I was planning to do these monthly but somehow ended up missing July, so…
…Welcome to August’s Racquet Mailbag.
Quite a lot has happened in the past week or so. Federer out with another knee surgery, Osaka & the media saga continues (which ended up turning into media vs media), Halep out with injury which means she will leave the Top 10, Nadal out with his foot injury, Thiem out for the season with the wrist injury, the WTA seemingly confounding themselves with their own ranking structure and not having an updated ranking page in over 5 days now, Medvedev winning Toronto by dismantling the big servers, Giorgi going on a tear to win Montreal, Tsitsipas coming out with some extremely odd quotes about covid vaccination and hesitancy etc etc etc.
Feel free to use this thread to decompress and take stock of what’s happened recently, or to look ahead. Ask me any questions you like about tennis: current and topical, historical, bigger picture future stuff. Anything goes.
I’ll do my best to answer them all quickly but I might take a bit longer if there are any that require some extra thought.
I'd like to know your thoughts on Novak's choice of 2nd serve at different points of the last few years. From Australian Open 2019 through this past French we saw a bunch of different strategies from him. He used to go big slice for both 1st and second, hitting them around 110-114mph when he was really rolling deep into the event, and just kinda dealt with a small number of doubles but those were infrequent cause he was hitting the same type of serve twice. But then during the French (and also Wimbledon final) he was just kinda rolling that slow kicker that he could place well in the box at low risk.
Do you think these were surface specific things? Or opponent specific? Or just confidence based, i.e. when he was feeling great about his serve he was going for it more? Or does this seem like a strategic decision that sets up specific +1 balls afterwards.
Great question Ryan. I actually had a piece on this that I never published because other stuff came up. Djokovic's 2nd serve evolution is fascinating. Since 2018 on a hard court he has basically found power and consistency with his slice 2nd serves, out wide on the duece side, and down the T on the AD side to the point where's he comfortable hitting 98-110mph 2nd serves that swing away from the returner and are devilishly difficult to return with interest. He's essentially hitting 2nd serves that look not dissimilar from some of his 1st serves about 10 years ago. The fact that he's found such good rhythm on that shot where he can be aggressive without using so much of the kicker (which obviously has safer net clearance than the slice) is under-discussed and an amazing technical achievement. On clay this changes a bit as he likes going down the T on the duece side to mix it up and throws in quite a few kick serves with more even placement distribution, but it's definitely opponent specific. For example vs Berrettini that very conservative kicker out to Berrettini's backhand or body worked well on the AD side because it gave Berrettini's weaker wing no pace to work with. And against Nadal in Paris he hit quite safe 2nd serves while always trying his best to find Nadal's backhand (Nadal had an unusually bad day on 2nd serve return in that match, mostly independant of Djokovic's 2nd serve level that day).
So the summary is that, yes it's opponent specific, but he's also found a general rhythm and consistency of power & slice on 2nd serves on hard courts especially than I haven't really seen any opponent deal with particularly well other than Thiem in the 2020 Australian Open final (and that was mostly because Thiem seemed to coax quite weak 2nd serves from Djokovic for parts of the match due to Novak fatiguing).
If Djokovic does complete the Calander Slam, how would it compare to his 2011 season. Obviously the extra slam and beating Rafa at RG, but there was just something so blistering about how he transformed in 2011 that to me makes it comparable. Is that just nostalgia for that year, or is there a discussion between the 2?
For stuff like this I like to separate best from greatest. His 2011 season is his best season of his career in my opinion, largely because the competition strength that year blows anything in 2015 or 2021 out of the water. What Novak achieved that year, in comprehensively dethroning the two other greatest tennis players to play the game, while they were both still relatively young, will always be one of the defining moments of 2010's tennis. I think if he completes the calendar year grand slam this year it will undoubtably go down as his 'greatest' season, but his 2011 run will always be his 'best' for me at least.
I think similar for those same reasons. The moment when he wasn't "the other guy there" with the two of them, and he became the person to beat was that tidal change in 2011. It felt absolutely monumental then, and the Federer Nadal status never really recovered.
3 slams, 5 1000s, 41-0 streak to kick off the year. 10-1 against RF/RN that year. Ran out of steam completely in the tour finals, but after playing that well in so many matches, it was understandable
Your guess is as good as mine. All depends whether he puts in the physical work off court, and focuses on getting his knee tendonitis and shoulder/ab issues under control. The more preparation he does off court the more tournaments he'd be able to play and the higher his ranking would be so he can avoid tough early rounds at tournaments (which he keeps losing). My guess is at this point of his career (26 years old) if he hasn't figured out a way to motivate himself with the off court stuff, then it's unlikely he ever will. But wouldn't be surprised if he has one more big peak left after COVID (hopefully) settles down.
1) Why PCB and RBA are bad match-up for Djokovic? (Both players were good at groundstroke but poor serve).
2) Why this year on clay, the cross court forehand of Djokovic was so effective against Nadal? I mean, many players have a good forehand and are able to do the same thing, no (on the tactic side).
3) Thoughts on Khachanov style of play? Difficult to read this guy!
1. The easy answer to this is that neither have that obvious a weakness. And both can hit relatively flat through the court when they need to. I think a lot of Djokovic's magic comes from ruthlessly sniffing out and exploiting imbalance or weakness of opponents, and those two guys just happen to be more balanced and well rounded than most. They can also both hang with him in the longer rallies, especially backhand to backhand exhanges, which wasn't that significant when Novak was in his physical prime but can probably be more of an edge against 34 year old Novak.
2. It was effective because Djokovic executed extremely well, better than usual (lots of players know they should target Nadal's backhand but actually doing so requires lots of other pieces to fall into place and ruthless consistency and application). And also because Nadal couldn't quite find his usual level on 2nd serve return and his own serve+ 1 forehand (although this was made more difficult by Djokovic's excellent level) which meant that Nadal got trapped in those Djokovic-favoured exchanges more often than we've seen in most of their matches on clay.
Thanks! I don’t know your opinion on it, but Khachanov has many strenghts on his game (serve, backhand etc.) but when you see their result/level durant one match, he was not able to exploit it (not many aces for examples, many break etc.).
Thanks a lot! It’s juste based on « balanced game » which is able to compete again Djokovic? It’s very strange because both don’t have a huge serve, so that mean there are no free point on serve against a good returner like Djokovic.
A genie appears and grants you the power to change literally everyone involved in tennis' opinion on one issue/thing that you believe will make the biggest difference in the success of the sport over the next 50 years. It could be governance of the tours, the right distribution of income, broadcasting rights, format/match length, what should be looked for in commentators, level of funding/direction for grassroots etc. but it's got to be essentially one view/opinion. What do you make everyone agree on?
Excellent question James. I'm going to cheat slightly though. The obvious and safe answer is centralised streaming platforms and the unification of ATP and WTA as one large commercial package.
The harder, less obvious (slightly crazy) answer:
One thing that I would make a universally agreed truth is that all tennis broadcasting should move to a free to watch model. I'm fairly certain this will end up being an inevitable future of much of sports broadcasting in the (very) long run whether big networks like it or not. And if tennis accepted this early and started building products and tech around that potential future, it could put this sport in an incredible position to thrive over the next few decades (and I think make tennis far richer than it is now). The way it would work is through incentivising revenue through a mixture of sponsorships (which already exist) and supplementary transactions from fans in the form of ways to make their viewing experience more interesting while watching. Custom emotes for their favourite players in the chat of the match streams, monetized audible 'cheers' during change of ends, skins/avatars built in tandem with a fans favourite players, profit sharing via merch etc etc etc. A bit like twitch for sport. My thinking on this is that the massive contracts which currently provide the backbone for much of tennis' financials like the ESPN US open contract will likely not be around for that much longer, at least in their current form. This sport is going to have to find ways to make money at a time where sports broadcast rights are going to be less lucrative and less available for large chunks of the calendar year. The way they can do that is by becoming a platform that functions a little more like how the best video games function (fortnite, league of legends et al) instead of how conventional sports broadcasting works. In a free to watch model you'd let the largest possible number of fans access the sport thanks to no paywall and no geo-restrictions (ie the top of your funnel would be larger than ever before), and then generate revenue through those supplementary transactions from the 20% of your most engaged user/viewer base (ie extracting more lifetime value from the more passionate fans).
