Exit a Minor Titan
Exit a Minor Titan
Exit a Minor Titan
Dominic Thiem was a worthy foil for the Big Three–for a while, at least.
Dominic Thiem was a worthy foil for the Big Three–for a while, at least.
By Giri Nathan
October 25, 2024

Dominic Thiem after defeating Roger Federer in the 2019 Indian Wells final. // David Bartholow

Dominic Thiem after defeating Roger Federer in the 2019 Indian Wells final. // David Bartholow
Sometimes time corrects false impressions. This was certainly my experience with Dominic Thiem, who retired this week at the young age of 31, having lost his best tennis well before. Now I worry that his body of work, though decently impressive on paper, might not do justice to his beastly talent. Seven years ago, when I first started writing about this sport, I didn’t really believe in that talent at all.
In summer 2017 I was at the Citi Open Washington D.C., reporting a piece on the future of the men’s tour. I left that tournament with a dim impression of Dominic Thiem: a hapless ball-basher who played too busy a tour schedule and never adjusted his tactics to succeed off of clay courts. This was just a few weeks after a hungover Roger Federer, the morning after winning Wimbledon, had expressed his horror at a younger generation with no net skills to finish points quickly. Perhaps no young player seemed more remote from the net than Thiem, who was then notorious for camping out miles behind the baseline to set up his big ground strokes. I asked Thiem what he thought about Federer’s advice. “Everybody likes to see something different, but nobody is going to change the style of game,” he said, clearly never going to leave his happy place at the back wall of the court. Another example of how inflexible and hardheaded he was, I thought—he’d never make it!
Thiem seemed to me a placeholder, a player of temporary interest until the next true generational player arrived to usher Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic out of the game. Surely that guy was coming soon. Here he comes. This is the one…or maybe that is the one. But it’ll be any minute now. Right? Year after year passed, prospect after prospect faded, and the Big Three continued to reign. In time I came to grasp just how anomalous those three were, how superior they were to so many successive generations of players, how many potential breakthroughs they managed to quash. And while I came to this realization, the man I’d once dismissed, that stubborn and sedulous ball-basher, kept toiling away. And improving. His blind power got smarter. He found better angles instead of whaling away down the middle. He stepped up into the court when he needed to play a little faster. He expanded his success out from clay to hard courts. He was becoming, if not quite their equal, a constant irritant.
If you consider the 2017–2020 seasons as the final phase of the Big Three era—the last time all three were pretty healthy, clogging up the draw at every big event, winning all the Slams—it’s clear who their worthiest competitor was in that span. It wasn’t Andy Murray, who spent those years ravaged by injury and spiraling toward his first retirement. It was in fact Thiem, who could often hit a peak level defined by overwhelming power and spin, the biggest one-handed backhand since Stan Wawrinka, and a bruising physicality. All that was enough to amass a 16–19 record against the best players ever: 5–2 against Federer, 6–10 against Nadal, 5–7 against Djokovic. Dominic Thiem isn’t as good as Andy Murray, but he is the only player to match the rare feat of having beaten all members of the Big Three at least five times apiece.
Beyond the numbers, I’ll remember the distinctive stamp Thiem put on those matches. His conviction in his own style paid off in the end. Nobody was beating the Big Three with fussy attritional baseline play; it took something bolder and bloodier, a commitment to full power, no second thoughts. And with that burly style of play, Thiem had a knack for epics, for entertaining us in wins and losses alike. His nearly five-hour loss to Nadal in the 2018 US Open quarterfinal is about as close as tennis gets to blood sport. Wins like the one over Federer at Indian Wells in 2019, or the one over Novak Djokovic at the ATP Finals later that year, proved how dangerous he could be when his baseline game was in full flow. “No matter the surface, you always found a way to beat me with your thunderous backhands,” Federer wrote in his tribute to Thiem this week.
Thiem got his lone Slam in 2020, in odd conditions, and faded out almost immediately after. It would take four more seasons before the tour found those long-awaited generational talents, the ones who would finally wrest the game away from that old triad, with Djokovic as their last standing delegate. It was only in 2024 that Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz took over. And even so, at age 37, playing a part-timer’s schedule and wearing a knee sleeve after a meniscus repair, Djokovic is still good enough to steal away a gold medal and beat pretty much every other player on tour. That’s how hard he is to take down. Having seen how history played out, I’ve come to understand just how unusual it was for Thiem to battle these three guys and come away with an almost 50/50 record. My first impressions were way off. Dominic Thiem wasn’t a lunk, but in fact a minor titan. He didn’t last long, but what he accomplished in his prime was more than the other mortals could manage.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
Short Skirts and a Long Life
Short Skirts and a Long Life
Short Skirts and a Long Life
Italian tennis icon Lea Pericoli was known for the flamboyant fashions and gender politics of a bygone era.
Italian tennis icon Lea Pericoli was known for the flamboyant fashions and gender politics of a bygone era.
By Ben Rothenberg
October 18, 2024
Short Skirts and a Long Life
Short Skirts and a Long Life
Italian tennis icon Lea Pericoli was known for the flamboyant fashions and gender politics of a bygone era.
Italian tennis icon Lea Pericoli was known for the flamboyant fashions and gender politics of a bygone era.
By Ben Rothenberg
October 18, 2024

Lea Pericoli in a classic Ted Tinling confection. // Getty

Lea Pericoli in a classic Ted Tinling confection. // Getty
When I got the chance to interview Lea Pericoli five years ago, it felt entirely appropriate that we met in Rome. She’d been Italy’s best women’s tennis player from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, after all, and sprinkled her perfect English with enthusiastic assents of “Si, bravo” anytime she agreed with what you were saying.
But perhaps more than just Rome, it was fitting that I met Lea Pericoli within walking distance of the Vatican. Because Lea Pericoli was an icon, and by the time I met her, many would describe her as a relic of a controversial historical force. But I thought of Lea Pericoli more like a patron saint: a guardian and vessel of a certain moment in tennis history and certain values, now perhaps considered retrograde or regrettable. She was the archetype of a time when women realized they had to dress for a show to be seen.
“A forehand or a backhand don’t get spoiled if you have a pretty dress,” Pericoli told me. “You don’t spoil the game. You just make it a little more pleasant.”
Decades before Billie Jean King would prove that women’s professional sports were a viable concept, only a handful of women were given opportunities to earn money playing sports, and it wasn’t necessarily because they were the best players.
The most lucrative draw in women’s tennis in the early 1950s was Gertrude “Gorgeous Gussie” Moran, a Californian who was on the fringe of the top 10. Moran became a postwar pinup after her appearance at Wimbledon in 1949, when she wore lace-trimmed knickers designed by tennis couturier Ted Tinling.
At buttoned-up Wimbledon, All England Club officials decried Moran for “bringing vulgarity and sin into tennis.” But Moran’s photos went viral, as we’d say now, splashed across front pages around England, America, and the world.
As reported by Time in November 1950: “Gussie Moran got top billing as the tennis pros opened their winter tour in Manhattan’s Madison Square Garden last week…. [As] a reflection of tennis ability this made no sense, but the pros knew what they were doing.” As top draw, Moran took home 30 percent of the gate at Madison Square Garden.
_________
It was this world, where athleticism and traditional notions of femininity were often considered antithetical, into which Lea Pericoli ascended a few years later. “Sport doesn’t flatter so much a woman,” she told me. “So, you must try to keep being feminine.”
Pericoli’s ethos was just what the male-dominated tennis world was looking for. When the Italian federation sponsored Pericoli to compete at Wimbledon for the first time in 1955, she’d already caused a pretournament stir with her appearance at a warm-up event in Beckenham, getting on the front pages of many British newspapers for her outfit alone, dubbed “Luscious Lea” and “The Lollobrigida of Tennis.” Eager to join forces with this new sensation, Tinling offered to outfit Pericoli for Wimbledon. “It is a great honor, because Tinling only dresses the greatest and most beautiful,” Pericoli later wrote.
Pericoli took court for her first match at Wimbledon decked out in a Tinling creation: a short dress with the shock of a Schiaparelli-pink petticoat underneath, flouting Wimbledon’s strict all-white rules. Photographers scrambled to Court No. 4 to snap photos of her, often lying down to achieve their desired up-skirt angles.

