Hey everyone …
• This week’s Served podcast is a fun change of pace. Andy and I comment on the 10 best matches of the Open Era, based on the voting of more than 2,500 of you.
(Why are we doing this topic now? Because 12-day Masters 1000 events screw up the timing of podcasts, reason 11,342 for why this policy is a blight on the sport, despised by everyone, save the half dozen or so tournaments that benefit financially.)
• Thanks to those of you who wrote about the 60 Minutes situation. These are unpredictable times and I appreciate your support. Here’s the latest—for what it’s worth—a dispatch from Japan.
• For your summer tennis road trip: the All Iowa Lawn Tennis Club.
• This week’s unsolicited book recommendation: Chris Clarey’s Rafael Nadal biography, The Warrior.
• Note this project to restore Woodland Cemetery, final resting place of Arthur Ashe.
• Anyone else watching Jon Hamm on Apple+’s Your Friend & Neighbors and walking away impressed with his strokes?
Onward …
Where to now, Djoker? You may be surprised to learn I’m not a professional athlete. But still, I have no clue what’s driving Djoker to continue. I assume he doesn’t need the money. Isn’t it time for him to ascend to the Serbian throne? Or … spend time with [his kids] instead of losing to some rando Italian each week? Oh well, at least he gives a journeyman the chance to win “the match of his life” every week.
P.
• This question—and others like it—obviously come in the wake of Novak Djokovic’s loss in Madrid to Matteo Arnaldi … a loss that pushed his 2025 match record to 12–7 with zero titles. Two years ago, Djokovic whipped time and won three majors (and came within a few points of a fourth). Last year, he went Slam-less—ATP tournament-less in fact—but he reached the Wimbledon final and achieved his long-avowed goal of winning Olympic gold. This year? The one in which he turns 38? It’s hard to spin as anything other than a deep disappointment. Yes, he beat Carlos Alcaraz in Melbourne. Yes, he reached the Miami final. But outside of that it’s been a string of early-round losses, often to players deep outside the top 10. Whether it’s time or biology, both remain undefeated.
Timing your retirement is a bit like timing the financial markets. That is, it’s nearly impossible to pull off masterfully. Leave too early and you are left wondering what if, what you left on the table, often to the point that you are tempted to undo your status and un-retire. Leave too late and it’s uncomfortable as well. Tarnish a legacy is the moldiest of clichés. And it’s not even a legitimate concept. If Djokovic never wins another match, it doesn’t detract from the 24 majors he’s won. But when you have achieved great heights, losing to the likes of Arnaldi, Alejandro Tabilo and Botic van de Zandschulp et al is a bit rough.
Where now, Djoker? That is, what does Djokovic do? Short answer: whatever he wants. Quit tomorrow? Sure. Play out the season? Sure. Pull a Venus Williams and simply avoid the active/retired dichotomy entirely? Sure. His career. His choice.
As much as Djokovic is puzzled over when to leave, I wonder if he doesn’t treat his career like a disciplined trader (or poker player) might. Right now, he is playing for the majors. More than ever, other events—even the Masters 1000 he once dominated—are sandwich filling. So what if he said, If my results in Paris fall short of this threshold; I sell. If they exceed it, I hold. Or, if I don’t reach Week 2 of Wimbledon, I’m out. If I do, it’s on to New York. Set clear limits. Stay invested if you meet them. Cash out and go home if you don’t.
Complicating matters here, Djokovic is immune to so many of the usual variables. Some players have held on past their peak because of endorsements. One top player once told me, “Why am I still here? Because I don’t have to win a match, and I still get paid $5 million [I think this was the number] for being me.” That’s not the case with Djokovic, who has never made career decisions like this. Some top players have held on past their peak because they have tried to negotiate injuries. Happily for Djokovic, that’s not really the case either. He’s losing because he is a step slower and his accuracy and self-belief has left him; not because he is physically compromised.
And there’s his history. There have been fallow years, and he has stormed back. A year ago, at age 37, he had knee surgery between Roland Garros and Wimbledon and instead of quitting, he returned to reach the Wimbledon final and won an Olympic gold medal. Abiding themes of his entire career have been toppling conventional wisdom, resisting outside advice and making balloon animals twisting time.