This will not happen for a variety of reasons, perhaps primarily that Tennis Channel is going to end up with a bit of a monopoly on tennis rights in the US (the biggest market) and will feel little short term pressure to do anything other than continue their subscription access (pay to watch) model status quo. But the more I develop the free to watch model and 'platform' direction in my mind and in essays about the future of the sport, the more superior I think it is, long term, to the normal broadcasting models that have dominated sport for years.
Oh to add to the 'obvious safe answer' the centralised streaming platform would have best in class engineering talent building out a tennis streaming platform of the future. One of the biggest sins in tennis right now is how little innovation has gone into both the Tennis Channel app and the Tennis TV app despite enormous potential. The TennisTV app in particular has barely changed in 12 years!
One big disadvantage with this proposed model for any sports league is the lack of revenue guarantees. Attendance for any given event is generally uncertain but the certainty of multi-year TV contracts have always made up for it. Relying solely on their own platform will require a lot of marketing spend, as large TV networks no longer have a stake in promoting your product. Relying on one of the tech behemoths will leave you completely at their mercy.
Having said that, I agree with your general sentiment about the importance of free to watch content. I'd like them to carve out doubles matches from their existing contracts and air them live on twitch. Their value to existing TV partners is probably minimal, and it can potentially provide an opportunity to touch base with those who don't/won't/can't pay. Most of the discourse around tennis revolves around the matches being too long, but I think the hours of inventory can also be a huge advantage on a platform like Twitch. No other 'live action' sport can match the hours of content that tennis can provide.
Re: the big serving counterpuncher (BSC) play style meta: do you see the trend of increasing average player height continuing to a point of BSC Supremacy where players with this profile/play style meta become hard to dislodge from the top of the rankings? For players under 10 ft. tall, will it simply take a crop of Djokovic-caliber returners to have a chance? Or are there any other specific skills/strategies that current players could develop to keep them competitive in these matchups? Thanks, Matt!
Hey Jessie. I think there will probably be a sort of limit, even if that limit potentially could be extended by an inch or two every decade or so (although that then prompts wider questions about natural selection limiters for human height and strength in general). Medvedev and Zverev, both 6ft 6, are probably the ideal upper limit at least for now, for players who can move well but also use their trigonometrical height advantage for serving. But it is really interesting that neither have particularly obvious rally weaknesses when they're in form (Zverev's forehand is and has been a weakness but he covers up the cracks effectively for the most part, and both return quite effectively) considering most tall players tended to have an obvious technique weakness usually because they focused on one area of their game (serve and/or forehand) at the expense of other areas, in a sort of 'big strength more meaningful than small weakness' approach rather than the 'all rounder big serving counterpunchers' which have recently emerged. The skills and strategies to beat these guys are mostly a mix of excellent returning (a la Djokovic and Nadal), a mixture of variation (spins and heights) and power (Nadal and Federer have played both Zverev and Medvedev well in the past with a mix of slices and spins combined with those point ending forehands). But really the most interesting thing about these guys is that it's going to come down to a battle between BSC's and the more strength specific players like Berrettini, Tsitsipas, Shapo etc who will probably just need to be better on the big points (as none of those three are going to win that many return games against Med/Zverev on hard courts). All three of those latter strength specific guys have the weapons to force tight matches against Medvedev and Zverev if they keep the error count down, but how those matchups play out as they all enter and compete through their primes is going to be super interesting to watch unfold.
What are your thoughts on aging in tennis, and how our perception of young vs. prime vs. old tennis age will evolve over the next decade? Agassi was considered an extreme outlier for continuing to play at a high level at 35 not so long ago, and now we have scores of great (but not "all-time great") players continuing to perform very well in their mid-to-late-thirties.
It was pretty striking to me that Thiem mentioned he has "a very long career ahead of him" when he shut down his season this week, when 27 used to be a fairly advanced tennis age. It's also interesting how much the goalposts have moved because of the Big 3, even amongst themselves. Djokovic winning three majors (maybe four?) in one year at 33/34 would have been a miracle when Fed was that age, and now it feels like kind of a given. I've read plenty of comments that "40 year olds don't win majors," especially with the recent news about Fed's latest surgery, but is that really so hard to believe?
Great question Christina. Sports medicine, career arc expectations, schedule management etc have all shifted the young/prime/old windows. And I expect it to become normal, or even more normal, for ATP players to continue their primes until 32,33 ish. But I think there is also the danger of a bit of survivorship bias when it comes to the big 3 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. All three are generationally great athletes with generationally great motivation and desire to keep their bodies as healthy as possible despite a gruelling physical workload. And all three are or were still winning Slams into their mid 30's partly because they had a performance and experience edge thanks to having the incredibly difficult task of having to compete with each other, that isn't common in tennis or any sport. I'm not sure future gens will have that same performance egde in their 30's, or at least the immediate generations following this one. Therefore I'm not sure those three are that good a representation for where the next gen may be physically in their mid to late 30's. I doubt it will be 'normal' in the coming years for players to be winning slams at age 37-38 etc, but yeah the career arc has clearly shifted a little later in the last 20 years.
Both the NBA and tennis are seeing their greatest players' careers lasting far longer than in the past. I was wondering if you have any idea how their career "mileage" compares. I.e., has age 35 LeBron put more or less "mileage" on his legs verses age 35 Nadal or Federer? (not sure if it's answerable given that practice mileage is unknown)
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the NBA to give you a good answer on this. As far as I understand though, NBA avg distance covered per game is somewhere around 2.5 miles compared to tennis' 3 miles, but tennis would also probably have greater outliers in either directions both shorter and much longer for the gruelling 5 setters. Neither surfaces (tennis hard courts or NBA's varnished wood) are good for the joints so probably comparably wearing there, although NBA is more vertical movement vs more horizontal movement for tennis. Tough to compare overall, but for the very best, ie those who also train the most, I can't imagine the career arcs would be that different at an elite level.
Hello, as a beginner to tennis your blog is helping me learn how to watch the sport, thanks so much for your insightful (and funny) commentary! I had a question about TennisTV. You've spoken before about how it's opened access in a big way -- but also how its running up against contradictions as the media arm of an org trying to maintain this idea of tennis as a decorous sport, while operating under incentives to pull in viewers through sensationalism. I was wondering where you see that headed long-term, whether you see a reckoning point at all (and if so, which actors -- e.g. some collection of players, umpires hard-done by media narratives, trying to intervene?), or if you think those contradictions will just keep bumping against each other. I also wondered if you had any thoughts on what (if any) impact this may have on tennis rules and norms down the line.
Thanks Shreya, great to hear you're enjoying it! My assumption is that those contradictions will keep bumping into one another. What drama and highlights do well on tennistv's social channels and what rules are in place to protect umpires, or on-court decorum, are mostly separate things which means the contradictions don't have much need to resolve itself. There will be continual tweaking of rules in years to come as the sport changes incrementally (small format tweaks that are currently being experimented on in the ATP Next Gen Finals, which serves as a kind of tennis rule/format incubator), but I don't think a 'reckoning point' is likely as it implies some large scale blow up or quick ending of the status quo. Tennis will probably continue to change mostly at a snails pace in many ways.
As a new tennis fan the current ATP/WTA ranking systems seem stale and there doesn’t seem to be alot of movement in/out of the top 100. I’m tired of seeing guys like Jordan Thompson. Could tennis ever implement something similar to what they do in golf? Every year 25 players qualify to play on pga tour from the Korn Ferry tour based on their standing on the Korn Ferry Tour. The top 125 on PGA tour keep their playing privileges. 125-150 in the rankings have to go back to qualify for the tour. This ensures a constant influx of up to 50 new players every year on the PGA tour. It brings excitement to the lower level tours too
I didn't see Tsitsipas' comments on vaccine hesitancy, but I wasn't keen on his pretty dim comments about coaching on court. I quite like him otherwise. Could it be that he has a bit too much influence from his father? And do you think, while his opinions are questionable, it's good that he's honest about sharing these opinions? He doesn't seem massively cynical.
I would be very surprised if his comments about coaching were influenced by his father instead of his 'coach' Mouratoglou, who has long railed against, and broken, coaching rules. I like players being outspoken and wish we were all a bit more gentle when a player or someone else expressed an opinion about where tennis should go. The coaching debate is an interesting one to be had, but there are probably some questions about inequality of access to elite coaching, and mid match data informing strategy shifts, to deal with before actually making any changes to the rule. Also many, myself included, like the one on one aspect of singles tennis so would be reluctant to change the rule for that reason (although it has provided some good highlights on the WTA).
