Yes we live here part time ....when do you get here? Happy to see you and/or give you any recommendations....it is a great small city....need to get another book cause my mother took mine and then gave it to a friend after she read it (God did she LOVE Rafa....)
Nice piece. Would have been impossible for McEnroe not to insert himself even while praising someone else. ... This may be a contrarian view, but the number of Alcaraz' Slams at his age seems more impressive than the career Slam. The differences between the Slams are so much smaller than they used to be. And most of the players have similar game styles. It's debatable which surface is best for Alcaraz, Djokovic or even Sinner. They're all great wherever they play. The conventional wisdom of six months ago that Sinner is better than Alcaraz on hard courts seems silly now. There's no current analog to Philippoussis vs. Agassi at 2003 Wimbledon or Tanner vs. Borg at 1979 U.S. Open. Don't get me wrong: Alcaraz could become the greatest ever. But it won't be because he overcame the difficulty of vastly different surfaces or of vastly different opponent skills.
I think the "career Slam" is slightly overhyped as an achievement for some of the reasons you mentioned, Ian. First, in terms of importance, the Australian and French were clearly behind Wimbledon and the U.S. Open until fairly recently in tennis history, and so players often simply didn't play them, which suggests that achieving the career Slam didn't concern them too much. And second, as you pointed out, the surfaces at the majors these days -- maybe the last 15 or 20 years? -- aren't nearly as different as they used to be. And for most of the sport's history, three of the majors were on grass, so there were only two "major" surfaces.
Don't get me wrong. There is something impressive about being able to win all four major titles, on all three surfaces, at slow, medium and fast court speeds. It's a terrific achievement. But I say that it's slightly overhyped because it really wasn't a "thing" for most of tennis history. It couldn't become the thing it is now until the U.S. Open switched to hard courts (in 1978) and top players started consistently showing up for the Australian Open (maybe in the late '80s or the '90s?). And while it's still a thing these days, it's a less-difficult thing.
I feel like it only became a thing people cared about when Agassi achieved it, and people wanted to be able to point to something he had that Sampras didn't have. (OK, that part of my thinking may be affected by my Sampras fandom.) But there's no question in my mind that Sampras was the better player and had the superior career. So the career Slam, in my view, can only do so much for a player's legacy.
Agree 100%. Now it's gotten to the point where if you're talking about Alcaraz, Sinner and Djokovic, any prediction would be unrelated to surface/venue. It would be about recent form and fitness. As for Agassi, when he completed the career Slam, he had won each of them exactly once. Very nice achievement, but at the time it was four Slams. (He went on to win one more U.S. Open and three more Australians.) The Sampras-Agassi thing isn't even close. Agassi won one big tournament that Sampras didn't. Every other metric favors Sampras by a wide margin.
Great piece Mr, Clarey. Melbourne 2026, I think, was the time and place that Alcaraz has really moved forward with his game and mindset. 2026 could be significant year for him - not that he hasn't had a few already.
Folks, first of all, great to be back among you. It has been quite a period in my life, and I've missed these exchanges.
It can't be a coincidence that the career Slam has become much more prevalent in the last 20 years. Yes, the Big 3 were outliers, as are Alcaraz and Sinner, who will, I presume, join the club down the road: maybe in Paris this spring. But the homogenization of playing styles (versions of the attacking baseline game) has changed the challenge. First came poly strings in the late 1990s that were a big part of the death knell for serve and volley tennis. Then came Wimbledon's shift to 100 percent rye grass in 2001 that led to the baseline-dominated final between Hewitt and Nalbandian in 2002 and changed the bounce and style on what used to be the game's slickest surface (it still is, just not as extremely). As Srikanth points out, they at least are playing majors on three surfaces instead of two now and there has certainly been ample competition plus lots of roadblocks: consider Nadal on clay for nearly two decades. But the top players do play all four majors every year now, which was often not the case in the first half of the Open era. They get more opportunities and have less need to shift playing styles: remember Lendl's annual attempt to become a grasscourter?
What is striking to me with Alcaraz is how complete he truly is but also how quickly he ticked all four boxes. Would loved to have watched him try to do this when there was more variety of play and conditions across the calendar (and more specialists in Paris and Wimbledon). My guess is, given his full quiver of options and his big-match competitiveness, he still would have won all four, just not so quickly, and he of course would not have had the benefit of on-court coaching back in the day either.
