Submissions have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
As it is written, Wednesday is mailbag day.
• Here’s this week’s Served podcast:
• Rafa Nadal published by Assouline is officially out.
• In non-tennis news, why you should care about the helium shortage:
• New Yorkers, note this pickleball 4 Parkinson’s gala.
• In case you missed it, here is the Elina Svitolina–Gaël Monfils decoupling announcement.
• Happy birthday, Martina Navratilova.
Onward …
Hall of Fame
Let’s start with the 2027 Hall of Fame nominations, which were released earlier this week. (Fan vote is here.) The headline is that Serena Williams, who initially stepped away from competitive tennis in 2022 and could have made a case for eligibility, wasn’t on the ballot. Surely, that was her preference. And the obvious inference is that she will continue her comeback in 2027. Perhaps she doesn’t want to muck up a potential U.S. Open preparation with a Hall of Fame induction. Perhaps she is waiting to be inducted alongside her sister. But it makes for a bit of intrigue.
A few of you asked how I intended to vote for the players on the ballot. The New York Times has a policy that its journalists are not permitted to vote for Halls of Fame. It’s too messy, and there are too many potential conflicts. My take: It’s not a conflict if you disclose your choices. Maybe it’s because I’m softening with age, or maybe because I’m devoted to precedent. Perhaps it’s because I’m filled with respect for the four players on the roster, but I shall be casting four “yes” votes.
Ash Barty: This case scarcely merits mention. She was a dazzling player who won three majors, spent nearly two consecutive years ranked No. 1 and accumulated good-person points. It’s a no-brainer.
Juan Martín del Potro won only one major (the 2009 U.S. Open), though he beat (four-time defending champion) Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal back-to-back in the process. Before pivoting to the emotional points, note that he reached a half dozen major semifinals and advanced to the 2018 U.S. Open final. He won two Olympic medals and 22 titles. He did so in between a brutal stretch of injuries. Based on what was, not what could have been, I give him a slight nod. Add in that he did everything right and treated everyone right, and the tennis fates betrayed him, it seems only fair he gets this bit of grace.
As for Svetlana Kuznetsova, given precedent, it’s hard to turn away a multiple-major winner, especially when she won two different majors (the 2024 U.S. Open and 2009 Roland Garros). In between? She had more than a dozen runs to major quarterfinals or better. She played a fine doubles game, reaching each major final at least once, and winning twice in Australia. She reached No. 2 in the rankings. And she did it all with real geniality and quirk. She gets my vote.
In the wheelchair category is Shingo Kunieda of Japan. For the record, he won 50 major titles!
Q&A
Hello James,
I completely agree with you. What's in a name? So Mister [Andrew Abdo] called Jannik “Jacob”... big deal! Btw, James, good luck to you and that former No. 1 fella Adam Riddick on the Served podcast.
Give my best to Albert Zorov on being No. 1!! Please ask Kiki Gaff to swing away! Hope Shabloinka makes it back to No. 1 some day.
Best,
A hard-core tennis fan
• Well played. I, too, look forward to the return of Shabloinka. That made me laugh out loud and reminded me of this Harvard Lampoon prank.
Getting someone’s name right isn’t just about professionalism, knowledge and credibility; it’s about respect. My point: If tennis is going to recruit, accommodate and seek counsel from “outsiders,” we need to build in time for people to get up to speed. Calling Jannik Sinner “Jacob” is like an NBA executive calling the celestial Golden State Warriors guard “Steven Curry.” It’s bad, and attempts to spin it make it worse. But let’s not let a faux pas tank the career of someone who might (or might not) be a visionary leader.
[Rafael] Jódar seems like a jerk. It is very tough to root for him. He is old enough to know that it is unacceptable to be abusive toward ball boys and girls. He has done this a few times. His apology was very fake and forced. He stated he would apologize if he ran into him. Usually players would make an effort to personally meet the ball kid and give him or her gifts if they made an unforced error by being abusive toward him or her. I'm sure someone in his camp told him he needs to apologize due to the public backlash. He definitely lost a good number of fans.
Sunny
Philadelphia
• The extraordinary ascent of Jódar comes edged with an ick factor, and it’s a pity. One outburst at a ball kid* is uncool. Repeated outbursts—marked by strange breaches of sportsmanship and dubious wardrobe malfunctions—harden into a pattern.
Jódar may well end up in Turin at the ATP Finals, a remarkable achievement for a player who started the year with a triple-digit ranking. When he finally shuts it down, he should take a victory lap and celebrate this breakthrough year. Then, when he pivots to assessing 2027 and areas for improvement, he might want to start with his behavior and how he treats others.
Some of this is just common courtesy, but it also strikes me as important for his tennis. Federer, Nadal and countless others handled the pressures and frustrations of tennis without demeaning others, especially those with less power. But they also realized that friction didn’t serve their tennis. Why give fans a reason to cheer against you? Why give opponents additional motivation to beat you? Why give people—including the media—reasons to focus on flaws?
Treat people with respect. Display sportsmanship. Minimize drama. It can be as important as focusing on nutrition and conditioning. Control what you can control if you want to optimize your chances at excellence. Jódar needs to deal with this before it impedes his success.
* Part of what makes this so toxically uncool is the power differential. A kid—likely unpaid—is tasked with fetching your equipment and towels. And you berate them? In public? That’s such bad form. As the chair umpire in Shanghai masterfully put it, “You know what you said, I’m not going to repeat it; that is not how we talk to ball kids.”
