Submissions have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Hey everyone, a quick mailbag for you before hitting the road.
• RIP, Jim Fuhse.
• RIP Tad Taube.
Onward …
Reviewing post-event coverage by mainstream outlets, the story of the President’s attendance at the U.S. Open was distilled down to “Trump’s attendance caused security line snafus and loud boos from the crowd.” Videos and commentary posted on social media were less restrained. But the U.S. broadcasters—and the USTA in their preemptive attempt at censoring—seemed to think the best path was to pretend it wasn’t happening.
There’s a parallel with U.S. coverage of Spain’s professional bicycle stage race happening now (La Vuelta a España) in which athletic results have been directly affected by pro-Palestine protests. This has been a major news story in the European and UK press and on the Spanish network covering the race, RTVE. In the U.S., the coverage has been provided by NBC’s Peacock (with analysts working remotely from a feed). Like ESPN, they seem to consider it their job to give no media attention to the protestors, not even mentioning what they were protesting about. In my view, sports journalists can and should cover how politics are affecting events, and this can be done without taking sides.
Barbara, Lexington MA
• Before this weekend, I was not familiar with the Spanish bike race controversy you referenced. I am now learning about it. Thanks for pointing that out.
As for the USTA debacle, someone made an adjacent point to me that networks are encouraged not to show streakers on the field or fans holding obscene signs. Fair enough. But there’s a world of difference between withholding attention from disruptive fans interrupting play and shielding the public from ticket-paying fans responding to the most powerful person in the world who is in attendance.
We all exist in our silos, and—no news flash—these are polarized times. But it’s hardly a divisive political statement to say that censorship is bad, anti-democratic and anti-American. All the more so when the organization attempting said censorship has “U.S” as the first two letters of its name. (All the more so when the White House denies that it issued the request.)
Again, the USTA was put in an unenviable position last week. President Trump came as a guest of a sponsor, not the tournament itself. There was little advance notice. The Secret Service had to coordinate on the fly with tournament security, etc. The long lines and the hassle ahead of the men’s final are a by-product of visits by heads of state. (I write this on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly week in Manhattan.) And, if we’re being honest, the USTA, not unreasonably, does not want to cloud its relationship with the federal government with potentially unflattering coverage.
But that “preemptive attempt at censoring,” as the reader correctly puts it, was as cowardly as it was abhorrent. Rightly, it has been roundly criticized by legal groups on both the left and right, in the U.S. and internationally, on social media and on podcasts, by prominent figures and ordinary fans alike. It made for—far and away—the biggest blast of negative publicity the USTA received during the U.S. Open. Worse, it undercuts the credibility of the USTA and its flowery messages of welcoming and transparency. (Spare us the next “tennis is so accessible” PSA, as you—in writing!—attempt to silence and cut off access.)
And it was all so avoidable.
Jon, I know Laver Cup is coming up in San Francisco. I think you addressed this before [but] wouldn’t Laver Cup be even better if there were women playing? Why not put Coco [Gauff] and [Aryna] Sabalenka and others in there?!
Todd D.
• First, yes, the Laver Cup is upon us. From the unseemly promotion departments, Served will be there. So will Tennis Channel. Check your local listing.
As for your question, I’ll bite. This issue arises every year, and here’s where I stand. Would it add to the celebration of tennis and its lineage if there were a women’s component and Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Serena Williams and Steffi Graf were toasted alongside John McEnroe, Björn Borg and Andre Agassi? Sure. For the sake of competitive balance, would it help if any/all of the four (!) Americans in the top 10—in addition to Naomi Osaka, Qinwen Zheng, Victoria Mboko, etc.—could compete for Team World? Absolutely.
But why is this incumbent on the Laver Cup? If there’s a business case to be made for adding women, someone should make it. If it’s a matter of funding, make the pitch. Lots of private equity firms want to increase their sports exposure. There are plenty of sources of financing. Either an investor will stage a Laver Cup for women, or perhaps, will make deal terms agreeable to Roger Federer & Co. But frame this as an economic win-win, not as philanthropy or some sort of obligation.
