Sinner Dominates, Collins Surprises winning Miami, Tennis’ New Big Three, Djokovic has no coach, Andy and Jon receive anemail from former USTA Director of Coaching

Andy Roddick recaps the ’24 Miami Open victors; Jannik Sinner and Danielle Collins. Jon Wertheim joins the show to discuss the new generation’s Big Three, Novak Djokovic part’s ways with long-time coach Goran Ivanisevic, and they discuss their thoughts on the public email sent out by José Higueras amidst latest USTA budget cuts. 

Click here to read the José Higueras email: https://youtu.be/8sqPWEG91cU

0:00 Welcome to Served

0:21 Racket Roundup

17:13 Jon Wertheim joins the show

17:30 This generation’s Big Three

32:40 Djokovic part’s ways with coach

41:47 Jon and Andy talk José Higueras public email

Chapters

• 0:06 Incredible Performances and Dominance in Tennis
• 8:26 Retirement, Tennis, and Mental Clarity
• 16:09 Tennis Talk
• 25:14 Medvedev's Serve and Tennis Trends
• 33:08 Novak Djokovic Coaching Speculation
• 42:58 USTA Player Development Email Controversy
• 54:52 Investment in Player Development Debate
• 59:24 Player Development and Tennis Growth
• 1:08:31 USDA and USTA Conversation on Tennis
• 1:14:30 Improvements and Innovations in Tennis

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:06

Welcome to another Tuesday release for the Serve podcast. I hope you enjoyed our show on T2 on Sunday. As always, we come back into the studio on Monday to catch up on current events. What a weekend finish it was in Miamiami, I think. The sentimental story of the weekend. Uh, obviously danielle collins announcing that this is going to be her last year in january and then winning the biggest tournament of her life, uh, at the end of march. Uh, quite the accomplishment. And she, it wasn't as if she like, got through this tournament and somehow, when she dominated, she lost the first set of her entire entire tournament and then didn't even get to a breaker the rest of the way. I will get into her more and tell you my in-laws, my wife, my kids they don't quite watch a tennis, watch as much tennis as I do, and they were brought into the Collins match and I'll try to tell you why here in a second.

Speaker 1: 1:09

But let's also get to the men's side Yannick Sinner beating Daniil Medvedev in the semis 6-1, 6-2. That is the type of scoreline that you see when someone's like a dominant 12 and under junior or like first round of club tennis, one and two against someone who Medvedev will end up going down as maybe like one of the top 20 players of all time maybe 20, I mean. And if you're arguing with me, you're arguing with me because you're a jerk and you're arguing over like two or three spots. But, point being made, the guys want to slam. But number one in the world won a ton of Masters, 1000s, repeated finals, and especially on hard courts, to beat him one and two. I don't think people understand how impossible that is. And then you go to the final and you beat Dimitrov, a resurgent Dimitrov, who, oh, by the way, had just had wins tuned up. Alcaraz, two and four start to finish and then reverses a seven-match losing streak and obviously it's nice to get through a matchup that historically hasn't been good to you over Zverev. And for all your troubles, you go in and get beat by center three and one. I'm going to make a point for you of how dominant this is. This performance was by Yannick Center. So we all know that, yes, novak, the best of all time Numbers don't lie. But the most dominant person when you get on a specific surface at a specific time is Rafa on clay. That's as indisputable as the GOAT conversation is. I would say that the Rafa conversation on clay it is more so. So I'm going.

Speaker 1: 3:00

What are the statistical comps for Yannick Sinner winning one and two in the semis of a 1000 and then three and one in the finals of a 1000? 2010 Monte Carlo Rafa Nadal beats Ferrer in the semis I think it's like one or two, one and two or one and three and then beats Verdasco in the final 0 and 1. In the final 0-1. So to draw a comp to what Sinner just did in Miami, you have to go to prime Nadal on clay in a Masters 1000. That is what you're comparing this dominance to Sinner this weekend in Miami to Rafa's best ever finish as far as games lost in a Masters 1000.

Speaker 1: 3:42

Sinner in Miami, rafa prime on clay. That's the comp for what he just did, and I think most of us were saying on the way in he's been the best player in the world I've been on record for saying the last five or six months and he's beaten all the players. He's beaten Novak three times. He lost his first six in his career against Medvedev and has won the last five. That little hiccupcup, it's like how could you lose to Carlos Alcaraz on his best hard court in Indian Wells? That's what we're talking about. Uh has won Masters 1000s, has won Davis Cup, has won a Grand Slam, lost to Alcaraz in the semis, won Rotterdam, won Miami. The statistical comp for what he did last weekend is Rafa in 2010 in Monte Carlo, a tournament which Rafa has won tens of times, which is also absurd.

Speaker 2: 4:39

It also says he's the first player since Roger Federer in 2017 to win the Australian Open and Miami Open in the same year.

Speaker 1: 4:48

Yeah, that's, that's been done, that's even. That is like as impressive as that is. And I can't poopoo that away because, like I barely won Miami and I never won Australia, but like the dominance with which he's doing it you know, beating Novak in the semis of Australia, beating Medved I mean he's going through the best players in the world to win these tournaments. It's not as if someone's out, it's not as if there are restrictions on vaccines or COVID or there are no outlier things right. Obviously Novak wasn't in Miami, but the way this guy's playing, I don't know that that would have mattered as much there.

Speaker 1: 5:28

I'm curious to see how he keeps the momentum going Clay. He's at the point where he's going to be good on everything. He's a very good clay court player, but at this point I would say it's probably his worst surface, but just dominant. I feel like he has more shape on his shots Now the margins are bigger. He's not missing like first balls ever and credit to him, because you can be successful to a certain level and be scared of change because of that success. Right, cleans house brings in Darren Cahill.

Speaker 1: 6:02

Adjust his team two years ago when he was still. He was a top 10 player two years ago and very young on the upswing, makes that change midway through last year, goes from a platform serve to bringing the foot up, and now he's almost unbreakable, getting a lot more swing on the slice serve. So deuce add side. And what does that do? First ball strike. All of a sudden he has three more feet of court to work with to hit that ball into Is barely getting broken, is breaking serve. The movement piece is absurd For his career. You're going. Okay, he's too skinny. Is he going to grow into his body? And he kind of looked like a. You know, three years ago he kind of looked like a baby giraffe when he was going around the court. You could see, uh, the flashes of brilliance, but his body didn't look like, it was totally mature. I'll tell you what. It's mature now. The way that this guy is sliding, getting in and out of the corners, uh, running down drop shots, switching directions. It's, it's, it's crazy, uh, the, the. I feel like he. In the last six months he skipped a level two. He went from like I'm 10. In the last six months he skipped a level two. He went from like I'm 10 in the world to I'm maybe the best player in the world, like, and we'll see if it's consistently Up to a career high ranking number two in the world. I'm not sure what the strategy is against him moving forward. Besides, like, I hope that Clay comes and he's just not as good on it, because that run last fall and then this start to the year. It's like joke of Vichy and is that a word? It is now. Can we make it one? It is now, Um, so I hope I did what he did justice. I mean the, the comps are absurd. What he's done so far this year is is insane. Uh, just going up levels upon levels, um, and I'm not sure what the interruption is going to be beyond just getting to a different surface. And uh, I know for those top guys mevidev, carlos novak that change when matching up with center can't come, uh, soon enough. So this daniel collins story is is so cool.

Speaker 1: 8:05

Uh, you know, 30 years old, says at the beginning of the year I'm gonna retire. When asked about it, it is uh, says would a man ever be asked about retiring? Yes, so I think that got taken out of out of context, maybe a little bit. Yes, like all of them. Murray gets asked it pretty much every week. Rafa gets asked about it pretty much every week.

Speaker 1: 8:26

I think our point was the reasoning behind me having to make a decision about retirement is because at some point, I have some challenges and I do want to prioritize having children. So, yes, men get asked about retiring all the time. Yes, men get asked about retiring all the time. No, they don't have to make a decision based on wanting to give birth and make life. So I saw some people going well, yeah, they have to talk about it all the time.

Speaker 1: 8:58

True, I think the point she was attempting to make and maybe she got the quote backwards at the beginning was I have to prioritize different stuff. This it's. It's not as if this is a tennis decision, uh, so I'm not going to reverse my decision, but I mean, what a tournament from danielle collins. Uh, just absolutely going through the paces, moving great. Uh, you couldn't go through her, you couldn't go around her, and we were about to go, uh, to get some tacos the other night, mike, and the match was on and I said, hey, I just want to see if she gets through this game, I want to watch, uh, the end of this real quick. And so it was my in-laws, my kids brooke um and they're asking about you know, as much as we talk about tennis, they just don't care as much as we do.

Speaker 1: 9:46

But her ability to emote right and she kind of brings you in. You can sense the stress, you can sense the urgency. You can hear her grunting louder when the points are. You could feel how much it meant to her to try to get across the finish line in Miami. She knew that this was her shot, didn't want to let Rabakina back in. And we're sitting in a room full of, you know, in-laws, kids, and everyone was dialed in on the TV, paying attention, getting into it, cheering for her, cheering for her story, asking questions, wanting to know more. So I just feel like Daniel Collins kind of brought us all into what she was feeling. I felt like I was a part of it. I've been in the situation in Miami and I felt like I was watching a new experience all over again. So I think it really touched home because of the story, because of her saying I'm going to retire and then two months later, playing the best tennis of her career by far.

