Thanks, Chris. I don’t want to go on an old-man rant about how a Tony Trabert or Bud Collins in a post-match interview would ask about a key point in the match or what changed the momentum, and now their successors usually ask about some celebrity sitting in the crowd or “what were you thinking.” I really don’t want to do that.
Almost every player these days, when serving, asks for 3 balls, then discards one. Sometimes a player will discard the 3rd ball and then ask for a 4th ball, seeking the freshest ball for the serve.
ONLY Carlos Alcaraz routinely asks for 4 balls, holds the 4 in his hand, then discards 2. Incredibly, he often accepts the 4th ball from a ballboy while still holding 3 balls in the same hand - how does he do that? Are his hands larger and stronger than all other players? What is also interesting to me is that none of the commentators ever remark on it. Try it yourself. Hold 3 balls in your left hand and try to catch a 4th ball bounced to you - impossible!!!
Christopher: terrific job once again with your articles. And how fun to see a comment from Sean Sloane! Sean - I hope all is well with you, and I would love to know the answer to your trivia question. All the best, Doug
He didn't always fall to the ground, as he did on that key 3-3 break point in the third set. But especially in the later stages of the match, Sinner seemed to frequently slip and go wobbly on his feet as he slid behind the baseline, like Bambi on ice. I don't know how (1) he usually stays upright, (2) how he gets back into those points quickly and smoothly instead of panicking.
Chris, what do you think about the 4 p.m. UK start times for the women's and men's finals? As someone who grew up on Breakfast at Wimbledon and 9 a.m. EST (2 p.m. UK) start times, I find it a bit annoying. I don't like the uneven late afternoon shadow that creeps across the court. (Is that a consequence of the roof? I don't remember the shadow being that weird shape before.) And I don't like the very real possibility that a long men's final might finish under the roof.
A few of those slips came in the liminal spaces: the greener pastures on the outskirts of the baseline. Seems like he gets in hardcourt mode on the dirt sections and then either forgets he can't move as aggressively out wide or chooses to risk it. Either way, he clearly has no problem hitting the ground and bouncing back up. He's got a great roll on dive volleys and is so low to the ground for a man his height that he seems coiled to spring.
Several of us longtime writers were talking about the 4 pm start over dinner after the final and we all agree it's risky. If Zverev had won the fourth set, they were going to have the close the roof in my view before the fifth. It changes the match and the momentum so much, I think that prospect should be considered in future scheduling. You also don't want to penalize players with that sort of change when they are in the midst of a classic match because this would only happen in a fifth set assuming four hours or maximum, four and a half hours for four sets. The timing does change the shadows on the court but I like that the tournament finishes with the men's final instead of the doubles and gives the doubles final more buzz as well. Perhaps it's as simple as moving up the singles start to 3 pm
Lost in the on-point discussions of Zverev's more aggressive forehand I think his increased forays to the net are glossed over. He came in almost 22% more than Sinner (28 times vs 23), winning slightly fewer points on a percentage basis. No one's going to confuse that with 90s era grass court tennis, but nonetheless it is a shift for Zverev; not as great as his going for forehands, but a shift nonetheless. Whether he continues to move in remains to be seen, like us wondering about his commitment to bigger forehands, but it will be fascinating to see how many of his spots that leopard can, in fact, change.
I gave some deeper numbers earlier in this thread to Sean Sloane, so no doubt that he is pushing himself as he should. Shortening the points will become even more of a priority in his 30s and though that serve will keep plenty of them short, he needs a way to improve on the plus-one and short-ball equations. Decisiveness would help, as Coach Sean mentions. Those fractions of seconds are gold, but once he's up there, he might not have the softest hands on tour, but he can still be deadly. I certainly would not want to lob him.
The pros are no different than us hackers in this regard: our DNA runs deep and it's hard, at the least, to perform in a manner contrary to that coding. Given that Zeverev was, as you cited, "111 of 148 net points won at 75 percent: well above the field average of 66 percent," it's hard to understand why one would not want to do something more often that garnered you 75% of the points. But, leopards/spots. Not to say he won't change, but we recognize the challenge that entails. Thanks for the reply.
