All You Need To Know About The Past, The Present And The Future Of Tennis Balls
Balls are the most ubiquitous part of the game, with a production of over 300 million per year. However, manufacturers are now trying to adapt to new commercial and environmental landscapes.
A historical examination of the evolution of tennis balls allows to conventionally identify three phases:
- An initial phase, in the early days of the game, when the first regulatory developments took place
- A second phase corresponding to the beginning of the Open Era, when regulations became more compliant to television needs because of tennis’s increase in popularity
- A third phase starting in 2015, when the industry embraced the ecological way of the reconversion of the production process of fuzzy balls.
Sources: Tennisplayer.net, Merchantoftennis.com, Stevegtennis.com, Udl.co.uk, Newyorktimes.com, Abnamro.nl
In the video above, shot in the 1920s, Renè Lacoste is about to try the first ball machine. It is possible to notice how balls are picked up from a carton box and not from a pressurized cylindrical metal tube, a packaging innovation which was introduced in 1926 by the American company Penn. A year before, in 1925, a new rule was devised, prescribing that balls had to bounce from 53 to 58 inches (135-147 cm), falling from a height of 100 inches. Bounce ranges have not changed, except for balls used at high altitudes and for special balls used by children for the progressive learning of shots.
At the onset of tennis, rubber balls were not pressurized. This way, there was no fear of losing pressure, because bounce and compression were produced by a rubber compound. However, the latter was far from being top quality, and consequently the balls were too tough or too soft or bouncing too low due to the lack of internal pressure. That’s why pressurization was introduced. But how were balls supposed to keep their bounce intact when they were simply packed in carton boxes? Before the advent of metal tubes, the solution was to over-pressurize the balls. This means that at the beginning of the season, balls were probably bouncier than at the end.
As for the use of felt, it is a material designed for tennis, provided with wider fiber threads than those used in clothing. This felt allows to:
- Reduce ball speed both after the impact with the racquet and in the air
- Improve ball control by preventing it to bounce irregularly after having hit the racquet
- Reduce ball bounce to a comfortable height, regardless of surfaces.
Felt is now the most expensive material of the production process.
TYPES OF BALLS
Today there are different types of tennis ball, which can be divided as follow:
- Type 1: fast, or known as regular duty (pressurized or not pressurized), commonly used on clay
- Type 2: medium, conventionally divided in Extra Duty for men and Regular Duty for women, commonly used on hardcourts
- Type 3: slow, commonly used on grass
- Balls to be used at high altitudes.
Additionally, other models have been created to facilitate the progressive learning of children (aged between 7 and 12) – it is the biggest innovation of tennis balls in recent years. The chart below summarizes the ITF standards that producers are required to abide by, with a few ulterior notes: Type 1 ball can be pressurized or pressureless, but the pressureless balls must have an internal pressure not exceeding 7 kPa (1 psi); Type 3 balls are also recommended for high-altitude play on any type of surface starting at 1.219 km above sea level; high-altitude balls are always pressurized and should only be used for play starting at 1.219 km above sea level.
