How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is Impacting Tennis

Unpacking all of the angles, from Russian logos on gear, to Sharapova’s response, to Medvedev’s recent losses and more.

Some post–Indian Wells chatter and an outstanding reader story to take us out …

Mailbag

Has anyone reached out to Maria Sharapova for comments on Putin’s war in Ukraine? Or are we gonna let her take a pass on this question? TBH there is a lot to unpack here…so many questions
—@tennismum10s

• I posed this and got no response from the Sharapova camp. (Do note, too, that Sharapova shares an agent with Li Na, whose silence on Peng Shuai did not go unnoticed, either.) It’s a balance, right? On the one hand, I think we need to go wide berth here: without knowing the pressures and risks that come with taking a stand, especially a stand that repudiates Putin. But it’s also fair to ask Sharapova for comment. And I think it’s fair to suggest that she is singularly well-positioned to speak out. (Imagine the potential power of her version of the Arnold Schwarzenegger video.) You will note that she did announce she was donating to Save the Children. You will also note her strenuous avoidance of the word war. Lots to unpack here, indeed …

Honestly, Jon what do you think of the decision to standardize the way Grand Slam matches end? I say: finally!
—Tiger T.

• For those who missed it, the Grand Slams … well, let’s cede the floor: “The Grand Slam Board are pleased to announce the joint decision to play a 10-point tiebreak at all Grand Slams, to be played when the score reaches six games all in the final set.”

My honest take? Sure. Whatever. We had a good debate about this on Tennis Channel a few months ago. Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport were firm that the status quo was ridiculous. The fans—and sometimes even the players—weren’t sure how matches ended. My take: The four majors are played on different surfaces in different countries, with different balls. If the conclusion of decisive sets is another point of differentiation, we can handle it. In the end, LD and Martina were right, of course.

To me the big point here is not television or confused fans (they can handle it) or dwindling attention spans. It’s the effect on players. These interminable matches are MAD. As in mutually assured destruction. By 10–10 in a final set, it’s a given the winner will be in no shape to play the next round. For that reason, more than any other, I am in favor of the uniform conclusion at 6–6 in the decisive set.

I am not a fan of being bombarded with tennis stats but Iga Swiatek must be in the lead of players who win sets either 6–0 or 6–1.
—Regards, Victor

• Front-runner. To Victor’s point, Iga Swiatek plays some ridiculous sets. And it would be all the more so, if tennis normed for “quality of opponent.” In her last three sets in the desert—presumably against the three toughest opponents—she won half of them either 6–1 or 6–0. She won the final of Qatar (d. Kontaveit) 6–2, 6–0. Remember she won last’s year Rome final (Pliskova) 6–0, 6–0. Dangerous woman, that one.

It is interesting that the Next Gen—Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Shapovalov, etc.—do not have nearly the consistency in winning tournaments like the Big Three of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. Pundits are lamenting that Next Gen comprise a new “weak era.” Is this fair? Or is the domination of the Big Three aberrational and Next Gen players not being so dominant simply a return to normalcy?
—Fernando

• Roger Federer won his first major at Wimbledon, 2003. The previous major winners? Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Lleyton Hewitt, Al Costa, Thomas Johansson. My point: It is the Big Three—the era, the players, the consistent results—that is the outlier. We should readjust our expectations and remember the previous era (and current WTA) is much more representative of reality.

Why do tennis players apologize for net cords (which are always accidental) but never for drop shots (which are always intentional)?
—@roostertie

• It’s a good question, but it’s self-answered. We call it the faux-pology. It’s an empty gesture—so much so that players sometimes apologize and then fist pump. But the point is the lack of intent. Players don’t aim to clip the tape and send a ball dribbling over. They do purposefully unspool drop shots.

I see both Google and Tennis Channel are listing players such as Rublev or Azarenka without their respective Russia or Belarus flag. Comments in the locker room or on the grounds of Indian Wells about either of these topics?
—Ken Wells, Newport, R.I.

• Full disclosure, I was far, far away from Indian Wells last week. But the country code is the least of it. (Aside: Russian Olympic athletes cannot be identified as competing for Russia. Rather they are Russian Olympic Committee or ROC athletes. This was part of the doping sanctions that run through 2022. As signatories to WADA, why did tennis not adopt this?)

Anyway, I’ve heard a fair amount of chatter—among players, former players, agents, etc.—about whether to ban Russian players. The logic redounds to: “This is war. War brings collateral damage. You use all the levers you can.” Here’s a fine defense of that by tennis coach Jeff Menaker.

Reached out to Steve Simon on this issue and got this response: “The WTA feels strongly that individual athletes should not be penalized due to the decisions made by the leadership of their country or the decisions of other countries.”

Hi Jon. Hope you’re well. Given war in Ukraine, should Kudermetova be allowed to have Tatneft logo on her clothing given it’s Russia’s fifth largest oil company? (To peace on earth and a Rafa win against Kyrgios.)
—Mariko in Bangkok, Thailand

• I did not notice that. Interesting potential compromise. “We’ll let you play. But no Russian signage.”

Is Medvedev the worst No. 1 player of all time? He hits No. 1 and proceeds to get beat by Nadal and trounced by Monfils, and now he’s sliding back down the rankings. Even William Henry Harrison had a longer and more successful run while in the top spot. Has any other player had a worse run while ranked No. 1?
—PR.

• Well … if he never gets to No. 1 we can have the discussion. Right now, I would agree that the run of results were not worthy of the ranking. (Though who can forget Kafelnikov—ironically, of course, a countryman—getting to No. 1 and not only losing but having his prize money withheld on account of tanking.)