Not a bad day’s work for Sinner to cop £3.6M (= $4.9M) by winning Wimbledon’s Renshaw Cup on Sunday in a four-set final over Sascha Zverev, 6-7(7), 7-6(2), 6-3, 6-4. But it blares a strong message about what an effect Alcaraz’s injury and Djokovic’s losing a five-setter to Father Time have had on the game: Absent those developments, severely aggravated by Sinner’s succumbing to heat exhaustion and a rank outsider (J.M. Cerúndolo) in Paris, would Zverev have won the French? I don’t buy it. Zverev calmed down enough to beat Cobolli (who!?) in the French final, but he didn’t have to play one big name to reach both the French and Wimbledon finals. Something like normal may return to men’s tennis if Alcaraz makes a comeback after Cincinnati in August, but as Sophocles described it in his Antigone, “μέλλοντα ταῦτα” (“These things are in the future”), so we can only play guessing games about this. But it has to remind you of what the tennis scribes called Pancho Gonzales when he won the 1948 U.S. singles by beating South Africa’s Eric Sturgess in the final—they called Pancho a “cheese champion” because Ted Schroeder, who was considered the U.S.’s top man then, and who had a lopsided winning record over Gonzales, had declined to enter the U.S. that year, and everyone figured Schroeder would have beaten Gonzales. One of these inspired scribes called Pancho a “Gorgonzola cheese champion” and the name stuck, everyone calling him “Gorgo” for the rest of his life. While a lot of things bothered Pancho and made him a very angry man a lot of the time, for some reason, that nickname never bothered him. Why not? Because Pancho had the last laugh: The next year, 1949, “Gorgo” won the U.S. again, this time beating—who else?— Schroeder himself in the final in five sets after losing the first two. It left everyone stunned, and Gorgo went on to a professional career in which he became, arguably, the greatest man ever to wield a wood racket. But this Zverev guy is a different kettle of fish altogether, he isn’t destined to become the greatest ever, I don’t care what Sophocles said.
Thank you for the only-Joe-could-have-written-this post. Gonzales. Schroeder. Zverev. Sophocles. I defy anyone else to do it!
Bottom line: Alcaraz needs to come back and still be Alcaraz, or some charismatic youngster like Fonseca or Jodar needs to become a deep-run player at majors very quickly.
Terrific writing. I especially appreciate your attention to a couple of turning points in the match, which has become a lost art in most media coverage of big matches.
I am glad you find that valuable. I feel like the detailed game/match story is far too rare these days and have always enjoyed writing (and READING) those types of pieces. The art of writing about tennis is not letting the numbers and scores overwhelm the bigger trends and narrative. Still working on it, even after all these years
I had a similar thought after reading your piece on the women's final, Chris. It reminded me of a good, old-fashioned game story, the type I used to see in newspapers or (in longer form) Sports Illustrated. Gamers these days frustrate me because they're too often short and formulaic, with not much more than the result, what comes next, and some quotes plugged in from the on-court interview or press conference. There's little in the writing or reporting to distinguish them.
But in that article on Noskova's victory, you wrote about what happened during key points in the match; you included the background about the doubles match against the Williams sisters at the Open (which I hadn't seen or heard from anyone else mention during this tournament) and the behind-the-scenes quote from Noskova as she was eating cold pasta hours after the final (a detail that sticks); and you passed along information/thoughts you got from also talking to Noskova's coach (I assume) and Rennae Stubbs. It all made for a much richer and more enjoyable story.
Chris, thanks for the W coverage. This match was a lot closer than the final score indicated. It was a compelling match and I was impressed by Z. He was so close in the second set. Had he won that then I think he might have won. The French Open win gave him a lot of confidence.
Agreed on the compelling nature of it. His inability to break or to get more than one break point are a slight argument against the closeness but the way Zverev was serving, he was quite capable of winning three tiebreakers in this match and never having to break. But I do think Sinner, on balance, was superior: more reliable and reliably deadly from the backcourt and better in transition and in the forecourt, though Zverev, as Skip points out in this thread, has improved in that area on quantity and quality.