|TYPES||MASS (WEIGHT)||SIZE||REBOUND||FORWARD DEFORMATION||RETURN DEFORMATION||COLOUR|
|TYPE 1 (FAST)||56.0-59.4 gr.||6.54-6.86 cm||135-147 cm (53-58 in.)||0.50-0.60 cm||0.67-0.91 cm||White or Yellow|
|TYPE 2 (MEDIUM)1||56.0-59.4 gr.||6.54-6.86 cm||135-147 cm (53-58 in.)||0.56-0.74 cm||0.80-1.08 cm||White or Yellow|
|TYPE 3 (SLOW)2||56.0-59.4 gr.||7.00-7.30 cm||135-147 cm (53-58 in.)||0.56-0.74 cm||0.80-1.08 cm||White or Yellow|
|HIGH ALTITUDE (3)||56.0-59.4 gr.||6.54-6.86 cm||122-135 cm (48-53 in.)||0.56-0.74 cm||0.80-1.08 cm||White or Yellow|
|Tolerance||0,4 gr.||None||4 cm||0,08 cm||0,10 cm||None|
|STAGE 3 (RED) FOAM||25.0-43.0 gr.||8.00-9.00 cm||85-105 cm||None||None||Any|
|STAGE 3 (RED) STANDARD||36.0-49.0 gr.||7.00-8.00 cm||90-105 cm||None||None||Red and Yellow, or Yellow with a Red dot|
|STAGE 2 (ORANGE) STANDARD||36.0-46.9 gr.||6.00-6.86 cm||105-120 cm||1.40-1.65 cm||None||Orange and Yellow, or Yellow with an Orange dot|
|STAGE 1 (GREEN) STANDARD||47.0-51.5 gr.||6.30-6.86 cm||120-135 cm||0.80-1.05 cm||None||Yellow with a Green dot|
Source: https://balls.com/rules/tennis- ball-specifications-defined-for-four-types.html
Research conducted in 2013 (and published in the “Journal of Sports Science and Medicine”) empirically showed that the forehand performance of a small group of eight children with an average age of 8.1 (±0,74) improved in a restricted court and with low-compression balls. The performance of the forehand hit from the baseline was evaluated using three indicators: speed and accuracy index (VP), speed and accuracy success index (VPS) and the percentage of success in hitting the shot – this last indicator is a function of the other two. Participants completed three different forehand patterns on two consecutive days, first using low compression balls on a 18,3 meters court and then using standards Type 2 balls on a 23,8 meters court. Participants using low-compression ball recorded higher VPS score values (p< 0,001) for each shot without errors, as well as higher VP (p= 0,01). The results are summed up below:
This research suggests that law-compression balls (as well as the reduced dimension of the court) facilitate the execution of the shot and improve children’s ability to hit with more speed and higher success rate. Performance improvement using such balls could become a decisive factor in the development of tennis fundamentals at a young age.
EVERY TOURNAMENT HAS AN OFFICIAL BALL
Managing to adapt to different balls in different tournaments is only one of the adjustments that pro tennis players have to make throughout the season. Some of them change the string tension according to the balls used in the various tournaments while also considering other (mostly meteorological) factors that might affect the bounce of the ball. It is known that heat makes rubber more elastic, thus making the balls bouncier. Humidity instead makes them heavier – this is the reason why Nadal is even more devastating at Roland Garros during sunnier days. What follows is the manufacturer used by each of the main ATP tournaments (Slams, Masters 1000 and ATP Finals):
Sources: essentiallysports.com, tennisfansite.com, ubitennis.com
Clay tournaments that sport Dunlop balls are Monte Carlo, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, as well as the ATP 250 events that take place in Estoril, Munich, and Belgrade. Besides the above mentioned tournaments, Dunlop is the Official Ball of the ATP, a really important detail for merchandising purposes. Today, Dunlop is the most common ball brand in the tennis world.
Does balls supply represent a cost or an income from sponsorships for a tournament? Although figures are unclear, it is thought that the response depends on the importance of the tennis tournament. In December 2016, Le Figaro wrote that Wimbledon made the clever move of making its partners, including ball supplier Slazenger, the event’s official sponsors. This allows the AELTC to avoid restrictions imposed by brands other than the main suppliers and, at the same time, to have the necessary equipment while containing costs – revenues also grow because of the more collegial nature of the new partnership deals. In exchange for a sum negotiated by the two parties, brands can attach the Wimbledon logo on their products. Not all the tournaments have the importance and the contractual power of Wimbledon and this leads us to think that the less important the status of the tournament, the costlier supplies are.
Long-lasting supply collaborations imply that technological innovations are implemented by R&D departments of sponsoring companies, as is the case with Slazenger and Wilson. While Slazenger patented a phosphorescent fiber ball with a water-repellent system, Wilson tested different specific pressures only for balls used during the US open to reduce possible variations, as Bill Dillon (Wilson senior manager) told the New York Times in 2018.
Considering the chart at the beginning of this section (the one related to ITF standards for manufacturers), it can be noticed how rigid these standards are. However, there is some leeway when new balls come into play or at the end of the seven canonical games (in every match, balls are changed after the first seven games and then every nine games). This allows producers to stretch the limits a little bit. Jeff Ratkovich, Head-Penn’s senior business manager, claimed in the same New York Times article that pro players are able to “perceive even the smallest variation” – this is the reason why Head-Penn uses far more rigid specifications than those imposed by the ITF. When the changes of official supplies in the most important tournaments occur, players tend to be overtly critical. During the 2019 Championships, Nadal stated that balls had slowed down the game. During the Australian Open, a few months prior, Federer said that he had problems with the new Dunlop balls. During the 2011 Roland Garros, Djokovic, Federer and Murray complained about the new Babolat balls, which happened to make their debut in that edition of the event. In the autumn edition of the French Open held in 2020, Wilson balls made their debut, and as usual criticism abounded.
