As it is written, Wednesday is Mailbag Day.
Your good soldiering reminder: Lindsay, Steve, Prakash and I are doing the Tennis Channel pregame shows, which starts 5p ET every night.
• Also ICYMI, here’s a long piece on contender Jessie Pegula
Mailbag
Jon,
I just got done watching Andy Murray beat Matteo Berrettini and now I am supposed to go to sleep? But seriously, how far can Andy go now?
Charlton
When the draw came out, Murray versus Berrettini was the match we all italicized, bolded and put under hi-liter. And it delivered. At age 35, four years removed from a quasi-retirement, Murray* served up something for the memory banks, winning the first two sets over a quality opponent. Then Berrettini woke up, played like someone almost a decade younger than his opponent, and won the next two sets. Having served 31 aces against just one double fault, Berrettini holds match point. Then he misses a gimme backhand. Murray makes the most of the reprieve and closes—his biggest win post-comeback?—and takes it 7-6 in the fifth set in 4:48.
This was an operatic match with all sorts of angles of entry. But I am struck by the margins of it all. We all have heard the cliché “game of inches.” But literally…Berrettini makes that passing shot and Murray is “gutted” and headed home confronting his future. Instead Berrettini stones it. Murray advances. He, rightly, declares he is impressed with himself and “deserved to win.” He wins his first five-setter since beginning his comeback. He beats a contender. While Berrettini must now deal with that mentally for months, Murray resets and wonders, “Shoot, if I can play 4:48 and beat a seed, why can’t I contend?”
As for your question….it’s easy to get giddily optimistic and note that Murray HAS been to five Australian Open finals. He likely gets Thanasi Kokkanakis next, a winnable match. Champions seldom leave quietly. The flip side? Murray hasn’t been to the fourth round of a major in nearly a half-decade. So…who knows? He made an emphatic statement last night. He validated his decision to keep playing and training and spending time away from his wife and their kids. Why not more?
*International law: you cannot reference Murray without referencing his metal hip.
Hey Jon—happy new year!
Drive to Survive, very similar to Break Point, wasn’t created for an audience such as you and me. D2S was created for a curious yet general audience in the US, and lo and behold, it was highly successful. My friends who thus far do not know much about F1 absolutely loved the storytelling aspect of the doc by Netflix. The purists blamed Netflix for taking a few creative licenses, but on the whole, it helped so many fans who live in America, and all over the world—consume F1 in such a delightful way. You can see its sheer impact in Austin, it undeniably brought tons of new fans, and so many new fans were excited about Verstappen and Hamilton now when compared to years before. Do you think Break Point can bring in new fans—similar to how D2S did ?
Deepak (New York)
Good question. Short answer: I do and I don’t. Do I think “Break Point” can—and will—bring in new fans? Absolutely. Do I think it will materially transform tennis the way it has F1? I do not.
Part of this is the nature of the comparison. Formula One was a totally non-entity in the U.S. People didn’t know the sport. They couldn’t name a driver. You couldn’t find a broadcast, or even walk by it on a bar T.V. The series was a total revelation. It was an introduction not just to the cast, but to the entire enterprise. By contrast no one is walking around asking, “What’s tennis?”
Do I think this series was an overall good for tennis? Absolutely. The chattering class may be underwhelmed—”They didn’t get any more insight into Kyrgios than anyone else”…. “What happened to Miami?”…. “There were no follow up questions.” —but I haven’t encountered too many casual fans and non-fans who didn’t enjoy it.
Here, for example, is Austin Karp of Sports Business Journal: “Made it through first five episodes of “Break Point” on Netflix. I think the docuseries comes at a perfect time for tennis. Who will take the mantle after Serena/Venus/Roger/Rafa/Novak? Getting to know the newer names and their backgrounds was good. Looking forward to the rest.”
Jon,
I saw you on Tennis Channel discussing which American men’s player you predict will finally win a major 20 years after Andy Roddick. But I didn’t catch the end. Who did you end up going with?
Charles, L.A.
Me? I ended up going with Taylor Fritz. It was either him or Tiafoe but given the challenge—not just 21 sets managing all sorts of occasions and unforeseen challenges and scheduling shifts—I think you take stability. Tiafoe—fresh off a major semifinal—has all sorts of game. And put in sufficient work that you no longer worry about his durability. But he still brings a lot of volatility.
Fritz has the game, the disposition and the organizational skills. I’ll take the SUV over the sportscar here.
While we are here, a) I don’t think he’ll do it before others but I would say Sebastian Korda has major-winning potential; b) do note that the last American, male or female to win a major…Sonia Kenin is now outside the top 100.
Jon,
Garbine Muguruza or Dominic Thiem. Who do you worry about more?
Carlton H.
