Indian Wells Mailbag
Heckling, the pickleball blob, extinct single-handed backhands, Alcaraz bullishness, 5th set tiebreaks, China & Russia, salty player interviews
A mailbag twice in a month? In this economy??
I enjoyed the mailbag a few weeks ago because it allowed me to cover a bunch of different topics at once rather than the usual deep dive stuff I mostly write. Especially considering that there isn’t one overwhelming topic dominating the tennis world right now.
Once again I asked a bunch of you on twitter for questions, and once again you asked some great ones.
First up I want to answer a question I missed last time.
Matt: Ah pickleball. The sport that’s growing so fast in parts of America that it’s absorbing and repurposing tennis courts like some bastardised blob of racquet sport growth. First of all, I don’t particularly like pickleball. It’s the far less interesting offshoot of tennis to be spawned in recent years and it’s also only really a thing in the United States. Padel is the far more global (often touted as the fastest growing sport in the world) and far more interesting potential usurper of normal tennis (also much more fun to play). So are we, regular tennis, currently occupying the role that ‘Real Tennis’ played in the 18th century? Soon to be rendered obsolete by the more approachable successor(s)? Probably not for quite some time, no. But tennis can learn many things from the way Padel, and to a lesser extent Pickleball, have grown in recent years. Tennis orgs in the UK have made sure to fold Padel under the umbrella of regular tennis (the LTA organise and fund leagues and Padel development for e.g), and this is the right way to approach any new, fast growing format. Nurturing it from within rather than risk it cannibalising tennis from the outside. Tennis has had a bit of a missing piece for years now when it comes to how smooth it is to onboard new players into the sport. Golf for example has gamified driving ranges like TopGolf that, while nothing like an actual round of golf, still teach basic and transferable golf skills while also being far more fun for the beginner. The question is whether Padel and Pickleball can form part of tennis’ version of that onramp to the sport, with options to play both at many clubs, or whether they’ll just replace the desire to play tennis altogether. I’ve written plenty about this already but this is where it’s really important for tennis to be better than it currently is at catering to more of its demand curve and offering a more gentle on ramp for newer fans, both in terms of participation and consumption. For e.g, tennis should certainly be jealous of how Padel has attracted hordes of new fans through livestreaming many of its events for free on YouTube with very impressive viewership. Regardless, bringing these mini-formats in under tennis’ umbrella is better than leaving them to grow like wild, unattended weeds. After all, weeds can easily take over the whole garden.
Matt: Yeah, so one in the current top 10 (Tsitsipas), two in the top 20(Shapovalov), four in the top 30 (Federer and Evans). The decline of Wawrinka and the injury enforced absence of Thiem have hurt the elite single handed numbers and it’s an even more rare breed in the WTA. For comparison there were more than 40 single handers in the men’s top 100 in 2004. Hopefully Thiem comes back strong and he, Tsitsipas and Shapovalov can mount a strong defence of this apparently dying art. But it is true that broadly speaking the double hander has been prioritised in terms of young player development over the past 20 years (arguably for very good reasons considering current competitive landscape and play-styles). I don’t see this changing any time soon, but I also don’t think we’ll stop seeing those rare but hyper talented single handers still break through every now and then. Musetti being the prime example right now. I’ll write something on this soon.
Matt: I think this is partially a temporary issue. The Big 3 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and the Williams sisters, are just playing fewer and fewer tournaments these days, despite still being the biggest draws in some of the sport’s biggest markets. And the tours are slowly transitioning away from those generations of players, even if Nadal and Djokovic are still managing to keep up the oxygen flow onto the embers of their dominance (for now). Miami also suffers a bit from its transitional place in the calendar between the end of that hard court season and the beginning of the clay. There’s also the recent-ish move from scenic Crandon Park to the more soulless Hard Rock Stadium which is still one of the sadder tournament relocations in recent years. TL;DR: I think Miami will still be a ‘must attend’ event for most top players after the Big 3 and the Williams sisters retire. But I do agree that it’s lost some of its sparkle recently.