TOWARD THE ECOLOGICAL TRANSITION
On average, worn-out tennis balls are re-utilised for different purposes only in 3 to 7 percent of cases before they are incinerated and taken to a landfill – it is esteemed that about 300-325 million of tennis balls are produced every year. As early as August 2012, Ubitennis talked about a business initiative aiming to revitalize the old tennis balls, bringing them back to the appropriate pressure thanks to a special machine created by Rebounce. In 2015, this company teamed up with Advanced Polymer Technology and Ace Surfaces to create the Tennisballrecycling consortium, whose aim is to recycle the old balls to produce materials that will be used to re-surface tennis courts. How does the system work? After the first usage, balls are brought back to the appropriate pressure, extending their lifespan. When the felt is completely worn out, balls are snipped to recycle the rubber. Lastly, Laykold, an enterprise of the APT group (Advanced Polymer Technology) paves the tennis surfaces, recycling up to 10,000 balls for the surface of a single court.
The spring of 2020 marked the creation of Renewaball, a Dutch start-up which produces balls from recycled ones. Till then, the pure rubber and the felt partitions could not be separated – this was the main issue for the recycling process. The new start-up found out a way to do it, and therefore opened the door the production of a tennis ball that uses others as a base. The company has assured that the percentage of balls produced this way will significantly increase in years to come, but it has also warned that it will be impossible to produce a ball made of 100% recycled balls because the final product – a Type 2 ball valid for all playing surfaces and sold in pressurized plastic containers – will always need a minimum part of “pure rubber”.
Tennisballrecycling Vs Renewaball. Images courtesy of Tennisballrecycling and Renewaball
Nowadays, the production of tennis balls takes places almost solely in Southeast Asia, i.e. far from where tournaments are played. It has been calculated that a tennis ball can travel up to 80,000 km before it comes out of the box. This is a cost for our environment, which implies a lot of marine diesel, kerosene and CO2 emissions. As highlighted in the chart below, the majority of production takes places in Southeast Asia – Thailand is the first producer in the world of natural rubber, followed by China and the Philippines.
Moreover, the use of tennis balls produces thousands of plastic microparticles that the polyester/nylon felt releases into the air after a shot is hit. Those micro-particles will probably end up on the sea ocean or will be part of the floating plastic “soup” that is constantly increasing in the seas. The graphic below highlights the comparison of CO2 emissions between the traditional productive process and that implemented by Renewaball.
Overall, for each ball produced with the Renewaball productive process, there should be an impact reduction of 0,1764 kg Co2-eq per tennis ball. Considering that the Netherlands are currently using 5,5 million balls, this is equivalent to:
5,5 mil x 0,1764 kg Co2-eq = 970.200 (a decrease of KgCo2- eq per year)
Further details and clarification on the Renewaball productive process are available to the following link.
Despite a productive know-how which is relatively stable over time, it appears that the market of tennis balls is going toward a monopoly. Until now, the most important takeover has been made by Head, which bought Penn in 1999. Reconversion of productive processes and the demand for new balls for children should guarantee other factors of differentiation, in addition to those crystallized over time due to specific sponsorship deals.
Once clarified the scenario, let’s try to imagine what the T7, the new tennis governance entity recently mentioned by Andrea Gaudenzi, might do vis-à-vis the implementation of a single supplier for tennis balls – albeit for different reasons, they would be following the supplying model of tires in motorsports (F1 and MotoGP). On the one hand, there is the undeniable advantage of having a single ball standard for all the players during the season. On the other, giving that much contractual power to a single interlocutor, representative of the various tennis organizations, seems unfeasible, given the number of interested parties that are currently part of this market, both in terms of tournaments and ball manufacturers. To get rid of sponsorship agreements, tournaments should receive more or equivalent incomes from the T7 or reduce supply costs. However, in the meantime producers will have developed specific know-how for playing surfaces, so another solution could be to split the supply cake on a triennial basis between the main manufacturers; however, this action could generate an oligopoly with fairly strong entry barriers for new producers. A final option would be to impose the use of balls from the same brand on each surface. If things remain unchanged, it is very likely that the entourages of the players will talk to experts in order to find algorithms able to optimise the string tension of racquets based on surface, ball typology, ball brand, the player’s feel and weather conditions, greatly simplifying the work of stringers.
As for the green solutions, the writer of this article thinks that the road undertaken by the producers aiming to extend the life of the balls without using plastic containers will only cause a reduction in sales and, besides, won’t solve the problem of their disposal. Tennisballrecycling’s solution is connected to the demand of new tennis courts to be paved and is thus connected to the sport – however, the destiny of said discontinued courts is still uncertain. The solution proposed by Renewaball, on the other hand, embraces logics and principles of circular economy, creating a potentially infinite productive cycle.
Article by Andrea Canella; translated by Luca Rossi; edited by Tommaso Villa
The Story Of Indian Wells 2023
At this same time of the year in 2022, Carlos Alcaraz announced to the tennis community that he was ready to propel himself into the forefront of the sport. He reached the semifinals of the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells before losing to countryman Rafael Nadal amidst almost impossibly windy conditions in the California dessert. Although Alcaraz had already reached the quarterfinals of the 2021 U.S. Open, the stellar Indian Wells showing last year propelled him to another level.
In short order, Alcaraz won his first Masters 1000 title in Miami, captured another of those elite crowns in Madrid, and, at the end of last summer, took the U.S. Open title in New York. With that breakthrough triumph at a major, Alcaraz went to No. 1 in the world, and he concluded the season still stationed at the very top of tennis. He has been hobbled by injuries too often since last November and consequentially missed the Australian Open, but now this 19-year-old sensation is back on top of the world at No. 1 following a 6-3, 6-2 final round victory over Daniil Medvedev in the final at Indian Wells.
That was no mean feat for this strikingly mature champion. He is the youngest man ever to secure both the Miami and Indian Wells titles. Not since Roger Federer in 2017 had a male player taken this prestigious crown without losing a set. Medvedev was enjoying the second longest winning streak of his career of 19 match victories in a row. He was striving for a fourth consecutive ATP Tour title in a debilitating five-week span. He had seemingly almost forgotten how to lose after finding his form in Rotterdam in mid-February. He won there by toppling Jannik Sinner in the final. On he went to Doha, where he stopped Andy Murray in the final. The following week in Dubai, Medvedev ended a four match losing streak against Novak Djokovic with a 6-4, 6-4 semifinal win and then obliterated countryman Andrey Rublev 6-2, 6-2 in the title round.
Medvedev’s form fluctuated at Indian Wells but he seemed to be progressing as he headed into the final. But he had faced Alcaraz only once before. That was in 2021 at Wimbledon and Medvedev came through easily when Alcaraz was not the same player. So this collision at Indian Wells in the final was going to be revealing one way or another for two great players who figure to meet many more times on big occasions in the years ahead.
Some authorities believed Medvedev would exploit his experience, maintain his winning streak, and add another title to his collection. Of the 18 tournaments Medvedev has amassed starting in 2018, all but one have been on hard courts. But seldom has he been beaten as soundly as was by Alcaraz at Indian Wells. The Spaniard put 76% of his first serves in play compared to 65% for Medvedev. Alcaraz won 81% of his first serves points while Medvedev finished 20% behind his opponent in that department. Meanwhile, Alcaraz secured 58% of his second serve points and Medvedev finished well below that mark at 41%. Not once did Medvedev even reach break point. That is a rarity.
The humiliation for Medvedev transcended those facts. Time and again, Alcaraz set the tactical agenda. He caught Medvedev off guard with selective serve-and-volley combinations. He used the drop shot magnificently. He went for his shots freely and stayed away from the rhythmic long rallies on which Medvedev feasts. He kept Medvedev guessing for 70 painful minutes. For his part, Medvedev inexplicably attempted to match or surpass the Spaniard’s backcourt pace. He pressed off both sides. His forehand was well below par. And when Medvedev had the chance to prolong rallies and play more on his own terms, he impatiently went for bigger shots which backfired almost completely. His mind was muddled. Essentially and surprisingly, Medvedev was not ready to fight with his usual ferocity. He collapsed against an unrelenting Alcaraz.
Alcaraz was primed from the outset. He raced to 3-0 in the opening set, sweeping 12 of 15 points on the process. Medvedev professionally started imposing himself and held serve three times after falling behind. In his last two service games he conceded only one point as he located his delivery more accurately. But Alcaraz was unswerving on his own delivery, winning 20 of 26 points in five service games. Serving for the set at 5-3, he held comfortably at 15, closing out that game by serve-volleying on the last two points.
Medvedev had seemingly found his bearings after a slow start, but Alcaraz pounced in the opening game of the second set and broke his dispirited opponent at love. Medvedev gave that game away with two unforced errors off the ground, an errant backhand volley and a double fault. Alcaraz swiftly held at love and moved ahead 0-30 on Medvedev’s serve in the third game. He had won ten points in a row.
Alcaraz went on to break Medvedev again for 3-0 and surged to 4-0 with another routine hold. It had taken him only 17 minutes to build that second set lead. The rest was a formality. Alcaraz closed out the account without stress despite being taken to deuce when he served for the match at 5-2.
That it all came down to a duel between Alcaraz and Medvedev— the last two U.S. Open champions—for the first Masters 1000 crown of 2023 made perfect sense. As an unvaccinated player, Novak Djokovic was not permitted to enter the United States to compete at Indian Wells and Miami. Rafael Nadal—three time champion at Indian Wells and runner-up to Taylor Fritz a year ago—was not ready to return to the ATP Tour after his latest injury that led to a second round loss at the Australian Open.
With the two icons absent, the cognoscenti of tennis hoped for an enticing final round confrontation between Alcaraz and Medvedev. The match did not come even close to delivering on its considerable promise, but the fact remained that they both deserved to be there. The beguiling Spaniard took apart the Australian Thanasi Kokkinakis 6-2, 6-3 in the second round, ousted the tall Dutchman Tallon Griekspoor 7-6 (4), 6-3 in the third round, and then needed less than 47 minutes to defeat an ailing Jack Draper of Great Britain. Alcaraz led 6-2, 2-0 in that clash when the left-hander was forced to retire.
Alcaraz was rolling now. He had lost all three of his previous appointments against the charismatic Felix Auger-Aliassime, who had improbably erased six match points against him in a round of 16 win over Tommy Paul. But this time around against FAA, Alcaraz was exhilarated under the lights and he came through comfortably 6-4, 6-4. The serving statistics from this encounter are telling. Alcaraz won 81% of his first serve points, which was 11% better than the Canadian. The Spaniard took a respectable 59% of his second serve points, while Auger-Aliassime stood far below at 42%.
Alcaraz was the superior performer across the board during this quarterfinal encounter. He was sounder and cagier, quicker and sprightlier. His return was first rate across the two sets, and he backed up his own delivery with uncanny efficiency. It was a confidence building triumph in every respect, and just what he needed as he headed into the semifinals to take on Jannik Sinner.
The Italian had overcome the defending champion Fritz in a sparkling quarterfinal skirmish lasting three absorbing sets. Sinner blasted away spectacularly against the Californian and he had the upper hand in the vast majority of long rallies contested on an exceedingly windy night.
Sinner is industrious, unwavering and often enterprising. He had been victorious in two of his four showdowns with Alcaraz, prevailing in a memorable four set, round of 16 clash on the Centre Court at Wimbledon last year before losing what may well have been the best tennis match in all of 2022 at the U.S. Open. In that quarterfinal confrontation under the lights in Arthur Ashe Stadium, Sinner had a match point in the fourth set of a pendulum swinging contest before Alcaraz rallied again from a break down to take the fifth set and prevail 6-3, 6-7 (7), 6-7 (0), 7-5, 6-3 in five hours and fifteen minutes of spellbinding tennis.
No wonder so many learned observers were looking forward to the fifth career collision between two players who will surely be taking prestigious prizes away from each other for the next decade. Alcaraz moved out in front 4-2 before Sinner took eleven points in a row (and 12 of 14) on his way to a 5-4 lead. Sinner needed that first set more than Alcaraz. The Italian reached 15-30 in the tenth game but narrowly missed a return. Alcaraz held on for 5-5 but soon faced a set point in the twelfth game. Sinner was right where he wanted to be, on the edge of a first set victory.
