Open Era Gold: US Open — Thiem’s Time & Osaka Makes It 3

Finally, there is a new grand slam champion in men’s tennis. Defector staff writer Giri Nathan joins the show this week to recap a wild US Open. 

Sick of hearing all the ads? Subscribe to Soda Premium on Apple Podcasts to get rid of them!

Come join the Patreon family for bonus content, access to the exclusive discord server and ad free episodes.

Follow @OpenEraPod on Twitter! While you're there say hello to @DesaiDevang or reach out to the show and say hey: [e-mail]

If merch is your thing, be sure to check out the store.

If you enjoyed today’s show, please rate Open Era 5-Stars on Apple Podcasts.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to the Open Air Podcast. My name
is Debang Desai. Simon and I are off this week,
but we decided we wanted to look back at one
of Dominic Team's greatest moments, his biggest moment arguably winning
the US Open back in two thousand, as he finally
called it a career this week with his last match

(00:21):
at home in Austria. Obviously a sad time seeing Domini's
career cut short, but he gave us so much joy
on the court, and I think it's fitting that with
Defector's staff writer Gary Nathan, we look back at this excellent,
excellent performance from Team in what was a super weird tournament.

(00:42):
Let us remember that Dominic prevented us from having Alexander
Zerev be a Grand Slam champion, so we owe him
a lot of thanks. We also talk about Naomi Osaka's
dominance at that US Open, so we hope you enjoyed
this look back at Team's time back at the US
Open in twenty twenty. I'll talk to you soon.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Hello. In Welcome to the Open Era podcast. My name
is de VENG. Desai and I'm joined as always by
mister Simon Bushell. Push the US Open. Is Finito done?
The US Open Final Men's side done. How do you feel, sir?

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Oh god, emotionally physically spent. You know, my girlfriend made
a really funny point at the end of it, and
she said, you know how some men put on sympathy
wait when when their girlfriends are pregnant. I kind of
feel like I'm getting sympathy cramps just sitting and watching
the back end of that match. Good Lord, I fail

(01:50):
for both of them that that was a rough experience
to spend four hours though, So I'm looking forward to
unpacking it with two people who have also been through
the same experience with me.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
We're not alone.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
This week, Simon's right friend of the show, Defector's staff
writer Gary Nathan, is with us. Geary, sir, how are
you man? I send some uneasiness in your voice as
we started talking, and I feel your pain.

Speaker 5 (02:12):
Yeah. I'm kind of glad we scheduled this pod for
when we did, because I think group therapy is the
only way out of the situation we all find ourselves in,
so let's get together.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
So it's not a funeral. Dominic Team is a Grand
Slam champion. Finally, after coming close many times, before he
defeats Alexander Zerev in a five set classic. No, I
think you could just say it went five sets. I
think that's more fair. Alexander Zira started off extremely well,
playing more aggressive perhaps than he had all tournament, much

(02:46):
to the happiness I think of the viewing public because
Vera when he's really going for it is pretty fun
to watch. But on the other side, Dominic team offered
nothing and then it kind of flip flopped and we
ended up in a fifth set that I think we
could have predicted coming back in the third, and Dominique
Team almost cramped out at the very end and didn't
survive physically with Bush. I guess the headline is Dominique

(03:08):
Team is a Grand Slam champion. But I think the
way it happened, somehow it went to script, even though
it went a after railspit.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
I mean, that's one way of looking at it, right.
I think Zverev came out looking like looking like what
we expected him to look like all of his career.

Speaker 5 (03:26):
Right.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
There was an expectation that this tall, athletic, very strong
kid with all the strokes, with an amazing, big, powerful
serve was gonna fully live up to that expectation and
win in straight sets, and it certainly looked like that
through the first I would say, first forty five minutes.
Basically up until the point that he team put any

(03:48):
kind of pressure on him, he looked pretty good up
until the point that he had a double break, couldn't
close it out in the second set, and basically from
that point onwards, it was a lot of nerves and
I think that's really just the the thing that has
separated him from being a Grand Slam champion, and that
is still true here is just mentally, he really really
struggled to see this one out. His body didn't hold

(04:08):
up well at the end there. But of course everyone's
going to talk about the second serve. Everyone's going to
talk about the serve that's there. But I think just
before we just fully bury both of these individuals teams
a Grand Slam champion, massive, massive applause to him and
his team and also Savera if you want.

Speaker 4 (04:25):
To take positives away.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
For the first forty minutes, he looked like the best
player in the world, and that is something that we're
going to forget in all of this. And everyone's going
to laugh and point fingers and everything, but there is
a champion in there, there is a Slam champion, but
this is badly going to affect him mentally, and the
scars of this one might take a very long time
to heal.

Speaker 5 (04:46):
Yeah, I think that's right. There were flashes from each
player that kind of justified the position in this final,
the fact that they even got here, and I think
team the cumulative work he's put in at the Slams
more than justifies him finally getting this one, and I'm
definitely happy for him. But uh, yeah, it was just

(05:06):
a rough watch because the level that Zvereb did flash
in the first, let's say two sets, and well he
was he was up a break in the third two, right,
So basically up to that point he'd kind of sustained,
almost sustained that best player in the world type level,
but physically and mentally the match took a very strange

(05:29):
twist soon thereafter.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
So I think if you if you consider the way
Dominicq team got to the final, like you mentioned Gary,
like he dismantled Felix, he dismantled demon Auer, he took
care of Daniel Medvedev, who I thought was playing the
best tennis coming into that semi final and through that,
like you said, totally full value. I think the way
Zverev got to the final was maddening other people watching

(05:54):
him do it a disturbing extent where he makes it
past Davage Shakin in the fourth round, but from then
on it's very convincing. He beats borne A Chorich in
a just a widely hated match from beginning to end.
He goes down two sets early to PCB writes the
ship there. PCB's back basically goes as well. But I

(06:16):
think the whole tournament for Alexander Zvera was just about surviving,
and we finally saw him play like he was the
best player on the court, or play as if he
was supposed to win, when really no one thought he
was going to coming into this match. I think Dominic
team was the better's choice, and for good reason. But Zvera,
without that weight played so well that eventually I feared

(06:37):
it was going to come back to him. We're okay, now,
Eventually expectation will follow on you. It was on him
he served for the match. Bush. You talked about will
he get over this? I think he might, but and
I think just based on the quality overall, without the
Big three round, I think he saw what could end
up happening towards the end of his Slam. But I guess, Simon,

(06:58):
what was your beyond dominic temim, what was your the
biggest revelation? I guess without the other three guys around,
because I felt like this was a bit of a
referendum on Dad as well.

Speaker 3 (07:10):
M M No, definitely, And I think I mentioned on
the podcast last week that in the absence of the
Big three and in a post Big three world, the
men who were supposed to get to the final of
this tournament did, and they got to the latter stages
of it without Cissy Pass the fourth teed getting really
to the business end of it. And really that's the
reality of it is that we've been blessed for a

(07:31):
very long time with three men at the very highest
level who going into Slam finals, you know you're basically
going to get high levels of tennis, exceptional hitting and
quality and a standard and level which is really high.
The same cannot be said. Previous to them. We have
had some very good finals as well, but we've also

(07:52):
had a lot of clunkers. And I think this one
firmly sits into that category. I think one of the
best ways I can describe this to everyone is if
if you had said that this was the Junior US
Open final, then I think that would be a lot
closer to reality in terms of the swings and the
momentum breaks and all those sort of things that happened,
because it really looked like two players who were very,
very nervous, who didn't want to go for their shots.