“Gorgeous” Gussie Moran, tennis’ first pinup. // Getty

Lea Pericoli with Italian tennis icon Adriano Panatta // Getty

“Gorgeous” Gussie Moran, tennis’ first pinup. // Getty

Lea Pericoli with Italian tennis icon Adriano Panatta // Getty
“I go out onto the court and all hell breaks loose,” Pericoli recalled. “I have about 20 photographers lying under me. Every move I make causes an infinite series of clicks.”
The circus-like atmosphere unnerved Pericoli, and she lost in three sets. But because of what she’d worn, she was the biggest story at Wimbledon that week. The Daily Herald gushed that Pericoli “lost her contest but found her place in public memory as this year’s femme fatale of fancy-pants…. [The] match is ended, but the lingerie lingers on.”
Pericoli was initially mortified by how much attention she had attracted. “I lost the match, I was in tears,” she told me. “My father forbade me to play tennis because he was shocked about all the first pages and so on.” So when she returned to court for her doubles match later that week, Pericoli wore a conservative top and pair of shorts from the British brand Fred Perry to deflect any further spotlight. The abandonment of his work infuriated Tinling, who refused to work with her again for years.
But after the waves she’d made, promoters around the world saw how Pericoli was being covered as “the biggest sensation Wimbledon has seen since Gussie Moran” and began offering her spots in their events. “I wasn’t the strongest player in the world, but with that, I got really wonderful invitations all over the world,” Pericoli told me. “I went to the Caribbean and I went around South America. Just for that. Not so much for my tennis.”
Pericoli “made peace” with Tinling and came to embrace her power as his on-court mannequin, model, and muse. Tinling continued pushing the envelope with Pericoli, and she traveled alongside him to new markets where he hoped to sell his creations, embracing his sense of camp. On a trip to South Africa, for example, Tinling made a gold dress and pair of diamond-studded panties for Pericoli to wear as an homage to the country’s mining industries.
Pericoli assured me that the ostentatious outfits weren’t cumbersome. But sometimes they required mindfulness: Wearing a skirt made of 300 ostrich feathers, as she did once at Wimbledon, meant that you had to wipe a sweaty hand elsewhere, lest you ruffle and muss the delicate design.
Whether it was modeling for Princess Grace Kelly in Monaco or a group of English women at a garden party, Pericoli and Tinling delighted in dazzling their audiences. “I have a little mink skirt, a skirt of swan feathers, a dress made of rose petals, another made of bunches of lily of the valley,” Pericoli wrote in her 1976 memoir Questa Bellissima Vita. “Fringes, sequins, veils. Let’s say that my tailor and I have lost our minds a little. But this will serve to revolutionize clothing in the world of tennis.”
Pericoli was also prudent about what she put on, only wearing her boldest outfits when she believed victory was assured.
“You must be a little careful, because if you go out there with feathers, and you lose, you’re dead because the press will kill you—they will pluck you like a chicken,” she told me. “I always was intelligent enough; I used to know up to what level to dare. When I knew I was going to lose, I just wore a nice little white dress.”
Pericoli and I spoke of two revolutions that followed her in women’s tennis. The first was that previously conservative women’s tennis players began to dress more like her, wearing short skirts or dresses with visible frilly underwear underneath, often designed by Tinling.
Billie Jean King, an advocate for substance over style but also a realist about how to draw eyeballs for her nascent women’s tour, wore many of Tinling’s creations during her career, including during her win over Bobby Riggs in the 1973 Battle of the Sexes.
“Fashion really reflects where women were, and the lack of freedom we had with our bodies and with sports, how restrictive society was for women through fashion,” King told me a few years ago. “Fashion tells you where people are, how things loosened up over time.”
The second revolution we discussed was the one led by King—whom Pericoli was proud to mention she had once beaten on a clay court in Gstaad in 1969—to make women’s tennis a viable, and eventually hugely lucrative, career opportunity.
“I think it’s amazing,” Pericoli told me as we discussed the many millionaire players in the modern women’s game. “And I’m very glad for them because I never would have thought in my life that a miracle like this would have happened…. Billie managed to lead this kind of rebellion.”
As we sat in a small garden at the Foro Italico between courts Pietrangeli and Centrale, though, Pericoli made clear, perhaps unsurprisingly given her earlier generation, that she didn’t cosign everything King had stood for. “I’ve never been—come si dice—a feminist,” she told me.
By leaning into her ability to draw attention for her outfits, Pericoli had worked within the patriarchy rather than against it. “Now I think it’s even too exaggerated, you know, to have the same kind of prize money,” she told me. “I will be very unpopular with this, but I don’t think that in the world we are living now, in this time, that women can complain…. I don’t want to be like a man. I don’t want equality…. That’s why I don’t like women liberation, you know. Very dangerous. Very dangerous. You mustn’t have an enemy when you see a man.”
_________
Though she never reached a major quarterfinal in singles, Pericoli kept playing into her 40s, even after battling cancer. From the 1980s through the 2010s, she served as a master of ceremonies at the Foro Italico. She also worked for a Milanese newspaper, writing about tennis and fashion.
Pericoli remained ready to be seen at tennis courts throughout her life. She was formally made an ambassador for women’s tennis by the Federation of Italian Tennis (FIT) in 2004, and her platinum coiffure was unmissable in her front-row seat of Court Centrale. She put in long hours watching tennis in the sun well into her 80s. “Because it would be horrible to have a front-row seat and not to be sitting there,” Pericoli told me. “At least for politeness. It’s a big pleasure, but also a little duty that you must show respect, you know?”
The respect was reciprocated by the tournament: In 2018, the Foro Italico opened a new on-site restaurant, with walls painted bright pink, named “Lea” in her honor.
When we met in 2019, during a brief respite from her front seat, Pericoli wore a crisp white pantsuit and Tiffany & Co. glasses. She was 84 but still nimble and still sharp in her second language. “My life is fantastic,” she told me. “I like this role of being an ambassador for Italian tennis, and I enjoy life. It’s wonderful. The only shame is that it will end, unfortunately. I would like for it to be a little longer, for my taste.”
Lea Pericoli, with short skirts and a long life, passed away on Oct. 4, 2024. She was 89.

Vintage Pericoli. // Getty

Vintage Pericoli. // Getty

TENNIS. ART. CULTURE. FASHION. TRAVEL. IDEAS. — SIGN UP
Oh, Sister
Oh, Sister
Oh, Sister
Siblings Mirra and Erika Andreeva clash for the first time, in Wuhan.
Siblings Mirra and Erika Andreeva clash for the first time, in Wuhan.
By Giri Nathan
October 10, 2024

Erika Andreeva during her Round of 32 match against sister Mirra in Wuhan this week. // Getty

