Submissions have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Hey, everyone …

Let’s make like Zizou Bergs and charge headlessly forward (not funny) …

Whatever happened to the Saudi tennis venture that you and others talked about a year ago?

Matt S.

• Good question. Remember not long ago, there were the dueling presentations in Indian Wells, one imagining a great infusion of Saudi wealth into the tours—in exchange for the rights to host a 1000-level event. The other, a model backed by the majors that, pointedly, excluded the Saudis, basically creating a pared-down Super Tour. Here we are a year later. Novak Djokovic has won Olympic gold, Rafael Nadal has retired, Madison Keys has broken through and Jannik Sinner has polarized fans … But fundamentally the sport looks strikingly the same.

What has changed? The Saudi influence—from sponsorship of the ranking to hosting the WTA finale—has been steady and restrained. (This is the anti-LIV Golf approach—and not accidentally. The ATP and WTA are moving ever closer to a … well, not a merger. This is not the Billie Jean King, “one big player tent” model. But it’s not a takeover either. This joint commercial entity will enable the tours “to go to market” as a unit). 

When the tours finally make this announcement, the ATP/WTA will segue into a new model and calendar. It will make space for the Saudi event. The question becomes where. If it’s the first week of the year, it’s a provocation against the majors. If it can somehow slide into February, that might have to come with concessions.

As they say in corporate speak: stay tuned, more to come.

Hey Jon!

Wanted to mention one of your go-to phrases as a dialogue starter: you regularly look at players’ missteps, then declare that, at the end of the day, they’re still “a force for good.” While I appreciate your broader lens of “not reducing people to a singular/their worst moment,” I feel like you lean toward quantity over quality at times, and there are behaviors and demonstrated character traits that do indeed make people forces for bad.  When players’ behavior—at times, even once —moves into violent or abusive territory, I start to be O.K. categorizing them as forces for bad, no matter how many good things you can point to.

Which makes me ask: have any players been forces for bad in your mind?  Where is the line? Are there unforgivable players or behaviors?

Thanks!

Mike M., Atlanta, GA

• You raise a fair point and good question—and “them’s good people” is probably too facile and reductive. But I wrestle with this a lot: In other sports I cover, there are significant cohorts of bad actors. On the day I write this, a UFC fighter expressed his fondness for Hitler. An NFL player was accused of sexually assaulting massage therapists—the second star to face this specific allegation in the past few years. An NBA player of note is facing an investigation into, effectively, match-fixing. Like any workforce, tennis has bad actors. But I would submit the collective character is off the charts.

Relatedly, so many journalists get jaded toward covering athletes. They see how fame and money corrupt. They meet their heroes and come away disappointed. They glimpse behind the curtain. 

I experience virtually none of that in tennis. I get jaded by the political operatives, bad faith suits, agents who are truth-challenged and the bass-ackwards organizational structure and governance. But, collectively, the players are great. Give me the heart of a tennis player any day. They are out there, exposed. They are accountable. They are, generally, accessible. Players run the gamut. Start at the top: Just look at how differently Sinner/Carlos Alcaraz and Aryna Sabalenka/Iga Świątek comport themselves. But tennis’s “jerk cohort” is minuscule. 

There are champions and A-listers like Djokovic and Coco Gauff. But there are far more folks like—and I am reluctant to name names because there are way too many to tick off—say Donna Vekić. Or Casper Ruud. Or Paula Badosa. Or Ons Jabeur. Or Taylor Townsend. Or Daria Kasatkina. Or Matteo Berrettini. Or Félix Auger-Aliassime. We could name dozens more, but you get the point.

Are they future Hall of Famers? Maybe not. Are they players the broadcast networks covet and fans cross oceans to watch? Maybe not. But they’re solid, likable, accountable, accessible athletes, who make the cast richer. And they should know their fundamental decency is appreciated and seen.

