Submissions have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Happy Indian Wells-ing

• Here is the latest Served podcast.

• Note that next week’s guest is … Rafael Nadal. 

• Here’s a conversation about Emma Raducanu, the awesomeness of Monica Seles and the blight of stalking. 

• In nonsports, here’s last Sunday’s 60 Minutes piece. 

• This week’s unsolicited book recommendation: S.L. Price’s The American Game: History and Hope in the Country of Lacrosse.

• RIP former USTA executive Page Crosland. 

• Note the reader rant, an ethics professor sides with Jannik Sinner.

Let’s start with doubles. The U.S. Open’s mixed format and Reilly Opelka’s social media salvo triggered a new round of debate about doubles. Andy Roddick and I discussed it on the podcast. Doubles players and doubles supporters have—not surprisingly and not unreasonably—fired back. Doubles advocate Will Boucek has been civil and thoughtful offering a different angle and is worth your consideration.

Since I started covering this sport (cough-cough) years ago, this has been an issue. This year marks the 20th anniversary, such as it is, of “Save Doubles vs. ATP Tour Inc.” Which is to say this is merely the latest flare-up and front in a long-running battle. You could call this an existential crisis for doubles, but it has existed for decades.

My overarching thought: Tennis ought to have the capacity to come up with a creative solution. The status quo doesn’t work. Yet, killing doubles entirely is, at once, lazy, divisive and self-defeating.

Some additional thoughts:

• First, let’s level set and, as usual, lop the 10% extremists off both sides. Bringing this up in his characteristically candid way, Opelka articulated what a lot of people within the sport are thinking. But he loses the room when he asserts: “They should 100% get rid of doubles.” Leaving apart the bad form of calling for your colleagues’ jobs, it is possible to address a problem without taking the most extreme position. 

• Tennis cannot—and should not—get rid of doubles for all sorts of reasons. One big one: There are sessions in need of filling. Late in tournaments (hold this thought), events need doubles to round out sessions. You would no sooner eliminate doubles than you would eliminate warmup bands and undercard fights. In MBA speak, tennis needs the tonnage. Doubles is part of said tonnage.

• On the other side of the net, doubles in its current state is not sustainable. It’s just not. And pretending otherwise is not a reasonable position. Doubles is a financial drag on the balance sheets. It doesn’t justify the resources it requires. It cannot exist on its own. If this were a standalone brand extension of a conventional company, the CFO would take action. We need to be realistic here: You cannot, in good faith, make a business case for doubles in its current state.

• Where’s the data? Precise data is hard to come by. Here is the prize money breakdown from the 2025 Australian Open. Doubles prize money is roughly 16% of the singles haul. (Promoters will tell you that after baking in players’ dining, lodging, services, transportation, insurance, etc., doubles represents in the high teens of the player outlay.) Does doubles contribute comparably to a tournament’s bottom line? To be precise, you’d want to know how many fans would not be there, but for doubles. But I think we can all safely say … no.

• What about the marketing? And the lousy court assignments? Doubles would thrive if they showed it more on TV. This doesn’t wash. Like teams and athletes, the media these days comes loaded with analytics. Networks and streaming platforms know so much about consumers’ tastes, preferences and habits. And they are wildly open to changing programming, presentation and platform if it means increasing viewership and engagement. If, say, ESPN had any indication that fans wanted more doubles, you can bet we would see more two-on-two matches. 

• Two other losing arguments: Look at crowds at [cherry-picked example/usually Indian Wells] event. Leaving aside the ample instances of doubles playing before oceans of empty seats, we must ask: Did those crowds come for doubles? Or did they just happen to be on the grounds? And is this event the norm? Or is it a scheduling fluke, not representative of most tournaments, whereby top players enter because they enjoy the setting and extra days in the schedule?

• Another weak argument: More recreational players play doubles than singles. More recreational basketball players play one-on-one in driveways than five-on-five. Does that mean we minimize the NBA in favor of covering the action at an Edgewood Hills cul-de-sac? Often fans watch sports precisely because it is different from what they play as a hobby.

