The Future of Tennis is Now

As Novak Djokovic kissed the court on his way out of a valiant but losing effort in the semifinals of the French Open — which, by the way, gross — the broadcast rightly noted what was happening. I mean, it wasn’t exactly subtle. So changeth the guard. There goes the last of the Big Three. Nole is still remarkably competitive, but in all likelihood, he’s won his last Grand Slam.

And not even because he’s declined with age, though that’s surely part of it. It has less to do with him and a lot more to do with the young players who’ve graduated into champions right before our eyes.

As the last of the Big Three exits, whenever he does finally hang ‘em up, he will leave the sport in the hands of a new Big Two. There’s no indication at the moment that there’s going to be some kind of waiting period here. The transition period is already over.

Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner are here, and given their age — 22 and 23, respectively — there’s plenty of reason to think that just as the last generation of players were only ever playing for fourth place behind Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer (or — fine — fifth if you count Murray), everyone else playing right now might be similarly locked out.

This point can be made many ways, but here’s my favorite.

That was the first men’s major final to be contested by two players who were born in the 2000s. Do you want to guess how many major finals have ever been up for grabs between two players born in the 90s? One. One! Ever! Thiem vs. Zverev in the 2020 U.S. Open.

The 90s kids can still add to that, of course. The door’s not 100%, irrevocably shut. But guys like Zverev and Medvedev, and to a lesser extent, guys like Fritz, Rublev, de Minaur, Paul, Ruud, Tiafoe, etc. must be thinking to themselves — if you’ll (don’t do it, man) excuse my French — “Well, shit. It’s happening again.”

So people might ask, understandably: is this good for the sport? To have it revolve almost solely around just a few people? My contention is yes.

That was the longest and greatest French Open final in history. It immediately enters a short list of the greatest matches ever, full stop. The level of tennis on display there was historically excellent. I found it notable that some all-time legends of the sport were commenting, live, on the extraordinary nature of what they were seeing, openly calling into question whether even the Big Three of such recent vintage could hang with these two. It’s a stunning thing to muse on, and from towering figures like Andre Agassi at that. He’s wondering, aloud, whether the level of tennis has been raised.

And if you watched that match, you can understand why. It didn’t seem possible. Not that any of us are pro athletes, but when was the last time you did anything for five and a half hours other than sleep? Preposterous. By the end, I couldn’t blame Sinner for looking absolutely exhausted. It’s hard to imagine competing at that level for that duration of sheer time. It’s a level of mental intensity above all that’s hard to fully capture or appreciate, but I think we all should.

There’s a clip from Andy Roddick making the rounds this week that I found myself largely agreeing with: “Tennis is the most complete examination of an athlete.”

I’ll paraphrase the rest, but he’s essentially saying, look, these guys just went full-tilt for close to 6 hours. They don’t have teammates. There is no clock. (All things clock management remain an unfortunate aspect of just about every sport.) No, there’s no element of direct physicality in the same way as most of the sports that most people would consider the “hardest,” but there is a very specific element of extreme focus under extreme physical duress at play. You try hitting with the same level of precision you did in the first set, five hours later in the fifth. It’s pretty insane the level these guys are not only able to reach but maintain. And we haven’t touched the reaction time and hand-eye inherent to tennis, which must obviously be at an elite level too.

Still, the most impressive part — which I think is what Roddick is getting at — is the mental element. There’s a very famous book that my dad used to love called The Inner Game of Tennis. The latest re-release has a foreword by Bill Gates, which ought to give you an impression of the cultural impact this book has had.

When it comes to tennis, especially at the highest level, the fact that it’s just you out there is a pretty significant element of what makes the sport so hard. You see people fall apart all the time. (Aryna Sabalenka last weekend, for instance.) It’s a ton of stress, some more mental than physical.

And the reason I bring that up is because that was Alcaraz’s chief accomplishment in winning that title. Physically, he’s better equipped than just about any other player in history to win the French Open. He’s made for this. His quickness, his hands, basically all his physical tools are top-notch.

