Mary Carillo was inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame last week for a trailblazing career, more in the commentator box than on court. Explaining the parameters of getting into the Hall of Fame feels mysterious. Lots of people make history in sports. Is that reason enough to keep going? Is it enough to clear that invisible HOF line?
Because there's actually no tennis being played on the Tennis Channel right now, I have had multiple opportunities to see her induction. (For some reason, not Roger Federer's so much, which I would have preferred, but whatever.) I noticed something about Carillo's ceremony -- as much of it as I could stomach. It seemed like there were a lot of players there from her generation, like John McEnroe, which is interesting considering that she is still active.
But that part makes more sense given Carillo's commentary during Naomi Osaka's match against Elise Mertens last night. She apparently (I keep Carillo commentary on mute in my house) suggested that Osaka's struggles and demeanor during the match was because of mental health struggles.
It is almost as if this woman has never played tennis before.
Getting frustrated during a difficult match is what I like to call normal. It's like Carillo knows one thing about Osaka and it colors all her commentary. But this is par for the course for the announcer. She can be witty and has some rando good one-liners, which probably helped with tennis' popularity in the 1970s and 1980s. Now? It looks at least lazy, or at most out of touch. Look, players didn't withdraw from tennis tournaments to focus on their mental health back in Carillo's day. And it clearly bothers Carillo that that's a thing now. But learning and evolving is the hallmark of growth. And like her commentating colleague McEnroe, Carillo seems to deliberately keep her commentary frozen in time.
I Have an Idea
Look, anyone who has read this blog more than once knows that Venus Williams can never do wrong in TWA's book. She's a legend, and her decision to return to tennis has concerned me, thrilled me, concerned me, concerned me and concerned me.
That said, it is hard to watch this version of Venus, mainly because there are enough flashes of greatness to think that, hey, if you can still do something, why not keep doing it? I mean, this ain't Mitch McConnell or something like that -- the woman is still there doing the work. So why not keep going?
What makes it harder is this wild-card situation. Venus, right now, is sitting at a 14-match singles losing streak. When she got a wild card for the U.S. Open this year, even fans of hers complained that she was taking it from a potential up-and-comer. Which, I hate to say, is a fair statement. Sure, being a legend should count for something. But 14 matches?
But what if Venus (and myself) think that she is *right* *there* and that she needs some more match play to find her current level?
Qinwen Zheng has been as high as No. 4 in the world and made a run to the Australian Open final in 2024. The same year, she almost won the year-end championships. She's an Olympic gold medalist and in 2025, she had elbow surgery that kept her off-court for a few months, and she's been on the comeback trail ever since. She's now No. 121 in the world. This year, she came to U.S. Open as a qualifier. Quiwen advanced through three rounds of qualifying to advance into the main singles draw. In her third-round match against Madison Keys, she came back from 0-5 down in the third set to win the match in what has to be one of the most stunning comebacks in recent history. This is a great story for the U.S. Open, for tennis.
Which is what organizers who give out wild cards want, right? And here we have a qualifier, writing a story that you can't make up.
Qinwen's story, even if she loses tomorrow, is a great one for her as well. Coming back to tennis after a long time away is hard, and anyone will tell you that the only real solution is match play. The road she's on is one that is filled with ups and downs, frustrations, and victory if you keep at it. (Victory, as careers go, can be celebrated and observed best by the eye of the beholder.) And if you're someone who is trying to rediscover her game, maybe consistent match play is a good idea. Maybe it's even better than getting one pass into a tournament, losing, and coming back to do it again a few weeks later. (Which could happen also in qualifiers for a while, I suppose.)
What am I saying. It isn't fair to tell someone that they need to stop doing something they love, especially if they can keep going. But the fairest way to do it, for someone like Venus Williams, might be doing it through qualifying for tournaments.
Everyone Has the Right to a Dumb Take
Congrats to this person for getting theirs published in the New York Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment