May Racquet Mailbag
Roland Garros Draws, Grass Masters 1000's, climate change in tennis, doubles as a format, Medvedev on clay, Jabeur & Anisimova clay form, Tsitsipas vs lefties, breakaway tours, comparing eras
— MAILBAG —
First things first, Roland Garros draws, hot off the press:
Once again I asked a bunch of you on twitter for questions, and once again you came up with some great ones.
Matt: ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi (👋 Andrea) has been explicit about wanting a grass Masters 1000 to fit in pre-Wimbledon since he took the job. The battle for eligibility is thought to be between Queens (a small venue with little room for expansion unless you decided to bulldoze some mansion-block apartments in Baron’s Court) and Halle (which has excellent facilities and room to expand but confusingly has the grass quality of an onion patch compared to Queens or Wimbledon). The biggest issue of promoting one to Masters level has always been that the other event would suffer as a result of the small calendar space between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. There are now rumours that Wimbledon/LTA’s decision to ban Russian’s and Belarusian’s from British grass court events this year have punitively swayed the decision away from Queens and towards Halle, but this is just speculation.
A grass Masters absolutely makes sense. It’s often said by pundits that the maintenance cost of grass is too big of a hurdle, but considering the grass maintenance costs of Berlin (WTA), Stuttgart (ATP) and Mallorca (WTA) collectively amount to around $600k, and that the net avg profit of a Masters 1000 is approx. $6m (this is higher for the larger ones), this shouldn’t be an issue for these bigger tournaments. Especially if the event were to be held in London where organisers could probably squeeze significant revenue out of the event.
Matt: There’s not quite enough information to answer this question well as of yet, largely because the 2022 version of Alcaraz hasn’t played Medvedev yet. But Alcaraz matches up well against all three on clay (I’d like to see more of Tsitsipas vs Alcaraz on clay though as I think that still has potential to be a competitive rivalry), but Carlitos may well struggle against the absolute best versions of Medvedev and Zverev on hard courts. Both should be able to serve big enough to erode some of Alcaraz’ excellent return of serve edge, and will be able to stand deep and redirect quite a lot of Alcaraz’s linear, baseline power to coax errors. Quite a lot of this depends on Alcaraz’s rate of improvement however as if he carries on at his current rate he would eclipse both on all surfaces in a year or two. Alcaraz, at his best, has the power, drop shots and net game to win points against, and hit through, the big serving counterpuncher playstyle (Thiem, another power baseliner has winning H2H’s over both Medvedev and Zverev in part because he can also hit through both where others can’t). TL;DR: I want to see Alcaraz vs a healthy and in form Medvedev on hard courts later this year. I think fast hard courts will still suit Medvedev and Zverev (largely because their 1st serves become unplayable) in that matchup, but Alcaraz’s rate of improvement is significantly steeper than those two players which throws in more questions. Alcaraz should be a favourite against Tsitsipas on hard courts.
Matt: Gotta distinguish here between ‘peaking’ and ‘peak’ because both are used in tennis but mean quite (confusingly) distinct things. ‘Peaking’ usually just means a player is finding their best possible form, in current conditions. A player’s ‘peak’ is the zenith of their career level. For example Federer’s 2004/6 or Nadal’s 2008/13 or Djokovic’s 2011/15 seasons.
Peaking is usually just a confluence of multiple factors — match fitness, momentum/confidence, and results/form. Djokovic is certainly standing up on a mountain of momentum after winning Rome compared to the valley he was in when losing in Monte Carlo and Belgrade. He’s placed himself in as good a position as possible to win another Slam, which sounds like a good example of peaking to me.
Matt: I’m going to give a rubbish answer to this question because my hypothetical ideal calendar is useless to what will actually happen. The big consideration with new tournament locations is that they usually have to make sense when it comes to their placement in and around the rest of the calendar. For e.g swings of tournaments are usually centred around one country or similar timezones. This is one of the reasons the WTA’s necessary pullout from China is so sad because it collaterally hurts Asian tennis in general. Yes I would like to see tennis branch out with sizeable events into more locations, India, parts of Africa et al, but these decisions are almost purely economic (which country and which investors can afford the largest tournament sanction/sale prices when they’re available). The expansion of more Masters 1000 tournaments to long term, two week events will also probably mean geographic change-ups will be less common, at least in that category. The easiest large tournament to move to new locations would usually be the ATP and WTA finals because they feature a smaller pool of players and it comes at the end of the season. But from a revenue POV it makes sense to lock that tournament down in 5+ year contracts. I wish the Laver Cup moved around a bit more considering it’s non-serious status but amazing lineup.