Tsitsipas comments on vaccines:
"the covid-19 vaccine has not been tested enough because it is new and has some side effects. I know some people who've had them. I'm not against it, I just see no reason for someone in my age group to be vaccinated [yet]. For us young people I think it's good to pass the virus because we'll build immunity. I don't see it as something bad. As I said, it isn't obligatory, everyone has freedom to decide for themselves what's right & what's not. "at some point we should all do it, I'm not saying the opposite. The time will come when we will not be given many options, but until then I want to see a better version of the vaccine that gives us more pluses than minuses."
Wow. Okay, I suppose there may be some people that agree with him but I'd say that's pretty irresponsible, not to say counter-productive to the tour!
I agree on the coaching, and his comments made it sound like he wanted to be able to do it between points. I haven't noticed it on the WTA actually. Interesting that it would be Mouratoglou, I always thought it was his father who had cause the code violations when I've watched the match, but maybe I've missed spotting Patrick being there.
How do you view Dominic Thiem, assuming he can recover from his injury, vs. the other top 10-15 contenders? assuming full recovery and motivation. I thought he was at the same level - slightly below - Djokovic and Nadal after the USO, 2020. Thank you.
Assuming full recovery and motivation he should be top 3 in the world. He should be battling with Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev for the throne post-big 3, and at this point arguably edging them with an experience edge in the biggest matches (ie slam finals), although Tsitsipas and Medvedev are catching up. His offence when it clicks is still bigger and better than those other guys.
Hi Maria. Quite a few things really. He started serving bigger and better, started making fewer unforced errors, and started returning better (that deep position you see a la Nadal).
">>And funnily enough, this clay improvement echoes his short point performance improvements on hard courts between 2018 and 2019 onwards. In 2018 and up until the Washington ATP 500 tournament in 2019, Medvedev was winning 71% of his service points when the rally was 2-4 shots while serving on hard courts. From Washington 2019 onwards he started winning 81% of his service points when the rally was 2-4 shots when serving on hard courts.
>>(Matt: Medvedev is often given a reputation as a grinder, but his 1st serve dominance improvement on hard courts, via serve placement variety and early point aggression, was a large contributing reason to him becoming devilishly difficult to beat on hard courts from late-2019 onwards) "
As they say, people who are empathetic can read other's emotions and mental state. So does that have any correlation with the sport and players involved?
I have two questions: one from me and the other from my wife :) From me: who has the most consistent and powerful one-handed backhand on the men’s tour? I love seeing it played but it seems like such a weak shot for most one-handers. Wife: how would women’s tennis results change if majors were played to best-of-5 rather than 3? Thanks Matt!
1. Wawrinka (although he's mostly off the tour these days unfortunately), has always been the best one hander largely because of unusual chest and shoulder strength for a modern tennis player. 2. There would probably be an adjustment period but long term I think it would be good for the growth of the game and would probably be closer to producing GOAT level dynasties given slightly reduced variance in a longer format.
Seeing as though it's coming up I just wonder your opinion: Do you believe the Laver Cup can down the line develop a reputation such as the one similar to the Ryder Cup in Golf, and if not what do you think is missing? Thanks!
I sort of hope so, and think the basic premise of the Laver Cup is brilliant for the sport. But I'm not so sure they'll be able to execute on the idea of being tennis' ryder cup while the calendar in this sport is as congested as it is. I'd also like to see it become a bigger mixed event at a different time in the calendar.
Hi massive fan of your blog! Great in-depth analysis that’s rare to find. Who do you think will end up with the most decorated career out of Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas? Also which of the next gen do you think will have the most success on grass and why?
Thanks TD. My guess is most titles will be Medvedev or Zverev but I think there's a decent chance Tsitsipas ends up with the 'greatest' career. Zverev or Medvedev look most likely to decent on grass for now, but the real answer is none of them tbh. They may well go on to win on grass because the competition on that surface becomes weak post big 3 retirement.
I have another question/comment about commentary, having seen your tweets about modernising it. Do you think there's an opening for Youtube tennis coverage? It's a huge thing now in the UK for football and elsewhere in Europe I believe, so maybe it's worth a shot? (for you or for me!) I feel like I know enough about the game to be able to talk about it for any length of time
Yes. Tennis has a weird lack of representation on YouTube, twitch et al, almost entirely because of this sports terribly archaic approaches to broadcasting rights-holder contracts, and the fact that is there no AAA tennis video game. It means that if you upload highlights accompanies by commentary you will get DMCA struck and it would be extremely hard to build an audience with a mixture of invisible or demonetised videos. I'm writing something about this atm, which will hopefully be out next week.
That would be great to see. Will that one be for paid subscribers? In a lot of the soccer channels, they don't show any highlights, they just rant about it, do watchalongs, previews, reactions, news updates etc. i.e. it's all done from the ground up. Not sure whether there would be the fanbase for it in tennis.
Putting preferences and fan extremism aside, is it fair to say that all the big three have very strong arguments for being the GOAT? Roger Federer? Most versatile (given present court homogenization and his ability to serve and volley or play baseline tennis) and dominance in prime. Rafa Nadal? Stiffest competition (having to overcome Federer and Djokovic during their peak years) plus dominance at the "hardest" of all slams. Novak Djokovic? Statistical leader by most metrics.
The margins are so small, and the above points (and others) will prevent anyone from objectively claiming that one is the best of all time. Thoughts?
Yes. It will completely depend on what criteria you value in assessing 'greatness'. Some people value longevity, some people value competition strength and peaks, some people value raw numbers and titles. The word GOAT has become all but meaningless nowadays but all three of those players, at this point in their careers, have good arguments to be considered the best. My guess is that when all is said and done, Federer and Djokovic will have most of the mainstream support for the GOAT debate, and Nadal will end up being underrated in comparison (his career has never been as well understood as the other two). But just a guess at this point and will slightly depend on the next 18 months +.
My feelings exactly. However, with respect to the next 18 months, what would strengthen both Djokovic's and Nadal's cases could be if they were surpassed by the next gen for a year and THEN reclaimed the top spot. Somewhat like Connors did in 1983.
Djokovic is basically already nearly guaranteed to finish with the most well rounded resume. As long as he keeps winning and clings on to the number one ranking for as long as possible, most of the mainstream metrics will fall in his favour (many already do). For Nadal, another Australian Open and/or US Open would be huge (Australian Open to have the career grand slam x2, and another US Open to tie the most number of titles at that tournament in open era).
Agreed. But given the weakness of the Next Gen against the Big 3 (so far), it seems like just padding stats. What would be most impressive for both? Overcoming a major challenge from one of the Next Gen who takes the top spot from them.
How does Indian Wells (in October) fall into the schedule this year, given it's now after the USO? Do you think players (esp those nursing injuries, etc) will elect to skip, start the off season early, and then get ready for the AO in January? (asking as a fan planning on attending!)
Good question Jay. Indian Wells is in a very awkward part of the calendar for its location tbh, as there's nearly a month between the US Open and Indian wells with many smaller 250's and 500's in europe and elsewhere in between, and there are also no events in the States immediately after Indian wells, meaning that players will have to essentially make the trip for that one tournament alone. The Laver Cup (ATP) and Chicago Fall Tennis Classic (WTA) are the only events in the States which would serve as sort of warm ups to Indian wells but that only represents a certain amount of participation from both tours. Overall, if it were any other event (other than the Slams) I'd be worried about Indian Wells lineup, but don't underestimate how much both the men and women love that event. I think turnout will end up being good, but just a guess at this point.
I'm not sure 'unlikely' really means what it used to mean in tennis. Winners of masters and WTA 1000 events are so much less predictable these days and yet I wouldn't call any of the winners of this years masters events on the men's side, or Giorgi winning canada, *that* 'unlikely' against the current backdrop of competition despite the fact we've had multiple first time winners in 2021. That said Djokovic still has a stranglehold on the men's slam titles for now but none of Zverev, Medvedev or Tsitsipas winning in new york would be that big of a surprise. Would be cool to see Giorgi push on her form into New York though
This is a bit of a cop out answer, because it's not technically a let cord but it still involves the net cord, but probably the Nadal Djokovic net touch in the 2013 Roland Garros semi final. It's probably overstated how important that moment is considering Nadal was in absurd form in that 5th set and the net cord violation didn't happen on game or break point, but it was still significant at an extremely delicate point in their rivalry. As for a more strict answer to that question I'd need to think some more.
