The best players to never reach No. 1, an NCAA tournament for tennis, an argument against The Big Three references and much more.
Hey everyone. On the road this week. So a short ‘Bag this week….and a reader rant at the end.
Mailbag
Have a question or comment for Jon? Email him at jon_wertheim@yahoo.com or tweet him @jon_wertheim.
With all the concern from players on tour about traveling to tournaments due to COVID, why don't the ATP and WTA Tours put on a long-term tournament similar to the NCAA basketball tournament? Indian Wells would be a great location for this since it’s in the desert and you could have a ready-made bubble. The tournament would have seeds from No. 1 to 100 or so, and there would be brackets with single elimination play. It would draw a great deal of media exposure that tennis badly needs while eliminating all travel for one to two months. I understand the tournament system is ingrained in tennis financially and players are not keen on quarantining for a month or so, but this could really generate buzz similar to or even more than the Laver Cup.
—Robert Twomey, Webster, Fla.
• I like the idea in theory. And, to his credit, it’s one Novak Djokovic—among others—has floated as well. During COVID, tennis has done well in a bubble-type setting. It does well as a traveling caravan, this constellation of events. The cut and paste from the last 12 months: the international nature of the sport—usually an asset—is a liability (or at least a significant complication) during COVID. So why not consign all the players to one location, a la the NBA last season or the NCAA tournament, or tennis-in-Australia?
As usual in tennis, what seems sensible and pragmatic is impossible, structurally, to execute. Indian Wells is suspended this year because of precautions. But let’s use your proposed idea. Everyone comes to the dessert for, say, six weeks of events. For one, there is a rights issue. What do you tell Rotterdam or Charleston or Dubai or Acapulco or any of other the dozens of events that have paid for a sanction, have their own TV and sponsorship deals, etc.?
If we dipped into Larry Ellison’s bottomless pockets and made those events whole, there are still wholesale issues. Who would pay for this bubble? Prize money, T/E, lodging etc.? Usually, it’s media deals and tickets. But tickets will be minimal. And what broadcast sponsor is signing on to air weeks and weeks of matches from one location? What about a sponsor? BNP Paribas might love two weeks of a wonderful event in March. Does it want six? Indian Wells can get volunteers and ballkids and vendors for 14 days. Can it get these commitments for 42 days?
Then there are the players. Will the stars commit to an extended period in one location, a half a world away from home? What will happen to appearance fees, often a lure for top players? What about surfaces? How would, say, Nadal, feel about all these hardcourt weeks replacing claycourt weeks?
All of which is to say: legally, financially, structurally, logistically….it’s just not feasible. Tennis is a necklace, not a ring; a traveling circus, not a stationary event. It moves its feet, in tennis speak.
Nominating Sveta [Kuznetsova] for consideration as best never to hit No. 1. Two majors, two finals. And top 10 finish in ’04, ’06-09 and....’16!
—@dbaks
• Good call. Anyone with multiple majors who never got to No. 1—Mary Pierce, Kvitova, Stanislas—has to figure prominently in the conversation. Before you ask the question “Has anyone won three majors and never gotten to No.1?”….
Re: the "greatest to never..." question: It brings to mind a player who must be considered one of the greatest to never win a singles slam, Brian Gottfried (No. 3 ranking, 25 singles titles), who took perhaps THE all-time Slam final beat-down (0-6, 3-6, 0-6) in the '77 French Open from perhaps the greatest men's singles player to never (officially) reach No. 1: Guillermo Vilas. On the women's singles side, surely Hana Mandlikova must be considered one of the greatest to not reach No. 1. And while we're at it, let's raise a glass to those who end up on these lists. They had amazing careers and should be remembered for more than just these unfortunate stats.
—Chris
• Great post. These aforementioned players had tremendous careers, you are right. And the achievement of the No. 1 ranking can be a combination of luck and circumstance—points fall off, a player gets injured, a player reduces their schedule. (Venus Williams has won seven majors…and spent 19 weeks at No.1….Caroline Wozniacki won one major and spent 71 weeks at No. 1…. A knock on neither player; but two different approaches to scheduling.)
As for Vilas, your reference gives us an occasion to point readers to this excellent Netflix doc.
In response to major winners who never reached No. 1 a few additional names come to mind. Thomas Johansson, Richard Krajicek, Michael Chang (had to win U.S. Open final against Sampras to be No. 1), Goran Ivanisevic, Gaston Gaudio, Petr Korda, Conchita Martinez, Marion Bartoli, Jana Novotna, Maran Cilic, Sofia Kenin, Iga Swiatek.
Best player never to win a Grand Slam is definitely Marcelo Rios in my opinion. His effort in the final of the Australian Open against Petr Korda was pitiful.
—Sunny S., Philadelphia, Pa.
• Can someone make the damn Marcelo Rios doc already….