Matt: I think the Big 3 era of dominance will end sooner than many think it will, and I would be amazed (and dismayed) if we don’t have another 1st time Slam winner before 2025! The safe answer here is someone like Zverev. The more interesting answer is Alcaraz (looking increasingly possible). My actual answer though is Berrettini, largely because Wimbledon is currently suffering from a lack of competition relative to clay and hard court, and he is the best, mature, all-surface player right now outside Rafa and Novak. A bit of draw luck amid ageing Big 3 players, and he could very easily find himself at Wimbledon without one of those two pesky roadblocks in his way for once.
Matt: Sort of depends who you ask. There is significant effort right now to consolidate the sport into ‘one tennis’. But despite obvious recent progress, any desire for unity from the ATP and WTA will likely always run into the all powerful Slams. The Slams account for approx 58% of tennis’ total revenue (ATP 33%, WTA 9%) so discussion around consolidation is always going to bump up against the realities of that imbalance. De-fragmentation makes sense if you take a long term view of the sport, as the ATP are currently trying to do with their strategic plan, but things like independent data deals, media rights, and general fragmentation when it comes to how tennis is parcelled and packaged up to be sold, can make long-term execution more difficult than mere long-term thinking. If I had to guess, the ATP and WTA will continue to make quicker progress in terms of presenting a combined package and their more closely aligned growth may eventually force more cooperation from the Slams, who for most of recent history have been happy as all-powerful, but at times isolated, islands.
Matt: I’m enjoying all this Alcaraz optimism right now. And, unusually, much of that optimism doesn’t feel that far fetched or particularly unrealistic (although 30 Slams might be a stretch ʷʰᵒ ᶦˢ ʳᵉᵃᵈʸ ᶠᵒʳ ᴬˡᶜᵃʳᵃᶻ ᴳᴼᴬᵀ ᵈᵉᵇᵃᵗᵉ). Does Alcaraz win a Slam in the next 24 months? That takes us up to after the 2024 Australian Open… If we extend it to the rest of 2024, sure, why not. Frankly it wouldn’t be that surprising if Alcaraz won one in the next year or so. He has a great shot at winning his first Masters 1000 this week in Indian Wells and may well be threatening for titles on his favoured clay over the next few months, a stretch of tennis which may offer up all sorts of breakthrough momentum. Alcaraz gets compared to Nadal and Djokovic often, which is of course irritating for multiple reasons, but the reason this happens is because he really is, at least on course to be, generationally good. The hype train may well derail a few more times while Alcaraz is still a teenager, but it would be surprising if it didn’t find the track again to justify that hype during his 20’s at the latest.
Matt: For those unaware the Slams have recently agreed to standardise their 5th set scoring on the men’s side by agreeing to a first to 10 point tiebreak at 6-6 in the 5th set. As for the first question, while I think deciding long matches by playing a first to 7 tiebreak can be anticlimactic, the champions breaker (first to 10) is actually a lot of tennis in practice and doesn’t need to be used for every breaker. Let’s say it’s a close champions breaker score, 10-8 or even 14-12, that’s 18-26 points of tennis, with no sit down break, at the end of an already long set. The first to seven (regular) tiebreak is fine for non-deciding sets. But I do prefer the first to 10 (champions) tiebreak to decide a best of 5 set match rather than first to 7.
As for Andrew’s question, I think it’s fairly common for the average tennis fan to confuse length with quality or epic-ness. While I do think that one of the reasons best of 5 set tennis is so valuable is that it allows a richer and longer tapestry of storylines to be written in a particularly compelling match (this is part of why best of 5 epics often transcend tennis in ways many shorter matches do not), there are often matches (like the 2019 Wimbledon final) which were probably remembered more fondly quality-wise than they deserved to be merely because of their publicity and length. But tense best of 5 set matches coming down to a narrow decider, with the massive sunk cost inherent from both players toiling on court for hours, do create incredible drama that often can’t be recreated by shorter matches. Also many people tune in specifically at the end of epic 5 setters for that conclusion. But I’m not sure whether the tiebreak happening at 12-12 or 6-6 makes much of a difference in that regard. A long 5 setter is a long 5 setter, and they remain the spectacle in tennis.
Matt: It’s not common but there is, relevant, precedent. WTA player Varvara Petrivna Lepchenko became a US citizen in 2007 after she and her family (who were Ukrainian-Russian) were granted political asylum after their heritage made them a target. 5 years later Lepchenko represented the US in the 2012 Olympics.
