Hi Jon –<\/p>\n
Thanks for your work – always enjoy these summaries.<\/p>\n
Sorry I did not parse this, and I didn\u2019t get to hear exactly what she said: \u201c35. Navratilova had the best idea I heard all tournament: Start the shot clock when the player makes contact, racket-to-ball. \u201d<\/p>\n
Did you mean \u201cSTOP the shot clock\u2026\u201d? Points can be anywhere from 1 to many, many shots!<\/p>\n
Thanks again – stay well.
Joe Cook<\/p>\n
\u2022 Yeah, my bad.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A) The shot clock starts at the normal time. It isn\u2019t STOPPED until the racket makes contact, racket-to-ball. So players can catch their toss, but if so, they need to try to hit another serve before time expires. With a hat tip to reader Richard Thaler, this is a classic nudge<\/a>. We are not making a rule against catching a toss or excessive ball-bouncing, but we are setting up a policy to incentivize the desired result.<\/p>\n B) As long as we are here, railing on tennis\u2019s relentless conflicts of interest, some disclosure is probably in order: Martina Navratilova is a colleague at Tennis Channel, we are involved in a separate media project together, she ranks among my favorite people, and I am, irretrievably, in the tank for her.<\/p>\n Hi Jon,<\/p>\n Just listened to the pod and got excited when Andy said he was going to try to not cuss. Three f-bombs later and I guess I\u2019m out again. I do appreciate your efforts to keep it clean.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Best, Eric\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 Dadgummit. Roddick and his friggin\u2019 potty mouth. Seriously, I take your point (and bear some guilt here, too.) I have mixed feelings. I get the plea for clean language, especially when kids are listening. A pushback: One of the great appeals of the podcast medium is the plainspeak. You\u2019re addressing people as they are, without the sanitizing conventions of television. Friends at the bar and in the backyard don\u2019t comply with FCC rules. Speaking of profanity \u2026<\/p>\n Aryna Sabalenka fell to Amanda Anisimova Wimbledon semifinal weeks after losing to Coco Gauff in the French Open final. \/ Susan Mullane-Imagn Images<\/p>\n No player has ever lost more than two Grand Slam finals in the same calendar year. There is a chance Sabalenka could lose her third Grand Slam final this year on Saturday. While making all four finals would be an achievement, how bad would the player be mocked for doing it?\u00a0<\/p>\n Bob Diepold \u2022 This was, obviously, sent in advance of the Wimbledon semifinals and is now moot (at least until the U.S. Open), but what a great statistic. No player has ever been a losing finalist three times in a season.<\/p>\n As for Sabalenka, what a strange year. She is a generational player. She is No.1. She has won 17 matches at the first three majors, and she will try to salvage her Slam season when she defends her title at the U.S. Open.<\/p>\n Hello Jon,<\/p>\n I trust you are enjoying Wimbledon 2025.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve long been curious how the two attempts allowed for serving began. Is there any background story on the origins?<\/p>\n I believe for the professionals if only given one serve there would be a significant increase in strategic options of when to go for it and when to play \u201csafer.\u201d<\/p>\n Any thoughts?<\/p>\n Thank you, \u2022 That\u2019s a great question. And I do not know the answer. I\u2019ll do some research but if any of you have thoughts, fire away?<\/p>\n The noblest words ever uttered by a sports commentator: \u201cIs there a way to ask your viewers if I\u2019m talking too much? I just don\u2019t have enough experience with this.\u201d Andre Agassi, July 11, 2025, during Fritz vs. Alcaraz.<\/p>\n Ann Cain<\/p>\n \u2022 Andre Agassi in the broadcast booth is really quite something. There is this mix of first-rate tennis insight overlaid with a TV sure is a crazy medium bemusement. In addition to the on-air crowdsourcing you cite\u2014my guess: for him, specifically, there is no such thing as talking too much\u2014there was also his telling his colleague in the booth to focus on the tennis, not the celebrity nonsense.<\/p>\n As for Newport \u2026<\/p>\n As you no doubt heard, the Newport Challenger, a 125 event this year, made the regrettable decision of giving a doubles wild card to Bill Ackman, a 59-year-old who plays at the level of \u2026 well, you can see the video<\/a> for yourself.<\/p>\n This was, at a minimum, deeply uncomfortable for so many, on so many levels. Ackman was already a Founder\u2019s Circle donor, meaning he gave at least $1 million to the Hall of Fame. While insisting that this was not pay-to-play, he also just announced that he and his wife are giving an additional $10 million, an act of great philanthropy, if less-than-great optics.<\/p>\n You can read Ackman\u2019s account here<\/a>, including how the angle of the afternoon sun impacted his level of play.\u00a0<\/p>\n Here are some scattered thoughts:<\/p>\n A) To the Hall of Fame\u2019s credit, it moved quickly, acknowledged an embarrassing mistake, and apologized. The Hall does so much right, and is, overall, such a force of good, staffed by good people.\u00a0<\/p>\n B) This was a bad decision. If, however, there is evidence that this was quid pro quo and money changed hands, we have moved into the realm of something considerably more concerning. A simple question posed to Ackman: Did you compensate your partner, Jack Sock, in any way?<\/p>\n C) The ATP had no grounds to deny this wild card, as it was a tournament decision. But the ATP does have a clear \u201cbest efforts<\/a>\u201d rule. It states simply, \u201cA player shall use his best efforts during the match when competing in a tournament.\u201d This rule has been invoked when players like Nick Kyrgios have been sanctioned for tanking matches. Ackman himself wrote, \u201cthe competition were [sic] clearly holding back.\u201d Wait, what? A player on the court is flatly stating that the other players were \u201cclearly holding back\u201d? Isn\u2019t this a prima facie violation of best efforts?\u00a0<\/p>\n D) Ackman is not the first rich guy or celebrity who plays only recreationally, but\u2014either deluded by grandeur, or seeking something \u201cexperiential\u201d\u2014finagled a wild card. I was recently referred to this awesome player bio<\/a>. (Who knew, right?)<\/p>\n E) That said, I\u2019ve never seen a main draw wild card at quite this level. A tour event last year, Newport was\u2014and is\u2014a proper Challenger. Many players in the field came directly from Wimbledon. In the women\u2019s finals weekend, Caty McNally\u2014the last player to take a set off \u015awi\u0105tek!\u2014beat Tatjana Maria, who just beat Amanda Anisimova to win a grass court title in June. The idea that a 59-year-old recreational player thinks he should be in a draw at the same event shows a stunning lack of self-awareness.<\/p>\n And a 59-year-old billionaire with no prior ranking, not in doping protocol and, despite his contentions, not even in sniffing distance of playing at a pro level, depriving money and a playing opportunity from a credible, younger player? Isn\u2019t this precisely the kind of scenario that triggers alarm and sirens at a players\u2019 association? Not a peep, though, from the PTPA. And then one remembers: Ackman has helped fund the PTPA and weighs in with posts like this<\/a>. If I\u2019m the ATP, next time the PTPA talks about conflicts of interest, I’d keep this scenario handy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Charlotte NC<\/p>\n
Tom Buhl<\/p>\n