United States Open (Tennis)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Tennis

      When Will Federer and the Williams Sisters Call It Quits? Maybe Never.

      by

      Advances in physical preparation keep their bodies in the game, and so can the changing nature of sports business and celebrity.WIMBLEDON, England — Most tennis professionals are retired by their mid-30s. But last week, there was Serena Williams, at almost 41, grinding against a competitor a little more than half her age for more than three hours at Wimbledon.Venus Williams, too, is here. She played mixed doubles, with tape on her right knee and not so much spring in her step at age 42. Roger Federer, who has not played since limping away from Wimbledon last year, is angling to return to the tennis tour in September, when he will be freshly 41. Rafael Nadal is threatening a deep Wimbledon run and eyeing the Grand Slam at 36 after a medical procedure that deadened the nerves in his troublesome left foot.To varying degrees, the biggest names in tennis keep going. Why is it so hard, with their best years behind them, to leave the stage and kick back with their millions? And it’s not just tennis. Tiger Woods, with an estimated net worth of $1 billion, is struggling to come back from devastating leg injuries at 46. Tom Brady can’t stay away from football. Regular working people go through life believing that retirement is the endgame. Not so with professional athletes.It is not just advances in physical preparation and nutrition keeping their bodies in the game. The changing nature of sports business and celebrity is conspiring to keep stars at it far longer than they have in the past. But there is also another element that has remained constant across the generations.“I get it 100 percent why they want to keep going,” said Martina Navratilova, a longtime No. 1 and 18-time major singles champion who retired at 37 in 1994, came back to play doubles and did not retire for good until she was almost 50.“You really appreciate it, and you realize how lucky you are to be out there doing what we do,” Navratilova said. “It’s a drug. It’s a very legal drug that many people would like to have but they can’t get.”Serena Williams exited Wimbledon in the first round for the second consecutive year, far from her fittest and gasping for air down the stretch. She and Federer soon face having no ranking in the sport they dominated for decades. Venus Williams decided at the last minute to play in mixed doubles at Wimbledon. But there have been no announcements on exit strategies; no target dates on end dates.“You never know where I’ll pop up,” Venus Williams said Friday, before she and Jamie Murray lost on Sunday to Alicia Barnett and Jonny O’Mara in a third-set tiebreaker in the round of 16.Earlier Sunday, at a ceremony at Centre Court, Federer, who has a men’s record eight Wimbledon titles but has not played a match in a year, said he hoped to play Wimbledon “one more time” before he retired.Roger Federer, 40, has not played since limping away from Wimbledon last year. He said on Sunday that he hoped to play another Wimbledon before he retired.Hannah Mckay/ReutersIt is a new sort of limbo: great champions well past their primes but not yet ready to call it a career while outsiders occupy themselves with speculation on when the call will come. Nadal, who has generated plenty of retirement chatter himself and said he was close to retiring only a couple of weeks ago because of chronic foot pain, understands the public’s quest for clarity. Famous athletes “become part of the life of so many people,” he said after advancing to the third round of Wimbledon.Even Nadal said he felt unsettled after seeing his friend Woods become only a part-time golfer. “That’s a change in my life, too.” But Woods, and the Williams sisters, like other aging and often-absent sports stars, remain active, not retired. There can be commercial incentives to keep it that way. Official retirement not only terminates a playing career. It can terminate an endorsement contract or a sponsorship deal and reduce a star’s visibility.“Typically, it’s black and white that when you announce your retirement, that’s clearly giving the company a right to terminate,” said Tom Ross, a longtime American tennis agent.But there are exceptions, Ross said, and champions who are late in their careers and of the stature of Federer and Serena Williams often have deals that provide them with security even if they retire before the deal expires. Federer’s 10-year clothing contract with Uniqlo is one example. He, like Serena Williams, also has the luxury of time.Nearly any other tennis player without a ranking would not be able to secure regular entry into top tournaments if they did decide to continue. But Federer and Williams have access to wild cards with their buzz-generating cachet, and can thus pick their spots.Nike, as Federer and some others have discovered, is disinclined to commit major money to superstars close to retirement, favoring active athletes with longer runways. But Mike Nakajima, a former director of tennis at Nike, said that Williams, still sponsored by Nike, was in an exceptional position. She has her own building on Nike’s campus.“Her building is bigger than the Portland International Airport,” Nakajima said. He added, “She’s had her hands in so many different things, so many interests, so many passions, that I think in a lot of ways it won’t matter when she stops. Serena will always be Serena.”This week, EleVen by Venus Williams, her lifestyle brand, started a Wimbledon collection of all-white clothing that was not hurt by the fact that Williams was actually playing at Wimbledon, if only in mixed doubles, after more than 10 months away from the tour.“Just inspired by Serena,” Venus Williams said.Venus Williams and Jamie Murray during their mixed doubles match at Wimbledon.Adrian Dennis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNavratilova, like many in the game, believes that Venus and Serena Williams will retire together when the time comes. If it comes. The advantages of formally announcing retirement are few: a temporary surge in publicity and an end to random drug testing. It can, in some cases, start the clock on your pension or on making you eligible to be elected into a sport’s Hall of Fame.Retirement is perhaps more a rite than a necessity. John McEnroe, for one, never officially retired, a technicality which, in his case, did allow him to keep earning more for a time from some existing contracts.“Well, look how well retirement worked out for Tom Brady; it got a lot of attention and then it was, ‘Oh, I changed my mind.’ OK!” Navratilova said with a laugh. She added, “Do you ask a doctor or a lawyer how much longer are you going to keep practicing? People put thoughts in your head that might not be there otherwise.”Federer has been hearing retirement questions since he finally won the French Open in 2009, completing his set of singles titles at each of the four Grand Slam events at age 27. Venus Williams, who went through a midcareer dip partially linked to an autoimmune disorder, has been hearing them for over a decade, as well.“When it’s my last, I’ll let you know,” she said at Wimbledon last year.Here she is, back for more, just like her kid sister, although perhaps even the Williamses don’t know how much more. Navratilova does not recommend giving too much advance notice. When she announced that 1994 would be her last season, she regretted it.“If I had to do it over again, I would definitely not say anything, because it was exhausting; it was much more emotionally draining than it would have been otherwise,” she said. “For your own good, forget whatever it may do for or against your brand. I wouldn’t announce it until that’s it.”And it was not it. She came back and ended up winning the U.S. Open mixed doubles title with Bob Bryan in her real last tour-level match at age 49, one of tennis’s better final acts.“My thing is, if you enjoy playing and really get something out of it still, then play,” Navratilova said. “Venus has been playing and people say she’s hurting her legacy. No, those titles are still there.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Tennis