I would submit that applies to life, not just tennis.
Also, note the wildly disproportionate number of professional players who were once ball kids, including Federer. You’re not just berating someone working in service of your success. You’re not just berating a kid. You’re berating someone who, likely, has a passion for this sport. And likely plays themself. And perhaps even has pro ambitions. Mistreating ball kids is akin to committing a crime against tennis.
Another sidebar: Jódar and his father have held off on hiring an agent. That’s their choice. Obviously, they have their reasons. But an agent would have been helpful here. Had Jódar walked off the court and been advised to issue an immediate social media apology and find the kid and douse him with swag, it would have helped with damage control.
Hi Jon, BRAVO for all points made by Mark A in the Oct. 14 mailbag, and in particular for his plea for far more “court level” TV views. Your half-hearted endorsement was disappointing. I suspect that you may have spent little time viewing any of the many “court level” TV videos on YouTube, and that if you had, you too would be a zealous advocate. Certainly the exposure that court level is given on ESPN and Tennis Channel is not a meaningful sample.
I also think you greatly underestimate your own potential influence (including, of course, the mailbag). Although you’re not responsible for TC’s technical coverage decisions, I'm sure that any comments you might make to the “powers that be” would carry significant weight. I’m also sure that requests by TC and ESPN’s producers would carry immense weight with those providing them with “in house or world feeds.” (I may be wrong, but I even suspect that those “feeds” include match-long court level and other camera views that TC, ESPN and other recipients may show as they choose.)
In your comments on the new Australian Open tournament director you endorsed the need for fresh thinking in tennis. That is so true of tennis TV coverage. When compared with the innovative TV coverage of other sports, it is sadly lacking.
John Rossitter, Middletown CT
• Fair. And yes, I’m basing my opinion on Tennis Channel and ESPN, not YouTube. I’m open to the suggestion that I’m missing something here. And I will forward this to the proverbial powers that be.
One of tennis’s great virtues is also one of its liabilities: the lack of standardization. So much about tournament X—the venue, surface, draw size, fan experience and even the trophy—may bear no resemblance to the previous or following week. Some tournaments may not even be equipped with court-level cameras. I know that a lot of times both ESPN and Tennis Channel say, essentially, We take what we get from the feed. But, again, I take your suggestions seriously and will pass them on.
A few of you wrote in about the Served interview with WTA Chairwoman Valerie Camillo and her repeated references to equal prize money, but her unwillingness to address the threshold is this: Can the WTA afford equal prize money?
• Right now, CVC, the private equity “strategic partner”—insert joke here: the frog called the scorpion “strategic partner”—is funding the shortfall between the WTA and ATP. This is awesome for WTA players, who are getting subsidized wages. But it’s brutal for the tour, which has an investor—asking for three times the return on their investment—taking a 20% stake in the business and contributing nothing to future growth. The short-term gain brings profound long-term pain.
Here’s an analogy. My daughter makes $10 an hour babysitting the neighbors’ kids. My son makes $6 an hour. But an “angel investor” covers the shortfall and gives my son an extra $4. She calls herself a “strategic partner.” Gushing press releases tout parity and equal pay. Both kids are making $10 an hour for comparable work.
But there’s a catch. The angel isn’t a philanthropist. She’s a ruthless businesswoman. In exchange for that $4-per-hour contribution to bring my son up to “equality,” she demands a 20% stake in the parents’ portfolio, plus annual interest. The splashy press release and talking points still stand, but the business reality is considerably more complicated than the self-congratulatory talking points.
And what if my daughter sees her wages go up and makes $12 an hour next year? Well, to achieve parity, the angel investor will have to backfill even more. To achieve this short-term goal, she will demand an even bigger stake in the parents’ future earnings.
Again, it would be one thing if the angel investor—or CVC—was contributing toward a student loan, marketing materials (or a decent website!) or some investment and growth. Businesses engage with private equity and venture capital all the time here, taking on aggressive deal terms for the prospect of growth. But this isn’t that.
It’s just a stopgap infusion of cash to create equality. It’s robbing Peter (the WTA) to pay Paul (the players). It was a terrible deal at the time, and the effects could be catastrophic as the money comes due.
Hola Jon!
Quick comment about Elena Rybakina: Power, precision, strong mind … and quiet. I love this. No screams, no extra theatre, no “Come on!!” every two points or so. Björn Borg’s spirit of fight has been reborn in a wonderful sportswoman; I hope she wins it all. I hope she sets an example in an era of over-screaming, not only in tennis but in the everyday world. I simply love it.
Best regards, Carlos Acosta.
• Some straight talk here: If you’re running a tour, have a position in the marketing department or are spreading the gospel of the WTA/tennis/your tournament, it’s not optimal to have a player so averse to PR, not inclined to make excursions into candor, guarded with her persona and lacking in theatricality when she plays.
If you’re not in that game—if you’re simply a fan of the sport and have no financial stake—Rybakina is great. She’s a star who plays peerless tennis while wearing this mask of poise. She doesn’t waste time, energy and emotional bandwidth on drama. The Björn Borg comparison isn’t quite there, but it’s close. She is cool. That is, she is poised and unflappable or uninterested in look-at-me drama. Good for her. Good that tennis accommodates the Sabalenkian, Ostapenkian, Townsendian extroverts and uninhibited types, and makes space for a cipher like Rybakina—big tent and all.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!
Add us as a preferred source on Google