’s version of the playoffs. Best-of-five in tennis is like if each quarter in the NBA playoffs was 20 minutes instead of 12. If every NFL quarter was 25 minutes, but only in the playoffs. If soccer went from 1.5 hours to 2.5 hours during the big tournaments. Five periods of playoff hockey. If golf majors were 30 holes instead of 18. It would be interminable in every case. It would hurt the sport in every case. Tennis shouldn’t be so focused on being an endurance sport—it should showcase skill and athleticism. Best-of-three for all! (That said, it's great to have tennis back)
—Ben G., Austin, Texas

• A few reasons. 1) There is a day of rest, recovery and restoration between matches. 2) History matters. 3) The majors should distinguish themselves from conventional events. My idea once again: best-of-three in Week One, for bodily preservation and as a scheduling laxative. Then, best-of-five in Week Two for heft and gravitas.

But I challenge your premise. The playoffs in most sports feature best-of-seven games against the same team. The duration of the games themselves is not, obviously, longer. But it’s sure different from a conventional regular season arrangement.

Nice to see Thiem grab that Slam. His path toward it has been strikingly steady and methodical, so it's not a surprise. But it's nice to see it happen.

Right off the bat, I'll admit: Massú and Thiem both, without doubt, know more about tennis than I ever will. But to my eyes there's a glaring problem with Thiem's game: as you've mentioned before, it takes him a long time to set up his shots. Given that he also stays so far back, it seems to put him into a position of having to expend an enormous amount of energy generating the pace and power to win points because his opponents have a lot of time to prepare for what's coming back to them. No wonder he was cramping at the end of the match against Zverev. It also allows Thiem almost no margin for error or fatigue; it's like he's eliminated having a plan B. And it seems obvious that kind of approach won't work well against Djokovic or Nadal on either hard courts or clay. If I was on Thiem's team (heh), I'd be pressing him to move in and shorten his swing AND make more use of changes of pace and drop shots. What are your thoughts?
—Chris

• Never mind my thoughts. Let’s go to the source. I put this to Thiem. He had a good answer.

Hi Jon, I keep thinking of the following analogy for Novak's case (for those who can't grapple with the idea of Nole getting disqualified even though the linesperson didn't require hospitalization): the ball abuse warnings are there for a reason, the possibility of harming someone. It's the same way you get fined if you cross a red light (the inherent risk of injuring someone else.) Now, it doesn't matter if you actually ran over a pedestrian or crashed another vehicle, you get the fine regardless (or the tennis equivalent, a warning.) Should you actually harm someone you also get charged with personal injuries, manslaughter, etc. The tennis equivalent would be the disqualification.
—Lucio from Rosario, Argentina

• Oddly enough—or not—that would describe the Adria Tour as well. Intentions don’t always matter. Someone talking about Djokovic made the analogy: you’re on your way to donate blood, text while driving and hit someone. Your noble intentions don’t much matter.

What are your thoughts on the role of coaches Nicolas Massú and David Ferrer in Dominic Thiem and Sascha Zverev's U.S. Open runs respectively? Thiem jettisoned longtime coach Günter Bresnik for Massú last year. Zverev brought in Ferrer this year, although I understand Father Zverev continues to coach/guide as well. Did you see anything in terms of skills, tactics or psychology that was missing from their games earlier and may be attributed to Massú/Ferru? I also wonder why Zverev is eager to praise his father's coaching whenever he succeeds but refuses to give any credit to his main coach (Juan Carlos Ferrero earlier, Ferrer now) even when asked by journalists.
—Saif Shahi, Washington, D.C.

• I would cut Zverev some immediate slack, given that his father is COVID-positive. I suspect that in praising his father, he wanted to lift the guy’s spirits. Let’s give Ferrer a few more events before assessing. On its face, it’s a curious match. But time and again we see players benefit from a coach (Djokovic/Becker, Djokovic/Vadja, Djokovic/Ivanisevic) who sees the game differently.

Hi Jon, A bit of an esoteric one for you, but it’s been chewing at me for years. Why is it generally felt that McEnroe is a higher skilled, or was more integral to the game than Connors? In pure numbers, Jimmy has more. They both had one outstanding year (’74 for Connors, ’84 for McEnroe.) Tennis Channel, for example, ranks McEnroe higher. Is it just a “what you see with your eye” aesthetic type judgment?
—Jon B., Seattle, Wa.

• McEnroe was a critical darling, a hit in the salon who applied descriptors like “genius” and “creativity.” Again—and forgive me for saying this all the time—McEnroe’s tennis legacy really benefits from his post-tennis role. We conflate his relevance as a broadcaster/pitchman/public figure with his greatness as a player. I suspect the casual sports fan would be floored to know that McEnroe did not in fact win more majors than Pete Sampras, never mind Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander.

Isolationist? I'm not sure what a conspiracy theorist would say but with all foreign leagues capping the number of gaijin they import your suggestion seems rather reasonable
—@robbymack87

• This is re: our conversation about college tennis. Yes, in many sports leagues—Gaijin refers to Japanese baseball—there is a cap on how many foreign players can be on each team. I’m not comfortable with that. But there’s something unethical and inconsistent with college sports when a team is composed mostly of foreign players—especially when its student body is not.

To use my favorite example. Two percent of the Lander College student body comes from outside the U.S. Here’s its tennis team roster. Coaches will recruit the players they want. And athletic directors will allow it. The problem: when a sport, overall, gets the reputation for providing opportunities to foreign athletes, it’s that much easier to cut when the budget ax swings.

Most tennis fans have made up their minds about Djokovic by now, and an unintended consequence like this will have no more effect on his legacy than it has had on the assessment of Henman or Nalbandian or Shapovalov or countless others. Ball and racquet abuse has been around since tennis was first played. If no-one gets hurt, it's at most a minor penalty. If an official gets hurt, it's a disqualification. End of story. As for walking out without giving an interview, countless sports figures have done it, famous and not so famous. Sure, every little incident is noted and remembered but his larger public stances in the realm of tennis and in the world at large will have far more effect in the final analysis.
—Elsie Misbourne, Washington D.C.

• Honestly, bailing on the press conference didn’t offend me as much as it did many of my colleagues. One striking aspect though: Djokovic is trying to assert himself as a leader and a moral authority within the sport. A week earlier he—admirably and rightly and probably to the detriment of his tennis—launched a players’ association. Great. But leadership means accountability. Leadership means taking questions, as well as issuing statements. Leadership means you don’t break one rule and then, immediately, break another. It was David Law who noted that the optics ain’t good when the No. 1 player who wants to be this political force commits an act worthy of default; and then the next image we see is him slinking through the parking lot to leave the grounds, having blown off the press conference that, while uncomfortable, is part of the protocol and norms.

Respect for PCB [Pablo Carreno Busta]! As it stands, PCB has been written off as a clay courter. This is unfair and will be laughably unfair if he manages to reach his maiden Slam final.
—Rohit, Washington D.C.

• That obviously didn’t happen. But yes, respect to PCB. Nick Kyrgios leads the charge of the PCB detractors. And they are all off-base. He now has two appearances in the semis of majors. Which is—checks notes—two more than Kyrgios.

Hello!!! I have something important to relate with you, kindly contact me here
—Khalid George

• Thanks, Khalid. Please do send more details! Just reassure me it’s tennis-related since you used the Mailbag address.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!