Hey everyone …

• Here’s this week’s Served podcast with special guest Hall of Famer Maria Sharapova. Note we will be doing a U.S. Open draw show from the grounds, a show from the Hall of Fame induction ceremony and at least one other live show during the tournament. 

• Bjorn Borg’s memoir, coming soon.

• Congrats to Bill Simons and Inside Tennis (paper version) on a hell of a run.

• Kalamazoo happened, Darwin Blanch is back to winning and Zoo Tennis, as the name suggests, is on the case.

Onward …

For a pair of 1000 point events pockmarked by the absence of a few big stars, Canada served up real drama and a couple of stellar finals, along with some new spin on storylines heading into the U.S. Open. The biggest question in my mind: is [Victoria] Mboko a contender to win in New York this year? 

Ted Cornwell, Minneapolis

• Let’s start with Mboko. Despite the withdrawal “pockmarks,” and with the Cincy event still undecided at this writing (more on this below), the women’s winner in Canada remains the story of the week.

We had a few Mboko questions last week—and one heartwarming story I’ll share at another time—but it seemed foolish to answer at the semifinal round when it remained to be seen whether Mboko had a fine tournament or an absolutely smashing one. She then, of course, beat Elena Rybakina in a third-set tiebreak and Naomi Osaka in a wild final, and this marked an absolute claw-out-of-the-egg breakthrough.

There is so much to like about Mboko. Her ballstriking. Her movement. Her ample but not overwhelming power (she had fewer than 10 total winners in her win against Gauff). But above all—the great source of long-term optimism—there was her poise.

Here was a wild card who projected such a sense of self-possession of I deserve to be here. There was no entitlement. There were no fits of pique. There was no panic in pivotal moments. But there wasn’t a sense of dumbfounded awe either. She comported herself like a veteran. She strategized. She reset. She adjusted. In between matches she spoke eloquently—in French and English—but calmly and assuredly.

Then there was the fact that she was doing this all in front of a “home crowd,” having grown up one province over. The fallback was that Mboko was elevated by the home support. But ask British players about this dynamic at Wimbledon or French players at Roland Garros, and they will tell you that in an individual sport, especially, playing at “home” brings as many pressures as advantages. Whether it was precocious poise or teenage blissful ignorance, Mboko handled it all so well.

Having pulled out of Cincinnati (wisely, but another item in the bill of particulars against this summer schedule), Mboko now enters the U.S. Open as a seed, a player on a win streak and, above all, a burgeoning star. Given the presence and composure, evidenced by an epic point in the third set of the Canada Open final, she’ll be fine.

Up until the finals of the WTA 1000 event in Montreal, Naomi Osaka was a consistent crowd favourite. Her story of rise, fall due to mental health and resurrection is a natural drama that people who don't even follow tennis can connect with. That all changes when your opponent in the finals is a Canadian with a great story of her own. So when the home, partisan crowd goes crazy for every point won by the local hero and somehow, Osaka seems to think that she is being vilified, my sympathy for her is diminished. But worse is that she actively tanked the last few games of the third set. Did she not remember how she felt when Serena's outburst at the U.S. Open made Naomi's moment feel compromised. Her lack of grace in the trophy presentation also betrayed a lack of sensitivity from someone who is such a proponent of kindness and positivity in a sport often not known for either of those attributes. Jon, in your typical even handedness, I suspect you'll chalk this up to disappointment at missing an opportunity after not winning a tournament in 4 1/2 years, or just having a brain cramp in an emotional moment. Maybe she's a victim of the high bar she has set for herself, but I thought the 18-year-old across the net from her might want to sit down with Naomi and remind her what class and sportsmanship are all about. Canada could not be prouder of Vicky.

Neil Grammer, Toronto

• The headline is Mboko and it’s a pity that so much of the discussion has been Osaka’s absence of grace under pressure. But here’s a quick take: As a rule, we give grace to tennis players forced to self-assess after a disappointing day at the office. It’s not remotely instinctive. It’s not something we ask of others: Warren, rough day with the PowerPoint. I know the presentation didn’t go as you had hoped. A couple of loose points—trying to modify the word unique; mispronouncing nuclear—may have worked against you. Good week overall, but a bittersweet way to conclude. Want to say a few words?

That disclaimer out of the way … yeah, that was pretty shabby stuff from Osaka. Forgetting to thank the ballkids or the volunteers is bad, but forgivable. Failing to congratulate the player who just beat you—a day after learning she idolized you as a kid; knowing what the moment meant to her; knowing she had captivated the crowd; knowing from firsthand experience that a dour, older losing opponent can suck the joy from a younger winner—is a really bad unforced error. Props to Osaka for the damage control the next day, but said damage was, largely, already done.

Compounding matters: Osaka’s attitude in the final hour of that final. Giving up on points. Rifling balls after errors. The body language that said, unmistakably, Get me the freak outta here. If someone were new to tennis with only thumbnails of the two finalists, and judged the players based on their professionalism, how many would have guessed Osaka to be the teenaged newbie and assumed Mboko was four-time major champion in her late 20s?

Here’s my larger issue with Osaka: does this not do a terrible disservice to her tennis? It’s such a mental sport. We all see that. We all know that to be true, starting with other players. If I am on the other side of the net and know my opponent is capable of melting down in tight moments—losing her head, by her own admission, to the point she forgets to do something as basic as acknowledging the victorious player in front of her home crowd—this fires me with confidence. It’s such a tell, and it sends the wrong message Osaka would want to convey to the field. The flip side: her tennis in Montreal was often sufficient to win a major. Which would add a fifth to her haul of four. She could win the U.S. Open. She could lose drearily in Week 1. Neither outcome would surprise. 