Great to hear from you again here during Wimbledon Brad
Given the way Zverev played leading up to the final, I thought he would do well. He has clearly revamped his forehand, making it a dangerous weapon rather than a rally ball, and he has become more aggressive with his groundstrokes and his positioning. Good for him to make changes. However, despite heavier forehands and more aggression off the ground, he is still reluctant to come forward and finish at the net. This hesitancy caused him to lose a number of crucial points when he had opportunities to close and finish.
Great to see you contributing here (for subscribers who don't know, Sean was my coach at Williams College and was way ahead of the curve on things like visualization and the mental game). Sascha's reluctance to come forward runs deep, to be sure. His brother Mischa, who was a frequent serve and volleyer at a time when the trend was against it, has been urging Sascha forward since he was a junior. It's improved to be sure but he's still not a natural. Had good success with it at Wimbledon: 111 of 148 net points won at 75 percent: well above the field average of 66 percent. But too often he doesn't pass the eye test, as you mention. Does not capitalize enough on the openings he creates. Can understand the wariness against Sinner who has burned him so often with his lateral quickness and passing shot bolts when Zverev has tried to attack him in the past. But with Zverev's forehand limitations -- he still made twice as many unforced errors as winners with it in the final -- he needs to keep trying to push himself forward.
Chris: thanks for the report. I note a certain hesitancy in your reluctance to identify a cause for Sinner’s inconsistency. Which makes sense given the absence of Carlito, as well as his vulnerability to extreme heat.
We have gotten used to such remarkable consistency from the big three and now the big two that any drop in results immediately raises our antennae. I’m not sure how fair that is, but so be it.
I will continue to harp on the superiority of Carlos as the only true all court player in the game and his ability to play that game at such a high level. I happened to look back at your book on Federer and the passage in which you recounted your conversation with Ken Rosewell, who said that he could easily imagine Federer excelling in his era with a wooden racket in his hand.
I’d say the same for Carlos. Sinner is about as devastating from the back court as I can imagine but his game still suffers from front court limitations. Which also might take the pressure off him a bit re being perfect from the baseline. All the more so with Sascha. Hopefully he will continue to become more aggressive, but the real key in my judgment remains being braver about getting into the front court.
Great to hear from you on this David and I particularly appreciate you going back and re-reading about Rosewall, whose longevity foreshadowed the BIg Three's staying power. It would be fascinating to see an all-wood racket tournament but realize it will never happen because of the injury risk with the radical change of material. With that not possible, probably the closest thing we could get is if the tours follow Navratilova's urging and reduce the head size on the modern rackets. Would presumably reward feel and precision players with great technique.
I know how much Sinner has worked on his transition and forecourt game. I was impressed by how he managed it down the stretch at Wimbledon. Won some very tricky exchanges near and at the net with aplomb. His tournament numbers reflect that: Won 124 of 163 net points and at 76 percent there he was 10 percent ahead of the average. He is still coming to net less often than rivals like FAA and Djokovic. Below average on use of serve and volley at 3 percent with tournament average at 5 percent. I think he could use that more often and effectively, and not just on grass.
Carlos certainly does, and let's hope the reports about a Cincinnati return are accurate
I was looking forward to your accounting Chris - and again agree wholeheartedly. Particularly with respect to Carlos. Tennis misses him dearly - the creativity, emotion and talent. It's hard to imagine him at the US Open at this point, as the tennis calendar is punishing with no breaks. I hope I'm wrong and his smile lights up the game again soon.
Hi Charlie and all of you who commented here. Only getting the chance to respond now after a busy couple of days and writing and travel.
Sounds like the US Open is a possibility, which is encouraging and similar to the comeback timeline for Rafa after he had a similar injury in 2016. Encouraging because Rafa, who was 30 at the time, was able to play successfully for another 8 years. Encouraging because the game needs Alcaraz more than any other player at the moment.
Thanks, Chris. I don’t want to go on an old-man rant about how a Tony Trabert or Bud Collins in a post-match interview would ask about a key point in the match or what changed the momentum, and now their successors usually ask about some celebrity sitting in the crowd or “what were you thinking.” I really don’t want to do that.
Almost every player these days, when serving, asks for 3 balls, then discards one. Sometimes a player will discard the 3rd ball and then ask for a 4th ball, seeking the freshest ball for the serve.