A dud of a final, the 6-5 game in set one was the only time the match had any drama. The individual games held almost no drama. I believe there were only two deuce games the whole match, and zero “two-deuce” games. The match was so quick, pace of play didn’t even bother me. Unofficial count for Djokovic’s serving bounces of the ball, from time when he’s ready at the service line: 334 bounces with the racquet, followed by 1010 bounces with his hand. Take those out & this match was an hour and a half drubbing.
What a contrast—I watched the 1975 Wimbledon men’s final on Tennis Channel last night—Ashe vs Connors. Watching them play with the vintage racquets and the white Slazenger tennis balls, is like watching in slow motion, yet somehow just as compelling as today’s “max power” tennis.
—Bill in NJ
• To Bill’s point, it’s quite something to behold, the “time of match” stats from previous generations. There were five-setters played in under two hours and straight-set finals that barely lasted an hour. I think Australia—by accident, not design—solved the pace-of-play issue. It’s not the ball bouncing, it’s the toweling. When players had to fetch their own towels, they were much more reluctant to do so; and much more efficient when they did.
Your columns are peppered with references to Big Three. Even your homage (February 21) to Djokovic's brilliant final at Australian Open was peppered with Big Three references ("a reminder that the Big Three aren't quite done vacuuming up titles''). I can understand this. Media is always late and lagging in reality—as are we fans, to be fair. There were references galore to Big 4 in 2017 and 2018 even as Murray was injured and past his prime. Federer hasn't played in a year, his ranking is a protected and not a true reflection of his actual results in the past 12 months, and no one quite knows what his current playing state is. Would betting markets put most of the money on Federer to beat Medvedev or Tsitsipas or Thiem/Zverev in a Slam today? Highly doubt it. Until Federer actually shows he is consistently playing at the level of Big Three (not in the past but today), we should refrain from saying "Big Three aren't quite done vacuuming up titles.” In my view, there is a Big Two at slams today, no longer Big Three.
—VK
• The Big Three references pertain to the bloc. As is in “The Big Three have won 58 majors among them, which is a joke.” It’s a historic and collective reference; not a reference to a current power ranking. Among the Big Three, yes, Federer is the least likely to siphon another major.
With all the renewed discourse around Kyrgios after his efforts in Australia, I have a question for you and your readers. Name the most popular player in the history of tennis who:
1) Has never reached a Slam semifinal,
2) Has not finished more than one year ranked in the top 20,
3) Has not finished more than two years ranked in the top 25,
4) Is not named Kyrgios.
Who've you got?
—Cam Bennett, Canberra, Australia
• Fabrice Santoro?
Shots, Miscellany
• Darren Walton on Craig Tiley.
• Take us out, Marwan Hanania:
I know you just answered a good question about why the new generation of players have been unable to challenge the Big Three in Grand Slams. It is the question of our time as far as tennis is concerned. I have a theory that I have also seen elsewhere and I would like your opinion which I value very much.
Simply stated, I believe that the money is too good. At the young age of 23 and with zero slams under his belt, Alexander Zverev has made close to $24 million in prize money alone thus far in his career. Similarly, at 25, Daniil Medvedev has made almost $16 million in prize money (according to the latest ATP figures). If we add appearance fees, endorsements and exhibitions, I am sure both numbers would be considerably higher. In contrast, after the conclusion of a distinguished Hall of Fame 15-year career, and despite having won *seven* singles Grand Slams and thirty-three ATP singles titles overall, a legend like Mats Wilander only made $8 million in prize money (which would amount to anywhere between $13.5-16.5 million today if we correct for inflation).
I am not saying that the players of the new generation are playing for money. But what I am wondering about is maybe the money is so good that it provides these top players and their teams with such comfort that any showing in the second week of a Slam is considered a triumph. For example, Medvedev was all smiles after his 7-5, 6-2, 6-2 thrashing at the hands of Novak. Worse still, Daniil did not seem in the least upset after a horrific performance and a huge let-down for millions of fans. I was up all night waiting for the final. And yes, Novak was supreme, but come on! Put up a fight. Do something. You're the No. 4 player in the world. You just won 20 matches in a row. You're in the final. This is it. Pull a Michael Chang circa 1989 vs. Ivan Lendl fourth round Roland Garros.
I think also everybody else in pro tennis is complicit to an extent in the sorry state of affairs that is current in men's tennis. Everybody kept congratulating him.
Compare that to Federer weeping in disappointment after losing a tight, well-fought match against Rafa in 2009 in which both guys performed really well. Or to how bad McEnroe felt after losing finals. That's how much it meant to them. I don't get that feeling from these guys. I get the feeling that luxurious vacations in Ibiza await and that nobody on their team is going to say, "Hey this is a match you should have won." And, if they do share some hard truths with these grossly overpaid players, you feel that they will lose their jobs (e.g. I still wonder why Sasha got rid of Lendl, who is arguably a great fit for any top player seeking to reach the top). Finally, yes, we know that the Big Three are exceptional. But are they really that much better than Laver, Sampras, Borg or Lendl? I honestly don't think so. I think it is close (correcting for modernization), but the difference is those guys faced hungry younger players who competed with them, whereas the Big Three did not to the same extent.