Naomi Osaka drew criticism for her remarks after falling to Victoria Mboko in the Canadian Open final.
Naomi Osaka drew criticism for her remarks after falling to Victoria Mboko in the Canadian Open final. | David Kirouac-Imagn Images

Hello Jon,

Once again I enjoy your mailbag offerings and comments. re: the mention of Olga Danilović and her $2.5 million career earnings. Sounds like a lot of money for a player not on every fan’s radar.

However, that is income/winnings and not her earnings, if we consider as typical business income. She has expenses as a professional tennis player not to mention (though I will) investment by parents or early benefactors on her development prior to becoming a professional. The winnings are a useful comparison relative to other players including Novak Djokovic, but to the general public even $2.5 millions sounds like a nice income for a relatively young person. Whereas it may be reasonably above the breakeven point, it is not retire in the lap of luxury money … necessarily.

Related topic: What is the general range of outside sponsorship earnings for a player such as Olga? Generous racquet, shoes and wardrobe swag is nice, but … Thanks for hanging in there on your many platforms. Btw, I enjoy the Quick Served pods.

Sincerely,
Tom Buhl

• Thanks Tom. Good question. And your thesis is correct: “income/winnings” only paints part of the financial picture.

Some scattered points…

A) As a rule, players pay their airfare. Tournaments cover lodging and food.

B) There is huge variance with regards to coaching expenses. Sometimes federations pay for players’ coaches. Other times players pay out of pocket. I know of one instance when a coach actually paid a top player for the opportunity to coach her, reckoning that the publicity and branding was worth the outlay.

C) Note that different countries have vastly different tax policies. Suffice to say Scandinavians’ tax forms look different from, say, the Monte Carlo exiles.

D) In addition to the prize money, there are abundant additional income streams. The top players, of course, make multiples more in endorsements than they do in prize money. Assorted other players (young, ascendant, usually from countries with a high GNP) even outside the top 20—Leylah Fernandez is a name that vaults to mind—can make more in endorsements than prize money.

E) There are “sneaky” endorsements as well. I was in Target the other day and, behold, Alycia Parks!

F) There are income one-offs. Exhibitions. Patch deals. Hamptons appearances. A few active players have “once you’re eliminated stay and work for us” broadcast deals. Often the player will make more from the media work than from first- or even second-round prize money

G) Again, to your point: “Prize money” is an accessible metric, but doesn’t tell the entire financial story.

Hey Jon,

Where are we on aces? I have no data but if feelings still count … It feels like we don’t see as many aces as we did a few years ago. Or maybe we’re just less enthralled with counting them. Serves seem faster and more players (ATP and WTA) are hitting big bombs, but returners look like they’re getting rackets on them more often. Is it just me?

Michael, Asheville, NC

• I have some data. It’s dirty but supports your thesis. “Total aces” is crass, taking into account neither the number of games played nor the quality of opponent. Tennis Abstract does a nice job refining, though we still wish the quality of opponent were given more weight. Twenty aces against a ponderous opponent is different from 20 aces against, say Alex de Minaur, to pick a name. But your overall thesis is valid. It’s not dramatic but there seems to be a drop-off in aces compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago when Rusedskis and Krajiceks and even Beckers and Samprases roamed the tennis earth.

And, I would argue, this is for the good of the game.

First, I would caution that a drop in aces doesn’t necessarily mean the serve is less critical. Just that there are fewer untouchables.

Second, there’s the question of why. Some theories: better returners? Less dramatic differences among surfaces? More rounded players means that even a guy like Ben Shelton can mix up kickers and cutters with pure fastballs? Also, as a tennis rule of thumb, the best servers have ranked among the worst returners. So as players like Ivo Karlović and John Isner have moved on, not only are their ace counts no longer tallied but they are not around to be the victim of aces. 

(If anyone with more bandwidth and quant skills than I wants to dive deeper here, I’d be happy to publish.)

Hi Jon,

How is it that the Canadian Open runs through August 7, while the Cincinnati Open starts on August 5?

Regards.

Joe from Branford CT

• Because … tennis. We have overlapping tournaments. We have Wednesday semifinals. We have star players missing tournament tournament X because they are saving themselves for tournament X+1. We have star players doing well in tournament X and then withdrawing from tournament X-1. At some point there has to be a “New Coke moment” when an adult in the room says, It was an experiment. It failed. Let’s cut bait and go back to one-week Masters 1000 events that don’t overlap.

Hi Jon,

I know you’re not a fan of the 12-day Masters1000 event—neither am I—but if there’s anything crazier than that, it’s a Masters 1000 event that ends on a Thursday. Wot? So a fan who wants to attend the final now has to take off work to do so?

What’s wrong with this picture? Plenty, if you ask me.

Gavin, NYC

• These events are the equivalent of best-of-seven matches. We all love tennis. We love the tournaments in question, the core product. But enough is as good as a feast.

I think it was Ted Robinson who said to McEnroe during a broadcast : John, do you favor the better server in the tiebreak? I favor the better player, John replies.

JB, PDX

• Occam’s razor strikes again.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK, EVERYONE!

More Tennis on Sports Illustrated


This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: U.S. Open Expectations for Teenage Sensation Victoria Mboko.

Test hyperlink for boilerplate