The coaching bothers me too. I think I noticed it even more at this tournament because the Aussie Open puts the coaches right there on the court. It struck me when I heard Madison Keys' coach telling her what to do and what shots to hit during her fourth-round match against Jessica Pegula. Nothing against Keys -- she's obviously not the only player who gets such advice from coaches. Even the great Alcaraz does. They're still great players. But it does change the sport a bit, and make it a little easier for them. (I also don't buy that it makes the sport better in any way, or the television coverage more interesting.) It's fair to wonder if, say, Alcaraz would have maybe five or six major titles without it, instead of seven.
Yes that was kind of startling to hear Keys' coach/husband telling her an exact shot to hit/not hit....felt like we were heading toward robotic players....
Will add my voice to others-so great to “hear”your mellifluous style again!
People always say tennis is a lonely sport. You’re out there by yourself. Carlos is the least lonely player I’ve watched. I used to think that about Rafa with his connection to his team and family. But Carlos seems completely buoyed by the constant coaching.
Remember in the 2018 US Open when Serena said she didn’t like to be coached on court!
It is a fundamental change in the game, Lisa. I was against it, as those of you who have followed my work for a long time would know. But I don't think we're going back now, and it is undeniably interesting to hear the dialogue.
Thanks Chris. Your point about on-court coaching being a significant benefit and change for the "new" generation is well made. I thought the same with the women's final. The comments from the coaching box telling Rybakina to get her energy up turned the match around. A significant intervention. I wonder what would have happened if she had not received it? Personally, I am not a fan of this - I enjoyed the fact that players had to work out for themselves what they needed to do differently. That being said, I suppose one could argue that on-court coaching is no different to caddying!
Hi Christine! The caddie argument was one of the arguments from tennis coaches who wanted this change. But my feeling was that tennis should have leaned into being an outlier and, though you could never completely enforce the no-coaching rule, there is a big difference between code words and hand signals and in running dialogue and commentary that can reassure and inform a player throughout a match. I still don't like it, even though I can't help listening
Hi Chris - I didn't know tennis coaches had deployed the caddie argument. You learn something new every day! I get the point that the game must evolve and innovate - but I am not a fan of this constant communication between players and their boxes - although some are definitely using it more than others. On other things, am I correct in thinking that I heard that Craig Tiley is going to move to the US to become the US Open tournament director?
Great to have Chris's voice again! This was the rare (unheard of) moment where it felt like Novak was okay with the loss. That he'd beaten Sinner was enough this go round. He had to know he got lucky with the walkovers and had to be asking himself where he would have been physically he'd come back in five against Musetti. There was a point when Carlos was playing Zverev where I wondered if Carlos was cursing himself for having fired his coach but the coach change apparently had no impact whatsoever! Chris makes a great point that these players now have legal and constant coaching - I am sure many would say it makes no difference but as much as they are going to their boxes, I have to believe it makes a big difference. (and back on coaching, do we agree that Coco has got to find a different path/different coach/different plan? Or is she always going to be a hot/cold player who wins majors and then loses third round....nothing wrong with that, it is just that Serena, the old guys and now Carlos/Jannik have set a high bar).
I hope Coco can become more settled in herself. She’s so self possessed -I’m always surprised to see her flustered on court. I think she has what it takes to be more consistent but she does seem handicapped by her serve and less so now her forehand. Thanks for mentioning her. Interesting to think of her in contrast to Carlos.
Coco needs to buy a copy of Chris's book , "The Master" and read - I think it is Chapter 3 - to see exactly where and to whom she should turn if she wants move forward, onward and upward with her career as top sportswoman. I'm just not sure that Coco's mind in the right place to take such a step though to and listen and follow the advice from someone who. I think, could really help her move on to tennis greatness and to grow as a person in the way that Roger federer did.
I'm probably going to be wrong again for the nth time, but I think Djokovic is just going to walk away from it all now. He's too smart an old codger not to see that if "all his labor that he taketh under the sun" profits him only a runner-up trophy at best, packing his bags and going to live on airplanes isn't going to be worth it. I think you just wrote his epitaph, Chris, and a fine one it is.
You certainly have a point there about a walk-off homer, as the quest is for a 25th no matter where. I have a hard time shaking my emotions, and I'd hate to see Novak crank up for Wimbledon and not make it, as that would be so crushingly disappointing, and that has colored my hope that he will spare himself such a defeat. I admit though that it is hard to keep this guy down. He's all about the big fight.
Hey Chris. Hope to see you Saturday at the festival!
Will you be there?
CC
Yes we live here part time ....when do you get here? Happy to see you and/or give you any recommendations....it is a great small city....need to get another book cause my mother took mine and then gave it to a friend after she read it (God did she LOVE Rafa....)
Would be great to see you. Look forward to it!