ONLY Carlos Alcaraz routinely asks for 4 balls, holds the 4 in his hand, then discards 2. Incredibly, he often accepts the 4th ball from a ballboy while still holding 3 balls in the same hand - how does he do that? Are his hands larger and stronger than all other players? What is also interesting to me is that none of the commentators ever remark on it. Try it yourself. Hold 3 balls in your left hand and try to catch a 4th ball bounced to you - impossible!!!
Well played and well described
Will ask him about it the next chance I get!
CC
Christopher: terrific job once again with your articles. And how fun to see a comment from Sean Sloane! Sean - I hope all is well with you, and I would love to know the answer to your trivia question. All the best, Doug
He didn't always fall to the ground, as he did on that key 3-3 break point in the third set. But especially in the later stages of the match, Sinner seemed to frequently slip and go wobbly on his feet as he slid behind the baseline, like Bambi on ice. I don't know how (1) he usually stays upright, (2) how he gets back into those points quickly and smoothly instead of panicking.
Chris, what do you think about the 4 p.m. UK start times for the women's and men's finals? As someone who grew up on Breakfast at Wimbledon and 9 a.m. EST (2 p.m. UK) start times, I find it a bit annoying. I don't like the uneven late afternoon shadow that creeps across the court. (Is that a consequence of the roof? I don't remember the shadow being that weird shape before.) And I don't like the very real possibility that a long men's final might finish under the roof.
Hi Srikanth
A few of those slips came in the liminal spaces: the greener pastures on the outskirts of the baseline. Seems like he gets in hardcourt mode on the dirt sections and then either forgets he can't move as aggressively out wide or chooses to risk it. Either way, he clearly has no problem hitting the ground and bouncing back up. He's got a great roll on dive volleys and is so low to the ground for a man his height that he seems coiled to spring.
Several of us longtime writers were talking about the 4 pm start over dinner after the final and we all agree it's risky. If Zverev had won the fourth set, they were going to have the close the roof in my view before the fifth. It changes the match and the momentum so much, I think that prospect should be considered in future scheduling. You also don't want to penalize players with that sort of change when they are in the midst of a classic match because this would only happen in a fifth set assuming four hours or maximum, four and a half hours for four sets. The timing does change the shadows on the court but I like that the tournament finishes with the men's final instead of the doubles and gives the doubles final more buzz as well. Perhaps it's as simple as moving up the singles start to 3 pm
thanks, as ever
CC
Lost in the on-point discussions of Zverev's more aggressive forehand I think his increased forays to the net are glossed over. He came in almost 22% more than Sinner (28 times vs 23), winning slightly fewer points on a percentage basis. No one's going to confuse that with 90s era grass court tennis, but nonetheless it is a shift for Zverev; not as great as his going for forehands, but a shift nonetheless. Whether he continues to move in remains to be seen, like us wondering about his commitment to bigger forehands, but it will be fascinating to see how many of his spots that leopard can, in fact, change.
Thanks for this.
Hi Skip
I gave some deeper numbers earlier in this thread to Sean Sloane, so no doubt that he is pushing himself as he should. Shortening the points will become even more of a priority in his 30s and though that serve will keep plenty of them short, he needs a way to improve on the plus-one and short-ball equations. Decisiveness would help, as Coach Sean mentions. Those fractions of seconds are gold, but once he's up there, he might not have the softest hands on tour, but he can still be deadly. I certainly would not want to lob him.
CC
The pros are no different than us hackers in this regard: our DNA runs deep and it's hard, at the least, to perform in a manner contrary to that coding. Given that Zeverev was, as you cited, "111 of 148 net points won at 75 percent: well above the field average of 66 percent," it's hard to understand why one would not want to do something more often that garnered you 75% of the points. But, leopards/spots. Not to say he won't change, but we recognize the challenge that entails. Thanks for the reply.
