Novak Djokovic Is Indisputably on Top Ahead of Wimbledon

For years he was chasing a standard set by others, but now Djokovic is entering a Major tournament peerless.

Hey, all you cool cats and kittens:

1) We’ll have a seed report when the draw comes out. 

2) Here’s your fun-if-regrettably-named 2023 Wimbledon pool.

I’ll scrounge up some swag for the winners.

3) John McEnroe does Stanford graduation.

4) Goodspeed Anett Kontaveit, who announced on Instagram that a back injury is forcing her to retire.

Onward ... 

---

Hi Jon. You know how kids these days say somebody or other has “won the internet”? Well, after the French Open result, can we all agree that Novak Djokovic has won/completed tennis? 

James, London, U.K. 

• Residual Djoko-thoughts ...

1) He has spent his career chasing a standard set by others. For the first time in his career, he goes to Wimbledon with an unobstructed view from the top. Will this have any material bearing on his play? Unlikely. But how cool is it—yay, sports—that even the most accomplished and seasoned athletes can find themselves in new positions?

2) If Djokovic wins Wimbledon—a tournament at which he hasn’t tasted defeat since 2017—he will have eight titles on the shaved grass of the All England Club. This will tie him with Roger Federer.

3) He has more majors than the rest of the Wimbledon 2023 field combined. And a full 20 more than the next closest competitor.

Digression:

At some point can we, as a tennis community, agree on some principles re: when to specify men versus women? Again and again, fans and commentators have alluded to Djokovic taking the lead with 23 majors, only to be spanked for failing to note that this is men’s division only and Margaret Court has 24 majors. Really?

We all want fairness and equality and proper credit dispensed. But don’t we also want common sense to prevail? “The middle” is not a popular address these days; but can we find some compromise between erasure/bias on the one hand and dutiful political correctness on the other? 

When someone says, “No American tennis player has won a major since Andy Roddick in 2003,” we are well within our rights to note that, no, actually both Venus and Serena Williams (as well as Sloane Stephens and Sonya Kenin) have achieved this feat. But we have two tours and two draws, and sometimes it’s obvious that we are talking about one gender. “Nick Kyrgios is the only unseeded player left.” Must we really acknowledge that this is a gender-specific discussion and we’re talking about only the men’s draw? And this goes both ways. When we note that Bea Haddad Maia leads the field in aces, must we really qualify this, stopping ourselves and nodding to the male players who—playing more sets—who might have a higher total? The assertion that Serena Williams had the most fearsome serve of her era … isn’t it obvious/implied we are not comparing her to Pete Sampras or Federer, but to other women against whom she actually competed?

Words are important. Bias is important to confront. As one of the few sports where men and women compete contemporaneously and on (notionally) equal footing, tennis has a responsibility to take matters of equality seriously. But it also has an obligation to consider context and intent when policing speech. And stop with the gratuitous traffic stops.

---

The guy nailed the question about GOATs and you evaded it like a true Fed fan. :)

When Fed was the GOAT, we were all talking GOATs. Now that Nole is the GOAT, “GOAT discussions are futile” and “the numbers don’t matter.”

P.K.

• Our only loyalties are to tennis. (And to Daria Kasatkina. Openly opposing odious Vlad Putin overrides the no-cheering-in-the-press-box dictum.)

Anyway, no evasion here. When Federer was the GOAT and there were two active players on his heels, there was a lively discussion about greatness, its definition, its component parts, how much to weigh certain criteria. Now that Djokovic makes like the cheese and stands alone—most majors, most weeks at No. 1, superior head-to-head—the debate has lost valence. Not because it’s suddenly unimportant. But because we can declare a winner.

---

The Alexander Zverev–Casper Ruud semifinal was played second because their quarterfinals were played Wednesday, giving them just one day off, whereas Djokovic and Alcaraz played their quarterfinals Tuesday and had two days off. The Wednesday quarterfinalists always play the late semifinal to maximize their rest. 

Anon

• I was under the impression that the tournament has discretion and can place the “lagging” quarterfinalists first. But I trust Anon, a well-placed source.

---

You’ve eloquently shared the problems with the WTA returning to China. Can you also argue a charitable perspective for how the WTA justifies it? Money obviously, but can you elaborate a pro-China stance? 

It reminds me of when I’m working for a mid-sized company and we have an onerous customer. I ask the president why we put up with them? “They’re 10% of our revenue and more in profit” he retorts. “They’re rough around the edges—to put it euphemistically—but if we drop them, where do we get that 10%? Are you O.K. with dropping them and taking a 10% pay cut?” He didn’t say it defensively but rather with a sympathetic shoulder shrug as if to say, “It sucks, but do you have a better alternative?” Does the WTA have a better alternative?

Kevin Kane

• Truth serum? The WTA says: “Ultimately we are a business and, as such, we have a fiduciary obligation to our stakeholders. And now to CVC, our ‘capital partner.’”

For all the plaudits and social media love, our stance on China made a mess of our balance sheets. We got no help from other sports, starting with the ATP. We could not offset the revenue loss with other events and sponsors. So we are turtling. It’s not Jay Monahan–level hypocrisy. But we are aware that it is a significant reversal, a capitulation, a lapse in moral courage. How is it that we are returning without assurances that Shenzhen will be awaiting our returning with open arms and checkbook? We’ll get back to you.

Spin: By returning to China, we are sending a powerful message: The transcendent power of sports can erode barriers and walls and build bridges. By resuming operations in an autocracy, we are spreading a message of Westernization and modernization and perhaps even democracy. We will reach out to Billie Jean King to come and inspire. We’ll hold clinics for girls. We have a tranche of Chinese players who will now get to compete in front of home fans … How is it that we are returning without assurances that Shenzhen will be awaiting with open arms and checkbook? We’ll get back to you.

Full disclosure: I can find no one to admit this on the record. But it strains credulity to think that the WTA’s return to China wasn’t sealed when it agreed to terms with CVC. Put another way: Does CVC agree to do this deal at valuation X, without assurances that the WTA would be returning to its biggest market? Unlikely.

---

Any word about Gavin Rossdale and whether he is still a tennis fan now that Roger Federer is retired?

Ian T.

• I know that he’s got a machinehead. And it's better than the rest. But no intel about the state of his tennis fandom.

---

Shots:

• Former ATP Tour player Todd Martin was introduced as tournament director of the Western & Southern Open on Thursday. Martin, who will be the event’s 33rd tournament director, assumes the role after serving as CEO of the International Tennis Hall of Fame since 2014.
• The USTA today announced that Kathy Rinaldi will step down as U.S. Billie Jean King Cup captain following the 2023 finals. Rinaldi will remain in her position as USTA player development’s head of women’s tennis and will continue leading player development’s efforts to identify and develop current and future generations of American women’s champions. The search for the next captain will begin immediately.
• The ATP has confirmed that Andrea Gaudenzi has been reelected as the chairman of the organization. The Italian has held the position since January 2020 and will now serve a second term, from ’24 through ’26.