Hey, everyone …

• In case you missed it, the U.S. Open 50 Thoughts wrap-up column is here.

• Here’s the latest Served podcast episode starring Kim Clijsters.

• Plugging a friend’s book: Here’s tennis fan Joe Posnanski on another sports passion, Why We Love Football.

Some straggler U.S. Open questions …

Hey Jon,

Just wondering why Ayrna Sabalenka hasn’t reached the level of superstardom that Maria Sharapova had back in the day (or even now), and if she has the potential to get there on an international/outside-of-tennis level?

I mean, they’re both conventionally attractive and similarly accomplished. Perhaps it’s because Sharapova won that first major at a much younger age (relatively speaking)? Or because she existed in the era of Serena Williams, so she got a lot of the residual shine? I mean, everyone, tennis fan or not, knows the name Maria Sharapova. Despite her increasingly impressive resume, I don’t think it’s the same (yet) for Sabalenka.

Best,
LT (Toronto)

• I answer this—because I agree with your underlying premise—but do so with trepidation. 

Sabalenka is a generational player so, so worthy of support, admiration and fandom. Her tennis, especially on hard courts, is unrivaled. Her power is unanswerable. Her consistency in majors is unmatched. Her will is unshakable. Her personality is uninhibited. 

Why is she not a bigger star?

I was discussing this with an agent last week. Sure, she was a late bloomer in a way that Serena or Sharapova or even Iga Świątek was not. And, sure, until January, she had “only” won one major. I totally disagree with this point (see below, and this point is nullified by Sharapova’s appeal) but I know many fans take issue with her grunting. 

But the agent and I also wondered what Sabalenka’s profile might look like, were she not from Belarus, an autocratic country with rigged elections, support of the moral rot that is Vladimir Putin and abridged liberties. (Note this freedom score.) This is also a country with a per capita income of less than $10,000.

Inevitably, discussions on these lines trigger the Team Whatabout and the other moral relativists. But it is disingenuous to deny that, in tennis, nationality impacts star wattage. Naomi Osaka and Kei Nishikori can capitalize on their nation’s wealth and commercial opportunities, in a way Sabalenka cannot. Zheng Qinwen can capitalize on China’s size and scale in a way Sabalenka cannot. Serena Williams, Coco Gauff and Tayor Fritz can capitalize on American media and marketing muscle, in a way Sabalenka cannot. Players from, say, Germany or Denmark or Canada rise to prominence and suddenly WTA events pop up in those countries. Suffice it to say, that you will not find tournaments and exhibitions being staged in Belarus.

Again, none of this is to blame Sabalenka. She is fantastic and thoroughly deserving of her personal popularity. But it is hard to deny that her global “superstardom” —which I take largely to mean earning power—is undermined by her country of origin.

Hi Jon
Some additional parting thoughts …
51. For the second year in a row some tennis fans had to watch the women’s final with the TV muted. Is it just the fans that have an issue with Sabalenka’s constant (and varying) grunts, or have players also mentioned it?
As always, thanks for your coverage.

Duane W.

• I proposed this new rule: the players in the draw who hit the biggest shots get a waiver on grunting. I was joking. But not joking. When grunting is a byproduct of effort and exertion—and it usually is, certainly in Sabalenka’s case—I give the player a pass. I know that many of you disagree and the soundtrack erodes your enjoyment. But honestly, I barely notice it.

Want to go at breaches of sportsmanship? How about bathroom breaks, having nothing to do with bladders? How about attire in the exact shade of yellow that matches that of the ball? How about declining to concede a point you know you did not rightfully win? How about rifling a ball into the stands? 

1) Some parts of players’ facilities should be private (i.e.  Świątek on the training table after a loss); 2) Nick Kyrgios’s online behavior is unacceptable and should not be rewarded with another analyst gig. But not holding my breath given tennis’ ability to turn a blind eye …

@socraticobserver

• A) I feel a bit sheepish saying this as a media member, but I agree. We are hardwired to seek/request/demand more access, not less. But surely a player should be able to have a post-match emotional offload without getting caught on video. 

Often the players are aware of the cameras. When they exit their card and walk through the gates. When they stretch. But you wonder if they realize the full extent of the operation.

B) Online. On-site. Inside the locker room. Inside green rooms. In private and in public. The condemnation of Kyrgios was nearly universal. There wasn’t the usual polarization or stanning or cries of “snowflake” or groping for a double standard. 

It’s quite simple: You cannot express something so misogynistic and suggestive and sensationally inappropriate about anyone—never mind about a colleague/player and her boyfriend whom you might cover in your new career; never mind that you pleaded guilty just last year to assaulting an ex-girlfriend—and not expect consequence. ESPN’s next event is the Australian Open. Stay tuned to see who makes the roster and who gets cut.

Hi Jon, WTHIGOW Canadian tennis. All of the top Canadians lost handily in the first round (albeit a pleasantly surprising run from Gabriel Diallo … who??). Given the age and injury patterns of Bianca Andreescu/Leylah Fernandez/Denis Shapovalov/Félix Auger-Aliassime, is this the end of the so-called Canadian tennis renaissance? Like Swedish tennis, have we burned brightly and are destined for many years of drought. Give me some objective perspective—there’s only so much hockey I can watch!