As for climate change, the ATP became a signatory of the UN’s Sports for Climate Action in 2021 and adopted two targets: achieving a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, by 2030, and Net Zero emissions, by 2040. Initiatives include staff travel and office policy, ATP season-ending event structures and ops, and development of player and tournament toolkits. More info here.
Matt: I’m going to write something longer form about this (probably on Sunday) because there have been plenty of comments about Rome’s unequal prize money distribution, scheduling issues and attendance.
Matt: Doubles current status? In continuing decline. Doubles, as it stands, is inarguably a secondary citizen of the tennis world. And as long as there’s a self-reinforcing loop of singles being prioritised by the best players, being the highest paid part of tennis, and getting the best scheduling and streaming slots, doubles is never going to break out of that secondary role. Tennis could get extremely lucky and see the emergence of a captivating doubles pairing who market the game themselves via their own platforms, but in every other scenario doubles will remain tennis’ unwanted child at most tournaments unless something changes. Last week the women’s doubles final was even scheduled at exactly the same time as the men’s final in Rome, meaning that the stands were completely empty. Tennis occasionally does place doubles up on a pedestal of attention, for example during the ATP and WTA finals (and ATP/Davis Cup) where it gets a relatively rare scheduling focus. But the world revolves around incentives and tennis currently incentivises a focus on singles not doubles. If you want to change that then multiple incentive structures in this sport will have to change too (spoiler: they won’t).
Matt: Shameless excuse to plug previous analysis on Medvedev’s clay ability here:
And here:
Matt: For those unaware Tsitsipas has a 69% win rate against right handers and a 55% win rate against lefties (at Tour level not including qualifying matches). There are probably two things happening here (the sample for left handed matches is much smaller than for right so this is noisy: 31 lefty matches compared to 291 righty).
First of all, Tsitsipas has played a certain high-ranked lefty that skews his sample. He’s played Nadal as No.1 rank three times, Nadal as No.2 rank five times, and Nadal as No.3 rank once (for a total of 9 matches). That already makes up 29% of Tsitsipas’ total matches against lefties. 29% against one of the GOAT’s and a perennial exploiter of single handed backhands.
Tsitsipas’ avg opponent rank:
Righties: 55
Lefties: 40
Does that explain the 14% win/loss difference between right handers and left handers for Tsitsipas? Maybe. But it is also true that a left hander enjoys both the slider serve out wide on the AD side, and cross court forehand patterns, into Tsitsipas’ backhand (whereas a right hander would be going backhand to backhand cross court). A bit of both factors imo, but the biggest thing is that Nadal has made up a bunch of his losses to left handers.
It’s probably still his biggest weakness. And his coach/dad knows this and have made improvements over the last couple of years to try and take the ball earlier rather than waiting for it to drop which is his default (he was hitting it well and early indoors at the end of last season). It’s either the most, or close to the most, spinny double handed backhand on tour with an average of around 2600rpm. And his net clearance is often absurdly high, for e.g in the first set against Shapovalov last week in Rome, Ruud’s average backhand net clearance was 1.3metres (I haven’t seen many higher than that)! This is due to the way he constructs that shot and swing, and it can work in some matchups but can also get exploited in others (for e.g it was quite effective at pushing Shapo back with high balls in his backhand corner, but Djokovic then exploited it in the subsequent round by peppering that wing and rushing it). It may be too late for him to change his technique significantly.
Matt: Nothing I’ve seen this year indicates a meaningful change in technique from 2021 or 2020. But Djokovic’s forehand has been one of the best shots on tour for years now. It did change noticeably between 2007-2011, and it has been incrementally refined since, but it’s probably been his most reliable shot over the last few years. Something interesting about Djokovic is that even as a 6 year old his backhand was the more complete and technically sound stroke. It may have taken a while for his forehand to catch up, but when it did it’s been consistently excellent, both defensively and offensively.
Matt: I’m not personally concerned but there’s no doubt his fans, his team, and he are worried about it going into his most important tournament of the year. Moya has been pretty clear that his foot pain flared up ‘for months’ as early as last year’s clay season, but he still managed to find less painful periods to win Barcelona and Rome, even if both were more a struggle than his fans are used to on that surface. If he can get lucky and can avoid very long, slow-condition night matches in Paris over the next two weeks then maybe his foot holds up (looking increasingly unlikely as he finds himself in draw quarter with Djokovic and the same half as Alcaraz). But who knows. If he’s healthy he’s still the favourite in Paris. But as was always going to be the case with Nadal considering his dominance at Roland Garros, it’s his own body rather than any particular opponent who is his greatest challenge to overcome as he’s gotten older.