But Alcaraz is frequently at his best when faced with the sternest of challenges. He took a short blocked return from Sinner and released one of his patented drop shots. Sinner chased it down, but his passing shot was much too high. Alcaraz moved easily to his right and punched a forehand volley winner into the open court. The set would be settled in a tie-break, and Alcaraz was too good, breaking a 4-4 deadlock by sweeping three points in a row, sealing that sequence 7-4 with a scorching flat backhand winner crosscourt. Alcaraz made one break count in the second set and succeeded 7-6 (4), 6-3. It was a remarkable performance highlighting Alcaraz’s match playing acumen.
As for Medvedev, making it to the final was a much tougher task. He handled Brandon Nakashima 6-4, 6-3 in the second round, although the match was more competitive than the score would indicate. Then he overcame Ilya Ivashka 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 to reach the round of 16 and an eagerly awaited clash with Sascha Zverev.
Zverev has had a difficult time rediscovering the heights of his game after missing the second half of 2022 following the abysmal ankle injury he suffered against Nadal in the semifinals of Roland Garros. But he had started playing better tennis in Dubai a few weeks back before losing a semifinal to Andrey Rublev. Zverev largely outplayed Medvedev at Indian Wells but, three times over the course of the match, he squandered 0-40 openings. He also missed out on 15 of 17 break point opportunities.
On top of all that, Medvedev rolled his ankle in the middle of the second set and needed the trainer. Somehow he survived despite the injury, winning 6-7 (5), 7-6 (5), 7-5 despite getting broken at 5-4 in the final set when he served for the match the first time. Zverev then played horrendously at 5-5, double faulting on break point. Medvedev escaped.
He remained concerned about the ankle in the quarterfinals against Alejandro Davidovich Fokina, and fell again, cutting his thumb in the process. Nevertheless, he got the win 7-5, 6-3. Two days off helped his cause considerably, and Medvedev looked fine physically on all fronts during his semifinal against Frances Tiafoe.
In fact, Medvedev was near the top of his game in establishing a 7-5, 5-3 lead. Seldom if ever has he produced so many breathtaking forehand passing shots, and, in turn, he was hardly missing from the baseline. But Tiafoe is doubly dangerous when he is behind, as he demonstrated so boldly last year in the U.S. Open semifinals against Alcaraz when he got up off the canvas after looking down and out to force a fifth set.
In this case, Tiafoe serve-volleyed his way out of two match points in the ninth game of the second set, and saved a third by provoking a forehand error on the stretch from Medvedev. Medvedev could not serve out the match at 5-4 but he broke right back at love in the eleventh game and served for the match a second time at 6-5. He reached 40-0 but Tiafoe erased four more match points in that astounding game. On they went to a tie-break, but an unruffled Medvedev did not fret. He took that sequence seven points to four, concluding the contest with a service winner and an ace. Medvedev was deservedly victorious 7-5, 7-6 (4). Not until he captured that match was his head cleared and his outlook altered. In the middle of the tournament, the 27-year-old was complaining vocally about the conditions, claiming that the slow conditions were not really hard court tennis as he knew it. That was a simple case of Medvedev irrationality.
A day later, Medvedev was trounced by a top of the line Alcaraz. He took the defeat graciously, recognizing that he had hit a physical and emotional wall after so much success in recent weeks. He also realized that Alcaraz had played a magnificent match. The Spaniard will be buoyed by the victory and confident that he has all the tools to confront Medvedev in the years to come. But Medvedev is a very studious fellow who will go back to the drawing board and examine what it will take to unsettle a surging Alcaraz the next time they meet.
Despite the setback, Medvedev has moved back to No. 5 in the world. It won’t be long before he finds himself in the top three, right up there with the pace setters Alcaraz and Djokovic. They are clearly the three best players in the world right now. It will be fascinating to follow their exploits. Djokovic, of course, was easily the best in the game across the second half of 2022 from Wimbledon on. He then opened his 2023 campaign by winning a tenth Australian Open and a 22nd major in the process. After his loss to Medvedev in the Dubai semifinals, the Serbian has been unable to play. That clearly contributed to Alcaraz regaining the top spot in the ATP Rankings, although the Spaniard must hold onto his crown in Miami to prevent Djokovic from taking back the No. 1 ranking.