Good one. Which is to say terrible one. Two players who are 29. Two former major champs—in her case the double variety—who are struggling. To a profound degree. She was ranked No. 3 a year ago. She lost in round one, is now 81st (!) in the live rankings, 80 spots off her career high. Dominic Thiem won the Covid 2020 U.S. Open and hasn’t been the same player since. He’s been injured and the physical has bled over into mental, as is often the case. The authority and self-belief are gone. He has played two matches in 2023. He lost in Adelaide qualifying. And he lost in straight sets in the first round of the AO to Rublev. And will be out of the top 100.
Wishing nothing but the best for both, I have more concern for Thiem. Muguruza has had these dips before and has played through them. Thiem seems to be confronting a new set of emotions and doubts. Also, this is where best-of-three versus best-of-five can hurt players. At least in majors, it takes a lot less for her to start consolidating wins—and therefore confidence.
For the Mailbag…
So it’s a U.S. holiday. Tennis fans have been eagerly waiting all day to watch the many tasty matches on tap. Yet as the day session begins, ESPN is not showing ANY matches for cable/streaming subscribers who have already paid for ESPN/ESPN2.
It gets better! ESPN and ESPN2 are showing the SAME football game! So they shunt tennis fans to ESPN+; not even one little feed on ESPN3 for fans who are already paying plenty of money for cable that includes ESPN.
Can you explain any of this, Jon? If ESPN is not interested in showing tennis, why do they keep buying the rights?
Seething in Seattle
I have an obvious conflict of interest here. But essentially this is tennis being tennis. Short-sighted, territorial, putting individual interest before good-of-the-sport obligations.
Tennis Australia—not irrationally—wanted the broadcast partner that was going to cut the largest check. That was ESPN, which—again, not irrationally—wanted exclusive coverage in exchange for its broadcast fees. The problem: when ESPN has higher-rating content to air, tennis gets pushed to the deep margins. The fan suffers. So does the sport. On Monday, there was no live coverage during the football game. When Murray played Berrettini it was apparently hard to find. (One of you wrote: “they had idiots talking about the NFL playoffs for hours on end and they had free diving on ESPN2.”)
Jon,
Yes or no. Is Sam Stosur a Hall of Fame player?
Simon, Adelaide
Background: by the time you read this, Stosur might be retired, having announced that this will be the final event of her career. Is it a Hall of Fame career? Close call. One singles major (2011 U.S. Open). Another final (French Open 2010), which she probably should have won. More than 600 match wins, which is solid. Nine titles overall, which is a little light. A career-high ranking of No. 4, which is really light. But a No.1 ranking in doubles and 28 titles. Lots of longevity. Inasmuch as this matters: a versatile, athletic game, punctuated with a signature shot (that wicked kick serve). Maxes out the good-people points. Yeah, I’m convincing myself here. She’d get my vote.
Jon,
What do you think, does Naomi Osaka come back to playing in 2024 after she becomes a mother?
Tyler, Syracuse
Who knows?
Different players are impacted by parenthood in different ways. Certainly there are data points here and plenty of players have come back after giving birth. Others have not. Two points that struck me last week:
1) This should not be a surprise, given the climate and social media foment. But, man, does Naomi Osaka figure squarely in the culture wars. She is either an entitled snowflake, the archetypal lacking-in-resilience millennial. (Discuss: how do you win four majors lacking in resilience?) Or she is superawesome queen/goddess who can do whatever she wants and if she can make bank as an athlete without actually being an athlete that’s not a story.
2) Over the last 20 years only two Australian Open champs (Jennifer Capriati and Sonia Kenin) have not been mothers. Which is fine, but where is the equivalent stat for men? The Big Four? All dads.
Jon,
Given Naomi’s recent baby news and likely growing questions around her interest in returning to the court, is it too early to start talking about Naomi Osaka as part of the 2027/2028 HOF class?
Thanks,
Duane Wright
She vows to return in 2024. Long as you brought up Hall of Fame, let’s pause and note her extraordinary accomplishments. Much is made of her vulnerabilities. How about this: four majors within 30 months. A No.1 ranking. An Indian Wells title. Will she win double-digit majors? Probably not. Will she win another major? Who knows? But what a career. Full stop.
Hi Jon,
I thought you and perhaps even your mailbag readers may be interested in this story about a gay tennis club in Vancouver.
Enjoy the AO!
Ian, Winnipeg, Canada
Thanks. Tennis Channel story meter beeps.
Jon,
Which was better: Break Point or Point Break?
Paul R.
Well played. To quote Point Break: “Life sure has a sick sense of humor, doesn’t it?”
ENJOY THE REST OF WEEK ONE, EVERYONE – WE’LL BE BACK SATURDAY WITH MIDTERM GRADES