Speaker 1: 10:43

You know she is a Grand Slam slam finalist, but this was her fourth ever final. It's not, as if you know, this is something she did every day and it looked like the way she went out and delivered it, uh, that she it was. It was kind of meant to happen and I was a dummy. I picked for her the entire tournament on tc live. I was like there's just something about this and I couldn't get past my own pragmatism. Uh, in the final like'm like there are too many things. Rebecca has the matchup, she has the serve, she has a day off. I wanted to pick Collins and I didn't and Weissman did. Weissman called it, he had the guts to do it, I didn't, but I wasn't surprised by the result.

Speaker 2: 11:19

I thought it was so great and I hope she builds Wouldn't it be a cool story if somehow she gets up to like three or four in the world competes for a slam and then, all the while, knowing that she says she's going to exit the game, is there like a mental freedom?

Speaker 1: 11:38

you think Hell, yes, yeah, I mean she would have to ask for it. But like I don't know, I'll tell you, like when I only decided I was going to retire at the U? S open and for the rest of that week, and it's different for her, cause she's going to play out the entire season and this is a level which she hasn't won at before. So it is a little different than what I'm about to say. But when I decided to retire consequence it didn't mean as much. Right, there was no next week for her, there's no next year it looked like she was playing with a certain amount of freedom. This event Now, could it all be coincidental?

Speaker 1: 12:08

Yes, it is weird to think that mentally she was probably as good as she's ever been this tournament. Physically she looked as good as she's ever been this tournament. And maybe there's some clarity with this is the end of the line. Go time. Defending this title next year isn't on the table. Let's just leave it all out here. So I do think there is some mental clarity. I'm projecting, I don't know. I know, when I retired the rest of that week, I felt like free and easy and tennis felt innocent for the first time in 23 years, and so, yeah, I think that could be a factor.

Speaker 1: 12:47

We'll we'll see how she translates. Clay is not her best surface, so we'll see if she kind of uh, puts her foot on the gas. As far as scheduling or kind of is like I'm gonna play, you know, I'm done in, you know september probably, probably at the open. I don't imagine her playing the US Open and then playing you know eight events afterwards. Be curious to see what she does here. But listen, let's not let the future of things get in the way of enjoying the present, especially for Danielle Collins. Hell of a run, unbelievable.

Speaker 1: 13:19

And props to Rabakina too. I mean, she was defending Indian Wells, had to pull out, didn't play tennis for eight days and then got into some absolute battles early in this tournament against Taylor Townsend. She went to the distance, was just getting through matches and I don't think she ever felt physically right. I think she was behind the eight ball with fitness and got to a final and had to look at the basket, put some points back on the board. Um, that was her. To put in context like this daniel collins. It was daniel collins's fourth final ever. It was rabakina's fourth final of the year gives you a little bit of context. But I thought rabakina uh looked amazing um, not looking, but like she showed a champion's mentality with coming in undercooked and still kind of finding a way to battle the final, and eventually just ran into someone who was more prepared, probably fitter at this point, just because of the sickness that Rabakina had during Indian Wells.

Speaker 1: 14:21

But what a tournament. Like Indian Wells, miami, I just feel like they never disappoint. They're just so much fun. You have space to digest. It doesn't feel rushed. Uh, the schedule's great. Uh, people are generally happy because there is some space uh, within the events. Um, so hats off to uh the term directors, the tournaments, um, everything else is uh, that was great. I just thought it was an unreal way to win. You have two champions on two very different career paths. Sinner, it's like all in front of him, and Danielle Collins is trying to put some points on the board before she calls it a day and gets to the more important things in life. But you know different trajectories, but both caused amazing emotions. One was happiness, one was pure joy, one was like an oh shit, look at what Sinner's going to do for a while and let's look at the rest of the Tour de la Clay and hope that changes a little bit.

Speaker 1: 15:15

So we film earlier in the week, we do it for T2 and a lot of the stuff is evergreen, so a lot of it makes sense. But John Wertheim was on and we'll tease his segment because he's going to come up, uh, here in a little bit on the show. But during the first we were reacting to, kind of the first news of jokovic splitting with evie nizovic and I was kind of like, well, he probably wants someone, he probably wants someone to bounce ideas off of. And wertheim goes listen, I've interviewed this guy for 60 minutes. I've interviewed him for the cover of Sports Illustrated. I've gotten to spend a lot of time with him. He might go it alone, he might have no coach, and sure as shit, two or three days later Novak's going. He kind of flirted with the idea and he hasn't made any total decisions. But he said you know I can go it alone. Yeah, so journalist knows more than the player, apparently. But uh, novak, good sign for for tennis fandom.

Speaker 1: 16:09

Novak uh was in monte carlo this morning. So we're doing this on monday for the tuesday release. Uh, he was practicing on monday with holga runa in in monte carlo. Hard for me to think that he pulls out of miami because because he wants to spend some time with family. I know he has a place in Monte Carlo. Seems like a great place to get in a tournament and spend some time with family. So all signs pointing towards Novak playing in Monte Carlo. Rafa still has not pulled out. He is still on the entry list. So good times in Monte Carlo. And tell me I wanted you to look up that stat for the 2010 in Monte Carlo and what came up.

Speaker 2: 16:48

A lot of really, really classic cars 2010 Marlet. Yeah, 2010 Monte Carlo is littered with great Carfax options.

Speaker 1: 16:59

So you got to get a little more specific with your Google search.

Speaker 2: 17:02

Yeah, throw tennis on the back end guys right, well, that's your racket roundup.

Speaker 1: 17:06

Uh, that we do on mondays. And now I'm going to kick it to the conversation with john wertheim. All right, and as always, uh, john wertheim, uh, john, we have a lot to get to. Uh, obviously, miami in full swing. Uh, we should probably touch off the top. Just this, this, this kind of like a new big three in men's tennis, like, or at least like a big four, like Novak adjacent, he's kind of present. Sometimes he's still the best player on earth when everything is right. But Alcaraz, sinner, medvedev, in his absence, have kind of almost created their own little like subcommittee of reliability, right?

Speaker 3: 17:50

I was going with the turducken uh metaphor, but um, yeah, it's weird, but you know Django, which is number one, 400, where are we at? I think 418 weeks. That's a big number of the weeks, that's a double Rafa. Can you believe that? That it's a joke.

Speaker 1: 18:03

It's crazy. His, his numbers are so far past comprehension. It just none of it makes any sense at all.

Speaker 3: 18:12

It's just he's so far past the shark, it's, it's crazy um, that's like eight years atop the heap, uh, but you're right, I mean, the irony is he also hasn't won a tournament this year and there was a bit of a personnel shake-up. Perhaps will address, but yeah, in his absence, and it's it's such a personnel shake-up perhaps will address, but yeah, in his absence and it's it's such a weird thing, isn't it right? I mean, you figure, like the body breaks down. Okay, he's almost 37, we get that. This doesn't seem at all physical, which makes it all this more strange. But uh, yeah, in his absence. You're right, there does seem to be this. Uh, can I say turducken, we go with that one. There's this three-way. Uh, you know three-man race, yeah, for those who don't know, say turducken, can we go with that one?

Speaker 1: 18:45

There's this three-way you know three-man race. Yeah, for those who don't know where turducken is, can you just we have an international audience. It's basically you stuff a turkey with a bunch of other shit too.

Speaker 3: 18:53

It's sort of like what were the turkey chicken duck braiding? You know, when they say in the United States that it's one of the highest is overweight, I would point to the turducket as the approximate cost. Anyway, point, point game. We sort of have this three-way braiding. I don't know who's the chicken, turkey or duck. Among uh, sinner, alferez and methodab, choose your own. But yeah, I mean three, three guys. Food metaphors notwithstanding, three guys have kind of uh distance themselves from the pack this year. Ironically enough, not one of them is right number one yeah, it's.

Speaker 1: 19:24

I mean, I think that's coming. You feel like Sinner's gaining on it obviously has less to defend than everyone else. But Alcaraz, back in full flight, it's exactly what we need. Seems like he's having a blast. Every time I look up, he's with Drake and Neymar and Jimmy Butler and all of these other people who are legitimate fans of his right. It feels like he's playing the home game and then there's like this cool orbit around him. Uh, the guy's a star. He is so much fun to watch and it's kind of represented uh by the fandom, uh, generally that that he's created and uh, conversing. On the women's side, none of the top three seeds uh are there. Um, you know, by the time, uh, this airs or whatever, but like it was just a tale of kind of two favorites and it went the opposite directions in Miami.

Speaker 3: 20:11

Yeah, and I would say this is one reason why we like mixed events, so we like men and women competing simultaneously. One of them is hey, it's the NCAA tournament and this bracket is wide open, and the other has more consistency. I really like what you said about albrecht because, first of all, you're right, you don't get the sense. This is hey, it's the young kid who's amazing and he gets to meet steph curry. You get the feeling steph curry's just as thrilled to meet that carlos, and vice versa. And also, have you seen a player recently who brings this much joy to the common fan? I mean the experience of his watching him as his experience of watching one of his matches. It just it hits different, as the kids say.

