Speaker 1: Hi, and welcome to the Renee Stubs Tennis podcast. I
Speaker 1: am Renee Stubs. We are in New York City. I
Speaker 1: am joined by the one and only Caitlin Thompson. Petko
Speaker 1: is still down in Miami commentator doing a great job.
Speaker 1: I did like listening to her dosal tones last night.
Speaker 2: What's a match if you're going? Last time?
Speaker 1: She was calling the Eagerson Tech match last night, So
Speaker 1: there you go. She's been working all week. I saw
Speaker 1: her down there when I was down there for a
Speaker 1: brief moment. I'm back. But anyway, we've got a lot, Caitlin,
Speaker 1: a lot to talk about. I'm always interested because when
Speaker 1: you pop into my apartment, you always like, ooh, We've
Speaker 1: got a lot to talk about today, And I'm always
Speaker 1: getting pretty excited about that.
Speaker 2: It's a great one because you know, as much as
Speaker 2: I like talking about match play and technique, which a
Speaker 2: listener was pointing out to me over the weekend, that
Speaker 2: not a lot of the shows in the podcast universe
Speaker 2: like actually have conversations about technique and and I know
Speaker 2: that that's shocking, but also I forget what a resource
Speaker 2: are no problem, it's it's I forget that not everybody
Speaker 2: has that. I forget. I don't forget that you and
Speaker 2: especially you know with your coaching hat on, but also Andrea,
Speaker 2: like have such an intimate understanding of the mechanics of tennis.
Speaker 2: But I guess I it went. It doesn't go without
Speaker 2: saying that that's a new unique selling point for the show.
Speaker 1: Oh what did they say?
Speaker 2: They were like nobody, They were like, oh other shows.
Speaker 1: Who is this person? Should we give them a little
Speaker 1: love or do you not want to give them?
Speaker 2: It's my friend Peter Klegg from the UK. He's a
Speaker 2: devout listener. Hello Pita, and you know he always has
Speaker 2: lots of opinions. He and I were texting a lot
Speaker 2: about the Ratti Kanu sense that's happening because we are
Speaker 2: both big big Emma Roti Kanu fans. I'm just trying
Speaker 2: to push the Ratti Kanu agenda on this podcast and
Speaker 2: now maybe for good reason, but you know.
Speaker 1: We're still all now that Pete is English.
Speaker 2: Yes, Peter is undoubtedly English, but he also has a
Speaker 2: lot of very strong opinions and well formed ones. You
Speaker 2: know from years of tennis spectating, his own rackets pross
Speaker 2: background and also you know, watching and loving tennis the
Speaker 2: way we do so anyway, it's such a good selling point,
Speaker 2: but I don't have that much to contribute those conversations
Speaker 2: as much as I, you know, enjoy listening to them.
Speaker 2: This is where I really shane, which is like critiquing
Speaker 2: governmental structures and getting it more. Do you want to
Speaker 2: tell people why sticky wicked of it all?
Speaker 1: Like, clearly I can talk tennis until my face turns
Speaker 1: blue as pet Co and I.
Speaker 2: Can, which is great, But you know, I.
Speaker 1: Don't have a journalist's background. I don't have a journal
Speaker 1: journalist degree. I am a professional and was a professional
Speaker 1: tennis player, and so that is my expertise. And you know,
Speaker 1: although people like to tell me on the old social
Speaker 1: media's shut up and stick to tennis, I tell them
Speaker 1: to go f off because I'm also allowed to have
Speaker 1: an opinion, and you sure do. And it really that
Speaker 1: The thing that really irks me about when people say
Speaker 1: that like stick to sports, you know they tell athletes
Speaker 1: that all the time, is that the intersection of between politics,
Speaker 1: worldviews and sports is always and always has been a
Speaker 1: part of the world. Look at the Munich Olympics. I mean, hello,
Speaker 1: I mean the list is endless.
Speaker 2: Look look at the Olympics with you know, a country intercision. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know Jesse Owens winning a sprint race. Look at
Speaker 2: the Mexico City Olympics. Look at yeah, I mean.
Speaker 1: Look at the Australian Open. Look at We've had demonstrations,
Speaker 1: you've had There's been a lot of things. So for
Speaker 1: people to say that, I mean, and also, I'm a human,
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm a human being. You also a tax
Speaker 1: payer in America. In America, I have an American passport.
Speaker 1: I am a dual citizen, so I get to say
Speaker 1: what I want as a as a tax paying human being.
Speaker 1: And so you know, just that, just that, Rather.
Speaker 2: Do you do this to yourself because I did breed
Speaker 2: and ground for I know, I can't know myself.
Speaker 1: That's a tennis player. It is. I like to hit
Speaker 1: the ball back and forth. But the whole point in
Speaker 1: me telling you this is asking the questions of because
Speaker 1: what is your background? Yeah, to be able to have
Speaker 1: this nuanced conversation we can have.
Speaker 2: I mean, yes, reportage, newspaper and magazine journalism. I like
Speaker 2: the things that I find interesting generally as a person
Speaker 2: are narratives, which is why I like talking a little
Speaker 2: bit more about you know some of the player narratives
Speaker 2: or some of the tournament narratives, and obviously because I
Speaker 2: used to be a political reporter, the organizational and infrastructural
Speaker 2: components of this sport are fascinating to me because of
Speaker 2: their I would say success in spite of dysfunction. I
Speaker 2: don't mind dysfunction. I understand it decently well, both on
Speaker 2: a personal and professional level. But I also think what's
Speaker 2: amazing about tennis and one thing that we keep coming
Speaker 2: back to and where our shared love obviously is like
Speaker 2: really expressed, is this sport is amazing, And from a
Speaker 2: product perspective, meaning like watching professional tennis, the level of
Speaker 2: professional tennis and now increasingly the interest and engagement around
Speaker 2: recreational tennis has not been better in probably my lifetime,
Speaker 2: but the structure around it has never been more clearly dysfunctional.
Speaker 2: Whether it has always been functionally this bad or not
Speaker 2: is irrelevant. But it's the clarity of which one thing
Speaker 2: is really great and it's being held back by this
Speaker 2: other thing that's not so great actually gives me a
Speaker 2: lot of optimism because it's not again coming from a
Speaker 2: place of complaint. It's just like, oh man, it's already
Speaker 2: doing pretty well. Imagine how well it could be doing
Speaker 2: if we had one governing body, if we had one
Speaker 2: uniform policy, if we had you know, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: this like allows me to get back to like my
Speaker 2: favorite hobby horse, which is like the description of an
Speaker 2: ideal you know.
Speaker 1: Organizational structure, professional tennis.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, much like what inspired me to cover
Speaker 2: politics for so long was not to talk about who
Speaker 2: was winning each debate, or each polling cycle, or each
Speaker 2: state in early you know caucusing and early voting, but
Speaker 2: rather like who is addressing the themes of the America
Speaker 2: in saki right now? What is this giving us a
Speaker 2: chance to talk about and creating our own iodeal world,
Speaker 2: which you know, just better a fracture political landscape. Most
Speaker 2: of us can agree that people should have healthcare, education,
Speaker 2: you know, things like that, and so it allows me
Speaker 2: to kind of thematically get at things that are really
Speaker 2: like with the altitude in which I like it, which
Speaker 2: is like from upon high.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you know, one of the reasons we're bringing
Speaker 1: this up, of course, is just this entire PTPA lawsuit
Speaker 1: with the atp WTA, etc. I Mean, they're going after everybody.
Speaker 2: ATA and if which setting the Slams aside. That's everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's everybody they don't want to touch, which is
Speaker 1: interesting to me. So I want you to get into
Speaker 1: the nuances more because you've really researched this a little bit,
Speaker 1: maybe even more than me. But the bottom line is,
Speaker 1: I think the thing that cracks me up in this
Speaker 1: is that really the entities to go after more from
Speaker 1: the player standpoint as far as getting money more money
Speaker 1: is the Grand Slams. The Grand Slams are the ones
Speaker 1: that are really taking advantage of the players. They're the
Speaker 1: ones that have, without a doubt, you know, with the
Speaker 1: revenue share, are without question not giving the players enough. Now,
Speaker 1: if you think about it, I'm going to talk about
Speaker 1: it in Layman's terms here, like basically, the winner of
Speaker 1: the of a Grand Slam is getting somewhere between three
Speaker 1: million and crow million dollars four brillion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, which is a nice sense check until you
Speaker 2: learn it's a great tournament.
Speaker 1: Is it's a great check. But when you're talking about
Speaker 1: the best players in the world playing seven matches, okay,
Speaker 1: seven matches over two more than two weeks. Now every
Speaker 1: Grand Slam is going to fifteen days, it's like, if
Speaker 1: you think about a Novak Djokovic, Let's say back in
Speaker 1: the day, Roger Federer, Serena, you know, the all time greats,
Speaker 1: if they played seven nights of exhibitions, they would be
Speaker 1: making at least seven million dollars. They're getting paid a
Speaker 1: million dollars an exhibition if they go to South America,
Speaker 1: if they go to Mexico, if if they go to
Speaker 1: South Africa, if they go to Australia, if they go
Speaker 1: they are getting paid a million dollars to go and
Speaker 1: play an exhibition. So my whole thing is you when
Speaker 1: you think about that for a two week event, the
Speaker 1: time that they're giving out, the money that those Grand
Speaker 1: Slams are making, that is not enough money.
Speaker 2: For them the way that I would put it, not
Speaker 2: to correct you, because I think that's absolutely correct. You're
Speaker 2: talking about what the market will bear in what they
Speaker 2: could get on the open market. I don't know that
Speaker 2: that is going to elicit a lot of understanding or
Speaker 2: sympathy because I hear that and I still think, oh, okay,
Speaker 2: So they're getting six hundred thousand dollars per match, Like
Speaker 2: that's more than most Americans will earn in the next decade.
Speaker 2: The better way to understand it is Wimbledon makes a
Speaker 2: little under five hundred million dollars a year. Wimbledon is
Speaker 2: paying out let's call it, twenty thirty million for all
Speaker 2: the events, maybe a little more. That's the that's the issue.
Speaker 2: It's less than ten percent of what they're earning. Yeah, granted,
Speaker 2: Wimbledon spends a lot on marketing, Wimbledon spends a lot
Speaker 2: of an expansion, Wimbledon spends a lot on hospitality. There's
Speaker 2: a whole literal city that is dedicated to making this
Speaker 2: specifically the biggest earning Grand Slam. But from a proportion perspective,
Speaker 2: if you look at any other league or any other sport,
Speaker 2: the amount that the ownership group versus the amount that
Speaker 2: the labor group, which is in this case the players
Speaker 2: get is proportionally much much closer. So that is actually
Speaker 2: really the issue. It's a proportion deal. They're earning so
Speaker 2: much more than the players in so many fantastic ways,
Speaker 2: and they're not sharing it really with the players. So
Speaker 2: it's not to your exact correct point, it's not exactly
Speaker 2: the tours.
Speaker 1: That are.
Speaker 2: Responsible for a lot of the issues that the players face.
Speaker 2: That said, to bring everybody back the PTPA, which is
Speaker 2: the non governmental non union but players sort of advocacy
Speaker 2: group started by Novak Djokovic. Vasikpaspacil was an early supporter
Speaker 2: of it, and some other players through the years have
Speaker 2: sort of gotten onto it. Has now sued wtaatp IATA
Speaker 2: and IF and they've sued them for a number of
Speaker 2: different things, non competition, they've sued them for dangerous working conditions.
Speaker 2: They've sued them for a lack of transparency when a
Speaker 2: the deal making and you know, at first blush, you
Speaker 2: were like, okay, well, this makes sense that they are advocating,
Speaker 2: which is what they're meant to do for the players
Speaker 2: to have a better outcome on the tour. These players
Speaker 2: play eleven months a year. They're not let in on
Speaker 2: the negotiating tail when it comes to salaries, and they
Speaker 2: don't have full discretion over the way that they're allowed
Speaker 2: to sort of conduct business, especially as freelancers, which is
Speaker 2: essentially what they are. So we can go into like
Speaker 2: the nuts and bolts of the lawsuit in reading about it. However,
Speaker 2: the actual nuts and bolts of what they're suing over
Speaker 2: is yes, So on one hand, and again we'll unpack
Speaker 2: some of the stuff individually, But is it right to
Speaker 2: go after the tours? Sure, you could argue that they
Speaker 2: haven't done a good enough job marketing in the sport.
Speaker 2: They certainly haven't done a good enough job protecting the players,
Speaker 2: advocating for them, making sure that the season doesn't injure
Speaker 2: them and go on too long. What they actually filed
Speaker 2: in court is bizarre. It doesn't really actually make any sense,
Speaker 2: and it contradicts itself because in one hand it will
Speaker 2: say that there's you know, sort of no competition. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, it will say that they are allowed
Speaker 2: to play an exhibition. So which one is it? Like
Speaker 2: the fact that and I'm sort of glassing high level
Speaker 2: over this, but like the fact that Novak Djokovic, who
Speaker 2: himself started the PTPA and has been a very vocal
Speaker 2: and contributed to his own money and has obviously been
Speaker 2: a very vocal advocate advocate of what the pgpa's mission is,
Speaker 2: is not himself a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Ye, it's here that's a complete strategy on his standpoint
Speaker 1: that he doesn't want to muddy the waters again. But
Speaker 1: also at the same time, I'm saying that completely as like,
Speaker 1: you know, as somebody asking a layman question, but also
Speaker 1: at the same time that looks terrible.
Speaker 2: It's not a great look. And if you're gonna have
Speaker 2: players involved.
Speaker 1: You better have the greatest of all time a part
Speaker 1: of your list.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the fact that Carlos Alkaaz, which I'm not
Speaker 2: saying Carlos Aclaraz is the greatest of all time, but like,
Speaker 2: certainly in terms of like public opinion and dynamism.
Speaker 1: Well, in the next ten to fifteen years of the tour,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Alcoraz and Cinna presumably.
Speaker 2: You know. The slice of players that are putting their
Speaker 2: name on this thing is pretty small, and it's pretty specific,
Speaker 2: like and it kind of all feels like there it's
Speaker 2: fueled by personal grievances like Nicole melcar Martinez, great doubles player.
Speaker 2: I understand she's been shafted by like, you know, selection
Speaker 2: committees for team competitions because they don't value doubles players sometimes,
Speaker 2: but like that's bullshit. It's also like, is this a
Speaker 2: personal grievance against the tours or is this like part
Speaker 2: of a larger strategic Like is is Sarana Cirstea the
Speaker 2: voice of a nation? Like we all love Obelka because
Speaker 2: he's a you know, antagonist, and he's a yeah, he
Speaker 2: likes to be contrarian. Nik Kiria is like, what, I
Speaker 2: don't know that I would want to watch a tour
Speaker 2: up with these players, much less support their last suit
Speaker 2: against the other. It's like, oh, man, you see somebody
Speaker 2: taking a wide open shot, but it's like totally the
Speaker 2: wrong shot. You're like, no, somebody should suit the yes, tennis, yes,
Speaker 2: but for this in this way, when you.
Speaker 1: Have a shot, when you it'd be like saying, who
Speaker 1: are you going to have make that free throw for
Speaker 1: you in the biggest of competitions. Is it going to
Speaker 1: be Shaquille O'Neill, sure or Michael Jordan? Right? Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure I know who I'm having to take
Speaker 1: that foul shot. So I think the whole point, you know,
Speaker 1: in this, Caitlin, is you're saying that, Okay, sure, you're
Speaker 1: trying to make a difference. You're trying to make quote
Speaker 1: unquote more money for the players, which is all good
Speaker 1: and well, but you cannot make it in the way
Speaker 1: that you're doing because you don't have the support of
Speaker 1: the right people. Be the people that you have on
Speaker 1: this on this complaint are either retired or not playing
Speaker 1: at a high level, or have had incidences in the
Speaker 1: past that have not voted too well in the public opinion.
Speaker 1: A lot of these guys are also anti.
Speaker 2: Vaxxies, undermined their credibility in a way. Yeah, if you
Speaker 2: get the most popular, well liked diplomatic players on tour
Speaker 2: to all of a sudden say like, hey, we are
Speaker 2: all united in this. This is something that needs to change.
Speaker 1: So yu Wanda, why right.
Speaker 2: It's not a great look. And I don't that's even
Speaker 2: setting Novaka side. It's just you know, in the years
Speaker 2: that now the PTPA has been functional, you know, we've
Speaker 2: seen some photo shoots, We've seen them have some parties,
Speaker 2: they've released some interesting stats complaining about the tennis ecosystem,
Speaker 2: and it's hard to disagree, like, yes, the season's too long, Yes,
Speaker 2: profit sharing should be better, Yes, you know, there should
Speaker 2: be transparency, if you know. One of the interesting tidbits
Speaker 2: that I learned from the lawsuit was a very credible
Speaker 2: claim that the PTPA is making that Larry Ellison wanted
Speaker 2: to personally increase prize money at the tournament. He owns
Speaker 2: Indian Wells and was forbidden to doing so because of
Speaker 2: the tours mandatory sort of paying tiers, which like I
Speaker 2: can actually see sort of both sides of that. But
Speaker 2: what an interesting turn of events that, like, you know,
Speaker 2: they're some could call that artificially decreasing prices. Some might
Speaker 2: argue like, no, there's like a labor standard for pay tiers,
Speaker 2: much like you would have in government or like you know,
Speaker 2: a c suite where it's like, no, you actually can't
Speaker 2: exceed this. Otherwise it creates you know, disparate in the field,
Speaker 2: and nobody's going to ever go to Cincinnati again. So
Speaker 2: like part of it is is then.
Speaker 1: It's just a big fight between the billionaires.
Speaker 2: Exactly, which you know we're probably heading that way.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, there are positives and negatives towards it.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you've got a Bennavara, when you've got
Speaker 1: you know, these types of you know, Larry Elson's the
Speaker 1: Aria manuals now trying to get in the mix of things.
Speaker 1: When you've got guys like this, you are inflating and
Speaker 1: helping in some way players make more money.
Speaker 2: You're also distorting the market in a way that I
Speaker 2: think the market.
Speaker 1: Is unsustainable for other tournaments.
Speaker 2: And is unsustainable maybe for the tours, but I think
Speaker 2: all of this indicates like a change is coming. There
Speaker 2: was some really interesting reporting. I want to shout out
Speaker 2: Matthew Fetterman from The New York Times, who has essentially
Speaker 2: been like a scoop machine. This is probably the only
Speaker 2: like real workingjournalist in the media center who is just
Speaker 2: inside the And we have been critical in the both
Speaker 2: of The New York Times and also of some of
Speaker 2: the reportage that has come out of it. But for me,
Speaker 2: it's like this guy is consistently breaking news. Not only
Speaker 2: did he have the inside scoop on a lot of
Speaker 2: the PTA, TPA, sut but he exclusively reported that during
Speaker 2: like days after the the tours themselves, the ATP and
Speaker 2: WTA sent another notice to the Grand Slams asking them
Speaker 2: to come to the negotiating table because it's so clear
Speaker 2: that that is a dysfunctional relationship that doesn't really that
Speaker 2: doesn't really benefit at the great detriment of both fans
Speaker 2: and players, and so part of me just kind of wonders, like,
Speaker 2: you know, and then that speaks to the lawsuit. Is
Speaker 2: John Worth I pointed out in his latest column, like
Speaker 2: how can the tours both be a cartel, meaning like
Speaker 2: they have unilateral monopolistic control, but yet they're trying to
Speaker 2: get the ws Slams for Slams to actually like come
Speaker 2: to the negotiating table and talk to them, So like
Speaker 2: why did the PTA right, why didn't the PTPA? And
Speaker 2: also if it's a.
Speaker 1: Cartel, WTNA to pain getting the Grand Slams to the.
Speaker 2: Title or there's so many permutations of this, like why
Speaker 2: didn't the PTAPA sue the Slams? Why didn't why didn't
Speaker 2: the PTPA get a better body of players frankly and
Speaker 2: make a more coherent lawsuit and go after you know,
Speaker 2: the actual power bodies of the sport, which is pretty
Speaker 2: clear it's not the tours, you know. And the other
Speaker 2: thing that I think about the tours, which is actually
Speaker 2: why I kind of think maybe they shouldn't exist, is
Speaker 2: they are so first of all, they don't have their
Speaker 2: own audiences. What the what the slams have done a
Speaker 2: great job, and why they would argue that they don't
Speaker 2: deserve to share the profits profits with the players in
Speaker 2: a real meaningful way is because they're the ones who
Speaker 2: have all the audience. They're the ones who have all
Speaker 2: the following They're the ones who have all the value.
Speaker 1: If I'm a master to say, oh, I'm going to
Speaker 1: go to Madrid, they say, I'm gone. Where would you go?
Speaker 2: Rumbolton And now increasingly the other tournaments are trying to
Speaker 2: now make up for lost time because they realized that
Speaker 2: the Slams have kind of monopolized the imagination and also
Speaker 2: certainly the media rates. You know, ESPN's not bidding after
Speaker 2: going in a bidding word against Rome, as good of
Speaker 2: a tournament, as prestigious as a tournament as a Cincinnati
Speaker 2: Madera or Cincinnati Toruno.
Speaker 1: They gave up Indian Wells.
Speaker 2: Right because they realize, like, oh, actually, the center of
Speaker 2: gravity for this sport. I would argue to its detriment,
Speaker 2: but it certainly is true lies with the Slams. And
Speaker 2: so I think I am hearing that.
Speaker 1: TNT Warner might be pursuing a little bit more than
Speaker 1: what they just have now with the French Open. So
Speaker 1: that would be certainly helpful because we all know that
Speaker 1: again one of the reasons why the Grand Slams hold
Speaker 1: so much power is yes, they have captured the audience,
Speaker 1: They have captured the imagination of tennis fans, they know
Speaker 1: about the Australian Open, it's a trip to go to.
Speaker 1: They know about the US Open, they know about Wimbledon
Speaker 1: and about the French Open. Is that money that they
Speaker 1: have is because of the television rights from the ESPR,
Speaker 1: from TNT, from Channel nine and Australia like so a
Speaker 1: lot of the money that's that the Grand Slams are
Speaker 1: making is from television rights. So that that is one
Speaker 1: thing that has kind of hurt is that yes, it's
Speaker 1: on tennis channel. Every event is basically on tennis channel,
Speaker 1: but is that a big enough audience And you would
Speaker 1: argue that it's probably not. And that's why also the
Speaker 1: to US aren't reaping the benefits of the money coming
Speaker 1: in from television rights because it's on it's on a
Speaker 1: cable network that not a lot of people want to
Speaker 1: that either get or pay for, and including people in
Speaker 1: Europe and people in Australia. Got people and how do
Speaker 1: I watch tennis? And they have no idea. So that's
Speaker 1: part of as well, and that's something that the tours
Speaker 1: I think could work on, whether it be with YouTube
Speaker 1: or whoever, to be able to get it on and
Speaker 1: I know it's through YouTube with tennis channel as on
Speaker 1: there as well if you pay for it. But still
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's hard to get an audience that
Speaker 1: are watching terms.
Speaker 2: If I'm a rates tall there, if I'm a if
Speaker 2: I'm a rates buyer, and I say I want to
Speaker 2: broadcast tennis, what are what are my options? What are
Speaker 2: my options? And I either go out and buy the
Speaker 2: four biggest audiences which are attached to the Slams, or
Speaker 2: I try to cobble together a rights negotiation with a
Speaker 2: bunch of different fiefdoms. And it's the same problem it is
Speaker 2: in all ways, right, Like you know, nobody's buying the
Speaker 2: Rome merch, but people are buying the Roland Garls merch.
Speaker 2: There's no equity, and you know it's I went to
Speaker 2: the WTA event in Indian miles, you went to the
Speaker 2: one in Miami. The try it's really you know, then
Speaker 2: a direct in their new commercial the reband is very cool.
Speaker 2: But also I wonder, like what where is the equity
Speaker 2: in the WTA? What do they actually own? They own
Speaker 2: one tournament at the end of the year finals, What
Speaker 2: is the actual equity in the agency? What do they
Speaker 2: own that's their own thing?
Speaker 1: Well, they own the weeks on the tours.
Speaker 2: And they own, you know, the right to represent the
Speaker 2: players at the moment, and they own their tour ending finals,
Speaker 2: and in the case of ATP, they own you know,
Speaker 2: the next gen finals and JEDTA and the ATP finals.
Speaker 1: That has been intro and the same with the IP.
Speaker 1: So you know, it is a question of the PTPA
Speaker 1: if they really want to make a difference, they have
Speaker 1: to garner more support from the from the larger ATP
Speaker 1: and WTA players first of all, for sure, that's for
Speaker 1: the number one thing. If you don't have the players support,
Speaker 1: if you don't know, if you don't have a Jack
Speaker 1: Draper who gets asked this question, he goes, I don't
Speaker 1: have any idea what they do. I don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. La la la la la. I mean
Speaker 1: he was just like even Novak.
Speaker 2: Djokovic's like, hey, why's your name on the lawsuit of
Speaker 2: the group that you started? And he was like, I
Speaker 2: don't agree with everything that's in the lastsuit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it's like, if you're going to go and
Speaker 1: do this lawsuit, I think that, Look, I think there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity here, a big opportunity here. You think about
Speaker 1: like for example, what Live Golf did right, what Greg
Speaker 1: Norman did, Greg a lot of shit right. And he's
Speaker 1: been a bit of a lightning bowl, lightning rod with
Speaker 1: the PGA. He fought against the PGA for a long time.
Speaker 1: He felt like there was a little bit of the
Speaker 1: same of what's happening now that they were taking advantage
Speaker 1: of the players and they weren't paying them enough, YadA YadA, YadA,
Speaker 1: all the things right. So he sort of saw an
Speaker 1: opportunity with theis with the Saudi money clearly to have
Speaker 1: a rival tour, and he went out and took a
Speaker 1: lot of bows and arrows and he got that done. Now,
Speaker 1: is it whitewashing sports in a way? In golf, the
Speaker 1: one of the biggest sports in the world. Absolutely, they
Speaker 1: went and got the Saudi money, they put a rival
Speaker 1: to her on and they got hundreds of They got
Speaker 1: many many players from the PGA tour, some of the
Speaker 1: biggest ones in the world to go and play that
Speaker 1: and get paid one hundred and two hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: to go and do it. So of course players are
Speaker 1: going to go and sign that deal and go and
Speaker 1: do it because they now have generational wealth for their family,
Speaker 1: forever and ever and ever. Now you can say, well
Speaker 1: that was shitty, the Rory McElroy's and Tiger Woods going out,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to the Saudias. Well sorry, you guys,
Speaker 1: you have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in
Speaker 1: the bank. Some of these other golfers that maybe saw
Speaker 1: an opportunity to have fifty million dollars in the bank,
Speaker 1: knowing that they were never going to have that type
Speaker 1: of money. Of course they're going to jump ship. So
Speaker 1: there was an opportunity there. And now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you see two years later guests who's getting in bed
Speaker 1: to other live and the PGA tour. So, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to say about Greg in that situation,
Speaker 1: he managed to figure out a way to get these
Speaker 1: tours to actually talk to each other. Now he's been
Speaker 1: pushed out, and Rory and Tiger and another guys like
Speaker 1: you know, we're the men. Now we've got well not really.
Speaker 1: What you have to have is you have to have
Speaker 1: somebody come in and maybe make a big difference. But
Speaker 1: the people at the PTPA and the people leading them
Speaker 1: are not the people to do that, and they're not
Speaker 1: doing a good job because this is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of as you said, when you walked in and he's like,
Speaker 1: I like the idea, but what the fuck is not
Speaker 1: a good strategy?
Speaker 2: Doesn't seem hard. First of all, suing anybody in any
Speaker 2: contact is super easy. Failing a lawsuit is sadly very easy,
Speaker 2: super common. Yeah, and because the barrier to entry is
Speaker 2: super low, you don't even have to country, especially in America,
Speaker 2: which is where this last suit has been failed in
Speaker 2: the years of their existence. Getting not only more players,
Speaker 2: as you say, which is what Greg Norman did, which
Speaker 2: is getting the popular.
Speaker 1: He got a lot of really big players.
Speaker 2: And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter
Speaker 2: what you think about the players, It doesn't matter what
Speaker 2: you think about the amount of money if you have
Speaker 2: the will of the players, the players are the asset here.
Speaker 2: That's the actual value.
Speaker 1: Of the sport.
Speaker 2: It's not the Wimbledon shirts and the brand and the
Speaker 2: TV rights because if there's nothing to air, then those
Speaker 2: TV rights are worthless. If there's no you know, player
Speaker 2: on the on the court, you're not going to Wimbledon
Speaker 2: to buy the shirt, right And so for me, the
Speaker 2: players in doing this have kind of fired a gun
Speaker 2: half cocked where it's like, Okay, you know that you
Speaker 2: guys are the most valuable part, so you need to
Speaker 2: get everyone unified, or at least a huge, huge majority
Speaker 2: of you, and then the other thing. And I don't
Speaker 2: think that this is particularly hard because we've had conversations
Speaker 2: about you know, Billy jan King doing this and helping
Speaker 2: other leagues when they've been organizing and starting. You know,
Speaker 2: there are so many examples now, you know, one of
Speaker 2: one of our listeners, a guy called Mark Shapiro, who
Speaker 2: lives in California, was talking to me about like, hey,
Speaker 2: if you've been following what boxing has done, they got
Speaker 2: Saudi money. Again, however you feel about that. What they
Speaker 2: did was they got Saudi money, They created a meaningful
Speaker 2: amount of competitions that counted towards something else. They created
Speaker 2: a spectacle, they marketed it, They got all the best boxers,
Speaker 2: and now boxing has been revitalized. Boxing is a sport
Speaker 2: I don't care about. I don't watch, I never will,
Speaker 2: and all of it is not appealing to me. That said,
Speaker 2: from a structural perspective, if you're the PTPA and you say, hey, look,
Speaker 2: we've spent all this time getting all the players on
Speaker 2: the same page, how do we how we put a
Speaker 2: plan together? So we're going to actually eschew the tours.
Speaker 2: We'll just deal right with the Grand Slams. And here's
Speaker 2: our plan. And when you ask them, they don't really
Speaker 2: have one. And so again, but Caitlin, what I'm missed.
Speaker 1: Opportunity one of the reasons for this, and I really
Speaker 1: and I want no player to take offense to this.
Speaker 1: But we're not the smartest. Tennis players are not super educated.
Speaker 1: They come onto the tours at seventeen, sixteen, eighteen whatever.
Speaker 1: They haven't gone to school, they haven't got a college.
Speaker 1: They haven't studied finance, they haven't studied economics, they haven't
Speaker 1: studied you know whatever. They need to study business acumens
Speaker 1: at all. We're talking about tennis players that are looking
Speaker 1: at each other going, yeah, we want this and we
Speaker 1: want that, and they're easily led in certain ways. Well,
Speaker 1: and I want smart conversations and people that represent the players,
Speaker 1: that actually have the players' perspectives and have the players,
Speaker 1: you know, their interests at the main heart of it.
Speaker 1: And I think those are the people that need to
Speaker 1: be talking about for the players, you know, not the players.
Speaker 1: Maybe that, but the agents are a problem, Caitlin, This
Speaker 1: is again another this is why people don't invest in
Speaker 1: tennis because it is so muddied.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I think, just to follow up on your point,
Speaker 2: I think maybe as educated or not as the players
Speaker 2: are a lot of them smelled a stinker and stayed
Speaker 2: far away from this.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's my point.
Speaker 2: The PTB has been trying very hard to recruit and
Speaker 2: they have not.
Speaker 1: They have not recruited anyone.
Speaker 2: They have not succeeded, no, based on their names, on that, on.
Speaker 1: That, And that's that's the concern I have in just
Speaker 1: in terms of everything, is that we are not talking
Speaker 1: about people that are involved in this that either speak
Speaker 1: really well to the to the actual problems. And the
Speaker 1: fact that they're not even involved and haven't involved the
Speaker 1: Grand Slams, to me is the biggest tell. Yeah.
Speaker 2: If I'm the Tours, I get why they send a
Speaker 2: note to the Grand Slams. What the Tours should actually
Speaker 2: do is say, hey, look we said we were in
Speaker 2: a union before, but we actually are. We control labor,
Speaker 2: negotiate with us Slams or we'll have a work stoppage.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's how you get the players on board,
Speaker 2: and that's how you get, you know, some movement, So
Speaker 2: maybe that's what needs to happen. But I was hoping
Speaker 2: the PCPA would turn out to be more real, and
Speaker 2: I am sort of confused.
Speaker 1: And well, to be continued, I guess to be continued,
Speaker 1: I mean it's going to be continued into nothing and
Speaker 1: into oblivion. But anyway, oh listen, enough with that, enough
Speaker 1: with the debarcle of the PTPA and ATP and WTA,
Speaker 1: Let's get to the Miami Open, where a lot has happened.
Speaker 1: Kate love it. I mean, can we talk about the carnage.
Speaker 1: First of all, everyone that did well in Indian Wells
Speaker 1: crapped out completely in Miami. Just done. And I can
Speaker 1: give you two reasons for that, complete exhaustion, which is
Speaker 1: why it is a fucking terrible idea to have back
Speaker 1: to back tier ones. Sorry it is back to back
Speaker 1: one thousands is a terrible idea. It also dilutes the product.
Speaker 1: But whatever, what do I know, And especially going from
Speaker 1: Indian Wells to Miami, conditions are completely different. The court
Speaker 1: was a little faster in Miami. The balls are different.
Speaker 1: It was Wilson balls in Innie Wells. It is dunelop
Speaker 1: balls in Miami. You have humidity and different conditions. It
Speaker 1: was quite cool in Miami. Actually it was like days
Speaker 1: where they were cool, days where it was hot and
Speaker 1: humid more so a lot more than Indian Wales. And
Speaker 1: then India Wells is dry and desert conditions. So that's
Speaker 1: why it's really hard to win the double. It's hard
Speaker 1: to do the Sunshine Double because it is such different conditions.
Speaker 1: I always joke about just ask Allndsay Davenport, who won
Speaker 1: like Indian was like five or six times and could
Speaker 1: never win Miami. And so we saw that at its
Speaker 1: peak again at this tournament. It's really hard to go
Speaker 1: back to back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think for me too, the tapes of
Speaker 2: players we were getting who won and went deep in
Speaker 2: Indian Wells were some new feaces. There was a lot
Speaker 2: of new energy. I mean, sure you had your egos,
Speaker 2: who's used to going deep in a tournament?
Speaker 1: Yes, and she I think just broke a record. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it was, Yesterda was like twenty one
Speaker 1: or I'm sure somebody will tell me on the socials,
Speaker 1: but it was a certain amount of consecutive quarterfinals at
Speaker 1: W two one thousand.
Speaker 2: Hit now, so staggering records like that or not. Don't
Speaker 2: get a lot of shame, but actually that that's to
Speaker 2: me day in, weekend, week out, for sure results.
Speaker 1: That is somebody who turns up to every big tournament
Speaker 1: every single time and is there to win it, and
Speaker 1: doesn't mean she's gonna win it, but she will be
Speaker 1: in that last section of the draw every single time
Speaker 1: at the biggest tournaments. And that's remarkable. So it's also
Speaker 1: one people say, oh, how can she be ranked there
Speaker 1: and why is she one or two in the world.
Speaker 1: It's like, because she's consistently fucking good every time and
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: What, regardless of conditions, regardless of regardless of service. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I wasn't terribly surprised that, you know, outside of a
Speaker 2: few names, there are you know a lot of folks
Speaker 2: who didn't make it very far on the draw. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think one of the stats was the vast majority
Speaker 2: of folks who went deep in near was lost in
Speaker 2: the first round yea Miami. You know, again, not a surprise.
Speaker 2: But I think for me, the storylines that I'm following
Speaker 2: that are really really interested in are obviously Gail Fonseca,
Speaker 2: who just lost in a in a pretty big battle.
Speaker 2: He brought out all the Brazilians.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, he was the atmosphere last night with
Speaker 1: Alex Dimonor was arguably the best crowd I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was incredible love that. I mean, you
Speaker 1: always want to have a Grand Slam in South America.
Speaker 1: I know this. You want to take away the Oceania
Speaker 1: and you want to put it in South America. Well, Caitlin,
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you we have a Grand Slam
Speaker 1: in South America. It's called Miami because there are so
Speaker 1: many Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Argentinians, I mean, you name it from
Speaker 1: the from the Southern American part of this world that
Speaker 1: come to Miami or live in Miami now that are
Speaker 1: at that tournament. It's It's always been unbelievable anytime I
Speaker 1: played to South American and at the Miami Open and
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh fuck, this is going to be a nightmare.
Speaker 1: And it was, and Alex Demanoor handled it. Because the
Speaker 1: thing that people don't realize about Alex Demnoy is put
Speaker 1: him in an environment like that. It's like Davis Cup
Speaker 1: and he lives for that shits. I love when he
Speaker 1: won to and he just stood there and he looked
Speaker 1: over at his box and he just went fun, you know,
Speaker 1: because he speaks fluent.
Speaker 3: He speaks always. It's just like bomb loose how about that?
Speaker 1: And I thought it was great and fon Seca is
Speaker 1: so fun to watch.
Speaker 2: I love matches like that because it sort of illustrates
Speaker 2: I think the possibilities of tennis, not in in terms
Speaker 2: of like sports stories and up and coming players, but
Speaker 2: just this idea that you know, somebody who consistently does well,
Speaker 2: a lot of grand slams, who's kind of always in
Speaker 2: the conversation but never quite on the tip of your tongue,
Speaker 2: Alex Demnor, you know.
Speaker 1: Because he keeps running with sinner like this is his
Speaker 1: best opportunity to win a title because Youngixin is not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you think that that is emerging as a
Speaker 2: possibility for sure because of who's left in the draft.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, there's no doubt that Alex Dimonor is not not
Speaker 1: the player to beat in this tournament, but he's certainly
Speaker 1: there and beating Fonseca last night in that environment is
Speaker 1: going to give him so much, like, you know, just
Speaker 1: confidence in his ability to be able to handle, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the best players in the world right now,
Speaker 1: certainly one of the best young talents in the world,
Speaker 1: but he has the ability to win a tour.
Speaker 2: There's a bunch of really interesting names, like a lot
Speaker 2: of whom I think could win it. Zverev can win
Speaker 2: it or through feasts like he's beaten zeb They played
Speaker 2: an eight pretty memorably in a match in the fall.
Speaker 2: It's nice to see Seb quarter back in good forum
Speaker 2: and healthy. He's got gayl month Feast who's like somehow
Speaker 2: turning back time. I mean, he's just stumble elect.
Speaker 1: This is also like what the feast beat said in
Speaker 1: him wells, so it could be a little of because
Speaker 1: Sev is from he is from Florida, so this and
Speaker 1: conditions that he really likes. It's a little bit quicker
Speaker 1: Morphie prefers that little bit slower conditions that he was
Speaker 1: getting in India. Well, so I think that Seb might
Speaker 1: get a little revenge on Gael today.
Speaker 2: But I just think it's a great I mean, Demitravi's
Speaker 2: still in it. What a nice thing it is to
Speaker 2: see him beating catch enough, Like, I just I like
Speaker 2: the fact there's just a bunch of different storylines that
Speaker 2: are exciting.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm personally we haven't talked about clearly as Novak
Speaker 1: and him sort of getting through the draw pretty comfortably.
Speaker 1: Mussetti he plays today, that'll be interesting. Mossetti's obviously had
Speaker 1: a great twelve months, soho has the confidence to go
Speaker 1: out there and beat someone like Novak? But yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean Berrettini as well playing terrific and Alex Dimonor who
Speaker 1: he has next. Taylor Fritz is somebody that we haven't
Speaker 1: talked about, who did not do well in Indian Wales,
Speaker 1: who really wants to do well on American style, and
Speaker 1: this is a tournament clearly that is good for him.
Speaker 1: He goes up against lucky loser Neil Walton from so Adam,
Speaker 1: so we'll see how well Taylor does. So you would
Speaker 1: think that Taylor has a really good shot as well.
Speaker 1: Francis Tiafo again loses. He loses to Arthur Fierce. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just don't know what's going on with with with Francis.
Speaker 1: He's sort of lost his mojo a little bit. I
Speaker 1: mean it was a good three set.
Speaker 2: Match, but yeah, what do you think is going on?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I you know, maybe he's peaked. I
Speaker 1: think he peaked like he did a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago at the US Open. I think that, Look, he
Speaker 1: doesn't have a lot of weapons, and at some point
Speaker 1: you kind of do plateau at a certain place. I
Speaker 1: think he's probably made enough for money to be super
Speaker 1: comfortable in the rest of his life. Is that a
Speaker 1: determining factor of pushing him to the toughest of toughest
Speaker 1: of moments, Maybe, you know, sign a big, big contract
Speaker 1: thanks to Josh Smoller, he's a terrific agent with Lula Lemon,
Speaker 1: So you know, I don't know, I think is that
Speaker 1: part of it? Maybe for me?
Speaker 2: I love Tiao, he's grief, his for it. He's really fun.
Speaker 2: But also he's never been top ten material. To me,
Speaker 2: his game just isn't good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not. No, he's dynamic, and you know, he's
Speaker 1: got a great backhand and he's I mean he is
Speaker 1: he does.
Speaker 2: Everything is okay. No, his technique is totally busted on
Speaker 2: both sides.
Speaker 1: His technique is busted. I mean, he's backhand is pretty.
Speaker 2: He shovels the backhand, and he's got a forehand that's
Speaker 2: all over Jesus do. I love the guy absolutely and
Speaker 2: I'd fight for him to the death. But like to me,
Speaker 2: the fact that he made it into the top ten
Speaker 2: was indicative of like playing above his pay gride frankly,
Speaker 2: and like some other people kind of fallen off like you.
Speaker 2: In all things being Eagle World FANTASYAFO should not be
Speaker 2: in the top ten as much as I like.
Speaker 1: Well, he won't be.
Speaker 2: By the end of the and he definitely won't be
Speaker 2: headed back anyway. But I think for me, the one
Speaker 2: I'm watching the women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's get to the women. Oh my god, what
Speaker 1: a great tournament we've anament, We've had some upsets. I
Speaker 1: think the big I think the big storyline, Well, there's lots,
Speaker 1: so let let me start with the top half of
Speaker 1: the drawer. Obviously, Sablanca is just crushing everyone left and right.
Speaker 1: How to you know, six four to six four match
Speaker 1: against Daniel Collins, defending champion. But saba Anka is crushing
Speaker 1: everyone in this tournament. And no surprise, your buddy chin
Speaker 1: when has a bit of a comeback here.
Speaker 2: She likes the humid conditions there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean she has been comfortably winning in straight
Speaker 1: sets through her tournament.
Speaker 2: I have to say I don't like her.
Speaker 1: Adds, I do not like her Sablanca. I think Sabalanca
Speaker 1: is going to beat her in straight sets as well.
Speaker 2: I'm just more looking can Chinwen make more progress based
Speaker 2: on the last time she last to Sabalanca in straight sets, like,
Speaker 2: maybe could she get a set?
Speaker 1: That's what I'm looking for. No, I don't think, I
Speaker 1: don't think, But that's what Somebody else who was a
Speaker 1: little bit surprised that they ended up going out yesterday
Speaker 1: was Coco Goff. She was playing really well, very comfortable,
Speaker 1: couple of wins, an O and O match against Kennon
Speaker 1: which was crazy, and you know, Kennon beat confit of
Speaker 1: her in the first round, and then Maria Sakari. She
Speaker 1: took care of her comfortably, but Maria has been struggling
Speaker 1: over the last couple of years. But to lose to
Speaker 1: Magna Lynette, I mean, Lynette is this type of player
Speaker 1: that when she gets hot, she's really quite a good player.
Speaker 1: I mean, she reached a semi final of a Grand
Speaker 1: Slam at one time. But to beat Coco Gough four
Speaker 1: and four in Florida tons.
Speaker 2: Of support doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: It's just Coco is just yeah, there's a lot missing there,
Speaker 1: and a lot of it just comes down to again,
Speaker 1: the same stuff, the double folding, the foehand. It's just like,
Speaker 1: at some point you have to go and break that
Speaker 1: down a little bit and get some confidence on it. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not too worried about her, because I think when
Speaker 1: she gets on the clay she plays even better.
Speaker 2: She's gonna deal.
Speaker 1: I don't care who you are, your confidence has to suffer.
Speaker 1: And she has not gotten to a latter part of
Speaker 1: a tournament in a long time. And when you're talking
Speaker 1: about the consistency of an Eagershound Tech and a Sablenka,
Speaker 1: Coco's not having that. And so she has really dropped
Speaker 1: out of that top tier five level yep. And losing
Speaker 1: to Magnala Dad is not a good loss at the
Speaker 1: Miami Open for her. Pauolini also has had a tough year.
Speaker 1: I like she has gotten through incidents half matches, and
Speaker 1: that went against Osaka yesterday was big time because she
Speaker 1: lost the first set. You know, Paulini beat you know,
Speaker 1: got the retirement against Onji Burst sending out our love
Speaker 1: to onscard. You know, she just can't crack it with
Speaker 1: the injuries so over the last couple of years, and
Speaker 1: you just wonder how much that's going to really affect
Speaker 1: her career. To be honest, I think she wants to
Speaker 1: have a family. Like, at some point you start going,
Speaker 1: how much fucking rehab do I have to do to
Speaker 1: get back on too? It's going to be.
Speaker 2: Another year, thankfully. It sounds like Froman's camp it's a
Speaker 2: slate muscle tweak, so she'll probably be on clay no
Speaker 2: without too long. I'm sure she won't be going back
Speaker 2: to Charleston where she has won the tournament before, but like,
Speaker 2: hopefully we'll it's a bummer for the tournament, which is
Speaker 2: a bummer for the tournament because she's such a fun
Speaker 2: so personality.
Speaker 1: But Paulini getting through that match against Osaka Osaka was
Speaker 1: looking pretty good, like everyone's like, oh, here we go,
Speaker 1: this is going to be the tournament that gets you
Speaker 1: back on the map, and then burm. She goes out
Speaker 1: to Pauolini who just doggedly, determinedly got through that match.
Speaker 1: Yes today, I mean it was awesome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. I was really happy because I don't
Speaker 2: think Paolini pleaded that well, no, but she just you know,
Speaker 2: those sort of defining but yeah, I actually think those
Speaker 2: are more important matches because anybody can win when you're
Speaker 2: playing well and feeling great and feeling confident when you
Speaker 2: get through something, especially against somebody who's all of a
Speaker 2: sudden kind of found her form, and you gut it
Speaker 2: out and you just run it down and you put
Speaker 2: it back and play. That actually, to me is a
Speaker 2: character building when that I love from Pelini for sure, and.
Speaker 1: For Pauolini to to know that you're playing Magdalette instead
Speaker 1: of Naomi Osaka and the next match has to make
Speaker 1: you feel No, I'm not saying that Lynette is not
Speaker 1: a good player.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the fact that you're sorry and he doesn't
Speaker 2: have to go and against Coca cough.
Speaker 1: That's what That's what I meant. Sorry, instead of playing Coco,
Speaker 1: who is going to have the crowd and you know,
Speaker 1: you just know what she's capable of doing, instead you're
Speaker 1: playing Magdalinette, that's a whole different.
Speaker 2: Story, for sure.
Speaker 1: It's just mentally.
Speaker 2: I like the Paladusa looked pretty good. She obviously had
Speaker 2: like her stra the injuries. Just yeah, listen, I'm a
Speaker 2: I'm a rat kind of fan.
Speaker 1: Listen. I was about to say, let's get to the
Speaker 1: bottom half of the drawer. Because Emma Radicano has turned
Speaker 1: has she turned her career around with that win against
Speaker 1: Emma Navarro agreed and there super high level no doubt
Speaker 1: that that has made her turn her possibly turn her
Speaker 1: career around. And I you know, everyone's going to hyperbole
Speaker 1: and all the shit. You don't understand. You don't understand
Speaker 1: what it takes to gut through a match like that,
Speaker 1: because in all sense of the word defeat, she should
Speaker 1: have lost that match. Now she should have won it,
Speaker 1: and then Emmon looked like she should have won it.
Speaker 1: And it was just one of those matches that went
Speaker 1: back and forth and Emma Neavarro, you know, I think
Speaker 1: I put out on Twitter, you know, beware Emma Navarro
Speaker 1: down a set, down a break, and someone serving for
Speaker 1: the match, because that's when she's come back and won
Speaker 1: so many matches this year. So I thought that was
Speaker 1: going to happen. But Emma stepped up. That Radakanu stepped
Speaker 1: up in that match more than I've ever seen her
Speaker 1: step up since she won the US Open. She went
Speaker 1: for it. She was aggressive. The only time she wasn't
Speaker 1: really aggressive was when she served for the match at
Speaker 1: five to three. She pulled back a little bit. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's interesting. I was texting with Jill Schmoler
Speaker 1: during the match, and I was like wow. I was like,
Speaker 1: you know, because Jill is representing her and helping her
Speaker 1: out a little bit, and I was like, you know,
Speaker 1: if Emma stays, if Radakana wins this match, she has
Speaker 1: to say aggressive. And she did that and so I
Speaker 1: think that gave her so much confidence. She obviously wins
Speaker 1: the next match with a retirement, but.
Speaker 2: Was yeah, it was a one way traffic.
Speaker 1: And then to beat Anissimova, who took out Andreva the
Speaker 1: night before. Can we just talk about mirror. There was
Speaker 1: no doubt that she hit the wall in that match.
Speaker 2: You could see it. Actually, she just looked from one
Speaker 2: point to the next.
Speaker 1: Spent she was. I know that she was not feeling
Speaker 1: well before the match, and so she went on the
Speaker 1: court maybe a little bit not feeling good. Hence the
Speaker 1: just her attitude had. Having the trainer come out at
Speaker 1: two to one in the first set is highly unusual. Agree,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'll give a credit as a seventeen
Speaker 1: year old. She hung in there when she could have
Speaker 1: given it up, especially after losing the first set. She
Speaker 1: hung in there and looked like she was going to
Speaker 1: win the match. And then anissam Ova just turned it
Speaker 1: around and third set and started hitting winners all over
Speaker 1: the place. But Mira certainly showed her age and the
Speaker 1: fact that she hit the wall and mentally acted like
Speaker 1: Mirra Andreva from two years ago. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: mum left the box. Conch had lost all control of her.
Speaker 1: It was just like, fuck everybody, I hate everything, I
Speaker 1: hate being out here.
Speaker 2: And then a Nissamova during the service game called for
Speaker 2: the okay, so I want to get to that.
Speaker 1: So the blister. If anyone follows Amanda Anissimova on Instagram,
Speaker 1: you would have seen and a lot of people reposted
Speaker 1: the blister on her finger. That was a really bad blessing.
Speaker 2: It looked like a gap, like a goal.
Speaker 1: It was horrible. Now, I don't know if any of
Speaker 1: you have played tennis, certainly haven't played it professionally, and
Speaker 1: knowing you don't know a bad guest, Yeah, let's let's hope.
Speaker 1: But a blister that size on your finger fucking kills
Speaker 1: when you're trying to hit the ball. Now, she asked
Speaker 1: for the trainer, right, she asked for the trainer on
Speaker 1: the next changeover, so to make sure because you have
Speaker 1: to let the physios know because they're in the physio room.
Speaker 1: They're in the locker room. They're not sitting by the
Speaker 1: court unless it's the final. They're not sitting by the
Speaker 1: court because there's only so many physios and they're doing
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of work and labor in the rooms,
Speaker 1: in the locker rooms at the time of matches. So
Speaker 1: like the amount of times I've been having a physio
Speaker 1: wall get to the point, get the point, no, because
Speaker 1: it's as important. So if you're in the locker room
Speaker 1: and you've got four physios in there and there's seven
Speaker 1: players wanting treatment, you're in a line, right, So a
Speaker 1: physio will be working on you, and then a call
Speaker 1: will come over the radio trainer needed on center court
Speaker 1: and they have to stop the treatment, grab their bags
Speaker 1: and run out to the court. So Amanda, let the
Speaker 1: umpire know, please make sure the physio's out here on
Speaker 1: the next changeover, okay, So that gives them time to
Speaker 1: get out there, so you're not waiting for them. So
Speaker 1: and of course she's up three to one in the third,
Speaker 1: so she doesn't want to stop her momentum. And then
Speaker 1: I'll give a credit. It was she was down or
Speaker 1: upper game point. I can't remember. She lost some point
Speaker 1: to go to juice. She knew immediately from hitting that ball.
Speaker 1: Fucking hell, I cannot hit the ball anymore. And this
Speaker 1: is a really important game for me. So it is
Speaker 1: within the rules that if it's an acute injury. For example,
Speaker 1: if someone sprains her ankle or does at knee or
Speaker 1: falls and you know, breaks their finger or something, that's
Speaker 1: an acute injury. So the phissia will come out and
Speaker 1: assess if it's an acute injury. Now, if you said, oh,
Speaker 1: I feel a bit of a pain in my knee,
Speaker 1: they might do an assessment, let's say of an ACL
Speaker 1: tear or a tear and say, oh, yeah, you've to
Speaker 1: on your ACL or you know, you can keep playing
Speaker 1: or it's up to you, right, So the physio makes
Speaker 1: this assessment. If it's a cute now looking at that finger,
Speaker 1: that's a cute. That's I cannot hit the tennis ball
Speaker 1: now without being in a tremendous amount of pain, which
Speaker 1: Anissa overplayed, I believe three points after asking for the physio. Now,
Speaker 1: she knew going into that there was going to be
Speaker 1: juice add and it could go juice add juice add juice,
Speaker 1: add like ten more times. Meanwhile, the finger's getting worse.
Speaker 1: She can't hit the ball, so she decided to call
Speaker 1: the trainer. Now a lot of people are pat to
Speaker 1: stab there because that's at allowed in the rules.
Speaker 2: We didn't set this up. She called the trainer in
Speaker 2: between first and second serves. That's why this was controversial.
Speaker 2: Not only did it happen in the middle of a
Speaker 2: service game, but she called it in the middle of
Speaker 2: a service motion. I agree with you completely that it's
Speaker 2: within the rules and if you can't swing a racket
Speaker 2: without screaming pain. But watching the match, it was in
Speaker 2: between first and second serves.
Speaker 1: I don't remember that.
Speaker 2: I'm Mira Andreva.
Speaker 1: I don't remember that. And because of that, I remember
Speaker 1: walking up to the chair and saying, can I get
Speaker 1: the physio and the again, I'm not doing that partic
Speaker 1: for one, She's like for blister for my finger or whatever,
Speaker 1: and she said, what the empire is? Like, what do
Speaker 1: I need to And this has happened to me before.
Speaker 1: It's like, if I asked for the fucking trainer, just
Speaker 1: call the trainer. You don't need to ask me what
Speaker 1: my injury is because I don't want my opponent to
Speaker 1: know what my injury is.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, there are players who abuse it
Speaker 2: to such a degree that you can't give everyone the
Speaker 2: bed of the doubt. No, well that's the lake Novak
Speaker 2: is getting a manicure on his toes half the time
Speaker 2: when you know, like famously, and everyone's like, is this
Speaker 2: guy injured? Is this a blisters? Is it thing?
Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot. It's not just throw back under
Speaker 1: the bus. This has been a lot of players that
Speaker 1: have down a lot of shitty things. I don't think
Speaker 1: Amanda has that. From what I know, Amanda does.
Speaker 2: Not have that agreed agreed and I'm not bringing us
Speaker 2: around a teture. I'm bringing I'm bringing this up to
Speaker 2: explain why so many people were upset about it, because
Speaker 2: I think the way you explained it sounded like, of course,
Speaker 2: a logical person would allow Amanda Nissimova to address a
Speaker 2: well and also Caitlin shrieking paint injury. But the reason
Speaker 2: it was controversial is because people maybe don't understand the
Speaker 2: rules of the context about how long it takes to
Speaker 2: get to the court, or the fact that she is
Speaker 2: allowed to do it in the middle of play if
Speaker 2: it is an acute injury, which I think it was,
Speaker 2: so I'm not I'm not trying to pile on Mara
Speaker 2: won the game.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, true, But actually the.
Speaker 2: Reason I brought this up is because Mira Andreva, under
Speaker 2: normal circumstances, is cool as a cucumber, as she's been
Speaker 2: and how well coached she is in the last year,
Speaker 2: certainly since the beginning of the year, doesn't care about that.
Speaker 2: Mira Andreva, who hits a wall, who can't control herself anymore,
Speaker 2: is freaking out and this is becomes the thing that
Speaker 2: is like the reason that she loses the match. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, and I think that's the difference between somebody
Speaker 2: and command of their emotions and then themselves with their
Speaker 2: coaches voice in their head saying like keep cool, you
Speaker 2: got this, breathe yes, and somebody who's like, fuck this,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna burn it all down, like I'm mad at
Speaker 2: everyone so much so that aman Anissamberg got some blowback
Speaker 2: on the socials, showed everyone her blister and while she
Speaker 2: was doing so, flip the bird, well.
Speaker 1: She flipped the boot was awesome. It was on the
Speaker 1: bird finger, which is I would not have been any
Speaker 1: better that it was great, but also she then went
Speaker 1: out and lost comfortably the next day to Emma Radakanu.
Speaker 1: But also, what the WTF is that? What the what
Speaker 1: the WTF on the scheduling of having her play at
Speaker 1: night and putting her third on the next day. Now,
Speaker 1: a lot of people won't think, well, that's pretty late,
Speaker 1: But also I want to know how we have these
Speaker 1: ten day events and players are having to do that
Speaker 1: kind of a schedule. That is bullshit.
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of critique of the Miami Open.
Speaker 1: Why isn't she scheduling the next night?
Speaker 2: Again, I will play devil's advocate in this scenario as
Speaker 2: much as I want to critique the Miami Up in
Speaker 2: a tournament that I feel should be in different hands
Speaker 2: at a different venue, potentially at a different time of year,
Speaker 2: and say, I have now comfort believe that scheduling tennis
Speaker 2: matches is unbelievably difficult because of the amount of matches
Speaker 2: you have to get through, whether throws, wrenches, and plans.
Speaker 2: Some matches go fast on some courts and then they're
Speaker 2: sitting empty. Other matches take forever and there's a bottleneck.
Speaker 2: So I get that you do have to like kind
Speaker 2: of keep a lot of balls in the air literally
Speaker 2: and figuratively to make sure that everyone. Plus there's TV
Speaker 2: rights and China is paying, and they wanted their player
Speaker 2: at a certain time, and ESPN wants to probably presumably
Speaker 2: an American or this time, you know, tennis channel. So
Speaker 2: like you know, there's a lot of factors here that
Speaker 2: need to go into it. Do we think this person's
Speaker 2: a huge draw? Maybe in this tournament, but maybe not
Speaker 2: the next one. So how do we handle which sized
Speaker 2: stadium to put them on? You know, A lot of
Speaker 2: things are more politics, but.
Speaker 1: That would have been very, very hard for Amanda to
Speaker 1: back up because they didn't get finished till about.
Speaker 2: Did you watch the match?
Speaker 1: I did?
Speaker 2: I mean I watched every point of that basically, I
Speaker 2: mean not to saying anything away from Amarata Kana, who,
Speaker 2: when healthy and in sound mind, which I think she
Speaker 2: appears to be to your point, is a free, creative, thoughtful,
Speaker 2: elegant player like I can't say enough a better game,
Speaker 2: which is why I'm always rooted for her. I'm I'm
Speaker 2: erat Kana, but you know, barely made that a match.
Speaker 2: Like she was shaking ball, she was on sorts. She
Speaker 2: could tell she was also different completely.
Speaker 1: Atmosphere, playing at night, heavier conditions. Then you go on
Speaker 1: the day, you know, breezy conditions in Miami, it's lost,
Speaker 1: like you can't see the ball properly. Like she had
Speaker 1: looked like a until maybe maybe maybe two o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning. Maybe I would stress probably more two or
Speaker 1: three in the morning.
Speaker 2: And then she's playing you know, you know, during the day,
Speaker 2: late hour or something.
Speaker 1: It's like waking up the next day and having to
Speaker 1: go out there and play against you know, a player
Speaker 1: who's playing tremendous tenness. Anyway, So Emma Radicano, I'm super
Speaker 1: happy that she has done well because she is a
Speaker 1: name and a player that we need to do well.
Speaker 1: And I have to say this. I think six months ago,
Speaker 1: if you'd said, is Emma Radakanu going to be inside
Speaker 1: the top ten again, I would have said I doubt it.
Speaker 1: And it's not because I didn't believe in her ability.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a Grand Slam champion, but I
Speaker 1: just felt like the injuries and the no coach, coach,
Speaker 1: no coach, all the stuff, the stalker, you know, she
Speaker 1: always has just so much going on around her, and
Speaker 1: I just feel like with this confidence, there's no question
Speaker 1: she can be back inside the top ten because the
Speaker 1: tennis that I saw her play against Emma Navarro in particular,
Speaker 1: it was great, was so good, it was such good tennis,
Speaker 1: and her serving was better. I do believe that she
Speaker 1: she's gonna win Wimbledon. Everybody.
Speaker 2: And the last thing I'll say about Emma, which is
Speaker 2: why I like watching her play, it's still clear that
Speaker 2: she's very intelligent, which to me, I understand why that
Speaker 2: that's I thought you're gonna say, I understand, which I
Speaker 2: really to as an extremely intelligent person myself. No, she's
Speaker 2: still clear that there's a lot going out in her head,
Speaker 2: which is why she plays a really creative style when
Speaker 2: she is confident and while she plays like sort of
Speaker 2: befuddled when when she's not. And I don't know that
Speaker 2: the coaching and the sort of reaction that she's the
Speaker 2: sort of crowd that she had around her has really
Speaker 2: appreciated that about her. I think she has a part
Speaker 2: time woman coach who's a British player, who kind of
Speaker 2: like seems to like economics, who's a yeah exactly, who's
Speaker 2: like a titan of industry and in the business world.
Speaker 2: But I think she must feel like she's on the
Speaker 2: level got yeah, and also got like the right amount
Speaker 2: of distance, Like, I don't think she needs somebody like
Speaker 2: barking down her throat, like treating her like she's a
Speaker 2: seatball hitting a type of player, because she's not. She
Speaker 2: needs somebody to be like, hey, you got this. Like
Speaker 2: you've got a lot of tools. Maybe it's too many,
Speaker 2: but let's focus.
Speaker 1: If she can work on her coming into the net
Speaker 1: and her swing bollies yeah, and being a little bit
Speaker 1: more aggressive in that term and that way, I think
Speaker 1: there's no question she can be back in Well.
Speaker 2: She's certainly certainly fun to watch and I'm really happy
Speaker 2: for her, most importantly that it looks like she's having
Speaker 2: fun out there.
Speaker 1: Well, she's got a tough one against Jessicagula. She's just
Speaker 1: getting through her color Skaya match where I don't know
Speaker 1: what it is with her and Cullen Skya, but they
Speaker 1: played barn Burner matches. Every match goes seven to six
Speaker 1: and the third it's crazy. But I think once Jess
Speaker 1: got through that match, she was comfortable against Costuok yesterday
Speaker 1: two and three. I think Jess is going to be
Speaker 1: tough to beat at this tournament. She practices and lives
Speaker 1: in southern South Florida, and so these conditions are perfect
Speaker 1: for her. But one player that's getting a lot of
Speaker 1: like publicity is Alexandra Ila. Oh yeah, no wild card,
Speaker 1: we wild card. Now My player Ellen Perez, who was
Speaker 1: down in Miami with the doubles player hit with Alexandra
Speaker 1: one day. It was before the tournament. Because she doesn't
Speaker 1: really know anyone out there. She's like, you know, she's
Speaker 1: a kid, like nineteen years of age. She's out there
Speaker 1: and she had up looking for someone to hit with, right,
Speaker 1: and so Ellen said, well, I know her a little bit,
Speaker 1: you know, because Ellen talks to everybody, and she's like,
Speaker 1: I'll see if she wants to hit, and she's like, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: i'll hit. So they went out and hit for an
Speaker 1: hour and it was such a good practice really, and
Speaker 1: she's a lefty and it plays similarly to Allen in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways, you know. Now, Allen was a
Speaker 1: decent singles player in her own right, and they were
Speaker 1: crushing four hands to each other and it was a
Speaker 1: lot of fun to watch actually, and she was a
Speaker 1: sweetheart but sort of had no idea how to how
Speaker 1: things worked and was a little bit and her coach
Speaker 1: was a little bit the same, and it was just
Speaker 1: a really nice hour of practice and I thought, I
Speaker 1: don't know if she's good enough to you do well
Speaker 1: and doesn't really crack the ball big enough. And we
Speaker 1: sort of were a little bit like, oh, I don't know,
Speaker 1: And there she is. She's in the quarter finals. I
Speaker 1: mean ad Meddle. She had to walk over yesterday against Bodoza,
Speaker 1: you know, to beat Madison Keys for and too. Maddie
Speaker 1: Kesey just had a couple of bad losses in the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks. It'll be interesting to see how
Speaker 1: she bounces back. I believe she's playing Charleston, which she's
Speaker 1: one before, so so we'll see.
Speaker 2: I'm putting on my chips in the Mattie keys Grass
Speaker 2: quote Susy.
Speaker 1: I think she's going to be tough to beat at
Speaker 1: when we'll too egat Chion Tech. It's just again just
Speaker 1: crushing people left and right. She's had a couple of
Speaker 1: tough first sets. She's gone through seven six seven six
Speaker 1: on two occasions last night against Fitzelina and the match
Speaker 1: before against Elise Mertens. But she goes up against Ila today.
Speaker 1: I think that's going to be a comfortable victory in
Speaker 1: two sets unless Alexandra, Alexandra, can you know she should
Speaker 1: with something special?
Speaker 2: But I think her special thing should be as a
Speaker 2: graduate of the raff and Adel Academy, have Rafa flying
Speaker 2: in sitting in her box. Wouldn't that be fun? And
Speaker 2: also because you get such a Rafa fan little games, Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that could be.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't that be exciting? If you look up and you're
Speaker 2: like heroes in your opponent's box?
Speaker 1: Can I just can I just talk to you about
Speaker 1: speaking of players boxes?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: Is this out on the old socials?
Speaker 2: This has to be And this is the end. This
Speaker 2: is the end.
Speaker 1: This is the end of the podcast.
Speaker 2: So we're building the end.
Speaker 1: We're building to put crescendo here. But I was watching
Speaker 1: Novak play the other day and he missed the forehand
Speaker 1: and he looks up at his playerbox and they of course,
Speaker 1: the camera goes to the playerbox and here's Andy mar
Speaker 1: Are just sitting there just looking like a stun mullet, like,
Speaker 1: you know, not giving him a stun mullet, a stunned mullet.
Speaker 1: Have you ever heard that?
Speaker 2: Good carry on?
Speaker 1: Very australianism. Basically, somebody just sitting there. Light deer in headlights. Sure, right,
Speaker 1: that's what Americans say. We don't have deers.
Speaker 2: You have mullets.
Speaker 1: We have mullets.
Speaker 2: Which is a bird, it's a fish. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So anyway, so there's Andy just sitting there like
Speaker 1: stun mullet, and he looks over and his physio gestures
Speaker 1: to him how to hit a forehand, like cover the forehand,
Speaker 1: cover it, cover it or whatever, get it out in front.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking to myself, I have had physios work
Speaker 1: with me on the tour, not many because I couldn't
Speaker 1: afford it, but from once in a blue moon. If
Speaker 1: I looks over at my playbox after missing a forehand
Speaker 1: and my coach was sitting there and my physio told
Speaker 1: me how to hit a fourhand, I would fucking tell
Speaker 1: them to leave. I'd be like, shut the fuck up.
Speaker 1: Why you are a physio. You have never hit a
Speaker 1: forehand in your life, certainly in a professional way, and
Speaker 1: you're telling me how to hit a fourhand.
Speaker 2: Once again, you're making an assumption, maybe with the tourist
Speaker 2: allows you with physios. The bigger question is why did
Speaker 2: Andy Murray say anything?
Speaker 1: Because Andy Murray knows there's nothing he can tell him
Speaker 1: that's going to make a difference in that situation.
Speaker 2: What is that?
Speaker 1: Because nobody knows what more?
Speaker 2: What is that?
Speaker 1: Because nobody knows more how to hit a forehand in
Speaker 1: the court. The Novak Djokovic knows exactly what he has
Speaker 1: to do to hit a good forehand? Does he need
Speaker 1: to have sometimes it reiterated to him by his coach maybe,
Speaker 1: but his physio and the same thing, the same thing happened.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm the one that looks like an idiot
Speaker 1: because the guy wins more than anybody has ever done
Speaker 1: in history, so clearly something works for him. Maybe the
Speaker 1: physio or the trainers hear what the coach has told him,
Speaker 1: so then they say it to him because oh no,
Speaker 1: he's speaking in Serbian.
Speaker 2: Maybe he just needed some VABs.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. But like even at the French
Speaker 1: Open a number of years ago, and I may have
Speaker 1: told this on the pod before, but I'm on the
Speaker 1: court with Sam Stozer and Novak was playing on the
Speaker 1: court next to us, just down below us. But I
Speaker 1: could see the court and the entire time the fitness
Speaker 1: trainer is telling him how to hit a foehand like
Speaker 1: the guy that's with Janick Sinner now, the Italian dude. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was out there and he was showing Novak where
Speaker 1: to hold his hands, that's how to hit in return.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking to myself, what the fuck does this
Speaker 1: fitness trainer no more than Novak Djokovic or his tennis coach,
Speaker 1: which would have been at the time.
Speaker 2: Grand Slam winner Gurney Vinevitch.
Speaker 1: I have to I think, I don't think helped me
Speaker 1: understand it.
Speaker 2: I will explain it to you in the only way
Speaker 2: that I can understand it, which is, does this fitness
Speaker 2: trainer or fitness trainer his body, physio, whatever it is.
Speaker 2: Do these guys know more about tennis than you the
Speaker 2: Vanjin professionals. No, sure, certainly not, whether they've played or not.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I can't speak to that, but I think watching Novak
Speaker 2: play for the last better per twenty years, Novak is
Speaker 2: an energy guy. He's a guy who wants a chatter.
Speaker 2: He wants back and forth, he wants a little gibber jab.
Speaker 1: So give him, give him, give his fist.
Speaker 2: To me, what is so fascinating about hiring the stoic uh,
Speaker 2: you would call a stoic in the coaching box. Yes,
Speaker 2: because you know, sitting there with his arms crossed, and
Speaker 2: it's like, what do you know? Do I get why
Speaker 2: he would fill his box with a bunch of serbians,
Speaker 2: like some of whom are getting rowdy and some of
Speaker 2: whom maybe know more than others. Yes, get it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Even Goron was pretty calm, but he got into it
Speaker 2: because I think that's what Novac likes. I think that's
Speaker 2: what he needs. I think that's what he wants. He
Speaker 2: wants like a little bit of an audience to play out.
Speaker 2: I think Novak, in a very compelling way, like we're
Speaker 2: not is doing an interesting psycho drama at all times
Speaker 2: in his own head. Mostly some supporting characters absolutely agree.
Speaker 2: So if I look over and I want you to
Speaker 2: be in my psycho drama, it's like you're gonna not participate,
Speaker 2: You're just gonna sit there. No again, fitness trainer, he's
Speaker 2: just looking around for somebody to get something. And then
Speaker 2: the fitness trainer's like, yeah, okay, i'll physio. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: I'll get in Yeah, sure, okay. So I think that's
Speaker 2: what's happening. Do I doesn't make sense to me? No,
Speaker 2: it doesn't make any more sense to me than.
Speaker 1: It does you.
Speaker 2: But I think that's just I'm explaining. I think what
Speaker 2: is happening, which is he needs a lot of chippiness.
Speaker 2: He needs to need a lot of chips.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get it, like I get like him looking
Speaker 1: up and which is.
Speaker 2: Also why it doesn't make any sense to me that
Speaker 2: Andy Murray is his coach. It doesn't that make any sense.
Speaker 1: Well, as I told you in the last part, I
Speaker 1: did see them out there in Miami and they were
Speaker 1: talking about his forehand and I was like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: look at this. Look at the minutia that is going
Speaker 1: on here. It's what makes him so great is that
Speaker 1: he's always looking for that edge. But the edge that
Speaker 1: I don't understand is why are you taking direction on
Speaker 1: how to hit a tennis ball from a guy that
Speaker 1: cannot play tennis?
Speaker 2: You know what you're still.
Speaker 1: I get, like, hold on, let me finish. I get
Speaker 1: what you're saying. He needs the chippiness, he needs, he
Speaker 1: needs the energy. Okay, that's fine, get up and give
Speaker 1: him that.
Speaker 2: I actually wasn't going to contradict you. I was going
Speaker 2: to say, let's wrap this up, because I actually think
Speaker 2: since you're still on Twitter. Let's hear what people have
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 1: Oh good one, what, oh blue guy? Please?
Speaker 2: Whatever?
Speaker 1: Please please? People go to Blue Scott.
Speaker 2: You talk to people on the internet. I don't really
Speaker 2: talk to Renee. Tell her what you think is happening,
Speaker 2: whatever medium. If you message me with it, I will
Speaker 2: try to pass it on. But go to Renee and
Speaker 2: tell her what you think is happening in this psychodrama
Speaker 2: to which we only have a tiny bit of priven Now.
Speaker 1: All right, everyone, we'll see you and hear from us
Speaker 1: next week. By