      Entering Wimbledon, Emma Raducanu Carries a Heavy Load of Expectations

      by

      Emma Raducanu came out of nowhere to win the U.S. Open at 18 years old. Things have been a little rocky ever since. The British tennis-sphere gasped earlier this month.For the third time this year, the teen sensation Emma Raducanu had to quit in the middle of the match because of an injury. Just weeks before Wimbledon, her participation in the event, the most anticipated homecoming this sport has experienced in years, appeared to be in jeopardy.A lengthy headline in The Daily Mail put it this way:“Emma Raducanu has ‘no idea’ if she’ll be fit for Wimbledon as she RETIRES just 33 minutes into her first match on grass since last summer, after US Open champion struggled through just seven games with ‘freak’ injury to her left side.” (Emphasis theirs.)A day later, however, Raducanu, who is 19 years old, put out word that she expected to be just fine for Wimbledon, which begins Monday. But there will still be jitters until she takes her first swings, most likely on Centre Court, and perhaps manages to win her opening match. A kingdom is dreaming.“This is stress that is off the scale really,” said Annabel Croft, a British former professional and once rising young star who is one of a handful of women with an inkling of the kind of pressure Raducanu is under.Wimbledon is where it all began a year ago for Raducanu. Back then, she was just weeks removed from taking her university entrance exams, a practically unknown player with smooth strokes and an ability to glide across the court. Raducanu cruised to the fourth round at Wimbledon, charming the fans with her athleticism and graceful style before retiring with breathing difficulty against Ajla Tomljanovic of Australia.As it turned out, that run was just a warm-up. Two months later at the U.S. Open, she won 10 consecutive matches on her way to the title. Raducanu became the first British woman to win a Grand Slam title since Virginia Wade in 1977.Raducanu, a British citizen born in Canada to a Chinese mother and Romanian father, was seemingly built for the global sports stardom that has followed.British fans’ expectations of Raducanu mean that the pressure on her is “off the scale,” the former tennis player Annabel Croft said.Neil Hall/EPA, via ShutterstockThere was the Met Gala, and then millions of dollars in sponsorships from the highest-end corporations — Porsche, Tiffany and Co., British Airways, Evian, Dior and Vodafone, and on and on. Now, when someone says “Emma” in Britain, they more likely mean Raducanu than Jane Austen. She has become the game’s ultimate disrupter.Coco Gauff, the 18-year-old American, said in May that Raducanu had altered how she viewed winning a Grand Slam title — meaning she now believes anyone could do it, even her. Gauff made the finals of the French Open earlier this month.Raducanu’s unlikely path could inspire more players: Developing into a Grand Slam winner while shunning tennis academy life and preparing to attend one of England’s storied universities. Winning one of the sport’s four major championships in just the second try. Doing it with a seeming immunity to pressure.Raducanu recently announced that she has decided not to hire a full-time coach. She has been through four, and she has determined that what she really needs is high-intensity hitting partners. “Sparring,” as she put it recently. That will get her more used to the pace of the highest level of tennis. Playing without a coach is also something most top players just don’t do.For this disruption to be successful, at some point Raducanu’s results will have to return to the level she reached at the end of last summer. Her record is an undistinguished 8-11 this year.She and her former coaches have said she got tripped up by Covid-19 in December, which interrupted her off-season training. She entered the season in a diminished physical condition. That, perhaps, led to the nagging injuries and not having the season she had hoped for. She said recently that because of the U.S. Open win and the 2,000 points it produced, her ranking (No. 11) is probably better than her game.All of this, of course, would be fine if Raducanu were just another player just beginning her second year as a full-time professional. Raducanu is so new to this life that last month in Paris, where she played in the main draw of the French Open for the first time, she said she is looking forward to her second full year as a pro because she would no longer be so clueless about her surroundings every week.“I’m always asking where everything is,” she said. And yet, Raducanu is the reigning U.S. Open champion, and the first Grand Slam champion to emerge from a qualifying tournament. She was the BBC’s sports personality of the year for 2021, and the reason the Lawn Tennis Association, which oversees tennis in Britain, reports a boomlet in participation since September.For seven consecutive months, adult monthly participation has steadily increased, said John Dolan, a spokesman for the organization. Women’s participation during the first three months of 2022 was stronger than it has been the past five years. Annual participation among 16- to 34-year-olds is up 10 percent.“My academy is absolutely packed with little boys and girls wanting to be the next one,” Clinton Coleman, a global scout for IMG, the sport’s top representation firm, and the head professional of a London tennis center, said of the Raducanu phenomenon. “Never seen anything like it.”Simon Briggs, the tennis correspondent for The Telegraph, one of the major British news organizations, said that a year ago he thought he was going to have to find another line of work. Andy Murray’s career had hit its twilight and Britain’s talent pipeline seemed out of gas.Raducanu received medical attention before retiring from her fourth-round match at Wimbledon last year.Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA, via ShutterstockThen Raducanu made Wimbledon’s fourth round. Briggs had to write a story on her virtually every day once she began the summer hard court season in North America. Three days after Raducanu lost in the second round of the French Open, Briggs was still filing stories about her.“She’s got to be the biggest female sports story here since the Second World War,” Briggs said last week.Jo Durie, a top 10 player from Britain in the 1970s who commentates on tennis for the BBC, said people who don’t even follow sports often stop her in the market to ask about Raducanu.“She’s so well-known people expect her to play well and win all the time,” Durie said. “Of course it’s not fair. She’s so young.”It’s possible only Christine Truman can understand what Raducanu’s transformation into “Emma” has really been like. Truman, 81, reached the semifinals of Wimbledon when she was 16 years old and won the French Open two years later. The victory earned her a voucher worth 40 pounds ($112 in the United States at the time) that could not be used on anything tennis-related because that would violate the rules then on professionalism. But she became a household name practically overnight.She was tall and blonde and easily recognized and could not go to the bread line, or ride the escalator down to the subway, or visit the pharmacist without being stopped. She met Winston Churchill, who had sent her congratulatory telegrams. He was quite old by then, though it was still a thrill for her.“Winston, it’s the tennis girl,” Clementine Churchill said to her husband, who shook Truman’s hand.In her mid-20s, Truman said, she thought she could both “have fun” and stay at the top of the game. It did not work so well.Her advice to Raducanu?“Remember what made you good and don’t lose sight of that,” she said in an interview last week.And hire a coach.“They can spur you on when you’re doing well and bring you back up when you’re doubting yourself,” she said. “If they have the belief, it rubs off on you.” More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Tennis