A revitalized Djokovic will surely return at full force on the clay starting in Monte Carlo and perform purposefully as he chases a third French Open crown. Medvedev will need to prove that he can raise his clay court standards from years gone by. Alcaraz is riding high right now and will be tough to beat as he defends his crown in Miami. I expect him to realize that feat.
All signs point to some gripping battles between Djokovic and Alcaraz on the clay in Europe. If Nadal is healthy, he will be right there with them vying for the titles on the dirt. He will be determined to play his typical brand of unimaginably effective and inspiring clay court tennis. We are in for some astonishing matches in the coming weeks among these top players.
But, for a few days at least, Carlos Alcaraz should celebrate one of the best weeks of his young career at Indian Wells, and try to appreciate how well he is playing before he shifts his attention to winning again in Miami and pursing other primary targets. He owes it to himself to briefly but completely enjoy his latest triumph as much as possible. I suspect he will do just that.
Novak Djokovic’s Moment Too Big For Tsitsipas
Perhaps, it was too much for Stefanos Tsitsipas to think about achieving in one day. That’s beating Novak Djokovic and winning his own initial Grand Slam title, not even to think about the bonus part of the package — becoming the No. 1 player in the world.
At any rate, it obviously wasn’t meant to be for Tsitsipas to derail Djokovic.
Djokovic accomplished it all in one neat package. Say hello to the player many tennis experts are now calling the greatest player ever. Of course, that’s a little premature due to the fact Rafa Nadal was all alone with 22 Grand Slam titles before Djokovic matched the total on Sunday by winning the Australian Open’s men’s singles title.
FORGET THE GOAT TALK
Then, there’s the great Roger Federer, in reality, possibly the greatest player who ever lived.
So, forget GOAT. It doesn’t matter, whether Nadal or Djokovic wins another Grand Slam title.
Poor Federer. He’s probably home with his children laughing about all of this.
And Rod Laver? Of course, Laver was on hand to watch Djokovic’s superhuman effort.
Back to reality. The moment.
Djokovic lived there Sunday night.
THE MOMENT WAS TOO MUCH FOR TSITSIPAS
Tsitsipas wasn’t ready for the challenge. Djokovic certainly was.
It’s as simple as that.
Novak played great. Tsitsipas didn’t give himself a chance to win.
Djokovic stayed in the moment. Tsitsipas allowed the situation to take over his game and apparently his mind.
Tsitsipas must have been back home in Greece where he would be crowned if he could be No. 1 in the world and win a Grand Slam.
NEAR-PERFECT NOVAK A LEGEND
Tsitsipas had his chances, even though he was down 4-1 in the first set before you could blink an eye.
He actually was two points from winning the second set in regulation, then quickly fell behind, 4-1, in the tiebreaker.
Tsitsipas took the third set to another tiebreaker, but lost the first five points and then lost the match, 6-3, 7-6 (4), 7-6 (5).
He never seemed to be keyed into the match, repeatedly miss-hitting key shots, even to open courts.
Meanwhile, Djokovic was near-perfect. He surely is a great one, a legend.
James Beck was the 2003 winner of the USTA National Media Award for print media. A 1995 MBA graduate of The Citadel, he can be reached at Jamesbecktennis@gmail.com.
Novak Djokovic Saves The Day In This Australian Open
It’s a good thing the Aussies allowed Novak Djokovic to stay in Melbourne this year.
Otherwise, the young crowd of players might have taken over completely in this Australian Open. After all, Rafa Nadal, Andy Murray, Daniil Medvedev and Iga Swiatek among others didn’t stick around very long.
Novak is saving the day Down Under for the great ones.
This is an Australian Open unlike any in recent years. It’s almost like the Australian Open, with its usual midnight to early-morning Eastern Time matches has taken a step backward in world tennis.
American fans apparently no longer can watch those great matches that start at 3 a.m. or 4:30 a.m. ET, except on ESPN+.
AUSTRALIAN OPEN LOST IN THE SHUFFLE
This Australian Open appears to be kind of lost in the shuffle this January, virtually taking away its major status.
In the absence of those early-morning battles, I guess it’s okay that most of the top men and women other than Novak, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Andrey Rublev, Tommy Paul, Elena Rybakina and Jessie Pegula have sang their Aussie songs and headed elsewhere, except maybe for doubles.