More important, cut Medvedev some slack. Almost to the day, he becomes No. 1 as his country invades a sovereign neighbor. And instead of discussing his triumph, the conversation often revolves around whether he should be playing—with Wimbledon suggesting he ought to denounce Putin before playing. It’s easy to see why he’s had trouble summoning his best tennis. His most recent defeat came at the hands of a man whose wife is Ukrainian.

We can argue about how much sympathy we ought to hold for Russian athletes while offering a reminder that it’s not a zero-sum game. (You can feel bad for Russians put in the crossfire, made to answer for a delusional autocrat AND feel bad for the Ukrainian citizenry.) The guess here: Whether it’s next month or next year, Medvedev remounts the summit. And, amid less stressful circumstances, the results will be different.

Jon, I liked your ranking of the American men. Care to reconsider after the week of matches in the desert?
—Charlie T.

• I had to go back and look at what I wrote. I had Fritz first, so I’ll stick with what I had. I’ll repeat: not just a lot to like in terms of quantity. But the diversity of style is really encouraging. Looking at their games—and demeanors—you’d never say that Fritz, Brooksby, Opelka, Frances et al. came out of the same “system.” For as much as Modus Tennis bags on the USTA (and for as varied as the USTA involvement in player development can be) some credit is in order here.

Not to diminish doubles, but I speculate that 99% of those who’ve won a doubles Slam would trade it for the right to tell their grandkids—as can Kyrgios—that they beat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in singles?
—Kevin Kane

• We need another level of context. Beat the Big Three. … Were they injured? Lloyd Harris has a career win over Nadal. But it was a clearly compromised Nadal. Was it in a major? Sergiy Stakhovsky, we’re reminded lately, beat Federer on Centre Court. That’s a smidge different than, say, Jarkko Nieminen beating Djokovic in Sydney in 2009. (A result I inexplicably recall.) But it’s an interesting question: Beat a legend in singles? Or win a major doubles title?

“Djokovic has already taken up too much oxygen an unwillingness to abide by a rule that virtually all others in the sport are following…that remains significant and deeply (technical term) uncool.”

Apparently there is no depth you will not sink to, no slander you find too low; your unbridled vendetta against the greatest of all time is disgusting. You will never achieve a millionth of what Novak has ever done. Shame on you, racist, Serbia hating fool.
—K. Gerard Smith

• So this is, of course, the kind of note best left deleted and unremarked upon, unworthy of dignifying. But here’s a story that I hope a) doesn’t come across as self-aggrandizing and b) doesn’t violate any confidences in telling. There is a Djokovic documentary in the works, one over which Djokovic has editorial control. One of the producers reached out to me recently, asking if I would sit for an interview. I responded with words to the effect of, “Yes. But just know that, highly as I think of Novak’s tennis, I have been critical of some of the ways he has comported himself, especially during COVID.”

The response? Words to the effect of: No worries, we are all aware, and that won’t be a problem.

This is consistent with what I’ve experienced covering tennis and also other sports: Often the athletes themselves are reasonable, respectful of criticism, open to differing points of view. The hardcore fans, using the emoji and the ALL CAPS and using phrases such as slander and vendetta and hating, are not all capturing the sentiment or tone of the athlete they so zealously defend.

A little perspective game I’m playing with a couple of tennis friends….

1. Think about how old you’ll be and how you want your life to be like when Alcaraz is Nadal’s age;

2. Remember how young you were and what your life was like when Nadal was Alcaraz’s age.
—Rod, Toronto, Canada

• Thanks. And embedded in this exercise: what a vote of confidence for tennis. How awesome that this accommodates such longevity, that within a player’s career, we can contemplate these different phases of life.

Reader Stewart, take us out:

Jon,

Guessing you hear these kinds of stories all the time but I thought this one might be worth a mention in the Mailbag….

A friend’s wife plays on a very entry-level, women’s 40-and-over team. This week, she received this encrypted email with no sender identified …

“Hello Ms. XXXX,

We are some players of the USTA 2.5 league team that you are currently a part of. We decided to send this email because it was awkward for us to try and send you the message personally. We understand that you signed up to play rotational tennis with this team but after about mid season this team turned out to be competitive. As you know Friday is the last match of the season and we have to win to make it to the playoffs. A number of people in the team have practiced every single day and worked so hard to get the team here. Also, on the other side—a number of team members supported the team by stepping aside so that the team can play the better players that can win although they have been working hard as well. Most of these people also show up to all the team games and provide us support while sacrificing their spot. We are not saying you are not good enough or there is any fault on your side for wanting to play this Friday. We just want you to know that (Coach) is under a lot of fire from the members that graciously stepped aside after losing their first match so that the team can make the playoffs. They feel like it is not fair that they stepped aside but you get to play even though you have not made the time and effort to be a part of the team— socialise/practice with the team and have the same stats as them.

This email, is just an awkward request to you and it is totally up to you to take it and step aside or ignore it and play on Friday. It is just that the team is full of the people you would want to play with in the future. We would love to have you and play you once you are able to make time to practice more with the team. Again - not blaming you for anything just conveying a message that has been the topic of discussion in the team.”

My friend’s wife forwarded the email to the entire team and the coach and got back a number of apologetic emails and calls—turns out it was solely one woman complaining. My friend’s wife decided to play the match and … drumroll … won a convincing victory that helped get the team into the playoffs.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!