Last bits from Wimbledon, then spinning forward …
- Here’s the 50 Parting Thoughts From Wimbledon column.
- Here’s the latest Served podcast featuring Chris Eubanks:
- I didn’t want to taint Wimbledon—the highest expression of the sport—with last week’s farce in Newport. But it’s a continuing topic among you guys, so we’ll grudgingly address it at the end …
Onward ...
Onward
Hi Jon
Not to get ahead of ourselves but is Sincaraz the new Fedal? I don’t see [Ben] Shelton or [Taylor] Fritz challenging them anytime soon and the lost generation of [Daniil] Medvedev/[Alexander] Zverev et al are AWOL, possibly permanently. And I can’t see anybody else there. What do you think?
Mark
• “Sincaraz” has won each of the past seven majors. (Add in Novak Djokovic, and no other active player has won a major since 2021.) Two storylines stem from this new rivalry and concentration of power:
A) How does “Sincaraz” play out? What adjustments will one make to beat the other? Will their domain expertise continue? (Until Sunday, it looked like Jannik Sinner owned Carlos Alcaraz on hard courts, and Alcaraz owned Sinner on clay and grass.) Will their personal warmth continue? All the elements that make the rivalry so awesome, such a piston that drives both the principals and the sports as a whole …
B) Who else will mount a challenge? By 2011, Djokovic established himself as a worthy foil to “Fedal,” as you call it. He essentially said, I see your rivalry and I want in. He became a durable, physical beast. He learned tactics he could deploy. Confidence begat confidence. He was willing to confront the status quo that too many other players took as immutable. Which of the other players today (Shelton? A resurgent Zverev? Fritz? João Fonseca?) will be willing to pull a Djokovic and play the antitrust division and break up this current monopoly?
Where do you put [Wim Fissette] in the all-time coach rankings in women’s tennis
@joan_creteur
• For context, Wim Fissette is the coach of Iga Świątek and was in the box at Wimbledon, watching yet another player win a major.
I’m always a little sheepish about this. It’s the players that are out there, executing and doing the heavy emotional lifting. I always cringed when I heard lines like, “This is the 10th title Serena Williams has won under Patrick Mouratoglou,” as if he were Vince Lombardi coaxing greatness that would otherwise have been suppressed. Serena did the winning. The coach may have been a contributor, but those are her titles.
That said, Fissette has—quietly and without much promotion, much less self-promotion—put together a résumé worthy of the Hall of Fame. He has coached four players to major titles (Swiatek, Naomi Osaka, Angelique Kerber and Kim Clijsters). And he has teased out finals appearances from Sabine Lisicki and Simona Halep. That’s a lot of data points. Tip of the cap to Fissette.
At my YMCA competitive tennis nights, you see younger kids trying drop shots all the time, not just the old guys. That’s the Alcarez influence right there.
@blameitonben
• At my YMCA—shout-out McBurney in Greenwich Village—there is no tennis. But I do notice something similar on the basketball court: When I joined, 20 or so (gulp) years ago, kids would lower the rim and dunk on 8-foot nets in the manner of Kobe and Lebron. Now? The rims stay at 10 feet, and the kids are all attempting “Curry bombs” and “Caitlin logo threes.” Kids imitate what they see at the highest levels in sports, and this has a material impact on how the sport is practiced (and therefore played).
The Alcaraz influence you describe is real, and it is to the benefit of the sport.
Jon,
Love the postings. But here is one suggestion.
There was a lot of discussion during the French Open about women players getting snubbed by not being allowed to play the featured night match. The consensus was that there should be more fair exposure. I opened SI.com. Saw that a Iga Swiatek photo above the link to the 50 Parting Shots article. But then I noticed 50 Parting Shots opened with a summary of the men's match/winner again. Same as always! In light of the French Open controversy, how about mixing shots #1 and #2 between the guys and the gals in the future? Just sayin'...
Randy, Portland, OR
• A peek behind the curtain: A lot of these are pre-filed in chronological order. On Sunday, we’re down to the last few items. But your point is a fair one, and it’s an easy enough fix.
Hey Jon,
Thanks for the 50 parting thoughts, plus all the quick serves and all the other great interviews and content over the fortnight.