Hey Jon,
Great work during the past fortnight (& a half!). Gotta disagree w/ the call to stop the net-cord apologies. I don't think it should be expected by opponents, but it's a classy move to acknowledge a point wasn’t entirely earned. Players also do it for mishits. BTW, I think another feather in tennis’s cap is winning players applauding their opponents as they leave the court. I’m sure there may be players who do it for PR reasons, but if nothing else it’s a nice look for the sport & something you don’t often see elsewhere. Hope you get some well deserved rest after the U.S. Open marathon.
Thank you,
Troy
• I’m totally down with players racket-clapping or otherwise acknowledging their opponents’ insane winners. As for apologies for lucky net-cords, I suppose context matters. Some net-cord winners are luckier than others. A bit of luck at 5–1 is different from a bit of luck at 4–4.
But the idea that players are duty-bound to apologize for good fortune? No! These are athletes in heated competition, not buddies at the $10 blackjack table.
Seeing-eye singles. Shooter’s bounce. Double doinks. There are terms for luck in other sports. The idea that these athletes, blessed with good fortune from the sports fates, stop playing and apologize? Absurd. Why should tennis be any different?
Something to watch: If we do away with lets on serves, doesn’t this create an opportunity to do away with the faux-apologies as well? Or will servers whose offerings clip the tape, dribble over, and win the point with a cheap ace be expected to raise a hand in insincere apology, lest they incur Ostapenko-ian wrath?
Hey Jon, Hope you are doing well. Sharing a mailbag takeaway submission for you to consider this week about Davis Cup.
This past weekend, I attended my first Davis Cup tie since 2009 and was thrilled to see Rajeev Ram finally get the Davis Cup moment he deserved. Team USA ultimately came up short, but Rajeev, Austin Krajicek and doubles stole the show with a dramatic three-set win, which felt like vindication for Rajeev given his surprisingly complicated Davis Cup doubles history.
I then learned that Rajeev has a 12–3 (80%) record in Davis Cup doubles over the last five years since his debut in 2021, going 4–1 with Jack Sock and 8–2 with Krajicek. He’s also traveled to every away tie when given the opportunity, from Uzbekistan and Lithuania to China and Chinese Taipei. This speaks volumes about someone who has reliably showed up (and won) whenever he gets the call.
It’s a shame that his Davis Cup success and loyalty has been overshadowed by a few bad lineup decisions from each of his captains. Cheers to Rajeev, Austin and doubles for finally getting their moment on home soil. I wrote more about it after covering the event this weekend for Tennis Tribe. Many thanks and keep up the great work at Served and SI.
Hanlon Walsh
• Well put. Thanks for sending that on.
Hi Jon, I really enjoy your tennis coverage. I understand, for obvious reasons, that the U.S. Open likes the two-week period with the Labor Day weekend being the middle weekend and that the ratings this year, particularly for the women’s and men’s finals, were really good. That said, it seems like every year that the tournament loses momentum at the end of it, starting with the women’s semifinals on Thursday night, which is always head-to-head with the opening night of the NFL season. Then, the women’s and men’s finals are during the middle of the day (never optimal for ratings) on Saturday and Sunday, respectively, up against college football and the opening Sunday of the NFL season. Has the USTA had discussions about adjusting the calendar to maximize ratings?
Thanks, Charles
• It’s just so hard, given the tennis calendar and the difficulty—both legal and institutional—in changing dates. I agree that it is suboptimal to hold the finals during the first week of the NFL regular season. But it’s hard to find a realistic alternative. And the ratings seemed to hold up awfully well.
A different point—and less of a complaint than an observation: The changing metabolism of majors always strikes me. The first two rounds are sheer chaos. Even those of us paid to do so can scarcely keep up with all the results. (Wait, Karen Khachanov lost?) The pace slows a bit over the weekend, but doubles kick in, and the crowds swell.