Nice piece. Would have been impossible for McEnroe not to insert himself even while praising someone else. ... This may be a contrarian view, but the number of Alcaraz' Slams at his age seems more impressive than the career Slam. The differences between the Slams are so much smaller than they used to be. And most of the players have similar game styles. It's debatable which surface is best for Alcaraz, Djokovic or even Sinner. They're all great wherever they play. The conventional wisdom of six months ago that Sinner is better than Alcaraz on hard courts seems silly now. There's no current analog to Philippoussis vs. Agassi at 2003 Wimbledon or Tanner vs. Borg at 1979 U.S. Open. Don't get me wrong: Alcaraz could become the greatest ever. But it won't be because he overcame the difficulty of vastly different surfaces or of vastly different opponent skills.
Good stuff Ian, great to read you again, I'll reply below
CC
I think the "career Slam" is slightly overhyped as an achievement for some of the reasons you mentioned, Ian. First, in terms of importance, the Australian and French were clearly behind Wimbledon and the U.S. Open until fairly recently in tennis history, and so players often simply didn't play them, which suggests that achieving the career Slam didn't concern them too much. And second, as you pointed out, the surfaces at the majors these days -- maybe the last 15 or 20 years? -- aren't nearly as different as they used to be. And for most of the sport's history, three of the majors were on grass, so there were only two "major" surfaces.
Don't get me wrong. There is something impressive about being able to win all four major titles, on all three surfaces, at slow, medium and fast court speeds. It's a terrific achievement. But I say that it's slightly overhyped because it really wasn't a "thing" for most of tennis history. It couldn't become the thing it is now until the U.S. Open switched to hard courts (in 1978) and top players started consistently showing up for the Australian Open (maybe in the late '80s or the '90s?). And while it's still a thing these days, it's a less-difficult thing.
I feel like it only became a thing people cared about when Agassi achieved it, and people wanted to be able to point to something he had that Sampras didn't have. (OK, that part of my thinking may be affected by my Sampras fandom.) But there's no question in my mind that Sampras was the better player and had the superior career. So the career Slam, in my view, can only do so much for a player's legacy.
Good points Srikanth. I will reply below
CC
Agree 100%. Now it's gotten to the point where if you're talking about Alcaraz, Sinner and Djokovic, any prediction would be unrelated to surface/venue. It would be about recent form and fitness. As for Agassi, when he completed the career Slam, he had won each of them exactly once. Very nice achievement, but at the time it was four Slams. (He went on to win one more U.S. Open and three more Australians.) The Sampras-Agassi thing isn't even close. Agassi won one big tournament that Sampras didn't. Every other metric favors Sampras by a wide margin.
Great piece Mr, Clarey. Melbourne 2026, I think, was the time and place that Alcaraz has really moved forward with his game and mindset. 2026 could be significant year for him - not that he hasn't had a few already.
Folks, first of all, great to be back among you. It has been quite a period in my life, and I've missed these exchanges.
It can't be a coincidence that the career Slam has become much more prevalent in the last 20 years. Yes, the Big 3 were outliers, as are Alcaraz and Sinner, who will, I presume, join the club down the road: maybe in Paris this spring. But the homogenization of playing styles (versions of the attacking baseline game) has changed the challenge. First came poly strings in the late 1990s that were a big part of the death knell for serve and volley tennis. Then came Wimbledon's shift to 100 percent rye grass in 2001 that led to the baseline-dominated final between Hewitt and Nalbandian in 2002 and changed the bounce and style on what used to be the game's slickest surface (it still is, just not as extremely). As Srikanth points out, they at least are playing majors on three surfaces instead of two now and there has certainly been ample competition plus lots of roadblocks: consider Nadal on clay for nearly two decades. But the top players do play all four majors every year now, which was often not the case in the first half of the Open era. They get more opportunities and have less need to shift playing styles: remember Lendl's annual attempt to become a grasscourter?
What is striking to me with Alcaraz is how complete he truly is but also how quickly he ticked all four boxes. Would loved to have watched him try to do this when there was more variety of play and conditions across the calendar (and more specialists in Paris and Wimbledon). My guess is, given his full quiver of options and his big-match competitiveness, he still would have won all four, just not so quickly, and he of course would not have had the benefit of on-court coaching back in the day either.
CC
Very good to have you - and your words, thoughts and insights - back. Mr. C.
It's the extra, in-depth, backgound knowlegde that is so interesting and that fills in so many gaps, and forgotten insights.
Roll on the clay court season.