Erika Andreeva during her Round of 32 match against sister Mirra in Wuhan this week. // Getty
Younger siblings are usually the better tennis players, aren’t they? What a structural advantage, to spend so many formative years hitting with someone older and better, honing those ground strokes with pure spite and a hunger for affirmation. Can’t teach that.
Erika Andreeva is an excellent tennis player, ranked No. 70 in the world as a 20-year-old. If only she didn’t have to compete on the same professional plane as her 17-year-old sister, Mirra, one of the WTA’s best prodigies in more than a decade. This week, Mirra rose to No. 19 in the world, which made her the youngest player to enter the top 20 since Nicole Vaidasova did it in 2006. Teenage stardom has grown scarcer as the sport has gotten more physically taxing, but Mirra is the rare player with the technical chops to already beat veterans at this embryonic stage, without much of a serve. Mirra also seems to peak at the biggest tournaments, as proven by her incredible 15–7 record at Slams; she made the Roland-Garros semifinal this year by absorbing the power of Aryna Sabalenka. Mirra is bubbly and funny in interviews, and also slightly terrifying. “Fourth round is nothing,” she said, immediately after arriving at that stage of the Australian Open earlier this year. What kind of 16-year-old says that? Only one intent on crushing everything in her path.
Unfortunately for Mirra, it was her sibling Erika who appeared in her path for their second-round match in Wuhan on Wednesday. The two sisters were coming at the match from quite different angles: Erika lost in the qualifying rounds and only slipped into the main draw as a lucky loser; Mirra was slotted in as the No. 16 seed. While there are a couple pairs of siblings on tour, they haven’t recently collided. The WTA’s most recent sister matchup is still its most iconic: Venus and Serena, in 2020, at the modest Lexington tournament. (Serena won it, ending her career with a 19–12 all-time edge.)
The Wuhan match was unfamiliar territory for the sisters Andreeva. It wasn’t just that they hadn’t yet played each other in an official pro setting. Mirra said that she and Erika hadn’t even played a casual practice match in “three or five years.” That’s because they seem to struggle to find a “casual” register as far as tennis is concerned. The siblings have intentionally resolved not to talk about tennis off the court, and while they do practice together, they never play points, sets, or matches. It unnerves them: “For example, if she does a lot of mistakes or I see she’s unhappy or worried, I start to be worried for her, then I cannot play normally. When she sees that some bad stuff happens to me, she cannot play normally, she cannot practice,” said Mirra, who previewed this matchup as a “nightmare.” When they were kids, Erika always won their sets, Mirra said last year; Erika countered by observing that the age difference is far more consequential at a young age. Now Mirra is the taller one and has enjoyed greater overall success as a pro. Maybe these facts would give her the edge she lacked as a tot.
Or maybe not. Just as Serena lost her first five matches against Venus before taking control of the rivalry, the junior Andreeva might still be coming up against a decade-old mental block. Mirra has the occasional fiery moment on court, but for the most part I’m astonished by how well she holds her composure in huge matches. Still, there’s nothing like a deep-seated family rivalry to make a tennis player revert to their actual tiny age. Though she had a break point to go up 4–1 in the first set, Mirra lost the set 3–6 from there and promptly blasted a ball into the stands in frustration. In the second set Erika took over, claiming her third match point to win 6–3, 6–1 in a mere 90 minutes. There was no visible celebration, just a sober and sincere hug at the net.
Apparently their deep familiarity with each other’s games turned the contest into a kind of game-theoretic puzzle. “I know where she will most possibly go, and she as well,” said Erika after her win. “Sometimes during the rally I was like, ‘Normally I go there, but I know that she knows that I go there,’ and I changed my decision. I’m not sure that was the best choice sometimes.” Overall, though, Erika clearly made enough of the right calls to take the edge in what will hopefully be a long-running head-to-head. I say “hopefully” for the tennis fans—there were some really wonderful rallies in this one—if not for the Andreeva nuclear family. At least the sisters worked out an arrangement ahead of their stressful contest: They decided to split their prize money from the second round. Sharing is caring, now and forever.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
Back to the Grind
Back to the Grind
Back to the Grind
Kei Nishikori has been reanimated.
Kei Nishikori has been reanimated.
By Giri Nathan
October 4, 2024

Kei turning back the clock in Tokyo. // Getty

Kei turning back the clock in Tokyo. // Getty
If you could steal one ATP player’s backhand, whose would you pick? Feels somehow irresponsible not to go with Novak Djokovic. But I could see a case for a Jannik Sinner, maybe even a Daniil Medvedev, depending on your taste. My tastes here tend toward the simple and outdated. After all these years, I’d pick the 34-year-old, not-quite-dead Kei Nishikori. That backhand is a minimalist’s dream. The racquet dips down unceremoniously, it comes up smoothly, and in between, all it does is make pure contact with the ball. The wrists are lax, and the timing is anything but. Some backhands might be more devastating, but none are quite so simple.
There weren’t many occasions to watch that wonderful backhand over the past three years, as the Japanese star had a series of injuries and slid deeper into his 30s. This wasn’t a new story for him. Throughout Nishikori’s career, even in his prime, his woes were often physical. Not just acute injuries, but also the mid-tournament wear and tear. He’d play a few unfocused matches in the early week of a major, play out an unnecessary five-setter here and there, and look utterly depleted by the time he faced his Big Three executioner in the second week. On a purely technical level, though, he left little to be desired. With a short-guy serve that was never going to win him many easy points, he would always have to seize initiative from the baseline; his career would only go as far as his speed, return game, and killer ground strokes would take him. Which was quite far: the No. 4 ranking, 12 titles, wins over all the best players of his era, a major final at the 2014 US Open.
But given his medical rap sheet, Nishikori would not have been an obvious candidate for career longevity. As he sat on the sidelines through the entirety of 2022 after hip surgery, then proceeded to miss much of 2023 and lost all his ranking points, I half-expected the next news update from him to be a quiet retirement announcement. But he resurfaced, won a Challenger, and kept some hope alive. In 2024, he cropped up here and there. At Roland-Garros this year I settled into a good seat for his unlikely return to the Grand Slams, his first since the US Open in 2021. And I felt the warm fuzzy embrace of a familiar tennis scene. A physically gutting, five-set Kei Nishikori victory after winning the first two sets? The man hadn’t changed at all.
It’s always hard to assess how much a tennis player has left to give; an isolated good match is one thing, but consistency is the true elusive goal. There have been some interesting moments for Nishikori this summer, but as far as the eye test is concerned, it was last week in Tokyo, in front of the loud home crowd, where he began to look like a real player again. He received a wild card and delivered value.
The tournament opened up on an unusual note for him. After getting used to facing young and unfamiliar players, he found it strange and nostalgic to face his contemporary, Marin Cilic, who was on a (very successful) injury comeback tour of his own, having just won an ATP 250. And so it was the two finalists from the US Open exactly a decade ago, healed from their various maladies, still going at it. Nishikori’s serve, of all shots, helped carry him to that three-set victory. He said it was the best he’d served since his return to tour, and told the tennis writer Aki Uchida that he’d been improving his takeback and ball toss. Even the veterans are still tinkering, always in search of a new edge.
In the second round, Nishikori played Jordan Thompson, who was in good form himself, fresh off a fourth round at the US Open. And the Japanese star was reeling off winners with an ease and audacity I found almost unrecognizable. Even Nishikori later admitted surprise at his own level: “It went a little beyond my imagination. There were quite a few shots that made me think, ‘Was this going in?’” But he remained cautious. It wasn’t a meaningful sign unless he could actually keep up this level, he said.
Which he did, for another match. Nishikori’s next match in Tokyo was a barn burner against Holger Rune, the 21-year-old who is a natural with both backhands and trolling, and who seemed to relish the opportunity to taunt a stadium roaring for its local hero, howling at them and pointing to his ear. Tremendous atmosphere, even better tennis, and Nishikori fought all the way to a match point in the third set before losing. When the match ended, he set his hands on his knees, as if unable to make his way to the net. Zooming out for a bit, though, it’s hard to see this as anything but a triumph. Back from injury and unranked irrelevance, Nishikori had just played three high-level matches in a row against elite competition, and more to the point, he was hitting the ball as cleanly as he’d done at his peak. I wasn’t sure he’d ever do that again before hanging up the racquets. He kept the momentum this week in Shanghai, beating world No. 38 Mariano Navone before losing on Friday to Stefanos Tsitsipas, whom Nishikori had previously upset this summer. It’s the sort of run that can get even a sober-minded fan talking themselves into a comeback.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
Searching for Craig Cignarelli
Searching for Craig Cignarelli
Searching for Craig Cignarelli
The Menendez trial cast an emotional shadow over
a charismatic coach.
The Menendez trial cast an emotional shadow over a charismatic coach.
By Jackson Frons
Photo Illustration by Dakari Akil
Featured in Volume 1 of OPEN Tennis — BUY
Searching for Craig Cignarelli
Searching for Craig Cignarelli
The Menendez trial cast an emotional shadow over a charismatic coach.
The Menendez trial cast an emotional shadow over a charismatic coach.
By Jackson Frons
Photo Illustration by Dakari AkilFeatured in Volume 1 of OPEN Tennis — BUY


