Thank you Christopher for this great review on Muguruza!
Quoting your piece: "We take everything to the max...". And if you get to the top, like Muguruza did, you reached the greatest sporting accomplishment, regardless if it is brief or sustained.
Tennis is physical and mental. Dealing with results and the lifestyle is an emotional challenge. How you manage it depends very much on personality.
As you wrote, Muguruza tasted a different life during the pandemic break. Most pro players end up sacrificing their teen years for tennis development. How many experienced their first "normal" young adulthood time during the pandemic?
Special player and special article. Thank you as ever Christopher for encapsulating a career so honestly and kindly too. I wish her a joyous next phase .
You’ve really given her her fair due which I don’t think any other sportswriter could do in such a nuanced fashion. I love your allusions to the other players who have had physical and mental challenges in continuing at the top. And some retired. Then I think of Azarenka who continues on seeming to want to win another slam. I spent a fair amount of time wondering about Garbine - what was going on? She was so dominant at times. Those “ internal contradictions” Tony Nadal refers to may never become known to us but like the life of an interesting character in a novel I will think about them even though the story in this case her tennis story is finished. She met her fiancée on the street in NYC - she really is fascinating and her life sheds lots of light of the issue of endurance and consistency in the great sport of tennis. You definitely allude to many many interesting issues. Great piece! Great and thought provoking. I so appreciate you writing about her.
Thanks for this Lisa. I have written a lot about Muguruza since that early win over Serena at Roland Garros. Not Serena's best day or phase but Muguruza had the tools to beat her at her own game. I would have guessed she would win more than two majors based on her talent and ability to deal with big-match pressure. But think the off-court challenges and mental grind of the tour took her down a notch. Lack of a reliable Plan B also cost her. But she should feel good about what she achieved: an elite player who was a contender for the better part of a decade.
Great article Chris. I felt I watched every one of her ups and downs again, as I read through the different phases of her career. I can remember the painful disappointment of my favorite female player losing to her ,at age 37 in that Wimbledon final. Although I was very happy to see such a bright star, I felt it was the last time I was going to see Venus on that precipice, which unfortunately has unfolded. But good for Garbine. Life is short and she has a beautiful life to live out. Her career has been a pageant of emotions and now time to enjoy the moments ahead. Cheers
Thanks Ken and well said on Venus and that Wimbledon final. 2017 was indeed the last hurrah even if early 2018 had its moments outside the majors. That 20-shot set point at Wimbledon that Muguruza won in the opener was where the momentum shifted. Don't think Venus would have won the final even if she had won the set however.
Appreciate your thoughts on life, and look forward to seizing the day tomorrow on Court 7!
Those are interesting insights into Muguruza's game, career and personality. She was one of those rare players who was unbeatable when "on," just not always "on." Vines and Hoad were like that. Budge said that when they were on, you might as well go home or just have tea, because you weren't going to beat them. It is also worth being reminded that, as great as Serena was, and she really was tremendous, she had some surprising losses in big matches to girls I would never have given a chance to beat her, Muguruza, Clijsters, Vinci and Osaka. I guess Mugu will get into the Hall because, after all, everyone else is in it. As Bud Collins, who was on the Hall voting panel for years, once said, "We have to take in somebody every year, so we can have an induction party in Newport in July." Bud loved to party, among other things, like Italian cuisine, bons mots and people.
Thanks Joe, appreciate the range of your tennis knowledge and any conversation that mentions Vines, Hoad, Budge and Serena (and Bud!) seems well worth having. I suppose Muguruza fits into the Serena continuum in that her big-bang game and Plan A dependency created more opportunities for upsets when she was not on target or feeling shaky. Not much margin for error. They are not in the same category of course: Serena is an all-time great. But based on who is already in the Hall, I certainly put Muguruza in there without regret. If Conchita gets in with one major and no No. 1 Garbińe certainly deserves it with two majors, No. 1 and the WTA Finals. And there are others. Personally, I'd like the Hall to be more selective but....may we all party like Bud used to party.
My feeling has always been that a Hall of Fame should be reserved for giants, superstars far above the madding crowd, not for one- or two-slam flash-in-the-pan wonders. By my standard, Novotna, Martinez and many others should never have got into the Hall, but as you point out, Chris, if Martinez is in then Muguruza has to be in—I have to agree with that. I just don't accept the major premise. I said that Bud was on the Hall's voting panel, but that was my mistake: He was on the nominating panel; I was on the voting panel, and everyone I blackballed got in; I finally resigned in disgust when Bob Hewitt got kicked out of the Hall by executive fiat for immoral behavior without a vote of the voting panel; I told Todd Martin, who was in charge, that if it takes a vote to get in, it should take a vote to get thrown out, and I pointed out to him that the Hall is a Tennis Hall of Fame, not the 10 Commandments Hall of Fame. Oh well.