      This Wimbledon Champion Never Had a Tennis Lesson

      by

      Dick Savitt, the first Jewish player to win the English tournament, has spent his life helping other athletes, including Arthur Ashe. In 1951 Dick Savitt, a self-taught tennis player, stunned the world by winning both the Australian Open and Wimbledon, becoming the first Jewish champion of both vaunted tournaments.“Dick Savitt of Orange, N.J., who never took a tennis lesson, established himself as the world’s No. 1,” announced The New York Times after the Wimbledon win, one of the shortest finals ever played on Center Court at that time. The match (6-4, 6-4, 6-4) was over in 63 minutes.Mr. Savitt retired from major tournaments the following year. But he stayed committed to the sport, competing when he could and mentoring other athletes in New York City, where he has lived since the late 1950s. He has been in the same Manhattan apartment, near the Metropolitan Museum of Art, since 1963. His home is full of trophies and coffee table books, like “100 Years of Wimbledon” and “Great Jews in Sports.”Bid Goswami, a close friend of Mr. Savitt’s who led the men’s tennis program at Columbia University for almost 40 years, said that tennis greats like Arthur Ashe and Don Budge would seek him out for play when they came to town. “Mr. Ashe used to talk about Dick’s ‘heavy shots,’” he said.Mr. Savitt, who won Wimbledon in 1951, center, keeps his trophies and mementos in his apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Carly Zavala for The New York Times; Central Press, via Getty ImagesWhen he wasn’t playing with tennis stars or coaching young athletes at Columbia, Mr. Savitt would teach the sport to his son, Bob Savitt, who went on to found the commercial real estate company Savitt Partners. The two ended up competing in father/son tournaments together.As Wimbledon gets underway in London, The New York Times caught up with Dick Savitt, now 95, Bob Savitt and Mr. Goswami about their thoughts on tennis, New York and Dick Savitt’s legacy. The following interview is an edited and condensed version of the conversation.What brought you to New York City?Dick Savitt (DS): In the 1950s I was working for an oil firm in Texas. There was no money in tennis back then, so everyone was an amateur. My company asked me to open a New York office, and that’s why I came.It can be hard to find courts here. Where did you play?DS: I played a lot in Central Park, and also on the clay courts on 96th Street. I used to know the guy who ran them, so he knew what time I was going to come, and he would save the court for me. I didn’t have to wait. A lot of people would watch me play. There are now waiting lists to play on the courts.Bob Savitt (BS): I played the most with my dad at a Midtown tennis club and also at this apartment building on 65th and Columbus that had one court. A good friend of my father’s had court time there every Saturday and Sunday. A lot of the great players came to play there, like Bjorn Borg.Who did your father play with?BS: He played with Vitas Gerulaitis and Arthur Ashe the most, but also Dick Stockton and other professionals when they were in the city.DS: Ashe was very organized. He knew where he was weak, and he wanted me to help him. The way it works in tennis is when you play with people, you figure out where your efforts should go. If you played with a guy who was a better volleyer than you, you knew you needed to work on your volley. I remember helping Ashe with his backhand. We would play at Columbia or in the park. Once in a while we got a few beers afterward.Bid Goswami (BG): Dick used to play with his son a lot. They used to play the father/son nationals and when they finally won in 1981 after two or three tries, Dick said, “This is bigger than me winning Wimbledon.”A backhand return during the Wimbledon semifinals in 1951.Central Press — Hulton Archive, via Getty ImagesThe tennis center at Columbia University was named after you, Mr. Savitt. How did that come about?DS: I first met Bid at a club in Westchester where he was the assistant pro, and he became the coach at Columbia, and the program took off. This started in the 1980s, and I would play with some of the team members. When they put a permanent bubble over six outdoor courts they wanted to name it after me. We were fighting about it; I went to Cornell, so I didn’t think a place at Columbia should have my name.BG: Dick was my secret recruiting trick. I would say to these students, “Where else in this country can you get a Wimbledon champion to help you?” We had kids coming in from Asia, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, all over America, and when they got to New York, the first thing they wanted to do was meet Dick.He studies tennis, so he would come in and watch someone play, and he would figure out what was wrong with his serve or whatever. He noticed these little things that only he could point out. So I wanted to name the tennis center after him. I had his friends explain to him, people are slowly forgetting who you are, so this facility should be named after you.Mr. Savitt, you made it to the semifinals of the U.S. Open in 1951, which gave you lifetime perks, including being able to access the locker room in Flushing Meadows. What are your favorite memories from the tournament?BS: My dad used to go every day and every night for two weeks. It’s harder for him to get around now, but we went last year and had a great day, and we will go again this year.When the tournament was at Forest Hills, it was much smaller, and everyone was in suits and jackets. We would talk to the players. They didn’t have the entourages, all those coaches and trainers, so you had access to them.For most of his life at Forest Hills or Flushing Meadows, he couldn’t walk five feet without bumping into someone who was a friend or someone who knew him when he was playing competitively.Our box is right behind the court, so when my dad knew all the guys playing he would actually be coaching them even though you weren’t allowed to. He would encourage them when they got down, or if he saw their opponent had a weak backhand he would say, “Get on the backhand.”BG: At the U.S. Open, back in the day, all the tennis people would know Dick. They would call him Mr. Savitt, even Arthur Ashe. It’s a little different now, but I think he prefers not to be known. He was always very serious about watching tennis, and he didn’t want to talk too much. I remember Alan King, the comedian, had a box next to Dick’s, and when Alan was waving to the crowds, Dick would get mad and say: “Sit down. Sit Down. This is about the tennis.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Tennis

