Tennis during coronavirus: Impact of WTA, ATP Tours suspended
Hope everyone is healthy and safe.
• Last week’s pod, Jamie and I spoke about tennis (and life) in the Time of Coronavirus.
• This week’s guest: the Bryan Brothers, as their final season has not exactly gone as planned.
• Want proof we’re in war time? Wow.
• Take a tour of the tennis Hall of Fame from your self-isolation.
• Some news: Wimbledon 2020 is officially canceled due to public health concerns linked to the coronavirus epidemic. And on Wednesday, the WTA and ATP Tours simultaneously announced a further suspension of the season, until July 13, 2020.
• Again, I feel a little uneasy talking tennis when, well, the U.S. Open is being turned into a M.A.S.H. unit. But you guys seem to want the diversion so I’m happy to oblige….
Let’s do something a little different. Your questions—most of them coronavirus-centric—have been great. I’ve spoken with some players, coaches and agents over the past two weeks. Culling from these conversations, here are observations that answer some of your questions as well.
1) We all feel like we are in a sci-film, the third act of which has yet to be written. But to players, a big point is the uncertainty of timing as well as outcome. Even with injury rehab, players have a schedule. Here, there is no finish line or date on the calendar. Which is a huge frustration. How can you motivate to stay in peak shape when you have no idea when you will play again? Is the rest of the competition playing sets in an underground bunker while you are watching Joe Exotic? Should you prepare for clay? No wait, there is no clay. Wait, actually, there might be a fall French Open. But others are predicting no sports whatsoever for 2020. The pacing is as much a challenge as anything.
2) As I write this, Wimbledon 2020 has been officially canceled. Remember, grass is a delicate and temperamental surface. Even if the AELTC wanted to play grab-ass with calendar dates—French Open style—it’s not the like the horticulture would hold for a September reschedule. This means, we are missing tennis (and prize money) from Wimbledon, Indian Wells, Miami, the Euro clay season and the grass season. And no Olympics.
3) One among tennis’s great virtues: its global cast. It adds so much richness to the sport. And it speaks so well of the appeal that top players include Haitian/Japanese Americans and Serbs and Russian-born Americans and Swiss/South Africans. But the international cast ain’t great from a COVID-19 perspective. Hypothetically, come U.S. Open time, the virus is in recession but still raging in country Y. Can the USTA permit only players from certain countries to participate? Doubt it.
4) This is a public health crisis. But it also traces the class divides. And tennis is no exception. There are a lot of players—whom you’ve heard of—worrying about their finances. Here’s a fine piece Mike Dickson wrote on Ken Skupski. There are other players outside the top 100 who are rethinking their careers entirely.
5) Is it cool to play tennis now? On its face, you would think playing tennis might comply with social distancing—so long as you forsake the post-match handshake. I drove by tennis courts over the weekend and saw people playing. Brett Haber is staying in shape here:
But I have heard of very few pros playing against anything other than a wall (and a ball machine).
6) On the plus side…one of the great trends in modern tennis: the extended career. When players can (and do) compete for majors deep into their 30s—it makes a hiatus like this a bit easier. College athletes may lose one of their four seasons. Tennis players may lose one of, say, 16 years in their career.
7) Some players will benefit. In some cases, players recovering from injuries (Federer and Andreescu are the top-of-mind examples) are now able to rehab while no peers are earning points. There are other players who simply need time for a mental health assess-my-priorities break.
8) If players got ranking points for their social media, Stan Wawrinka would be the second 35-year-old Swiss player to achieve the top ranking recently. And Kristie Ahn would move up roughly 95 places from her current rank of 96.
Mailbag
Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.
Hey Jon, things are really rough in NY. Just ask your audience to Wash their Hands and #SocialDistance. Do you still think we’ll have the U.S. Open in August? Right now, August feels like a million years away, doesn’t it?
—Deepak (New York)
• I’m trying to wean myself out of the prediction game when it comes to picking winners at majors. I’m totally out of the game vis-à-vis pegging the end to this scourge.