When I was 19, I beat John McEnroe in a set of doubles. Unsurprisingly, this was the highlight of my first summer home from college. It was 2013, and I spent my mornings driving from Encino to Malibu, first on the 101 to Calabasas, then westward through the canyons toward the California coast. That summer I trained for countless hours on the pristine courts at the Malibu Racquet Club, honing my game under the tutelage of Craig Cignarelli.
Craig was one of a handful of powerhouse coaches on the SoCal tennis scene. The sort of figure with a perpetually full lesson book and an almost cultish following. He was an ample man, California tan, with a round face, bulbous calves, and a stocky upper body. He kept his golden blond hair coiffed in center-parted waves. He’d made his name teaching around the valley in the ’90s, first at the Warner Center then on the courts of Cal State Northridge. After that, he replaced Robert Landsdorp at the Riviera, where he ran the junior program and boasted a list of clients that ranged from touring pros to Elisabeth Shue. One of those pros, Lester Cook, was working with him that summer in Malibu, fresh off a commendable, if not particularly lucrative, career on the Challenger circuit.
Craig and Lester’s Malibu workouts featured a rotating cast of college guys and recent high school grads. People who played for or were soon headed to schools like Pepperdine, Duke, Wake Forest, and UCLA. I didn’t entirely fit in. I was gangly and athletically uninspired. I spent a lot of time staring at my phone. I’d had an up-and-down first season at a small Division III school in rural Vermont and could see the end of my tennis career looming in the not-so-distant future. Off court, I was reading Jesus’ Son and Actual Air, and at night, sore and sunburned, I hung out in the Westwood backyard of my friend’s film-producer father with a cadre of hip liberal arts students who’d long ago given up any involvement with organized sports.
While I’d known many of my training partners in Malibu from our years on the junior circuit, I suddenly felt apart and distant from the tennis world. It was clear that our games (and lives) were trending toward different destinations.
They were long days. We’d hit for hours in the morning. Get Chipotle. Watch Wimbledon on the pro-shop flat-screen. Practice more in the afternoon. Work out in the gym.
It was a common routine with uncommon adornments. Of course there was McEnroe, who waltzed in to get ready for World Team Tennis with some Dunlops and a zip-up hoodie. Another week, Paul Annacone, the ex-coach of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer (and himself an accomplished pro), came as Craig’s guest to bestow his sage wisdom upon us. Annacone eyed me, exhausted, and said, “You really should move your feet more.” Then there was the club itself, a small but elegantly modern facility just off the PCH that no one present would let you forget was owned by Larry Ellison.
I grew up practicing at a much drabber club nominally in Bel-Air, but really on an anonymous stretch of Sepulveda between the Skirball Center and the Getty Center. My coach there, himself a guru with a full lesson book, didn’t possess Cignarelli’s magnetic charisma, cultish following, or glitzy connections. He was gaunt, a bit vulgar, and regularly ducked behind the court to vomit because of an esophageal condition.
Craig was a large part of why I endured the drive, the work, the hours, and the cost (though it was admittedly my parents footing the bill) to practice a sport I increasingly disdained, in a part of town I found annoying.
_________
In Malibu, Craig wore cotton T-shirts and fed balls at an astounding pace with his dilapidated Head Instinct. He possessed a careening and ingratiating mystique and a keen understanding that, in the business of coaching tennis, volume pays the bills. On our breaks, he told stories about Lester battling John Isner and did bits about coaching the kids of celebrities. He was relentlessly smiling, engaged, active, and prepared.
I hadn’t been on court with Craig before that summer in Malibu, but I had known him for years. We met during his tenure at the Riviera when I was in middle school. That was also when I first heard whispers about his place in the violent lore of rich Los Angeles.
That’s to say, while I did improve my game that summer, my interest in the Malibu workouts wasn’t entirely about tennis. I was, consciously or not, beginning the clumsy and careless exhibition undertaken by many privileged and selfish young writers and navigating myself toward experiences that I hoped to one day spin into material.
It’s an impulse Cignarelli might understand. He’s a writer himself. Although his publicly available output consists mostly of articles about tennis, his passions lie in more creative projects. He currently has “four or five different ones in the can,” but he’s yet to pursue publication. He’s “still waiting, we’ll see.”
As a teenager, Cignarelli also wrote a handful of scripts with his friend Erik Menendez. Menendez’s name might be a familiar one to some. He made national headlines for the parental double homicide he committed with his brother Lyle in 1989. Both brothers are currently serving life sentences.
When I Facebook messaged Cignarelli about my intention to write this piece, he asked, before agreeing to an interview, “What type of details would you want? Is it 100% tennis related or are you looking for ancillary topics about your subjects. I am happy to talk tennis all day but personal stuff and extracurriculars don’t interest me.” I told Craig I wanted to learn more about his career in tennis, but also to get a sense of him as a person. I assured him, though, I had no intention of digging into his private life.
On a Zoom call in April, he appeared smiling and in repose on my computer screen, nestled on a sofa in the corner of what looked to be the sunporch of his home outside Charleston, South Carolina. Behind him was a natural sprawl—lush trees and rolling grass. “I’m here with two dogs and a cat,” he told me. His wife and daughter were out of town. It was the first time I’d seen him in more than a decade.
We talked mostly about tennis—his coaching journey, his philosophies, his decision to leave California, and the academy he’s run for the past few years in Mount Pleasant—but we also touched on Craig’s creative and intellectual interests, too. Regardless of the subject, Cignarelli managed the conversation with a writerly control. He eschewed details and dates and, for the most part, steered clear of personal matters.
Craig is a composed and commanding speaker. He’s given quite a few tennis talks over the years, and even done a TEDx presentation. His style is practiced and inflected with bits of mindset jargon—he’s a self-identified “knowledge seeker” who’s given a presentation called “The Long Walk to Excellence” that begins with a glowing reference to manifest destiny. But beneath Craig’s ingratiating charm is an evasive generality. It’s a challenge to pin him down in time or to get the name of a character. He frequently seems to be concealing something, but it’s not clear what or why. When he does tell stories, they reverberate with an allegorical vagueness.
In one, an account of his most memorable coaching experience, a man with terminal lung cancer comes to Craig for a lesson. He used to play as a kid and wanted, at the end of his life, to take up tennis again. “I put him on the baseline,” Craig said. “And he hit the ball about four feet. He just didn’t have any strength…. There was nothing left. He didn’t know how long he had to live. But we worked for a month, almost every day, and after a month he was able to hit the ball over the net and he dropped to his knees and put his arms up in the air and said thank you. About a week later he passed away…. It brings a tear to my eye.”
There are other times, though, when Cignarelli can be far more spontaneous and revealing. During a 2018 Q&A at the USPTA Summer Conference, a member of the audience asked how he got into coaching. Craig smiled and shook his head. “It’s kind of a strange story. When I was 19 years old I was a witness in a really, really famous murder case in California…. My only skill was as a tennis player; to pay that legal bill, I started teaching lessons.”
Coaching tennis isn’t easy work. Although the phrase “tennis coach” might conjure images of doe-eyed morons who lackadaisically feed balls and drone platitudes, in practice the job is often thankless and physically taxing. Coaching elite players is even more daunting. You need to not only be well-versed in the finer (and ever-changing) technical and strategic aspects of the game, but you also have to get those ideas to stick in the skulls of highly competitive, often arrogant, and frequently dim teenagers. That’s before you consider the looming stage parents and the inherently fickle whims of junior tennis players, particularly in a hotbed like Southern California. Hyped coaches and academies come and go like the breeze. Whoever has the new hot thing, the best gaggle of stars, the flashy name, can attract the hoards like moths to a light. Staying near the top of the mountain for more than a generation or two is no easy feat.
_________
Craig Cignarelli is a great tennis coach. That, on its own, is a very impressive accomplishment. It’s also not a position Craig backed into. Unlike many touted junior development wizards, he doesn’t have a name to trade on in the tennis world. He wasn’t a pro. He didn’t make a splash in the juniors. The honor of All-American was never bestowed upon him. He didn’t even play on his college team. The closest thing to a hallmark achievement on Cignarelli’s tennis résumé is a stint as the captain at Calabasas High School.
In his own estimation, Craig was “very average…. I knew nothing…had very little formal training. I had a huge forehand and not much else.”
On our Zoom, Cignarelli confirmed that he started coaching at 19, although he left out the murder-trial part. It was a summer gig at the Warner Center in Woodland Hills, a blustery and dusty tennis complex located on the sixth-story roof of the parking structure of a middling business park. It’s a place I played quite a few tournaments growing up, and I can say firsthand it’s a far cry from the luxe digs of Malibu and the Riviera.
As the story goes (both to me and in the talk for the USPTA), at some point in Craig’s tenure at the Warner Center, he began to work with a girl who showed significant promise. She is never named.
“As she succeeded,” he told me, “I realized I didn’t have the coaching or intellectual tools to stay ahead of her.”
Cignarelli doesn’t enjoy being on his back foot. At a different point in our call, he remarked, “If I don’t know something, I deep-dive into it. I don’t want to be in that position of not knowing…. That manifested in things like going to the French Open a day early to make sure I knew where the practice courts were…where is everything. I didn’t want to feel foolish in front of my player or myself.”
Over the next few years, Craig assembled an impressive “roster of gurus” to learn from. He befriended Eliot Teltscher, he brought his student to Robert Landsdorp for ground strokes and Pete Fischer (pre-arrest for child molestation) for serving lessons.
He sought out guidance from Jose Higueras, Paul Annacone, Pancho Segura, and footwork master Henry Hines.
“I sat there as a sponge…. Number one so I can help her, number two so I can broaden my horizons as a coach.”
The quality of these mentors is as much a testament to Craig’s commitment to the craft as it is to his talent with people. The latter of which is, I think, his greatest gift as a coach.
About his early success, Craig noted, “I had this charisma…. I had a big personality and was loud on the court. A lot of kids gravitated to that kind of program.”
_________
Unlike many charmers, Cignarelli isn’t all bluster. Beneath his warmth, he possesses a calculating and analytical ambition. There’s a duality to Cignarelli I’ve yet to fully reconcile. He’s a boisterous coach who loves to schmooze, but he also goes home and writes, plays chess, and reads Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and David Foster Wallace. He has an astounding attention to detail and an obsession with preparation and routine, yet his recollections of the past are often misty and shrouded in contradictions.
On the tennis court, Cignarelli relies on concrete and definable terms. At the Riviera, he conceived the Grips Program, a concept he pitched and sold nationally. It was basically karate belts but for tennis. The system had players ascend levels by completing a series of output-based skill exams, for example hitting a certain number of forehands out of 10 crosscourt within a certain boundary. These concepts were then deepened and made more challenging by adding stipulations like the ball still needs to be rising as it strikes the back fence. While no junior player ever completed the “black grip” exam to ascend to the program’s highest level, Mats Wilander, on a visit to the club, completed the comprehensive tennis skill assessment with ease. The Grips Program never quite took off.
Craig’s approach, in the early days, was a bit smaller-scale.
“I did my own due diligence,” he said. “I started watching matches and putting dots on a piece of paper where the ball landed. I began to see patterns coming out.”
