What a Week in Flushing Meadows, Amirite?

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.

 

In fairness to myself, I knew it would be stupid before I clicked the link.

Rando Thoughts from Wimbledon

1. Watching Alexandra Eala beat Iga Swiatek in straight sets this morning. Between points, Eala walks around like a waitress getting off a 32-hour shift at Waffle House, and I respect it. 

2. Days after Serena Williams' first-round loss, folks are still debating the handshake Serena gave? Which was a perfectly fine handshake. But folks want to know why she didn't say something nice to Maya Joint after the match. And I am sorry, but, like what?? Joint played the whole match with her eyes the size of saucers. Which is fine. She was nervous. And she didn't play her best match. Serena also didn't play her best match. It was not a great match. Is that OK to say? It was sort of difficult to watch! Also, here is a thought experiment. Let's say you are a 20-year-old professional tennis player, and by some miracle, you are drawn into a match with one of the all-time greats of the game. This isn't disputed. So my question is: Wouldn't YOU say something after the match? Like, "*unintelligible*" or "Wow. I can't believe this just happened," or "You're awesome," or "OK, let's never do that again because my nerves are SHOT! Ha!" If you're unhappy with a perfectly normal handshake, why is the onus on Serena? 

3. After this match, Serena mentioned as an aside that she has hurt her knee and although Wimbledon did their level best to accommodate her (rumor has it, offering to postpone she and Venus' match to late September after the U.S. Open), she finally did have to withdraw today. It's a shame, because this was the wildcard I was most interested in. I have been of the opinion that Venus Williams has been on the cusp of winning a match this year and I wondered if she needed Serena there to make it happen. I am probably fantasizing at this point, but I'm staying on my cloud!

4. I think the only thing that could get me remotely interested in the men's draw is ... I mean, I don't know. I'm kind of curious about Felix Auger-Aliassime? Ooh, or Grigor Dimitrov. After last year? You have to root for this guy.

5. If Taylor Townsend and Katerina Sinaikova ever split up as a doubles team, I'll be inconsolable. The ribbon situation brings me an unreasonable amount of optimism that people can still work together towards a common goal without being complete jerks about it. 

6. The women's draw, however. We've got last year's finalists already out of it, along with Elena Rybakina, who has been really struggling to keep her bike on the path this year. The top half of the draw is insane: Naomi Osaka v. Aryna Sabalenka (who is also on the shaky bike team this year, and may need to keep the training wheels for a bit), Karolina Muchova v. Barbora Krejcikova (who is playing pretty well), Jessica Pegula v. Iva Jovic (a true toss-up, I think!) and Belinda Bencic v. Coco Gauff. 

7. Not quite Wimbledon, but there is a former champion who is not in the draw and might not be for several years if tennis' governing body has its way. Marketa Vondrousova has been suspended by the (get this) International Tennis Integrity Association for refusing a drug test. And I just can't anymore. This is insane. We got Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek FAILING drug tests and both get a finely curated "suspension" that somehow means neither has to miss a Slam. Like, these "suspensions" were clearly negotiated out! Four years for not taking one?! And truly, Vondrousova's explanation seems reasonable. And also? This idea that surprise testing playing a role in keeping the sport clean is a joke when you consider that there were two players who failed a test and the scales seemed to tip for them because of who they were. I will add that if I were Simona Halep, I would be a menace on the Internet every time something like this happened. An absolute menace. They'd have to ban me from the Twitter.

French Open '26: Hot Enough For Ya?

Well, I don't know about you amateurs, but the French Open has turned out exactly the way I expected it to -- the world 114 competing for the women's title while the guy who I guess can win a Slam only when the rest of the field has been decimated. So that's good, I guess! 

Look, I have thoughts, so let's just go:

is the title of this section. 

So some members of the black delegation on the pro tour got together at the beginning of the French Open for a private dinner, hosted by Naomi Osaka and Taylor Townsend. And of course nonblack folks had something to say, along the lines of this brilliant tweet:

Where to start. I'll start with why I went to a historically black college (Hampton, baby, the real HU!). It's not because diversity is a problem for me. It's that being a black person in a majority white world can be hard. Ask any person of color who has worked in corporate America. When I was coming up, there were all types of narratives about black people -- we go to prison, we don't have baby daddies, we're on crack cocaine, gangsta rap. Believe it or not, it's annoying to have that nonsense following you.

