The Trouble with Towels

You knew this one was coming: My rant about why no ball runner, whether child or adult, should ever be asked to handle a tennis player’s towel. Although people have recently raised this issue in light of Fernando Verdasco’s verbal abuse of a ball boy who failed to deliver his towel fast enough–


–I have for years felt a deep hated for the rule that obliges ball runners to handle the towels of the pros.

Full Disclosure: I was an adult ball runner who handled pro towels. I used to love ball-running. I didn’t so much seek out ball-running as it found me: My town’s Challenger level tournament falls during a school week, leaving its organizers shorthanded for help on day sessions. Tournament staff stalk the courts and round up any adult players they know well enough to trust with throwing the ball in the right direction at the right time.

In my perfect world, everyone would  get the chance to be a ball-runner. There is no better view of the sport than being on the court, staring down the path of an incoming serve, praying that the player in front of you gets returns it before you have to test your reaction time. You’re never closer to the action than where you can smell the rubber from some player’s sneaker skid, and hear the subtleties of tone when racquet strings hit against ball. Even three hours on court fly by when you have to be attuned to every point. It takes great discipline. No matter what happens, no matter what players mutter to themselves or to their opponents or to you, you’re not allowed to speak. For people who, like me, talk for a living, that’s a welcome respite.

Of course, some players know you can’t speak and take full advantage of that situation by treating you like shit. And so what got me out of ball-running was not the serve I took from Tim Smyczek that left a bruise on my abdomen for a week, nor the damage to my knees from constant sprints and bending.

No. My Waterloo came when then 19 year-old Jack Sock, after winning his game, headed straight to the bench while snapping his fingers behind his back at me.  Forty-year old me with a job and a house and a husband and a PhD had to pick up his sweat-saturated towel and scamper quickly after him. Like a dog.

I didn’t love the sport enough to put myself at the mercy of a 19 year old entitled brat, I decided. So I ceased to volunteer for ball running spots after that.

I’ve never forgotten what it feels like to be treated like a servant. So I was not at all surprised to see Verdasco act up at that ball boy in Shenzhen. Players seem to get off on being catered to, and have the ready excuse for their behavior that it is born out of the heat of the moment. Unfortunately, kids who are eager to be close to their idols will pay any price, including the risk of humiliation. We’re never going to stop kids from handling pros towels if this is a question of etiquette.

There’s a far stronger, nearly incontrovertible argument for at last making pros handle their own towels, though, and it is this:

You might as well ask children to carry around the player’s toilet.

I’m not exaggerating. Towels are excellent vessels designed to retain bodily fluids harboring bacteria and viruses. Although sweat itself might not have a ton of bacteria in it, the skin it sits on does. That bacteria is rubbed into the towel every time a player rubs it over their face, arms, head, and–eek–torso. The towel–moist, warm, handed from person to person–is thus a perfect vehicle for spreading disease.

Doubt me? The second time I acted as a ball runner, I got norovirus the next day. “Oh, a lot of the ball kids have come down with that,” the tournament volunteer coordinator chirped. As if there was no common denominator there. You think players whose paychecks and careers ride on the outcome of a match are going to withdraw from a tournament just because they feel something coming on? No way. They’re just gonna chug some Immodium and get on court.

A cold or a little stomach bug is one thing. Far more horrifying is that MRSA, the killer antibiotic-resistant strain of Strep, has been documented as spreading via athlete’s towels. We’re talking a potentially deadly threat that, in the name of honor, or tradition, or just saving pros two steps, we’re happy to risk exposing children to. And those children may or may not have fully functioning immune systems. Believe me, they don’t put you through a full physical before throwing a tournament t-shirt at you and sending you off to a court. You’re lucky to get pizza and a drink on break. That’s what you get for the honor of exchanging bodily fluids with Jack Sock.

Because science is on the side of the towel rack, I think it’s coming to tennis, and probably sooner rather than later, having been already tested. It’s just a matter of time before some litigation-phobic counsel in ATP legal makes it permanent and official. Rather than lament yet another change to our sport, how about we make lemonade out of lemons? Each new towel rack could be prominently sponsored by Purell, or Lysol, or the Department for Infectious Diseases at Mayo Clinic. Players could practice yelling at the rack instead of the ball kids or their coaches. It’s a win-win, except only a qualified victory for ball runners, who still have to risk infection from the balls themselves. Because until Robin Soderling or some other ball manufacturing guru figures out anti-microbial felt, we’re all still taking our chances for the love of the game.

The Case Against Patrick

In the wake of the twelve-car pile up that was the women’s U.S. Open final, institutions at all levels of tennis will be taking a good hard look at their rules and practices, and no doubt changes will be made. But from my perspective, the first change that needs to happen is a no brainer.

Patrick Mouratoglou needs to go.

No one tells Serena what to do, and I’m not addressing her here. But for the benefit of the rest of us, here’s my case against Patrick Mouratoglou.

Exhibit A:

This tweet drove me nuts from the moment I read it. As I’ve written before on this blog, nobody knows if a birth will be a joyous event or result in death. Patrick no doubt did not know, but Serena would be fighting for her life over the next week. And yet he had to remind her at the moment of her daughter’s birth that “we” (inserting himself) were a priority. Get off that hospital bed, lady, and start hitting forehands!

AND he spilled the beans of the birth before Ohanian and Williams had confirmed the news, robbing them of their chance to announce their daughter to the world. Letting everyone know that baby and wife are fine is traditionally the role for the husband and father. That would be Ohanian’s role, which Patrick seems to want to limit as much as possible, if not usurp.

Exhibit B:

He told her to stop breastfeeding. Apparently Serena wasn’t happy about it. Yet Patrick whinged that Serena was now making decisions through the lens of family rather than the lens of tennis. Who the hell says such things like they’re a bad thing? But Patrick felt upstaged. And he really wanted that stage back, which brings us to the kicker,

Exhibit C:

He not only coached, he admitted it:

Look it’s fine if you want to say you were in the wrong. But the way Patrick tried to divert attention away from himself, by maintaining he was a regular practitioner of coaching from the stands just like everyone else, directly contradicted Serena, and contradicted her on the very hill she was apparently willing to die on–that she does not cheat. He implied that she does, and that she does it regularly, because everyone does.

Whatever Patrick has brought to Serena and her game over the years, the downsides of his presence now clearly outweigh the upsides. His involvement in her family life has reached the level of creepy. He gave her nothing to go into that final with to counter Naomi Osaka’s game. But most importantly, he implicated her as a cheat to save his own skin. It would send a good message to her supporters if Serena let him go for that alone.


Want to KNOW if an Ump is Sexist? Here’s How:

The mess that was the women’s USO final has spurred several questions and debates, perhaps the most core to the integrity of the sport is, are umps handing out code violations without discrimination on the basis of race or sex? New York Times reporter Chris Clarey made no secret of feeling that Serena William’s claim to having been the victim of sexism were off-base. Now, he’s written what he considers to be definitive proof refuting her claims.

The article goes on to break down the types of code violations handed down in Grand Slam events by gender of recipient to come to the conclusion that because men are fined more frequently than women, there is no gender discrimination from the chair.

Sigh. It is sad to think that one has to explain basic statistics to a sports reporter but here we are. Clarey would likely calculate a batter’s average by counting the number of times he hit the ball. It’s frustrating, and maddening, that this article made it to press, because several days before, Clarey tweeted out the aggregate amount of code violations given to men and women at this USO, and was told over and over that that was a meaningless statistic.

Props to Amy Lucas, PhD in sociology, who broke down exactly what is wrong with Clarey’s methodology in a tweet-thread:

Clarey’s data tells us nothing because it doesn’t tell us when a person should have gotten a warning and didn’t, Amy goes on to explain.  But then she goes on to propose a solution that actually might work. Observe the matches over a long period of time and take note of each interaction, counting violations that received codes and violations that didn’t.

Does this sound laborious? It is. And I’m going to suggest we do it. Because this is what researchers in Education, Sociology, Linguistics, Communications and related fields do ALL THE TIME. And it works.

Maybe you think the interactions between ump and player are too varied to characterize reliably. They’re not. Let me tell you a story. My mentor in graduate school became fascinated with student-teacher communication.  It turns out that a frightening percent of classrooms are characterized by what we now understand as IRE discourse: Teacher Initiation, Student Response, and Teacher Evaluation. You know how this goes. Teacher asks a question they already know the answer to, like, “What is the capital of Wisconsin?” Student responds, “Madison!” Teacher says, “Very good!” Or maybe the Student gets it wrong and says, “Green Bay!” and the Teacher says, “Are you sure about that?”

The problem with IRE discourse is that it is nothing like a real conversation. In a real conversation, people generally ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. For example, a person will ask, “What time is it?”  An interlocutor responds, “3 pm.” What the person then does not do is say, “Are you sure about that?” Because they actually wanted to know the time. My advisor theorized that “authentic” questions would encourage more learning because they would invite new knowledge into the classroom.

But he had to prove it. So he trained people to recognize patterns of discourse. And then sent them out into 500 classrooms. And collected tapes of classroom interactions over the course of a semester.  They coded all the interactions, and then compared them with achievement tests given at the end of the semester. Voila, his proof.

If you’re still with me, I hope your immediate reaction to this is, wow, that guy must be crazy. He was a little crazy. But he also knew his methodology. He knew the only way to prove a point is to collect interactions in natural environments over a long period of time, code those interactions, have multiple people do the coding so you can control for subjectivity (inter-rater reliability testing it’s called), and then compare with a measure of achievement.

So now let’s imagine how this works in tennis. As Amy (let’s call her Dr. Lucas) pointed out in her thread, you have to get all the interactions. You can’t just listen to the TV. You need people in the stadiums coding gesture and speech of both umps and players. You need the audio feed from the ump’s chair to catch all the dialogue on changeovers. You would need to decide what your discourse categories were. Obviously, expletives as we saw during the women’s final weren’t what ticked Carlos off. Instead it was demands (you owe me an apology), pejoratives (thief; liar), and gestures (pointing).

It would be fascinating to do this full analysis of what exactly umpires consider verbal abuse before we talk about it. And it would be interesting to see if there are other issues beyond the player involved determining when umps snap and hand out a code. It might be something we don’t expect. A study of judges granting sentencing discovered that the most determining factor in the severity of the punishment was whether the judge had just eaten lunch, or not. The methodology of that study has been widely critiqued, but the point still stands that other factors should be considered when we look for patterns of behavior.

So let’s do the work. It’s been done before. It could, and should, be done here. ITF, my fees are reasonable. I’m sure Dr. Lucas’ are as well. Give us a shout.

UPDATE: John Burn-Murdoch, stats reporter for the Financial Times (the only good newspaper left in my opinion) breaks down what’s wrong with Clarey’s stats (and what’s revealing in people’s responses to them) in a tweet thread this morning. Give it a look.

“How did Andy play today?”

That was the question one of my British tweeps, one of the most avid Andy fans, put on twitter after Murray’s first round Cincinnati match against Lucas Pouille. She’d had to work and missed the match, the topsy-turvy scoreline (6-1, 1-6, 6-4 Pouille), and wanted a report. So I reported.

But that question has been bugging me ever since. There’s a weird and lovely element of fandom where we take daily measure of our favorites. And in the question “How did Andy play today” is the implied, is his hip okay. Did his hand find it after every point as it did before his surgery. Did he grimace. Did his movement belie lingering concern of re-injury. Will he be able to continue playing tennis. At all.

This is my tenth anniversary of the first time I came to Cincinnati. I’d never been to a tennis tournament before. At the time I was a staunch Federer fan (stop that gasping–yes). I’d seen the 2005 Australian Open semifinal between Federer and Safin and emerged a fan of both, and of tennis. I’d never watched tennis before that, but I was stuck at home nursing a month-old baby so would watch anything. Three years later I took that toddler and my husband to Cincinnati, the nearest Masters tournament to our town, so that I could glimpse the phenom that was Roger up close.

I had figured out the practice schedule and went an hour early so I could get a good view of Fed. But I had underestimated the ardor of Federer fans. I couldn’t get near the court. So I positioned myself one court away, but where I could peer through multiple chain link fences to gain a glimpse of my prize.

To my immense irritation, a scrawny kid and his team took the near court just as Federer came out, obscuring my view.


Note the total dorkiness. He didn’t pick up a racket. Instead, he and his coach (Miles MacLagen) started a game of footie. 1929698_28156673273_7402_n 3.jpg

Note the crowd behind them. None of them are looking. They’re all watching Federer who was putting on a masterful display of, well, Federerness. I did get some photos from far away as Fed went through his business-like routine and then courteously, almost heroically, signed a zillion autographs.

But watching the contrast between Federer and this skinny kid, something struck me and stayed with me.  This kid just radiated joy. Radiated it. And as a relatively new mother, joy was a quality I had come to recognize and value. It’s exactly what you want to see in your child’s face. And my little toddler did not disappoint in that department.


I watched Murray leave the court. A young boy stepped in his path unawares and he tripped around him with a quick and pleasant “no worries.” He attracted no attention that year. No security forces attended his movements. Meanwhile, Djokovic could barely walk five feet without his progress being halted by adoration.


As we now know, Murray would go on to win Cincinnati that year, his first Majors title. His ranking would soar from 12 to 4. The next year, he would overtake Nadal and reach number 2. And you know the rest. With that fame came the scorching white glare of the British press. Will he reach number one? Will he end the Wimbledon drought? Does this Scott secretly hate England?

At least in public, Andy Murray acquired his unshakable reputation as the dour Scott. The moper. Mr. Buzzkill.

I knew better because I had seen him before. And so had a handful of others on my twitter timeline–fans who’d been following him since before I knew his name, now gathering under the hashtag #teamhotmess to cheer Murray on through the ups and downs, and to defend him from the onslaught of bad press.

It was one of those tweeps who asked on twitter that question, “How did Andy play today?” Here’s one answer to that question. Horrible. The first set was horrible. Andy couldn’t seem to move, hit, or serve. But in the next set, the brilliance showed.  Unfortunately, in the third set, so did the rust, and he lost to Pouille, a man he should have beaten.

But that’s not the correct answer to that question. The correct answer is, who cares. This is Murray’s fourth match on hard court since he took eight months off to repair and rehab his long-nagging hip. He’s ranked 375 in the world, he’s 31 years old, he has nothing to prove except to himself and he’s still trying to prove it (he f-bombed himself continually except when he fist-pumped himself for pulling off a point). And, you know, he played a pro match on hard court and his hip didn’t fall out.

We need to stop asking how Andy is playing “today.” It’s hard to give up the hyper-vigilant fretting, the armchair diagnosing, the micro-expression reading. All that made us great and stalwart Andy fans, but it’s not the best way, I decided at least for myself, to be an Andy fan in 2018.

It’s time to simply appreciate. To take the long view, both forward and backward. As a parent, I’ve found the hardest thing is to recognize when your child has changed. And then to also change. I’ve been thinking a lot about this because the son I took to Cincinnati a decade ago is now taller than me, shaving, and looks like this:


We can’t predict the future. And while we think we can imagine a trajectory for a player based on past performance–indeed many try to make money off it–no one really can. We love the game today. Our favs are playing today. Let’s not ask “how” as often. Let’s just marvel that they do.

A Maternity Leave Policy for the WTA

Since Serena Williams advanced the extraordinarily sane proposition that women coming back from having a baby should have a protected ranking and be seeded in tournaments, we have seen a lot of speculation on the “fairness” of that to other players who chose to put off having babies (or don’t want babies at all) and have worked hard to earn their seeds. And a lot of this silliness has come from people who a) haven’t gone through childbirth, or b) will never go through childbirth, and c) think they understand childbirth and its aftermath because they 1) saw some movies, 2) heard about it, 3) saw their wives cope with it–heroically, of course, and with their full support.

I’m going to break down the logical case for maternity leave, but first allow me to get a primal scream out of the way.

Some time in the second week of sitting on a hemorrhoid cushion fitted with an ice diaper, the thought came to me that comes to every new mother: Nobody told me it would be like this. People tried to tell me. Women who were older, wiser, looked me straight in the face and told me labor would be the worst pain I’d ever experienced. Brooke Shields wrote a book explaining what postpartum depression felt like–a book I only bought after I had postpartum depression. Friends who had cried on the phone to me about their problems trying to get the baby to “latch.” Everyone told me, but no one could tell me.

And that’s the problem with this whole conversation. There are some experiences (and childbirth is definitely one) where you can imagine you understand, but you can only truly understand once you go through it. I think about this every time I see that photo of men in Congress deciding the fate of women’s health.


That’s a little what tennis twitter has felt like this week.

But I’m going to admit that before I had a child, I would only have been slightly more ready to opine on what childbirth is like. I would have told you I’d readily prefer the pain of childbirth to drugs during delivery (yeah, fuck that!) and that I wouldn’t allow the fact of motherhood to “change me” (whatever that meant) and that being a healthy 35 year old who danced right into her 38th month, I’d be sure to have an uncomplicated delivery and recovery (it was 45 hours, with lots of intervention, and I now routinely see my pelvic organs protruding from my vagina).

YES I am sparing you NOTHING. Because you need to know. All y’all. Probably if you polled WTA players what they thought about seeding players who had babies, you might get an answer. But if you polled the same group after they all had kids, you would get another answer.

But even if you haven’t experienced the pleasure of bringing a human into this world, the information is out there that would lead any sane person to conclude that no organization–most especially an organization founded on the well-being and rights of women–should incentivize women to “wait” to have kids until after their careers are over, or end careers precipitously in order to have a kid.

You tell women to “wait” and you are killing them. Lest you think I exaggerate, I bring you the mournful maternal mortality chart.


And the stats for African-American women are even worse. Serena Williams is how old you say?

You are also asking them to risk never having a child at all. Here’s the fertility chart by age:


For those who say, well it’s a woman’s choice to put her career before having a child, it’s only a “choice” if you’re not punished for doing so. I put off having a child until I got tenure. I took the risk at 35 years of age. But I might have done it earlier, had my campus not had a retrograde maternity leave policy when I was hired, whereby you had to accumulate enough sick days over the years to use as maternity leave. Read that again and see how fucked up that is. When a chancellor (a woman and a mother) finally instituted a real maternity leave policy, there was a population explosion among women on the tenure track (which, given you have to get a PhD to be hired, typically is the years between your late twenties and, ta-dah, 35, during which you must write a book in order to get tenure while teaching, etc., etc., etc.)

So I’m disgusted with a lot of the opinions I’ve seen advanced on twitter over this issue. But in truth, I’m more disgusted with the WTA. They need to fix this, and they need to fix it today.





Watching NCAAs: The View from College

Most of the time, like the rest of tennis twitter, I am obsessed with watching and commenting on pro-sports. But there’s another side of my life where I get to see great live tennis on the regular, because I live in a town with a university that supports two outstanding Big Ten tennis teams. The year, both the men’s and the women’s made it to the NCAA tournament. The women got through the first round but fell in the second down in Lubbock. But the men are often seeded high enough that they play early rounds in what is almost literally my own back yard. Ok, it is actually .9 miles from my house. I watched them take out Marquette today. And I’ll be there tomorrow to see them take on preppy Vanderbilt.

So what, you may well ask, what does watching college tennis give you that you don’t get from watching the pros?

A lot. I get to see these players develop over four years. I get to see them practice when they’re not playing. I get to see the team gel, work together, and support each other–a sight you rarely get in pro tennis unless you’re watching Davis Cup. I get to see on-court coaching. I get to see their parents put on brave faces when things are not going well, (or stifle celebration for the sake of staying positive for opposing parents, also present). I see them walking to class with their backpacks in the few hours they are not on court, because they have to juggle being students. In short, I get to see how so many American players these days are made.

As you know, we’re not in a particularly inspiring moment right now in American men’s pro tennis, so amuse me, for a minute, while I sing the praises of the current roster of the University of Illinois men’s team, which exhibits so many of the qualities we in tennis twitter land are currently searching for and not finding when we go to the tournaments and have to stare at Isner, or Harrison, or Sock. I think these college students deserve the kind of profiles that the pros get, so here I go (all photo credits to @IlliniMTennis):

Aleks Vukic, Senior, Current ATP ranking: 444


This guy had to bolt from the stage with diploma in hand to make it to his NCAA match. This will be the last time I see Vukic play as an Illini, because win or lose, the NCAA tournament moves on somewhere else to the Round of 16. Vukic is from Australia but chose to come to Illinois for both its current strengths and its illustrious history. You *will see him on the pro circuit, so pay attention starting now. He’s one of the hardest working players I know, constantly working on his serve, even when other members of the team aren’t around. As an homage to his Australian roots, the team cheers him on with the “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oy Oy Oy!” yell, though we’re not really sure he likes it. Goes by “Vuk.” This is a photo from last year’s NCAA, and if you look super carefully, you’ll see BadToss with BadToss Jr.

Aron Hiltzik, Senior


Aron is one of the many Chicago based players who stayed in-state to play for their home team.  And that’s what I love about this team. It really is a slice of Illinois. There are very few players from out-of-country, and those that are, are generally in keeping with the ethnic tone of Chicago and Illinois (like Vukic, whose family is Croatian, and could just as easily have wound up in Illinois). So Aron is one of the many “ic” and “ik” suffixed players who represent our state’s diversity. He followed his brother Jared here and played on the same team with him for two years. So Mama Hiltzik, visible in the background, as well as Papa Hiltzik have been more or less a fixture for six years running now and will be sorely missed.

Zeke Clark, Sophomore


There’s always that guy who holds a team together, and you know who that one is by their sophomore year; they have irrepressible spirit, and a ruptured vocal chord from cheering on their teammates. On this roster, that guy is Zeke Clark, who has been granted the Spirit Award, the Strength and Conditioning Award, AND the Most Improved Player Award by his team.  He’s a crowd favorite.  From Tulsa, Oklahoma, he’s everything good about the heartland. A little guy at 5’6″, he was ranked third as a junior. He’ll be making waves.

Alex Kovacevic, Sophomore


Just call him “The Clinchah.” This kid clinches the match more times than any other. Mentally tough, he has no problem taking the team’s win or loss on his shoulders, delivering with great variety and clutch serving. And his Mom is adorable. After a bad call I thought she was going to run down to the court and rip the ref’s head off herself. Another first-generation player, Aleks was born in New York City, but joins the ic and ik vibe of this roster. Often I’m watching his court because he’ll make great stuff happen.

Alex Brown, Freshman


Because we don’t have enough guys named Aleks/x. Big “A.B.” is 6’5″, with a great serve which has earned him First-Team All-Big-Ten honors this year. He’s from Iowa, so another Midwest dweller like Zeke. I’m thinking he’ll only be getting more powerful in the years ahead, adding even more strength to balance out his frame. Even given his size, he’s an incredible mover on court. There’s nothing serve-bot about his game.

Caleb Chakravarthi, Freshman


As a freshman recruited from Irvine, CA, Caleb is already holding down the number six singles spot with a winning average.  He has incredible reflexes at net–almost cat-like. I’m looking forward to seeing him play a lot more. Side note: when the whole team got super-sick after eating at the same restaurant, Caleb recovered the quickest. You want a guy with an iron gut on your team.

The Illinois team is seeded eighth in the NCAA tournament this year, so recapturing the 2003 glory of winning the title is a stretch. But I love my team and look forward to cheering them on year upon year. I see in them what I hope to see more of in American tennis on the pro-level: A little diversity. A little bit of variety. A commitment to fighting for something bigger than themselves. Not all college tennis teams are like this. I looked at the roster of Drake University (located in Iowa) and saw that every player on their team came from the United Kingdom. I watched the Vanderbilt boys in their polo shirts with gold stitching and their bleached-blonde emo haircuts and wanted to barf. I hope my scrappy, “ic and ik” public school team hits the felt off the ball tomorrow against them and goes further than second round, but if they don’t, I’ll still be thankful that I get to watch a version of American tennis I can cheer for.

Go Team!


I Was Wrong

When I wrote my last blog post about Tennys Sandgren’s heinous abuse of social media, I introduced it on twitter saying that the mainstream media wouldn’t talk about it, but that we must.

I was wrong.

Over the next few days, I was shown that the media would talk about it.  Did talk about it. And indeed, couldn’t bury it.  So how did that happen?

First, it happened because tennis twitter is full of amazing and frankly spiteful bitches who do not forget.  Those who already knew of Sandgren’s social media activity began screen-capping and sharing the worst of what he said (really, we were drowning in data here). I will avoid the shout-out to the one person who did the most work, only because as I was doxxed, I don’t want to put her in the way of the lovely backers of Sandgren who have spent the last two days threatening me through my work email and tweeting me instructions to suck dick.

The well-connected, international world that is tennis twitter spread the word so efficiently that by the time Sandgren got to presser after beating Dominic Thiem, a question about his social media use was waiting for him.  The question was asked, notably, not by an American journalist, but by British journalist Simon Briggs. Bravo Simon. We salute you.

The next 24 hours was full of either American journalists finding their backbone quickly, or searching for it while fretting about how to write about Sandgren without losing their access to his friends like John Isner. Isner, meanwhile, was busy trying to destroy my credibility by tweeting a link to my blog. A little tip, John. Writers love it when you use your social media platform of a quarter million followers to share their work. Enjoy the beatdown you got in your replies.

Sandgren made life a lot easier for everyone to find where they stood when he deleted all his tweets, leaving only the link to the complimentary article I wrote about his play before I followed him on social media. This move seemed creepy and stalky, particularly as the tweet contained my name and probably made it easier for me to get doxxed.

Of course, by then it was too late. When Sandgren stepped on court to have his ass handed to him in straight sets by Hyeon Chung, Serena Williams laid down perhaps the greatest two word subtweet of all time.

Nobody who was following tennis at this point misunderstood what Serena meant. She provided the clear sign that Sandgren’s tweets had been measured, weighed, and found wanting at the very height of American tennis. Meanwhile the media rightly noted that Sandgren’s washing of his twitter history was a gutless and self-serving gesture. So when Sandgren sat in presser reading his prepared statement condemning the media and championing his own right to speak, he metaphorically shot himself in the foot. If he had literally shot himself in the foot, it might have done less damage to his sponsorship prospects.

While Sandgren’s buddies from the Challenger tour were weighing in with tweets in support of Tennys’ good guy-ness, Serena Williams decided to go from subtweet to tweet:

Tennis, writ large, now had to respond, and it did. Martina Navratilova (of course) led the charge from the podium on Tennis Channel, backed by Jim Courier, Captain of the Davis Cup team, who seems to have quickly decided what side of history he wanted to be on.

The next day, John McEnroe, much to our shock and surprise, came through with the spike. Loved this.

Game over for Tennys, but not for tennis. If American tennis wants to make sure that this never happens again, it’s going to take more than the wizened ones speaking down to one bad actor from on high.

While various idiotic takes were musing through the question of whether sport and politics should mix, the larger question was missed: Why did this social media mess happen in tennis but not in other sports?  You have no analog of Tennys Sandgren in the NFL, NBA, MBL or NHL.  I’m not saying you don’t have white athletes in those sports who don’t share his views. Of course you do. But they can’t get away with tweeting pizzagate conspiracies.

That John McEnroe can call himself “the self appointed commissioner of tennis” brings up the problem that there is no actual commissioner of tennis, an international sport where athletes essentially self-fund and can’t afford PR help until they break through to the top. The institutional structure of tennis is extremely weak, making it difficult to corral any bad actors.  If we want to avoid another round of this, we have to look at American tennis’ structures for repair.

The juniors circuit is obviously the first place to start schooling aspiring pros in how to use social media. We keep thinking the next generation might “naturally” be more savvy users of the Internet, but we see time and again that is not the case.

The USTA player development program is also clearly culpable here. Shouldn’t part of player development involve helping them navigate the profession they are entering without endangering their own careers?

How is it that “ATP University” has failed to school their students in social media usage? How have they not educated them that twitter is forever, and if they want the endorsements, they need to appeal to a wide audience? Could they perhaps teach players that the First Amendment guarantees (hopefully) only protection against government retribution, but not consequences from any other entity, be that fan, media, fellow player, or corporate sponsor?

These are now American tennis’ problems to wrestle with. Whether Tennys Sandgren goes on to win a grand slam or disappears into obscurity doesn’t matter. It takes a village to enable a racist. It will take all of American tennis to correct the course for the long run.

But that doesn’t mean tennis twitter can’t take a moment to bask in this well-deserved win. Tennys had to take the shit down, Isner is cowering in silence, American pros have been put on notice, and sponsors are no doubt a little more wary than they were. That’s huge, and it wouldn’t have happened without the dedicated fans who love their sport and want to see it continue to thrive. I raise a glass to you all tonight.