_________
The timeline during this stage of Craig’s teaching career gets a bit murky. I’m not sure when a lot of this stuff happened, and he isn’t either. I don’t know when the anonymous promising student took her first lesson with him at the Warner Center. I don’t know when he began his quest for tennis knowledge or when he first saw the patterns emerging on the page. I’m also not even sure Craig was 19 when he began coaching. The murder that necessitated the aforementioned trial didn’t even take place until deep into the summer of 1989, meaning Craig either began teaching for reasons entirely unrelated to the trial, or it wasn’t summer, or he wasn’t 19.
None of these details are incredibly important, and I think the fogginess of Craig’s recollection is particularly forgivable because, between August 1989 and March 1996, he had a lot going on.
During his tenure as captain of the Calabasas High tennis team, sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, Craig befriended Erik Menendez. They had a lot in common. Menendez had just come west from New Jersey after his father, Jose, took a job at Live Entertainment. Craig made a similar move with his parents as a 10-year-old. They both possessed big personalities, active minds, creative impulses, vast imaginations, and a love of chess. They hit at the tennis club in Calabasas and knew a pro there named Doug Doss. Doss is of no importance to this story other than the fact that, years later, he became the director of tennis at my drab hilltop club with the coach who vomited. Patterns everywhere.
In the same canyons I drove between Calabasas and Malibu, Craig and Erik cruised at night, parking at overlooks off the Mulholland Highway so they could gaze at the ocean and the glittering valley sprawl. They liked to talk about the future. Their aspirations were ambitious if a bit amorphous. Cignarelli said during his testimony that they wanted to “start a company that was multifaceted that dealt in inventions.” He paused. “And screenwriting.” When pressed to clarify further, he added it would be a “corporation.” One that dealt in “stocks, inventions, corporate takeovers. Anything we could do to develop our status in society.” Cignarelli also contemplated a political career, along with “having a side hobby writing law screenplays and definitely going to law school.” He ultimately wished to be a senator.
These dreams were both erased and memorialized in court depositions after Erik Menendez and his older brother Lyle murdered their parents, Jose and Kitty, on Aug. 20, 1989, not long after Erik returned from playing the Boys’ 18 and Under National Championships in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Some weeks later, standing in the foyer of the family’s Beverly Hills home, the same home where the killings occurred, Erik confessed to Craig.
_________
I don’t intend to do any criminal sleuthing. It was a famous case at the time and one that’s been narrativized and re-documented ad nauseam. I’m far from a court reporter, and I’m not a fan of the lurid voyeurism of true crime. However, the case has reentered the public consciousness of late.
Last year, the brothers filed for a retrial, claiming the murders occurred in self-defense, the result of a lifetime of verbal, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse at the hands of their father. While Jose’s sexual abuse of Erik was a key piece of the defense team’s case at the trial, the murders have, more often than not, been framed as an act of greed perpetrated by two spoiled and out-of-control young adults after a fat inheritance. New evidence has further corroborated the brothers’ claims and reframed the story.
Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, with whom Jose Menendez worked during his time at RCA Records, revealed that when he was 14, the elder Menendez drugged and raped him. These revelations were the focus of a three-part Peacock docuseries, Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed. This year, the case was the subject of an episode of48 Hours titled “The Menendez Brothers’ Fight for Freedom” that first aired on March 3. Finally, the forthcoming second season of Netflix’s Monsters will narrativize the murders, with Javier Bardem and Chloë Sevigny cast as Jose and Kitty Menendez. Charlie Hall, the son of Julia Louis-Dreyfus, will take up the role of Cignarelli.
I would guess these are the extracurriculars Craig didn’t want taking over the narrative of this piece. I can understand why. I’m sure the murders and the trial cast an emotional shadow over large portions of his life, and they continue to cast a very literal shadow over his Google search results. However, as a journalist (and a hound for material), I would be remiss not to mention them. While Craig is often reduced to a footnote in the Menendez saga or recognized for his coaching prowess, these two parts of his character are rarely, if ever, reconciled. I would also add I haven’t gone digging into Cignarelli’s private life; all of this is alarmingly public.
Online, it’s not hard to find a ravenous and active community of Menendez enthusiasts still picking apart the trial and the murders. Cignarelli is a regular topic of conversation. To many of these weirdos, Craig is a villain who “betrayed Erik.” These people seem to mostly be para-social freaks who’ve over-empathized with two guys who killed their parents. Certainly, Jose Menendez was a monster, but that also isn’t Craig’s fault.
It is also true that there’s a natural human impulse to speculate on this kind of thing—to find the patterns—particularly because the case contains so many alluring and absurd details. For example, Craig and Erik coauthored a script that opens with a son killing his parents to inherit an insurance payout.
It’s a matter Craig described like this to ABC News in 2017: “I remember talking about the opening scene…. ‘We need to establish a crime. We need to have the protagonist gain an inheritance so he can actually fulfill his dream of creating this hunting ground for humans.’”
At the trial, Craig made a striking impression. He was young and handsome then. Thinner than he is now and outfitted in a suit jacket with gold buttons. Multifaceted conglomerates and political aspirations aside, he had an arrogant streak, a defiant smirk, and more than a few glib answers. During the cross-examination, he also bungled some dates, and his memory frequently got foggy. He also conducted himself memorably off the stand. Writing in the October 1993 edition of Vanity Fair, Dominick Dunne remarked, “On the two days Craig Cignarelli testified in court, he showed up with two young, pretty girls in miniskirts, who giggled a lot.”
Being a pompous dumbass at 19, however, is far from a crime. If it were, I’d be guilty too. His fate in all this is a small tragedy in a much bigger tragedy.
_________
The six-year trial material disrupted a formative time in Craig’s life. It paused his education and thrust him into the public eye. There’s also the emotional mess of your best friend committing a wildly violent double homicide, abuse or not. His course was redirected by the actions of another person he had no control over.
In his 2017 interview with ABC, Craig spoke openly and candidly about the strange catharsis of the trial ending: “Honestly, when the second jury came back with a guilty verdict, there was a part of me which just said, ‘I’m done. It’s finally over.’ And it felt like there was this sense of relief, followed by this really strange feeling of sadness. Like, wow, it’s finally closed, and I actually have just lost my best friend for life. He’s going to be sitting in a jail cell for the next 50 years.”
Whatever you think of him, there’s nothing fair about that. I wonder what Craig’s life might look like if the murders never took place. While I’m not sure he’d be running a multinational inventions and screenwriting firm while also serving in the Senate, it’s the necessity of asking the question that casts a glum cloud over what he has accomplished.
I’ve coached tennis before and, like writing, it is a consumptive task. Standing in the sun while yelling isn’t a bad way to escape yourself. At his peak, Craig taught 12- and 13-hour days.
Coaching tennis is a human endeavor, too. As Craig puts it, “an act of service.” You meet people where they are, attuning the lesson to their physical, mental, and emotional states. But it is also a defined and bounded relationship. There are confines to the court, the lesson begins and ends, and there are the walls between the teacher and the students, too. “My role is to stay positive, to teach, to mentor…. Then there’s that line. Because you don’t want to play the role of a parent, but you want to play the role of someone the kids can trust.” In the same way these professional relationships are delineated, Craig imposes a similar separation upon himself.
“When the door closes on the gate to the facility and I get back into my own personal mode, which is a little more introverted…I want to read books…play chess. The things that I enjoy are a little more intellectually challenging. And I try to find those intellectual challenges on the court. But I think for me it’s a quieter life at home, and the person that comes out on the court is because I had to create this character…this figure…who’s someone who’s going to be charismatic and pulling you forward. I think as a person I get my charge from that and my rest time at home.”
While I do understand the sentiment here—we are all, in our various ways, performing ourselves in the world—these boundaries between the personal and the professional can’t be so easily delineated. A lawyer doesn’t transmute into a different person when she arrives at the courtroom. A tennis coach’s soul doesn’t alter when he latches the gate and rolls his basket to the service line. I don’t stop being me when I sit down to write. It’s all personal and it all isn’t. It’s all the character and it’s all you.
On the page, the writer is the one in control. It’s a fixed space. One with limits. It’s a place to figure things out. While Craig never brought up Erik Menendez to me, he did bring up one of his past writing projects that caused me, immediately, to think of his former friend. Cignarelli described it as, “Young Dexter goes to Hogwarts. A school for serial killers who train to kill serial killers.”
Adolescent monsters killing older, bigger monsters.
_________
Craig left California around 2015, making a stop in Atlanta before settling in South Carolina. He told me the taxes got too high. The traffic was getting worse. He saw “decay happening,” but I wonder if a fresh start in the South appealed for other reasons, too. Memories can ghost a landscape. He seems to like his new life more.
“The tennis in California is very much like the culture of the city. It’s first strike, what can I get from you, how big is your wallet, what do you drive, what can I take from you? Are you a producer? Can I do a film?… I’d had enough celebrity, Lamborghinis, and Ferraris.”
It’s different where he is now, and he’s different too.
“Out here you feel like someone wants to give you a hug and invite you into the house. I feel like I had to take some of my guard down to settle in out here. I can finally breathe a little.”
The move has also changed his approach both as a coach and as a writer.
“I think the biggest growth for me has been understanding how much it really is the impact you have on the human being, as opposed to their successes on the court…. For me the thing that changed the most was that at first I was thinking, ‘How good can I make players?’ It was very ego-driven. Now it’s about, does this kid have life skills?… Did we give them solutions so they can face any problem that comes up?”
On the page, the pulp and violence have been replaced with far more heartwarming material. One of his more recent projects is a series of “about 150 chronicles” that he wrote for his daughter as she was growing up. “Three to four paragraphs a day… I compared her first steps to Neil Armstrong walking on the moon.”
Although Cignarelli seems at peace with his family and his pets, he still withholds, intentionally or not. Some of the guard is still up, but maybe that’s just because I was there on the other screen looking for a quote, some shape, a detail that might unlock him and give his life a deeper meaning.
There was one moment, near the end of our call, when that happened.
“I’ll give you a quick one story,” Cignarelli said. It was a final strange allegory. This one had nothing to do with tennis, although I wonder who the nameless guy was.
It goes like this:
“I flew back on a flight from Sacramento one time, and I was with a guy and he invited me to breakfast a couple days later. And we went up to a tower where the mayor was having breakfast and a bunch of other people were sitting in there. I was 18 years old. I’d come there in a suit for one of the first times in my life. And we all sit down and have breakfast and I pull out cash to pay for the check, and the guy just kind of taps my head and said, ‘We don’t do cash here.’ And I felt so naive. It was such a brutal feeling to not know how to function in these surroundings, and I think that inspired me to make sure that I’m always aware of how things work. Because I don’t ever want that feeling again.”

TENNIS. ART. CULTURE. FASHION. TRAVEL. IDEAS. — SIGN UP
Identity Crisis
Identity Crisis
Identity Crisis
The Laver Cup runneth empty.
The Laver Cup runneth empty.
By Klaus Bellstedt
September 22, 2024

As Roger Federer leaves the Laver Cup stage, Carlos Alcaraz is cast as its new Superman. // Clive Brunskill, Getty

As Roger Federer leaves the Laver Cup stage, Carlos Alcaraz is cast as its new Superman. // Clive Brunskill, Getty
There was a big tennis party last week. Novak Djokovic and Grigor Dimitrov took center stage. The two really put on an impressive show for 12,000 fans in Sofia. The tennis was good. And afterward they both danced shirtless on the court.
Dimitrov and Djokovic are good buddies. “Grigor is my Bulgarian brother. And if he invites me to a match as part of his foundation work, I will of course come,” said Djokovic before the exhibition match. On the evening of the match against Djokovic, Dimitrov learned that he would soon be back on court as the replacement for Rafael Nadal, who was still unable to compete. Dimitrov then boarded the plane and made his way to Berlin for the Laver Cup, where six players from Europe compete against six players from a “world” selection in team competition.
The Laver Cup is intended as a tribute to the icons of men’s tennis, to Rod Laver, the namesake, to Björn Borg and John McEnroe, the captains. At the same time, it should bring together the best of the present and the faces of the future of the sport. This has been Roger Federer’s vision since he launched the continental competition in 2017 with his manager Tony Godsick.
Dimitrov sat a little lost on a large sofa behind the players’ bench on Friday, the first day of the Laver Cup in Berlin. Together with his teammate from Team Europe, he watched the first match of the day between Francisco Cerundolo and Casper Ruud. The format allows team members to be interviewed during the match. Dimitrov was not interviewed. Daniil Medvedev and local hero Alexander Zverev spoke into the cameras for Europe. The two don’t like each other very much, to put it mildly. They are now teammates for three days.
The Laver Cup is a strange entity. Even in its seventh edition, its identity has not been clarified. On Friday, shortly before the first singles match, Tony Godsick held a press conference with Laver Cup CEO Steve Zacks and captains McEnroe and Borg. As always at such events, McEnroe seemed listless, Borg remained taciturn. Both are doing their job for the last time this year, so it was primarily up to Godsick to make a fiery plea for the raison d’être of this—his—tournament. You couldn’t blame him. “Look, I look at the metrics on this event, and what’s important to me, like, for example, here at the Uber Arena, we were just told yesterday that this will be their highest-grossing event in their history. They have only been around, I think, since 2008. That says something about the Laver Cup,” said Godsick.
The numbers prove Godsick right, but Godsick has been in the business for so long that he naturally knows that he will not be able to remove the exhibition character from the Uber Arena during these three days in Berlin. Because the truth is that every year, the Laver Cup is above all a meeting place for an exclusive circle of players who have to pretend that they are suddenly a team—and who try to build tradition for a big check. Because that is exactly what the Laver Cup lacks. What makes it different from the Ryder Cup in golf, for example. Or even a simple ATP tournament like the clay-court classic at Hamburg’s Rothenbaum. What will remain of Berlin is already clear: the pictures of the players in front of the Brandenburg Gate, tennis pros in tuxedos at the gala dinner, Roger Federer in all variations, the always fantastically witty Andrea Petkovic as an on-court interviewer on the “iconic” black court, and a bit of theater from Johnny Mac on the sidelines.
People want to see this stuff. “Hopefully we’ll get some of that on the Tennis Channel,” Godsick himself said on Friday. For the mighty tennis manager, there are two other things besides the identity issue that won’t necessarily make things any easier for him in the upcoming editions of the Laver Cup. After the sporting withdrawal of his business partner Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, it can be said with a clear conscience, will never play for Team Europe again. McEnroe and Borg are both stepping down as captains. Djokovic, once again not taking part in Berlin, has never been a friend of the event. The Laver Cup is losing faces.
Carlos Alcaraz is playing in Berlin this year. A lot is riding on the Spaniard. Just like Jannik Sinner, the No. 1 in men’s tennis, who has decided to take a break after winning the US Open—despite all the financial temptations. And then there is the flood of other exhibitions and team competitions. In October, for example, the “Six Kings Slam” in Saudi Arabia will be vying for an insane amount of prize money. Each of the six players will receive 1.5 million U.S. dollars just for taking part. An additional 6 million U.S. dollars is on offer for the winner. Djokovic, Nadal, Alcaraz, Medvedev, Sinner, and, for some reason, Holger Rune will be participating. That sounds reasonably iconic and, with all due respect, bigger than Thanasi, Tabilo, and Cerundolo, the three starters from Team World this year in Berlin.
Do these kinds of events also dilute the importance of the Laver Cup, simply because there is now far too much tennis? “There could be too many other tennis events, per se, but this one is working. We have sold-out crowds. Every player loves to play. We have the biggest captains, the best sponsors,” said Godsick before the start on Friday. What can he say? Late on Friday evening, Grigor Dimitrov also made his first appearance for Team Europe. The Bulgarian played against Chile’s Alejandro Tabilo. The Uber Arena was only half full for the third match of the day. A small fan wearing a Nadal shirt sat with his father in one of the better seats. He looked almost exclusively at his mobile phone during the match. Of course, he was missing Nadal. The kid didn’t seem particularly interested in the Laver Cup action.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
Coco Hits the Ceiling
Coco's Hits the Ceiling
Coco's Hits the Ceiling
The coaching carousel spins.
The coaching carousel spins.
By Giri Nathan
September 20, 2024