Oh there have been a few. The ones that come to mind are Becker beating Lendl in 5 sets in the Masters tournament in 1988 and Federer beating Ljubicic in the 2006 Miami final.
Not really other than a possible reversion to the mean. Although to be fair to Karatsev his losses since RG aren't exactly bad (Norrie at Queens who made the final, Chardy at Wimbledon who's a good grass courter, and then Khachanov and Cilic in Canada and Cincy, both of which should be tough matches for Karatsev). TL;DR think judgement for Karatsev and where his resting form actually is will be judged next year after a year or so playing consistent tennis at the top of the game rather than on the back of 3-4 early exits after his extraordinary breakthrough.
Are there reasons, besides Djokovic’s health being a little questionable, that Medvedev might fare better against him at the US Open than he did at the Australian Open?
I think the biggest reason Medvedev would fare better against Djokovic in New York than Melbourne is simply because Djokovic usually isn't as good in New York as he is in Australia. A mixture of the US Open being the last slam of the year after an exhausting schedule and the conditions historically being probably slightly less favourable in New York (humidity and court composition wise) than Rod Laver Arena down under.
Hi Matt, I was a big fan of the Medvedev toronto issue btw and would be great to see more of those video game attributes for other players. Is there any chance of that? My actual question is why do you think the media are going after their own in the Osaka saga?
Thanks Mark. I'll try and do some more video game attributes for the top ten on the men and women's side. But tbh quantifying abilities like that gets a bit messy. Probably need to find a concrete way to number the categories rather than just intuition if I'm gonna do more of them. RE the media turning on itself, it was very, very poor to be frank, but unfortunately not unexpected (it's happened a few times now since the original media boycott where members of the media have picked on other journos for extremely mild missteps and blown them up into controversy as a misdirected overreaction to the initial conversation about sporting media's role and relevance in 2021). I hope this won't happen so much moving forward as the journalist in question who threw their colleague under the bus got understandably criticised quite publicly. But that may be wishful thinking. I think parts of the tennis media in general are still reeling from a few uncomfortable conversations and realities post-Osaka media boycott, with some of them looking for those around them to blame rather than having a slightly higher level discussion about medias role in this sport.
Hi, Matt. Thanks for the blog and keep up the great work !
1) Do you think there is a correlation between younger players being less able to impose themselves / be consistent (in the case of the ATP/WTA players, respectively) and the fact that they grew up in the digital age and with smartphones in hand since they were teens/kids (I think one of the Big 3 alluded to this once) ?
I can see two ways this could affect them : overall attention span is shortened and the pressure of social media. For the former, NK has goldfish-like concentration levels even at the best of times. I’ve very rarely seen Shapovalov play a match at a consistent level. As for the latter, I think social media makes people think of image perception and protection way earlier than they used to and that can play on peoples’ psyches from a long-term, developmental POV. It makes me think of how a lot of the recent women who had great results have a lot of trouble to build on momentum (Osaka, Vondrousova, Gauff, although for various reasons) as soon as they whipped up some hype.
2) How important do you think is the psychological interplay between hunter and hunted in the grand scheme of things in tennis ? Which one is easier ? For example, was it easier for Nadal and Djokovic to always have Federer’s achievements as targets or for Federer to take advantage of his alpha status for a few years (2004-2007) ? To me, it always seems like there’s a bit of an uncountable extra for a player yet to establish him/herself. They tend to be more ruthless, play with less pressure. On the contrary, aging players often seem to wrestle with their own mortality in important moments (Fed, Serena, maybe Nadal in the USO 19 final)
Obvious side-question : how do you think the Big 3’s careers would have panned out had they all been born within a year of each other ?
From a sports psychology perspective, how do you assess the habit of some players (mostly nextgen) to look at or gesticulate to their box after nearly every point? My armchair view has been that it indicates a lack of maturity and mental toughness. However some successful players such as Berrettini do it frequently so perhaps I am wrong.
Probably depends on the individual. For example both Djokovic and Kyrgios occasionally seem to find blaming their box cathartic in some ways, while other players seem to get into rage spirals the more they focus on anyone other than themselves. So short answer is that it depends on the personality and how long that player dwells on post point emotions. I can definitely see the argument that it can be unhealthy and unproductive to constantly focus on someone else in that context though.
I'm fascinated by this dynamic as well. I assume it's an outlet for them as individual players on the court alone who aren't allowed to get coaching/input during a match and have to figure everything out by themselves. I'm sure their coaches/teams are used to it, but it strikes me that part of their role is just silently serving as human shock absorbers for a LOT of player stress/anger/emotion. Even though it's part of the job and not really aimed AT them, I would imagine it takes a toll no matter how experienced they are--at least it would for me!
Hi Matt, I really enjoy your posts and analysis. I have a question about vision in tennis. Is there any list/analysis on what type of eye dominance have players on tour? and that impacts in their statistics/performance when it comes to their game? Maybe it is a bit too generic but I have been wondering if there is any account at least about what players are cross dextral/pure dextral, etc. Thanks in advance!
Hey matt. Always love reading your work. How is bh of dominic different from that of tsitsi, fed? How the former is so solid from that wing whereas tsitsi, fed struggle on their bhs and has now become kind of a hole in their game? Has it to do anything with their grip/swing? Or their ability to hit their bhs while pushed off positions? I feel it's the latter as it's just the defense which differs for domi over those guys.
Is Kyrgios finished? Now that he is #82 he is unable to play in the Masters unless invited and often goes out in the first round. He seems to have permanent left knee damage which is a major problem for a big server as he lands on it although during his last three losses he was moving around the court quite well. He seems to have lost heart since his huge fine at Cincinnatti a few years ago. It just looks as if he is trying so hard not to lose his temper that he has forgotten how to win. So depressing to watch him now. All the top players are getting away with smashing, swearing and arguing - the very behaviour he was fined huge amounts for. Is it double standards? Should he be playing qualies and challengers? Murray, Wahrinka and Gasquet were not too proud to do so. Many of his fans wish he could come back but is it too late?
Do you think South America will have some good tennis players making it to the circuit? Because its seems as there aren't many south american (or players from third world countries in general) making it far in their career. I feel like the chances of succeeding for players that aren't from the US/Europe/Australia got slimmer these years, do you agree? Would like to hear your opinion as a North American.
I'm actually not North American (am english/kiwi)! But re the south american players making it to the ATP, there are a bunch. On the men's side Diego Schwartzman was top 10 last year, Garin is top 20, Delbonis is top 50, Ceuvas has been top 100 for years and always entertains. And on the younger side you have Cerundolo, Galan, Seyboth Wild etc etc.
Very few double handers would likely benefit from having a single hander although tbh this question is nearly impossible considering the number of variables that come in to play when altering a main shot of these players. Steve Johnson, maybe an argument for Berrettini. For some odd reason I've always thought it would be fun to see what Cilic would have looked like with a single hander, but mostly for fun.
I'd like to know your thoughts on Novak's choice of 2nd serve at different points of the last few years. From Australian Open 2019 through this past French we saw a bunch of different strategies from him. He used to go big slice for both 1st and second, hitting them around 110-114mph when he was really rolling deep into the event, and just kinda dealt with a small number of doubles but those were infrequent cause he was hitting the same type of serve twice. But then during the French (and also Wimbledon final) he was just kinda rolling that slow kicker that he could place well in the box at low risk.
Do you think these were surface specific things? Or opponent specific? Or just confidence based, i.e. when he was feeling great about his serve he was going for it more? Or does this seem like a strategic decision that sets up specific +1 balls afterwards.