      U.S. Open Will Allow Russian and Belarusian Tennis Players to Compete

      by

      The move leaves Wimbledon as the only Grand Slam tournament to bar Russians and Belarusians in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.The U.S. Open will not follow Wimbledon by barring Russian and Belarusian players from this year’s tennis tournament.The United States Tennis Association, which owns and operates the U.S. Open, announced the decision on Tuesday after a recent meeting of its board of directors. The move leaves Wimbledon as the only Grand Slam tournament to bar Russians and Belarusians in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.“This horrible atrocity absolutely weighed on all of us,” said Lew Sherr, the new chief executive of the U.S.T.A., referring to the war in Ukraine. “But I think at the end of the day we chose not to hold the individual athletes accountable for the decisions of their respective governments.”Wimbledon’s ban, made partly in response to pressure for action from the British government, has received strong support from the British public, as demonstrated in opinion polls. But the ban was met with disapproval from the men’s and women’s tennis tours, which responded by stripping Wimbledon of ranking points this year despite considerable debate and dissent among players.Sherr said U.S.T.A. officials had discussions in recent weeks with the leaders of Wimbledon and the other two Grand Slam tournaments, the French Open and the Australian Open. “It was very clear each of us was dealing with a unique set of circumstances,” he said. “Wimbledon, in their case, there was a government directive involved as well, and we came out and strongly supported their decision given their circumstances. Our circumstances are different, and in our case, we felt this was the right decision for us.”Better Understand the Russia-Ukraine WarHistory and Background: Here’s what to know about Russia and Ukraine’s relationship and the causes of the conflict.How the Battle Is Unfolding: Russian and Ukrainian forces are using a bevy of weapons as a deadly war of attrition grinds on in eastern Ukraine.Outside Pressures: Governments, sports organizations and businesses are taking steps to punish Russia. Here are some of the sanctions adopted so far and a list of companies that have pulled out of the country.Stay Updated: To receive the latest updates on the war in your inbox, sign up here. The Times has also launched a Telegram channel to make its journalism more accessible around the world.Russian and Belarusian players will compete in the U.S. Open, which will begin Aug. 29, under a neutral flag, just as they have been competing on tour and at the recently concluded French Open.Daniil Medvedev of Russia won the U.S. Open men’s singles title last year and is back at No. 1 in the ATP singles rankings this week. Victoria Azarenka of Belarus is a three-time U.S. Open women’s singles finalist. Aryna Sabalenka, another Belarusian women’s star, reached the semifinals of last year’s U.S. Open.Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus reached the semifinals of last year’s U.S. Open.Frank Franklin Ii/Associated PressAll will be absent from Wimbledon, which begins on June 27, and Russian and Belarusian players have also been barred from the preliminary events this month in Britain at Queen’s Club, Eastbourne and other venues. The U.S.T.A. ultimately chose to go in a different direction, even though Sherr reiterated on Tuesday that it viewed the tours’ decision to strip points from Wimbledon as “disproportionate.”For now, no other tour events outside Britain have followed Wimbledon’s lead, although tennis authorities did move swiftly after the invasion of Ukraine to bar Russian and Belarusian teams from competing in team events like the Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup.“This is not an easy situation,” Sherr said. “It’s a horrific situation for those in Ukraine, an unprovoked and unjust invasion and absolutely horrific so anything we talk about pales in relation to what is going on there.”Sherr said the U.S.T.A. would use the U.S. Open to help raise funds for relief efforts in Ukraine and to “demonstrate our support for the Ukrainian people.”Sherr said the U.S.T.A. had received no pressure or directive from the U.S. government related to the participation of Russian and Belarusian players.Russian players like Medvedev have already competed in the United States since international restrictions were put in place, playing in March at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, Calif., and at the Miami Open. Russian stars in other sports, like Alexander Ovechkin of the N.H.L.’s Washington Capitals, have continued to compete for their North American clubs.“The discussion in the board was really about principles and what we felt was right for us and not a function of what the N.H.L. might be doing; not a function of even what might be happening elsewhere in tennis,” Sherr said. “Really it was a fundamental issue of on the one hand you have atrocities and a horrible situation and on the other hand are we prepared to hold these individuals accountable for those decisions?”Though Medvedev should be able, if healthy, to defend his title in New York, the player he defeated in last year’s final, Novak Djokovic of Serbia, remains unable to enter the United States because he is an unvaccinated foreigner. That policy, which kept Djokovic from competing in Indian Wells or Miami this year, could change before the U.S. Open begins, but Sherr made it clear on Tuesday that the U.S.T.A. would not be seeking an exemption for unvaccinated foreign players to compete in New York.“We are going to follow the government and C.D.C. directives,” said Sherr, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Tennis