Brad Gilbert takes in Coco Gauff’s serve at the US Open this year. // Getty

Brad Gilbert takes in Coco Gauff’s serve at the US Open this year. // Getty
The more I think about the 2023 US Open women’s final, the stranger that result looks. Aryna Sabalenka losing a hard-court Slam final after going up a set and a break? Unthinkable. Now Sabalenka is the ruler of the hard-court Slams, finaling in the last four and winning three of them. This was the only one she lost. It’s partially because Sabalenka’s game cracked under the pressure of a nasty New York crowd, but it’s also because of the player that crowd was supporting: Coco Gauff, 19 years old and in the middle of the most fruitful stretch of her career.
That was a transformative summer for Gauff. She’d flamed out of Wimbledon after a tough draw of Sofia Kenin in the first round, then, per her dad’s urging, hired Brad Gilbert as coach. The collaboration immediately bore fruit. Gauff won titles in Washington and Cincinnati, and after clambering back into that US Open final with some of the most persistent defense I’ve ever seen, won that, too. In that summer hard-court season she won 17 of 18 matches, culminating in her first major title. She also got what is still her only win over the world’s best player, Iga Swiatek. (She’s lost the other 11 matches.)
Whatever Brad Gilbert, voluble ESPN analyst and sporadic coach to the stars, brought to the team was clearly working. The technical flaws in Gauff’s game were still there, on the serve and forehand, but they didn’t seem to be barring her from victory. Gilbert is arguably most famous for the art of winning with a flawed foundation. And something about Gilbert’s relaxed manner was speaking to Gauff: “The way that he says it. Sometimes it’s not always about the message. I don’t think the message has changed for me, it’s more about how the message was relayed to me,” she said in press at the Open. Months later, in an interview, Gilbert explained his thinking about Gauff at the start of their collaboration. He didn’t think that the wonky forehand, source of so much ire from Gauff observers, was actually that big of a deal. Mostly he wanted to steer her away from offense and toward a more defensive style that tapped into her phenomenal movement—her one true outlier skill on a tennis court, as I see it.
Gauff’s career in the year since that US Open win evokes a specific image in my mind: hitting a ceiling, quite hard, and ending up with a bit of a bruise. She rose to a career-high ranking of No. 2 this season. But all the while, peers like Swiatek and Sabalenka were ascending to a level of tennis that Gauff cannot yet match. It isn’t only a handful of elite players causing her woe, either. This season, Gauff has gone 4–8 against top 20 players, and just 17–15 against top 50 players.
Compared with last summer, this summer left her cold. She had a disappointing showing at the Olympics, where she competed in the singles, doubles, and mixed and took no medal. At Wimbledon and the US Open, she made decent runs, ended both times by Emma Navarro, a countrywoman on the rise, with less buzz but fewer holes in her game. In their first meeting at Wimbledon, Gauff visibly pleaded with her box for advice, and afterward she said, “I felt like I wanted more direction.” In their second meeting, Gauff hit 19 double faults, 11 of them in the third set of the match. Afterward she described how she sometimes drops the left side of her body during her serve, a tendency she’s aware of but struggles to control amid the nerves of a match.
The foundational issues that Gauff had managed to mitigate for stretches of her career came roaring back into prominence. If she’s to keep up with the best players of her era, they’ll still need fixing—but that’ll be someone else’s job. Gilbert, in his strange dual capacity as coach and analyst, was thrown on ESPN immediately after the US Open loss to Navarro, as if to account for it, and he took a bit of a beating on the air. Of course, it is not Gilbert who went out there and hit 60 unforced errors, but it is his job to put her in a mindset where she does not hit 60 unforced errors. It’s easy to say in hindsight, but to anyone who’d been watching closely, it was clear that their collaboration was in its waning days. The body language was already strained by Wimbledon and soured further at the US Open. Gilbert announced the inevitable on Wednesday, thanking the player and the team for their 14 months together and wishing her luck.
From the outside, it’s always hard to grasp precisely why a player cans a coach, but if I were to take the average of the various explanations that players have given over the years, it’s something like this: The brain stops responding to a particular type of motivation. The tips and exhortations recede into background noise. A new voice is needed. Brad Gilbert has…let’s call it an idiosyncratically peppy and chatty style of motivation, which may well have a built-in expiration date for most consumers. Even in the golden days, during the US Open run, there was a moment where Gauff snapped at him from court: “Stop talking.” Now it’s up to her to decide who’s going to start talking next. She could pick up Wim Fissette, who oversaw some of Naomi Osaka’s biggest successes and was also fired this week; Osaka has since been seen with Patrick Mouratoglou, in what strikes me as an extremely unintuitive pairing of student and teacher. The coaching carousel spins on and on and on.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
Letter to the Future
Letter to the Future
Letter to the Future
A wishlist for next year's slams.
A wishlist for next year's slams.
By Giri Nathan
September 13, 2024

