Tennis Mailbag: How the Sport Can Capitalize on French Open Momentum

Hey, everyone …

• Here’s this week’s Served podcast featuring special guest Darren Cahill:

• Good soldiering: Surviving Ohio State premiered Tuesday on HBO.

• I talked docs and tennis with the great Richard Deitsch.

• Wimbledon targets India.

• The 2026 U.S. Open “ball crew”—note the strategic omission of the words “boy,” “girl” or “kid”—tryouts are here.

Onward …

Hi Jon,

Thank you for the mailbag as always.

The ceremony for [Rafael Nadal] at Roland Garros, the venue of his greatest achievements, was entirely fitting and wonderful to watch. It got me thinking of [Roger] Federer and [Andy] Murray, who had similarly fitting farewells at the Laver Cup and Wimbledon. They were all honoured in the places you might call their spiritual tennis homes.

It got me thinking of [Novak] Djokovic, whose own retirement is edging closer one way or another. Where would his grand send-off likely be? Australia is arguably the place of his greatest triumphs, but it is on another continent, and they also blocked his entry at one point. He deserves every bit the same honour, and has won in insane numbers pretty much everywhere. And yet nowhere is quite his.

I wonder if these thoughts entered his mind too? What are your thoughts?

Beate, London

• Great question. To be clear: We should all hope this ceremony is in 2040. It’s Djokovic’s decision. No one is pushing him out the door. But eventually, he’ll retire and it’s fair to speculate how and where.

You’re quite right to note that while Djokovic saw his greatest (and first) success in Australia, it’s too fraught. He’s not going to hold his valedictory in the same country that detained and deported him. It’s also too far—geographically and in terms of time zones—from his base in Europe.

Djokovic has no real Laver Cup brand extension. He can’t go to Roland Garros after Rafa-fest 2025. Wimbledon is an option—don’t look now but Djokovic has won seven titles at the All England Lawn Tennis Club, as many as Pete Sampras. And only seven fewer than Federer—but that seems a little off.

My guess? Djokovic being Djokovic, he will do something off the menu, in complete resistance of convention. A mic-drop retirement, courtside with his kids. An elaborate ceremony on Stephen Schwarzman’s balcony. A dinner theater song-and-dance revue doubling as a retirement announcement. Or, he will do something in Greece. Or, pending reconciliation, back in Serbia, celebrating his country in conjunction with his unparalleled achievements (and his inevitable pivot to politics).

Jon, how can tennis build on that great French Open. You and Andy were right to call it one of the best ever. But how can tennis make sure this isn’t a one-off?

James, B.C.

• If only there were another big event right away that could draft off these good vibes … that was a joke. For as often as we lament the traffic jam that is the tennis calendar, it’s a real benefit that we have another major starting in a few days.

Obviously, if Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner can meet in the final again, another chapter in a gripping rivalry, it will help. And if Coco Gauff and Aryna Sabalenka have another showdown with the trophy on the court, that would be great, too.

Short of that, one hopes the casual fans who tuned into two classic sporting events stick around. (At least in the U.S., if ESPN could lean into this—and promote tennis during the NBA Finals the way that TNT did—that would be helpful.)

If this were a conventional business, there would be meetings discussing the precise point you raised. How do we keep this momentum going? How do we capitalize on this bump? What went right in Paris that we can incorporate going forward? If only tennis weren’t so balkanized.

Hi Jon, Alcaraz and Sinner gave us a match worthy of Federer-Nadal Wimbledon 2008 and Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon 1980. If not quite as great as those, at least as memorable and drama-filled. And as in all truly great rivalries, it will drive both players to further excellence they would not reach otherwise. Let us hope they both stay healthy for many years to come, so they may continue to contend with each other and enthrall the tennis public.

And why is it we so often see a player, even a great player, say that their opponent won because they themselves played poorly that day. Hadn't it occurred to them that the main reason they played poorly was in reaction and response to the better play of their opponent? Always best to be gracious in defeat. You look the better for it, always.