The people who tweet about being left out when they were never even on the invite list suffer from a lack of imagination, I fear. It seems they have never walked into a room and immediately understood there was no one there who looked like them, and that if they were going to stay in that room, they would simply have to deal with it. And they were going to stay. And so of course, they've never understood the relief you feel when finally you see others who look like you, partly because they stayed in the room. Still, though. You're in the room but not always part of it, and sometimes it's nice to hang out with your people, so you can finally just relax before it's back to the grind. 

And yet there seems to be this actual confusion about gatherings like this. It is due, I think, to this privilege on the part of those who have never really been left out, have always been centered. And so of course, why can't they come to the dinner? 

Mostly because no one invited you. Maybe get reservations at the Masters golf tournament. 

Mirra Andreeva Wins the French Open

It goes without saying that Mirra Andreeva is a special player and winning the French is likely just the beginning for her. The thing that struck me during the post-match celebration was the press conference with her coach, Conchita Martinez. I realized that it was the first time in all my time watching tennis, that a woman coach was being celebrated for a Slam win. 

When I was first getting into tennis, Martinez was just getting out, and she didn't look like anything great to my untrained eye. She wasn't flashy like the Williams sisters or the big hitters who began to occupy the top 10. But as I began to understand the game better, I saw her genius, how she moved the ball around, crafted a point. She took her skills and built a great career. One slam, yes, but 43 other titles, five Fed Cups, a regular in the top 10 for almost a decade. I mean.

I'm giving Andreeva (or the people around her) props for not just hiring some dude to coach her. And I hope more women step up to coach. Martina Hingis? Kim Clijsters (apparently coaching Katie Volynets, a name that has to have been manufactured, right?)? Steffi Graf? 

'Nuanced:' You Keep Using that Word. I Do Not Think You Know What it Means

All weekend, I saw Alexander Zverev's French Open run as one that is complex and nuanced. That's because it's divided the tennis community on whether it should be celebrated, but the cause for the divide isn't nuanced at all. 

Here is what I understand to be true. Zverev has been credibly accused of hitting two former girlfriends, to the point of leaving marks. The evidence of one of these rows can be seen on camera because it was during one of these tournaments. A reporter wrote about this and has faced more consequences somehow. The ATP looked at the case and ruled that they couldn't come to any conclusions. The mother of Zverev's child took him to court and before the trial could finish, he opted to settle and pay her.  So far, not complicated. 

Zverev also happened to be a really good tennis player and on Sunday, he won his first Slam. Lots of fans aren't happy about this because lots of signs point to him being an abuser who has never faced consequences, even though he's never been found guilty as the result of any investigation. This is fairly straightforward too. 

There's nothing nuanced here and the only reason it could even look that way is that we play in our own faces all the time now. We've (in the U.S.) got a president who says one thing and does another and winks. Some people see the evidence of the lie, and choose to focus on something else, like the economy. Oops, like immigration. Oops. Affordability. D'oh! The simplest conclusion is that 1+1=2, but some people are like, "What if it's actually three?" as if that makes them an abstract thinker who can think outside the box. Yo, sometimes the box is there for a reason.

It's simple to determine whether you think that Zverev is worthy of your support. You can see the evidence of his character. Some people see that evidence and decide that this is just a conversation about tennis, and he really deserved that Slam. He played well! He did. 

And I don't support him. This is super not nuanced.

Quick Hits

I turned on the mens double final over the weekend and was like, "OK, still with Marcel Granollers and Horacio Zeballos? These guys have to be older than even me!" First of all, they're not, and second of all, these 40-year-old dudes just won the French Open again. Wild ...

It's crazy how some women's doubles teams seem to be in flux. Jelena Ostapenko is always playing with someone different. I thought Gabrielle Dabrowski and Erin Routliffe would play together forever, but they split up this year, too. Hsieh Su-wei is out there looking for a regular partner again. But it looks like  Townsend and Katerina Siniakova have figured out that if something works, let it cook, as the kids say. They dropped exactly one set during their run to the French Open title. 

French Open 2025: "Such a hottie."

Hey, sorry I'm late. Just finished chain-smoking my way through the Naomi Osaka/Paula Badosa first round at the French Open. But it's OK -- it was those little cute French cigarettes in the movies. I also ate a whole baguette.    

There should be some type of rule when you're putting draws together. Like, if you have two great players who are trying to re-establish their foothold on the game, and they get paired for a first or second round match, you gotta start the draw over. There is no world where it's fair that these two had to play each other right away. They deserved better but that stadium of spectators got their money's worth. 