Speaker 1: 20:49

Yeah, and I think in our generation it was like the players wanted to watch Roger because he could do things racket, skill-wise, you know. And Rafa was like, okay, it was this blunt force, trauma of physicality and spin. And Novak is like he's like a wrestler who gets you into holds that you can't get out of and you know, whereas, you know, roger kind of had this, this, this grace, and he would come off with shots that looked like he was playing video games. And now Alcaraz is almost like a combination of of all three. Right, he's like this kamikaze. He's still finding his way.

Speaker 1: 21:25

I think the best version of himself will be when he gets a little bit more Novak into his game, where he kind of, just, you know, makes things a little bit more boring and isn't spectacular. All the time when I was with Andre Agassi in Vegas, that's kind of what he was saying. He's like he's so spectacular. I think like the next point of success is becoming maybe a little bit more boring, uh, on court and kind of getting people locking them down, um, and not throwing as many uppercuts.

Speaker 3: 21:51

Oh, don't say that um, you're probably right the flip side is don't you get the feeling he really rebels in the shock making and sometimes he goes for these crazy around the net shots and he loves the tweeter, the drop shot. I get the feeling he not not in the way roger did, where it's just performance, but I get the feeling this guy likes the memes, he likes the highlight shots and I think it's part of his mo that you know half a dozen times a match he's going to try something crazy, and three of those six times it's going to be great and we're all going to see it on our feeds. And three of the six times we're going to say this guy's playing like a junior, he needs more no-back. But I get the feeling that not only is he sort of fun and flashy, has this level of energy, but he knows it and it's part of what he enjoys about where he is right now.

Speaker 1: 22:37

See, I almost like this is good. We need to disagree more often. I almost feel like it's like a cup that you feel to the top and it just spills over because it's so full. Like, I like Mumfeast is a guy who, you know, is going to try some. He's going to try to make a highlight, right, he's going to actually. Uh, we did a.

Speaker 1: 22:56

I always get mad on TC when we have the hot shot of the day and it's like a gratuitous hot shot, right, like Musetti did one a couple days ago where he ran in stride, he was facing Alcaraz and instead of just hitting a forehand and winning the point, alcaraz was at net, he was coming forward, he kind of over ran it and played it between his legs. Lob, I'm like that's a fancy shot but it's not like a, you know. It's like I say it's the Murphy Jensen, murphy Jensen diving in doubles. Right, like half of them were necessary. Right, I love Murphy, but half of them were necessary. Right, I love Murphy, but half of them were necessary. I feel like Alcaraz, it almost comes out because that's the way he sees the court, like he has this uber aggressive mentality and it just manifests in this crazy athletic, you know, but he hits these soft volleys but he's on the full stretch. I don't know that it's as gratuitous as we make it out to be. I feel't know that it's as gratuitous as as we make it out to be. I feel like it's almost. It just spills out of him. It just spills over because the cup of options uh is just is just too full. But it's, listen we're. I'm glad he's found his confidence.

Speaker 1: 23:58

I feel like the difference between him and the second half of last year and what he's found uh since that first round at Indian Wells is he's found uh since that first round at indian wells is he's not hitting shots anymore, he's playing points and that's the best version uh of him and it's exciting to watch uh sinners just. I mean he just a little bit like shviatek. He just goes out and just smothers. You like to start to finish? I'm gonna hit quality shot after quality shot after quality shot, and I don't have a lot of really obvious patterns. And then Medvedev is like this prototype of you know, six foot six. I play opposite of the way every American coach has taught for the last 30 years. You know the nuance of shot tolerance and backing up and keeping the ball down and I'm six foot six and I can move. I also have a big serve. It's just like this kind of new. It's like this new wave of tennis, presented three different ways, and I'm here for it. I love watching it. It's just fantastic.

Speaker 3: 24:57

I think you're right. I think there's a lot of personality conflict, not conflict. There's a lot of sort of personality diversity among the three of them right, I mean, but I think we've got sort of a nice group of stylists, but also there's just a different approach to the sport. They're from three different countries. There's a lot to like Quick detour. Did we talk about Medvedev's serve last time?

Speaker 1: 25:18

I'm talking about.

Speaker 3: 25:20

Go ahead. No, when he won the US Open, he was the best server in the draft. I think he was, you know, got broken once in a three set final by the best returner of all time. He was broken more than 20 times in australia and came with it. Instead of winning in indian wells, he got to the finals, he was broken. I had something 19 times. I don't know what's going on there well, okay.

Speaker 1: 25:39

So the the the us open final against novak, where you know he barely got broken and ran through him in three sets. It was a little bit different, right it's. It's when he plays Novak or other great returners, mostly against Novak. His second serve goes from like an average of 92 that he can throw in against most people and feel comfortable in that rally like he wants that to get hit back and he wants to start over against Novak. He he goes up 15 miles an hour that day. He executed right. So he is in the two shots that he you can see him in intentionally raising the risk profile when he has to are the second serve. He'll take it from 92 up to 107, 108 and stepping inside on the forehand side against a player that he knows he can wear down and that he can beat over time and doesn't have to punch someone out. He can let them punch themselves out. He'll kind of go roller derby forehand, move it around the court. I think it's his most improved shot in the last three years because he steps inside and is more aggressive when he needs to, but against a Novak. He did it last year in the semis of the US Open against Alcaraz. You know, early on in that match he established like I'm going to step in and take forehand line almost irresponsibly sometimes. So for him that variance is a lot of times very strategic like he would have liked to have lost serve less in Australia. But I don't know that there's a direct line to that single match. We're taking a stat at scale from the aussie open, which he lost to serve way more than he normally does, um, which manifested in him being on court more than any human ever has uh during a grand slam event. But the novak of things, specifically maybe alcarez, maybe sinner he tends to be more aggressive because those are probably the only three people that he doesn't want extended rallies with all the time. So I think that's actually a conscious uh decision by him, um, and when he plays the best in the world, he has to be a little bit more aggressive than if he was playing. You know, plumbers like me or someone ranked 30 or 40 uh in the world, um, but his break rate is the second on tour. I mean, he's six foot six and he breaks, you know, it's just, it's just phenomenal. Anyways, this is.

Speaker 1: 27:50

We've gone on for a second about this, but more to just say I'm having so much fun watching it because it's like after the big, the big big three. So I put novak kind of exists in two different groups right. Um, because he's the, the last, the last one standing, um, but you, how is the game going to change? How can it possibly improve from these three and not to say that Alcaraz, medvedev and Sinner are going to be better, but different ways to approach playing elite tennis and record crowds? For me it's fun. The eyeball test is passing. I expected a vacuum in quality post big three in Murray and Morinka and I expected a vacuum of maybe interest in attendance and I've thankfully been wrong on all sides of it. It's just, tennis is booming. These three are playing, you know, elite tennis consistently and I'm here for it. I love it.

Speaker 3: 28:48

I take real quick. We underestimate the durability of players. Right Five weeks ago, carlos turned his ankle and we all wonder if this guy hasn't peaked. And boy it's been rough. He hasn't won a tournament and now he's back to Carlos Alvarez. Tennis players, as generations, are more durable than we think. Everybody wondered, when Serena and the big three left, if we were going to be watching high school players and there'd be 11 people in the stands. Not the case, as you mentioned, and I just think fans are pretty durable too. And we all miss the Dartmouth graduation speaker that is, roger Federer. We miss seeing Rafa in action. We miss Serena, but you seeing Rafa in action? We missed Serena, but you know what? There are other players. There are other players that capture our imagination, their controversies, their colorful personalities. We're all going to be fine here. I think durability on all sorts of levels has been a theme of uh of 2024.

Speaker 1: 29:36

Yeah, and also it needs to be said like in the nineties, if you have a knee operation you're out six months, right, like now you're four to six weeks. You can get back I mean, you can the also in the night. You probably very few people could afford to have a full time trainer Like my. My trainer for my career started out in the ATP locker room and he was kind of the trainer for everyone in the locker room and I think, as things have gotten more specific financial advantages, I like that players are kind of turning that around and investing back in their selves and in their bodies, in their teams. I think it's great and players are undoubtedly lasting longer, not just in tennis but across, uh, all sports. Um, you know brady playing till. You know lebron playing at an elite level at 40 years old. I like the trend of it yeah, good for fans.

Speaker 3: 30:25

Who loses right? I mean it's good for fans. You can form these connections with players that last longer. It's good for the players. I think you're right. I think the money has prolonged careers, in the sense that you're right that, uh, nobody is waiting in line at the hertz counter. People have you know. We have medical technology, we've got trainers. Also, money means there is an incentive to keep playing. Why am I going to retire daniel collins joke uh, insert here notwithstanding why am I going to retire when I can keep going deep into my 30s and make a very nice living? So everybody benefits here with longevity yeah, and in we'll get uh.