• Let’s stop here and make clear that this is predominantly an ATP issue. Whether it’s best-of-five matches, a scheduling snarl, the physical demands or … whatever, let’s be clear that the WTA has stronger doubles fields and fewer full-on specialists. Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula—both top 10 singles players—were once a team. Aryna Sabalenka was once a top doubles player. Jasmine Paolini plays doubles. Barbora Krejčíková was a top player before thinking, Wait, I think I can replicate this success playing solo. Even the current top team of Kateřina Siniaková and Taylor Townsend are proper singles players. Back to the men …

• The idea that Carlos Alcaraz and Sinner will play singles and doubles (à la John McEnroe in the ’80s) is not grounded in reason. But look at the fields in the ’90s. You had credible singles players (Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde were credible players solo and the same for Anders Jarryd and Paul Haarhuis) playing both disciplines. You also had older singles players with name recognition transitioning to doubles. This is ideal.

• Here’s what is not ideal: players starting their careers with no ambition of making it as a singles player. The doubles specialist needs to be disincentivized. The ATP is a league, not a philanthropy. It must incentivize the players/format that makes it most healthy. As a friend of mine put it, “I don’t want to see Rohan Bopanna put out of a job. He found a niche in the system as it’s set up. But I want the next Rohan Bopanna not to have a job. I want that job instead to go to an ambitious young singles player.”

• Stop pontificating. Can we get to a solution already, pal?

• O.K. Here’s the fix. We cut doubles draws. And, more critically, we stage doubles draws in the back half of events—Thursday through Sunday at conventional events. The second week at majors. This accomplishes so much:

A)  Events need sessions (tonnage!) at the back end, not during the chaotic early days.

B) Later matches mean later draws. This means that singles players who lose early will have the opportunity to sign up to play doubles, happy for the additional matches and prize money. This will help with name recognition.

C)  A compressed format—not in terms of the match, but the required days—will incentivize singles players. The burden on the players’ schedule will not be nearly as onerous if matches don’t start until the back half of events. (It will also cut down on the withdrawals when doubles players find unexpected success in singles.)

D)  Fans on hand for later-round singles have a better chance of sticking around and watching. Networks that get a retirement or a 6–1, 6–2 stinker are more likely to feature doubles.

E)  More singles players will help address the doubles specialist. You’ll need to be really good to qualify for the doubles if you have no intention of playing singles.

• There is a core group of fans who love doubles, which has so many of those tennis virtues—net play, angles, shotmaking—that make tennis what it is. However, this group is not sufficiently large to sustain doubles. There is no market for a separate tour, certainly not one that will pay players six and seven figures. Tennis needs a more consolidated product, not less. 

• The sign of a healthy industry is one able to adjust to the market. But also one that creates jobs, not slashes them. And comes up with solutions to problems. Calling doubles players “greedy” and reveling in their extinction is not helpful. But neither is pretending there is no problem, or attacking an economics problem (a longstanding one at that) with arguments based on emotion. Make doubles a tail-end-of-the-tournament feature and everyone goes home happy. Almost everyone, anyway.

Hi Jon, just read your Feb. 26 mailbag, and PR’s note about college tennis. After lamenting the cost of going to a professional tournament (which for most would have to include cost of travel, lodging, etc.), I realized I was close to some great tennis. In town is a Division I school, two others each 90 minutes away. Other folks might not be so close, but it’s likely there are good schools to watch closer than they realize. It’s been fun (and free) attending both men’s and women’s matches, with players UTRs from nine and up, and the energy the kids put into their own matches and their teammates’ matches is a blast. Both my wife and I encourage every tennis fan to try a few matches, especially because after complimenting a player on great play you get replies like “Thank you very much, and thanks for coming to the match!”  

John D.
DeKalb, Illinois
Go Huskies!

• Love it. High-level tennis. Fierce competition. Team format. Singles. Doubles. A chance to see future stars. All for $10 or so. Tennis fans should love (and support) the college game. 