Maybe in a best-of-five format—with rapid fan support; and buzz of a major; and guaranteed days off between matches—he rekindles something in Paris. But if his results don’t improve markedly at these two summer majors, it’s hard to see this trend continuing much longer. But this is both the beauty and peril of an individual sport. There’s no general manager to trade you, no contract to buy out, no coach to bench you. Where to now, Djoko? Essentially, wherever—and whenever—he pleases.
We’ve had a lot of questions about the ITIA and the “showering memo.”
• Origin story: last week I obtained this memo that was sent to players. There were a number of bullet points but this was the first:
The ITIA and previously the ITF has worked hard to ensure that showers following matches can amount to a permissible delay to doping control, particularly when not showering could have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of a player. However, showering is not an entitlement, and it is for this reason that the ITIA kindly requests that when showering players adhere to the requirement to stay in full view of the chaperone observing them at all times. If a player is not comfortable being witnessed whilst showering, we would suggest that consideration is given to whether a shower is necessary before providing a doping control sample. Failure to remain in full view of the chaperone will be taken extremely seriously by the ITIA.
This was striking to me for any number of reasons. First was the tone. Telling independent, adult, self-employed athletes that “showering is not an entitlement” is extraordinary. There is also the substance: The notion that minders will watch these athletes shower (more on this in a moment). A few former and current players pointed out that this has long been the policy. Fair enough. But the heading of this player email was “Important: Tennis Anti-Doping Program Updates,” so clearly, at a minimum, there was a gap in communication.
To its credit, the ITIA quickly responded with an explanation.
We recognise that parts of the anti-doping testing process are uncomfortable, however as with all WADA compliant sports – not just tennis – players who are notified for a test after a match are observed at all times by an anti-doping chaperone until the test is completed. This is a requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code. After a match, we understand that it may take some time for a player to produce a sample and so there are permissible delays for reporting to the doping control station – including cooling down and showering. Player welfare is a priority and so we will continue to advocate for their right to do this, however it is important that any activity does not impact the integrity of the sample. We regularly remind players of specific rules, and we are happy to answer any questions they may have.
This merits a pause. Policy was disclosed. It drew a strong reaction. Instead of hiding or chiding a player “leak” (or blaming the messenger, i.e. me) the ITIA took responsibility and attempted to clarify the situation. Everyone emerged a little more informed—chiefly the players, but also the fans. This is how a functional, accountable agency (society?) operates.
Anyway, this falls into the two-things-can-be-true-at-once category. From the players’ standpoint, there is something potentially upsetting about “the chaperone observing them at all times” when showering. Surely, there is an alternative that is less invasive. Surely, if the players had a means for negotiating their own anti-doping policy, as is the case in other sports, they would not agree to this.
And yet, I sympathize with the ITIA. If tennis is truly committed to a clean sport, it needs to close all loopholes. With demonstrable evidence of urine substitution and other deception for avoiding detection, is it not reasonable that “chaperones” want to be sure that their eyes never leave athletes between the time they are informed of a test and the time they furnish a sample? There was a lot of fan and player outrage directed toward the ITIA, when this “showering” protocol was revealed. But I would submit most of that anger be directed at the Lance Armstrong class, the cheaters who have created this environment.
Jon, did you know since 2010 there still have only been two male players born in the 1990s who have won Grand Slams? They are Dominic Thiem and Daniil Medvedev. What happened to that generation of players? It’s like time passed them by, and now we are having players born in the 2000s winning.
Kyle Edgeworth
Newport, RI
• Yes, that’s one of our favorite crazy stats. (Adjacent: Marin Čilić is the fourth-oldest active male player to have won a major. Čilić turns 37 later this year.) After noting that one of the 1990s major winners—Thiem—is no longer active, note that the players born in the 90s form a sandwich generation. On the bottom: the Big Three (plus Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka). Supplanting them on top: the kids, Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. There’s still time. Maybe Alexander Zverev finally gets on the board. Stefanos Tsitsipas has made multiple majors finals. Casper Ruud was born in the 1990s and has made multiple major finals. Andrey Rublev is a 90s kid. But yes, no one says talent is evenly distributed. This is a vivid expression of that.