Don’t overlook the tall Russian Rybakina on the women’s side. She’s two wins away from her second Grand Slam title, having upended the top-ranked Swiatek in the round of 16 and then taking care of former French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko in the quarterfinals.
ALMOST LIKE A COLLEGE EVENT
Ben Shelton and J.J. Wolf are certainly outstanding American college level talents that came racing out of the winter red-hot.
But like MacKenzie McDonald, who thrashed an unprepared Nadal with a college-like all-power game only to falter the next round against a journeyman player like Yoshihito Nishioka, it’s doubtful that either Shelton or Wolf can stand the test of the only great one left — Djokovic.
In the long run, Shelton especially and Wolf likely will be stars. But these newcomers aren’t likely to hit the tour with the greatness that Carlos Alcaraz displayed when he was healthy during the last half of 2022.
WATCH FOR THE OTHER STARS AFTER AUSTRALIA
Other stars from last year such as Jannik Sinner, Cameron Norrie, Casper Ruud, Matteo Berrettini, Nick Kyrgios, Denis Shapovalov, Alexander Zverev and Felix Auger-Aliassime will make their own noise once the tour hits Europe and America.
As far as Americans other than Paul, I like the looks of young Jenson Brooksby, who upended the second-ranked Ruud in the second round. The 22-year-old Brooksby looks like a future star, that is if he gets in better physical condition.
Thus, Novak appears to be an almost certainty to sweep to his 22nd major title in an event that has been his own private playground for much of his career. That shouldn’t change on Sunday in the Australian Open final.
James Beck was the 2003 winner of the USTA National Media Award for print media. A 1995 MBA graduate of The Citadel, he can be reached at Jamesbecktennis@gmail.com.
Ukraine Blasts Wimbledon’s Removal of Ban On Russian And Belarussian Players Competing
Elena Rybakina beats Jessica Pegula to reach the Miami Open final
Carlos Alcaraz continues his quest for the Sunshine Double with a win against Taylor Fritz in Miami
Miami Open Daily Preview: Alcaraz and Sinner Meet Again in the Semifinals
Danil Medvedev sets up all-Russian semifinal against Karen Khachanov in Miami
Andy Murray does not care too much about possible all-British third round clash in Indian Wells
WTA CEO Reportedly Said Players Shouldn’t Be Upset If Their Peers Support Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
Stan Wawrinka’s Warning To Rune After Fiery Encounter At Indian Wells
Indian Wells Daily Preview: Alcaraz, Swiatek, Azarenka, Murray Play on Saturday
Elena Rybakina Topples Injured Swiatek, Faces Sabalenka For Indian Wells Title
(VIDEO EXCLUSIVE) Australian Open: Steve Flink Talks Djokovic’s Fitness, Nearest Rivals And Future Of American Tennis
EXCLUSIVE: Felix Auger-Aliassime’s Coach Fredric Fontang – ‘Felix Can Win Wimbledon This Year’
(VIDEO EXCLUSIVE) Australian Open: Steve Flink On Sabalenka’s Rise, Swiatek’s Tough Year Ahead
EXCLUSIVE: Meet Shane Liyanage – The Data Analyst Behind Aryna Sabalenka’s Breakthrough
(VIDEO) Ubaldo Scanagatta On A Week To Remember For Canada At The Davis Cup
Latest news3 days ago
Jannik Sinner beats Andrey Rublev to reach the quarter final in Miami for the third consecutive year
Latest news2 days ago
Jannik Sinner beats Emil Ruusuvuori to reach his second semifinal at the Miami Open
Hot Topics1 day ago
Improving Jannik Sinner Says There Is More To Come From Him
Focus2 days ago
Christopher Eubanks Uses Celebrity Inspiration To Reach New Milestone In Miami
ATP2 days ago
Miami Open Daily Preview: Indian Wells Champs Carlos Alcaraz and Taylor Fritz Collide
Latest news3 days ago
Carlos Alcaraz beats Tommy Paul to keep his Sunshine Double hopes alive
Latest news2 days ago
Elena Rybakina Donates Money To The Next Generation Of Kazakh Tennis Players
ATP12 hours ago
Miami Open Daily Preview: Alcaraz and Sinner Meet Again in the Semifinals