Neil Grammer, Toronto

• It’s a reminder that these kinds of sample sizes are small and it doesn’t take much to turn a country’s fortunes. The other day on air, I praised Belarus (population 10 million) for furnishing five hard court major titles in the last dozen years. But we are only talking about two players, Victoria Azarenka and Sabalenka.

Similarly, it was a rough event for Canada. But we are only talking about four players. Auger-Aliassime and Shapovalov, both of whose careers appear to have stalled out; Andreescu, to whom tennis karma owes much; and Fernandez, who is an admirable player but one vulnerable to a slugging opponent. 

Also let’s name-check Diallo, a 6’8” former Kentucky Wildcat who left the chrysalis stage and reached the middle weekend.

Hi Jon,

Love reading the mailbag.

My wife and I were in Italy last week and watched much of Week 1 of the U.S. Open on the Italian version of Tennis Channel—Super Tennis. I loved the Italian flavor of the coverage. For example, they featured Sara Errani on an outside court rather than showing the big stars playing on Arthur Ashe. 

In the lead-up to the U.S. Open, they often re-played the 2015 Flavia Pennetta-Roberta Vinci final. That brings me to my question. Pennetta announced her retirement right after winning the championship. Do you have other examples of other champions retiring at the top like she did?

Victor A.

• They didn’t quite stick the dismount the way Pennetta did. But note that Pete Sampras won the 2002 U.S. Open and never played again. Twenty years later, Ash Barty won the Australian Open and never played again.

Ben Crump Law sponsored two players. Taylor Townsend also wore a patch (along with Mt. Sinai Hospital) playing mixed doubles. I can’t make up my mind if it’s clever marketing or just on par with local little league sponsorships.

@nyrealestateman

• Right on. Anything that puts additional funds in players’ pockets, I am inclined to support. But Tomáš Macháč–Ben Crump was the kind of Mad Libs that made me laugh at loud. It’s Monica Niculescu for Cellino & Barnes!

Hello Jon, A question for the tennis mailbag: Do all those celebrities that the USTA brags about at the open actually buy tickets or boxes, or are they just comped into the president’s box? It makes me wonder if they really are tennis fans or just enjoying the free show and food and drinks.  

Jim Block

• Taylor Swift got those seats on StubHub. Joking. You know the rules: The wealthier you are, the less you pay and, ergo, the less inclined you are ever to pay. Sometimes the celebs end up in the USTA box. Other times they are paid to show up and liven up the party in various suites. Other times, they are discretely comped. Sometimes they are fans. Sometimes they are simply curious. Sometimes they are on their phone at 5–5 in the tiebreaker. But 0.00% pay.

Before we write off Novak Djokovic, remember his loss to Alexi Popyrin was his first at a Grand Slam (or the Olympics) to anyone other than the eventual champion since … 2019 Roland Garros. More than five years, will never be repeated. Amazing.

Andrew Swanson

• Anyone who writes off Djokovic needs an editor.

This Ted Robinson, Jimmy Arias & Robbie Koenig booth is stupendous but I want more Robbie!

JB

• Who among us doesn’t want more Robbie, be it Ted or Koening. (And, for that matter, Arias is no slouch either.)

• Randy Walker’s interview with Jordan Sprechman:

• Damian Terbiler take us out …

Longtime reader here—while I admire your resolute positivity regarding the state of tennis in the wake of Serena and Roger [Federer]’s retirement and Rafa [Nadal]’s absence from the U.S. Open (I’m referring to parting thought No. 1 from U.S. Open 50 Parting Thoughts, and also your takes generally), I cannot help but think something is being missed here. The sport is built to last—as I imagine any sport is with the type of history and establishment that tennis has (thought exercise: Has there been a sport that is as built out as tennis or even less so that has vanished?). But that cannot be the first takeaway from the U.S. Open, even if ESPN, with all of its conflicts of interest, out-of-touch commentators and recent hiring of deplorable talent, has renewed its TV contract.

The takeaway must be the absence of compelling matches relative to other slams in both the women’s and men’s draws. There’s no need to point to specific examples of matches that were hyped and under-delivered. It suffices to say that the interest that the sport receives today was built off the success of stars like Serena, Venus, Roger, Rafa, Novak and Maria, who played epic matches to augment their star power. I’m not in a position to judge whether today’s top players have the same level of star “quality”, but they are not being given the chance to deliver the same quality of tennis matches for a range of reasons, the most significant in my view being the length of the tour calendar.

All of the top players, even Jannik Sinner, in my view, looked fried during this year’s U.S. Open (except Sabalenka somehow).

I’m not sure if the quality of tennis matches declining will result in lowered interest in the sport, but it surely cannot help when it comes to growing the sport.

The dullness of the tennis over the past two weeks must be the single biggest takeaway from the U.S. Open, especially for any fan that watches more than one major per year.

Thoughts? 

Thanks for your coverage throughout the open!!!

Damian Terbiler