Thanks for your great coverage, as always. Looking forward to Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows!

Eric of Myrtle Beach (formerly of Jackson Heights)

• Thanks. Let’s go in reverse order. Yes, some days you play better than others. But before denigrating your performance—and this goes way beyond tennis—it’s helpful to ask why. Might it be because the opponent is creating circumstances that cause you to miss? Or adjust your risk tolerance? Or plays defense that stymies your offense? Like most sports, like most competitive endeavors, tennis does not exist in a vacuum. Your opponent has bearing on how well or poorly you play, whether you admit it or not.

“Where does this match rank?” was a question in heavy rotation last week, referencing, of course, Sinner and Alcaraz. After a week of cooling off, not much shine has diminished. Two rivals. No. 1 vs. No. 2. The match that had everything you could want in a sporting event: sways of momentum, endurance, shotmaking, mettle, inflection points, misses, defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory and victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat … all garnished with a sudden death ending.

This match was worthy and noteworthy, as well, for what it lacked: gamesmanship, controversy, injury, rain, etc. I’m biased toward the Federer-Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final. But if this match didn’t overtake it, it is 1A in my book. Regardless, a sensational sporting event and a sensational day for tennis.

Hi Jon,

As commentators have repeatedly labeled the Alcaraz/Sinner final as the second longest grand slam final, I can't help but think that the method of measuring match time is somewhat flawed. That 2012 outing down under between Nadal and Djokovic, the current acknowledged winner of “longest final”, was over-represented, in my opinion, given the pre-serve rituals of both players before a serve clock was implemented. I doubt anyone has compiled the actual time playing points for both matches, excluding incessant ball bouncing, but if they had, I have no doubt that Alcaraz and Sinner would reign supreme.

Hudson, MA

Miles Benson

• Another defective tennis stat: time of match.Two players bounce the balls 25 times and/or go through an elaborate ritual before each serve? (Just hypothetically, of course.) It adds to match time. Players have a prolonged disagreement with the chair umpire, stop play and demand the supervisor make a cameo? It adds to match time. Players take bathroom breaks, sometimes dubiously to break opponents’ rhythm and momentum. The meter is running. A spectator in the stands needs medical attention and play is stopped. The clock is still running. The time of match stat is wildly imprecise.

Note that in the case of Alcaraz and Sinner there were none of the above. Brisk pace of play. No long breaks. No unforeseen delays. It was five hours and 29 minutes, and the match seemed both longer and shorter, no?

Watching the women’s Roland Garros final on TV—it seems Sabalenka’s grunting is too loud and too long and should be considered a hindrance. Do you agree? And why is there no correction given to her?

Laura W.

• The periodic weigh-in here. I want to acknowledge that this is an issue for many of you. I also want to push back a bit and encourage differentiating between grunting that is strategic or gamesmanship and grunting that is the soundtrack of exertion and effort. I’ve always felt Sabalenka fell squarely in the latter camp.

Again, I understand that grunting is annoying for many of you. I agree that the WTA’s historic unwillingness to confront top players about it can come across as cowardly. But—especially when it’s coming from the hardest hitters, male and female—I look at (hear it?) much as I do profuse sweating. It’s a cost of doing business.

Hi Jon,

Why is Chris Evert talking so much about Serena Williams. It’s time for TNT to find a new panel. They just spent the better part of the pre-final panel discussion talking about Serena Williams and as always, Chris Evert continues to bring her up during the matches also.

Time to move on … It's quite annoying.

Brian Krauel, Ottawa, Ontario

• No one puts Chrissy in a corner!

Distilled, this is the problem with TV. One person says, Why are you dwelling on Serena? The next person says, Serena retired with 23 majors. Why are the commentators ignoring her? The same way people say, We need more statistics, while the next viewer says, Why gum up this theater with math?