(08:14):
Flashes of amazing brilliance and genius, but at the end
there was a lot of pushing around and a lot
of body breakdowns as well. So if you've ever dived
into the depths of watching junior's Junior Grand Slam tennis,
it kind of looks like this, and it's dramatic. There
are swings of momentum left and right. If that's for you,
then great, But it wasn't the highest standard I've ever seen.

Speaker 5 (08:37):
Gary.

Speaker 2 (08:38):
I think I saw ESPN said their TV ratings are down.
They didn't say it, but it was a report. I
guess they wouldn't come out and be like, yeah, our
ratings are super bad, but I saw a report this
week about that. I think overall, maybe the first week
and maybe the Cincinnati tournaments as well. There was a
bit taken it back by tennis with no fans, even
though we've seen all the other sports do it. But

(08:59):
maybe the same question to you, the Big Three not
being around after Novac defaulted, did it feel different? Did it?
I think a lot of the matches that we watched
from that Sunday onward had that specter of like, oh
my god, anyone can win it, and each player slowly
kind of realizing that in real time, which I think
that made it fun for me.

Speaker 5 (09:20):
Yeah. I think you bring up a good point, which
is that it's probably divides along neatly between like the casual,
serious tennis head divide, whereas like, if you're tuning into
the second week give a Slam to watch a guy
you know kick ass for three matches, you're definitely not
going to get your money's worth this time around. But

(09:40):
if you are someone who's been keeping up closely with
the tour month to month and has been kind of
waiting this interminable wait just to see if anyone under
the age of like forty seven can win a major,
there's a lot of excitement in this week, and you know,
it's like I was just thinking on I was thinking
on maybe Monday, that hey, on Sunday, I'm actually gonna

(10:03):
have a new major champion to write about, which is
just interesting for narrative reasons. It turns out that, you know,
the reality of many of those matches was not all
that pleasant to watch, as you pointed out the Sasha
versus PCV, Sasha versus Chorich. I liked your term widely
hated matches. Definitely in survival mode getting through it, but

(10:31):
not shocked that it's been a tough week ratings wise,
foresp and also just considering the gross excess of sports
happening right now. NFL Opening weekend, I guess is kind
of a regular part of the competition for the Open,
but just everything else like NBA playoffs, baseball, hockey playoffs.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
It's just a lot Dominic seeing the story on the
men's side, of course, but I think there was a
lot of interesting happenings around the men's side and who
kind of emerged if we take a whistle stop tour
Bush Daniel Medvedev, I, honestly, I was a little disappointed
it wasn't a meltdown maybe against Dominic team and then

(11:12):
first set, but I think it was like a callback
to maybe last year he was trying to remind people
who he was for some reason, but I thought totally
derailed him. And I not to say that he was
a better player than Dominic team, but I thought his
match with Rubelev for a straight set match was one
of the more captivating ones. But we talked about the
next tier of guys after the Big three, it's team,

(11:33):
it's Verev. But what did you make of Medvedev's performance.

Speaker 3 (11:37):
And another solid tournament? Right, he went to the final
last year, semi final this time. And I believe I
put in our discord channel a very funny comment that
I saw that if you imagine that Daniel Medvedev is
a wee tennis player, he looks like he's playing like that,
which I thought was very tweet.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
Geary's tweeted about watching Medvedev. I thought Sonnadev well as well,
because I don't think you can sum it up at all.
It doesn't make any sense, man.

Speaker 5 (11:58):
Yeah, it's everything about his technique is.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
So just touching on so touching on the post Big
three world, and you mentioned Mevedev in particular. So he's
a guy who's going to be at the business enter
tournaments for a very long time. But I want to
I just want to come full circle on team, just
to close that one out. I think we tend to
forget right that this was someone that we laughed at
off a clay court in a lot of ways, and

(12:23):
we have to pay a lot of respect to the
fact that this is someone who's done a hell of
a lot of hard work to become a very good
hard court player. If you look at his US Open
record prior to getting to this final, he made a
quarter final in twenty eighteen, he got dumped in the
first round last year, and he'd never be passed the
fourth round prior to that. And then of course you
look at his record in Australia second round up to
last year and finalists this year, Indian Welles last year

(12:46):
beating Roger Federer as well. So there are examples of
someone who has made that transition and we tend to
forget this right to do that past the age of
twenty two to twenty three, to become fully the player
that we we didn't really expect it in a lot
of ways. We thought he was a wonderful clay court player,
but we didn't know that the strokes would shorten enough
to play on a hard court. I think the speed

(13:06):
of this US Open court helped him immensely, because this
thing was slow as anything that was slow as sandpaper.
If you're watching these two play, and you want to know,
as another reason if I'd bring this up, but why
the US Open ratings might be down is it was
painful to watch people trying to hit court hit winners
past each other on this court. But that's another story.
So to sort of circle that out, I'm incredibly proud

(13:26):
of the work that team did to really win this
Grand Slam and to make that transition from being a
clay corder to a faster surface player. And I think
someone like Medvedev and someone like Zverev, in a world
without those big three, we're gonna see these guys at
the top end for a very long time.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
I have to eat some crow and possibly sell my
shares and lay called which I talked up big time
ahead of this tournament, and like this new surface is fast,
it's in charge, it's gonna make for excellent quick strike tennis,
which was not the case. All the big surfers lost
relatively early, and we got into basically some clay court
desk lucks on the baseline. You know that that team

(14:04):
match against Djokovic in the ATP Finals last year, in
the round robin. I thought that was a big moment
for Dominic on a hard court. I think he was
superb throw out up until the final against the sea Pass,
but I thought that match was huge for him because
there was a lot on the line for Novak as
well there. And I don't think just to hit the
backhand the way he does to help the amount of strength,

(14:26):
the amount of work he's put in. I know his
body almost failed him here, but this is because he's
been pushing it to the line at all points. And
I thought it was interesting when he lost in the
first round of the Western and Southern Open, I saw
some people saying it's it's better for him to not
even play the matches than just get used to the
courts on the ground and practice at his own speed
to his own court. So rather than rushing a bunch

(14:47):
of matches like his competitors did, this guy came in
really fresh and it paid off in a big way
with the biggest win of his life. Next Gen wise, Geary,
I think we saw in terms of the Canadian lens.
We saw Dennis and Felix make very positive inroads respectively,
Felix losing to the eventual champion, but Dennis mounting a

(15:09):
huge comeback against Taylor Fritz only to fall to PCB.
I've had we Simon and I have talked about this forever,
so I'm curious to hear what your take on this is.
But out of the two, maybe who do you who
you rate with a higher shot to make a really
big debt, maybe even quickly at the French Open.

Speaker 5 (15:27):
Between Felix and chape You mean, yeah, uh, that's a
good question. I think I'm going to go with Chapeau now.
The comparison is difficult, but I do feel like at
the top end, Chopo has just impressed me more on
on a match by match basis. People, I think Felix's

(15:47):
praise for kind of his even temperament and consistency and
his results, but he hasn't quite had that breakthrough that
makes me. I mean, I think his only top two
wins still are both against Steph, which seems to be
its own kind of strange mental trap that the Titty
pass found himself in because he's never he said he's

(16:08):
had trouble beating him since juniors, so I'm still kind
of waiting for that moment from Felix. And also, I
think Chopo's clay results I remember right he made a
semi on a Clay Masters in twenty eighteen and generally
got acclimated to the surface a lot faster than I thought.
Just given how aggressive his game is, I think his

(16:31):
movement makes him a good fit for clay as well.
I think I could see him making a solid run
in what is it, two weeks. It feels insane that
another tim is about to start.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
We record this on a Sunday night. That clay season
starts in Italy in five hours. So yeah, it's it's
it's upsetting, it's upsetting how quickly this is happening Bush.
I think the way Chappo lost tough. The way Felix
lost probably as I mean, you like the way the
first set wet against Team I think was promising. We

(17:05):
also saw that that flip kind of switch that happens
in tennis.

Speaker 3 (17:08):
Yeah, absolutely, And I think we tend to forget as well,
just how what he played against Moute just to outright
demolish someone who I do believe is going to be
a top thirty player, top twenty player in his career.
So flashes have been there. He's still young. He's going
to climb in the rankings again. I as I check
the live rankings, he's going to be seventeenth when it comes,

(17:29):
so new career high for him. Shapo up the thirteenth
in the ranking as well. So you know, we're talking
about players who are at the business end of things
now right. They're in the top twenty, They're firmly placed
in there, and I would just call quickly attention. We
mentioned it briefly on the podcast last week, but I
do think I do think Chapo working with Rohaan Bapana

(17:49):
in doubles as well. They made the quarter finals, they lost.
They've got up a good fight. But someone who is
forty years of age and someone who's been there and
done that and had the wisdom, he was very much
in the corner. You saw him in the camp, he
saw Shappo yelling at him, and multiple occasions came in
the match against an.

Speaker 4 (18:03):
A buster as well.

Speaker 2 (18:04):
But it's true friendship, right, That's when you know you're
true friendship.

Speaker 3 (18:11):
I do think that's really helpful for him because it's
someone that we coached by his mother obviously bought mckel
usually into the camp, but just another real senior figure.
And I was incredibly impressed with the way that Chapeau
hit the ball. His consistency has improved tremendously. And I
know there was a lot of finger pointing around this
lost to Cariino Buster, just the fact that he was

(18:32):
wild and some of his strokes, but honestly, that's the
most consistent I've ever seen him play. And we're talking
about fine margins here. If we just get five percent
more consistent in a positive direction. We're talking at a
player who's going to be very very good on a
hard court for a long time. I'm still very very
unconvinced about him on a clay court or on a
grass court, just given his footwork and the length of
the strokes required. But we'll see. I'm willing to eat

(18:56):
Crow on that one because I really didn't think that
he had this level of consistency in him longer term,
and clearly that's been proven incorrect. You don't take five
sets from a guy like Karina Buster who's making you
hit so many balls consistently and you watch that. I
bring that to the court again. Chapeau's hitting shots that
it should be passed an opponent, and in that Careina

(19:17):
buster match, he's hitting three or four winners on other surfaces,
on quicker surfaces and Carina busters bunting the ball back
in the court. So he's gonna learn from that. He's
gonna come back stronger than this. But that live ranking
is an indication that where we're at with these two
right we have two very very good young players and
players who are very close to being top ten.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
The fifth set debate always is well heated in Grand
Slam time. I think it came about again this weeken,
especially today as we recorded right after the final. Geary,
your thoughts Has it changed? Are you still? I saw
you put out a pretty interesting idea a couple of
nights ago.

Speaker 5 (19:55):
Yeah, I guess the first thing that's on my mind
is I wouldn't want to politicize this specific match too much.
I don't think it's a case for or against best
of five tennis. It's just kind of a case against tennis.
And I feel like the idea that I floated last
week I could I could probably still get behind. I'm

(20:17):
not sure it would resolve this specific situation, but the
idea was, you know, I have both tours play this
format first week best of three, second week best of five,
we'd still find ourselves in this piggle of this particular match,
but I think it could speed things along, especially some
of the scheduling stuff in the first week of a major,

(20:40):
which is really clogged up and can lead to some
very strange match timings.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
Simon five sets still still yeah for you.

Speaker 3 (20:49):
Yeah, I don't mind that idea at all. I was
chatting about it with another listener of this podcast today
as well, who who bought that up idea? The idea
up as well. I think the there's a lot of
legitimacy to that idea. I think it would remove a
lot of the nasayers and it finds a nice happy
medium in it. I'm a I'm a big five set fan.
I'm not a big five set fan when this happens.

(21:11):
Let me let me be honest, let me be wonderfully
clear about this, is that this was not particularly good
for the sport. I think actually in the long run,
the final set and just the storyline. I think when
it flashes up on Sports Center and your casual fans
come along watching you know, your number three and number
seven in the world basically look like the beginners trying

(21:35):
to get the ball back in the court. I don't
think did Tim hit, did he come over the top?
Did he hit an aggressive topsman back end? In the
last four games of that match, he was slicing everything.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
It's hard. It's hard when you're hitting your return from Jakarta,
So I feel like that's probably no kidding.

Speaker 5 (21:52):
The combination of serve quality and return position was, I hope,
unprecedented and never to be seen again in tennis. I
like one of those things individually, I think I can enjoy,
but each of the both of them together was a
little too much.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
I think with this formation of the new PTPA, my
idea of banning certain players from being allowed to play
five sets is probably not going to go through based
on certain leverages and player of votes, et cetera. But
this is exactly and my thing is, like, not everything
has to be epic or sensational or like, not every
five set match has to be considered that way. And

(22:31):
I thought I was saying the soft air, But the
twenty nineteen Wimbledon final, we remember it for that tie
break and remember it for Fed having those match points
or championship points, and we remember Novak eating the grass,
but like the match itself was not that great. But
I think we lionize so much of these five set
matches because they just go extremely long. They go long,
but that doesn't mean that they're super high quality. And

(22:53):
I think another part of the discourse, and I think
this is far beyond this tournament, but the way we
talk about who is choking and what is making someone choke,
and the discourse that I've seen, at least in the
aftermath of this is less as zero of choked. And
I think that's good. But I find it interesting that
we talk way differently about women's players when this goes down.

(23:15):
When when a women's player cannot hold their serve to
hold on to a match, I think the way that's
discussed is far different. And that's that's something that tennis
just simply has a really shitty track record of, I think.

Speaker 4 (23:27):
Well finding disagreements to me divine.

Speaker 5 (23:29):
Yeah, I think you're spot on.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
See thanks, guys, appreciate it. I it's been a while
two weeks, but I wanted to ask each of you guys,
maybe a storyline or a player from the last couple
of weeks that maybe was your favorite or one of
your your things that you enjoyed the most.

Speaker 3 (23:45):
Simon, So I'm gonna I'm gonna pick public arena booster.
It's not often that you cant someone make him the
semi final of a major and knocked out the world
number one. He did it on his own merit obviously
knocked him out in straight sets. No one needs to
look that up. Ever, it's an amazing result for Karina.
Buster destroyed Novak's without any problems.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
Remember that happened. Remember that happened. Novak smoked a ball
for the lines person in the room. Remember that.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
And I think with just with PCB, he's one of
those players that to be twenty seventh in the world.
And if you ever saw him hitting down at your
local tennis club, you would watch someone who just never
misses a ball ever, He just stands. He would just
stand there and hit all day. And you would watch
someone like that and just think, how does that man
ever lose a tennis match when the ball never goes

(24:33):
outside of the lines. And I think that's just the
truth about someone who is that consistent and who is
that Wiley, So a wonderful tournament for him getting to
a second major semi final. All the nick carry off
stuff was funny as well prior to it. Also hearing
Johnny Mack trying to learning of that first hand on

(24:53):
the air as Chris Bowler tries too, it was one
wonderfully hilarious I love that.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
That was good.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
So, yeah, if I was going to pick a single
one out would be public Arena Bosta.

Speaker 5 (25:05):
I'm going to go with not necessarily a guy who
played the flashiest matches, although he did have one good one.
But I really liked thinking about Alex Steamer just in
terms of I'm just curious what position, what kind of
role he's going to play in the tour going forward.
He's obviously very very good, very fast, very consistent. He
doesn't have the pace to hit through the court, he

(25:28):
doesn't have the serve, and I'm kind of curious, what, like,
what is the what are the range of possible outcomes
for a player like this. It does seem like he's
going to make it to the second week of a
lot of majors. I could see maybe a top end
like Nishikori kind of result for him, where he everything
lines up. He's playing out of his mind. He makes

(25:48):
a Major final, otherwise runs up against some of the
big dogs, loses too much, or just loses too much
gas in the first week of a major, playing these
marathon matches. But I think he's a really interesting place,
really fun to watch. Someone pointed out, I'm trying to remember,
but he brings He tends to bring out exciting flashes
from the other player just because of how he draws

(26:09):
out points and his athleticism tracking things down. So I
find him a fun watch, and I'm just curious to
see where things go for him. I was gonna be Yeah,
just to make sure ahead, sorry, yeah, oh great, Yeah,
I just want to make sure he gets credit for
his five set went over catching up was was pretty impressive.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
I want to make sure he gets credit for his
mustache as well. Yeah, it takes some real takes some
real stones to pull off a thin mustache.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
Like that and looking like he snuck into the bubble
as a middle schooler and then entered the draw and
won several matches against good players. He's a good man.
It's he I see. It seems like he's learning from
the Leyton Hewitt Bible of just working his ass off
and not being great at anything, but just being good
at enough things. So I wonder if that's good enough

(26:55):
to win a Slam today. Probably not like it was
back in Hewitt's time, but deaf only a problem out
for a lot of guys. Good shouts. You know, I'm
going to pick a specific match. It might have been
on the very first day, but Cam Norri Diego Schwartzman.
Cam Norry won in five sets, but it was on
one of those way far out courts where the TV

(27:16):
angle was static and the commentators were half watching and
just talking trash for most of it, and Cam norriy
slowly I kind of just re entered the match and
it got serious. And I think it's way easier to
appreciate how good these guys are when you see them
in smaller courts, because it does make it seem a
little more plausible that you could be watching it at
one of your rain courts, so you could be seeing

(27:38):
it as you're waiting to play yourself, and it gave
you that intimate feel and like, holy crap, these guys
are super good. Shortsman is a fantastic top top player.
Ninth player seeded in this tournament. But Cam norriy just
as good, and he's highly ranked. He's good enough, but
it feels like these guys are playing on a court
that's just down the street from me and with no fans.
It made that feel doubly so. So just one single

(27:59):
moment that I enjoyed out of watching nine thousand hours
of tennis and and things bleeding together.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
I'll put this out there to all of you because
I think it'll find it amusing. You know, when you're
the sports desk and you're like, I'm going to pitch
the edit to something. I'm imagining Devan going up to
a sports editor and saying that Cam Norri, Diego Schwartzman
first round. I've got a thousand words to me on that.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yeah, have you guys seen how short Diego Shwartsman is? Like, yeah,
that's five hundred words alone right.

Speaker 5 (28:29):
Where we laugh here. And I've had a Diego Schwartzman
profile kind of in the chamber for like two years
running like I'm like waiting for I really thought this
could have been his open to make his run. But
I'm a I'm a huge fan, and I'm also fascinated
by how he makes it work.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Awesome. Anything else, guys from ATP side before we head
over to the women's side.

Speaker 5 (28:51):
Any disappointments, any any players you were expecting more from.
I think I think I was, well, I'll started with
a caveat that. I think I do think Medvedev is
just a different tier of player right now. But I
was bummed by how quickly Tiafo Francis Tiafo went out
in that match, right I think had there been a crowd,
it would have been a really fun dynamic and probably

(29:13):
would have made things more interesting, but just not not
a fun watch.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
This is.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
This is not to disparage either player, but I think
the Tiafo Millman is the perfect level for each guy,
and like that is where they both will firmly find
themselves in at the inn the tour. But I think
that tier might not be attainable for Francis Bush.

Speaker 3 (29:36):
Yeah, and I think I've said this before on the
podcast that I see them as career twenty to forty.
That's kind of the limit. Interesting on the Demono point
as well, demon Or and Chapeau exact same class, exact
same year. I think Demono's I want to say, like
fifteen days older than Chapeau, So they're kind of basically
at the exact same point in their career. And I think,

(29:56):
as Demono our top four, top thirty, I want to
say the he's been in the top twenty at some
point in his career as well, So he's an interesting
one to keep an eye on. I do think he's
an interesting person that you bring up Gary the other
person perhaps slightly disappointed as Cissy Pass, just this is
a this is a tournament that, well, do you.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
Want to talk about people who are Glad Novak? The
Novak thing went down, Stephanos's dad must be like, all right,
this is a good week for me. No one remembers
that bat shit insanity that look how.

Speaker 5 (30:27):
Far we got without even remembering it, right.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
I I was looking at the draw today as is
just putting the outline together and Zverio's road was so
strange to me to the final, but that big hole,
I think where George is It should have been Sissy
Pass and I wonder City Pass team final probably is better.
And maybe that's where we asked the final question here.
But does this matchup do anything for you guys? This

(30:51):
Verev team. If if we're thinking about what we could
see in the future. Do you does this particular matchup
Do you think this is a one off? Like could
this be interesting?

Speaker 3 (30:59):
I guess I do think the idea of it perhaps
is better than the reality of it, because I think
we tend to place a lot of emphasis upon the
players that we think we're getting and not necessarily the
reality that's been put in front of us. And this
is kind of the case to really go to square
the circle and bring us back to this final a

(31:21):
lot of ways. Alex Pev has been a player who
has had the same weaknesses since he's reached the top
five in the world, and you always come back to it.
And this is the first thing they teach you in
tennis in coaching levels, is what do you rely on
when the pressure is on you? What is the shot
or what is the thing that you always go back to?

(31:42):
And you saw it in this final, specifically with Zverev.
The thing that he went back to was missing his
second serve and standing ninety feet behind the baseline playing defensively,
even though what got him into the position of being
able to be up to sets to love was standing
on the baseline and hitting aggressively and reminding everyone that
he's sticks for six and can power the ball, and
I think that the same is true with Team right

(32:04):
is yeah, he stands so far behind the baseline, But
the thing that really got him across the line in
the end was just ability to hit big, swinging four
hands and going for the fences when it actually matched.
And I know his body broke down on him, but
you would say that the more aggressive player through the third, third,
fourth and fifth set managed to win that final. And

(32:24):
I do think that is probably the difference between those
two players in terms of what that matchup looks like.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
I think that's fair and I think there was some
justice in the end because of the guys who quote
unquote went for it. Dominic team really did towards the
end of that fifth set. I think it was three
four inns in a row that were a match winning
worthy and they were, and now we have a new
Grand Slam champion. I think that alone is just setting
enough to think about as we go forward into the

(32:50):
French Open. But that's enough of the men's side. We
move after the break to the women's side of the bracket,
the US Open. The good side, many would argue, coming
up right after this Welcome back to the Open Air Podcast.

(33:16):
On the women's side, Nami Osaka captured her second US
Open title, defeating Victoria Azarenka won six six ' three
six three. From beginning to end, this was predicted to
be an unpredictable draw because naimiy Osaka was hurt in
the Western Slid Open. She didn't finish that tournament. She
was supposed to play Azarenka in the final. There we

(33:39):
got that final on Saturday, GIRII. Overall, I thought it
was fitting because I think these are the two best
players over the last almost four weeks.

Speaker 5 (33:48):
Now, Yeah, I think that's that's spot on. I forgot
how much I enjoyed watching uh Vika Azarenka play tennis. Also,
I think this was just not just this tournament, but
Cincinnati also is kind of a bracing reminder of that,
just how much game she has. And the match itself

(34:10):
was very compelling, even though I do wish they had
both been kind of playing at their top level at
the same time. Had a bit of a seesaw quality,
but towards the end he got very dicey and interesting. Yeah,
just huge hitting from Naomi down the stretch. Very fun watch,
very impressive from her.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Simon, I think you've been high on Naomi Osaka for
a long time. Not to say you were an outlier,
I think a lot of people were, but not only
not only was the injury concerned, I think worrying about
Cincinnati and how that tournament ended. But I think it's
a different animal when you get to the Grand Slam level,
and the environment was very different with no fans. I

(34:54):
think the amount of pressure on someone like Osaka, where
the draw is supposed to be unpredictable, she still was
a favorite in every match she played, and I think
that aspect made how she handled from the beginning against Douy,
her country woman, to the end that much more impressive.

Speaker 5 (35:11):
No.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
Absolutely, and I think she's a perfect parallel to talk
about with the men's final in a lot of ways
with Sasha Zverev, because could you say at any point
in that final against Victoria Azarenka that you didn't believe
that Naomi Osaka had the mental strength to come back
and win that final, even withstanding a barrage coming down
the opposite end from her. She did not play well,
but she was not allowed to play well, and I

(35:33):
think that's the best thing that you can say about
that first set that Azarenka put together. It was astonishing
to watch because she stood it right in the middle
of the court and she did what she did best,
which is blast balls and winners past her opponent without
anyone really getting near it. And Osaka just did what
she did really well, which is grind, which is stay
in it, which is keep making balls, which is problem

(35:55):
solve on core and outside of Serena. And I think
think this is why I know this is going to
be hyperbolic, but I haven't seen a player in tennis
in a very long time who has the mental strength
that Naomi Osaka has.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
What is our record?

Speaker 3 (36:10):
She's undefeated when she makes the quart of finals of
a Grand Slam at this point, a record if you
just look up. She has some astonishing stuff when she
reaches through Grand Slam finals. She's an amazing, amazing athlete,
and we are lucky to have her at the pinnacle
of our sport.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
They asked her on court why she or what her
her intention was of wearing the masks featuring Americans who
have been shot by police, African Americans who have been
shot by police. Her response was, the pointing is to
make people start talking. I think she did that that
and more so over the last two weeks. And I
think she made a lot of the people covering this

(36:47):
sport acknowledged some uncomfortable areas that they were not comfortable acknowledging.
And I think that is the whole point of what
Naomi Osaka was doing it So she was destroying it
on the court and off the court as well. But
I thought the women's side was the best side of
this tournament. And I thought Thursday night was the best
night of this tournament, one of the best nights of

(37:08):
Grand Slam tennis, perhaps in the last five years, I
would say. And I think I called this draw unpredictable,
But I love the way Jennifer Brady was playing. Coming
into the US Open. Someone who hits the ball that
clean and moves that well and is reliable from both
wings will be a problem. And I thought Brady Osaka

(37:30):
was a wonderful match of two people hitting the sheet
out of the ball, but vary, firm control of what
they were doing. And then you saw Serena and Vika
right after that, where you have two tacticians, tactician tacticianers
who basically have been in every situation. You can be
in a Grand Slam setting and they had to adapt
to what they were confronting. But it's a segue into

(37:53):
Serena Bush and I think that that number twenty four.
Is that going to happen? I think at this point,
and it's a bit of a like is that the
most important thing anyways? Really? I guess it's the first
question Simon.

Speaker 3 (38:06):
Well, apparently it is two ESPN because we heard about
it every bloody minute that she was which I don't
mean to sound disrespectful about that, because it's an incredible
achievement and I hope she gets that record because I
think it's good for us or overall in general. But
my goodness, you know you're watching a US broadcast, and
by goodness, don't ESPN know how to beat that drum
to as much as they possibly can. She is and

(38:29):
still remains a threat to win a Grand Slam any
times she's in the draw. However, the levels caught up
with her, and that's just the reality when you turn
thirty nine. I think she is within a group of women,
there's probably comfortably four to eight women who if they're
in a draw, you would back them to make a
deep run, but you wouldn't suggest in any capacity that

(38:49):
their favorites to win a tournament, and I don't think
she is still I wouldn't say that at this point
in time. I would say that she is a overwhelming
favorite in the latter stages of Grand Slams now, just
simply because people have caught up with her and she
could still win a Grand Slam, and I still probably
suspect she will get another one, but it's going to

(39:10):
be difficult for her, and she's getting older, the body
will break down. And there was a few little things
that kind of went unnoticed as well. She changed the
racket in the off season, smaller headsize, slightly lowered the
swingway a little bit, just to get a bit more maneuverability,
and you don't tend to do that. You don't tend
to see people have won twenty three Grand Slams mess
with their equipment too much if they don't think they

(39:31):
need to make a few minor changes to get over
that line.

Speaker 5 (39:35):
It was extremely impressive run in the sense that I'm
not sure I watched her play two consecutive sets where
she was just flashing like true Serena Williams Tennis, she
ended up doing that at every match at one point
or another. But there was just kind of a lot
of good problem solving and resilience in all of those
matches to make it make things work. Even when I

(39:56):
think the Sloan match comes to mind as one where
I had I thought it was totally over for her.
I think she was down a break in the second set,
Sloane was kind of playing in that Sloan way where
everything just looks so relaxed and comfortable. She's getting to
every ball with plenty of time, just kind of rolling
it deep into the corners, and Serena didn't seem to

(40:17):
have an answer for it, but she did. She came back,
she won very convincingly, and she kind of kept doing
that match after match and kind of in the same
boat as Bush there where I wouldn't peg her as
the favorite for any given Grand Slam, but always in
the mix anytime she's in the draw, and yeah, we're

(40:40):
going to see certain aspects of her game slow down.
The movement certainly wasn't there every single match. I think,
especially in the opening set against Vika, it very much was,
and it was almost jarring in a good way to
see how well she was moving around out there, but
that is certainly one aspect of her game that will
probably see a road with time.

Speaker 2 (41:04):
Serena's footwork in the Stevens match that first set was
perhaps the worst I had seen from her and in
a very long time, and it looked like she was
just not up for it at all. But the fact
that the change was made, and I think she found
to place Sloan Stevens. Sometimes you have to hit the
ball directly in the middle of the court and let

(41:24):
Stevens dictate, and sometimes it'll go poorly for Sloan and
it did there. And I thought the problem solving her
tennis mind has always been there, but I think Serena's
had to rely on that far more as the years
go on, obviously, because that's just how athletics work. And
I think she has the ability to do that, like
we saw at this tournament. But I think you guys

(41:46):
hit it. I understand why the broadcasters will harp on this.
It is a big draw for the Rando sports fan
who is flipping channels. She's always going to be a
big draw, but I think there would be it'd be
better for everyone if some expectations are put in check
and also the idea that Serena is gonna be in
this conversation for a bit longer. And I think that

(42:09):
idea of the door shutting completely is probably wrong because
I look at someone like Victoria Azarenka and door shutting,
and that door was definitely slammed. I think a big
line of the commentary, not just on the television broadcast,
but around the tennis roull is the fact that you
had so many moms completing laid into the tournament. Parankhova,

(42:30):
will Serena Williams, Kim Kleisers was there in this terament
as well, but Azarenka in general. Geary, I thowt you
wrote something following that went against Serena. This is something
that I think will continue. I don't. I think Victoria
Azarenka is going to be a problem for the rest
of the tour.

Speaker 5 (42:48):
Yeah, I love that bringing the basketball parlance over over
to tennant. I think Azarenka is a bucket right now.
She she made an interesting comment after the final, which
was that she was excited about clay and had been

(43:08):
actually having more fun on it recently than in recent
seasons than she had earlier in her career. I could
definitely see her bringing some of the momentum to that surface.
And I think one thing that was nice about the
way things lined up inside the bubble is that two
players who hadn't lost a match ended up playing the
US Open final, very clearly the two best players through

(43:31):
that stretch, and she's playing with a lot of confidence
and just clarity. It just seems very clear to me
what she's trying to do on the court, and don't
feel that way about that many players coming back from
the kind of layoff she just had so very impressive.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
So I look at who she beat on the way
to the final, and it's a lot of the people
who are going to be in the w WTA conversation
for long after in terms of how much promise they have,
from Sablenka to swy Tek to Muchova, a lot of
very very good young players, Elise Burns, who's solid as
a rock. I thought the players that Vika beat showed

(44:16):
where her level was at, because these are no slouches.
These are players with all rounding games and she dismantled them.
And it's a very promising sign because I think she
will be a problem wherever she lines up going forward.
In this cramp together schedule. I mentioned Jen Brady briefly,
but I wonder if this is a reprieve for the

(44:37):
American College Tennessee in Bush, because the idea is that
if you end up going to school, you're not going
to be a super big time player, correct, And I
think perhaps Jen Brady's not going to change that, but
it might open the door maybe to throw some respect
back on the collegiate system, hope.

Speaker 3 (44:55):
So, yeah, she was magnificent, wasn't she. She took about
a player that you thought deserve to be the position
that she was in. She could have easily won that
match against Osaka as well. She struck the ball beautifully.
Her timing is impeccable. I think that's one thing that
doesn't get talked about.

Speaker 4 (45:10):
Enough with it.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
She just sees the ball so well and connects the
balls always in front of her. She's never chasing balls.
Her timing is just it's wonderful to watch, and the
power that she generates is really quite remarkable. Actually, that
match in the semi final, you just say, two of
the best ball strikers in the world going at it.

Speaker 4 (45:26):
It was wonderful to watch. And yeah, I.

Speaker 3 (45:28):
Think some respectability. Back to that side of things, I'm
in favor of people going down the collegiate route if
that's what they want to do, because Clee we've seen
examples of it being successful.

Speaker 4 (45:44):
I think she's got a real big future.

Speaker 3 (45:46):
And you know that's silly of me to say as
someone who's just made a semi final at a major,
but she's outrageously talented and I'm excited to see her
for the rest of this year. Honestly, I'm very, actually,
really curious to see what she does on the front
on the clay. Sorry, not a great record obviously. At
the French Open, She's been dumped out in the first
round I believe twice. I only made a second round.

(46:07):
I believe this is the furthest she's ever made her
Grand Slam by a significant margin. So not a good
track record, but we'll wait and see. She's definitely going
to take confidence out of this tournament and in that
quick turnaround in the in the twenty five second turnaround
that they have before they're going to play on the clay,
I hope that she's going to have a really good
run there.

Speaker 5 (46:27):
Definitely one of my favorite runs by an American player
in recent memory, a lot of friends going nuts about
her forehand technique. I would love to see more of
that kind of risty Western motion on the WTA. I
think it was very disruptive to a lot of her opponents.
I feel amount of spin she generates is probably pretty

(46:48):
different from the norm, and yeah, just to she can
just uncork that from any position on the court and
immediately get leverage over the point. So super fun player
to watch, very clean and skilled ball striker. Yeah, I
could see how things could be lining up for her

(47:11):
in a way that, like, you know, this is sustainable
going forward. All the pieces are there.

Speaker 2 (47:17):
I mentioned Diomie Osaka addressing wearing the masks and bringing
light to social justice movements. But I was curious what
you guys thought of ESPN's commentary and some of the
other commentary you saw at the tournament, because I thought
there's two Black lives Matter and the mother's narrative was

(47:41):
two things that I thought they really tried to hit
home on and for good intentions for the most part.
I can't read people's minds, but I thought for the
most part the intentions were good. But I always find
it interesting where the mistakes are made or where I
think for US viewing, or for us watching from a
different perspective, we can acknowledge, like God, that was a

(48:03):
terrible idea. I wonder how you guys kind of saw
how how they handled it. Simon may start with you.

Speaker 3 (48:11):
I thought, given given their target audience and given who
they have on the broadcast, I thought they actually did
a relatively decent job of at least trying to pay
lip service to it. Let's not forget that during the
advert breaks for the US Open, we're being served adverts
for Rolex Emirates Air.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
Gray Goose Vodka.

Speaker 3 (48:30):
So we're talking about an extraordinarily wealthy category of people
who are watching this tournament, and that's really where their
bread is buttered. That's where the I'm sure they haven't
the advert revenue comes from. And I'm not I don't
want to that sounds like I'm suggesting that all rich
people are not in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement.
I'm certainly not that. I'm sure the Oh God, I've
dug myself into a big hole now somewhere quickly from

(48:52):
a lifeline here on this one. But no, I think
I think he's been done a reasonable job with that.

Speaker 4 (48:57):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (48:58):
That they particularly went out on a limb at any possibility,
but I think they did exactly what they had to,
which is play very neutral down the middle storytelling in
that regards.

Speaker 4 (49:10):
But I thought it was.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
A shame that they did not show Corday's defund the
police T shirt in the final. I thought that was disappointing.
I thought it was hilarious and immediately looked up to
see where I could buy one of those whilst watching
that final, because I thought it was very amusing. But
I think for the most part, they did a neutral,
middling job in terms of bringing light to that issue.

Speaker 5 (49:37):
Yeah, I think neutral and middling is about the diagnosis
i'd give it to obviously not the group of people
best equipped to talk about a lot of these things,
how right, huge counterexample to that in the sense that
we have a tennis player who has literal direct experience

(49:57):
with police brutality, and I think he was underused. It
could be that I missed a lot of the matches
where he was kind of taking these topics head on,
but you know, I would have loved to see him
in the booth and asking, you know, pointed questions to
the audience in ways that some of the older wider
coventariot were not really equipped to do. So, I think

(50:22):
maybe under using James, who's also I really enjoyed his
commentary from a tennis perspective as well, and I think
most of it, most of the commentary was well intentioned.
But obviously that one incident where I don't remember who
it was, but Neari Osaka.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
Was asked, oh that sounds right.