His weaknesses, in the moments when he’s shown he has any, are in the mental lapses. He’s been known to lose focus, and thus form, for extended periods at majors. He’s lost plenty of matches he should’ve won, as most players have. The thing is: very few, possibly none, have ever been so preposterously talented.

So I would contend, as others have too, that having a rival of Sinner’s caliber is exactly what Alcaraz needs to be the best version of himself. Whereas he could reasonably conclude that he can afford to be off his A game in playing just about anyone else in the world, that’s not true of Sinner. He really does need his best to get past that guy, as he’s done several times now. Sinner is getting better, and so is Alcaraz, and though the rivalry’s a little lopsided at the moment, we sure have something brewing here. I hope we continue to see a tug of war between them for years to come. And I do believe, firmly, that that is great for the sport. Just like that French Open final was.

🏀 This has been a fascinating NBA Finals. It’s starting to remind me a little of that 2011 Heat vs. Mavs series. You may recall the same coach was involved in both. With all due respect to the Pacers, who are clearly legit, I know which one of these two is the better team. It’s not them. And yet! The Thunder are the ones who are playing out of character, messing with rotations to a degree that seems confusing to me for a heavy favorite. I expect they’ll get this next one, but the Pacers have made it a must-win. Excellent bounceback game from Haliburton, and obviously Mathurin was electric, but I keep coming back to the degree to which this would be a disappointment for OKC. I should give Indiana more credit. They really rock. But something tells me they’re more comfortable with this as the dynamic.

🏒 What a win for the Oilers. Down three goals in the first, all the way back in OT. As ever, the Stanley Cup delivers. They really do have the best playoffs. I'm usually bad about watching every game — this one included, for sleep-related reasons that will become clear in mere bullet points — but I love that this series continues to resist being a walkover for Florida, as it looked in game 3.

📚 Can’t believe I forgot Book Corner last week. My apologies! But good expectation-setting for times like these, when I’m not exactly at a prolific level of reading. That said, this week, I do have a couple things to catch you up on.

#1 — Pale Fire is a full-on masterpiece. I found it incredibly frustrating to read at times, but by the end, I loved it. The pure voice of it is staggering. The faberge egg element is all the more so. A character flaw of mine is that I find it very difficult to re-read books. This is one I guarantee I will revisit, just to catch some of what I missed the first time through. It’s one of those that I wouldn’t necessarily recommend, given how strange it all is, but one that I would put on the Best I’ve Ever Read list in a heartbeat.

#2 — Can’t say the same of The Parable of the Sower. I appreciate what it’s doing. As dystopian novels go, it’s nice not to see some sort of singular catastrophic event that sets off the apocalypse. The book casts it as slightly more of a gradual process, something the world sleepwalked into over time, which feels about right lately. There are some (chillingly) prescient elements to the setup. But I had some trouble with the style, which is usually enough to put me off a book, and it was here too. Don’t know what else to say, really. Can’t be mad if you feel differently, but struggled to connect to this one.

👨 It’s Father’s day this weekend, which’ll be my first without mine around. One of many reminders that he’s not here anymore, which is obviously tough. But should it help anyone else reading this, it’s all I can do to try and focus on how fortunate I was to have had the time with him that I did. Many are not so lucky. I know I feel immensely blessed. Even when he led me into clear and present danger by sitting me down on this den of iguanas for a picture.

As you can see, I’m not prepared for a fight here. But as luck would have it, the iguanas proved non-violent. Remember to hug your people, my people!

👰‍♀️🤵 On a brighter note, I’m also marrying the patron saint of All Fields this weekend. Love you so, so much, Laura. (And yes, the North Brooklyn Baddies volleyball squad will be represented in force. I know many of you were wondering. Do I myself count? Unclear. Maybe I’m marrying in? I’ll ask.)