      How Do You Solve a Problem Like a Tied Set?

      by

      On a trial basis, the four major tennis tournaments will begin playing their matches under the same regulations.Nick Kyrgios knew he could be a top tennis player when he won his first main draw match at the French Open in 2013.“It was memorable because I beat Radek Stepanek in three tiebreakers,” said Kyrgios, who has twice reached major quarterfinals and been ranked as high as No. 13 in the world. “To have them all go my way, that’s when I fell in love with tiebreakers. I think they’re pretty special.”When the French Open begins on Sunday, the tournament will feature yet another new tiebreaker rule that will, for the first time, see the four major championships — Wimbledon, and the French, United States and Australian Opens — using the same tiebreaker policies.When a match reaches 6-6 in the final set, which is the fifth set for men’s singles and the third for women’s singles, the players will contest a super-tiebreaker. The first player to win 10 points by a 2-point margin will win the set and the match. The rule change is being used as a trial in the three majors this year and in next year’s Australian Open.“Our challenge is to protect the soul of [the French Open ] while entering a new era,” said Amélie Mauresmo, the tournament’s new director and a former world No. 1. “We’re trying to modernize things on a daily basis.”A 2010 first-round Wimbledon match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes over three days, finally concluding when Isner took a 70-68 fifth-set win. Pool photo by Suzanne PlunkettTiebreakers, or tiebreaks, as they have inexplicably been renamed by many in the sport, were introduced at the 1970 U.S. Open as a way of shortening matches and holding the attention of spectators and television audiences, as well as preserving the health and well-being of players.Back then, tiebreakers — first a 9-point “sudden death” version that ended when a player won 5 points, which was later changed to a “lingering death” alternative that required a player to win 7 points by a margin of 2 — were played in all sets except the final one. Final sets required that play continue until someone won by a two-game margin.The four tournaments that comprise the Grand Slam could never agree on a format for the deciding set, so each event made its own rules. Beginning in 2016, the Australian Open introduced a super-tiebreaker at 6-6, while Wimbledon began playing a traditional tiebreaker at 12-12 in 2019. The rule was immediately put to the test that year when Novak Djokovic defeated Roger Federer 7-6 (7-5), 1-6, 7-6 (7-4), 4-6, 13-12 (7-3) for the men’s title.Wimbledon was under pressure to make the change after two defining matches. The first was a 2010 first-round match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut that lasted 11 hours and five minutes over three days, finally concluding when Isner took a 70-68 fifth-set win. Then, in 2018, Isner and Kevin Anderson played a six-hour, 36-minute semifinal that Anderson ultimately won, but that left him so depleted that he lost the final in straight sets to Djokovic.The U.S. Open has been contesting a 12-point tiebreaker (the first to 7 points wins) in all sets since 1975. During that time, only one men’s final has featured a tiebreaker in the final set: In 2020, Dominic Thiem came back from two sets down to beat Alexander Zverev 2-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (8-6) in a made-for-television match in which no fans were allowed in the stands because of the coronavirus pandemic.“I love tiebreakers,” said Hana Mandlikova, 60, who vividly recalled every point of the final tiebreaker against Martina Navratilova at the 1985 U.S. Open. “You have to be risky, and you have to be a little bit lucky.”Bettmann/Getty ImagesTwo women’s finals have gone the distance. Tracy Austin defeated Martina Navratilova 1-6, 7-6 (7-4), 7-6 (7-1) in 1981 and Hana Mandlikova upset Navratilova 7-6 (7-3), 1-6, 7-6 (7-2) in 1985.“I love tiebreakers,” said Mandlikova, 60, who vividly recalled every point of the final tiebreaker against Navratilova, including a diving cross-court backhand volley on match point. “People who play riskier tennis instead of staying along the baseline have a better percentage of winning the tiebreaker,” she continued. “You have to be risky, and you have to be a little bit lucky.”Kyrgios, who beat Stepanek 7-6, (7-4), 7-6 (10-8), 7-6 (13-11) in that 2013 French Open first-rounder, said a tiebreaker was not based on skill. “It obviously favors the bigger serve at times, but it can go either way,” he said. “That’s the beauty of the scoring in tennis. Every point counts.”Until this year, the French Open shunned the final-set tiebreaker. Since the tournament began in 1891, it has featured very few extended final sets, though the slow red clay and never-ending rallies have produced multiple five-hour matches. Only twice in the men’s draw has a final gone the distance: a 1927 match won by René Lacoste over Bill Tilden 11-9 in the fifth set and a 2004 final between Gastón Gaudio and Guillermo Coria, which Gaudio ultimately won 8-6 in the fifth.Jennifer Capriati’s win over Kim Clijsters in the final set of the 2001 French Open was one of the tournament’s most suspenseful endings.Philippe Wojazer/ReutersThe women, on the other hand, have produced some extraordinary final sets in the French Open, including an 8-6 third-set win by Steffi Graf over Navratilova in 1987, a 10-8 third-set win by Monica Seles over Graf in 1992, a 10-8 third-set win by Graf over Arantxa Sánchez Vicario in 1996 and one of the tournament’s all-time highlights, a 1-6, 6-4, 12-10 victory by Jennifer Capriati over Kim Clijsters in the 2001 final.Danielle Collins, one of the top-ranked U.S. pros, remembers honing her tiebreaker skills while competing in junior matches.“If you split sets, you played a 10-point tiebreaker for the third set,” Collins said. “I would get down all the time. One time I was down 9-1 and came back to win. Those 10-point tiebreakers can be really fun.” Stefanos Tsitsipas likes the idea of never-ending matches but understands the need for final-set tiebreakers in today’s increasingly physical matches.“As a kid I liked watching these crazy best-of-five matches that went all the way to 18-16,” he said. “It was just fun to watch and see who was going to break first. On the other hand, you can’t allow players to play until 6 in the morning with that format. It can get quite exhausting.”In the 2020 U.S. Open, Dominic Thiem, of Austria, came back from two sets down to beat Alexander Zverev, of Germany.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesStan Wawrinka, who won the French Open in 2015, would prefer that the majors stop tinkering with their tiebreaker formulas.“What I liked before was that they were all a different ending,” said Wawrinka, who is working his way back from knee surgery. “I enjoyed that. But it’s impossible to find one thing that everybody will like. To all be the same now is not my favorite thing, but it is what it is and we don’t have a choice.”Djokovic is proud that he and Federer got to play the first championship match in Wimbledon history to feature a final-set tiebreaker. He also knows it was a one-and-only now that Wimbledon will also play final-set tiebreakers at 6-6 instead of 12-12.“There is history in extended play in most of the Slams,” Djokovic said. “That Isner-Mahut, the longest match ever, it’s written down with golden letters in the history of tennis. Many people remember that match, and it has brought a lot of attention to our sport from the wider audience.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Tennis