Great question Ryan. I actually had a piece on this that I never published because other stuff came up. Djokovic's 2nd serve evolution is fascinating. Since 2018 on a hard court he has basically found power and consistency with his slice 2nd serves, out wide on the duece side, and down the T on the AD side to the point where's he comfortable hitting 98-110mph 2nd serves that swing away from the returner and are devilishly difficult to return with interest. He's essentially hitting 2nd serves that look not dissimilar from some of his 1st serves about 10 years ago. The fact that he's found such good rhythm on that shot where he can be aggressive without using so much of the kicker (which obviously has safer net clearance than the slice) is under-discussed and an amazing technical achievement. On clay this changes a bit as he likes going down the T on the duece side to mix it up and throws in quite a few kick serves with more even placement distribution, but it's definitely opponent specific. For example vs Berrettini that very conservative kicker out to Berrettini's backhand or body worked well on the AD side because it gave Berrettini's weaker wing no pace to work with. And against Nadal in Paris he hit quite safe 2nd serves while always trying his best to find Nadal's backhand (Nadal had an unusually bad day on 2nd serve return in that match, mostly independant of Djokovic's 2nd serve level that day).
So the summary is that, yes it's opponent specific, but he's also found a general rhythm and consistency of power & slice on 2nd serves on hard courts especially than I haven't really seen any opponent deal with particularly well other than Thiem in the 2020 Australian Open final (and that was mostly because Thiem seemed to coax quite weak 2nd serves from Djokovic for parts of the match due to Novak fatiguing).
What scientific work is being done on injury prevention in tennis?
Research on plantar pressure & injuries in tennis by surface:
https://t.co/EJQIMaaBme?amp=1
https://t.co/WKW6ff9eUF?amp=1
And Mark Kovacs is doing interesting work around injury prevention and physical optimisation for players: https://kovacsinstitute.com/drmarkkovacs.html
If Djokovic does complete the Calander Slam, how would it compare to his 2011 season. Obviously the extra slam and beating Rafa at RG, but there was just something so blistering about how he transformed in 2011 that to me makes it comparable. Is that just nostalgia for that year, or is there a discussion between the 2?
For stuff like this I like to separate best from greatest. His 2011 season is his best season of his career in my opinion, largely because the competition strength that year blows anything in 2015 or 2021 out of the water. What Novak achieved that year, in comprehensively dethroning the two other greatest tennis players to play the game, while they were both still relatively young, will always be one of the defining moments of 2010's tennis. I think if he completes the calendar year grand slam this year it will undoubtably go down as his 'greatest' season, but his 2011 run will always be his 'best' for me at least.
I think similar for those same reasons. The moment when he wasn't "the other guy there" with the two of them, and he became the person to beat was that tidal change in 2011. It felt absolutely monumental then, and the Federer Nadal status never really recovered.
3 slams, 5 1000s, 41-0 streak to kick off the year. 10-1 against RF/RN that year. Ran out of steam completely in the tour finals, but after playing that well in so many matches, it was understandable
How do you see Nick Kyrgios' career shaking out? Will he ever be able to string it together to win (more!) tournaments? (asking as a big fan)
Your guess is as good as mine. All depends whether he puts in the physical work off court, and focuses on getting his knee tendonitis and shoulder/ab issues under control. The more preparation he does off court the more tournaments he'd be able to play and the higher his ranking would be so he can avoid tough early rounds at tournaments (which he keeps losing). My guess is at this point of his career (26 years old) if he hasn't figured out a way to motivate himself with the off court stuff, then it's unlikely he ever will. But wouldn't be surprised if he has one more big peak left after COVID (hopefully) settles down.
Hello ! 3 questions Matt:
1) Why PCB and RBA are bad match-up for Djokovic? (Both players were good at groundstroke but poor serve).
2) Why this year on clay, the cross court forehand of Djokovic was so effective against Nadal? I mean, many players have a good forehand and are able to do the same thing, no (on the tactic side).
3) Thoughts on Khachanov style of play? Difficult to read this guy!
Thanks a lot!
1. The easy answer to this is that neither have that obvious a weakness. And both can hit relatively flat through the court when they need to. I think a lot of Djokovic's magic comes from ruthlessly sniffing out and exploiting imbalance or weakness of opponents, and those two guys just happen to be more balanced and well rounded than most. They can also both hang with him in the longer rallies, especially backhand to backhand exhanges, which wasn't that significant when Novak was in his physical prime but can probably be more of an edge against 34 year old Novak.
2. It was effective because Djokovic executed extremely well, better than usual (lots of players know they should target Nadal's backhand but actually doing so requires lots of other pieces to fall into place and ruthless consistency and application). And also because Nadal couldn't quite find his usual level on 2nd serve return and his own serve+ 1 forehand (although this was made more difficult by Djokovic's excellent level) which meant that Nadal got trapped in those Djokovic-favoured exchanges more often than we've seen in most of their matches on clay.
3. Piece on him coming soon hopefully.
Thanks! I don’t know your opinion on it, but Khachanov has many strenghts on his game (serve, backhand etc.) but when you see their result/level durant one match, he was not able to exploit it (not many aces for examples, many break etc.).
Thanks a lot! It’s juste based on « balanced game » which is able to compete again Djokovic? It’s very strange because both don’t have a huge serve, so that mean there are no free point on serve against a good returner like Djokovic.
Do you think that Nadal lost to Djokovic in the 2021 SF because he got injured in the 4th set or did he just ran out of steam?
A genie appears and grants you the power to change literally everyone involved in tennis' opinion on one issue/thing that you believe will make the biggest difference in the success of the sport over the next 50 years. It could be governance of the tours, the right distribution of income, broadcasting rights, format/match length, what should be looked for in commentators, level of funding/direction for grassroots etc. but it's got to be essentially one view/opinion. What do you make everyone agree on?
Excellent question James. I'm going to cheat slightly though. The obvious and safe answer is centralised streaming platforms and the unification of ATP and WTA as one large commercial package.
The harder, less obvious (slightly crazy) answer:
One thing that I would make a universally agreed truth is that all tennis broadcasting should move to a free to watch model. I'm fairly certain this will end up being an inevitable future of much of sports broadcasting in the (very) long run whether big networks like it or not. And if tennis accepted this early and started building products and tech around that potential future, it could put this sport in an incredible position to thrive over the next few decades (and I think make tennis far richer than it is now). The way it would work is through incentivising revenue through a mixture of sponsorships (which already exist) and supplementary transactions from fans in the form of ways to make their viewing experience more interesting while watching. Custom emotes for their favourite players in the chat of the match streams, monetized audible 'cheers' during change of ends, skins/avatars built in tandem with a fans favourite players, profit sharing via merch etc etc etc. A bit like twitch for sport. My thinking on this is that the massive contracts which currently provide the backbone for much of tennis' financials like the ESPN US open contract will likely not be around for that much longer, at least in their current form. This sport is going to have to find ways to make money at a time where sports broadcast rights are going to be less lucrative and less available for large chunks of the calendar year. The way they can do that is by becoming a platform that functions a little more like how the best video games function (fortnite, league of legends et al) instead of how conventional sports broadcasting works. In a free to watch model you'd let the largest possible number of fans access the sport thanks to no paywall and no geo-restrictions (ie the top of your funnel would be larger than ever before), and then generate revenue through those supplementary transactions from the 20% of your most engaged user/viewer base (ie extracting more lifetime value from the more passionate fans).
This will not happen for a variety of reasons, perhaps primarily that Tennis Channel is going to end up with a bit of a monopoly on tennis rights in the US (the biggest market) and will feel little short term pressure to do anything other than continue their subscription access (pay to watch) model status quo. But the more I develop the free to watch model and 'platform' direction in my mind and in essays about the future of the sport, the more superior I think it is, long term, to the normal broadcasting models that have dominated sport for years.
Oh to add to the 'obvious safe answer' the centralised streaming platform would have best in class engineering talent building out a tennis streaming platform of the future. One of the biggest sins in tennis right now is how little innovation has gone into both the Tennis Channel app and the Tennis TV app despite enormous potential. The TennisTV app in particular has barely changed in 12 years!
One big disadvantage with this proposed model for any sports league is the lack of revenue guarantees. Attendance for any given event is generally uncertain but the certainty of multi-year TV contracts have always made up for it. Relying solely on their own platform will require a lot of marketing spend, as large TV networks no longer have a stake in promoting your product. Relying on one of the tech behemoths will leave you completely at their mercy.
Having said that, I agree with your general sentiment about the importance of free to watch content. I'd like them to carve out doubles matches from their existing contracts and air them live on twitch. Their value to existing TV partners is probably minimal, and it can potentially provide an opportunity to touch base with those who don't/won't/can't pay. Most of the discourse around tennis revolves around the matches being too long, but I think the hours of inventory can also be a huge advantage on a platform like Twitch. No other 'live action' sport can match the hours of content that tennis can provide.