Are there players that are bad people? Or, at least, not good people? Sure. Whom, you ask? The drug cheats. Wayne Odesnik and Daniel Koellerer would not get many votes for cabinet confirmation. There are players who, the balance of facts suggests, have committed acts of domestic violence. There are players known for ill sportsmanship, prolonged bathroom breaks and gamesmanship. There are certainly bad, abusive coaches, empty suits, directionless leaders, shameless self-promoters and TV narcissists. But the players themselves are, largely, great. And they don’t get enough credit for this.

Sinner’s ability to hit stretch backhands and forehands with his feet planted from deep into the corners with depth and pace is transformative. Djokovic was the first to do this and Sinner has taken it to a new level. It requires incredible flexibility, timing and strength. Immediately turns defense into offense. A new level of athleticism for tennis. The sport progresses, no? 

Fernando

• Absolutely. That’s a good call. The phrase “getting out of the corners” has come into vogue. And Djokovic is something of an OG here. Sidebar: Which of the Big Three will impact the sport the most? I would submit that Djokovic will inspire generations in so many ways. Some of them X’s and O’s. Some are tied to mental strength. Some are tied to mastering as many variables (flexibility, diet, sleep) as possible. Nadal’s game might be sui generis, but his work ethic and balance of ferocious competing and honorable disposition will persist for decades. Federer is an interesting case. His game stemmed from a Mozart-like talent few possess. But the marriage of substance with style might be his legacy.

So … Alexander Zverev. The best player ever to never win a major has lost another final. Arguably he is at his peak, and his ranking can realistically only go down. Meanwhile, the scar tissue is building and the next gen is looming. As you often speak in betting terms, which of these would you put your house on if you had to?

Zverev will definitely win a major or Zverev will never win a major.

Thanks for the great coverage, as always!

Beate, England

• Thanks. Nadal and Federer are gone. Djokovic is in his deep autumn. Sinner might be suspended. Simply, as a probability exercise, I like Zverev’s chances. But your point is a good one. Bad losses are like credit card debt. The damage compounds. He has lost three finals. Blunt talk: the first was a choke job, a failure to serve out the title. The second was a defeat from the jaws of victory. The third was a vacant, never-really-got-his-teeth-in-the-match affair. You could argue he’s not only losing finals, but the tenor of the finals is not trending in the right direction for him.

Thanks for the 50 Parting thoughts! Nothing ends a major better than your wrap up.

Re: Nike—agreed about the lack of U.S. men, though they still did well with Keys and [Sabalenka] both rocking the swoop in the championship match.

And re: your question, no way Keys (career-high No. 7) belongs in the Hall of Fame unless she wins a second major. The HOF has a real problem now with so many women with one major. But here’s the standard now: If voters thrice denied Ana Ivanovic, neither Keys (nor [Gauff], Sloane [Stephens], [Jeļena] Ostapenko, [Sofia] Kenin, [Markéta] Vondroušová, [Elena] Rybakina, [Bianca] Andreescu, nor [Emma] Raducanu, as they all currently stand) should be admitted. I know I am beating a dead horse, but Ivanovic got shafted. A French Open title, a French Open runner-up and another semifinal, Aussie runner-up, Wimbledon semifinal, [U.S. Open] quarterfinal, WTA Championships semifinal. No. 1 ranking, which none of the other one-major winners mentioned above has achieved. For Serbia’s sake, she was No.1 before [Djokovic] or [Jelena] Janković, and she was No. 1 for more weeks than Venus Friggin’ Icon Williams (WILD stat). Ana won titles on every surface—outdoor hard, clay, grass and indoor hard. Two Master titles—Indian Wells and Canada. Fed Cup final. Finished year-end top-five three times. Wins over so many major champs: Serena, Venus, [Maria] Sharapova, [Martina] Hingis, [Caroline] Wozniacki, [Simona] Halep, [Angelique] Kerber, [Amélie] Mauresmo, [Svetlana] Kuznetsova, [Victoria] Azarenka, [Petra] Kvitová, [Marion] Bartoli, [Stephens], [Samantha] Stosur, [Flavia] Pennetta, Francesca Schiavone, Keys … And as you like to say, she reads books. Now, will the HOF induct Wozniacki, the other one major winner plus No. 1 ranking and *really* dis Ana? I reckon they will. The disrespect …

• Nike would also, likely, point out that they have Sinner and Alcaraz. Fair. But as long as the North American market accounts for the most sales, the absence of Americans is striking.