      The End of the Endless Final Set: Grand Slams Adopt Same Tiebreaker

      by

      The French Open was the last major tennis tournament that allowed an “advantage final set” without a tiebreaker. Once the maker of many classic, marathon matches, the system is no more.INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Tennis is entering a new era: one in which the marathon final sets that have concluded some of its greatest and longest matches are no longer an option.The Grand Slam Board announced Wednesday that beginning in May with the French Open, all four major tournaments will put in place a tiebreaker at 6-6 in decisive sets: the third set in women’s singles matches and the fifth set in men’s singles.The first player with at least 10 points and a 2-point margin will win the tiebreaker. The move was announced as a one-year trial, but is likely to be adopted permanently considering the extensive consultation behind it.The winds have been blowing in this direction for some time amid concerns about the pace of play, match lengths, player health and recovery times.“It’s good they have that uniformity now, but I guess what made them unique was also how each fifth set was different, so I can see both sides to it,” said John Isner, the American veteran whose first-round victory over Nicolas Mahut of France at Wimbledon in 2010 established a logic-defying record by stretching to 70-68 in the fifth set.If the new rules are embraced permanently, that mark will forever remain untouchable.“It was never going to get broken anyway, so those are my thoughts,” Isner said.It is difficult to argue. The final set of Isner-Mahut stretched across three days, monopolizing Court 18 at the All England Club and generating global interest for an otherwise obscure early-round match.There is a fascination created by two players pushing each other to their physical and mental limits; a particular sort of tension fostered by a marathon final set after competitors and spectators have invested so many hours in the outcome.“That’s just like an absolute battle,” said Taylor Fritz, the 24-year-old American who reached the quarterfinals of the BNP Paribas Open.Fritz said ultralong final sets make it all but impossible for the victor to advance much further in a tournament. “You’re so done for your next match if you have one of those,” he said. “But it’s tradition, and I will miss seeing those crazy battles.”Before the Open era, there were no tiebreakers in any set at the Grand Slam tournaments or in the Davis Cup, the premier men’s team competition. A set was won by winning a minimum of six games by a margin of at least two. In one extreme example from the first round of Wimbledon in 1969, 41-year-old Pancho Gonzales defeated his fellow American Charlie Pasarell, 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, in a match that stretched over two days.The next year, a tiebreaker at six games all was introduced at the 1970 U.S. Open for all sets and was gradually adopted by the other Grand Slam tournaments and major team competitions for all sets except the final one.But after more than a century, the Davis Cup opted for a final-set tiebreaker in 2016 and the Australian Open and Wimbledon followed suit in 2019, though in different ways. The Australian Open opted for the extended first-to-10-points tiebreaker at 6-all and Wimbledon adopted a traditional first-to-seven tiebreaker at 12-all.The French Open continued to play out the fifth set, which left the four Grand Slam tournaments with four different methods of resolving decisive sets — a discrepancy that confused some players.In the middle of the fifth set of the 2019 Wimbledon men’s singles final, Novak Djokovic had to double check with the chair umpire when the tiebreaker would be played.The Grand Slam tournament leaders clearly wanted a tidier solution.“The Grand Slam Board’s decision is based on a strong desire to create greater consistency in the rules of the game at the Grand Slams, and thus enhance the experience for the players and fans alike,” the board said in its statement.Uniformity at least will provide clarity, and the first-to-10-points tiebreaker should allow for more suspense and momentum shifts than the first-to-seven system.But if the new rules are adopted after the trial, it will shrink the horizons of what constitutes an epic match.Many matches that are ranked among the greatest went into the tennis equivalent of overtime, which is certainly no coincidence.Bjorn Borg’s victory over John McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final went to 8-6 in the fifth set; Rafael Nadal’s victory over Roger Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final went to 9-7 in the fifth; Djokovic’s victory over Federer in the 2019 Wimbledon final went to 13-12 in the fifth with a tiebreaker at 12-all.At the French Open, Monica Seles’s victory over Steffi Graf in the exquisite 1992 final went to 10-8 in the third, and Jennifer Capriati’s victory over Kim Clijsters in the 2001 final stretched to 12-10 in the third.But marathons will not be out of the question in this new, streamlined tennis world. Consider the 2012 Australian Open men’s final, between Djokovic and Nadal, the longest singles final in Grand Slam history in terms of elapsed time. They played for 5 hours 53 minutes and were so spent by the time Djokovic finished his victory that both needed chairs at the award ceremony.But that match, undoubtedly one of the greatest in tennis history, would not have been shortened by a tiebreaker under the unified rules announced on Wednesday.It ended at 7-5 in the fifth. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Tennis