Hi Jon,
Is the three-year stretch spanning 2012 to 2014 the most brutally competitive period in men’s tennis when multiple all-time greats were near their peak and vying for slams? Novak upended the period by having monstrous years in 2011 and 2015 but in between, of the 12 slams on offer, Rafa won four, Novak won three, Andy won two, and Roger, Cilic, and Wawrinka won one each. Importantly, while Roger began slowly fading after 2009, he was still near his best, Novak was firmly established in the top three, Murray officially made it the big four, and it is to the credit of Wawrinka and Cilic that they each won a slam in this extraordinary period.
I am not sure what other three-year stretches can be compared to this. 1979 to ’81? All three of Borg, Connors, and Johnny Mac were near their peak, Lendl was coming up. 1988 to ’90? Only Lendl, Becker, and Edberg as Agassi was still not fully at his Slam winning maturity and Courier and Sampras not there yet. 1992 to ’94? Some other three-year stretch in the 90s?
Thanks
VK
• It’s an interesting exercise but—assuming I am reading this right; and I am open to the suggestion I am not—there’s a tautology here, no? If peak Serena Williams (or 2003 to ’07 Roger Federer) had taken more L’s, the era would have been “stronger” in the sense that it would have accommodated more major winners. But it would have come at the expense of their greatness.
I do think your larger point is a good one. Think about men’s tennis from 2012 to ’15. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were either in their meaty primes or not far beyond them. The youngest (Djokovic) was in his mid-20s. The oldest (Federer) was in his early 30s. They were (generally) healthy and competing uncompromised in major after major. They were 1-2-3 on every surface. That Murray and Wawrinka snuck in here is really a testament.
I hope things are good with you. Thank you for the mailbag and Served. We especially appreciated the recent mailbag discussion of the PTPA lawsuit. On a much different topic, what to make of the comment recently attributed to Caitlin Clark about forgoing tennis when she was young because she thought it was “too easy”? We are big Clark fans, part of the legion who have come to women’s basketball in large part because of the excitement of watching her play. But this comment is inexplicable, especially from someone who has seemed pretty graceful when speaking in public. Granted she was 10 years old at the time, but not anymore. I come up empty trying to think of anything that’s “easy” about tennis. Is it easier to hit a tennis ball into a 39' x 27' area than to throw a 9.5" ball into an 18" hoop suspended 10' off the ground? Maybe, but that's not tennis. It’s not basketball either. As an adult reflecting on childhood decisions, it would have been better to say, “I chose basketball because I love it…” Or to add something like, “I know better now...There’s nothing easy about tennis.” Not only better, but more respectful to an entire sport profession. Chalk it up as an unforced error?
Best regards,
David, California
• There’s probably a broader lesson here. I googled and got the following as my first hit:
“I got kicked out of tennis class when I was 10,” Clark admitted with a laugh. “I told my coach what he was teaching was too easy.” While the Iowa alum didn’t stick with the sport, the impression Williams left on her remained powerful. “I thought [Serena’s] career was incredible. She’s my favorite athlete of all time.”
Bear in mind this is no primary source either. But here Clark is A) speaking with a laugh B) seeking more challenge from tennis and C) citing a tennis player as her all-time favorite athlete, despite playing a different sport. Seems more complimentary than pejorative. News diets and aggregators in 2025 and all.
I agree with your larger point. Tennis’s inherent decree of difficulty is both a blessing and curse. That it takes great skill and technique and time and training to master this sport, this melding of power and accuracy? It’s both a reason the greats are great … and a reason why so many kids quit early. The mind rotates with topspin, wondering what tennis looks like if it had a Caitlin Clark figure. Somewhere in Iowa, there is a tennis coach wishing he had placed targets further back in the court, or had fed balls with more spin and pace.
HAVE A GOOD WEEK EVERYONE!
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: What’s Next for Novak Djokovic.