Speaker 5 (50:42):
Yeah, she was asked for a hint about which mask
of a victim of police brutality she was going to
wear next, as if it was some kind of game show.
That's just rough all around, all things considered, I think
if literally five minutes had been set aside to consider
how to ask certain questions carefully or how to raise

(51:03):
certain subjects carefully, this probably could have gone more smoothly.
But again, it's tough ask for these people, and I
think the point is to create discomfort, and I'm very
impressed by the extent to which Naomio Osaka in particular
pulled that off. Creating that discomfort is a lot of
the value of what she's doing.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
I thought when Alexander Stevenson was brought on the broadcast
as well. To go with that James Blake point, Gary
you mentioned, I thought that that was positive and it
was better discourse perhaps than that was offered by the
regular panel the people who are watching I think that's
a fair point. Bush Like. First of all, never Rolex

(51:44):
ad has replaced a lot of childhood memories in my
mind because it's just it aired. I felt like every
every fifteen minutes. But it's true in terms of who
is watching this and I saw it. I think Boanni
Jones raised this point. The people who are absorbing this
message are the people will probably react the most negatively
to it. Then that is the point for sure, I mean,
and that will get people talking. But I think middling

(52:07):
is definitely a fair synopsis. And I think I could
count or at one point I was writing this down,
but you could kind of notch every uncomfortable moment on
air when someone had to acknowledge something perhaps that they
weren't ready to and it made for some very weird
on air moments, but there was not enough of them,

(52:27):
I thought. And to go on your point, the Jason Goodall,
Darren Cahill, James Blake, if there's an all male commentary team,
put those guys together because I thought they under I
don't know how they divvy out straws for who got
the final, but I thought it was a very weird
selection because overall, I thought that the commentary was all
over the place, and now just talking about on court,

(52:48):
I thought the krem and the krem and that we
get the world feed option up in Canada where we watch,
and I think it's all over the place. You have
Taylor Dent talking mad spicy about stuff that, like he's
talking about how he hates the backhand slice so vehemently.
He talked about this for an entire set and a
half about how much he hated the backhand slaves. I'm like,

(53:10):
what is going on? This is a match man, But
I almost would rather that than scenarios where I thought
there was a Jen Brady cheering fest going on during
that O soccer match, and I resorted to muting a
lot of it. But I understand it's not exactly for
the tennis homers to commentary. I get that they're supposed
to just call like they see it, but not even

(53:30):
that was done at times, and I thought just showing
tennis sometimes was thought of as unthinkable, But that complain's
not going to go away anytime yet.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
Yeah, No, it's certainly not, and I think there is
there's a big generational gap. James Blake, I think was
very good. I thought Stevenson was pretty pretty good as
well in terms of some of the analysis that she
brought to this. But it desperately that broadcast feels old
and stale and boring, and it feels like it is
it is a different generation trying to comment on issues

(54:01):
which they are not comfortable with, they're not a part of,
or have not been a.

Speaker 4 (54:05):
Part of throughout their career or their life.

Speaker 3 (54:08):
Certainly politically, it certainly suggests that just given what we've
seen over the last sort of fifty years in terms
of what social movements have looked like. So I think
it doesn't seem like ESPN as a broadcast is particularly
interested in doing that as something like tennis, which I
think is good that Naomi Osaka brings that sort of
thing because it forces at least them as a broadcaster

(54:30):
to reflect upon whether or not they have the right
voices talking about it. And even with someone like James Blake, right,
I think he was actually revelation in terms of some
of the things that he bought out on court in
his commentary. But let's not forget in a certain way
that James Blake is forty years old. James Blake's almost
double the age of Naomi Osaka, right, so in terms

(54:53):
of what his sort of he perhaps has not grown
up with the level of vitriol that's been directed at
her on social media, just the pressure that comes with
that as well, and just the fact that, let's be
honest here, how many players through history, on the men's side,
even on the women's side have made as strong a

(55:14):
social statement as Nami Osaka has. You would certainly argue
that someone like Billy Jean King has, who has been
phenomenal I think over the last few weeks in terms
of some of her support that she's given out to
Namo Osaka. Obviously, the Williams sisters have gone about that
in a different way as well, but you would argue
they've also put social messaging at the front and center.
Martina Navratilova gets pretty thin after that, doesn't it, And

(55:35):
it gets even more thin on the men's side. So
you can't say there's someone who they've put on the
broadcast who knows how to walk that walk, and I'm
upset that even bringing on someone like Billy jen King
for more segments I think would have been a good
thing just to sort of talk about that and maybe
give a perspective on it. But it was sadly missing

(55:55):
that In some ways.

Speaker 5 (55:57):
I will say it did introduce an interesting newcom and
terry dynamic that I hope continues, which is, at least
in the case of Alexandra Stevenson and Chrissy Ever, two
commentators just getting sick of each other over the course
of a broadcast in real time definitely adds a kind
of parallel entertainment sports match.

Speaker 3 (56:20):
I can talk outside of the realms of the sporting
of the tennis squad, but it's a hard f for
Chrissy Ever in this whole two weeks, I thought she
was very poor through the whole broadcast and really did
not enjoy a commentary at all. I think she's been
good in the past. I think she's like Johnny Mack
in that regard. As they started out okay, and it's
slowly become more and more phoned in, and it becomes
a little more grating and a bit more annoying when

(56:43):
they're actually really important issues being raised, and you don't
really have people who are equipped to talk about that.

Speaker 2 (56:48):
Boy talking about a lightning rod. I think between European
Tennis Twitter and North American Tennis Twitter Chrissy ever, it
is a very deficive figure. But I think people were
falling on your side there, Bush. I get it, like
I get like chatting and like having a nice familiar tone.

(57:08):
But boy, boy, there was some There was some loose
moments throughout the past couple of weeks. And again, I
don't expect them to be perfect, but I think we
should have expectations. Perhaps the fact that we didn't have
expectations before is why they're able to skirt things for
so long. And again I get it Rolex Aston, Martin,

(57:29):
et cetera, but I think they can. They can work
harder on this on the WTA side, Fellas, Before we
wrap up, anything else that caught your eye over the
last couple of weeks. I know we talked about thirty
players having a shot at this, but I think it
was fair to say. I thought there's so much good
tennis all around and the variety we saw. I thought
Machova was someone I loved watching as well, and I

(57:51):
think injuries, maybe kind of deilter at the end there,
but so many, so many good, good matches that I
I just I probably like I think Shelby Rodgers Kvitova
in the fourth round was a fantastic match. There's just
so much good stuff all around the grounds.

Speaker 3 (58:06):
Charlie Macov is a real player, isn't she. She's definitely
got ground slam potential in her future and she's.

Speaker 4 (58:13):
A fun one.

Speaker 3 (58:13):
I'm looking forward to seeing her over the next few
years because she has it all. She actually looks a
little bit like Andresco in a lot of ways that
she plays with the power and some of the variety
that she has in her game, so I do see
a good future for her.

Speaker 5 (58:28):
I really also just want to give a shout out
to Prankova for just what an enjoyable watch she is.
Some of that crafty little bit of junk ball, a
little bit of grass court tennis in the middle of
the US Open, and just a very fun run. She
almost pulled off the upside as well at the end there.

Speaker 2 (58:51):
Her first tournament since the twenty seventeen Wimbledon Championships ended
with almost beating Serena Williams at the US Open, right,
totally amazing. Well, it was a fantastic US Open on
the women's side before we shut it down. This week
we'll come back for the final segment. It's our parting
shots coming up right after the break. Welcome back to

(59:25):
the Open Air podcast. It's the final segment, parting shots.
You know what, I'm going to be selfish and do
the honors myself this week, Bianca and Rescue withdrew from
the Italian Open, citing the knee injury that's hampered her
for over a year now. She hasn't played since October
twenty nineteen, when she retired from a match against Carolina Pliskova.