One of my favorite features you did occasionally in the quick serves were the off-court stories. I love these little nuggets and insights into players, especially the ones we rarely hear about. I hope this becomes a regular feature of yours. I would love to know what story you discovered in the last two weeks that you haven’t had a chance to serve up yet.
Robert Henry, Harbor Springs, MI
• I appreciate that. Speaking for Andy, the Served response and audience have been a real source of surprise and gratification. It started as a passion project—two knuckleheads with $99 microphones talking about a sport they both love—and has grown a head and a tail. We’re learning and adjusting as we go. We are going to be trying out new features and seeking new sponsors, so feedback like this helps.
[6–0,6–0] in 57 minutes? The fellas will be 3–3 in set 1 at that point, 3+ hours to go. Same prize money … (snarky tone intended). It’s also the built-in nervousness and sloppy play/unforced errors that seems expected and O.K. on the women's side. Total double standard.
Dominic Ciafardini, NY
• Once the Wimbledon women’s final ended as a double-bagel in under an hour, you knew the parlor door was going to fling open.
In Australia, Madison Keys beat Aryna Sabalenka in a spellbinding women’s final. The next day, Sinner beat Zverev in a catatonic match. Sometimes the women carry the weekend. Sometimes the men do. It tends to even out. And let’s be happy that there’s this hedge.
Duration does not equal entertainment value.
At some level, we are stuck. There is no chance all players adopt a best-of-five format. Even if the women wanted it (and they don’t), the schedule can’t accommodate it. Unless the men decide to shorten their format, I don’t see how this tension gets resolved.
Hi Jon -
Thanks for your work - always enjoy these summaries.
Sorry I did not parse this, and I didn’t get to hear exactly what she said: “35. Navratilova had the best idea I heard all tournament: Start the shot clock when the player makes contact, racket-to-ball. ”
Did you mean “STOP the shot clock…”? Points can be anywhere from 1 to many, many shots!
Thanks again - stay well.
Joe Cook
• Yeah, my bad.
A) The shot clock starts at the normal time. It isn’t STOPPED until the racket makes contact, racket-to-ball. So players can catch their toss, but if so, they need to try to hit another serve before time expires. With a hat tip to reader Richard Thaler, this is a classic nudge. We are not making a rule against catching a toss or excessive ball-bouncing, but we are setting up a policy to incentivize the desired result.
B) As long as we are here, railing on tennis’s relentless conflicts of interest, some disclosure is probably in order: Martina Navratilova is a colleague at Tennis Channel, we are involved in a separate media project together, she ranks among my favorite people, and I am, irretrievably, in the tank for her.
Hi Jon,
Just listened to the pod and got excited when Andy said he was going to try to not cuss. Three f-bombs later and I guess I’m out again. I do appreciate your efforts to keep it clean.
Best, Eric
• Dadgummit. Roddick and his friggin’ potty mouth. Seriously, I take your point (and bear some guilt here, too.) I have mixed feelings. I get the plea for clean language, especially when kids are listening. A pushback: One of the great appeals of the podcast medium is the plainspeak. You’re addressing people as they are, without the sanitizing conventions of television. Friends at the bar and in the backyard don’t comply with FCC rules. Speaking of profanity …
No player has ever lost more than two Grand Slam finals in the same calendar year. There is a chance Sabalenka could lose her third Grand Slam final this year on Saturday. While making all four finals would be an achievement, how bad would the player be mocked for doing it?
Bob Diepold
Charlotte NC
• This was, obviously, sent in advance of the Wimbledon semifinals and is now moot (at least until the U.S. Open), but what a great statistic. No player has ever been a losing finalist three times in a season.
As for Sabalenka, what a strange year. She is a generational player. She is No.1. She has won 17 matches at the first three majors, and she will try to salvage her Slam season when she defends her title at the U.S. Open.
Hello Jon,
I trust you are enjoying Wimbledon 2025.
I’ve long been curious how the two attempts allowed for serving began. Is there any background story on the origins?
I believe for the professionals if only given one serve there would be a significant increase in strategic options of when to go for it and when to play “safer.”
Any thoughts?
Thank you,
Tom Buhl
• That’s a great question. And I do not know the answer. I’ll do some research but if any of you have thoughts, fire away?
The noblest words ever uttered by a sports commentator: “Is there a way to ask your viewers if I’m talking too much? I just don’t have enough experience with this.” Andre Agassi, July 11, 2025, during Fritz vs. Alcaraz.
Ann Cain
• Andre Agassi in the broadcast booth is really quite something. There is this mix of first-rate tennis insight overlaid with a TV sure is a crazy medium bemusement. In addition to the on-air crowdsourcing you cite—my guess: for him, specifically, there is no such thing as talking too much—there was also his telling his colleague in the booth to focus on the tennis, not the celebrity nonsense.
As for Newport …
As you no doubt heard, the Newport Challenger, a 125 event this year, made the regrettable decision of giving a doubles wild card to Bill Ackman, a 59-year-old who plays at the level of … well, you can see the video for yourself.
This was, at a minimum, deeply uncomfortable for so many, on so many levels. Ackman was already a Founder’s Circle donor, meaning he gave at least $1 million to the Hall of Fame. While insisting that this was not pay-to-play, he also just announced that he and his wife are giving an additional $10 million, an act of great philanthropy, if less-than-great optics.
You can read Ackman’s account here, including how the angle of the afternoon sun impacted his level of play.
Here are some scattered thoughts:
A) To the Hall of Fame’s credit, it moved quickly, acknowledged an embarrassing mistake, and apologized. The Hall does so much right, and is, overall, such a force of good, staffed by good people.
B) This was a bad decision. If, however, there is evidence that this was quid pro quo and money changed hands, we have moved into the realm of something considerably more concerning. A simple question posed to Ackman: Did you compensate your partner, Jack Sock, in any way?
C) The ATP had no grounds to deny this wild card, as it was a tournament decision. But the ATP does have a clear “best efforts” rule. It states simply, “A player shall use his best efforts during the match when competing in a tournament.” This rule has been invoked when players like Nick Kyrgios have been sanctioned for tanking matches. Ackman himself wrote, “the competition were [sic] clearly holding back.” Wait, what? A player on the court is flatly stating that the other players were “clearly holding back”? Isn’t this a prima facie violation of best efforts?
D) Ackman is not the first rich guy or celebrity who plays only recreationally, but—either deluded by grandeur, or seeking something “experiential”—finagled a wild card. I was recently referred to this awesome player bio. (Who knew, right?)
E) That said, I’ve never seen a main draw wild card at quite this level. A tour event last year, Newport was—and is—a proper Challenger. Many players in the field came directly from Wimbledon. In the women’s finals weekend, Caty McNally—the last player to take a set off Świątek!—beat Tatjana Maria, who just beat Amanda Anisimova to win a grass court title in June. The idea that a 59-year-old recreational player thinks he should be in a draw at the same event shows a stunning lack of self-awareness.
And a 59-year-old billionaire with no prior ranking, not in doping protocol and, despite his contentions, not even in sniffing distance of playing at a pro level, depriving money and a playing opportunity from a credible, younger player? Isn’t this precisely the kind of scenario that triggers alarm and sirens at a players’ association? Not a peep, though, from the PTPA. And then one remembers: Ackman has helped fund the PTPA and weighs in with posts like this. If I’m the ATP, next time the PTPA talks about conflicts of interest, I'd keep this scenario handy.
F) Check out this result from the Heraklion 2020 ITF event, a far smaller event. As the story was told to me by someone with intimate knowledge, this ITF Futures tournament was held at a hotel that essentially gifted a singles wild card to a guest. Two games into the match, the referee, seeing that the “wild card” was not fit for this level, called off the match, defaulting the guy on the spot, and gave the opponent an automatic victory. I’m paraphrasing because this is hearsay, but the official effectively said, This isn’t happening on my watch. There has to be sporting integrity for anyone who competes. It’s a pity that no one in Newport showed this level of principle.
G) Ending on a positive note, the tournament got loads of publicity. The Hall of Fame got an eight-figure donation. An attention merchant not only got to play a “pro” match, but also got a lot of promotion. There were, I suppose, various winners here.
H) At least no one went long on Herbalife.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
More Tennis on Sports Illustrated
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Looking Back at Wimbledon and the Newport Saga.