The Mailbag has been something I’ve looked forward to every week for years, as have a few friends. We have memories of your earliest articles (which I can’t seem to find on the archives) and one of mine is that you once had Roger Federer in your list of “Best to Never Win a Slam”—probably in 2002 or early 2003 when he had a number of first round losses at the French and Wimbledon despite being a terrific player and ranked in the top 10. My friends say that he hadn’t been playing long enough to be mentioned in that list and that I’m imagining an otherwise good story. Are you able to dig through your archives and settle the bet? Thanks, and your Mailbag and articles are even more appreciated during these times!!
—Dave
• Thanks much. And that’s funny to recall. Remember, Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 and the “changing of the guard” lines were coming full force. After that, it was 23 months of persistent disappointment, this flashy player—with talent obvious to the naked eye—whose results kept trailing his potential. I don’t recall designating him as the BPNTHWAM—and I’m not seeing it with a cursory search of the hard drive—but he definitely would have been a candidate. After he lost early in the 2003 French Open (trivia: name the last player to beat a Slam-less Federer), I wrote a snarky piece about the ATP’s leading lights in the post-Sampras/Agassi era, comparing them to the Wizard of Oz characters. To be sung to the tune of “If I Only Had a Brain,” Federer’s verse went like this:
If you want to win a wager,
Bet against me in a major,
I can barely hold my serve.
I play exquisitely in patches.
But choke in big-time matches
Because I have no nerve
Too bad I’m not more gallant
As I have vast amounts of talent
Plus I play with verve
But there’s love (and not much kissing)
When I’m doing my Swiss missing
If I only had some nerve
A potentially big payday
Leads to cries of: “Roger? Mayday!”
My results form a sine curve
My vast unmet potential
Owes to factors existential
If I only had some nerve
(What a jerk! I know, right?) A month later, Federer won Wimbledon and, in keeping with our Wizard of Oz theme, snapped from black-and-white to technicolor.
I’m guessing we Mailbag devotees are finding time on our hands and writing more inquiries to you? If so, could you do a Mailbag for us every day—even a short one? Or a couple more each week?
—Ann
• I do the equivalent. It’s on Tennis Channel, 12-3 p.m. ET. Serious point, if you’ll permit this lapse into sentimentality. Tennis Channel is really doing extraordinary work these days, continuing to broadcast and providing creative content, while, of course, there are no live matches.
Very nice podcast on the subject of how the pandemic affects tennis. Just one request going forward: instead of saying over and over again “Stay Safe,” please say #stayhome
—@bakatzenberg
• Yes, STAY HOME!
Any idea what Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are planning? Also how committed the French Open is to playing in September? I’m assuming no spectators for any of them. It would seem to me that tennis (at least singles) is tailor-made for being played under current circumstances. Two guys on opposite sides of the net, umpire way up in the chair. Players could get their own towels, and ball-kids could wear latex gloves and keep a safe distance from each other and the players. I guess the locker room would be the main issue—not sure how that could be handled. Of course, no spectators. Also, read The Tennis Partner if you haven’t. It’s a story of addiction interwoven with tennis.
—Craig, Syracuse, N.Y.
• In reverse order….1) Amen to The Tennis Partner.
2) Here’s what I am hearing about “closed door” events: there are huge insurance consequences. Hold the event for a TV audience only and the insurer says, “Your policy doesn’t apply, since the event was still held.”
Thanks for not rescheduling the Mailbag! WTHIGOW Tennys Sandgren? I think I speak for other fans when I say that his increased profile in the tennis media is a bit of an elephant in the room. Fans can form their own opinion about him, but we also look to trusted members of the media like yourself, those whose sensibility we identify with, because they have much more exposure to players and the tennis world as a whole. So, if he off probation? Have his good results created an opportunity for media to get to know him more fully? Did he change? I liked him on your podcast, and I need to know if I should feel guilty about that.
—Megan Fernandez, Indianapolis
• Zero guilt. My experience with Tennys Sandgren: in the spring of 2018, I—like many—was critical of some the social media activity that was uncovered during his Australian Open run. A mutual friend suggested we ought to speak. Something remarkable for these polarized times: instead of hurling insults back and forth, we had a number of exchanges; exchanges I rather enjoyed. He was thoughtful and reasonable. There was no “own the libs” certitude; he readily admitted that his views were a constant work in progress. He made the point—a fair one, I think—that we are in a world of hurt if we are all judged irredeemable because of a few ill-considered tweets and retweets. And following someone on social media doesn’t mean we agree with them.
Not sure we had a meeting of the minds, but it was a thoroughly pleasant and civil interaction. In the time since, I’ve found him to be smart and funny and self-effacing and accessible….a force of overwhelming good in the tennis-scape. Follow him on social media (it doesn’t mean you mirror his politics) and I defy you to think differently. There are people who recall the revelations from 2018 and consider him ineradicably stained. I get that. (So does he.) But I’d advocate for a second serve here.
Sir, The V. Williams vs. Davenport Wimbledon final was in 2005 rather than 2004, the year of the S. Williams vs. Sharapova scream-a-thon. You have often said that Nadal would beat Borg, my favorite player. I agree. However, how might he fare against other players on clay: Muster, Kuerten, Ferrero, and Federer?
—Russell Greenidge, Brownsville, Texas
• Bad, unforced error by me. So here’s a quick story. In 2005, Nadal is tearing up the spring. He has already beaten Federer multiple times. He is still a teenager. I run into the Bryans and ask them, “How good is this kid?” They both laugh and use the same word: “Beast.” They both predict, unreservedly, that is he winning the 2005 French Open.
Bear in mind, Kuerten is, at this point, a three-time champion, who is only 28. Ferrero, a former champion, is only 25. Federer is No. 1. Nadal has never even played the French Open before. Yet players—not prone to hyperbole—are pegging Nadal as the overwhelming fave. And they would be proven right.
With a nod to behavioral bias and the recency effect, I am all about Nadal here. Put him on clay, in a best-of-five format, against [insert Hall of Famer] in their prime….and I still say he wins eight of ten times. He’s just too physically superior; and he’s just to temperamentally superior.
Hope you are doing well. Thanks for sending the Mailbag. But seriously, you would not suggest for the Tennis Channel Isolation Matches Connors v. Krickstein U.S. Open? This is the ultimate rain delay, unfortunately.
—Shlomo
• I thought half the reason the USTA covered Arthur Ashe Stadium was to euthanize that match.
• Keegan Greenier, take us out….
Some excellent matches that don’t always make the usual lists:
2001 US Open quarterfinals, Sampras d. Agassi, 6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. I remember that match because (a) it was high-quality tennis throughout the entire match, amazing play from both men; and (b) as I recall, I think it was the case that there were no breaks of serve throughout the entire match. So Agassi lost despite never having his serve broken. I’m not entirely positive about part (b), but I know for sure that part (a) was true. I even remember McEnroe as commentator being beside himself at the spectacle.
1999 French Open final, Graf d. Hingis. This was Graf’s penultimate major (she retired after the following Wimbledon). There were all kinds of drama happening because Hingis (who was VERY young and had not matured yet) had been making disparaging comments all tournament long about how Graf was too old to win another major. Hingis had also unceremoniously dumped Kournikova as her doubles partner right before the tournament. The final match was dramatic for several reasons. First, Hingis had declared Graf too old to win, but here she is as her opponent in the final! Second, HIngis was misbehaving during the final and was given enough warnings and misconduct penalties (one being when she crossed to Graf’s side of the net to argue a line call) such that if Hingis received ONE more penalty, it would be a match-default. Third, Hingis won the first set, but Graf came back to win it in 3 sets. Fourth, Hingis was so devastated, she left the court, refused to come back for the trophy ceremony, and only did so after much cajoling by her mother. It was an amazingly dramatic match.