(59:49):
Her coach Sylvan Bruno did some media the past week
basically casting words out on Bianca's availability for the French Open.
I think the prognos this is from doctors or Twitter
doctors or people who know what they they're talking about
when it comes to athletes in their bodies, which is
a shit town of them on Twitter, they're writing Bianca

(01:00:09):
off and I think it's fair to be very uneasy
about the future. But I thought seeing Genie Bouchard make
the run she didn't Istan Bull this week where she
lost in the final, but really pulled off some big wins,
getting back into the top one point fifty in the rankings.
It's a crazy climb back from a pretty big fall
from someone that was thought to be the future of

(01:00:29):
crenading and tennis. So I guess what I'm saying is, though,
even though it looks pretty grim right now for Bianca
and we're not sure when she's going to play again,
I think tennis has shown us that there is no
singular timeline. There is no set path of events you
have to follow to make it back to wherever it
is you want to make it back to you. But
I think the fact that Genie Bouchard is still playing

(01:00:50):
today and still finding the will to make it back
to where she once was means that you can't really
write off anyone, even though it looks pretty grim for Bianca,
So I will voice a positive note in these extremely
dark times.

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
Thoughts, gentlemen, Well soon, Bianca, we'd like to have you
back on tour.

Speaker 5 (01:01:09):
Yeah, if I'm just thinking of maybe the single player
I was most excited to watch in twenty twenty, so
to see how far we got into the year without
really getting to see her play has been a bummer.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
On that positive note, simon take it away.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
Yeah, I mean a parting shot quite literally. So grab
your drinks out, everyone, pull yourself one as we wish,
and say our best wishes to the line staff of
Grand Slams who will never be seen after this tournament again,
so pull one out for them. Given some of the
calls that certainly in that Chapa match, Chapa made nine

(01:01:45):
correct cause terrible. Shocking, Yeah, shocking. It seems the players
are really happy with the use of Hawkeye Live. We
had the infamous Dannium Medvedev meltdown, which was truly wonderful.
He has to be one of the most funny players
on tour. Honestly, just him launching into a tirade at

(01:02:06):
the match official was one of the more funny things
I've seen in a long time. I had to actually
stop what I was doing and turn up the television
to watch the level of sarcasm dripping off as time
was wonderful. But I feel like we're in a safe
position and I hope everyone agrees with this that line's
staff can go. I don't like seeing people lose their
jobs all for strong unions and all that sort of stuff,
but it's one of those that clearly the technology is

(01:02:28):
superseded the ability of our lines judges. We've clearly got
the technology, So let's give them a big payoff. Let's
give them more pensions for the rest of their lives
and they can go and have a nice drive around
California when it's not on fire. So let's get there,
let's get Hawkeye live in, and let's never have lines
judges at Grand Slams again.

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
The hilarity of players challenging robotic calls in Cincinnati at
that tournament was it gave me a few chuckles, But
there was a parently that missed the human element heading
into the US Open. But I'm with you, Simon. I
think it's it's time to tip our cap, just to
give the give technology it's due it beat us again.

(01:03:05):
It's time. We we've lost, We've lost this battle, and
it's just time to move forward.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
It is true, and that's how it should be. That's
how it should work, is that you are supposed to
get beaten by our rova and you are supposed to
move on with your life.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
They had a good run, all right, Gary, close it up.

Speaker 5 (01:03:22):
Yeah, this was a thought I had earlier in the
week and then it became incredibly clear just in the
contrast of these two finals we had this weekend.

Speaker 2 (01:03:30):
But if I.

Speaker 5 (01:03:32):
Were in the ATP, if I were organizing ATP players
and thinking about the appeal of my sport, I think
I'd be pretty desperate to hitch my bandwagon to the
excitement around and someone like Naomi Osaka and I acknowledge
I guess I acknowledge my North American bias here, but
also players like Bianca Andrescu despite the disappointment we just

(01:03:53):
talked about our Cocoa golf, but permeating out of the sport,
breaking into the mainstream in way that it's unclear if
anyone ATP player definitely has the chrisma and game to
do that. It just seems like it would be a
wise move to incorporate women into a hypothetical players union

(01:04:17):
as quickly and enthusiastically as possible, even for your own
welfare and people paying attention to your tennis. So that
I'm very excited about the future of the WTA. I
am ultimately still excited about the future of ATP, even
if this final gave us every reason not to be.
I think there are still a lot of fun names

(01:04:39):
coming up that we've talked about, but it's just the
names in the faces are just so much clearer. I Mean,
there's just no one on Naomi's level, really no equivalent.
So just yeah, I hope that there is a that
even just on a basic basic marketing level at the

(01:05:02):
both parties, the men stand again a lot from the
potential union or fusion of some kind. So let's see
what happens.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
From your yeah, your voice to Vasi's head apparently, because
it sounds like they're working around the clock to rectify
that situation. But boy, does that make sense to me?
You said again, I think you hit this geary, But like,
I'm not gonna indict the rest of the ATP for
what we just watched and say it was complete trash.
But it's, uh, it's a lot to think about. If

(01:05:36):
you're Andrea Goodnzi or the crew running the ATP and
you're you have a lot of concerns for sure, But yeah,
that makes a lot of sense. All right, Fellas, that's
it for the US Open. Somehow, it's over. Somehow, we
have a new men's champion for the first time in
six hundred years. In Naomia soccer reaching the pinnacle again.

(01:05:56):
It's a lot to ask up to some some this
all up into a few words, but I think we
miss Sky Simon start with you anything you want to
touch on before we go.

Speaker 3 (01:06:03):
I'm just pleased that both storylines were positive in both
sides of things. The atp having a new Grand Slam
champion is It's really nice. We've been waiting a long
time for it. And I think someone who deserves to
win their first Grand Slam so close, let yet so far,
did it the hard way, the very very hard way.
And I think on the women's side, it's Naomi Saka's tour.

(01:06:26):
She is clearly, if not the most talented, but within
the top three most talented women on the tour. Deserves
her place and stands in a way that a lot
of players could learn from in terms of using the
voice that she has and making the sport feel a
little uncomfortable. And as I've said numerous times in this podcast,

(01:06:46):
when people are uncomfortable in positions of power, it's usually
a good thing. So proud of the things that she's
done over the last couple of weeks, and actually proud
of Dominic Tim for making that transition from clay to
the hard courts.

Speaker 5 (01:06:59):
Yeah, I also like to give team a shout out.
I think there have been a few specific turning points
in my mind that kind of turned me from a
hater to a believer, the Nadal twenty eighteen quarterfinal at
the Open being the first one, and then I think
the ATP finals match against Djokovic being another so. And
then of course the Australian Open final, which was somehow

(01:07:21):
this year somehow so watching that kind of iterative progression,
I really think he deserved it and it was amazing
to watch, if not for the last two hours or so,
but everything else was great.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
Shouts the Dominic team. Never forget Novak defaulted from this tournament,
because I feel like that needs to be said. Okay
again in terms of what the hell happened here, it
feels like ten years ago, But that happened. That happened,
And perhaps the most intriguing thing for me that doesn't
involve what we just saw was how Novak response to
that in Europe. But we'll have plenty of time to

(01:07:58):
talk about that soon. Geary Doorzo's Open friend, thanks so much.

Speaker 5 (01:08:04):
Thanks for having me and Simon.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
We'll find ourselves back here next week. You can find
us on Twitter at openeerapod, on Patreon, dot com, forward
slash Open Era, and if you could leave a rating
or a review wherever you find your podcast, that would
be fantastic. Major thanks to producer Shortna air Nick working
the ones and twos late into the night as a

(01:08:28):
record right after the final. That's it for us this week.
This is Open Era. We'll talk to you soon.