Then, Monday and Tuesday roll around and, whoa, it’s like a beach town after Labor Day. Tennis tumbleweeds. Where is everyone? Where are all the matches? Where’s the energy? The outer courts are closed. Even the big courts are used mostly for doubles and juniors. The chaos is over, and fans might only see a few singles matches the entire day.
(Pause here to note the U.S. Open women’s semifinals on the second Thursday night—in contrast to the Thursday day session—is, reliably, awesome.)
Then, the finals are held, history is at stake, the trophies get wheeled out, the celebs (and, on occasion, the President) arrive and the energy is back for the major’s culmination.
Hi Jon,
I don’t write in much, but I’ve been reading your column literally since Day 1. I like how most commentators and journalists are trying to learn the correct pronunciations and spellings of players’ names. However, why doesn’t it go across the board? I like seeing Iga Świątek and Karolína Muchová spelled with all the right diacritics but why don’t they write and pronounce Felix, as in Felix Auger-Aliassime, as Félix. You were guilty of this in your last mailbag. He is French-Canadian; French is his first language. I think we owe him that respect.
Jeff Butt
St John’s, Canada
• To the charges enumerated, I plead guilty. I try to bake in the diacritics into the spell check. Hence “Swiatek,” for instance, automatically becomes “Świątek.” But that clearly did not happen. As for pronunciation, here’s Félix to help.
Indulge this slight pet peeve, and preempting the obvious response, yes, the correct answer is it’s not an either/or. However, I’ve heard commentators—former players in particular—make astute and insightful points about players. Then, fans negate the points because the commentator happens to have pronounced “Moutet,” “Khachanov,” or “Pavlyuchenkova” incorrectly.
It’s an international sport. We’re all trying our best here. In Paris, “Venus Williams” is “Ven-oos Wee-yams” (two syllables). In Australia, she is VAY-nuss. In Germany, the British grass court major is “PFVim-PEL-tun.” A little grace goes a long way, especially when indignation over pronunciation comes at the expense of the actual points being expressed.
@jon_wertheim will [twist] himself into a pretzel before he mentions Casper Ruud’s name! Truth is the mixed event was a dud until Iga [Świątek] and Casper [Ruud] made it interesting! But Jon Wertheim will never admit that!
Wolf Austad
• Busted. The flagrant anti-Ruud bias resurfaces again! (That was a joke. Ruud is arrowing toward the Patrick Rafter/Kim Clijsters/Gustavo Kuerten/Ons Jabeur category of universal affection. If you don’t like him, consult a mirror, because the problem is you.)
A) About mixed doubles, full credit to Ruud and, maybe more so, his partner, who won the Cincinnati title in singles and then played mixed doubles at the U.S. Open the next day. (Imagine how fast she must have been driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.)
B) Forgive me if we spent more time and space talking about the winners than the runners-up.
C) A number of you wrote about this last month, and I punted. But now that you have successfully goaded me: In the spirit of fairness, let’s acknowledge that, at best, out of character, Ruud and Świątek were chatting among themselves on stage while the winners were giving their victory speech. (I was told they were talking about tactics and missed opportunities—a glimpse into how invested they were in the match. And these are two excellent tennis citizens overall. But still.)
D) Realistically, both Ruud and Świątek are not going to play more doubles during the season, but they were both excellent. And if they resumed their partnership at the next major, that would be swell.
Shots
• Patrick McEnroe and Michael Kosta make for a winning team:
• I hope this scans as neither braggy nor humble-braggy. This speaks far more to the subject —her courage, candor, and the appeal of her story—than anything else. But the CBS Sunday Morning piece on Daria Kasatkina won an Excellence in Journalism Award for 2025.
More Tennis on Sports Illustrated
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Biggest Issue With USTA’s Handling of President Trump’s U.S. Open Visit.