      Djokovic Willing to Miss Grand Slam Tournaments to Stay Unvaccinated

      by

      The top men’s tennis player — for now — has expressed a desire to be “in tune” with his body that has left him badly out of tune with his sport and the times.It should not come as a revelation at this stage, but Novak Djokovic is not backing down.Not after all the drains on his energy and blows to his image. Not after twice being detained in Melbourne, Australia, last month. Not after his deportation from that country on the eve of the year’s first Grand Slam tournament. Not after being forced to watch from afar as his longtime rival Rafael Nadal took the career lead with a 21st major men’s singles title.For now, Djokovic will still not get vaccinated against the coronavirus, no matter how much it costs him, as he made clear in an interview with the BBC that was broadcast on Tuesday and in which the interviewer, Amol Rajan, summed up a fair share of the global mood by abandoning journalistic sang-froid and imploring: “Why Novak, why, why?”“Because the principles of decision-making on my body are more important than any title or anything else,” Djokovic answered. “I’m trying to be in tune with my body as much as I possibly can.”That approach has him out of tune with his sport and his times. According to the ATP, the men’s tennis tour, he is the only one of the top 100 ranked men’s singles players who has not been vaccinated against Covid-19. In an international sport that often requires players to cross borders on a weekly basis, his freedom of movement and access to tournaments will be limited depending on local pandemic restrictions.Djokovic won the 2021 French Open, but may not be allowed to play there this year.Pete Kiehart for The New York TimesThat cannot be easy for a self-described libertarian, but this is Djokovic’s choice, pure and simple, even if it resonates far beyond his personal space.Though he plans to return to action for the ATP event in Dubai next week, his status as an unvaccinated foreigner means he will not be permitted to enter the United States to take part in the top-tier tournaments next month in Indian Wells, Calif., and in Miami unless he is granted an exemption. That is considered unlikely based on the criteria, which does not include a prior coronavirus infection.Djokovic, who was infected with the coronavirus in 2020, reported testing positive again in Serbia on Dec. 16, 2021, which was the basis for his decision to travel to Melbourne for the Australian Open with what he believed to be a valid exemption from the country’s requirements for entry. Instead, he was deported after being detained and losing his final appeal, with the Australian government arguing successfully that his presence could risk promoting anti-vaccine sentiment in the country.Djokovic said he “completely disagreed” with that decision, but unless the rules in France change, Djokovic will not be allowed to play in the next Grand Slam tournament, the French Open, which begins in May. He also may not be allowed to participate in the Monte Carlo Open in April in the tax haven on the French Riviera, where he officially resides. Beginning Tuesday, the French government, which requires a vaccine passport for access to sports venues and other public facilities, will only allow a four-month grace period for those who have been infected but are unvaccinated. His grace period would expire in April.But Djokovic, still the world No. 1 in men’s singles, calmly said on Tuesday that he was ready to accept the consequences, even if it meant that it denied him the chance to win the race to be considered the greatest of all time.“That is the price I’m willing to pay,” he said.Djokovic supporters outside the Federal Court of Australia during his hearing in January.Alana Holmberg for The New York TimesIt is unclear how high that price will be. He will still have access to numerous tournaments. The men’s tour strongly encourages vaccination but has not mandated it. National regulations are shifting rapidly. Today’s closed border could be open in a few months, or even a few weeks. France has a presidential election this spring that could lead to a change in government and coronavirus policy and perhaps fling open the gates to Roland Garros.Djokovic reserves the right to change his mind on vaccination, but for now his approach does put him at a competitive disadvantage and will likely cost him the No. 1 ranking in the coming weeks as Daniil Medvedev of Russia closes in.Djokovic holds the men’s record for total weeks at No. 1 at 360 (and counting). He is the only man to have won the nine Masters 1000 events and he has won them twice. He also holds a head-to-head edge over his biggest rivals: Nadal and Roger Federer.But the overall Grand Slam record is what glitters most brightly at this stage, and Nadal has 21 major singles titles to Djokovic’s and Federer’s 20. Djokovic is the defending champion at the French Open but if he is unable to play, Nadal will be an even bigger favorite after winning it an astonishing 13 times already.Djokovic faces the shifting landscape in men’s tennis as younger players, including Daniil Medvedev, rise.Ben Solomon for The New York TimesDjokovic should have access to Wimbledon unless Britain’s coronavirus policy changes. He has been the most successful grass-court player in recent years, winning at the All England Club six times. But playing in the U.S. Open, the year’s final Grand Slam tournament, will be problematic with the United States’ ban on unvaccinated foreigners.