Speaker 1: 30:59

Speaking of longevity, the the guy who's kind of avoiding time, maybe as well as anyone ever has. Uh is novak djokovic, and you know it's been kind of a an maybe as well as anyone ever has. Uh is Novak Djokovic and you know it's been kind of a an inconsistent start to the year. Right, uh switched up his schedule in Australia. Normally just shows up and plays the Aussie Open went early um, after playing late into the season last year playing, you know, davis Cup and having an extended season started early um. I, you know, I, I I often find myself sitting in this chair going, well, that's a, that's kind of a weird thing. But then I'm also having to remind myself that this guy's won 25 grand slams and what the hell do I know like who's going to tell him anything at this point about decision making and scheduling um, but it, you know sammy's in aust know semis in Australia it's just 20, 20.

Speaker 1: 31:47

It's so many. It's so many grand slams, it's. It's so many grand slams, it's like.

Speaker 3: 31:51

I think he gave an extra one. But that's all right, you heard it, we'll give you 27.

Speaker 1: 31:55

Yeah, sorry.

Speaker 3: 31:55

What did I say? 25. We'll give it. Give it to him. Give him an extra one.

Speaker 1: 31:58

You deserve it. Oh sorry, 24'm going to show you the magic of television and audio pod right now. You ready? Okay, you ready, mike? Silence 24. That's what you're going to hear. Anyways, I forget what I said, anyways, but the big news this week is moving on from Goran Ivanovic and you know, in kind of an un-Novac type year, and I say that sensitivity before everyone goes all Twitter fingers and says, like you know, what the hell do you know? I'm agreeing with you with the what the hell do I know, but there are variances in this season versus previous starts to the season, of which he is normally a very fast starter. What do you make of this Goran news and were you surprised by it?

Speaker 3: 32:45

I was, because there's been, I mean I was, I wasn't. I mean you know you started, you know, like you're used to his level, he's sort of a victim of his own success. And suddenly everyone in tournament this year and things are not trending in the right direction you make some changes in a way, say great, it shows that he's still, uh, still tinkering. He has now changed manager agent. He's promoted his hitting partner to manager and now there's a coaching change. That's a lot of churn for the guy who won three of the four majors last year, sidebar. I was looking at him and he said, well, who would coach him? Well, he's probably not going to start a new relationship, right, probably. And they said, well, who else is coaching? In the past, did you ever know?

Speaker 3: 33:23

Just sidebar, todd Martin did a brief stint as Novak's coach. A little trivia, I. So I don't, you know, I mean, I think it shows he's a seeker, he's always looking to change things. He'll change his diet when he doesn't feel good. But this is not someone who necessarily is with Duke tradition in this change-averse. It is a little strange we're talking about this with, uh, you know, with jesse pagula and with um, with overroot, I mean it's. It's a little bit strange that, uh, the number one player in the world is changing coaches. I wonder, let me ask you this, when we think about who's going to take that role, does he need a coach? I mean what? At this stage in the game, he's got a hitting partner who doubles as a manager. What, what's he a coach for?

Speaker 1: 34:05

well, there's. Basically what we're asking is is he someone who craves the conversation or is he someone that just knows what he knows inherently and fully? Um, the way that he kind of goes back and forth with his box, it seems like he craves that communication. You know so behind it't. But it's also like a weirdly framed question, because does he need a coach? Probably not, like I think my, my cat could coach him and do a pretty good job. He'd probably win a bunch of matches. Um, but the thing is he's 37 when things.

Speaker 1: 34:39

It's a weird moment where, you know, does he think that he's in there with these other three? You know super humans? Um, I would think that you would want someone. I don. He think that he's in there with these other three? You know super humans? I would think that you would want someone. I don't think that you would do a trial run with no coach before Roland Garros in Wimbledon.

Speaker 1: 34:54

To me, the most logical version of events and again I say this, knowing I have no inside knowledge, you have a thousand times more inside knowledge of the way that Novak's camp works. But if I'm Novak and have won that many slams, I would want something consistent where I didn't feel like I was getting to know someone in the six weeks leading into, or two months leading into Roland Garros and then it's a quick turnaround Three weeks after that you're center court at Wimbledon again. So my mind automatically goes to Marion Vida, because that's the guy who kind of is in and then he's out and then he's kind of sometimes back in. It seems like this consistent insurance policy and that's nothing to take away from. I mean, he's more so than anyone helped develop Novak right and turn him into the person not just kind of tag along, know, tag along on other successes. And you know another name that you know Novak, to his credit, really stood by yeah, stood by during rough times.

Speaker 1: 35:54

Who didn't work in his most recent coaching gig is Boris Becker. They had a lot of success and so if I'm Novak and I have a hitting putter and I have all this infrastructure and maybe I don't need someone there all the time, but at Wimbledon when you're breaking down a matchup, even if it's just confirmation bias, right, I'm going into this, I think this and Becker goes well, yeah, yeah, I see that too, that that that holds a lot of water in the psyche of an athlete. So for me, outside, looking in, knowing nothing. That seems like a very comfortable landing spot that has proven successes. Now I don't exactly know why they stopped in the first place, so you don't know if there's any scar tissue that's unspoken.

Speaker 1: 36:37

I've certainly. You know, brad and I broke up and it was, you know. It was pretty rough for a couple of years and we eventually got over it. So you think like enough time passes. You know it'd be worth revisiting. But if I'm Novak I got to think I would bring in someone who at least knows the way I operate, who knows the rest of the team that is around me. I don't know, I would be shocked if it's like he just takes a swing and brings someone entirely new in. But I mean, I'll probably be wrong, I'm sure.

Speaker 3: 37:12

This is someone who doesn't like conventional wisdom. This is someone who, by his own admission, can be sort of hard-headed.

Speaker 3: 37:18

I just wonder if he says you know what At this stage in the game? I'm always looking for sort of new challenges. I don't know if I need someone to console. I know the sport pretty well and I can watch YouTube videos of the unknown Salvadorian opponent who qualified, who I have to meet in round one. I've got a hitting partner. I think you're right, though I think Marion Biden, that's sort of like the old box right, you have these boxers and they get back together with the old trainer. Um, that to me sounds if I were, if I were a betting man, which I'm not, that would um sound like the most. Uh, I mean, it's an interesting parlor game. I just think um does he? Does he need a coach, as you say? No, he could win matches, uh, you know, with a groucho marks mask on, but I just think he might be considering trying to fly solo for a bit. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Speaker 3: 38:09

So you think there's a chance he goes full Kyrgios, I think this is someone who loves challenging conventional wisdom, and I think this is someone who loves exploring new frontiers. He's a seeker. He's done Andre, he's done Boris Becker. He's done the major champions. He's also sort of done the comfort food that is married by that. I just I could see him saying you know what, let me, let me try to fly solo here.

Speaker 1: 38:32

We'll see how this goes. That's interesting, we'll see. You know, I'm sure it's not going to be a subtle reentry, whether that's in Monte Carlo and he walks in with someone like I think there's going to be, I, I think he's going to his private training sessions, I think are going to be a little bit more public as he makes this change. But I'll be curious to see it. And also, like, let's flip the side of it, like we're saying Novak, what's he looking for? That's a really intimidating situation to walk into, no matter what your credentials are. Like I'm going to go, like I you know shortly people have been no more in the world I go in. I don't know what I'm telling him Besides, like you're doing great, like you're the best, like what am I going to tell him? That's an intimidating. That's an intimidating, especially if you feel like three other guys have kind of consistently been gaining on him.

Speaker 1: 39:27

You know last year's wimbledon, obviously you know it. It's it needs to be said, at 37 years old. There is no precedent ever in our sport of being number one in the world like he has out, punted the field on that and at some point time and talent comes for you, right? Is this that moment? Do you want to be part of the coaching? Uh, so you know, quote-unquote solution, with this brigade coming and not kind of knowing what you're dealing with and also, like I would second guess every single thing. I told novak I would be so insecure about having an opinion based on his iq, his tennis iq and and what he's accomplished. Uh, you know, it's, it's so. The other side of that is is intimidating as well, I think that's.

Speaker 3: 40:08

That's an interesting point. I mean, you know, you're also talking about a guy who did win three majors and came within a couple loose points of winning all four.

Speaker 3: 40:15

So it's uh, you're not exactly buying too much on the dip. And also, I think, one thing that's just really interesting about all this if I told you six months ago that novak drogovic, you know, he played the first three months of the year and wouldn't win a title and he'd lose to a guy outside the top 100. You say, oh, I bet you know, father, time has come, he must be banged up. This is not about being physically compromised and I think in a way that sort of adds a challenge to the coaching. We're not just saying, hey, wait till the knee gets healthy and then we'll retool our schedule. This is sort of much more personal.

Speaker 3: 40:59

Again, we referenced that very strange withdrawal announcement he made for Miami, when usually they say well, you know, my physio says I need the time off and I look forward to returning. This was much more personal and made vague allusions to sort of motivation and family situation and it would be a challenge to come in at the same time. What's a greater challenge than finding you know? So it's like the sports movie piano starts tinkling right now. Right, I mean, what's what's a greater challenge with finding the guys? Does the old guy still have something in it to win that 25th major surpassing Margaret court.

Speaker 1: 41:26

Well, yeah, he does. He does because he did it three times last year. Like it's not as if you're searching for something like that was from like three years ago. I mean, it's, this isn't exactly. It's not like George. It's not like George Foreman winning the the heavyweight title after not boxing for 15 years.

Speaker 3: 41:40

I, you know it's. I'm sure there are a lot of coaches on the sidelines that would be happy to take on that challenge as as proud as it might be True.

Speaker 1: 41:47

Okay, so let's get into a different subject. There is a there. There's a little bit of turmoil and I think a little bit is is underselling. I think there's like a five alarm fire going on inside of USTA player development right now. Um, there is a.

Speaker 1: 42:09

So, for those of you who don't know who Jose Higueras is, uh, he is one of the best coaches of our time. Um, you know, starting with I, I what's going to happen is I'm going to name his credentials and I'm going to forget them, because there are there are so many, you know, working with Jim Currier still says he's the smartest tennis mind and he owes his career and his successes to Jose Higueras. His help with Roger, help with Pete Sampras, was involved in player development for the USTA from I'll get the years slightly wrong, 2008-ish till recently, wrong 2008-ish till, you know, recently has had a long, celebrated career, coaching and teaching, and he was a former pro player himself, a very accomplished pro player in his own right. Sent out and you got this email, basically a plea to anyone involved with USTA player development, basically throwing, uh, a couple of board members Brian Vahaly and Vanya King uh very under the bus and in no uncertain terms.

Speaker 1: 43:19

Um, tell me about your take on this email. Uh, let's call balls and strikes. Let's try to call them as fairly as possible. Um, but like I don't know that I've ever seen an email like this, uh, inside of an organization, it was.

Speaker 3: 43:35

it was pretty, uh, it was pretty cutting, I think yeah, oh, my email sort of we should back up a little. This is really, oh, it's almost like reads, almost like almost like a cry for help. It's like 2,000 words. And as you say names, I mean this is somebody not a lot of subtlety here. And as you say, I mean this is not. We're talking about Pascal Reid. I mean this is Jose.

Speaker 3: 43:55

Higueras is not necessarily known as one of the great hotheads. This is a well-regarded figure in tennis, former Cop 10 player. I'd, I'd um, I haven't looked at he's 70, 71 years old now, probably. Um, he worked at roger fetter. He also worked, uh, for many, many years with usda player development. He's not happy. There have been some budget cuts. That's been no great secret. Um, usda player development has always been, as I'm sure you yourself saw in a right it's. It's. There's always going to be second guessing and there's going to be arguments over funding and this player, this section, this coach got too much, this one didn't get enough. How could they have whiffed on player X? And it's kind of the nature of any sort of sports privacitation like that. But, yeah, I mean, jose Higueras sent this in.

Speaker 3: 44:40

You know, I got it, but I was one of many, many people. This is not someone he just sent to a few people um, I've known him for for a good while and considering him, you know, so someone you can call and get a straight answer, a straight shooter, but, um, I'm not sure, a 2000 word email of this nature and it's I, you know. I actually asked him. I asked him if I could publish it because I wasn't sure, sort of what the purpose was, and he said, please, I can't fight this battle alone. I have no problem, we can put this on the show notes if you want.

Speaker 3: 45:10

But my point is this was not meant as an aggrieved employee. He wants this read by a lot of people. This is really a pre-deceiver. This is really a cry for help for someone who clearly feels passionate about this. He's a lot of grievances. Some of these are very specific, some of these are general. Some of these are about the state of, you know, the funding. That probably is too in the weeds for for, for for most people. But yeah, this was a shot across the bow.

Speaker 1: 45:40

When did you receive this email?

Speaker 3: 45:43

Oh man, I mean I, I woke up to it. That came last wednesday night what about you?

Speaker 1: 45:52

uh, well, I didn't receive it. I wasn't on the, I wasn't on the email list. Um, I received, so that the uh, the intro, and this is like a mix of. So let me be fully clear. I am wrestling with my past grievances from my own experiences, probably a little bit of ego and insecurity from what I've offered versus what the feedback has been given from the USTA, and we're talking over the last 20 years, and so a lot of the notes in this email, like, for instance, the heading, the intro to this email I'm reading it off my phone from Lindsay Davenport, who is actually the one who sent it to me says Dear members of the American tennis family, so when did you get that email? I?

Speaker 1: 46:41

it would have been Wednesday night. It's been Wednesday night, wednesday night, okay. Well, I received this from Lindsay Friday at 1pm, so two days after you, and then I did end up getting it directly from Jose, but it was. I read it for the first time on Saturday morning, so I don't know, maybe I'm like, maybe, like listen, if it's American Tennis Family, maybe I'm like a weird cousin or like something like like you know, um, anyways, so yeah, so anyways, john, it's not you, it's me, um, but it's just, it's interesting, cause I, like I, obviously you never want to see cuts to player development.

Speaker 1: 47:27

I, like I, obviously you never want to see cuts to player development. All I want is is for us to have a million grand slam champions, uh, all the time. Um, now, what the question ends up being to me is okay, just cutting things for the sake of cut of things. Well, you know, allegedly throwing million dollar hollow holiday parties, uh, as a as a board, and voting for those and voting against player funding is insane, right. Putting, you know, renovations to the Orlando facility under the player development budget is insane to me. That's not player development, that's new tiles in bathrooms or fixing you know something else. So I I am sympathetic to the the player development side. Uh, there was a lot in this. I felt like the email kind of boiled the ocean a little bit, um, when it was defending the track record of of player development. It was basically anyone who's been at a camp or has received any amount of financial support over any amount of time basically, was rolled into the statistics of successes for player development over a certain moment in time. And I can't speak to that because I was at zero involvement.

Speaker 1: 48:51

I got, I got cut from from USTA funding when I was 16, they funded a bunch of different players and I think they did me the biggest favor of my life. You know, I went and found, so I get cut, which is fine. It's like, you know, someone has to get cut. There's always a last minute, there's always a first guy out. And then I found a coach, tariq Benhabiles, right, which luckily he lived down the street, so there wasn't a lot of expense with having to travel to a place to train, all of those added costs. He lived right there. So our trajectory goes um, I go from 50 in the world.

Speaker 1: 49:32

Uh, and this was not under under jose's watch. I'm just telling you what the? Uh, you hear a lot. My story is not unique. Um, but for a long time it felt like the USTA was happy to. They wanted the credit to be for a logo and not for a flag.

Speaker 1: 49:54

Um, and so I got, went to number one in the world in juniors, no involvement from anyone. Uh, on the USTA side, uh, they say we help players. I said how do you help players? They go oh, we watch matches. Oh, we watch matches. I'm like I don't know what that. I don't know how that helps me. Um, okay, great. Um, so then we they get to the point where, like you know what we would love, they're back on board. I'm number one in the world in juniors, about to turn pro. Go from cut to you know, one of the best prospects in a while.

Speaker 1: 50:24

The proposal was we will fund everything training expenses, travel, all of it. You just have to work with one of our coaches, and so I had the decision as a 17-year-old. So you want me to leave the coach that is directly responsible for this ascent for a paycheck, and so it's someone under your umbrella. And at 17, I realized that that was short-sighted, because forever, if anything, no one knows who gets credit for what Like forever. I played Davis Cup. Therefore I was probably a USTA guy, had no communication, not even a little bit After a certain point. There was no funding and I'm sure they'd say, well, wait, you know, you get paid for Davis Cup. That comes from the USTA. Okay, if you want to, that's fine. That's a fee for service, not development. I was, you know already, you know whatever it was. Yeah, so I'm reading through this email and it's like every basically saying, saying like it was unprecedented success. Basically, they carved out you know the years I played and then it was 2009 to 19.

Speaker 1: 51:42

But like the metrics, like I'll give you one specific one, and so I would love it if, if Jose would, would choose to come on the pod open invite to do that. I prefer not for us to have like a whole song and dance before. I'd actually just want everyone to hear this conversation for clarity. But it says from 1995 to mid-2008, team USA, which is very vague had two Junior Grand Slam singles champions, two Junior Grand Slam singles champions. I was one of them. I don singles champions. I was one of them. I don't know if I was both of them. I won two slams. I'm not sure. I'm sure, I'm not. You know, I don't know if it's two people or two titles, so all of the stats have like that thing where you don't quite understand what's being said.

Speaker 1: 52:26

And so the counter to that, to basically talk about the successes since then, from mid 2008 to 2023, team USA had 22 Junior Grand Slam champions. So it went from Junior Grand Slam singles champions from 95 to mid 2008. That was the precedent for comp and then went to 22 Grand Slam champions. Now I haven't looked it up yet. I'm hoping some people can go back and tell me how many of those are doubles championships when in the first stat it was very specific about being a singles champ. That's and then this is why we have so many good pros today. It's because of us and the slams that we won. That is an 11X increase in junior Grand Slam winners.

Speaker 1: 53:22

What it also overlooks completely is every like Serena was winning Grand Slams at an age where she was eligible to play in Junior Grand Slams. So your little like Serena was winning Grand Slams in 1999. So you like carved out her winning majors with, by the way, like she didn't. She wasn't involved in your programs at all and Venus wasn't involved in your programs at all Zero, um, so you carving out her pro successes to make a very deceiving claim to success and then say this is why we have so many good pros today, because some more people won doubles, grand slams and juniors. It just is, the email kind of reeks of these. If you're from America, you fall under our successes as far as stats and it's just kind of weird and I never questioned the passion. Some of the best people I know forever on earth Uh, dean Goldfein comes to mind. Uh, just one of my favorite humans ever. The intent isn't wrong, but the way that the email at least the way that I read it when Lindsay sent it to me, um, I read it.