Matt: As of May 2020? No, and I’d guess that anyone saying otherwise is either a genius or a liar. I think the dominance of the Big 3 and Serena have skewed expectations of how difficult it is to win all four Slams, let alone multiple times like Nadal, Djokovic and Serena have. Career Grand Slams are not even close to normal nor expected for even the very best players.
In May 2020 Alcaraz was ranked 300+ in the world, Swiatek was 50ish. At that point I thought both were seriously exciting and had potential to upend various playstyles that featured at the top of the ATP and WTA. But ‘more likely than not’ to do something that only 8 men and 10 women have done in the history of tennis? Nah.
Matt: Two probable factors here:
1: Footwork and developmental bias.
2: Actual swing and technique
More detail here:
Matt: Soon! Hopefully after Wimbledon.
Matt: I remember writing about the tension between some players and the tours last year when the PTPA had some momentum during COVID enforced prize money cuts and tournament cancellations (at that point Pospisil was literally threatening a breakaway tour). There’s always potential for something like this to happen, but my hunch is that if it were to happen, COVID would have been the most likely catalyst. For now, prize money is slowly returning to the normal, high levels for the elite end of pro tennis, and it is always going to be absurdly difficult for players to organise cohesively. TL;DR: Yeah it’s always possible, but the conditions for the required player leverage and unity are rare.
Matt: Both Ons Jabeur (for obvious reasons via winning Madrid and finaling in Rome) and Amanda Anisimova have been very impressive this clay season for different reasons. Jabeur went: Charleston final, Stuttgart quarters, Madrid title, and Rome final. That is a brilliant clay season. Ons is a great example of how modern clay court tennis can be very friendly to an all-court game, even one lacking topspin (Ons hits with some of the lowest spin rates on tour), with her drop shots and variation making up potent weapons that exploit all areas of the court (unless she has to play the outlier that is Iga Swiatek!). Anisimova went: Charleston semi’s, Madrid quarters, Rome quarters. And she was especially impressive in 2/3 wins against Sabalenka in that period and generally looks well suited to clay. Both of them deserve more coverage (although Ons was getting it after her win in Madrid), but Iga unsurprisingly took most of the glory. Anisimova will be rewarded with a 1st round battle against Naomi Osaka in Paris, which could be very entertaining.
Matt: This comes up year after year. My main problems with comparing eras is that debaters often get into heavy hypotheticals like ‘what would happen if this player didn’t exist’ or ‘what would happen if you forced Djokovic to play with a racquet that had been carved out of an ash tree’. For the most part, at least when comparing players across the more recent ‘Open Era’, I like separating the comparisons between ‘greater’ and ‘better’. Bjorn Borg has 6 Roland Garros titles to Djokovic's 2 and Federer's 1. An 86% clay win rate compared to Djokovic's 80% and Fed's 76%. 32 clay titles to Djokovic's 18 and Fed's 11. Results wise it’s not close. The arguments from those who think Djokovic or Federer are greater clay courters than Borg usually revolve around Nadal being such an unusually effective, and unfair, blocker. But it’s impossible to know the reality of what would have happened if Nadal didn’t exist, or if Nadal and Borg played at the same time. There are too many ripple effect variables at play to come up with a solid answer. If the performance gap between Borg and Djokovic/Federer was smaller then I could see an argument for comparing them closely. But for now, Borg is inarguably greater.
— MW
Thanks for reading and thanks for all the great questions as always. Apologies to those who asked questions I didn’t get to. Try next month!
Twitter: @mattracquet
I’ll see paid subscribers on Sunday on Sunday.
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: Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty
Most recent:
Queens will struggle without a roof, to prove a grass Masters can work Pre Wimby in the UK. It’s also very reduced for space and I’m not sure the members, incredibly disrupted already, wld vote for it. There is also the question, ignored, of how it affects all the other grass tourneys, both in UK and elsewhere, investment in which has been huge over past few years. Also, do you include the WTA? Or are Masters just for men….?
Re Italy. The courts were packed for first few days both for WTA & ATP, kids are encouraged and family days out. Prices are reasonable. However, as with all Masters, prices are increasingly higher and higher towards the back end, off putting for many fans, and the timings need to be looked at too. Even Rome, famously laid back and public friendly has become more corporate this year with less space give to the ordinary ticket fans and more given over to corporate entertainment… Make of that what you will.