“The United States Tennis Association and the U.S. Open will welcome all players who abide by the guidelines put forth by the U.S. government, by the City of New York and by the tournament,” said Chris Widmaier, a spokesman for the U.S.T.A., on Tuesday.Missing three of the four majors in one season would be quite a blow to Djokovic’s quest to finish atop the Grand Slam count. After being deported last month, he is also banned for three years from visiting Australia, although Australian government officials have indicated that this ban could be rescinded.Djokovic also must deal with the shifting landscape in men’s tennis. A younger generation of talented and powerful players is rising, including Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Matteo Berrettini, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Felix Auger-Aliassime.At 34, Djokovic will need to remain sharp to stay on the cutting edge but Nadal, 35, and Federer, 40, already have proven that it is possible to win majors at advanced ages for tennis.Djokovic has polarized opinion like neither of his rivals, however. Though he reaffirmed on Tuesday that he does not want to be associated with the anti-vaccine movement, his high profile and the wall-to-wall coverage of the Australian fiasco have guaranteed quite the contrary.“Because the principles of decision-making on my body are more important than any title or anything else,” Djokovic said of his reasoning.Ben Solomon for The New York Times“It’s really unfortunate there has been this kind of misconception and wrong conclusion that has been made around the world based upon something I completely disagree with,” he said.If so, it would certainly have helped if he had made that clear long ago instead of dodging the subject and questions about his vaccination status. His decision to speak with the BBC seemed an admission that his prior approach had created too much ambiguity. He talked about feeling wounded by the “looks” from his fellow players in Melbourne after he won his initial appeal and practiced on site ahead of the tournament.But then for a man who speaks six languages, Djokovic has long had a communication problem. He has a restless spirit and intellect and has sometimes been his own worst enemy: making choices that backfire, like knocking himself out of the 2020 U.S. Open by inadvertently striking a lineswoman in the throat with a ball that he had whacked in frustration.It was not the first time that Djokovic had angrily struck a ball. But though his aim and judgment have failed him rather too often, he is one of the most resilient of modern champions, emerging from wartime Serbia to break up the Federer-Nadal duopoly. He bounced back from an extended slump and a lingering elbow injury to dominate again in 2018. He rebounded from that U.S. Open misadventure in 2020 to come within one match of a true Grand Slam in 2021.He has overcome many obstacles, some of his own creation, during his long and phenomenal run atop men’s tennis, but this is new territory. To bounce back again and rejoin the historical chase, he must first be able to compete. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Tennis

      Djokovic Is Willing to Skip Wimbledon and French Open to Avoid Vaccine

      by

      Novak Djokovic said he was prepared to miss the French Open, Wimbledon and other tournaments if he was required to get a coronavirus vaccine to compete.In an interview with the BBC that was broadcast on Tuesday, the Serbian tennis star said he believed the freedom to choose what goes into his body was “more important than any title, or anything else.”Mr. Djokovic said he understood that his vaccination status meant that he was “unable to travel to most of the tournaments at the moment,” but, he added, “That is the price that I’m willing to pay.”Mr. Djokovic’s decision to remain unvaccinated, even after he was unable to compete in the Australian Open, may delay his quest to win more Grand Slam titles than his rivals. (The Spanish tennis star Rafael Nadal was able to clinch a record 21st Grand Slam title at the Australian Open.)The French authorities said last month that players must be vaccinated to compete in the French Open, the next of the four Grand Slam tournaments. Mr. Djokovic might be able to compete in Wimbledon in June, but according to recent guidelines, he may not be able to compete in the U.S. Open in August.Mr. Djokovic told the BBC that he was not against vaccinations generally and that he did not want to be associated with the anti-vaccination movement, but that his decision about the coronavirus vaccine was personal.“As an elite professional athlete, I’ve always carefully reviewed, assessed everything that comes in from the supplements, food, the water that I drink or sports drinks — anything, really anything that comes into my body as a fuel,” he said in the interview, which was recorded on Monday. “Based on all the informations that I got, I decided not to take the vaccine as of today.” More