Speaker 1: 54:34

Three days after you, apparently, you qualified as American tennis family and friends and friends yeah yeah, so apparently I was on the acquaintances list but it's just kind of full of these anecdotal like. It's like what services have we provided? And it's like strength and conditioning, mental skills, performance analytics, athletic training. I feel like you know that scene in Step Brothers where they're at the Catalina wine mixer and it's like why should you invest Media, tv, music, prestige worldwide, wide, wide, wide, wide. Yeah, so it's like athletic training, physio support, coaching. But here's what I need, right, if we're having a serious conversation where I want to be fully in because I want to be in, I'm on the player development side. I want to be both feet in cannonball ready to roll Data, data.

Speaker 1: 55:52

We have this many players and not like it's weird, because when they used to tell a story, it was top 10 players, right, and that was like the metric, and now it's top hundred players, and now so it's. It's like this, this, this, this squeeze of statistics to celebrate, you know, to throw parade for things, and it's like, oh, we help players. I'm like how will they? They come to camps. And I'm like man, you're taking credit for a semifinal run at the US Open because someone came to camps when largely Ben Shelton was with his dad and the University of Florida has produced players. I don't think Coco had much involvement. It's just a weird thing and I want to be in on it, but I think the way to win this argument is pure data and not cherry-picking the start of a point and its counter being completely different. Statistical things, statistical comps.

Speaker 3: 56:46

I like data as much as anyone and I think I would agree with you. This is very cherry-picked. I mean, the two best players of the last 25 years are both american. On the women's side, they have combined for more than 30 majors, and central to their narrative is the whole point that they completely went around the junior tennis establishment. So it's great that you can say, hey, you know, and since 1999, we've had all these american champions when, uh, the two with the most majors intentionally avoided the junior tennis infrastructure. I'm not sure how much clout that has. Yeah, we're also, you're right, you cherry-picked it the Serbian Federation's doing amazingly. They've got like 25 majors in the last.

Speaker 3: 57:27

I think that, apart from the data which I think you're right, I mean some players, they show up to a camp, others, the USDA has been integral in their success and we ought to have, um, you know, instead of just saying, hey, they play for the united states, they're in. I think we need a little bit, uh, more of a drill down there. I I just think there's a, before we even get to date, a fundamental question if the usda's mission is to grow and promote the sport of tennis, is this the best way to do it? Um, I look around and I see the French Federation. They run one of the majors. They have a lot of active French players have won majors. In fact I think the number is zero.

Speaker 3: 58:03

How many Australian players that are active have won majors, asparty now retired? Zero. Andy Murray had this wonderful mother who drove him in a van around Scotland. I'm not sure he was really part of the system. So is it a little strange that the four majors that have all of these revenues aren't the ones producing the best players? I wonder if this again this whole mission of growing and promoting the sport of tennis. Should there be more investment or less investment? And might it be a disguised blessing to sort of let the chips fall where they may? And you know, there are a lot of players from a lot of countries that don't have majors, that don't get tens of thousands of dollars from foundations and federations that have done very well for themselves yeah, the money for training has to come from somewhere, something you don't want to force the decision.

Speaker 1: 58:54

Where we've heard a lot of success stories Sharapova we heard on this podcast from Max Eisenbud moving to America with $300 with her father. Img had to pay for that. So you also don't want to have to force that decision for the people that don't become Sharapova, right, like? There are a lot of misses, with people thinking in every sport that their kid is is the best and it doesn't work out that well, um, a lot of the time. Um, so it's, it's, it's interesting and I do think it's a good opportunity to kind of do checks and balances. And and one thing I will say is like my situation, where it was a flag versus a logo, I think that's largely been acknowledged, remedied. So don't take my you know reality from 25 years ago. It's still a source of bitterness for me. It always was, but I think they're doing a better job of it.

Speaker 1: 59:52

I did ask one of my friends. I I said okay. So he made that point and I said okay, I get that. I accept that, that. I think that's probably right. So what's the? What's the example of? Like the one person where it's like, okay, we don't want anything, we just gonna, we're going to fund your situation because it seems great, great and the. The answer was someone who has become top hundred in like the last six months.

Speaker 1: 1:00:24

Um, and I, I just it's a weird thing and I I see all this like all this kind of celebration of happy we're there for you, we support, we do this. It's just never been my experience. Um, you know, I've I've offered to help for free, and maybe that just means that I don't know anything or I can't add value, and maybe that's accurate, I don't know, but it's just a weird thing where, whoever takes any job, I get one phone call, and there are all these things where it's like we can't wait, we'll talk again, we'll never hear from anyone ever again. It happens over and over and over and over again. Um, and so it's just weird, uh, when this type of situation comes up and I'm reading these emails and it just hasn't been my experience at all. Um, you know and and and so, and I and I know a lot of people that it hasn't been their experience at all. You know and so, and I know a lot of people that it hasn't been their experience at all either.

Speaker 1: 1:01:17

I'm not trying to make it simple, because it's certainly not simple. We have the biggest country. Are you going to make a kid move from northern Oregon if he's to Orlando when he's 12 or 13 years old? That's impossible. You know, in France you can drive to the National Center from pretty much anywhere, regardless of where you are. It's a massive problem. What I don't like? I think maybe there should just be a simple let's just back of the napkin here, mike. Let's make the constant as we're making cuts. The budget for I'm gonna get in trouble here the budget for player development should never be under the budget for executives making the decisions about player development.

Speaker 2: 1:02:05

I think the difficult part about it is Can we just make that a baseline? Yeah, I think that should be the standard A minimal, a minimal, and they're pretty much actually equal.

Speaker 1: 1:02:14

Yeah, if the execs are making, I don't. Should be the standard, like a minimal, a minimal and they're pretty much actually equal. Yeah, if the execs are making I don't know, let's share. I don't know what the number would be, let's just say if they're making around $14 million, then player development should make that right.

Speaker 2: 1:02:28

Yeah, I mean it's probably like 10 to 14 million and player development probably gets 10 million to 12 million a year Only based on 2022 tax returns that we're still trying to figure out, right, yeah, and I mean I actually found usta's uh 2022, uh, the player development tax returns, which has the same address and everything, and lou sheer's in charge of that, and all these guys are in charge of that it actually has. A net balances in 2022 was negative $12,871,000. For what now? This is for the player development incorporated.

Speaker 1: 1:03:04

Well, that's a little deceiving too, because they take money from the US Open, which, you could argue, is funded by night sessions, of which Coco performs. So there's a longer conversation potentially there.

Speaker 2: 1:03:18

But I think the question is how much of the overall revenue from the Topco that's making 65 million a year, plus, plus, plus should be allocated towards the future generation.

Speaker 1: 1:03:28

Investing back in the business, yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:03:30

I mean is it 10%, 20%? I mean are you investing in growth or are you investing in?

Speaker 1: 1:03:35

Well, if you said, if you made it a percentage basis, when the US Open has its biggest year ever last year, then the player development budget would grow because of it, not get a haircut by 40%, correct?

Speaker 2: 1:03:51

Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 1: 1:03:52

I'm not great at math, but the prior year.

Speaker 2: 1:03:55

So the prior year contributions were almost $14 million and then in 22, it was almost only $11 million.

Speaker 1: 1:04:02

Well, I mean, it seems like if here and I don't want to do anyone's job for them right, I don't want to. I told you my own grievances Now. It's easy to point out problems and we'll get to the PTPA here in a second, but solutions are harder right Now. What sort of revenues could possibly be coming that Lou Scheer might have inside information on or be driving? Is the US Open part of any power roll-up that is going to create billions in revenue?

Speaker 3: 1:04:38

what do we want to answer that? Do we? Sorry? How do we want to answer that? Um, yeah, I don't know no, I mean, it isn't even this part sort of means sort of?

Speaker 1: 1:04:47

are we doing earmarks? Are we doing ear marks like yeah, we're part of this, but like maybe, maybe we like if I'm, if I'm player development, I'm like a great, no problem, we'll take the haircut now, but we'll also participate in in in profits from this potential deal. And maybe maybe tennis france does the same thing. I don't know, seems like there's some some, some money that's hanging out in tennis. What do you think is the best?

Speaker 3: 1:05:11

way to grow and promote tennis. That's like the fundamental question here.

Speaker 1: 1:05:16

Right, we're gonna get in so much trouble. Oh god, I can see, I can see, I can see mike sweating already.

Speaker 2: 1:05:20

I mean it's I would. I would, honestly, I would spend three or four days reviewing these tax returns but then also doing I mean it's, we can do it.

Speaker 3: 1:05:27

We can do another show next week, I know, and not saying.