Thank you Ruth. Don't think there will be a comeback, even though she is certainly young enough and talented enough for one. More to the story for sure.
If I recall correctly, she also had it rolling and held a couple of match points against Naomi Osaka at the Australian Open in 2021, when Osaka basically steamrolled everyone else (including a semifinal win over a fit, in-good-form Serena Williams, making her last push at a major title). Had Muguruza won one of those match points against Osaka, she might well have picked up a third major.
I watch enough tennis videos on YouTube that a couple of years ago the algorithm suggested this video featuring her (from Harper's Bazaar) to me:
I was struck by how many people in the comments who had never heard of her (and were obviously not tennis fans) found her so likable and relatable. And I've always felt a little sad that she wasn't a more consistent champion, because I thought she could have been the type of big crossover star that women's tennis needs. But credit to her for all she did achieve -- it was still quite a lot.
Agreed. She was close to another big one. A little surprising to me that she did not have better results on hardcourts because her game seemed to be designed for that surface: taking the ball early off the bounce. Flat strokes penetrating. Came very close in Australia but never came close in NYC. The pandemic certainly stopped her momentum. Would have been interesting to see what she would have done in 2020 after that strong start.
Jon Wertheim said on Andy Roddick's podcast the other day that 8 of her 10 career titles were on hardcourts; it's just that the other two were the French Open and Wimbledon. So maybe it's fair to say most of her best results came on hardcourts, but her greatest results came on other surfaces?
True that her career winning percentage on hardcourts is 64 percent: a point better than on clay. But now that I dig deeper, I guess it's really the North American hardcourt results that surprise me: the win in Cincy but otherwise far below what you would expect of a player of her quality and game style.
I think your final sentence sums it up well but I still feel not enough of her best results came on hardcourts
“...one must think that this lack of consistency was due more to possible internal contradictions than to purely tennis issues.” - Toni Nadal
Let us know paraphrase the great Yogi Berra:
"(Tennis) is 90 per cent mental. The other half is physical."
Thank you Christopher for this great review on Muguruza!
Quoting your piece: "We take everything to the max...". And if you get to the top, like Muguruza did, you reached the greatest sporting accomplishment, regardless if it is brief or sustained.
Tennis is physical and mental. Dealing with results and the lifestyle is an emotional challenge. How you manage it depends very much on personality.
As you wrote, Muguruza tasted a different life during the pandemic break. Most pro players end up sacrificing their teen years for tennis development. How many experienced their first "normal" young adulthood time during the pandemic?
Hello. Good to have you here. The pandemic changed a lot of tennis careers to be sure. Wonder if Barty would still be playing without it...
Thanks for the comment
CC
Special player and special article. Thank you as ever Christopher for encapsulating a career so honestly and kindly too. I wish her a joyous next phase .
Thank you Lisa. Appreciate the positive feedback and the positivity in general
CC
You’ve really given her her fair due which I don’t think any other sportswriter could do in such a nuanced fashion. I love your allusions to the other players who have had physical and mental challenges in continuing at the top. And some retired. Then I think of Azarenka who continues on seeming to want to win another slam. I spent a fair amount of time wondering about Garbine - what was going on? She was so dominant at times. Those “ internal contradictions” Tony Nadal refers to may never become known to us but like the life of an interesting character in a novel I will think about them even though the story in this case her tennis story is finished. She met her fiancée on the street in NYC - she really is fascinating and her life sheds lots of light of the issue of endurance and consistency in the great sport of tennis. You definitely allude to many many interesting issues. Great piece! Great and thought provoking. I so appreciate you writing about her.
Thanks for this Lisa. I have written a lot about Muguruza since that early win over Serena at Roland Garros. Not Serena's best day or phase but Muguruza had the tools to beat her at her own game. I would have guessed she would win more than two majors based on her talent and ability to deal with big-match pressure. But think the off-court challenges and mental grind of the tour took her down a notch. Lack of a reliable Plan B also cost her. But she should feel good about what she achieved: an elite player who was a contender for the better part of a decade.
Appreciate the comment
CC
Great article Chris. I felt I watched every one of her ups and downs again, as I read through the different phases of her career. I can remember the painful disappointment of my favorite female player losing to her ,at age 37 in that Wimbledon final. Although I was very happy to see such a bright star, I felt it was the last time I was going to see Venus on that precipice, which unfortunately has unfolded. But good for Garbine. Life is short and she has a beautiful life to live out. Her career has been a pageant of emotions and now time to enjoy the moments ahead. Cheers
Thanks Ken and well said on Venus and that Wimbledon final. 2017 was indeed the last hurrah even if early 2018 had its moments outside the majors. That 20-shot set point at Wimbledon that Muguruza won in the opener was where the momentum shifted. Don't think Venus would have won the final even if she had won the set however.
