We are an independent blog site at Tennis With An Accent. This website doesn’t have sponsors yet and isn’t a revenue-generating operation on its own. We don’t have a venture capitalist funding us. Our GoFundMe is our main source of income, with many generous donors giving $25 to $50 at a time to enable Mert Ertunga and Jane Voigt to write for us at the major tournaments, so that Saqib Ali and I don’t have to pay them straight out of our pockets.
When you run a blog on a shoestring budget, you have to make concessions. This week’s concession after Wimbledon is that we are all tired. Mert covered Wimbledon primarily for a Turkish media outlet, but he obviously helped us out — not just with written content, but with our podcast.
We will give you a Wimbledon roundtable, but we won’t give it to you in the classic format.
A “classic” roundtable format is to present one question and give everyone’s answers to it. Because we are all tired, though, we tweeted — in a DM thread — our short-form answers to a set of questions in bundles. Therefore, we will provide the four roundtable questions at the end of Wimbledon in a bundle, and repeat that bundle for each panelist who answered the questions. It’s not traditional, but sometimes you have to break with tradition. We’re tired.
We also appreciate your readership at Tennis With An Accent. We trust you won’t mind this one deviation from a traditional roundtable format.
The questions for this roundtable were devised by Briana Foust, whom you can find on Twitter at @4TheTennis.
Here we go.
The four questions:
1 – What was your favorite match at The Championships?
2 – Why do you think Wimbledon is the most dominant Big 4 major (including Murray winning twice)?
3 – What was the most underreported story this fortnight?
4 – Are you concerned about the leadership of men’s tennis? Women’s tennis?
JANE VOIGT [@downthetee]
1. Serena Williams v. Alison Riske.
2. Wimbledon is the grand Grand Slam, the hallowed halls of tennis and tennis history. Somehow, that consciousness leads them (the Big 3/4) on.
3. Women’s and men’s doubles. Always.
4. Yes. It’s a mishmash of personal interests that seem positioned in their perspectives, no common ground in view, no willingness to be forthright and compromise to reach common ground. Players should be the focus, yet special interests tug for attention. Follow the money to reveal those angles that impinge on cohesive governing bodies.
SUSIE REID [@pandsreid]
1) ATP Nadal-Nick for pure entertainment and drama; Fed-Nadal for great Fed tennis and Fedal hype; WTA Serena-Riske for great tennis; and Coco Gauff-Polona Hercog for great theatre. (Susie is British, so the British spelling of “theatre” is unchanged on this American blog site).
2) Not sure I agree. Same elsewhere. The Big 3 (or 4) proved they are the best players on the best-of-5 stage at all Slams.
3) Opinion: There is a crisis in men’s tennis: a lack of competition in men’s tennis and fatigue syndrome in men’s tennis. Actual news: the wheelchair tourneys. They were a big deal this year and underreported.
4) Yes and yes, but this topic needs a proper discussion.
ANDREW BURTON [@burtonad]
1. ATP Djokovic-Federer was match of the tournament, WTA Gauff-Hercog.
2. It isn’t. The Big 3/4 have dominated all the Slams.
3. The regression of #GenerationNick. Chung, Edmund, Tsitsipas and Pouille were semifinalists at AO 2018 and AO 2019, respectively. None of them were remotely a factor in RG 2019 or Wimbledon 2019. Khachanov and Alexander Zverev have both won M-1000s. Neither went deep in either tournament. This ATP Generation isn’t ready for prime time.
4. Neither tour has a clear vision of where it wants to be in 2025. Both tours are sacrificing their longtime national competition (Davis Cup and Fed Cup) formats for experimental formats. The ATP is in more public disarray than the WTA in the summer of 2019, although much more money currently flows into the men’s game. Neither tour is in a great place.
BRIANA FOUST [@4TheTennis]
1. SerAndy mixed doubles against Martin-Atawo was the most fun had watching tennis in a while.
2. I think the Big 3 dominate Wimbledon the most because of experience and they are simply the best players in the world.
3. I think the ATP’s new media deal and player council exodus were underreported.
4. Yes, I am concerned about the future leadership with both tours, especially with more players coming out with their struggles, financially or emotionally, at various rankings.
MATT ZEMEK [@mzemek]
1. Fedole in the final will be remembered more, but Fedal in the semifinals was better tennis by far.
2. Fascinating question, Bri, because I can see why you asked it. When other panelists say that the Big 3 (4) dominate all the majors, they are right… but if we are strictly counting numbers, yes, Wimbledon has involved fewer aberrational winners over the past 16 years. The answer to that question, Bri: Stan sucks on grass and not clay or hardcourts. (Insert smile emoji.)
3). The ATP new media deal and player council exodus were and are underreported. Related: This happened right before Wimbledon started. The next three weeks would be a good time for more sunlight on these matters.
4. American football coach John McKay was asked, “What do you think about the execution of your team’s offense?”
His response: “I’m in favor of it.”
That’s my basic view of tennis leadership on both tours and everywhere else within the sport.