Speaker 2: 1:05:31

Not saying that any of it is is uncouth, right, like it's. Just it's so structured in such a way where you know are other organizations in other countries structured in this same way where it is so hard to track the actual trickle-down effect? You know, and really what is the important thing is, when you're building a tall building, is maintaining the foundation, you know the most important thing, or putting the shiniest thing on top of that building. You know praying that you did it right at the bottom, um and I that's what I don't understand about.

Speaker 1: 1:06:03

You know develop player development in general, especially when you talk about the biggest names in the sport over the last 20 years from the american side, and the majority of them didn't run through the program yeah, I uh, I just at this moment, and it's already recorded we're gonna this is getting put out either way, but I'm pretty sure I will have to pay for every ticket that I ever request at the US Open ever again in.

Speaker 3: 1:06:26

You weren't on me. You were at the a-list of the wedding before this you're by the I was.

Speaker 1: 1:06:30

I was already not on the email list. Yeah, we'll send you the Zoom link for our wedding. Listen, I'm happy with someone being mad at me, but also tell me where the lies are. You can be mad at me because of feelings, but tell me what part of this and why, what we're getting wrong about these things. I honestly and I'm not saying that in a sarcastic way I want to get smarter about all of this. I would love it to be this like utopia between player development and all of the other growth mechanisms that are seemingly around the corner in tennis.

Speaker 3: 1:07:07

Yeah, I mean, how much of this is just the fundamental tension that goes on here. Right, you have this great two-week event. You've got luxury suites, you've got media rights deals, you've got all this hospitality, you've got signage, and this is run like the big-time sporting event. It is the revenues from the USTA or whatever $750 million but it is a nonprofit and its mission is to grow and promote tennis. I guess my question is just when did we decide that player development is the best way to grow and promote tennis? It seems to, you know, at some level it seems to be the reason hey look, if we can mint another Andy Roddick or Serena Williams, that's great.

Speaker 3: 1:07:43

But I just wonder if we are of purposely vague. Grow and promote tennis, does that mean recreational players? Does that mean patch up the tennis court down at the local park? Or does that mean go look to the LeBron James that's going to transform the sport at the highest level? It's sort of intentionally vague, but I think that's where a lot of the problems stand. You've got a lot of money sloshing through and we see all the consumption and the wretched excess of the ice sculptures and the you know, the $40 hamburgers. And then the flip side is what do we do with that money? Well, it's really vague. Most companies have a fair view that there's either quarterly pressures we know what we have to do if we're Amazon or there is a fairly specific mission. Grow and promote dentists could mean anything. Why didn't the USDA do anything? Go set up your own social media channel for tennis. Maybe that grows and promotes tennis more than nurturing Denshal.

Speaker 1: 1:08:46

Yeah, who was? Yeah, when he just developed at the University of Florida.

Speaker 2: 1:08:49

Just for clarity, the USDA's actual legal description of what the organization does is to promote and develop the growth of tennis as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness.

Speaker 1: 1:09:01

So what was, what was the Catalina wine mixer? What was, what was the Catalina wine mixer? Hold on, hold on, hold on Strength, mental skills, performance, athletic training, coaching, prestige worldwide. Why, why? Why I asked a crazy question.

Speaker 1: 1:09:20

I was having breakfast when this was all kind of going down and the votes were happening last year at the US Open and a friend asked me to go to breakfast and was basically like you know, we could use your voice in like a public voice because you're not tied to anything and that's why we're able to do this podcast in a pretty unbiased fashion, because I don't really have a job in the general infrastructure of tennis which helps. And he said well, these cuts are happening. I go, okay, cuts are happening. I have a crazy question and he goes what I go? Where is that money being allocated? He's like I don't know. I go. Then this is a dumb conversation Because we don't. It's being taken from here, but it's given to here under all of the things, the boiling of an ocean that Mike just read in the kind of general vagueness which allows them leeway when is that money being allocated? And if the answer is I don't know, then we haven't invested enough time in this conversation, yet to be taking it out and asking for help publicly.

Speaker 3: 1:10:21

Again, I go back to this vague mandate and maybe it's allocated. We talked last week about. The USTA seems to be one of the prime stakeholders of this premier tour. The USTA has an investment in labor count. I mean there are other ways to grow and promote tennis, even for health and fitness.

Speaker 1: 1:10:37

Very true.

Speaker 3: 1:10:38

No, I think you're right. I mean, I think your instincts are right too. We need better data all around. I mean, you and I, we're all reading the 990. Even that sort of prompts as many questions as it answers, but I, you know, I mean this is we're not the first people to have this conversation. We won't be the last, but it does seem to be a bit of an inflection point for the usda it's pretty.

Speaker 1: 1:11:01

So you're saying that and I literally just went through my my brain files and like maybe the biggest influential moment of my youth as it pertains to tennis and it being like it, becoming a North Star, wasn't a camp, it wasn't. It was going to the Davis Cup final in 1992 and being absolutely blown away. So by you saying maybe it's an investment in Labor Cup, someone goes to that and all of a sudden a nine year old is like this is it so fully agree with what you're suggesting? How do you value an investment in labor cup even though you can't actually follow the trail of success, but also you can't deny its impact on potentially growing the game, which is the mission statement. Player development is not in the mission statement. Maybe it should be, maybe it should be, but under what we're talking about, if you're investing in the game, in physical fitness, which is okay, like I'm glad they separated that from tennis, because those are very different things, right? Fuck?

Speaker 2: 1:12:12

I do have a question. Actually, when you think about the role of the USTA right, when, when you think about the role of the usta right and you think about the role of major league baseball or you think about the role of the nfl right, the usta is in my mind like in that same realm of like structural organization. Shouldn't their role be actually to build more fans versus build more players? Shouldn't they be investing more money and creating more value?

Speaker 1: 1:12:32

well they would. I I listen, I know I'm like straddling the line of both sides of them, but like investing money to put on the US Open. It is maybe the best sporting event on earth. So I think it is a separate player development. Where does it fit into the hierarchy? Because they will invest in things Like they built the Orlando Training Center, which apparently now is going to have no coaches.

Speaker 1: 1:12:57

But uh, like I don't think investment in the game has been lacking. I really don't like let's not, you know, just take a shit shower and and call it a day, like I think there is some nuance to this conversation. Specifically, what is the best avenue to make as many good players as possible? Do we go wide? Do we go deep? For a while it was like we're gonna try to, we like, we're gonna be like stock traders and we're gonna predict our best four and frankly, they fucking missed a lot like a lot right. So maybe that's not the best avenue, maybe it's a a volume play. I I don't know. But I like this conversation because hopefully it gets to whatever the next version is of player development, and I also applaud Jose Higueras, because a lot of these conversations normally take place in secrecy or person to person or, you know, emails between, like him saying it out loud, even if I disagree with a lot of parts of it and feel like this I could, I would, I would love to be a lawyer with these statistics, like I would love to just go through them. I could win a case. I really am positive I could. But he just did it. And now we're talking about it and even if we don't agree on everything, I agree on intent, I agree on passion. I agree on all of us wanting as many great American players forever in a day. Now, do I agree with the way they've gone about it? Always no, do they care? Probably not. You know, well represented. But you know, I like that. Everyone's just saying the quiet parts out loud. I like that. I like transparency.

Speaker 1: 1:14:30

We talked about it last episode with something totally different. Transparency, I think, shortens the runway to an answer and to a solution. So not an easy email to send out to everyone, pissed that I was on the B team for getting it. But that's my own problem, my own ego. I also got a text from a friend of mine who was like wow, jose, he wants to talk. He tried to get a hold of you. He asked me for your number. I'm like, wow, jose, like he tried to. He wants to talk, he wants to. He tried to get ahold of you. He asked me for your number. I'm like he's been in charge of player development for like 20 years and that's the problem. He had to ask you for my number 20 years later. Maybe my fault too, I don't know, but hopefully good times ahead, hopefully some clarity.

Speaker 1: 1:15:07

I think we need to invest in players. I would like a longer conversation on how to best do that, because if we've produced a Coco, a Ben I'd like three Cocos and three Ben's right and how and actually have an accurate accounting for data, dollars in versus ranking. If we put very minimal money into Ben Sheldon he's to your point, mike, and he's a semi-finalist at the US Open and you know 15 in the world after going to college then it's a different conversation. You don't have to fund someone from 10 years old or fund their situation. If it's a positive one, they don't have to be under your umbrella for American tennis to thrive. For American tennis to thrive, I need to take a break. All right, and we're back.

Speaker 1: 1:16:00

I've calmed down since the USTA conversations that, I hope, was at least equal parts logic and emotion. I know there was a lot of my own personal grievances and bias, so sorry about that, but that forms a general opinion. So covered on TC Live the other night. Basically, player hits ball into stands, someone catches ball, everyone's pumped Umpire goes give the ball back and we'll give you another one later. Like that's just, it's an unforced error. So I wrote down like a quick little quick hitter list and then we're going to let you go here, john, because I know you got a place to go people to see. Number one let people keep a foul ball.

Speaker 1: 1:16:40

In tennis. People are like, oh, they don't all play the same. Listen, we've done it many times. If someone hits a ball out of the stadium, you replace it. Not the same, not the exact same, but it's a temporary problem because you switch balls every you know however many handful of games.