Re: the big serving counterpuncher (BSC) play style meta: do you see the trend of increasing average player height continuing to a point of BSC Supremacy where players with this profile/play style meta become hard to dislodge from the top of the rankings? For players under 10 ft. tall, will it simply take a crop of Djokovic-caliber returners to have a chance? Or are there any other specific skills/strategies that current players could develop to keep them competitive in these matchups? Thanks, Matt!
Hey Jessie. I think there will probably be a sort of limit, even if that limit potentially could be extended by an inch or two every decade or so (although that then prompts wider questions about natural selection limiters for human height and strength in general). Medvedev and Zverev, both 6ft 6, are probably the ideal upper limit at least for now, for players who can move well but also use their trigonometrical height advantage for serving. But it is really interesting that neither have particularly obvious rally weaknesses when they're in form (Zverev's forehand is and has been a weakness but he covers up the cracks effectively for the most part, and both return quite effectively) considering most tall players tended to have an obvious technique weakness usually because they focused on one area of their game (serve and/or forehand) at the expense of other areas, in a sort of 'big strength more meaningful than small weakness' approach rather than the 'all rounder big serving counterpunchers' which have recently emerged. The skills and strategies to beat these guys are mostly a mix of excellent returning (a la Djokovic and Nadal), a mixture of variation (spins and heights) and power (Nadal and Federer have played both Zverev and Medvedev well in the past with a mix of slices and spins combined with those point ending forehands). But really the most interesting thing about these guys is that it's going to come down to a battle between BSC's and the more strength specific players like Berrettini, Tsitsipas, Shapo etc who will probably just need to be better on the big points (as none of those three are going to win that many return games against Med/Zverev on hard courts). All three of those latter strength specific guys have the weapons to force tight matches against Medvedev and Zverev if they keep the error count down, but how those matchups play out as they all enter and compete through their primes is going to be super interesting to watch unfold.
Who is a player outside of the top 50 on both the WTA and ATP sides that you think has a big future in them? Try to pick an obvious one and a fun one.
For me—
ATP Obvious: Brandon Nakashima
ATP Fun: Jenson Brooksby
WTA Obvious: Liudmila Samsonova
WTA Fun: Jil Teichmann
ATP Obvious: Alcaraz, Musetti, Rune, Cerundolo
ATP Fun: Brooksby, Draper
WTA Obvious: Kostyuk, Fernandez, Tauson
WTA Fun: Juvan, Wang
Zizou Bergs in fun as well
I've a question about your servebot/counterpuncher piece. Who's the better mover and defender between Medvedev and Zverev overall?
I think most would say Medvedev but at their fastest I think they're probably pretty close. Zverev on clay and probably grass, and Medvedev on hard.
What are your thoughts on aging in tennis, and how our perception of young vs. prime vs. old tennis age will evolve over the next decade? Agassi was considered an extreme outlier for continuing to play at a high level at 35 not so long ago, and now we have scores of great (but not "all-time great") players continuing to perform very well in their mid-to-late-thirties.
It was pretty striking to me that Thiem mentioned he has "a very long career ahead of him" when he shut down his season this week, when 27 used to be a fairly advanced tennis age. It's also interesting how much the goalposts have moved because of the Big 3, even amongst themselves. Djokovic winning three majors (maybe four?) in one year at 33/34 would have been a miracle when Fed was that age, and now it feels like kind of a given. I've read plenty of comments that "40 year olds don't win majors," especially with the recent news about Fed's latest surgery, but is that really so hard to believe?
Great question Christina. Sports medicine, career arc expectations, schedule management etc have all shifted the young/prime/old windows. And I expect it to become normal, or even more normal, for ATP players to continue their primes until 32,33 ish. But I think there is also the danger of a bit of survivorship bias when it comes to the big 3 of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. All three are generationally great athletes with generationally great motivation and desire to keep their bodies as healthy as possible despite a gruelling physical workload. And all three are or were still winning Slams into their mid 30's partly because they had a performance and experience edge thanks to having the incredibly difficult task of having to compete with each other, that isn't common in tennis or any sport. I'm not sure future gens will have that same performance egde in their 30's, or at least the immediate generations following this one. Therefore I'm not sure those three are that good a representation for where the next gen may be physically in their mid to late 30's. I doubt it will be 'normal' in the coming years for players to be winning slams at age 37-38 etc, but yeah the career arc has clearly shifted a little later in the last 20 years.
Both the NBA and tennis are seeing their greatest players' careers lasting far longer than in the past. I was wondering if you have any idea how their career "mileage" compares. I.e., has age 35 LeBron put more or less "mileage" on his legs verses age 35 Nadal or Federer? (not sure if it's answerable given that practice mileage is unknown)
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the NBA to give you a good answer on this. As far as I understand though, NBA avg distance covered per game is somewhere around 2.5 miles compared to tennis' 3 miles, but tennis would also probably have greater outliers in either directions both shorter and much longer for the gruelling 5 setters. Neither surfaces (tennis hard courts or NBA's varnished wood) are good for the joints so probably comparably wearing there, although NBA is more vertical movement vs more horizontal movement for tennis. Tough to compare overall, but for the very best, ie those who also train the most, I can't imagine the career arcs would be that different at an elite level.
I noted a few weeks ago that you said you were finishing off updating an article about the modernization of tennis.
When do you plan to publish this article?
Good eye. It was meant to be this week but I needed some extra data that I won't get before Monday so hopefully it will be out next thursday.
Very good Matt.
Thanks for the update.
I look forward to reading it.
Hello, as a beginner to tennis your blog is helping me learn how to watch the sport, thanks so much for your insightful (and funny) commentary! I had a question about TennisTV. You've spoken before about how it's opened access in a big way -- but also how its running up against contradictions as the media arm of an org trying to maintain this idea of tennis as a decorous sport, while operating under incentives to pull in viewers through sensationalism. I was wondering where you see that headed long-term, whether you see a reckoning point at all (and if so, which actors -- e.g. some collection of players, umpires hard-done by media narratives, trying to intervene?), or if you think those contradictions will just keep bumping against each other. I also wondered if you had any thoughts on what (if any) impact this may have on tennis rules and norms down the line.
Thanks Shreya, great to hear you're enjoying it! My assumption is that those contradictions will keep bumping into one another. What drama and highlights do well on tennistv's social channels and what rules are in place to protect umpires, or on-court decorum, are mostly separate things which means the contradictions don't have much need to resolve itself. There will be continual tweaking of rules in years to come as the sport changes incrementally (small format tweaks that are currently being experimented on in the ATP Next Gen Finals, which serves as a kind of tennis rule/format incubator), but I don't think a 'reckoning point' is likely as it implies some large scale blow up or quick ending of the status quo. Tennis will probably continue to change mostly at a snails pace in many ways.
Agreed, that does seem most likely...thanks for the thoughtful response!
great question!
As a new tennis fan the current ATP/WTA ranking systems seem stale and there doesn’t seem to be alot of movement in/out of the top 100. I’m tired of seeing guys like Jordan Thompson. Could tennis ever implement something similar to what they do in golf? Every year 25 players qualify to play on pga tour from the Korn Ferry tour based on their standing on the Korn Ferry Tour. The top 125 on PGA tour keep their playing privileges. 125-150 in the rankings have to go back to qualify for the tour. This ensures a constant influx of up to 50 new players every year on the PGA tour. It brings excitement to the lower level tours too
That's an interesting suggestion Tom. Will need to think about this some more.
I didn't see Tsitsipas' comments on vaccine hesitancy, but I wasn't keen on his pretty dim comments about coaching on court. I quite like him otherwise. Could it be that he has a bit too much influence from his father? And do you think, while his opinions are questionable, it's good that he's honest about sharing these opinions? He doesn't seem massively cynical.
I would be very surprised if his comments about coaching were influenced by his father instead of his 'coach' Mouratoglou, who has long railed against, and broken, coaching rules. I like players being outspoken and wish we were all a bit more gentle when a player or someone else expressed an opinion about where tennis should go. The coaching debate is an interesting one to be had, but there are probably some questions about inequality of access to elite coaching, and mid match data informing strategy shifts, to deal with before actually making any changes to the rule. Also many, myself included, like the one on one aspect of singles tennis so would be reluctant to change the rule for that reason (although it has provided some good highlights on the WTA).