Not a bad day’s work for Sinner to cop £3.6M (= $4.9M) by winning Wimbledon’s Renshaw Cup on Sunday in a four-set final over Sascha Zverev, 6-7(7), 7-6(2), 6-3, 6-4. But it blares a strong message about what an effect Alcaraz’s injury and Djokovic’s losing a five-setter to Father Time have had on the game: Absent those developments, severely aggravated by Sinner’s succumbing to heat exhaustion and a rank outsider (J.M. Cerúndolo) in Paris, would Zverev have won the French? I don’t buy it. Zverev calmed down enough to beat Cobolli (who!?) in the French final, but he didn’t have to play one big name to reach both the French and Wimbledon finals. Something like normal may return to men’s tennis if Alcaraz makes a comeback after Cincinnati in August, but as Sophocles described it in his Antigone, “μέλλοντα ταῦτα” (“These things are in the future”), so we can only play guessing games about this. But it has to remind you of what the tennis scribes called Pancho Gonzales when he won the 1948 U.S. singles by beating South Africa’s Eric Sturgess in the final—they called Pancho a “cheese champion” because Ted Schroeder, who was considered the U.S.’s top man then, and who had a lopsided winning record over Gonzales, had declined to enter the U.S. that year, and everyone figured Schroeder would have beaten Gonzales. One of these inspired scribes called Pancho a “Gorgonzola cheese champion” and the name stuck, everyone calling him “Gorgo” for the rest of his life. While a lot of things bothered Pancho and made him a very angry man a lot of the time, for some reason, that nickname never bothered him. Why not? Because Pancho had the last laugh: The next year, 1949, “Gorgo” won the U.S. again, this time beating—who else?— Schroeder himself in the final in five sets after losing the first two. It left everyone stunned, and Gorgo went on to a professional career in which he became, arguably, the greatest man ever to wield a wood racket. But this Zverev guy is a different kettle of fish altogether, he isn’t destined to become the greatest ever, I don’t care what Sophocles said.
Thank you for the only-Joe-could-have-written-this post. Gonzales. Schroeder. Zverev. Sophocles. I defy anyone else to do it!
Bottom line: Alcaraz needs to come back and still be Alcaraz, or some charismatic youngster like Fonseca or Jodar needs to become a deep-run player at majors very quickly.
CC
Yes to all that. Tennis definitely in a state of flux right now.
Terrific writing. I especially appreciate your attention to a couple of turning points in the match, which has become a lost art in most media coverage of big matches.
Thanks Ian
I am glad you find that valuable. I feel like the detailed game/match story is far too rare these days and have always enjoyed writing (and READING) those types of pieces. The art of writing about tennis is not letting the numbers and scores overwhelm the bigger trends and narrative. Still working on it, even after all these years
best to you
CC
I had a similar thought after reading your piece on the women's final, Chris. It reminded me of a good, old-fashioned game story, the type I used to see in newspapers or (in longer form) Sports Illustrated. Gamers these days frustrate me because they're too often short and formulaic, with not much more than the result, what comes next, and some quotes plugged in from the on-court interview or press conference. There's little in the writing or reporting to distinguish them.
But in that article on Noskova's victory, you wrote about what happened during key points in the match; you included the background about the doubles match against the Williams sisters at the Open (which I hadn't seen or heard from anyone else mention during this tournament) and the behind-the-scenes quote from Noskova as she was eating cold pasta hours after the final (a detail that sticks); and you passed along information/thoughts you got from also talking to Noskova's coach (I assume) and Rennae Stubbs. It all made for a much richer and more enjoyable story.
Chris, thanks for the W coverage. This match was a lot closer than the final score indicated. It was a compelling match and I was impressed by Z. He was so close in the second set. Had he won that then I think he might have won. The French Open win gave him a lot of confidence.
Agreed on the compelling nature of it. His inability to break or to get more than one break point are a slight argument against the closeness but the way Zverev was serving, he was quite capable of winning three tiebreakers in this match and never having to break. But I do think Sinner, on balance, was superior: more reliable and reliably deadly from the backcourt and better in transition and in the forecourt, though Zverev, as Skip points out in this thread, has improved in that area on quantity and quality.
Great to hear from you again here during Wimbledon Brad
CC
Agreed. It was closer than the score.
Trivia question: Carlos Alcaraz does something regularly that no other player on tour does - What is it? Hoping he can overcome his wrist problem!!