There are however quite strict ITF rules which state that players who have already played for one country in the Davis Cup, Billie Jean Cup, or Olympics, cannot play for another.
Matt: Yes! Nintendo Switch Sports, which includes the spiritual successor to Wii tennis, comes out next month!
As for more realistic sims? Nothing that looks particularly good, no.
Matt: On rivalries: Hopefully Alcaraz, Auger-Aliassime, and Sinner have formed a super rivalry by the end of this decade. But the safer answer is more of the same in the Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev triangle. Hopefully a strong overlap between those groups though.
On archetype comebacks: Some are bullish on serve and volley making a comeback, and while I think we will see more net play this decade I’m not convinced an out-and-out serve and volleyer is going to succeed to the current backdrop of conditions, playstyles and equipment (sorry to you Maxime). Brooksby is a really interesting mould-breaker who will form an interesting ‘new’ type of player if he makes it to the top over the next 5 years (more on him soon).
On matchups: I really want to see Alcaraz and Brooksby play (on hard courts). And Alcaraz and Auger-Aliassime (on clay or hard, they played in New York last year but Alcaraz retired after his epic run to the quarter finals). On the WTA side, I really want to see more of Barty vs Swiatek on hard and clay and more of Fernandez and Osorio (their recent final in Monterrey was brilliant fun).
Matt: 1. Indian Wells is an unusually spaced out Masters tournament so the format is less likely to compromise singles runs by those choosing to also play doubles 2. good prize money 3. history/precedent of singles players playing doubles and getting to play on Stadium 1/2 etc etc etc. Doubles isn’t more more popular more generally mostly because, like it or not, tennis is almost entirely a singles sport when it comes to $ and focus. To change this tennis would need to overhaul the structure of the tour, its tournaments and broadcast strategy, in order to encourage more of its biggest stars to play doubles on the regular. Is this doable? Sure. Is it going to happen and an immediate goal of tennis orgs? Hell no.
Matt: It depends. The ATP, WTA, ITF and all four Slams have been meeting regularly as the ‘T7’ group since last year with a goal of more collaboration and communication. But the reality is that, if they really want to, Slams can still act autonomously either as a group or as individual events without much say from the ATP or WTA. While cooperation and communication has improved, instances like Roland Garros deciding to move itself to October 2020 to avoid pandemic cancellation, without consulting neighbouring tournaments, is a good indication of the Slam’s unilateral power during extraordinary times. The simple answer is that each of the historically fragmented orgs, the ATP, WTA and Slams, have the final say over their own tournaments for the most part. And while there is far better collaboration now than there was just a few years ago (especially between the ATP and WTA), the four Slams still have the most clout thanks to the size and enduring nature of their brands. As for who has the bigger say between the players and the boards? Broadly speaking, the boards, despite some of tennis’ structure being set up as an equal partnership between players and tournaments (full time players also often don’t have time to leverage their influence as mightily as perhaps they could).
Matt: I’m assuming this is mostly a nod to China. I wrote about this balance in much more detail here, the summary of which is here:
Let’s say one of the most destabilising scenarios unfolds: China re-absorbs Taiwan by force in the next few years. What on earth, for example, are F1 going to do if that happens with vague proximity to the Chinese Grand Prix scheduled to next be held in 2023? Hold the race, and subsequent races, anyway amidst an impending war, or at the very least an enormous diplomatic skirmish? Mutual incomprehension looks set to intensify over the next decade, and sports can either gamble that tensions will stop just shy of boiling over, they can risk pulling out of the country at the last minute if tensions were to suddenly rise (likely a costly scenario in the short term but more lucrative in the long term), or they can pull out preemptively.
The idea of sport, which has always been an international force for good in the ways that it provides mutual understanding and passion no matter what language or culture fans speak or come from, having to become less international because of a mutual incomprehension on a much larger scale than itself, is an extremely sad proposition for many reasons. But as China and the West drift further and further apart, sport may well become just another casualty, at least temporarily, of deep and dividing idealogical differences. The sheer incompatibility of democracy vs autocracy. The WTA and tennis will be one of the first major sports to really grapple with this reality and try to answer these questions.