Tsitsipas comments on vaccines:
"the covid-19 vaccine has not been tested enough because it is new and has some side effects. I know some people who've had them. I'm not against it, I just see no reason for someone in my age group to be vaccinated [yet]. For us young people I think it's good to pass the virus because we'll build immunity. I don't see it as something bad. As I said, it isn't obligatory, everyone has freedom to decide for themselves what's right & what's not. "at some point we should all do it, I'm not saying the opposite. The time will come when we will not be given many options, but until then I want to see a better version of the vaccine that gives us more pluses than minuses."
Wow. Okay, I suppose there may be some people that agree with him but I'd say that's pretty irresponsible, not to say counter-productive to the tour!
I agree on the coaching, and his comments made it sound like he wanted to be able to do it between points. I haven't noticed it on the WTA actually. Interesting that it would be Mouratoglou, I always thought it was his father who had cause the code violations when I've watched the match, but maybe I've missed spotting Patrick being there.
How do you view Dominic Thiem, assuming he can recover from his injury, vs. the other top 10-15 contenders? assuming full recovery and motivation. I thought he was at the same level - slightly below - Djokovic and Nadal after the USO, 2020. Thank you.
Assuming full recovery and motivation he should be top 3 in the world. He should be battling with Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev for the throne post-big 3, and at this point arguably edging them with an experience edge in the biggest matches (ie slam finals), although Tsitsipas and Medvedev are catching up. His offence when it clicks is still bigger and better than those other guys.
Hi Matt, I hope I am not too late. I was wondering what changes did Medvedev do to his game post 2019 to become so unbeatable on HC?
Hi Maria. Quite a few things really. He started serving bigger and better, started making fewer unforced errors, and started returning better (that deep position you see a la Nadal).
I wrote a bit about it in this piece: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/medvedev-lovesthe-clay
">>And funnily enough, this clay improvement echoes his short point performance improvements on hard courts between 2018 and 2019 onwards. In 2018 and up until the Washington ATP 500 tournament in 2019, Medvedev was winning 71% of his service points when the rally was 2-4 shots while serving on hard courts. From Washington 2019 onwards he started winning 81% of his service points when the rally was 2-4 shots when serving on hard courts.
>>(Matt: Medvedev is often given a reputation as a grinder, but his 1st serve dominance improvement on hard courts, via serve placement variety and early point aggression, was a large contributing reason to him becoming devilishly difficult to beat on hard courts from late-2019 onwards) "
im not sure if you have been asked this before, but where do you get your data from? Thanks!
Mix of official ATP data, my own charting during matches, and some help from friends who work in the analysis/tennis data industry.
Hi Matthew, hope you're doing well!
Do you think empathy has a role in the sport?
As they say, people who are empathetic can read other's emotions and mental state. So does that have any correlation with the sport and players involved?
That is a very interesting question Siddhant. Would need to think about this some more.
I have two questions: one from me and the other from my wife :) From me: who has the most consistent and powerful one-handed backhand on the men’s tour? I love seeing it played but it seems like such a weak shot for most one-handers. Wife: how would women’s tennis results change if majors were played to best-of-5 rather than 3? Thanks Matt!
1. Wawrinka (although he's mostly off the tour these days unfortunately), has always been the best one hander largely because of unusual chest and shoulder strength for a modern tennis player. 2. There would probably be an adjustment period but long term I think it would be good for the growth of the game and would probably be closer to producing GOAT level dynasties given slightly reduced variance in a longer format.
Seeing as though it's coming up I just wonder your opinion: Do you believe the Laver Cup can down the line develop a reputation such as the one similar to the Ryder Cup in Golf, and if not what do you think is missing? Thanks!
I sort of hope so, and think the basic premise of the Laver Cup is brilliant for the sport. But I'm not so sure they'll be able to execute on the idea of being tennis' ryder cup while the calendar in this sport is as congested as it is. I'd also like to see it become a bigger mixed event at a different time in the calendar.
Hi massive fan of your blog! Great in-depth analysis that’s rare to find. Who do you think will end up with the most decorated career out of Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas? Also which of the next gen do you think will have the most success on grass and why?
Thanks TD. My guess is most titles will be Medvedev or Zverev but I think there's a decent chance Tsitsipas ends up with the 'greatest' career. Zverev or Medvedev look most likely to decent on grass for now, but the real answer is none of them tbh. They may well go on to win on grass because the competition on that surface becomes weak post big 3 retirement.
I have another question/comment about commentary, having seen your tweets about modernising it. Do you think there's an opening for Youtube tennis coverage? It's a huge thing now in the UK for football and elsewhere in Europe I believe, so maybe it's worth a shot? (for you or for me!) I feel like I know enough about the game to be able to talk about it for any length of time
Yes. Tennis has a weird lack of representation on YouTube, twitch et al, almost entirely because of this sports terribly archaic approaches to broadcasting rights-holder contracts, and the fact that is there no AAA tennis video game. It means that if you upload highlights accompanies by commentary you will get DMCA struck and it would be extremely hard to build an audience with a mixture of invisible or demonetised videos. I'm writing something about this atm, which will hopefully be out next week.
That would be great to see. Will that one be for paid subscribers? In a lot of the soccer channels, they don't show any highlights, they just rant about it, do watchalongs, previews, reactions, news updates etc. i.e. it's all done from the ground up. Not sure whether there would be the fanbase for it in tennis.
Nope it'll be free. It's part 2 of this: https://t.co/CBnzNi092n?amp=1
Putting preferences and fan extremism aside, is it fair to say that all the big three have very strong arguments for being the GOAT? Roger Federer? Most versatile (given present court homogenization and his ability to serve and volley or play baseline tennis) and dominance in prime. Rafa Nadal? Stiffest competition (having to overcome Federer and Djokovic during their peak years) plus dominance at the "hardest" of all slams. Novak Djokovic? Statistical leader by most metrics.
The margins are so small, and the above points (and others) will prevent anyone from objectively claiming that one is the best of all time. Thoughts?
Yes. It will completely depend on what criteria you value in assessing 'greatness'. Some people value longevity, some people value competition strength and peaks, some people value raw numbers and titles. The word GOAT has become all but meaningless nowadays but all three of those players, at this point in their careers, have good arguments to be considered the best. My guess is that when all is said and done, Federer and Djokovic will have most of the mainstream support for the GOAT debate, and Nadal will end up being underrated in comparison (his career has never been as well understood as the other two). But just a guess at this point and will slightly depend on the next 18 months +.
My feelings exactly. However, with respect to the next 18 months, what would strengthen both Djokovic's and Nadal's cases could be if they were surpassed by the next gen for a year and THEN reclaimed the top spot. Somewhat like Connors did in 1983.
Djokovic is basically already nearly guaranteed to finish with the most well rounded resume. As long as he keeps winning and clings on to the number one ranking for as long as possible, most of the mainstream metrics will fall in his favour (many already do). For Nadal, another Australian Open and/or US Open would be huge (Australian Open to have the career grand slam x2, and another US Open to tie the most number of titles at that tournament in open era).
Agreed. But given the weakness of the Next Gen against the Big 3 (so far), it seems like just padding stats. What would be most impressive for both? Overcoming a major challenge from one of the Next Gen who takes the top spot from them.
How does Indian Wells (in October) fall into the schedule this year, given it's now after the USO? Do you think players (esp those nursing injuries, etc) will elect to skip, start the off season early, and then get ready for the AO in January? (asking as a fan planning on attending!)
Good question Jay. Indian Wells is in a very awkward part of the calendar for its location tbh, as there's nearly a month between the US Open and Indian wells with many smaller 250's and 500's in europe and elsewhere in between, and there are also no events in the States immediately after Indian wells, meaning that players will have to essentially make the trip for that one tournament alone. The Laver Cup (ATP) and Chicago Fall Tennis Classic (WTA) are the only events in the States which would serve as sort of warm ups to Indian wells but that only represents a certain amount of participation from both tours. Overall, if it were any other event (other than the Slams) I'd be worried about Indian Wells lineup, but don't underestimate how much both the men and women love that event. I think turnout will end up being good, but just a guess at this point.
Thanks, Matt. Appreciate the response!
Props to Camila Giorgi on winning the Canada Open, which other unlikely candidates do you see winning the US Open?
I'm not sure 'unlikely' really means what it used to mean in tennis. Winners of masters and WTA 1000 events are so much less predictable these days and yet I wouldn't call any of the winners of this years masters events on the men's side, or Giorgi winning canada, *that* 'unlikely' against the current backdrop of competition despite the fact we've had multiple first time winners in 2021. That said Djokovic still has a stranglehold on the men's slam titles for now but none of Zverev, Medvedev or Tsitsipas winning in new york would be that big of a surprise. Would be cool to see Giorgi push on her form into New York though
What’s the biggest point in history that was won on a let cord?
This is a bit of a cop out answer, because it's not technically a let cord but it still involves the net cord, but probably the Nadal Djokovic net touch in the 2013 Roland Garros semi final. It's probably overstated how important that moment is considering Nadal was in absurd form in that 5th set and the net cord violation didn't happen on game or break point, but it was still significant at an extremely delicate point in their rivalry. As for a more strict answer to that question I'd need to think some more.
Thanks Matt. Fair answer and I’d love to know if there ever was a match or championship point when you or your readers get the chance
Oh there have been a few. The ones that come to mind are Becker beating Lendl in 5 sets in the Masters tournament in 1988 and Federer beating Ljubicic in the 2006 Miami final.
Do you have a reasonable explanation for Aslan Karatsev's performances being much worse ever since Roland Garros?
Not really other than a possible reversion to the mean. Although to be fair to Karatsev his losses since RG aren't exactly bad (Norrie at Queens who made the final, Chardy at Wimbledon who's a good grass courter, and then Khachanov and Cilic in Canada and Cincy, both of which should be tough matches for Karatsev). TL;DR think judgement for Karatsev and where his resting form actually is will be judged next year after a year or so playing consistent tennis at the top of the game rather than on the back of 3-4 early exits after his extraordinary breakthrough.
Are there reasons, besides Djokovic’s health being a little questionable, that Medvedev might fare better against him at the US Open than he did at the Australian Open?
I think the biggest reason Medvedev would fare better against Djokovic in New York than Melbourne is simply because Djokovic usually isn't as good in New York as he is in Australia. A mixture of the US Open being the last slam of the year after an exhausting schedule and the conditions historically being probably slightly less favourable in New York (humidity and court composition wise) than Rod Laver Arena down under.
Hi Matt, I was a big fan of the Medvedev toronto issue btw and would be great to see more of those video game attributes for other players. Is there any chance of that? My actual question is why do you think the media are going after their own in the Osaka saga?
Thanks Mark. I'll try and do some more video game attributes for the top ten on the men and women's side. But tbh quantifying abilities like that gets a bit messy. Probably need to find a concrete way to number the categories rather than just intuition if I'm gonna do more of them. RE the media turning on itself, it was very, very poor to be frank, but unfortunately not unexpected (it's happened a few times now since the original media boycott where members of the media have picked on other journos for extremely mild missteps and blown them up into controversy as a misdirected overreaction to the initial conversation about sporting media's role and relevance in 2021). I hope this won't happen so much moving forward as the journalist in question who threw their colleague under the bus got understandably criticised quite publicly. But that may be wishful thinking. I think parts of the tennis media in general are still reeling from a few uncomfortable conversations and realities post-Osaka media boycott, with some of them looking for those around them to blame rather than having a slightly higher level discussion about medias role in this sport.
Hi, Matt. Thanks for the blog and keep up the great work !
1) Do you think there is a correlation between younger players being less able to impose themselves / be consistent (in the case of the ATP/WTA players, respectively) and the fact that they grew up in the digital age and with smartphones in hand since they were teens/kids (I think one of the Big 3 alluded to this once) ?
I can see two ways this could affect them : overall attention span is shortened and the pressure of social media. For the former, NK has goldfish-like concentration levels even at the best of times. I’ve very rarely seen Shapovalov play a match at a consistent level. As for the latter, I think social media makes people think of image perception and protection way earlier than they used to and that can play on peoples’ psyches from a long-term, developmental POV. It makes me think of how a lot of the recent women who had great results have a lot of trouble to build on momentum (Osaka, Vondrousova, Gauff, although for various reasons) as soon as they whipped up some hype.
2) How important do you think is the psychological interplay between hunter and hunted in the grand scheme of things in tennis ? Which one is easier ? For example, was it easier for Nadal and Djokovic to always have Federer’s achievements as targets or for Federer to take advantage of his alpha status for a few years (2004-2007) ? To me, it always seems like there’s a bit of an uncountable extra for a player yet to establish him/herself. They tend to be more ruthless, play with less pressure. On the contrary, aging players often seem to wrestle with their own mortality in important moments (Fed, Serena, maybe Nadal in the USO 19 final)
Obvious side-question : how do you think the Big 3’s careers would have panned out had they all been born within a year of each other ?
Cheers !
From a sports psychology perspective, how do you assess the habit of some players (mostly nextgen) to look at or gesticulate to their box after nearly every point? My armchair view has been that it indicates a lack of maturity and mental toughness. However some successful players such as Berrettini do it frequently so perhaps I am wrong.
Probably depends on the individual. For example both Djokovic and Kyrgios occasionally seem to find blaming their box cathartic in some ways, while other players seem to get into rage spirals the more they focus on anyone other than themselves. So short answer is that it depends on the personality and how long that player dwells on post point emotions. I can definitely see the argument that it can be unhealthy and unproductive to constantly focus on someone else in that context though.
I'm fascinated by this dynamic as well. I assume it's an outlet for them as individual players on the court alone who aren't allowed to get coaching/input during a match and have to figure everything out by themselves. I'm sure their coaches/teams are used to it, but it strikes me that part of their role is just silently serving as human shock absorbers for a LOT of player stress/anger/emotion. Even though it's part of the job and not really aimed AT them, I would imagine it takes a toll no matter how experienced they are--at least it would for me!
Yes agreed! It is fascinating. And it seems to have increased dramatically in just the last few years.
I would love to know your opinion on tennis commentating. You often mention it's not a delighted one.
What do you miss? What would change? What would you keep?
Hi Matt, I really enjoy your posts and analysis. I have a question about vision in tennis. Is there any list/analysis on what type of eye dominance have players on tour? and that impacts in their statistics/performance when it comes to their game? Maybe it is a bit too generic but I have been wondering if there is any account at least about what players are cross dextral/pure dextral, etc. Thanks in advance!
Hey matt. Always love reading your work. How is bh of dominic different from that of tsitsi, fed? How the former is so solid from that wing whereas tsitsi, fed struggle on their bhs and has now become kind of a hole in their game? Has it to do anything with their grip/swing? Or their ability to hit their bhs while pushed off positions? I feel it's the latter as it's just the defense which differs for domi over those guys.
Is Kyrgios finished? Now that he is #82 he is unable to play in the Masters unless invited and often goes out in the first round. He seems to have permanent left knee damage which is a major problem for a big server as he lands on it although during his last three losses he was moving around the court quite well. He seems to have lost heart since his huge fine at Cincinnatti a few years ago. It just looks as if he is trying so hard not to lose his temper that he has forgotten how to win. So depressing to watch him now. All the top players are getting away with smashing, swearing and arguing - the very behaviour he was fined huge amounts for. Is it double standards? Should he be playing qualies and challengers? Murray, Wahrinka and Gasquet were not too proud to do so. Many of his fans wish he could come back but is it too late?
Do you think South America will have some good tennis players making it to the circuit? Because its seems as there aren't many south american (or players from third world countries in general) making it far in their career. I feel like the chances of succeeding for players that aren't from the US/Europe/Australia got slimmer these years, do you agree? Would like to hear your opinion as a North American.
I'm actually not North American (am english/kiwi)! But re the south american players making it to the ATP, there are a bunch. On the men's side Diego Schwartzman was top 10 last year, Garin is top 20, Delbonis is top 50, Ceuvas has been top 100 for years and always entertains. And on the younger side you have Cerundolo, Galan, Seyboth Wild etc etc.
I wonder which players, either current or former, do you think would benefit from a one handed bh instead of a two handed bh, or the other way around.
Very few double handers would likely benefit from having a single hander although tbh this question is nearly impossible considering the number of variables that come in to play when altering a main shot of these players. Steve Johnson, maybe an argument for Berrettini. For some odd reason I've always thought it would be fun to see what Cilic would have looked like with a single hander, but mostly for fun.