The tennis was exciting to watch, but as a mere mortal who plays tennis, it is actually a little encouraging to see pros do things that you have also done. I can imagine that Osaka is going to see that game point Badosa had at 3-4 in her sleep for a while. She had Badosa outmaneuvered and pushes the backhand up the line just wide?! It was a game of margins, it seemed, for both players, except that the ball seemed to always be just out for Osaka. It's hard to say what, if anything, she did wrong at the end -- Badosa turned up the defense and set herself up better for closing shots. 

Tough loss for Osaka, but she'll be back. And it'd be nice to see Badosa stay healthy for the whole tournament, especially because her little corner of the draw looks really good for her!

Anyway, I also ended up stress eating another baguette and crying into my strong French roast yesterday watching the Rafael Nadal ceremony. I mean, you knew it was going to be an emotional rollercoaster. But the French went all the hell out. Matching shirts for the crowd? Bringing out the rest of the Big 4 on video, then in person?! The footprint on the court FOREVER?! Look, he deserved it and if I had any qualms, I'd say a bootyprint instead. Such a hottie. 

Speaking of the Big 4, it is hard to look at them and realize that one of these people were not like the others. I am not a person who likes shooing people into retirement. But I am just saying that Novak Djokovic might take something more from yesterday's ceremony. Like considering the idea that he had to get his 100th title at an ATP 250 tournament and beating Hubert Hurkacz in the final. Like losing to Matteo Arnaldi in Madrid. I am just saying.

P.S.: Yo, how is Yanina Wickmayer still playing Slams!? I ask this realizing her opponent is Victoria Azarenka, who is literally the same age. 

French Open ‘24: Another Close Call

Listen, I don’t hold grudges. I’m the first one to accept the olive branch when it is offered and am more than willing to reset a relationship once I see a sustained willingness to change. 

A SUSTAINED WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE. Gaslighting a stadium full of people into winning a toss you lost is not showing a willingness to change. Getting questioned about something you apparently did wrong – like, there’s visible evidence – and responding essentially: “Hey, I paid for that to go away. Stop asking about it?!”  

A change has not been made. While I was openly bitching about Rafael Nadal having to possibly play his last match at the French Open against Alexander Zverev, a friend of mine asked why. I explained he was about to start trial for domestic abuse in Germany – a trial that would be going on during the tournament. He said, “Well, isn’t it innocent until proven guilty?” 

Sure, it is. And now that he’s paid to have the case go away, he will always be presumed as such. Maybe the better question is what kind of job – I'm talking to you, average Joe/Jane -- could you have where you could be accused of assault so credibly that it’s going to trial and still have a public-facing job that’s not impacted by that? At the very least, you’d be told to take a break. And would said person still be in a leadership position in your organization, perhaps a leadership position that could ask his fellow leaders on a, oh, I don’t know, a players council about whether they should have limitations on players accused of committing crimes during their active playing career?  

Those are multiple questions, I guess. Alexander Zverev can go suck a lemon until he shows some remorse and starts speaking about these accusations like an adult. Anybody can throw money at something. But are you sorry?  

So, no, I didn’t watch the men’s final because I was not in the proper headspace to potentially watch this guy win a Slam. But I did catch up on it afterwards, and this moment right here 

 

cleared my skin. 

IFYKY 

This, too, when Alcaraz *technically* double-faulted at possibly the very worst moment in the match: 

 

I don’t care! I’m petty! 

Carlos Alcaraz, we already know, is a unique talent. He’s great at tennis and he’s a showman. God bless him, he’s also still quite young and capable of wrapping that racquet around his neck when things get complicated. Or even when they don’t! That five-setter wasn’t the best tennis I’ve ever seen, but it shows great maturity to pull a match out the way Alcaraz did while playing below his level.  

And then there was the women’s final. Which I also didn’t watch live. No offense to Iga Swiatek or Jasmine Paolini, but I had the opportunity to play that morning and something told me it wasn’t going to take long. Probably what told me that was how Swiatek has been a buzzsaw since her near-loss against Naomi Osaka. Yes, Swiatek is a beast on this surface, she’s amazing, she’s head-and-shoulders over just about everyone else, blah. 

But a word about Jasmine Paolini. She has been out here on this tour working. She is probably about an inch taller than me and has been consistent for the last year or so. Just taking out the Elena Rybakinas of the world, looking all sweet and harmless. No one was looking at her when this tournament started but deep inside, Jasmine was like 

 

 

And she did – runners-up in both the singles and women’s doubles.