Also while we discussed the virtues of college, one of the great blights is hooking, the dishonest and dishonorable cheating line calls that have become rampant. Colette Lewis wrote about a solution, electronic line calls. 

Just got done reading your travails with Twitter/X. I liked your reasons for cutting back on usage and your restaurant analogy and offer this analogy. Where I live in Maryland, if you get to a four-way stop at the same time with another car(s), most folks give up their right of way to allow you to pass first. I find it oddly and mildly annoying. “You got there first and/or have the right of way, go ahead.” Then, out on the open road, you get passed on the shoulder, tailgated or whatever actually dangerous scenario. I think it boils down to eye contact, which you readily find at the stop sign but perhaps not buzzing down the road. Shoot, you might even see a friend or neighbor at the stop sign. It becomes more human and humane. On the road, it becomes an anonymous vehicle with a stranger behind the wheel and you must win the challenge. So too, face-to-face encounters vs. social media. Sigh …

Shonn Moore

Havre de grace, MD

• I quite like your analogy. That’s great. Talk to people one-on-one—or see them at the four-way stop sign—and the vast majority are not only delightful and reasonable, but share the same basic principles. We want stability and civility. We want fulfilling work that pays the bills and then we want to return to our family and friends. We want health. We want peace. We want a good night’s sleep.

Then you go on X and it is a war zone. You could tweet “Six plus six is 12” and be assured someone will respond by accusing you of having a blatant bias against odd numbers, or being too dumb to breathe because it’s obviously a trick question and you fell for it like the other brainwashed sheep. This is accentuated by algorithms that favor the extreme and the violent. And the anonymity makes it worse still.  

If you ignore the sound advice “ignore the trolls” and take the liberty of sliding into the haters’ DMs to ask why they would choose to pollute the pool. More often than not, you will get an apology and begin a polite and thoughtful exchange.

Hi Jon,

A few thoughts arising from your column today:

I am an American attorney and I worked in two law firms in Warsaw, Poland, over a period of 20 years (March 1993 to August 2013). In those two Polish law firms, probably three times out of five attempts, Poles would misspell non-Polish names. I could never understand it. I gave you a bit of a hard time many years ago about misspelling [Agnieszka] Radwanska’s name. I write to you today to ask whether you really need to use the Polish alphabet when writing [Iga] Swiatek’s name? It always screws up the typeface and the Polish characters really have no significance to someone who doesn’t know Polish. (When writing in (American) English, my rule with names has always been that the name should be spelled as it would appear on a U.S. driver’s license or passport (no non-English characters).

Finally, I need to bring up the universal pronunciation of [Petra] Kvitova’s name (and a heartfelt welcome back to the tour to her). There are only three syllables, not four. Non-Slavic speakers universally put an “a” and an extra syllable in the name: Ka-vit-o-va; it should be simply: Kvit-o-va. And I will give you a break today and keep my opinions on Sinner, Swiatek, and doping in tennis to myself for now.

Jim Yrkoski

Silver Creek, Neb.

P.S.: Swiatek’s name has only two syllables, not three. I generally hear people pronounce it as Shvi-on-tek. It is something like Shviohn-tek.

• Always wondered how the “n” sound wormed its way into Świątek’s name without a trace. Now I know. Thanks.

• Christopher Wong Michaelson—NYU professor of ethics and philosopher—takes us out …

Sinner in the Hands of An Angry Mob

 by Christopher Wong Michaelson

The first time I cheered for Jannik Sinner, he was a 17-year-old kid with orange hair under a neon cap and skinny legs that made him look and run like a colt in tennis shoes two sizes too large. After he vanquished his first opponent in the 2019 U.S. Open qualifying tournament, I learned Sinner was the child of restaurateurs and grew up a skiing prodigy in the Italian Alps. Watching his rise, I felt an undeserved sense of ownership for his success, as though I had practically discovered this innocent and likable phenom. He was already well on his way to being named ATP Newcomer of the Year but—foreshadowing —his last name seemed like an ironic joke and he probably didn’t yet have a traveling massage therapist. 

Today, Sinner is the top-ranked player in the world, winner of the last two Grand Slam tournaments, and serving a three-month suspension—the result of a settlement with the World Anti-Doping Agency for testing positive for a banned substance. This trial, which has dragged on for the better part of a year while Sinner has been accused, provisionally suspended, found technically blameless but nonetheless responsible, challenged by an appeal while being allowed to compete, and agreed to this penalty, has provoked anger all around this at-best clumsy and possibly corrupt effort to keep professional tennis clean. 

When he returns in time for the French Open having missed nary a Grand Slam tournament, can we cheer for Sinner again alongside the Carota Boys, his superfans who dress like carrots? If we can, will it ever feel the same for us—in an age in which it’s increasingly difficult to find pure, unmitigated goodness—to support him? As for his legacy, will it forever bear an asterisk? Has his case been mishandled so badly that even if he wins, everybody loses?

The generally undisputed chain of events began about one year before the suspension settlement was reached. In March 2024, Sinner’s therapist, who treated a cut to his own hand with cream containing a banned substance, massaged the player multiple times. After he won the Miami Open, Sinner was notified by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) that he had tested positive twice for clostebol. He continued playing while his team successfully challenged provisional bans, reaching the No. 1 ranking less than a week after he was formally charged. The matter went public when Sinner was cleared by an independent tribunal and announced—foreshadowing again—that he would “put this challenging and deeply unfortunate period behind me.” After Sinner won the U.S. Open, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA’s) appealed the tribunal’s finding of “no fault or negligence,” arguing under strict liability provisions that the player was responsible for violations of his team. On Feb. 9, 2025, Sinner’s three-month suspension began, a settlement widely regarded as another win for a player whom WADA had sought to ban for one or two years.

Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlement unleashed a hellfire of anger. Some of the anger came from players angry at Sinner, including bad boy Nick Kyrgios—who revels in shaming the bad behavior of others—questioning why an “innocent” player would accept a suspension. Much of the anger, including that expressed by the Professional Tennis Players Association, was directed at a “lack of transparency” and systemic inequities that enabled a top player to reach a favorable settlement while ruining the careers of lesser players fighting for their professional lives. Meanwhile, the angry mob was already riled up by a litany of recent events that called fairness into question, including but not limited to: a recent and even shorter suspension for women’s second-ranked player Iga Swiatek for an unintentional doping violation; the banishment of Elena Rybakina’s abusive coach who some also allege she is now dating; the failure to prohibit Alexander Zverev from competing after allegations of domestic abuse were made against him and settled in German court without admission of guilt; the strange drama and aftermath of former world number one Novak Djokovic’s deportation during the pandemic for flouting vaccine requirements in Australia, which he recently suggested served him poisoned food during his detention; all of which make crackdowns on match-fixing, penalties for abusing line judges, and ongoing gender imbalances in pay and player treatment seem almost quaint.

Kyrgios was right about at least one thing: Sinner’s settlement was indeed “a sad day for tennis.” Perhaps the anger over Sinner’s settlement is not as much about the moral failure of one individual as it is the release of pent-up frustration over the failure of our social values that led us to this point. We fail collectively when the rewards for winning are so large as to increase inequality between great players who enjoy obscene wealth and near-great players who struggle for survival. When winning becomes so critical to success or survival that some are willing to cheat to win. When, in an attempt to be clear, compliance rules become so convoluted that contamination can occur without fault or negligence yet still tarnishes the reputations of everyone involved. When the open-mindedness of “everyone has a right to an opinion” becomes the closed-mindedness of everyone believing their own opinions are right and must be shared on social media. When we expect moral perfection of athletes who have labored most of their lives to be great at one thing but should not be held up or torn down as moral exemplars.

Hopefully, however, Sinner’s settlement can also be the source of tennis’s Great Awakening, which punny enough was the name for the religious revival spawned by 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”? After all, it was a lot more fun to cheer for Jannik Sinner before his great awakening as the greatest and most controversial tennis player in the world.

More Tennis on Sports Illustrated