Appreciate your thoughts on life, and look forward to seizing the day tomorrow on Court 7!
CC
Those are interesting insights into Muguruza's game, career and personality. She was one of those rare players who was unbeatable when "on," just not always "on." Vines and Hoad were like that. Budge said that when they were on, you might as well go home or just have tea, because you weren't going to beat them. It is also worth being reminded that, as great as Serena was, and she really was tremendous, she had some surprising losses in big matches to girls I would never have given a chance to beat her, Muguruza, Clijsters, Vinci and Osaka. I guess Mugu will get into the Hall because, after all, everyone else is in it. As Bud Collins, who was on the Hall voting panel for years, once said, "We have to take in somebody every year, so we can have an induction party in Newport in July." Bud loved to party, among other things, like Italian cuisine, bons mots and people.
Thanks Joe, appreciate the range of your tennis knowledge and any conversation that mentions Vines, Hoad, Budge and Serena (and Bud!) seems well worth having. I suppose Muguruza fits into the Serena continuum in that her big-bang game and Plan A dependency created more opportunities for upsets when she was not on target or feeling shaky. Not much margin for error. They are not in the same category of course: Serena is an all-time great. But based on who is already in the Hall, I certainly put Muguruza in there without regret. If Conchita gets in with one major and no No. 1 Garbińe certainly deserves it with two majors, No. 1 and the WTA Finals. And there are others. Personally, I'd like the Hall to be more selective but....may we all party like Bud used to party.
CC
My feeling has always been that a Hall of Fame should be reserved for giants, superstars far above the madding crowd, not for one- or two-slam flash-in-the-pan wonders. By my standard, Novotna, Martinez and many others should never have got into the Hall, but as you point out, Chris, if Martinez is in then Muguruza has to be in—I have to agree with that. I just don't accept the major premise. I said that Bud was on the Hall's voting panel, but that was my mistake: He was on the nominating panel; I was on the voting panel, and everyone I blackballed got in; I finally resigned in disgust when Bob Hewitt got kicked out of the Hall by executive fiat for immoral behavior without a vote of the voting panel; I told Todd Martin, who was in charge, that if it takes a vote to get in, it should take a vote to get thrown out, and I pointed out to him that the Hall is a Tennis Hall of Fame, not the 10 Commandments Hall of Fame. Oh well.
A very good piece that I think nailed the sentiments of many of her fans. And certainly wish her all the best in her next chapter.
Thank you Ruth. Don't think there will be a comeback, even though she is certainly young enough and talented enough for one. More to the story for sure.
CC
If I recall correctly, she also had it rolling and held a couple of match points against Naomi Osaka at the Australian Open in 2021, when Osaka basically steamrolled everyone else (including a semifinal win over a fit, in-good-form Serena Williams, making her last push at a major title). Had Muguruza won one of those match points against Osaka, she might well have picked up a third major.
I watch enough tennis videos on YouTube that a couple of years ago the algorithm suggested this video featuring her (from Harper's Bazaar) to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsgLbFrjDEc
I was struck by how many people in the comments who had never heard of her (and were obviously not tennis fans) found her so likable and relatable. And I've always felt a little sad that she wasn't a more consistent champion, because I thought she could have been the type of big crossover star that women's tennis needs. But credit to her for all she did achieve -- it was still quite a lot.
Agreed. She was close to another big one. A little surprising to me that she did not have better results on hardcourts because her game seemed to be designed for that surface: taking the ball early off the bounce. Flat strokes penetrating. Came very close in Australia but never came close in NYC. The pandemic certainly stopped her momentum. Would have been interesting to see what she would have done in 2020 after that strong start.
Thanks for the comment
CC
Jon Wertheim said on Andy Roddick's podcast the other day that 8 of her 10 career titles were on hardcourts; it's just that the other two were the French Open and Wimbledon. So maybe it's fair to say most of her best results came on hardcourts, but her greatest results came on other surfaces?
True that her career winning percentage on hardcourts is 64 percent: a point better than on clay. But now that I dig deeper, I guess it's really the North American hardcourt results that surprise me: the win in Cincy but otherwise far below what you would expect of a player of her quality and game style.
I think your final sentence sums it up well but I still feel not enough of her best results came on hardcourts
CC
Impressive piece. Distinguishing prose and great accounting
Thank you Charlie, appreciate the support
CC
Excellent piece. She has always been so inconsistent and never seemed to enjoy playing after her 2nd slam title.
Thanks Robert. She did struggle. Found some joy and purpose again with Conchita in her corner but it turned out to be unsustainable.
CC