(Aside: I know of one player who was dropped by Nike. But she was told that she could still get free gear. Her attitude: Nike is quite generous with gear, always sending what she requests, plying her at events and shipping FedEx. They send swag to coaches and even friends. In the end, she might get $25,000 worth of gear. Which chills her motivation to seek a new deal.)

If Keys quit tennis tomorrow and were on the Hall of Fame ballot, the career-high (No. 7) ranking would be light. The total number of titles (10) is a bit light. Almost 400 match wins is solid. The highlights: a major, a major final and multiple semifinal appearances. Also, a lot of success on a variety of surfaces. She passes the eye test. One session watching her hit and you see elite power. She maxes out credit-for-the-sport points. 

Right now, I’d say close, but not quite. But one more major, maybe even one more final, and she’s there.

Jon,

Thanks for all you do and I love Served! You guys are great together. I don’t know if you caught Destanee Aiava suggesting the players chose their own walk-out music “to add spice” but I love the idea. What do you think?

• A) For those who missed it, here is the tweet.

B) Walk-out music. Love it. In my weaker moments, I confess to being a UFC fan. I can name dozens of fighter walk-out tunes. Tennis must do this ASAP. It’s frictionless. It’s free. It’s an easy way for players to market themselves and give us one more talking point. PTPA, make this happen.

Dear Jon,

So you still won’t give lets a chance, but where would we be without the let?

The Beatles’ last album would be merely “It Be.” Words of wisdom? Hardly. 

Moses would’ve demanded “My people go.” Pharaoh would’ve just laughed. 

Hester Prynne would’ve worn a scarlet ter. Can you imagine?!? Adultery would win!

Olivia Newton-John would’ve asked “If you love me, me know.” More like Olivia Newton-Cro-Magnon. 

Marie Antoinette would have muttered “Them eat cake,” which would have just confused revolutionaries. We’d still have monarchy!

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my case. Let us have peace, and let us have lets. 

P. 

• Well-played, Garkel. This made me laugh. But I still maintain we are ready for a world of no-let serves. Note the reader rant below for a fellow traveler (of yours, not mine).

Take us out, Ryan D.

Monterey, CA :

Jon,

In the ongoing debate over whether to jettison the service let rule (ITF Rule 22), I find the current rule justified by the goal of minimizing luck and randomness where we are able to do so without too much disruption to the game, i.e., a server should not be rewarded with an ace when a serve dribbles over the net into the service box and the returner has no play on it, or when the ball careens unexpectedly after clipping the cord. Yes, we do tolerate post-serve corded balls, dribblers and careeners, during rallies—with an apology when it results in the striker’s point in recognition of the resulting (mis)fortune, albeit of questionable sincerity. But that is distinguishable; the justification for replaying a corded ball is weaker during the rally than on the serve because in the former, (a) more of the point has been played out and resetting the point may be more tedious than simply another serve when the players are already in position for a serve; and (b) the player receiving the corded ball may be at less of a disadvantage than one returning serve when the server is in complete control. Besides, some randomness is okay—is inevitable—but that does not mean we should not minimize it where we reasonably can (see, e.g., debate over replacing lines officials at the cost of reducing colorful arguments).  

On the flip side, what is the justification for changing Rule 22 and letting corded balls play out on the serve? (1) That’s it’s arbitrary? As explained above, I submit that it is not arbitrary, but well rationalized by the desire to minimize luck and randomness. (2) That it saves time? As pointed out by a previous Mailbox letter writer, this is a red herring; service lets are an insignificant time add. (3) That they do it in college? Yes, they do, but only because collegians were cheating too much, calling service lets when there were none in order to avoid an ace and there is often no official to overrule the call.  

I offer the foregoing opinion at the risk of appearing stubbornly wedded to “the way things are.” I like to think I’m open to change, when change is warranted. In this balance, I do not see the benefit of changing the current rule outweighing the rule’s justification.  

Thank you for giving us this forum for healthy tennis discussion and debate!