Give yourself a round of applause, Jasmine Paolini // Getty

Give yourself a round of applause, Jasmine Paolini // Getty
That’s it for the Slams this year. That US Open did not quite leave us with a long list of classic matches. I wish all of the visibly exhausted players out there some peace. I know indoor hard-court season technically exists, but I also know the vast majority of these players won’t be fully dialed-in again until they’re back on court in January. So with the year in Slams wrapped, and with some Open memories fresh in mind, here, in no particular order, are a few things I’d like to see at next year’s Slams.
1. More of this Jasmine Paolini. Doesn’t get much better than this: a 28-year-old who’d never gone past the second round of a Slam abruptly becoming one of the most consistent big-match players on tour. She never disappointed. Fourth round in Australia, back-to-back Slam finals at Roland-Garros and Wimbledon, another fourth round at the Open. It is one of the most baffling leaps I can remember any player taking, and I could not recommend the in-person Paolini experience more highly. Her first-round US Open match against Bianca Andreescu—bizarrely, the third matchup between these two players in the past three Slams—was some of the most fun I had all fortnight. There were tense, varied rallies, and as the 5-foot-4 Paolini tackled Andreescu’s loopy shoulder-height balls and outright moon balls with footwork and speed, her singular athleticism shone. Tennis won’t be the same without Diego Schwartzman in it, but it’s a good time to double down on support for our vertically limited players. They add so much thrill and variety to the game.
2. Brandon Nakashima getting in the U.S. mix. In an American hard-court season characterized by widespread success from the American men, it was this 23-year-old, finding his game again after a knee injury, who caught my eye. He picked off top-ranked U.S. men Tommy Paul and Taylor Fritz in consecutive tournaments. He beat an off-kilter Holger Rune so thoroughly that the Dane penned several essays on the subject. He upset Lorenzo Musett, one of the summer’s winningest players. After stealing one set against Sascha Zverev, the Nakashima show met its quick and severe end. His baseline game was always formidable, but I’ve been particularly impressed by his serving this summer, which could elevate him into this new cohort of high-ranked countrymen.
3. A rare, healthy Karolina Muchova. We covered this more extensively last week, but a win for Muchova is a win for tennis and for pure intuition. I’ll keep my demands modest: How about no surgeries in 2024? Let’s start with that and see how much noise she can make.
4. Daniil Medvedev, holding the hardware again. This dude is way too talented to end his career with one Slam to his name. I get that he has had to play out his career while pinned between generational talent—Novak and Rafa on the one side, Carlos and Jannik on the other—but I also think that the man who is so often hailed as a brilliant tactician needs to start finding a way through these younger foes. He should take some wisdom from his three Slam matchups with Sinner this year. The ultra-aggro game plan in the first two sets of the Australian Open final could be something to explore further, a way to shock opponents who have game-planned for the torturous long-rally version of Medvedev. The Wimbledon quarterfinal showed he could take down the best even off of his beloved hard courts—another encouraging step. But a no-show in the quarterfinal on Arthur Ashe was a puzzling step backwards.
5. Alexei Popyrin, reborn? The Aussie was ranked No. 62 when he won a Masters 1000; then a few weeks later he beat Novak Djokovic at the US Open. There are some qualifiers one could apply here: a somewhat depleted post-Olympics field in Montreal, and a somewhat depleted post-Olympics Novak Djokovic (by his own admission). But those are still intriguing accomplishments from a 25-year-old with obvious weapons, if, perhaps, an uneven history of self-actualization. When his game is humming, it is terrifying serve-and-forehand fare. Consistency has been the elusive part. But he has very few points to defend next year and will suddenly be seeded at Slams.
6. Iva Jovic playing the big events. As a reward for winning the U18 National Championships, this 16-year-old junior was given a wild card for the US Open. As the youngest player in the women’s draw, she nearly made it to the third round. I was on Court 12 as she tried to solve the tricky, hard-hitting Ekaterina Alexandrova, who gives even veteran players very little rhythm to work with. Alexandrova had lined up three match points while serving at 5–4, 40–0 in the third, and when she got a little nervy, Jovic surged. She almost bent the match back in her favor before fizzling out at 7–5 in the third. Still, Jovic left the tournament as the youngest American woman to pull off a main-draw win at the Open since 2000. Her smooth all-court game looks like the foundation of a dangerous pro, surely deserving of a wild card somewhere next year if she doesn’t make a rankings leap.
7. Iga Swiatek’s change of pace. It’s hard to be critical of a world No. 1 who’s already assembled a Hall of Fame body of work at age 23, but watching Swiatek in her quarterfinal at the Open, I couldn’t help but think that there were even more levels of tennis for her to unlock. Her loss against Jess Pegula was a frustrating watch, as Swiatek never found her range on her high-spin, high-pace ground strokes but kept ripping away and spraying errors for two sets. I get why Swiatek is committed to this particular approach; it got her to the top of the sport. But I suspect you could count on one hand the drop shots she attempted all tournament. Earlier in her career she was praised for her feel, and it’s time to start folding that back into her game, even if it feels uncomfortable at first.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.

PURE, ORIGINAL TENNIS — SIGN UP!
NYC, Red Clay and the Brain Dead x adidas Tennis Invitational
NYC, Red Clay and the Brain Dead x adidas Tennis Invitational
Looking back at an epic afternoon of LVBL with Brain Dead and adidas in NYC.
Looking back at an epic afternoon of LVBL with Brain Dead and adidas in NYC.
By TSS
September 10, 2024



SIGN UP — YOU'RE ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR SECOND SERVE.
Karolina Muchova Wanted to Be Here
Karolina Muchova Wanted to Be Here
Karolina Muchova Wanted to Be Here
The Czech champ was a balm for the Open.
The Czech champ was a balm for the Open.
By Giri Nathan
September 6, 2024

An on-form Karolina Muchvoa was a joy to watch. // Getty.

An on-form Karolina Muchvoa was a joy to watch. // Getty.
It’s been a raggedy US Open. I have to stretch my memory past the many duds of this second week, all the way past the middle weekend, to recall three high-quality, entertaining matches. Tuesday and Wednesday were two of the worst night sessions I’ve ever attended: injury retirement, blowouts, matches where the two competitors never played well at the same time, disengaged crowds milling around during play and murmuring in nonstop conversation. Does anyone want to be here? This doesn’t feel like the year’s last major; it feels like the waning days of some brutal survivalist exercise. Plenty of players seemed pretty fried on their way out the door. The Olympics often get cited as a reason for this, but perhaps it’s just the broader reality of a sport that’s been getting more athletically demanding and calendrically rigorous with every year and leaves no meaningful offseason for a recharge. Amid all this burnout…there was Karolina Muchova. What a balm for a busted US Open. She could be playing against a wall and it’d be better viewing than half the matches I attended this week.
Within two minutes one can understand why Muchova would have any tennis person waxing rhapsodic, especially the ones who swing a racquet of their own from time to time. Her tennis is the picture you’d have in your head of how tennis should look, the clean mental model from which one tragically deviates. Wouldn’t we all want to look like that? She can do everything. And she seems to navigate her multitudinous options so elegantly. When Muchova is really in the zone, each step of the foot and swing of her racquet seems to be bound by some graceful and inevitable logic to the previous one. She flows from one shot to the next, and it just looks right. Her all-court game is bold but not foolhardy, because it’s backed by sheer talent, because she does have the footwork to dance around any ball, the foot speed to dash forward, and the hand skills to chop anything out of the air or massage ground strokes into the corners. It’s the spiritual opposite of metronomic side-to-side ball-bashing that defines the worst matches. She produces the sort of points that make you understand why people watch tennis in the first place—almost as insistently as, say, Zheng vs. Sabalenka or Medvedev vs. Sinner tried to make me forget—and it’s all I needed this tournament.
It also came out of nowhere. Not long after her semifinal appearance in New York last year, Muchova picked up a wrist injury, one of the scariest for a tennis player, and sat out for nine months before picking up this summer. Muchova has precisely one tennis weakness, and it’s never being healthy. So whenever she is fit to play, and playing well, it’s almost like, oh, right, this person exists and is a miracle. People trip over themselves in praise. Last week the ESPN booth tried, inelegantly, to praise the scarcity of Muchova’s play style in the modern game, and Chris Evert wound up saying that Muchova played “like a guy,” which upset Ons Jabeur, another exponent of this same style, and Evert apologized. Muchova, for her part, said that match that she idolized Roger Federer and liked to borrow from “the guys.” I leave it to the talking heads to debate whether volleying is somehow a gendered trait—seems like a topic Nick Kyrgios might enjoy—but what’s beyond dispute is that few players, on either tour, play as fluently as Muchova does from all areas of the court.
That said, even an in-form Muchova wasn’t immune to the curse of this Open, and after a number of master classes, including one against Naomi Osaka in round 2, she had a mess of a quarterfinal against Beatriz Haddad Maia, which both players spent unwell in some way. That stomach bug left her semifinal performance in question. But watching the first stretch of Muchova’s match against Jessica Pegula made clear that nothing was amiss. Anyone in search of a “flow state” need only look at that first set that Muchova won 6–1 in 28 minutes. My notes devolved into a catalog of every instance of effortless improvisation. Every time I looked, the ball was getting carved up and dropped in some unreachable nook of the court. She looked to be in total control of the match, with a break point to go 3–0 up in the second set, but duffed a put-away volley that both players later cited as the turning point.
Muchova said she became less aggressive, and Pegula significantly stepped up her own level. Soon enough Muchova’s forays to the net were less assured, and Pegula was making her hit much trickier volleys. Pegula channeled the same low, flat pace that allowed her to beat Iga Swiatek the previous night, and eventually flipped the match on its head, taking the second set and breaking early in the third. Muchova’s last real push, down 1–3 in the third, produced some of the most spectacular points of the tournament, a showcase for all the skills, especially this passing shot dropped on a dime with a serene flick of the wrist. It wasn’t enough. A few games later she hurled her racquet some 15 feet in the air in frustration, caught it smoothly on its way down, and even that looked cool. It’s hard not to interpret this result as a collapse from Muchova, considering her scoreboard advantage, but it was a surprise that she managed to replicate last year’s semifinal appearance at all, given how little tennis she’s played since then. If there are tennis gods, they better finally bring her some good health in 2025. You never know when a dire tournament might need her tennis to save it.


The Hopper
—CLAY Tennis on Beatriz Haddad Maia’s US Open run.
—Giri on Iga Swiatek’s loss to Jess Pegula.
—Jon Wertheim’s mailbag is full this week.
—Sara Errani and Andrea Vavasori have won the US Open mixed doubles.
—Tim Newcomb on Taylor Fritz and Asics.




