\u2022 If you haven\u2019t read this Daria Kasatkina manifesto<\/a>, do so.<\/p>\n Onward \u2026<\/p>\n Jon, what are thoughts on the Tennis Hall of Fame nominees. It would be rude to ask who you are voting for, but who are you voting for?<\/p>\n Dennis Bass<\/p>\n \u2022 Yes, mere moments after last week\u2019s mailbag was filed, the International Tennis Hall of Fame announced their class of 2026 nominees<\/a>. Some initial thoughts:<\/p>\n A) I would have encouraged the HoF to give Roger Federer his own week. He\u2019s such an extraordinary candidate\u2014as are all players with 20 or more singles majors\u2014that it tinges everything to have additional inductees that weekend. I was joking with another Hall of Famer about this. It\u2019s like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame saying Hey, everyone! We\u2019re inducting De La Soul, Hall & Oates, and \u2026 The Beatles.<\/p>\n B) In the spirit of full transparency, or at least translucence, I am torn on the other two candidates. If we go by precedent, Svetlana Kuznetsova gets my vote. If one-time major winners who never got to No. 1, such as Michael Stich and Michael Chang got in, how do you turn away a two-timer? And Juan Mart\u00edn del Potro is one of the great tragic what-ifs in tennis. But for his never-ending injuries, how many more majors would he have won? I would argue at least a few. Add in his tremendous 2009 U.S. Open, assorted other successes (some of which occurred a decade later), his Olympic heroics, his max out of good tennis citizen points and a total max out of the empathy quotient \u2026<\/p>\n C) Yet, if we are serious about shoring up standards, shouldn\u2019t reaching No. 1 in the rankings be a prerequisite? Shouldn\u2019t you have reached more than two major finals? I\u2019m getting soft in my mature age. I suspect both get in. But there\u2019s a fundamental question here: Are we prepared to overturn precedent? Or is it so firm that we cannot break from it?<\/p>\n D) As for Mary Carillo, she\u2019s in! I will vote for her early and often, and as many times as my Smartmatic machine will allow. (That was a joke.)<\/p>\n E) I didn\u2019t know Marshall Happer personally and did not overlap with him, but this story<\/a> presents a compelling case.\u00a0<\/p>\n F) Here\u2019s what I don\u2019t understand about the Hall of Fame: People complain about the standards, about players who are awesome and had estimable careers but are the equivalent of .295 hitters, about players who never reached No. 1 getting voted in. The consensus is that other sports\u2019 Hall of Fames have stricter standards for admission.<\/p>\n But other sports have many more slots for \u201ccontributors.\u201d Check out basketball<\/a>, for instance. Why would tennis only have contributors every other year? Think of all the folks who, well, contributed so much. Three off the bat: Darren Cahill, Oracene Williams (arguably the most decorated coach in tennis history) and Craig Tiley. Why would tennis\u2014a vibrant, global sport with so many varied behind-the-scenes heroes and heroines\u2014not do more here?<\/p>\n Jon, all of the top players complain that there are too many mandatory tournaments and that the tennis season is too long but then participate in the Laver Cup\u2014an optional alleged\u00a0 tournament only recently added to the tennis calendar. Fernando has a very difficult time reconciling this apparent dichotomy. BTW, why aren\u2019t the appearance fees disclosed? Shouldn\u2019t fans have a right to know?\u00a0<\/p>\n Fernando <\/p>\n \u2022 I will always favor more disclosure. But what about a blanket rule that ALL appearance fees are revealed? If the organizers are to be coy, we will have to rely on informed speculation and secondary sourcing. Like the one who told me, \u201cCarlos Alcaraz isn\u2019t crossing the street for less than two million dollars these days. And Jannik Sinner isn\u2019t far behind.\u201d<\/p>\n As for the hypocrisy, yes, when players complain about the length of the schedule and the demands of the tours, it undermines their argument when they participate in other events and exhibitions during the free weeks.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s acknowledge that there\u2019s a difference between sanctioned and unsanctioned events. Even if players were to give the same effort, there is a wear-and-tear difference between a one-night-only\u2014where you know the opponent in advance, you know the precise match time, there\u2019s no next round the following day, there are no points to defend\u2014and a run-of-the-mill tour event.<\/p>\n Can any player interrupt the dominance of Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner? \/ Robert Deutsch-Imagn Images<\/p>\n Jon, like you, I am enjoying the Sinner-Alcaraz rivalry. But not even Federer\/Nadal\/Djokovic met in THREE straight major finals. Who is the person most likely to come along and challenge them? Because I sure don\u2019t see anyone!<\/p>\n Cecilia T.<\/p>\n \u2022 This is one of the\u2014maybe the?\u2014great existential questions in men\u2019s tennis. Sinner and Alcaraz are atop the mountain. Who is going to get up there with them (or drag them down)?<\/p>\n Alexander Zverev is ranked No. 3 right now, but for reasons discussed last week, he ain\u2019t it. Bless Novak Djokovic and his persistence and admirable longevity, but even his most ardent fans cannot deny that he is 38. On the other end of the spectrum, Jo\u00e3o Fonseca is a beast-in-training, but we need to put a wedge in the wheels of the hype train and acknowledge he remains outside the top 40 and still needs some seasoning. Jack Draper? He has lots of upside, but one wonders about his durability. Taylor Fritz is an admirable player, but over the past four years, he is 0\u20138 against Sinner and Alcaraz outside of the Laver Cup. Shall we keep going? Ben Shelton and his lefty heat and athleticism? Holger Rune? Casper Ruud? F\u00e9lix Auger-Aliassime?<\/p>\n From the two-things-can-be-true-at-once department: We can regale and rejoice in the rivalry\u2014two superior players who, reliably, face each other in major finals\u2014and, also, wish a player mounted a challenge, \u00e0 la Djokovic circa 2011.<\/p>\n A few of you roasted me last month for suggesting that, while no ranking points were on the line, Fritz would take a measure of confidence from beating Alcaraz 6\u20133, 6\u20132 in San Francisco. Credit where it\u2019s due: The skeptics were correct when, barely a week later in Tokyo, Alcaraz turned the tables 6\u20134, 6\u20134.<\/p>\n The Slam prize money machinations and negotiations are a big story. Thanks for keeping it on the radar. Why does a cocktail get 100x the coverage as this major issue?<\/p>\n Meganfernandez7<\/p>\n \u2022 Tennis players need that magic dash framboise? Your point is well-taken. And not unrelated. We were all intoxicated by the Honey Deuce stories (I don\u2019t exempt myself) and the video of cup collectors, as well as the sales figures and the virality of it all. It\u2019s become to the U.S. Open what mint juleps are to the Kentucky Derby, not just a signature drink but an essential, inextricable part of the fan experience.<\/p>\n But we ought to be asking: How much of this redounds to the players? Hey, these majors go all Manifest Destiny and expand to three weeks? O.K. What\u2019s in it for the players? A friend of mine rented a suite for one mid-tournament session. Twenty seats and $60,000 for the afternoon. That\u2019s one suite for one session. Everyone whistles at the gauche moment when the winner\u2019s check is announced. Alcaraz makes $2 million (in smaller venues, with puny TV deals), paying him $5 million for seven sessions seems like a bargain.<\/p>\n The players getting hosed. The sheer number of exhibitions is still more proof.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n