The New Davis Cup/ATP Cup format is weak. There’s a better model.

The Davis Cup is the annual international team competition of men’s tennis. It was founded in 1900 as a challenge match between the U.S. and Great Britain. In 1981 it expanded to a World Group of 16 countries, with a system of promotion and relegation, making it the World Cup of tennis.

The Davis Cup is managed and run by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the world governing body of tennis. The ITF also runs Fed Cup for women. The main Davis Cup corporate partners are BNP and Rakuten with Barcelona soccer star Gerard Pique and his Kosmos Investment Group running the show as of 2019.

When Gerard Pique took over last year, his primary modification to Davis Cup was hosting the World Group at a single venue over one week, with eighteen teams divided into six round-robin groups of three. The winners of the six groups advanced to the quarterfinals along with two second place finishers. The format for these World Group duels featured two singles matches and one doubles match, instead of the traditional best-of-5 series.

With Davis Cup “evolving,” the ATP Tour announced the creation of a rival event, the ATP Cup (with the exact same two singles/one doubles format as Davis Cup). As many predicted at the time, men’s tennis now has too many international team competitions (see Laver Cup). The players find it exhausting. With only one host country, most matches feature empty seats. The competitions are too condensed and there’s barely a team element to a three match format. Even the players who thought adding the ATP Cup was a good idea have come to the realization that it provides nothing new (while complicating preparations for a major). With apologies to host city Madrid, the new Davis Cup was even worse.

While I never loved the previous Davis Cup system, which seemed to last all year without fans knowing what stage the tournament had reached, there were many positives. Passionate home crowds, packed venues and the host country’s choice of playing surface were all attractive elements of the previous regime. While the old best-of-5 is certainly better than best-of-3, an even broader format that tests a team’s depth would reward national player development while reducing the dominance of a single player. Indeed, the best thing about Laver Cup is the breadth of 12 total matches, singles and doubles, contested among two teams of six players. That’s team tennis. All we learned from the current Davis Cup and ATP Cup format is that Spain has Rafa Nadal and Serbia has Novak Djokovic.

Understanding the governance of professional tennis, money will ultimately dictate how these events are managed in the future. Giving the ATP some leverage in financial negotiations is probably why the ATP Cup exists at all. In the past, Davis Cup had to schedule around the ATP tour calendar. Now, with the Davis Cup format condensed and the event scheduled to follow the year-end Masters, the ATP no longer has the scheduling cards it once held. Just from the standpoint of what’s good for the game, it would be great not to have two virtually identical team events competing for attention and players’ commitments less than two months apart. The natural solution of course is to kill the ATP Cup or merge it with Davis Cup (read: give the ATP tour a cut of Davis Cup). But even then, the Davis Cup should move in a better direction.

Not every country can field six world class players, much less a second (Moldova), so perhaps simply returning to the best-of-5 format makes sense if also limiting the matches one player can play. Either way, the current 18 teams in one place, with fan support for just one or two countries, isn’t working. Instead, the first few rounds of Davis Cup should be hosted on home soil, with the entire event culminating in a Final Four that has the build-up it deserves and the attention of the entire sports world.

First round byes could expand the competition while limiting the time commitment of overworked stars. Each round would take place in each season of the year.

Round 1 (First week of March): Eight Teams ranked #17-24 play eight teams ranked #9-16 at eight host sites across the globe.

Round 2 (Late July): Eight winners of round 1 play eight teams ranked #1-8 at eight host sites across the globe.

Round 3 (September): Eight winners of round 2 meet at four host sites across the globe.

Final Four (End of November): Four winners of round 3 meet at one host site for the semifinals and final.

The one interesting element to the ATP Cup that could be incorporated into Davis Cup: qualification and seeding based on player rankings. Otherwise, scrap ATP Cup, give the tour its stake in Davis Cup, bring back the fun of Hopman Cup (which was cancelled to make way for ATP Cup) and let’s get on with making international team tennis must watch TV.

– Jeff Menaker

First Ballot

Back during the US Open, Stadium Journey revisited an interview we did back in 2014. Here is the 2019 version; my best case for first ballot entry to the Ballperson Hall of Fame. Is there a Ballperson Hall of Fame?

Q & A With Former U.S. Open Ballboy and Tennis Swiss Army Knife Jeff Menaker

The interviewer, Jon Hart, is the author of Man versus Ball (among other things). The book is a unique and endlessly entertaining first-hand look at the fringes of the professional sports world. Definitely worth a read. A great stocking stuffer!

https://www.amazon.com/Jon-Hart/e/B00BJ7CFU6/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1

– Jeffrey Menaker

2 match points…

This has been bugging me all week. Apparently it’s been bugging others as well.

Listen, I’m no GOAT 🐐. I know hindsight is 2020, but: If I had the chance to win Wimbledon at 8-7 in the 5th set, and I can do it by beating Nadal and Djokovic back-to-back, and I’m 37 years old, and I have 2 match points, nay, CHAMPIONSHIP POINTS to close out the final, on my serve, and I’ve been serving great all match, and I often struggle to close out Nadal/Djokovic, and my name is FEDERER… I am taking the opportunity right then and there to try FOUR (4) first serves, all out, no holds barred, up the “T” for an ace, four straight times.

Tell me Roger couldn’t convert one out of four.

There’s a time for analytics and repeatable patterns and serve +1 forehands, but, when it comes to closing out a match, that’s a moment for killer instinct and letting the chips fall where they may.

Go Big or Go Home!

Jeff Menaker

USTA Xenophobia and the NCAA Tournaments

Congratulations to the Longhorns of the University of Texas at Austin on their first ever NCAA Division 1 Men’s Team Tennis Championship and to the Stanford Women on their 20th Women’s title. It’s quite a contrast in stories. At Stanford, coach Lele Forood has a ring for every finger on both hands as the Cardinal has won more than half of the NCAA championships since they started playing it for women. They upended #1 ranked Georgia in the final on Sunday. Texas beat defending men’s champ, Wake Forest, in a remarkable finish to a season that included longtime UT head coach, Michael Center, getting arrested and subsequently fired mid-season. Center was charged and pled guilty in the college admissions bribery scandal.

The Texas story is fascinating as Associate Head Coach Bruce Berque now seems a lock to succeed Center, winning a “natty” as Interim Coach. Much of the credit for winning the title match goes to Texas seniors Colin Markes and Rodrigo Banzer who took advantage of a younger bottom third of the Wake lineup. After losing the doubles point, it was Texas juniors Christian Sigsgaard (Denmark) and Yuya Ito (Japan) who sealed the victory at the 1 and 2 positions over Wake’s Borna Gojo (Croatia) and Petros Chrysochos (Cyprus), last year’s NCAA singles finalists. Didn’t see that coming.

National treasure, Slam.Tennis, ran 1000 simulations of singles outcomes after Wake won the doubles point. The least likely outcome, Texas winning 4-1, was exactly what we got. Even the matches that didn’t complete were looking favorable for UT, so we saw a very special effort from Texas on Sunday.

Division 1 Tennis now turns from the team event to the NCAA singles and doubles tournaments. Both NCAA individual and team championships are airing on Tennis Channel this year, so the sport is making some progress in terms of exposure. Though Tennis Channel could learn a thing or two about how to cover a dual match with six courts. Hint: less like Wimbledon, more like the Masters.

One yearly frustration for college tennis fans has been the steady stream of players withdrawing from the NCAA singles and doubles tournaments. Last year’s men’s singles finalists, Chrysochos and Gojo, were both among the withdrawals from singles this week. A few years ago it was Brit hero (current world #41) Cameron Norrie from TCU withdrawing from NCAA singles to turn pro and attempt to qualify for Wimbledon (which he did). Bobby Knight of College Tennis Today put it best during last year’s unprecedented wave of withdrawals, “the hospitality tent must not be serving good food… no one wants to play men’s singles.”

The solution to withdrawals has been debated for years, but, there is a strong consensus among college coaches on returning the NCAA individual events to prominence. Having the matches on television is certainly a good start. Some have suggested the NCAA singles and doubles tournaments take place before the team competition. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where the individual events could precede the team event. Nobody wants to risk an injury that could jeopardize a team’s postseason chances.

A better solution to keep top players competing in the NCAA individual events is to switch the Division 1 singles and doubles tournaments to the end of the fall season, when the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) holds its Regional and National Championships. The chief concern one hears about switching the ITA and NCAA Division 1 events on the calendar is that players who perform well at a fall NCAA tournament may decide to turn pro and desert their teams for the spring season. I’m not sure this is a legitimate issue since most players who win the ITA national title don’t leave school. DM on Twitter if you can think of any who did. Regardless, there are sensible policy changes that could easily incentivize the choice to remain in school. These are the same policy decisions that could keep NCAAs in the spring anyway. To understand the fix, we need to understand the root of the problem.

Examining which players are withdrawing, it’s no surprise that the majority are top international players who have legitimate hopes of professional careers. Traditionally, the USTA would grant the men’s and women’s NCAA singles and doubles champions direct entry to the US Open main draw. With foreign players using the U.S. college pathway to develop toward professional tennis, non-American players often won the NCAA individual events and a main draw US Open wild card. That irked the xenophobes. About 10 or 15 years ago, the USTA torpedoed the incentive for top international players to compete in the NCAA Tournament by limiting professional wildcards to U.S. players only. Heaven forbid a non-American earn something through the greatness of our system. Now, for an international player on the cusp of a pro career, the NCAA individual events win them nothing but a missed opportunity to compete for professional opportunities in Europe. For college tennis to be better and for American college players to get better, this has to change. France has 10 of the top 100 ATP players; a disproportionate number for their population. The French welcome internationals to challenge their players in France while the U.S. bars foreign juniors from Kalamazoo and wastes American coaching of international collegians. 

The USTA needs to see the forest for the trees in their wild card offerings. If the USTA truly supports college tennis, and I believe they want to, they should promote the NCAA Tournament from a competitive standpoint. Amidst a restructuring of pro tennis, new wild card policies were adopted this year to bolster “the collegiate pathway.” It’s great to see additional opportunities for college players, but, instead of creating extra qualifying events everywhere, USTA should champion the NCAA events that are already in place.

While moving NCAA Division 1 singles and doubles to the fall would likely benefit the entire spring schedule, the USTA has the facility to add value to the event, whenever it’s played. Right now, the USTA doesn’t even guarantee a main draw entry for an American NCAA singles champion. They offer a qualifying spot or “strong consideration for the main draw.” That’s less support for college tennis than an era when USTA wasn’t lifting a finger for college players.

To have the most competitive NCAA individual draws, USTA should award the NCAA champions with guaranteed main draw entry into the US Open, no matter where they come from. If the champions are not Americans, and you just can’t handle that, award an additional US Open main draw entry to the top American finishers. This is not taking away from deserving qualifiers. Every year there are lucky losers from the qualifying who gain entry to the US Open main draw. The spots exist.

Additionally, the USTA should be rewarding the top 16 NCAA finishers with main draw and qualifying opportunities at all ATP events on American soil, including the summer events leading up to the US Open, Newport, Atlanta, Washington, Cincinnati, Winston-Salem as well as New York and Delray Beach in the winter. This level of commitment from the USTA would strengthen college tennis as a pathway to the pros, keep top players incentivized to play NCAAs and improve the level of college tennis as more of those young players who struggle alone out there, hoping to make a professional dream come true, turn to college as a legitimate pathway. Those that learn a hard truth or two will get an education along the way.

---

Hats off to future ITA Hall of Famer, Bid Goswami, on the conclusion of his incredible 37 year career at Ivy powerhouse, Columbia. Coach Goswami was named ITA National Coach of the Year on Sunday. He went out in style, winning his 500th career dual match early in the season, sweeping the Ivy League schedule for Columbia’s sixth consecutive Ivy title, reaching the NCAA sweet 16 for the second consecutive year and fourth time overall. Goswami was also named 2019 Ivy League Coach of the Year as well as ITA Northeast Regional Coach of the Year, while guiding senior Victor Pham to Ivy League Player of the Year honors. Pham and sophomore Jack Lin qualified for the NCAA singles tournament (both winning first round matches on Monday with Lin advancing to the round of 16 on Tuesday).

Goswami guided Columbia to the first top-five national ranking in program and Ivy League history in 2018. They reached #8 in 2019. He has coached players who received a total of four All-America honors as well as eight Ivy League Player of the Year recipients. The former touring pro and member of the Indian Davis Cup team also led the Lions to the sweet 16 of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) Indoor Team Championship four times. Columbia is the only Ivy school to ever reach the ITA sweet 16. Between the ITA Indoor Championship and the NCAA Tournament, Goswami has put Columbia among the nation’s elite programs with eight Sweet 16 appearances in the last ten nationals.

Since taking over at Columbia in 1982, Goswami has had at least 15 players go to the pro tour, including 1987 EITA Player of the Year, Phil Williamson, 1990 Collegiate Senior Player of the Year, Jeff Chiang, Winston Lin, Rob Kresberg and Max Schnur, who competed in the 2017 Wimbledon main draw and is back on tour now after injury. In 2013, Goswami coached the duo of Schnur and Ashok Narayana to stun the #1 nationally ranked pair of Hunter Reese and Mikelis Libietis (Tennessee), winning the doubles draw of the ITA/USTA National Intercollegiate Tennis Championships.

Goswami’s final season at Columbia wasn’t too shabby. The Lions went 19-4 with their only losses against defending national champs #1 Wake Forest (who they had on the ropes), eventual NCAA champion Texas, NCAA #1 seed Ohio State, and TCU at Fort Worth. They had wins over Baylor (who beat Texas in the Big 12 title match), Virginia Tech, Penn State, Tulane, Notre Dame, Northwestern and the full Ivy schedule. This year’s squad also ranks #1 among Columbia Athletics in team GPA. Goswami ends his career with 510 dual match victories. His first ever recruit, Howie Endelman, will take the reins at Columbia on solid footing.

Jeff Menaker

Code Violation: Poor Marketing | Poor Sportsmanship

While Gael Monfils was doing his best Federer/Nadal impression by turning back the clock to win in Rotterdam last week, 21 year old American, Reilly Opelka, won his first career ATP Tour title at the New York Open. I’ve had a chance to see the New York Open live the past two years. Following its move from Memphis to Long Island in 2018, could there be a more poorly marketed sporting event? New Yorkers were offered a rare glimpse into the post-Djokovic future of tennis and at times throughout the week it looked like there were more officials and ball runners on court than people in the stands. Talking to New York City tennis players on a daily basis, I find a majority still don’t know the event exists or that it takes place at the refurbished Nassau Coliseum. It’s a terrific venue with great potential and those unique black courts (which seemed faster this year). At least the tournament ball people remain committed to throwing the ball. The rolling of balls at tournaments everywhere has eroded the quality of ball runners (not to mention the balls themselves) while adding dead air to tennis broadcasts.

---

In college tennis, #2 ranked Ohio State edged defending champion, Wake Forest, in Chicago on Monday to win the ITA Men’s Indoor National Championship and take over the #1 ranking. ITA Indoors is Division 1 college tennis’ preseason championship, the culmination of the ITA Kickoff events held across the country in January to start the spring semester tennis season. While the season-ending NCAA Tournament in May is looked on as the true national championship, ITA Indoors is a better tournament. Beginning with its fascinating draft where teams, in order of ranking, get to pick which top 15 host site they want to visit, ITA Kickoff/Indoors is comprised exclusively of the nation’s top-ranked teams. While NCAA must honor the automatic bids of each member conference champion (adding lower-ranked teams to the NCAA field), ITA Indoors is never watered down. The result is more competitive early rounds during Kickoff Weekend. The winners at the 15 Kickoff sites then join a 16th team, which hosts an indoor gathering of the 16 best, often at the height of their powers, before the season’s inevitable injuries reshape the landscape. Some “purists,” believing tennis should be played outdoors, like to dismiss the results at Indoors. However, there is no significant difference in win proportion based on indoor vs outdoor venues. The champion in February often finishes as the champion in May. With weather at recent southern host sites predictably wet in May, large portions of the NCAA tournament are played indoors anyway, including two of the last three team finals and individual finals.

College Tennis seems to have it backwards. The ITA tournament should culminate in a warm climate like Florida, Arizona, SoCal or South Texas in February and NCAAs should be played far away from the Southeast in May. California and New York are beautiful in May and far less rainy than Georgia, Florida, North Carolina or the Oklahoma tornado season. Indoor backup should always be included in the plan and officials shouldn’t be afraid to use it.

Next up, I submit for your disapproval the closing moments of an ACC women’s dual match between Clemson and Notre Dame. Did you see that? At the end of the match, the vanquished ND player goes to pick up her towel instead of directly to the net to shake her opponent’s hand. This lame move happens way too often at the end of matches. Lose the match? Turn your back and go get your towel. This obnoxious practice, seen throughout USTA junior tournaments for several years, has now made its way into the college game. Players, especially losing players, have started taking long walks to pick up their towel as a final act of disrespect for their opponent, the game, and themselves, before finally sauntering to the net for the mandatory handshake. This has to end. It is completely within USTA’s power to make it end in junior tournaments, where it starts. A simple loss of ranking points for a less than speedy handshake will quickly reestablish the norms. Kids will be running to the net to shake hands before the ball has stopped rolling. Can you imagine a pro going to retrieve their towel before shaking hands with an opponent and umpire? In the case of Notre Dame, their players seem to do it even when they win.

Of course, extenuating circumstances may prevent a player from making a beeline to the net for a handshake. We’ve seen collapsing from exhaustion, collapsing from elation, hobbled competitors barely able to stand, and in college tennis there’s storming the court on the clinching point of a dual match. That said, storming the court is getting a bit out of hand lately. I mean, c’mon people! Pretend you’ve won a match before. Really, UCLA? You’ve never beaten Grand Canyon? Obviously, major upsets, tournament wins and championships deserve the ebullience of college sport. However, the frequency of court storming is starting to cross the same line as the towel walk at the end of matches. Here’s a link featuring both infractions in the same match! Here’s a link to a more appropriate match point.

According to the USTA Code: “Shaking hands at the end of a match is an acknowledgment by the players that the match is over.” Certainly, a failure to shake hands is a code violation. A failure to do so promptly should be viewed much the same as an in-match time violation. At least the Notre Dame players got around to shaking hands. The same cannot be said for the pros in Budapest, the site of an epic breakdown in sportsmanship (and officiating) on the WTA Tour. The incident began with a Spanish doubles team failing to own up to knocking a ball over the net with a head. Tennis balls, by rule, must be struck with a racquet. Incredible that the chair umpire missed this, in a deciding tiebreaker!! It’s even more incredible that a professional would not own up to it. If not for the honor of the game itself or for your own dignity, at least realize the match is being recorded and you’re going to be forever known as a cheater. The Australian opponents, who ended up losing the match, were not impressed on court or on Instagram. Though I’m sure it has happened before, this is the first instance of publicly shaming opponents that I can recall on the pro tour. In college, public shaming over line calls is now a common affair.

Following the match in Budapest, neither Aussie was having any part of a handshake. They did choose to shake the umpire’s hand, despite his epic failure. Just another lame tournament where umpires continue to make the case for their replacement by AI, ball runners wear jeans and, you guesses it, they roll the ball. 👎

Jeff Menaker

 

Tennis Avenger

Life sure has its fair share of gut-wrenching, stop you in your tracks jolts of anguish. The death of Christian Gloria has shaken the New York tennis community to its core. For a blog that spends most of its pages pondering the future of tennis, Christian’s journey from the courts of Cunningham Park to Cardozo High School and college tennis would have been a worthy topic here any time. Today I am lamenting the loss of one of Queens’ brightest young tennis talents. Any other article about the serve +1 ball, NCAA host sites, or the finer points of Davis Cup seeding will just have to wait. Life’s rich pageant would be hollow without its dirges or its New Orleans style funeral marches to celebrate the lives we live to their ends. However, from the outpouring of shock and grief on social media, I know I am not alone in saying this tragedy seems particularly unjust. The story of Christian Gloria is one of such cosmic cruelty, it is difficult to even type the words.

Christian Gloria was the poster child of what Queens looks like in the year 2018. His face, innocent and sweet, belying an inner toughness and an edge that tennis has a remarkable way of revealing. A smiling contradiction of personas, a sweet boy, a fighter, an athlete, an artist, a joker, a dancer, a loyal friend and teammate. A kid from a loving American family, Filipino, New Yorker, searching like all kids to find himself and his place in society. When I think of Christian, I think of the mural on a Northern Blvd handball court featuring Queens’ most famous superhero, Spider-man, lifting a subway train. The mural reads: “Queens is the Future.” If Stan Lee had written his first Spider-man comic in 2018, featuring Peter Parker from Queens, Peter would look just like Christian and his great hands at the net would translate well to his role with the Avengers. Like Peter Parker, Christian experienced profound personal setbacks and grief. Just like Marvel’s most beat-upon hero, Christian demonstrated the kind of resilience tennis instills at an early age. At 20 trips around the sun, young and hopeful, he was just getting started.

I coached Christian in USTA Jr Team Tennis here in New York City and got to know him and members of his family. I had met his big sister Nikki through her work with NYJTL and the Mayor’s Cup Scholastic Tennis Tournament. Christian was in middle school at the time, playing up an age group. One of Queens’ emerging tennis talents, he was soon to join the New York tennis powerhouse at Cardozo High School in Bayside. When I first met Christian, his mother, Lelibeth, was battling cancer. I remember meeting her, a charming warm woman, an athlete, a tennis player, weary from cancer treatments and worry for the future of her son. Christian lived at the Bollettieri Tennis Academy in Florida before Lelibeth made the decision to bring him home to New York. She had become concerned with Christian’s off-court development and considered ceasing his tennis training completely. Luckily, she was able to find a happy balance and seeing him play junior team tennis was a pleasure for his coach.

Christian died Saturday morning at the age of 20 in a single car wreck in Bergen County, New Jersey at 4:30AM. 20 years old. 4:30AM. An hour and age too often associated with grievous choices and fatal consequences. There’s nothing more to say about this. I don’t need the results of an investigation to know good judgement was not on hand. For the Gloria family, and the New York tennis family, Christian’s death is a tragedy compounding the death of his mother in 2013. What makes losing Christian so astonishingly heartbreaking is that Christian’s life has been cut short in the middle of a battle which seemed to be turning his way. Christian had been a member of the ASA Junior College men’s tennis team; a strong program often associated with players who have taken the next step to play at major Division 1 college tennis programs. He was beginning a career in music, recording songs and discovering opportunities to learn about the industry. The death of his mother, when he was 14, was going to be challenging any way you slice it, but, Christian and his support system were up to the challenge.

My son is 11 and his best friend from school recently lost his mother (also breast cancer, also Filipino). The expression “that is a brutal age to lose your mother,” intoned repeatedly among members of our community, has been thrown into haunting, sharp relief. For Christian, a boy who shared his mother’s athleticism and love of tennis, I can’t help thinking back to a conversation I had with Lelibeth about Christian’s future. As we sat watching one of his tennis matches, she told me that her biggest fear facing the possibility of death was the potential impact on Christian. In nature, when it comes to sniffing out danger, mothers know best. The Lelibeth Gloria Memorial Tennis Tournament happens every fall at Cunningham Park in Queens. It just happens that this year’s event was scheduled for 9am Saturday, the morning Christian died.

My thoughts are with Christian’s sister Nikki, his brother Barry and his dad, Butch. The power above has drafted one elite mother/son mixed doubles team. A pair of Avengers are missed on Earth.

-Jeff Menaker

Onin

Naomi Osaka learns: never meet your idols (Wins US Open)

There’s an old saying, “never meet your heroes, they will only disappoint you.” For Naomi Osaka, this discovery hopefully arrived in tandem with the realization that her athleticism, powerful groundstrokes and dominating serve have eclipsed a living legend, her idol, the most fearsome competitor in women’s tennis.

The fallout from the US Open women’s final has dominated tennis coverage and crossed over to the mainstream media. Since I was interviewed about it on the local New York evening news (and they used about 10 seconds of my interview), I want to publish my full take on what happened in Flushing on Saturday and how tennis should move forward. If you follow me on Twitter, you’ve already had a taste.

Unless you live under a rock, you know by now that there was a bit of drama that tainted the last few games of the women’s final and sullied the arrival of Naomi Osaka as the next great champion of women’s tennis. The drama, no surprise, came from Serena Williams, on the losing end of her second major final this summer- an impressive summer by anyone’s standards, returning to the tour from childbirth and associated health complications.

Serena was issued three code violations over the course of the match. #1 a code warning for coaching (which is allowed on the WTA tour, but, not at the 4 major tournaments). #2 a point penalty for smashing her racquet. #3 a game penalty for verbal abuse of the umpire (which brought Osaka a game away from sealing the second set and the match).

As I said on the newscast, the tirade and the racquet smashing, while sadly par for the course on tour, were completely unacceptable. Serena has to take full responsibility for her behavior in this regard. From a strategic standpoint, a deserving champion keeps composure and demonstrates cognizance of the situation upon receiving a code violation (justified or not). Serena’s legacy is pocked with ugly incidents like this one. Her 2009 US Open meltdown cost her a semifinal match against Kim Clijsters for threatening a line judge and receiving multiple code violations. So there is a history of Serena losing her composure under pressure at the US Open, which I’m sure loses her any sympathy in the eyes of casual tennis observers.

That said, there is plenty of shame to go around for Saturday’s ugly spectacle. In no particular order of culpability:

Serena’s coach and former boyfriend, Patrick Mouratoglou, admitted on live television that he was attempting to coach Serena with hand signals that were shown on the broadcast. He defended his actions, saying every other coach is doing the same, including Osaka’s coach and Rafael Nadal’s uncle, Toni. Just because her coach has the judgement of… well, a French playboy, doesn’t mean Serena received the coaching. In fact, she probably didn’t. A mostly insightful Martina Navratilova points out it doesn’t matter. While the penalty is assessed to the player, the offending party is the coach. Martina may not have read the rule on page 44 of the ITF Grand Slam Rulebook (emphasis added):

“Players shall not receive coaching during a match (including the warm-up). Communications of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may be construed as coaching.”

I think this explains, in part, Serena’s ultra defensive reaction. In her correct understanding of the rulebook text, Ramos misinterpreted the rule. She has to receive the coaching for there to be a penalty. However, there is a standard interpretation among officials that says if a coach is making hand signals, they are being received. Either way, her coach has shown remarkably bad judgement over the years and this episode underscores that truth.

Serena has felt targeted at the US Open dating back, before video replay was used on court, to a match with Jennifer Capriati where she was blatantly cheated by an officiating crew on a series of bad line calls. Serena’s indignant reaction to the coaching violation reminds me of her reaction to the excessive drug testing she was submitted to earlier this year. I wrote a post on Serena’s faulty logic (and hopeful legacy) on that very topic just before Wimbledon. Jonathan Liew in The Independent does a much better job placing us in Serena’s shoes than I ever could. Suffice it to say, while Serena has the baggage of meltdowns at the US Open, she also carries the baggage of being treated unfairly. I’m no psychoanalyst, but, hearing her scream “You’re a thief. You stole a point from me.” raises the question, which match is she talking about?

Beyond Serena and her coach, one has to look at the behavior of the chair umpire, Carlos Ramos. Though the ITF issued a days late statement of support for Mr. Ramos’ acting “in accordance with the relevant rules,” the WTA and USTA have shown their disapproval by releasing statements that do not back him. Much of the criticism, including my own on Twitter, has centered on Mr. Ramos’ lack of discretion in assessing code violation #1 and code violation #3. As Martina points out in her piece, it is common for chair umpires to communicate with a player about a coaching violation with a “soft warning” before issuing a code violation. This gives the player a chance to reign in a coach whose actions can have consequences for them on court. Leaving aside Ramos’ misinterpretation of the coaching rule, had Mr. Ramos shown better discretion by issuing a soft warning, we might actually be discussing Naomi Osaka and another strong tournament for Serena. Mr. Ramos has a history of rigidity, absurd rulings, poor communication and inciting players, including a coaching violation called against Venus Williams in 2016. Which begs the question, why was he on court for a US Open final with one of the most easily triggered players on the planet? He seems debilitatingly “by the book” where other umpires, Alison Hughes for example, seem to understand the discretion and communication necessary to handle the job.

While the coaching violation got Serena’s back up (beyond anything normal), the third code violation, for verbal abuse, while deserved, was an opportunity for Serena, and a women’s movement that could do without her, to make a fairly strong argument about a double standard in assessing penalties to women as compared to their male counterparts. It should first be noted that the number of code violations issued throughout the 2018 US Open was heavily weighted toward the men, 86-22. That said, Serena, Billie Jean King and everyone who came to Serena’s defense on code #3 have a legitimate argument that there is a much lower threshold for assessing code violations to women for verbal abuse, while the men (who behave worse across the board) get away with far more. As Jimmy Connors once called an ump “an abortion” without consequence, it doesn’t take a minute on YouTube to find incidents of Saint Federer, Nick Kyrgios or Novak Djokovic cursing out officials without repercussion. In a tournament where a chair umpire provided Kyrgios a pep talk to try harder, it is a stark contrast to see a lack of communication and rigidity from Ramos in dealing with Serena. Andy Roddick, no stranger to umpire abuse, was one of the first to recognize this.

Though her reactions yet again crossed the line, if there’s anything Serena understands well it is injustice. She has experienced racism and sexism from before she was equipped to handle it. Her father had a way of handling it, which has been both celebrated and derided. One of the ugliest parts of this sad affair is the reemergence of racist tropes in cartoons online. The big question facing tennis today is how do we all move forward?

First of all, the no coaching rule has to go. Banning coaching, but, putting coaches in first row corner seats, visible across the court from players, visible from the players’ benches, and within earshot when a player is on the same side, is hypocrisy so laughable there’s no wonder Mouratoglou can’t restrain himself from coaching or admitting it. Since the WTA now allows coaching, it’s time to expand coaching opportunities to all of professional tennis. Billie Jean King wants coaching allowed between every point, like college tennis or World Team Tennis. I tend to think changeovers are the appropriate time, but, I can also point to several successful instances helping my players with strategy right before an important point. Notwithstanding, just because a player receives coaching does not mean he or she is capable of executing it. As any coach can tell you, coaching in-game often does more harm than good. There are studies that show in-game coaching, across all sports, is far less useful than analysis and strategy developed over an extended period of training. Still, managed successfully, in-game coaching might make the sport more interesting to watch as strategic adjustments are made and countered.

Second lesson, officials need to be great communicators. With officials now threatening to boycott Serena’s matches (just her? not any of the men??), the ITF should include better communication training in its development of chair umpires. An umpire like Ramos, with 40 years of experience, has to be better at communicating with players. Obviously, having a pep talk is too far. But, demonstrating discretion and establishing lines of communication should be basic skills for umpires. Generally speaking, the work from the chair at this year’s tournament was a distraction and that’s when you know the standards have fallen. I can’t believe I’m about to hold up an NFL officiating crew as example, but, during the Bears/Packers game on Sunday night, textbook holding on a Bears lineman went uncalled. The result of the play was not beneficial to the Bears. They had to punt. A little discretion (I think it was discretion, not incompetence) made the game better for everyone.

Lastly, Serena needs to get some help. Whether that is adding a sports psychologist to her team or removing a coach that has failed to help her grow in the important areas of managing pressure and maintaining composure (dating her instead), change is needed.

We’re all on personal journeys of growth. Serena’s journey has played out in public from a very young age. I hope emerging American superstars Caty McNally and Coco Gauff are watching and learning from the mistakes Serena has made. I also hope the sport has evolved by the time they are on tour to prevent the sad spectacle we saw on Saturday.

---

A final thought on Naomi Osaka: Why does the media insist she is Japanese without any mention that she has been in the U.S. since she was 3, doesn’t speak Japanese, and is half Haitian? Why is her biracial identity too much to describe succinctly? Why isn’t she Haiti’s first major winner? Could it be that Haiti was included in a certain list of [favorite vacation spots]?

– Jeff Menaker

Follow me on Twitter

“This is America.” Throw the Ball!

On June 21, ahead of the 2018 US Open ballperson tryouts, the USTA made the surprise announcement that US Open ball people will no longer throw, but, rather, roll the balls from end to end of the tennis court. Having spent 11 years as a ballperson at the US Open and several other tournaments, from Madison Square Garden to Central Park, the announcement came as a bit of a shock. With a teenage daughter trying out for one of 300 coveted ballperson jobs, I took the opportunity to visit tryouts this year. Seeing old friends, talking about the announcement, taking the temperature of the veteran ballperson corps, I found folks having none of it.

The USTA and Open staff have always boasted the best ballperson crew in the world. Much of the excellence and efficiency that ATP and WTA Tour players have come to appreciate in US Open ball people stems from the ability to zip balls around the court, providing players an extra beat (and one less distraction) to focus on the next point. Having attended the first two days of qualifying at Flushing Meadows this week, the difference is stark. Even a well-managed Court 11 ballperson crew with athletic veterans and standout rookies could not hide the limitations of rolling the ball from end to end. On Court 17, the new serve clock, ticking at each end of the court, does the rolling process no favors. What’s funny about ball people rolling the balls, 1-2-3, to a middleman at the net, who then turns and rolls them the rest of the way; one is hard-pressed to imagine a less efficient, more unimpressive way of moving balls around a court. Not only does rolling wear out the balls faster and add more dirt to the felt, the process takes eons.

If you watch these things carefully, as I am conditioned to do, the most common television image between points at Wimbledon is that of a player standing, watching the ballkid pick balls off the ground, waiting for a ball to use in the next point. This happens repeatedly, even on the premiere courts. It’s no different at the French Open. It simply takes more time for players to be served when ballkids have to field rolling grounders. This has to rub the veteran ball-ninjas in Flushing the wrong way; to take such pride in their swift delivery, only to be told we’re going to conform to the European standard. Are we not living in Trump’s America?! We’re supposed to be winning, not succumbing to the French. We throw the ball 120 feet, not two 18.288 meter legs, on a roll.

Previously, the US Open was the only grand slam tennis tournament where ball people threw the ball. Video of the first US Open, 50 years ago, on grass, shows the ball people (looking pretty chill) throwing perfect strikes on one hop and then waiting for the players (Ashe and Okker), not the other way around. Quick hands, a strong and accurate arm, alert eyes, and the ability to not attract attention have always been the hallmarks of a great US Open ballperson. Like today, the ball people who swept the net of errant serves in 1968 were fleet and agile. As the 2018 main draw kicks off on Monday, the USTA has unwittingly introduced an agent of inefficiency to the flow of matches. Why?

In a statement released by the USTA, longtime Director of Ballpersons, Tina Taps, said, “By rolling between positions, we are putting less emphasis on a single skill-set, in this case throwing, and instead looking at the importance of slotting more well-rounded athletes at the positions.” This is, of course, a well-crafted piece of PR malarkey because throwing and catching is exactly why the US Open ball people have always needed to be well-rounded athletes. To be fair to Ms. Taps, she can be found all over the internet, over decades, extolling the virtues of throwing the ball and correctly pointing out the baseball skill set as key to the US Open’s (now lost) ballperson supremacy. “This is America,” she once said of throwing the ball.

While those who get a regular check from USTA are towing the line, it doesn’t take much to figure out what is going on here. USTA wants more female ball people for their showcase matches at the end of the tournament. It’s about appearances (which isn’t necessarily a terrible thing). Leave aside having the best ball people on court for the biggest matches. That’s another story, for another blog entry.

Plenty of women can wing the ball the length of a tennis court with accuracy. I’ve seen a few who can zip the ball as fast as the young men. While there have been scores of female ball people over the years, the timing of the US Open is such that many of the best ballkids have already returned to college or high school classes during the second week of the tournament. There are fewer needed, but, also fewer available during the quarters, semis and finals. The lower percentage of women and girls in the ballperson corps from day 1 means there are even fewer excellent and deserving ballgirls available for the final rounds. Instead of addressing the actual source of the problem, not carrying enough adult women who are available to work when school is in session, USTA has shown an odd sexism by assuming women are so across-the-board inferior at throwing that a change to how the ball moves around the court is needed, just to attract more girls to tryouts. I can imagine the boardroom conversation:

Executive 1: We need more female ball people on the show courts. Billie Jean King is killing us on inclusion. We need to do something.

Executive 2: I spoke to the people who run the ballpersons. They say they lose too many of their most talented kids during the second week due to school starting. They don’t have enough women who can make the throw from the back. They can only put them at the net posts.

Executive 1: Damn it! The net kids are never in the camera frame when they show the players’ faces on TV. We need girls at the back. Pretty ones, too!

Executive 3: Why do they need to throw the ball? They don’t throw the ball at Wimbledon.

Everyone: Great idea! Let’s stop throwing the ball, torpedo the reason US Open ball people are most efficient and slow down matches, just like Wimbledon!

Okay. I’m sure the last line didn’t happen. But everything up to “Great idea!” almost certainly did.

It’s a surprising decision, since the powers that be are intent on speeding up the game for millennial viewership. They’ve added the serve clock, eliminated sit-down changeovers after the first game of each set and bastardized the scoring (in doubles especially). I’ve already written about eliminating the lets on net cords. If tennis wants to speed the pace of play, eliminate ball people rolling the ball. It’s too slow. New York crowds are about to notice (and say something).

I’m a fan of progress. In a few short years, there will be no more line judges on professional courts. Ball people remain necessary and can play a role in reducing dead time in matches. Though it’s certainly better than rolling, throwing the ball is not the only efficient way to move balls across the court. With more players using ball people as towel stewards, it often makes sense for a ballperson to run a handful of balls from one end of the court to the other when the serve changes ends. We see this a bit at the French Open when a ballperson is too occupied with a player towel to receive rolls. Running the balls already happens at the US Open when ballperson crews are stretched thin with junior events and doubles matches in the second week. When you have one ballperson running balls to the other end between games, the balls get to the other side quickly, without much drama or risk.

Ultimately, the USTA should still seek the most well-rounded athletes in their ballperson tryouts. Just don’t pretend rolling the ball requires anything more than lowering the standards. Instead, keep the standards high, throw the balls and let those who can’t throw accurately display their athleticism by running the balls. Then, do a better job encouraging girls, especially adult women, to join the team.

---

The new Louis Armstrong Stadium is absolutely incredible. In fact, it’s so beautiful the USTA will eventually have to demolish Arthur Ashe Stadium to build something architecturally worthy of Armstrong next door.

It has been brought to my attention that I didn’t cover the Australian Open ball people. They also roll the ball and wear funny hats. I had a good joke about rolling wombats, but, it didn’t make the final cut.  Follow me on Twitter: @Jeff_Menaker

 

– Jeffrey Menaker

Serena is wrong about drug testing. That actually strengthens her legacy!

With Serena Williams’ notable post-baby run to the Wimbledon final today, it will be fascinating to see if she can return to the top of the game against the very formidable Angelique Kerber. While most of the big names on the women’s side were checking out of their London hotels before Middle Sunday, Serena’s gutsy run may be flying a bit under the radar. The drama of the men’s quarterfinals followed by Friday’s epic men’s semifinals is certainly part of the story. Yet, as Serena navigates the Wimbledon draw like a veteran sea captain steering a trawler to harbor, much of her press coverage has focused on the tennis playing future of her infant daughter.

Watching her answer questions (with full awareness of the absurdity) on whether sister Venus would be willing to travel to coach Alexis Olympia (still 10 months old) when she inevitably joins the tour, it struck me that Serena Williams may have turned a corner in our collective consciousness. Crip-walking, line-judge threatening, controversial Serena has become an adult; a parent, a working mother struggling with missing one of her daughter’s milestones. Though she’ll never be Saint Serena, my view of her seemed to evolve with her pre-Wimbledon press conference. Strangely, her blindness on the subject of drug testing raised her in my esteem. Her reaction to a Deadspin article revealing she is drug tested four times more than other top American tennis players made instant headlines.

“Serena Williams is drug tested more than other athletes and she wants to know why.” The Twittersphere had gone into full conspiracy theory mode by the time I read the story or watched video from Serena’s press conference. Accusations of racism against the US Anti-Doping Agency were piling up. Apparently, Serena was not at home on June 14th when a USADA agent arrived 12 hours earlier than the daily timeframe USADA established with her for surprise drug tests. The fact that the agent was sitting around her house with her family, refusing to leave for several hours, clearly irked Serena (rightfully so). But, Serena was also complaining about having been tested five times thus far in 2018 while other top American players have not been tested nearly as much, if at all. “Just test everybody equally” she said. That’s where she lost me. Though she may have a point about the infrequency of drug tests across the sport, her response to being tested more often seemed completely wrong. Nevertheless, a sense of comfort came over me about Serena’s legacy. If Serena is a cheater, she would have thought this complaint through a little better.

Of course, there may be no athlete in modern times who has suffered racism and sexism to the degree that Serena Williams has had to endure. Still, when I read the headline that Serena was tested more than others, my initial reaction was to check which news outlet had published such obvious non-news. If the goal of drug testing is to maintain the integrity of the sport, then the sport’s champions and top players should be subjected to more testing than those struggling to make a living at it. If Serena thought much about drug testing, she would know this. Doping cheaters tend to have a pretty good handle on process. So it is encouraging to me that Serena, an intelligent person, hasn’t given it enough thought to realize why she is tested more.

Among the factors that USADA considers in allocating tests are “available resources, performance information, ranking data, sport and athlete specific analysis, biological and longitudinal analysis, injury information, training periods, the competition calendar, intelligence received concerning possible doping practices and research on doping trends.” With that many factors, it’s difficult to draw any conclusions based on testing frequency. However, it is not exactly news that a woman’s body goes through physiological changes during and after a pregnancy. Is it not possible that the USADA is simply conducting biological analysis of Serena’s body chemistry post-pregnancy so they can establish a baseline from which future tests can be compared?

According to the USADA database, defending U.S. Open champ Sloane Stephens was tested once so far in 2018; Venus Williams was tested twice; Madison Keys was tested once; Coco Vandeweghe was tested twice; Danielle Collins, Alison Riske and Taylor Townsend were tested zero times. Serena was also tested more than any of the top five American men. Guess what all of these players not named Serena have in common? None of them have had a baby in the last year!

After the Serena press conference, Roger Federer was asked about drug testing and revealed he had been tested seven times in the last month alone. In a strange aside, it turns out he receives regular visits when he is staying at his home in Switzerland because the tester lives nearby.

I have real empathy for the complications Serena suffered during and after her pregnancy and I admire her for returning to the top of tennis as a working mother. And good for her for keeping an open mind while not wanting her daughter to play tennis professionally. In a sport that has as many villains as it has saints, Serena Williams is more nuanced. However, where Maria Sharapova let down the sport, Serena has never failed a drug test. That must be included in her glorious tennis legacy; right up there with a potential 8th Wimbledon and 24th Grand Slam singles title, if she wins today.

Update: Angelique Kerber won the Wimbledon final 6-3, 6-3. Kerber has now won 3 Grand Slams and 2 of the last 8. In an emotional press conference, Serena declared, “I’m literally just getting started.” Many people have called the story of Serena and her sister, Venus, the greatest American sports story of all time. This Wimbledon seemed to be the start of something new for Serena. A turn of the page on and off the court. Looking forward to Flushing Meadows! – Jeff Menaker

NCAA’s .500 rule manipulates tennis scheduling. That’s good!

With TV coverage of the NCAA tennis tournament vanishing, fan loyalty pushed to its limits over the NCAA’s handling of inclement weather and the fight against malicious line calls all troubling emblems of the 2018 college tennis season, the year’s signature scandal was, of course, the Arkansas vs Tennessee State six match debacle.

To summarize, Arkansas’ women’s team, after a surprise run at the SEC tournament, earned itself a top 30 ranking, worthy of selection to the NCAA team tournament. However, the NCAA has a rule which precludes teams with losing records from at-large tournament selection. The typical way for teams under .500 to qualify is to schedule a match (or three) on one day, with a weaker opponent, perhaps pay them to play (as Arkansas did), and raise the record to .500 before tournament selection. The fluidity of a college tennis season, particularly with spring weather, allows for short-notice scheduling one wouldn’t see in other sports. It happens every year, though not always at the end of the season; a power conference team that suffered a rough conference schedule will add a day of non-competitive matches to get right with the .500 rule before nationals. Debate the practice all you like. Arkansas went hog wild.

At 10-16, Arkansas was way below .500. They were also up against their limit for dates of competition, having used 23 of 25 dates by my count. They scheduled SIX matches for a single day with Tennessee State and, no surprise, won all six. Whether it was the seeming lack of concern for player well-being or the desperate spectacle of six matches against a weaker opponent just to push a record to .500, college tennis lost its collective mind; sparking the ritual calls for elimination of the .500 rule we hear every April.

Kansas State, seeing itself on the tournament bubble if Arkansas qualified, launched a third party protest with the Intercollegiate Tennis Association over Arkansas’ lineup in three of the six matches. Turns out it can be grueling playing six tennis matches in one day (doubles and singles), and Arkansas was creative in how it went about keeping players on the court. Arkansas was accused of stacking their lineup with players playing out of order during the last three matches of a long… day?… night?… 14 hours! The NCAA Division I Tennis Committee reviewed the protest filed with the ITA and determined that, for selection purposes, two of the three protested matches did not count. As a result, Arkansas finished its season at 14-16, missed NCAAs and their coach was dismissed after 15 years at Arkansas.

In the absence of Arkansas, Kansas State made the tournament, but, in an odd twist, the Wildcats seemed to benefit from late entry of results into the ITA reporting system which would have improved University of Washington’s strength of schedule and ITA ranking. If all results had been entered on time and computed properly, one presumes the Huskies would have earned the final spot at NCAAs, not Kansas State.

What Have We Wrought?

The Arkansas AD claims he was convinced to allow the “odd,” “unusual” sextuple-header by the team’s players. The Tennessee State AD told The Tennessean they did it for the $15,000 payment, a significant upgrade to their $28,000 women’s tennis budget, and for the chance to expose their players to SEC competition. The Arkansas coach may have had significant incentives in his contract to finish .500 or make the tournament. In fact, keeping his job may have depended exclusively on whether or not his team qualified for NCAAs. Had his team not played so well during the SEC Tournament, he might not have been tempted to make a six match mockery of the .500 rule. Who is more at fault, a coach that schedules six matches in one day or the athletics director that puts a job on the line over NCAA qualification? I’m not saying this was the case at Arkansas. However, it wouldn’t be the first time an AD has made tournament qualification the determining factor in a coach’s job security. Regardless, the .500 rule is good for college tennis and should be strengthened to prevent such shenanigans. You read that right! The .500 rule is good for college tennis.

It will take a moment for the power conference coaches’ howling to die down, but, the .500 rule forces equity in scheduling. Because power conference teams are funded with money generated by massive football programs, they can offer the full number of tennis scholarships permitted and sign more top recruits than mid-majors. Mid-majors tend to offer just a few full scholarships, if any. Thus, to play in a power conference means playing a substantial segment of the nation’s top teams, where the weakest in the conference are still ranked higher than the best of many mid-major conferences. This imbalance of power, shaped by the economics of college athletics, is defied by a handful of universities, including a few in the Ivy League, where schools have no athletic scholarships, but, offer the academic rigors and prestige of their institutions, along with an evolving regime of need-based tuition plans. Columbia’s men’s team has been ranked as high as #5 and finished 2018 at #15 while Dartmouth and Harvard both finished #31 and #33 respectively.

In this era of athletics budget cuts and elimination of tennis and other Olympic sports, power conference teams have a duty to schedule a number of mid-majors. It is imperative for the health of the sport that all Division 1 teams have the opportunity to schedule a proper balance of opponents, without barriers to scheduling the power conference schools that have the advantage of funding. It helps mid-majors to recruit by showing that these scheduling opportunities exist. It keeps worthy programs in the rankings mix and it keeps worthy NCAA entrants on the right side of .500. Just from an optics standpoint, strength of teams notwithstanding, it’s not a good look to have losing records in the NCAA tournament.

Because power conference schedules are packed with top-ranked opponents, the .500 rule forces the behemoths to schedule more mid-majors. Scheduling 6-10 mid-majors still offers the opportunity to supplement a challenging conference schedule with additional power conference duals. It’s a simple matter of balance in scheduling. A balance Arkansas should have been seeking after a first round exit from the 2017 SEC Tournament and failure to reach NCAAs. While Arkansas finished well enough to make the NCAA tournament, their 2018 schedule featured just three matches with opponents outside the power conferences. There might be 10 teams in the country that could get away with a schedule like that. 2017 champion Florida scheduled just three mid-majors. Texas A&M, by contrast, scheduled 10 mid-majors with the same SEC schedule as Arkansas. They ended up ranked above Arkansas with a record of 16-10 at tournament time.

In the age of Universal Tennis Ratings, coaches should be able to assess the strength of their rosters and build a schedule that puts them in the best possible position for the postseason. You can’t tell me there were no mid-major programs in the South worthy of Arkansas’ time. They nearly lost to Tulsa and they did lose to Wichita State. They had more than their share of chances to beat top teams when they went 3-10 for the SEC regular season. They had already beaten #15 Kansas in February. Clearly, they overemphasized power conference competition, failed their duty to the sport to schedule mid-majors and got burned for their desperation at the end. Missing the NCAA tournament is a just outcome and we have the .500 rule to thank for it.

But surely, six matches in one day?

The .500 rule should be defended from a six match mockery, but, not by banning six matches in a day. No individual player should appear in more than three dual match lineups in a single day. Make that a rule. Unless you can split your squad to play six matches, a three match limit for individuals will eliminate most six match scenarios and protect players. Secondly, for purposes of NCAA selection, no more than two wins over the same non-conference opponent should count toward a team’s overall record. Need four wins in a day to get to .500? You’ll need to spread the wealth and opportunity among at least two teams. These simple additions to the NCAA Manual and the ITA Rulebook should keep the .500 rule intact and serving its purpose of diversity in scheduling.

---

Thanks to all who weighed in on previous posts. An update to the origin story of no service lets in men’s college tennis: Having seen World Team Tennis played without stoppage for service lets in the late ’90s, Harvard tennis coach, Dave Fish, wrote a short white paper on the subject and proposed eliminating lets, not as an anti-cheating measure, but, to reduce confusion on court with all the noise at the NCAA Tournament. The proposal went nowhere at the time, but, several years later it was brought up at an ITA convention and it passed quickly. Though many, including two-time NCAA singles champion and current world #42, Steve Johnson, have cited cheating as the impetus for the rule change in college, it seems that origin story may be apocryphal. Either way, it’s time to play the let across all divisions of NCAA. – Jeff Menaker

Follow me on Twitter: @Jeff_Menaker