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.

Australian Open '24: The Final that Wasn't (thank the lawd)

You know damn right that I stayed up until 2 a.m. to watch the final point of the Jannik Sinner/Novak Djokovic match. And watching Djokovic get practically blown out (Sinner just blinked in that third-set tiebreaker) was worth the four pots of coffee I needed to survive the next work day. I know that theoretically, we're living in a great moment of tennis history, having had witnessed three greats at work in the game at the same time. And we all know where I stand on the GOAT debate between the them. I mean that ass alone has got to be the best thing that has filled out a pair of tennis shorts in a minute. Still. I never disliked or rooted against Federer (maybe a smidge when he played Rafael Nadal) and that's because he is a classy person. He wasn't overly humble to the point of ridiculousness. No. Fed knew how good he was and was forthright about it and it was never at the expense of someone else. Same with Nadal.

Djokovic? He can be a bit of a dick. Sorry, it's true. Goading the crowd while blowing out the entirely uncontroversial Adrian Mannarino? Why?? There was last year's U.S. Open, stealing Ben Shelton's phone celebration (which, you have to give credit to a 20-year-old for even understanding the concept of a landline) and using it against him when he beat him. (And then the discourse became about Shelton and his manners. You can't make this up.) He beaned a line judge in the throat in another U.S. Open and threw COVID parties at the height of the pandemic. He used his refusal to get a shot as some sort of rallying cry/pity point. At the same time he does this, he goes on about how much he just wants to be loved and admired. Djokovic breaks out the violin when talking about how fans don't like him and just like the vaccination situation, he uses his own actions as the fainting bed he takes to, wondering why he is not universally loved. Does anyone remember that scene in I Heart Huckabees, when Naomi Watts' character is having a breakdown and can't decide whether she wants attention or to be left alone?

Anyway, that's Djokovic.

But the men's draw had another problem, and it has been festering for a couple years now, and that is Alexander Zverev and his allegations of domestic abuse. They have been following him around for a long time although for some reason, the ATP leadership and also the talking heads of tennis have been supertightfocused only on his game and not that his girlfriend accused him of beating him up when he was at a tournament. That's not even the one he's on trial for in May. And one of the most violent and discomforting things I have ever seen on a tennis court was Zverev whacking the side of an umpire chair because he was mad about a line call. I mean what the what

There is one big problem here that has led to other offshoot problems. That is that the ATP doesn't have a policy regarding domestic violence. If it makes more sense to think of it as a code of conduct, do that. Most anyone with a job is expected to live up to standards outside the workplace. Look how many people lost their job after George Floyd. (Would be interesting to see how many of them got it back ...) Because there's no rules governing this in the ATP, Zverev has been allowed to be named to the player's council AND continue playing tennis in public in front of people. This dude almost won the Australian Open. Incidentally, I do not root for or against Daniil Medvedev. I am neutral on him even after that post-match speech in New York, although I have to say I edge towards his brand of chaos. But I was on my knees during that Medvedev/Zverev final begging Medvedev to come up with something -- probably like the ATP powers-that-be were. Except unlike me, they actually could have done something about it. Who knows. Maybe they are intrigued by the idea of Zverev playing an exo in prison, like Johnny Cash performing in Folsom?

OK, I guess it's time to focus on the winners. After Djokovic/Sinner, the thing I hoped for most for Jannik was that he had enough in the tank to go get the title he deserved. For all the smack I talk about Djokovic, he is the best in the world and there's a reason. But I think what sets Sinner apart from the field, or at least what did in this tournament, was the belief in himself. I mentioned earlier how ridiculous Andrey Rublev looked for celebrating a round one win. Well, in that final, when Sinner won the third set from Medvedev, he didn't celebrate. He took a deep breath, like he had been working hard, and that he had just finished the first half of his shift. That's the energy. He's indefatigable. And poor Medvedev. I really thought that year that Nadal left him in the dust after Medvedev had a two-set lead was a once in a lifetime disappointment. Turns out that for Meddy, it's not even once in a decade. 😬

And then there's Aryna Sabalenka. I remember a couple years back on Twitter, I was chatting with this tennis fan who had just had it with Sabalenka. She was done rooting for her. Too many mistakes. Going for stupid shots at the worst point. Does she even know where she is in the court when she's going for those shots? Why can't she serve? Making wayyyy too many mistakes. I didn't disagree. I could understand the frustration. You're watching someone who has the talent and power to beat just about anyone out there. And she beat herself before the opponent even got a swing at her. If Twitter weren't such a hellscape, I would ask that tennis fan how she felt now that Sabalenka is a two-time Slam winner and that she seems to have stopped shooting herself in the foot. For the asterisks crowd that's going to ask about her draw and the fact that her opponent in the final, Qinwen Zheng, was a newcomer to the big stage. She was just dominant this tournament and if her opponent had been Iga Swiatek, not sure the result would have been much different. Having said that, I'd say that she'll still have to work harder against folks with some court IQ, like Swiatek, especially on, uh, different surfaces. Like clay.