Speaker 1: 1:16:54

Anyways, one that I feel strongly about is the behind the court view more often during broadcasts. So like this eagle eye view, you can't see spin, you don't get a feel for footwork as much as you should. That kind of like just above the player, from behind the court, I think showcases the athleticism in tennis, maybe more than anything else. So I'd like to see more of that. I'll run through this oh, this is a home game because I'm an investor and they've been a sponsor and hopefully will be again.

Speaker 1: 1:17:28

Swing vision on practice courts so like actual data readouts of how hard Carlos Alcarez and his spin rates, but on like court P six of the U S open right. So you're getting actual, but also you know those things. So then if you get the same thing, you can actually in real time compare and contrast what you're doing as an amateur, what I'm doing it as an amateur on my club game which, by the way, didn't break anything this morning. So swing vision on practice courts like actual data sets of how hard people are hitting for conversation pieces. It literally costs like 200 bucks a year per court and like a pogo stick that you put it on top of a little cheaper than shot spot.

Speaker 2: 1:18:06

Yeah, golf has leaned into that really well, I think.

Speaker 1: 1:18:08

That'd be amazing. Yeah, I can watch guys hit balls in the range because it's just that they okay. Varied court balls in the range, because it's just that they okay. Uh, varied court surface speeds let's make some weeks crazy fast, some weeks. Oh, they're already incredibly slow. Uh, ball and string regulation like there needs to be. Like one ball can't be extremely different from the next ball. Like I'm not telling you to have the same exact ball from two different producers, but there needs to be like a general set of guidelines. Now, like a stint meter in golf. Right, there is a general understanding of what a fast green is in a way to measure it.

Speaker 2: 1:18:37

Okay, uh, those regulations could you imagine if you went to yankee stadium and played with a different baseball and then you had to go play with the cincinnati reds next and they had like a completely different two weeks with one, and then exactly switch.

Speaker 1: 1:18:48

Uh, john, what else and what are your observations about that?

Speaker 3: 1:18:51

uh, I don't know if I would be thrilled to practice on site if there was readily available data, but that's a good. I like those. I like those a lot, and I think some of those go to health and fitness, some of those go to optics. I like anything. This is the part of the tennis channel can edit out. But how often to the general public is tennis seen as the sport of the douche canoe, right? Any movie you watch, how do you know you're watching? You know when they have a tennis plate scene in succession, when they have a tennis plate scene in the game stop movie, what do we know that that guy is a rich douchebag, right? Anything tennis can do. I'm being serious, you get to laugh at this is not the comedy portion of the show.

Speaker 1: 1:19:34

I fully understand what you're saying, but it's absolutely correct.

Speaker 3: 1:19:36

It's amazing, everyone still wears like 70s stretch anything that could mitigate and minimize that right. So I want festival seating. I want squatters, right. I hate that. The best seats courtside that are taken up by the law firm and the private equity firm, but there's no one sitting there. Anyone should be entitled to an empty seat, things like exactly.

Speaker 1: 1:19:56

But if any of those law firms want to sponsor the show, yeah, exactly, we're available. We like you then? Now that we've opened it up to squatters' rights.

Speaker 2: 1:20:06

By the way, I don't know if I'd want that after seeing that guy get hit in the nuts from sinners.

Speaker 3: 1:20:10

Yeah, oh, you saw that I don't know if I want sinners, yeah, and just to be very clear none of our future sponsors are douche canoes, just the other ones exactly. Uh but, and anything that makes tennis seem a little cooler, I'm in favor of. Um producer mike has an mma background. What if we had? You know how mma they've got. They've got spite of the light and knockout of the night. They've gotten a submission of the night bonuses.

Speaker 2: 1:20:30

Yeah, they should do that. Nightly bonuses, thousand bonuses, like cash bonuses. That's cool. That'd be incredible.

Speaker 3: 1:20:36

That's fun shout out of the day cash bonus. Everyone can watch it and go viral. Everyone could vote online um. Players ought to you know, players ought to make a bonus for one of these clips um can we do a little better at? You know we're gonna do medvedev.

Speaker 3: 1:20:51

Medvedev won his maps last night. I'm in europe, it's too late, I wake up. I can't find you. Literally google daniel Medvedev won his maps last night. I'm in Europe, it's too late, I wake up. I can't find you. Literally Google Daniil Medvedev to find out how he does it. You can't get winners and unforced errors. We got to step it up in the data department. Guys, you know you watch an NBA game. You get a heat map of where the guy who's the 12th man is shooting his six shots. You can't get did he know medivac's forehands and unforced errors.

Speaker 1: 1:21:18

There are, um, there are you know better data metrics available to players, so the swing vision thing wouldn't stress me out. I mean, I guess it's just for public consumption, so it's different. But, like jim courier is a master of mining data to make his point, so it is available somewhere out there, just not at scale which is where it should be available. But I guess my point is like, even if you're a practice court, those data metrics are probably available to to to players. I can find out, we know that. You know rpms gets casper, rude and and nadal are the other leaders. Always that comes from somewhere. The data is out there. So I don't think the swing vision, I think the swing vision would just be additive as far as, like, people watching, uh, you know in, in being able to look at it and hey, maybe even you know, maybe we could even handle winners and errors, I don't know like I'll give you one more before we bounce real quick.

Speaker 3: 1:22:04

Remember you watch like an old newsreel. They're like oh, you know, jim brown was king of the gridiron. Or you know, larry bird was a hoopster and no one used that term anymore. So we're not banning language, but language evolves and terms evolve. They get hip. Can we do something about tennis terminology? I feel like Like douche, canoe, douce and yeah, exactly. But you bring a friend and you said imagine your hip, 19 year old. You say, oh, they won the tie because they won the deuce point. And they said what are you talking about? Can we do something to sort of upgrade the language and make it a little more hip, as other sports have, that's all I got.

Speaker 1: 1:22:44

I can see the intro now on BBC for Wimbledon coverage this year. And welcome to Wimbledon. This match is going to be straight fire. All right, get out of here, JW. Thanks for coming on, man.

Speaker 3: 1:22:57

All right, see you boys.

Speaker 1: 1:23:01

All right, we covered a lot of ground with John Wertheim. I'm glad there was a little levity at the end. Not sure that I won't reuse the term douche canoe over and over again. I feel like once every episode I just break, Whether it's James screwing me with the picture which I said I was going to take that down. I still haven't taken his down, but anyways, there are some really macro issues in play, whether it's USTA, player development or the premier tour thing that we've talked about ad nauseum.

Speaker 1: 1:23:43

I like that these things are being spoken about. I like being able to engage, having an opinion. Now, just because I think something, it also never means that I think it's gospel ever. If Jose Higueras wants to come on and tell me everything that I was wrong about, I would fully embrace that conversation. I've had a good professional relationship with Jose for a long time. He's a dear friend and mentor to a lot of people that I guess he's our connective tissue. Or you know, Jim Currier is someone who's one of my best friends and he can't sing Jose's praises enough, Lou Shear. I'd love to talk to him about the premier tour and then also player development and where that fits in with the long-term vision of the USDA. How do you balance what the USDA brings in versus you know, what is outgoing, what is marketing, what is grassroots, what is all that? I'd love to get smarter about all those things, and I would welcome, uh, Jose and Luan, uh, anytime that they want to certainly understand.

Speaker 1: 1:24:44

If this isn't the platform for it, it's a pretty, uh, raw and honest peek behind the curtain, Um, you know, so I, I certainly understand it. Either way, I guess the point I'm trying to make is just because I think something. I think I have strong opinions, loosely held right. I'm always happy to know where I'm wrong. I'm always happy to have a more informed opinion.

Speaker 1: 1:25:03

So, anyone who we discuss in the show, if ever you want to come on and tell me why I'm wrong, I promise it'll be a soft intro full of lots of questions and I think, at the end of the day listeners, players, tournament directors, agents, people who run the institutions of our sport the goal is how can tennis be better? How can we reach more people? How can we take this game that we're inspired by and that we love and max out value? How do we bring in more sponsors, more eyeballs, create more memories? I hope that at Served. We can be an honest broker and being at least a small part of that Warts and all. We're going to be wrong. Hopefully we're right more often than we're wrong, but we're certainly open to being wrong. I like the show. We're probably going to get in a bunch of trouble for it, Mike.

Speaker 2: 1:26:00

I mean it'll be minimal, It'll be minimal.

Speaker 1: 1:26:02

You think?

Speaker 2: 1:26:02

Yeah, no, I don't know. I'm horrified.

Speaker 1: 1:26:05

I got roasted for we've already covered. I got roasted for pronouncing someone's name wrong. Yeah, I mean, I guess we're really just upping the ante. I just ripped in the last 25 years of our national federation and now I got you the gosh. That wasn't a mispronunciation of a name. Uh, anyways, uh, jokes and jokes and jokes. Uh, as always. Uh, follow us on all our uh served, podcast. Uh, socials, instagram, twitter, I guess. X? I can't stop calling it twitter. I'll always call it twitter, like you don't say tweeting. You Twitter, I'll always call it Twitter, like you don't say tweeting. What do you say? X-ing? It's weird, I'm being confused with crossing. Anyways, youtube also like follow, subscribe. We'll see you next week here on Serve.