Sean Sloane
Pre-match juggle? Doug Robie and I await the answer, coach
CC
Given the way Zverev played leading up to the final, I thought he would do well. He has clearly revamped his forehand, making it a dangerous weapon rather than a rally ball, and he has become more aggressive with his groundstrokes and his positioning. Good for him to make changes. However, despite heavier forehands and more aggression off the ground, he is still reluctant to come forward and finish at the net. This hesitancy caused him to lose a number of crucial points when he had opportunities to close and finish.
Sean Sloane
Coach Sean
Great to see you contributing here (for subscribers who don't know, Sean was my coach at Williams College and was way ahead of the curve on things like visualization and the mental game). Sascha's reluctance to come forward runs deep, to be sure. His brother Mischa, who was a frequent serve and volleyer at a time when the trend was against it, has been urging Sascha forward since he was a junior. It's improved to be sure but he's still not a natural. Had good success with it at Wimbledon: 111 of 148 net points won at 75 percent: well above the field average of 66 percent. But too often he doesn't pass the eye test, as you mention. Does not capitalize enough on the openings he creates. Can understand the wariness against Sinner who has burned him so often with his lateral quickness and passing shot bolts when Zverev has tried to attack him in the past. But with Zverev's forehand limitations -- he still made twice as many unforced errors as winners with it in the final -- he needs to keep trying to push himself forward.
Thanks coach
CC
Chris: thanks for the report. I note a certain hesitancy in your reluctance to identify a cause for Sinner’s inconsistency. Which makes sense given the absence of Carlito, as well as his vulnerability to extreme heat.
We have gotten used to such remarkable consistency from the big three and now the big two that any drop in results immediately raises our antennae. I’m not sure how fair that is, but so be it.
I will continue to harp on the superiority of Carlos as the only true all court player in the game and his ability to play that game at such a high level. I happened to look back at your book on Federer and the passage in which you recounted your conversation with Ken Rosewell, who said that he could easily imagine Federer excelling in his era with a wooden racket in his hand.
I’d say the same for Carlos. Sinner is about as devastating from the back court as I can imagine but his game still suffers from front court limitations. Which also might take the pressure off him a bit re being perfect from the baseline. All the more so with Sascha. Hopefully he will continue to become more aggressive, but the real key in my judgment remains being braver about getting into the front court.
Great to hear from you on this David and I particularly appreciate you going back and re-reading about Rosewall, whose longevity foreshadowed the BIg Three's staying power. It would be fascinating to see an all-wood racket tournament but realize it will never happen because of the injury risk with the radical change of material. With that not possible, probably the closest thing we could get is if the tours follow Navratilova's urging and reduce the head size on the modern rackets. Would presumably reward feel and precision players with great technique.
I know how much Sinner has worked on his transition and forecourt game. I was impressed by how he managed it down the stretch at Wimbledon. Won some very tricky exchanges near and at the net with aplomb. His tournament numbers reflect that: Won 124 of 163 net points and at 76 percent there he was 10 percent ahead of the average. He is still coming to net less often than rivals like FAA and Djokovic. Below average on use of serve and volley at 3 percent with tournament average at 5 percent. I think he could use that more often and effectively, and not just on grass.
Carlos certainly does, and let's hope the reports about a Cincinnati return are accurate
Thanks David
CC
I was looking forward to your accounting Chris - and again agree wholeheartedly. Particularly with respect to Carlos. Tennis misses him dearly - the creativity, emotion and talent. It's hard to imagine him at the US Open at this point, as the tennis calendar is punishing with no breaks. I hope I'm wrong and his smile lights up the game again soon.
Hi Charlie and all of you who commented here. Only getting the chance to respond now after a busy couple of days and writing and travel.
Sounds like the US Open is a possibility, which is encouraging and similar to the comeback timeline for Rafa after he had a similar injury in 2016. Encouraging because Rafa, who was 30 at the time, was able to play successfully for another 8 years. Encouraging because the game needs Alcaraz more than any other player at the moment.
thanks for your support of the site, Charlie
CC
Thx Chris. Yes, I saw some encouraging news on the Carlos front🤞