The coaching bothers me too. I think I noticed it even more at this tournament because the Aussie Open puts the coaches right there on the court. It struck me when I heard Madison Keys' coach telling her what to do and what shots to hit during her fourth-round match against Jessica Pegula. Nothing against Keys -- she's obviously not the only player who gets such advice from coaches. Even the great Alcaraz does. They're still great players. But it does change the sport a bit, and make it a little easier for them. (I also don't buy that it makes the sport better in any way, or the television coverage more interesting.) It's fair to wonder if, say, Alcaraz would have maybe five or six major titles without it, instead of seven.
Yes that was kind of startling to hear Keys' coach/husband telling her an exact shot to hit/not hit....felt like we were heading toward robotic players....
Will add my voice to others-so great to “hear”your mellifluous style again!
People always say tennis is a lonely sport. You’re out there by yourself. Carlos is the least lonely player I’ve watched. I used to think that about Rafa with his connection to his team and family. But Carlos seems completely buoyed by the constant coaching.
Remember in the 2018 US Open when Serena said she didn’t like to be coached on court!
It is a fundamental change in the game, Lisa. I was against it, as those of you who have followed my work for a long time would know. But I don't think we're going back now, and it is undeniably interesting to hear the dialogue.
CC
Chris, you’ve outdone yourself with this review. Incredible piece, accounting tennis history. Thanks!
Thanks very much Charlie!
Thanks Chris. Your point about on-court coaching being a significant benefit and change for the "new" generation is well made. I thought the same with the women's final. The comments from the coaching box telling Rybakina to get her energy up turned the match around. A significant intervention. I wonder what would have happened if she had not received it? Personally, I am not a fan of this - I enjoyed the fact that players had to work out for themselves what they needed to do differently. That being said, I suppose one could argue that on-court coaching is no different to caddying!
Hi Christine! The caddie argument was one of the arguments from tennis coaches who wanted this change. But my feeling was that tennis should have leaned into being an outlier and, though you could never completely enforce the no-coaching rule, there is a big difference between code words and hand signals and in running dialogue and commentary that can reassure and inform a player throughout a match. I still don't like it, even though I can't help listening
CC
Hi Chris - I didn't know tennis coaches had deployed the caddie argument. You learn something new every day! I get the point that the game must evolve and innovate - but I am not a fan of this constant communication between players and their boxes - although some are definitely using it more than others. On other things, am I correct in thinking that I heard that Craig Tiley is going to move to the US to become the US Open tournament director?
Yes, that has been reported Christine. Not yet confirmed
Great to have Chris's voice again! This was the rare (unheard of) moment where it felt like Novak was okay with the loss. That he'd beaten Sinner was enough this go round. He had to know he got lucky with the walkovers and had to be asking himself where he would have been physically he'd come back in five against Musetti. There was a point when Carlos was playing Zverev where I wondered if Carlos was cursing himself for having fired his coach but the coach change apparently had no impact whatsoever! Chris makes a great point that these players now have legal and constant coaching - I am sure many would say it makes no difference but as much as they are going to their boxes, I have to believe it makes a big difference. (and back on coaching, do we agree that Coco has got to find a different path/different coach/different plan? Or is she always going to be a hot/cold player who wins majors and then loses third round....nothing wrong with that, it is just that Serena, the old guys and now Carlos/Jannik have set a high bar).
Great to hear from you Kristin. I hope you are thriving!
CC
I hope Coco can become more settled in herself. She’s so self possessed -I’m always surprised to see her flustered on court. I think she has what it takes to be more consistent but she does seem handicapped by her serve and less so now her forehand. Thanks for mentioning her. Interesting to think of her in contrast to Carlos.
Coco needs to buy a copy of Chris's book , "The Master" and read - I think it is Chapter 3 - to see exactly where and to whom she should turn if she wants move forward, onward and upward with her career as top sportswoman. I'm just not sure that Coco's mind in the right place to take such a step though to and listen and follow the advice from someone who. I think, could really help her move on to tennis greatness and to grow as a person in the way that Roger federer did.
I'm probably going to be wrong again for the nth time, but I think Djokovic is just going to walk away from it all now. He's too smart an old codger not to see that if "all his labor that he taketh under the sun" profits him only a runner-up trophy at best, packing his bags and going to live on airplanes isn't going to be worth it. I think you just wrote his epitaph, Chris, and a fine one it is.
Can't see him stopping until he has another crack at Wimbledon, Joe
But it would have been interesting to see what he would have done if he would have won in Melbourne. Walk-off homer?
CC
You certainly have a point there about a walk-off homer, as the quest is for a 25th no matter where. I have a hard time shaking my emotions, and I'd hate to see Novak crank up for Wimbledon and not make it, as that would be so crushingly disappointing, and that has colored my hope that he will spare himself such a defeat. I admit though that it is hard to keep this guy down. He's all about the big fight.