This was of course before Russia invaded the Ukraine and upended an already fragile geopolitical climate. These decisions will continue to be weighed by tennis orgs (for e.g does Russia get its events back next year and beyond?), but yes I think in some ways sadly (for its fans) there’s a chance that the next decade will see a slightly less globalised sport rather than more, if only because ideology and culture may continue, by necessity, to be more inward facing in those autocratic regimes.
Matt: Between Sinner and Alcaraz for the 18-20 year olds. Although both Zverev and Berrettini (older at 24 and 25) are also strong all-surface players. On WTA? Swiatek.
Matt: No idea on the first one. Maybe still seen as too young by his peers. But that may change quickly after this week. On 2, I think you could argue for Fritz, Tiafoe or Opelka for different reasons and based on different expectations. All three have had relatively similar Slam results in the past two seasons with a slight edge going to Fritz:
Opelka has won two 250 titles in the last two years and made the finals of the Canada Masters last year. Fritz made one 250 final in St Petersburg last year but no titles. Tiafoe made one 250 final in Vienna last year but no titles. So short answer is Fritz narrowly in Slams (but Tiafoe close behind and has had best US Open performance out of the three) but Opelka outside the Slams.
Matt: A much, much better streaming product. Post on this soon.
Matt: The key when looking for indications of a player’s ceiling is which performance categories get hit and which categories stay constant when they meet better and better opponents (I have a few methodologies for this). One of the reasons everyone is so excited by Alcaraz is because his progression through the game and rankings have been abnormally smooth for such a young player, ie his ceiling hasn’t been obvious so far as he quickly beat Challenger level followed by a now quick ascent up the main tour rankings and tournaments (although his serve has been attacked under the microscope of harsher competition over the last year). RE Brooksby, it’s still early for him, but he has some tools that make him elite and some shortcomings that remain to be examined under the highest level of competition. The serve has to improve for a 6ft 4 guy, but that shot won’t be what takes him to the top if he makes it there anyway.
Matt: It depends who you ask. There seems to be an interesting divide on questions like this when I ask Americans or Europeans. Anecdotally at least, more Americans seem to believe things like heckling and shouting back at umpires is a necessary and fun part of the spectacle (McEnroe and Connors after all made large and entertaining off-court careers based on that kind of thing). More Europeans seem to believe the opposite based on who I’ve talked to (although I want to stress that those opinions may not be representative and the rowdy Roland Garros crowd certainly wouldn’t agree). All I know is that while ‘you suck’ is definitely on the tamer side of player abuse in recent times, how one perceives abuse like that is completely subjective depending on the person’s own lenses for how they view the world and their experience. Osaka seems to be, very sadly, not enjoying her time on the tour at the moment. I hope she manages to find a way back to happiness in tennis, and that we remember that while players deal with heckling and adversity differently, we can all choose to be kind in how we see others. That choice is very much conscious and usually costs nothing. Tennis players are athletes and competitors first and entertainers second, but it’s often very easy to forget that order when they’re performing and battling in a pit at the centre of thousands of people.
Matt: Hope so. Murray has obvious but hard to fix problems.
Matt: Press conferences are partially designed to get soundbites out of unhealthily competitive human beings mere minutes after tough losses. Those quotes were undeniably salty, but Tsitsipas, and any player, isn’t perfect, so the outrage is just as silly as the quotes themselves. This sport has always been partially fuelled by salt anyway. Lot’s wife would have been the GOAT.
Matt: I hope so, but I doubt it. I think if Slams and tennis standardise it will unfortunately go the other way (everyone playing best of 3 rather than everyone playing best of 5). That would be the wrong decision btw (stares accusingly through the screen at the tennis execs reading this).
Thanks for reading and thanks to all who asked questions. Apologies if I didn’t get to your question. I ran out of time/room.
Another one soon!
— MW
Twitter: @mattracquet
I’ll see paid subscribers on Sunday for Indian Wells final analysis!
The Racquet goes out twice a week, a (free) piece every Thursday/Friday and a (paid) analysis piece every Sunday. You can subscribe here (first week free):
Top: Matthew Stockman/Getty
Most recent:
