September 2, 2024 • 52 mins
We feel old.
On this week’s Open Era Simon and Devang unpack a stunning opening week at the US Open that saw both Carlos Alcaraz and Novak Djokovic eliminated early. They discuss the implications of those upsets on the men’s side.
Elsewhere, the women’s half is loaded headed into the business end of the tournament. The guys assess the favourites before heading into Parting Shots!
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: podcast@openera.ca
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.
On this week’s Open Era Simon and Devang unpack a stunning opening week at the US Open that saw both Carlos Alcaraz and Novak Djokovic eliminated early. They discuss the implications of those upsets on the men’s side.
Elsewhere, the women’s half is loaded headed into the business end of the tournament. The guys assess the favourites before heading into Parting Shots!
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: podcast@openera.ca
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Hello and welcome to the Open Air Podcast. My name
is de Van de Sign have joined as always by
mister Simon Bushell. Halfway through the US Open, Simon and
holy cow, what the hell has happened?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well? I think it's a tale of two draws, isn't it.
Because the women's side is still loaded, it's still full
of exciting and interesting tennis. The men's side is a
bit of a disaster in terms of for the planners
and for those in the hierarchy and those sitting with
all of the money at the USTA. I think they
couldn't have scripted this going any worse. I don't think
(00:48):
it could be worse as watching Janick Senner be dumped
out tomorrow. But for the time being, David, it's been
a very, very exciting tournament.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yeah. I didn't think of the organizers and the marketers first,
but now I am thinking about them. It is interesting
because they still have a bootload of Americans in here
as well, right on the men's side too, so there
is something to lean on. But let's start there, because
I think this is the main story. After the first
week of the US Open, two of the biggest names
(01:15):
in the tournament, two of the big names on the
men's side out early, Carlos Alkaaz falling to Botch van
de van de segnder Slope, and Novak Djokovic falling to
the Montreal maven Alexey Poprin. Which one was more surprising
to you, Simon.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
It's a really good question because from reading the internet,
which is always a bad start, and also listening to
tennis commentators, you would believe that Botic's win here was
the greatest victory in tennis history, which to me verges
on a little bit disrespectful. It has to be said.
It feels like a group of people that have never
(01:58):
seen someone win at challenger level and hung around the
sort of fifty to eighty range on the tour for
as long as he has done. He is an exceptionally
good player, and to imply that this is some sort
of incredible massive shock is I think a little bit
disrespectful to him. Now, obviously you can throw in the
(02:18):
narrative around him wanting to retire just three months ago
and all those sort of things. The dude is still
twenty eight years of age, still ranked seventy in the world,
still a very very good player. I think one that Yes,
is mimable because of the name and because of his
attitude on court, but overall is a very very good
tennis player, and I think it is exciting to watch
(02:42):
someone like that play and get a big win. On
the flip side of that, I would actually circle Alexei
Papyron's win over Novak Djokovic being more shocking, just given
the nature of the titles that Novakdjokovic has one given
him coming off of a gold medal. I think both
of us predicting him to make a very deep run
(03:02):
in this tournament and perhaps even winning it. I think
the manner of which he lost this match and also
the manner in which Papyron played, So I would go
with that one over the Alcaraz loss because Alexei Papyron
was full marks for it, but not by Jokovic looked awful,
just truly dreadful out there and in a situation that
we haven't seen him look like in a very long time.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Yeah, and the Olympics factor is the big one here. Normally,
when these matches happened, like after the first set for
al Chaaz, I assumed he would come back, and then
as the second set sort of emerged that looked debatable,
even though I think there was some early signs of
progress for Carlos in the second set. And yeah, the
level of flatness is something we haven't seen from him
(03:45):
really at this level in a long time. And just
to Zum, I would a bit an understand. I guess
the level of fatigue that accompanies the whole pairis thing.
It makes sense that we got this from him. And
then I guess that leads to why I was so
surprised about Novak a little bit. I mean, this is
someone who's done this before. He's he's managed to somehow
(04:08):
navigate the highest of emotions the lowest of emotions, Like
I felt like his experience would have helped him here,
but he did really play bad. Like I think his
serve has been an issue for him this whole tournament,
even when he was getting through matches, and it continued
in this one as well. So I guess the surprise
is that, like when Novak won the third set, I
(04:29):
fully believed that he would win it five, you know,
and the fact that he wasn't able to come through
was shocking.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Agreed, what should we say about Alexei Papyron? Like I
think everyone was I don't know if clowning that Masters
one thousand win in Montreal, I think that's probably a
little disrespect although he did a bit. Yeah, absolutely, And
when I say people, I mean us, and so I'm
just trying to cover my ass very briefly here, But
it has to be said that was a win against
(04:57):
the backdrop at the Olympics. It wasn't a loaded field.
It was you know, the extenuating circumstances behind why it occurred.
I don't think anyone is saying that he was a
fluke for that title. Now. Did you see his comments
after the match when he was asked which one meant
more to him that I thought it was very amusing
that he chose the Montreal title over winning this match
(05:18):
because it was for a title and this was just
a third round matchup against a random player. So I
thought that was very funny. I don't think he meant
it to be throwing shade, but I took it that way.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It's good. It led me to think about the opportunities
now for the rest of the field, and as we speak,
there's some matches going on, including I think a bunch
of people who have huge opportunities, whether it be orub
Levs or Dimitrovs or Fritz's or Rude. But another part
of me thinks, Simon, like, if if Francis Tiaffo is
to win this tournament, it's better for him that he
(05:51):
didn't have to go through Novak, because if you were
to win that match, he probably would have had to
sweat out the equivalent of Lake Ontario to accomplish that,
and he would have been gas going forward. But now
that he doesn't have to play Novac as his mentality change. Like,
I do think this is one of the most interesting
men's side of a Major in years, because we do
(06:13):
have a lot of a lot of variables here, and
even the favorites have some baggage with them, including Yannick
and Daniel.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Absolutely, I think you could probably make the case. Maybe
I think you probably could make this case. Let's go
with it and we can always work back from this point.
I think you can make the case that everyone who
is in the fourth round legitimately believes they could win
this title despite all of the roads ahead of them
and understanding that it's going to be difficult matches. All
(06:44):
of these players have won tour titles, have won at
tour level, they probably all feel like, given who's out
and given the road ahead of them, they're not looking
at any of these matchups and feeling like they can't
win them. And I think that mostly work because I
don't think that Tommy Paul is scared of that Cinner
match in the fourth round. I don't honestly know that
(07:05):
any of these fourth round matchups would be scared of
each other. And I think that makes for some really
exciting tennis. All of this against the backdrop that I'm
really nervous that Alexanders Farav is gonna win this tournament.
It seems like the road is so open for him.
I think everyone's gonna look at that top half and
feel like it's, you know, the winner is gonna come
(07:25):
out of there, just given that Cinner and Medvedeva there,
I'm looking squarely at that bottom half and feeling like,
oh God, there's one name in there that stands out
above the rest who has a really good chance of
winning this.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Now that was a nervous shuckle for me. But yeah,
in sense, in the sense of mission stop sphere of
let's put it this way, who do you have the
most faith in remaining? Because I think it's mad. It's
clearly Daniel Medvedev for me. So I feel like that
(07:55):
quarter final between Cinner and Medvedev, if they get there,
the stakes are ridiculous high.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah yeah, I mean everyone who he faces is gonna
is gonna give him a decent matchup. I would have really,
really fancied Massetti playing against him. But damn you, Brandon Nakashima.
You have to turn into prime Andre Agassi during this tournament,
just at a time when we need you most.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Best backhand on the men's tour or maybe at this tournament.
Holy yeah, what a backhead for Brandon Akashima. But yeah,
you're right. I think you also have the idea of, like,
if it's Rude or Fritz, that that'll be tough for
him as well. But yeah, it's also cool because I
feel like people like greg Ord Debytrov really believe right
(08:38):
now that there's a chance for them to maybe do
something that they thought a few years ago was impossible.
Because of the stats that are left in the wake
of Novaka losing. At this point is that we have
now for the first time since two thousand and two,
a year without the Big Three winning a title on
the men's side, which is insane. I went back and
looked at what happened in two thousand and two, Simon
(09:01):
on the ATP. We got some hilarious stuff here, but
all four slams are won by different people. But three
of those slams that was their only title. The player
that one I find hilarious and interesting. But for the
sake of trivia, can you name who won the four
slams of two thousand and two?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
So Lighton here at won win Wooden?
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Uh? Is that rotic roddick? Two thousand and three? The
US Open, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:32):
So it's not erotic. It's the last hurrah for a
great though.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Went in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It's Pistol Pete. It's Pete Sampress.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Yeah, Cumpress, Yeah, Cumpres makes sense. French will be the
year before Guestavo one. It wasn't kidding, right, kid won
in two thousand correct, Yeah it was.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
It was another one hit. Wonder this one. I don't
know if you'll get to be honest. He's Spanish and
he's not one. Carlos Ferrero.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
It wasn't Ferrero. Nope, it's not coming to the front
of mine.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Albert Costa, right, yes, down, And finally the Australian Open
two thousand.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
And two, three.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Two thousand and two. Yeah, he beat Marat Saffen.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
I get it right. It is your Hanson, right, it.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Is Thomas Johnson. Correct, well done. Thomas j Hansen got
into a lot of video games based on this win.
He was in virtual tennis. He got into games he
shouldn't have gotten into, and I have to applaud him
for that. That that random win. Two thousand and two
is also the year Fed became a top ten player,
So I found that stat insane. It did make us
(10:51):
feel old.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Who is the Thomas Johansson of the twenty twenty four
US Open Men's singles?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
It might be Jordan Thompson. I'll tell you that it
might be. It might be Toma himself, Tomo.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
I think it's probably Tommy Paul as opposed to Jordan Thompson.
Truth be told. Nah's too not just that's unfair.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Tommy Paul's a better player, and Thomas Jodson had a long,
lengthy career of being a top top something.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
As we reached the memory banks here of how good
Thomas Johansen was as a player, I think he was
all right, wasn't he? I think he was. He hung
around the top thirty for a decent amount of time.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
He made a Wimbledon semi quarterfinals a couple of times.
I think he was seventh in the world at one point. Yeah,
so you know what, I feel like we are shading
Thomas Yohtson too much. But Tommy Paul was killed to
have his career in the end, and if this is
his Slam, why not?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Right? Absolutely? What do you make of the other damning
statistic which came out of this tournament, which was no
Spanish men into the third round since nineteen ninety nine.
That is an absolutely remarkable stat It speaks to, obviously,
the longevity of how good Spanish tennis has been on
(12:15):
the men's side. It also speaks to the fact that
it helps when you have both Rafa and Nadal and
Carlis Alcaraz and you know, the list goes on and on,
David Farrah, Wan Calus Ferrero, as you previously mentioned, Albert
Costa as well. There is just a long, long, long,
long list of exceptionally good Spanish male players. Feels like
a bit of a transition period, doesn't it, And it
(12:37):
speaks to the fact that since nineteen ninety nine, that
is an incredibly long time ago, I do not have
a man in the third round. That is in some
ways more crazy to think about than even the Big
Three's Grand Slam record since two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
And now you look and you can't miss an Italian
basically if you look any in any section of a
ATP draw, which is some that wasn't happening in the
past either. Yeah, it does feel like a bit of
a change. You see Australia extremely well wresent well represented here,
France as well the UK. I wonder as well if
this maybe hearkens to the power of the Slams and
(13:15):
those federations simon the countries with the most resources being
able to invest in the depth of talent they have,
because I mean, the US is obviously not two or
three deep. They've got a lot of guys. But I
saw this was the first first Top twenty matchup between
two men of the Slam, two American men since two
thousand and two. When Shelton and Tiaffo play, that is
(13:37):
insane to me as well. But now they've got it
looks like six guys, seven guys potentially Na Kashiba will
be back in the top top twenty and no time.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
I think Yep partly likes two thousand and two. Dev,
it's happening. We're going back. What is Old as New again?
Get your cargo pants out, power.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Just powers is back, baby, shagaedelic Baby.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, absolutely, get your blonde highlights center parting. That's coming back.
What is Old is new.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Post nine eleven hysterias back, baby, Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
The only thing we need now is long sleeved t
shirt and then short shirt over the top of it
and visors. Yeah, and we're good. Good to go.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Who man well the time? Okay, Just a word.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
On the men's side before we wrap up for your boy,
Dev Gario Diallo. Good tournament for him and I think
turned a few heads of people that perhaps are only
tuning in for the Grand Slams. Came through qualifying, had
a really good winn against ham monam wins against Arthur
(14:43):
Feast in the Battle of the Young Phenoms, goes out
of Tommy Paul in a very respectable match which he
had his chances in, absolutely had his chances in that.
Just a quick word from you on on the young Canadian.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Playing Munar, someone with so much more experience at this level.
I really enjoyed the fact that he went for his shots,
so many errors, but also extremely fun to watch Bush.
I think this boat's well for the future. It also
I mean he played Arthur Fees, he's older than him.
He's older than Fees by a couple of years, and
I think that's that's what happens. You do the collegiate
(15:15):
route and this, this win, this, this two wins I
think brings him really close to the top one hundred,
which I think is important for him in the sense
of avoiding qualifiers going forward. So really good week from him.
And I mean after a disastrous showing for the rest
of the Canadians, we needed something to be proud of,
and he was the one. Because overall Simon not great
(15:37):
from Canada.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Yeah, I think the last set about what Felix OJEARI
I seem phoned into this tournament. It's probably probably best
we wish him well. I s up, sim we need
you back. Come on.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
And Chapo lost to Boatitch All Caps, and after what
he did, I guess that was we all knew what
would happened if Carlos had played Shapo, so in the
sense of us being spared from that. Thanks, I guess
it's true.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Should we turn out attention to the women in a
thoroughly good Yeah, let's do it completely loaded fourth round
section dev Any matchup that you pick is pretty much fantastic.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
It's fantastic. I'm going to take credit, Simon. I saw
early Palla Padosa here against Taylor Townsend, and I thought
to myself, I think she's going to make her run
here based on her draw. It included Krtschikhova, who's nursing
a victory hangover of sorts, and the perpetually cursed Maria
Zachary So I felt like Podosa had a shot here
(16:38):
to make a run. And I'm liking what I'm seeing
so far. But you're totally right in the sense of stacked.
I thought Elise Mertens Keys Madison Keys was a phenomenal match,
and I want to shout out Elise Murtons for bringing
it consistently year over year and also being the thirty
third seed, which I like looks funky and weird. That
(16:58):
was great in Paulini, I mean, if she were to
win it here, this match between Mutchova and Paulinie is
like the two people we want to win the most,
who have probably suffered the most heartache. There's a lot
of storylines here. I mean, you've got Coco Goff, who
is trying to shake some some poor performances playing, Emma
Navarro who's been informed this summer. And then you get Sriantek,
(17:22):
who I think you thought might have maybe had a
slip up potential against pavlink Tchenkova, but she she looked
okay there as well Bush, who are you looking at?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Yeah? And that's before you even get to the the
luscious locks of and luscious bandanna of Diana Schneider as well,
who is wrapping communism everywhere, hammer and sickle, et cetera,
et cetera. We love the bandanna. I mean Jess Pegular
as well, if you if you, if I mentioned the
(17:52):
USTA not feeling great about the ATP side, they've got
to be loving the WTA side because they have strong
American flags still going. They have Cocoa Goff and Emma Navarra,
which has which has I won't say bad blood in it,
but it certainly has an element of revenge looking out
for Cocoa Golf on that side of things. You have comebacks. Obviously,
you have Caroline Mosniyaki turning back of the clock as well.
(18:15):
You have just so many things an eigas filantic of course,
as you mentioned, still in this tournament, I thought there's
a potential slip up, potential banana again against Pavilichenkova called
it didn't happen. Kind of looked mildly like it might
be the case for the first thirty five minutes and
then it very quickly became apparent that it wasn't. But
(18:36):
dev you mentioned it, I think that is that Mukova
Paolini section and those two players. I think we both
desperately want them to see a major, just because of
obviously the year for Paolini and the career of Mukova.
Just a really really good tournament and every single section
has great matchups, and I think you're eating well if
you're a fan of the WTA here you.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Are curious what you thought from Sabolenka so far, Simon,
because she felt like the favorite coming in. She had
to play at midnight thanks to some cris scheduling and
also I mean maybe good schedule. I don't know when
they could have put that faux Shelton match that wouldn't
have impacted another match just based on how long it
was gonna go. But she dealt with that after a
(19:16):
really shaky opening set against Alexandrova. Martins is a tricky
one though, Like I feel like this these next couple
of matches, should she get through, Like you're talking the
winner of shang Vekich, which should be an absolute barn burner.
You got talking about bad blood. Remember the Olympics, that's
that should be absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Yeah, absolutely, maybe we got bad blood. But like an
old tailor, West preference is not appropriate here in any capacity. Boom, Yeah,
totally absolutely Boo. That man sounded like has look fine
to me. I think there was I if you thought
that she's gonna win this title before the tournament, I
don't think there's anything that you've seen here which would
(19:57):
disprove that. I think she's completely, completely fine. I think
I don't think Muttins is a big problem for I
really don't as much respect that I can pay to
Alas Murtens, to a player that we both have a
huge amount of respect for and love eventslely, but Sabalanka
is on a different level at the moment. I still
think she wins this title. I really do. She looks
(20:18):
she looks great and of course has that Sabolenca double
the Mini Sabalanca in the crowd as well, dressed like her,
So yes, she has good vibes going as well.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Potentially, if if she does win, it's it's you beat Murtens,
then you beat winner of shang Beckage, then you beat
potentially let's say Cocoa Goth and then you beat potentially
let's say Fiantec. That's a hell of a road to
to another slam. She'll be full value for that.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah she will. But Schiotek goes to get through Samson
over as well, right, which is it's a it's a
matchup which has got its problems as.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Well, here's something, here's something for it, even with Sabolenka
dropping a set and those conditions aside, I feel less
confident about IgA, you know, and she I think she
has less star power in her section of the draw.
But I feel like Diana Schneider and Jess Peguila have
been extremely informed players this summer, and Wassniaki might be.
(21:15):
I mean, is she the most dangerous not unseated? Yes, definitely,
But I mean it's It's funny when the draw came out,
it seemed like there were so many other things to
pinpoint maybe in and around that section, whether it be
terbakkan Is health or looking at a potential quarterfinal against
against Naomi Osaka. But the fact that Osneyaki has looked
(21:38):
this good. I think it's a bit of an eye
opener as well, because from both wings, especially on the
hard courts, she feels like someone who has the ability
to hit with a Sablenka as well.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah, I agree with you. Wouldn't it be a turnout
for the books Davang during an Olympic year that we
get the most random two winners on at the US Open.
It definitely could happen. I don't think it will happen.
I think there's still enough. I think the top players
and the WTA are still playing well enough that I
(22:11):
do back them to make very deep runs in this tournament,
and for you know, I think one of the favorites
to win it. That says if we are sitting in
a world where the men's side is won by Tommy
Paul and the women's is run by Powell of Pods, Yeah,
that's not that's not a ridiculous situation to predict, given
(22:35):
all the things that have happened, and how compressed the
schedule has been, and just everything that we've seen so
far in this tournament, I could certainly believe it.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Also imagine the synergy there, Tommy Paul Paula Badoza. That's fantastic.
We've got to stop laughing when we mentioned some of
these names, and then Slam winner. But I think this
is what the culture has made us do in that
Big Three era, that curse there, bring us back the
era of Thomas Johanson winning slams damn it. I will
(23:06):
ask for your picks, then your revised picks. I think
I pick Novak, so I'm gonna have to pick again
on the men's side. But on the women's side, are
you sticking with Sabolenka or are you changing? It sounds
like you're not changing.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
I'm not changing. I still think Sabolenka wins this title.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
On the women's side, yeah, and men, are you going
sin Man?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
I'm picking Alexander's viab I think he's gonna win this tournament.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
What basque off?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Mask off?
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Is this some reverse jigs following your sword thing?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
I don't want him to win. I just think he
will win.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Wow, I'm shaken to my core. I'm going to switch
my women's pick to Pala Medosa un ironically, I want
to see it. I want to see it. I want
to see her sore like a phoenix post see fast.
So I'm going Podosa. And then on the men's side,
I think the cinner me bit of quarterfinal. If we
get it, knock On would get it. It's going to
(24:04):
be a knockdown, knockdown, drag him out, leaving both of
them face. So we're gonna get a winner from another
feeling good force. It's Grigor Dimitrov, boldpick, doing it live
as he's playing a match that he could lose. But
I'm picking Dimitrov to win, Simon.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I think everyone would love it, would they know? Do
you see? During the course of the week, they asked
a bunch of players who they would most like to
see on Love Island, and Gregor Dimitrov was the overwhelming
choice on that, so clearly fan favorites. On the checks,
he is a fan favorite among the players. Will he
ride that emotion to winning this US Open title? I don't.
I don't think he's looked that good, I have to say,
(24:47):
despite the cleanliness of his will, well.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
He also he looks quite tired at times. I listen,
I want anyone from that section a teazer in a win,
and I have a feeling the spinner. You know, Med's
fitness is and underrated quality about him, and I love
his dog in this like I do think he'd get
up to take out his verb in the finals, so
like I won't discount him. But Dimitrov also doesn't look
(25:13):
a hundred percent like health wise as we're watching him
against rube Lev. Who have you noticed Bush When Rublev
is yelling at his box often his box is as
confused as all we all are, Like, isn't that concerning
that they don't know what he's yelling about.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, it's not very enjoyable to watch him play at
the moment, given all or historyonics that comes out of
the Russian's mouth. I think I was listening to Naomi
Brody who was being into you on the BBC, and
she referred to it as just a player that has
as a player who you can tell from watching from
(25:47):
the outside. Once it's so badly that is unable to
control the emotions that are coming out of him like
it's it's obvious when you say it like that. But
at the same time, this is not a kid anymore.
This is not someone who is still trying to learn
his learn his craft and is still new to the tour.
This is how many time called a finalist? Is he
(26:08):
at a major eight to nine? It's a lot anyway
to the point where the expectations are that I don't
think it's I don't think it's great when you're continuing
to throw your toys out the prom and completely lose
your head that you think that's going to help you
getting over the line to a semi final. Maybe try
something else at this point.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Yeah, we'll leave it there. When we come back after
the break partying shots, we talk about outfits, the good,
the bad, the fugly, Dominic team, Sinners, doping scandal, plus
Jess Pegialer takes a Subway. All of that coming up
next on Open Air. Welcome back to the Open Air Podcast.
(26:57):
Simon Well into the US Open and you know what
that means. It means we've seen a lot of fits,
hot outfits, good, bad, really bad. But I think Diomiasakas
outfit stole the show. A lot of comments on this
frills no frills. I don't know what you want to
call it, pute green, the green mistake, But what are
(27:20):
your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Yeah, and you left out the most important part was
the bow on the back of it as well, wrapped
up like like a present. Sure, I guess I thought
it was all right. I kind of liked it. I
don't know why it got some of the hate that
it did.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
The color. You know, if it was any other color,
I would have been okay with it. Just something about
that color that literally made me sick. And you know,
I love Naomi Osaka big fan, but I don't know
what pantone color that is. I don't know if you
can buy that legally or you have to get it
on the black market because it's so hideous. But now
I'm not in I'm not in it at all.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Did you see the outfit, the just Pagoula fit, the
added as purple thing.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
It's terrible. So it's worse than that. And that's the thing. Like,
as much as I be rating the Nike green puke fit,
that Adidas thing, the purple thing, it's maybe the worst
thing I've ever seen. And I'm not even being like
clownership about it. I mean this full fullheartedly.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Against the backdrop of a course that we are clearly
not the target audience that they're pitching to. Here. I don't,
I didn't, I didn't care for it. Put it that way,
It's true.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
And I'm asking people every day that I see do
you like this? And they're all saying no, So that
must mean the bowling works.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I did, however, quite enjoy the bench out and shirt,
the on running one. Yeah, it's doing the round. I
believe it's sold out.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I saw on listen on is making not not bad
stuff in the tennis space.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
I never thought it was possible to merge the two
audiences of fourteen year olds and ninety year olds, but
somehow they have. They did have walked the thin line.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
The Venn diagram that would never be one circle. They
did it. Baby.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
There's a period of time, wasn't there whereas people doing
the old classic zooma or boomer who wore it better,
like between between the crocs and the cargo trousers and
all those kind of things, which is maybe we were
Maybe I'm incorrect on this in the sense that it's
actually been a market for a long time it's true.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
I just generally like the Hugo boss stuff. I wonder like,
are people wearing that? Are they coping that at their
local tennis warehouse? Do you think it's going to become
a mainstream thing.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
I don't think so, Hugo Bosses. It's interesting if you
walk around the stores though, if you go into any
big mall in North America, you do see Mathio Bertini
plastered in underwear all across the front of their stores.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
So how yeah, I wonder I would love to do
a pool speaking of Poul so like to yell at people, hey,
do you know who this is? As they walked, Well,
I'm nearly naked material Barattini for research.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
So interesting they chose perhaps the two most handsome men
on tour in Taylor Fritz and Matia Barattini to be
there too. People they marck it around. I feel like
they know what they're doing. I don't know whether or
not that's a good thing or not, but they certainly
have an audience they're trying to cater to.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It's given off Abacrovi and Fitch early two thousands vibes,
which is upsetting. So we'll leave it there, Okay, Dominic
Team Simon last Grand Slam match at a place that
means a lot to him, of course. The winner of
the twenty twenty US Open, Dominic Team lost his final
match to Ben Shelton. Simon, what do you think of this?
(30:45):
I'm glad they gave them ash. I did think it
was a bit weird because it was in the daytime,
so it felt like a bit like they were playing
him off Oscar style where he was doing his speech
at the end. But Dominic Team gave a dissol. Clearly
loved the shit out of this gate. It was really
good at it, but like some greats before him, his
body wouldn't allow him to keep going. Really glad he
(31:07):
got that one, though I know it sounds kind of
how Harlow saying this when he's having to stop early,
but is really important. I think in the sense of
like tennis history that I think Donali team got one
because he pushed a lot of these guys to the
very limits, had won some awesome matches. Well.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I think he's an interesting person as well, simply because
from a personal standpoint, from a podcast standpoint, I think
we we were around at the time of watching him.
I mean this this podcast kind of book ends his
career in some ways, the top end of his career,
because I remember talking about that ascent and like distinctly
remembering myself saying that I thought he was the best
player in the world. I thought he was a world
(31:46):
number one in a period of time when Roger feder
raf and Adal and Novek Drookovic and Nandy Murray were
still playing and still at the top of the game.
That's how good I think Dominic team was for the
period of time that he ascended to the sport twenty nineteen,
twenty twenty, even twenty eighteen. You can make the case
as well, like was he was, like he was the dude.
(32:06):
And I think that's somewhat lost on the fact that
we've seen so much of his career derailed because of
injury and the fact that he was kind of a
late riser as well. He had to work very, very
hard to make that transition between being a someone would say,
a clay court specialist of being able to play on
all surfaces. I think he is going to get, unfortunately
(32:26):
lost to the annals of history. I think he's going
to be a bit of an afterthought on the men's side,
and I think that's a bit of a shame because
he was so so good, and the downfall from there
because of injury and what we've been robbed of, I
think is really really sad. I think it's really really
sad because I think we all enjoyed watching him play
and it was nice to get a sendoff against a
(32:49):
young kid in Ben Shelton, who was very gracious magnanimous
in terms of how he encouraged the crowd to wave
Teham off as well. So we've lost a good one
and that.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Quickly. I wonder who do you think leaves a larger
legacy in the game, del Potro or Team I don't know,
probably Team. I wonder if if Delvo not being European
pushes edges him out for me, because I think the
other other thing about being an outlier during this era
(33:23):
is that literally he was all European people winning these
these titles that Delpo kind of managed to disrupt that,
and he was kind of an outlier in a sense
of like the size and style of him. Like, I
wonder if that pushes him slightly ahead. But I think
it's an interesting question because they're not in that of
Rincas tier, right, So I think they're they're a step below,
(33:47):
but food for thought for our listeners out there.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
But I think that's an interesting question as well, is
that what what do you pick? Do you pick the
heights that someone achieved in their career, because I think
we would, we would both claim I think right as well.
And I think this is controversial to say that Verrinka's
peaks up much higher than team and del Potro was
just given that he ascended to be the greatest player
in human history to win his three Grand Slams. But
(34:12):
I think the team and del Potro had more longevity
in their career in terms of being at the top
and winning matches in that position. Yeah, an interesting one,
an interesting comparison point three outstanding, excellent players, but very
different in their own right.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
Yeah. Nick center Bush surviving, not looking good at times,
but making it through when when his peers were not
obviously dealing with the doping stuff. Though in front of
the cameras doing some press. I saw ESPN had like
a big sit down with him and they went through
it all. But I did think Med as usual had
(34:48):
some interesting comments on the doping.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Stuff he did. Do you see the ESPN sit down
with him was referred to as a presidential puff ball
sit down. I thought it was really funny combo who
said it. I apologize that I didn't bring it with me,
but I think Danny reveit. I've had some interesting comments
on Yannick Sinner, just sort of, I think, honestly echoing
(35:12):
a lot of the same things that we were saying
on the podcast last week, just around the idea of,
by all accounts, the rules were followed, and then the
question comes down to whether or not you believe the
rules are fair and whether or not there is equality
in those in how it's set up. Here a very
very specific thing that he referred to as whether or
not a player ended up with cocaine in their system,
(35:33):
which I did raise my eyebar slightly, but I understand
the point that he was trying to make on it,
and in short, that version being if they come to
you and the test is that being, and say we
found cocaine in your system, and you're like, well, what
the fuck, I don't know where, I don't know where
that would it could have came from, then they'll just
suspend you because you don't have a good case to
(35:54):
go ready, like you don't have it available to you,
and in that kid situation you are you are punished,
which again makes this whole thing with sinn It seems
so so convenient that you just had this perfect excuse
ready to go, and you knew you were ready on
the spot and all your team was ready to go. Yeah.
(36:16):
I don't know, man, it seems all a bit a
bit too convenient for me.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
Having some more time to think about this, Like part
of me is like, well, isn't this exactly how it
should work for all athletes where this thing happens and
they're like, oh, I didn't do it, and I'm going
to prove I didn't do it, and their name isn't
bleed it out there and pumped out there when there's
no guilt, no confirmation of guilt yet. So they go
through their appeals, they go through all the processes, and
(36:44):
then it's found out that they're cleared, and it all
comes out like that's typically how you would want it
to go, I guess, but it never does go that way.
So that's why we're raising our eyebrows. But like in
the sense of how do you properly enforce doping? This
is like a textbook case of a success. You could
spin it that way, couldn't you like the idea of, yeah,
(37:05):
we caught them, But it turns out we went through
all these things to prove that he was clean, and
he was we didn't have to tell you any of this.
Maybe that's me just being put fully Darren k Hill piled,
but I don't know.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
I think you're right though. I think it's kind of
the point that I was trying to get at last week,
which is that I think the system worked. I think
what they were when they were writing down on the
whiteboard and they sort of had the goals that they
were trying to achieve. I think they wanted to keep
players anonymity intact if they failed a drugs test, give
them the opportunity to to sort of counter that and
(37:44):
appeal that in a space where they would have time
and available to do so, and then to allow the
players to keep playing until the resolution of it. And
I think that everything happened here correctly. It's more to
the question of whether or not you yeah the two,
whether or not you actually believe what sinner is saying
in the camp, and whether or not you have faith
(38:04):
in the system. And then there's of course the question
of equality in fairness, of whether or not everyone has
the ability to defend themselves and can get the same
legal advice and the same legal defenses that Sinna had
available to him, and whether or not you could do
it on time as well, all of those things that
are very up in the air.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
I agree. And there's other things like why they waited
to fire those guys that were his physio and the
massage till now we're not right away. I guess there's
optics and other things involved, and how it would look
be I we'll see. I do think it's interesting to
think about the process and how it works because obviously
(38:46):
there has been so many other tennis players, or not
so many at least, but more than a handful of
players who haven't been afforded these same sort of anonivity
during the process, which I think has been key and
that is key for everyone going forward if this is
truly to work. So yeah, let's see how it moves
forward in terms of the case. What's next time?
Speaker 2 (39:07):
What's next? Is Chrisy Everett commenting on Carolina macov quote
she wants to play like a guy. She wants to
play like a guy. These guys have bigger serves than
the women. They have better volleys. In the most part,
they move a little bit better. Close quote, which prompted
a debour to write back, mccover is an amazingly talented player.
(39:28):
She doesn't have to be a guy to have a
great serve volley on movement. Can we please stop stereotyping
based on gender? Dev Let me ask you this question.
What the fuck was Christy evert thinking on this?
Speaker 1 (39:42):
It's bad man. I have a bad update on the
Power rankings or tennis commentators. Cliff Drysdale has surpassed in
the Power rankings. I didn't think I'd see the day,
but Cliffy has moved ahead of Chrissy in the Tennis
Our rankings for commentators.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
During the course of the week, I went with a
colleague of mind to go and pick up a table.
There was a there's a story behind this, I promise you,
and the guy that we picked it up from was
the I could not have picked a more perfect embodiment
of a tennis fan, of a guy living in a
beautiful house on the west side of Vancouver who was
(40:24):
wearing a Roger fed or a hat watching the uslbody
and I was chatting to him about it because I
had some time while like my colleague was taking the
table apart and putting it in the car. And he
did not know anything about what was like the player's
backstory or anything to do with it. He only watched
the tennis and I think when you look at it
(40:45):
through that lens, you only hear what ESPN wants you
to hear, Like yeah, there's like he he Literally, this
is a guy who watched every Grand Slam and every Master's.
He didn't know that Janick Sinner had failed a drugs
test Like that is remarkable to me.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
Holy caw. Did you at least drop an open era
CD in how you share podcasts?
Speaker 2 (41:11):
By the way, I couldn't think of someone who would
less like to want to listen to us, truth be told.
I just I just gently encourage him to listen to
the tennis podcast and moved on.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Hey buddy, open a newspaper.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
That something which more fits his target demographic.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Yes, okay, video review, signon.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Yeah. So a couple of big policy changes that we
didn't touch on going into the US Open. Obviously, the
free fan movement, the what I like to call it
is the US open schn gun zone if you want
to use that kind of analogy here, which I think
has actually been fairly successful just reading some stories about
it during the course of the week. And of course
(41:54):
the biggie var is here, video replayers in place, and
it's already a fuss. So this match between Vitrice Adadmira
and Kalin Skia took place. We had video review, which
honest to god, looks like the most ridiculous thing in
the world in a tennis tournament, to watch two grown
(42:15):
men sitting side by side in a command center bunker
which looks like, you know, a tech Bros. Basement. We
go to video review for the double bounce. It is
reviewed by the video umpire, it comes back without a change.
(42:35):
Anyone in the world who watches the same replay can
understand that the point was clearly for Kalin Skier. And
yet the rule is upheld, which is to say that
you can put video replay into the system, but there
is always going to be a level of human fallibility
in this whole process.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
We didn't carry this bit. Great Britain's great shame Jack Draper,
So I'm just making your run here after his shameful
actions a few weeks ago in Cincinnati. How are you taking.
Speaker 2 (43:09):
This, Well, let's just move on from Jack Draper. No,
I think he's again he is a player on that
side of I think he's got a really really good
chance as well to think this guy could be a
semi finalist very easily, just given his given his pathway.
He's not going to be afraid of my hack, He's
(43:29):
not going to be afraid of demon Or, and he's
not going to be afraid of Thompson either. Like I think,
you turn around and you have a semi final which
is Danny Mavett. Ever he has Jack Draper. I think
you know, I wouldn't raise my eyebrows at that at
all given where we are at the moment.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Yeah, and I'm obviously joking about the Jack Drapers stuff,
But the aftermath of that incident, in the sense of
like getting something that is helpful to fixing things, didn't
seem to be top of mind for everyone involved. Like
after it's like, oh yeah, like we still have the
people involved who are not going to get it right
all the time, and it's still going to lead to
(44:02):
events like we saw in that Dad Maya calling the
sky a match so that's well said Simon. And finally
Jesse from the block question mark.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
So there was a video cyclacking during the cost of
the week, which is the US Open put out of
Jess Pagoula taking the subway to Flushing and to the
US Open, and this was I thought it was a
good video, honestly, like before I get into us, before
I get into ripping this and perhaps being cynical about
the whole thing, I thought it was quite it was entertaining,
(44:33):
and I think it gave a good insight into who
Bagoler is. However, I don't believe this for a second.
The way that she was trying to interact with those
ticket barriers and the way that she was trying to
navigate the subway, it looked like she had never been
on public trans in her life.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
She hasn't been below ground. This is what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
The way that she was talking about it applied to
me that it was like, yeah, I mean sometimes I
go on this this train when it's too busy to
take the car at some tournaments. Nah, that's unfair. I
don't think she was doing that, but it was. It was.
It seemed a bit a bit ham fisted. To me,
listed she's riding a wave.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
You know, I think she's now that there's a more
hated billionaire, perhaps on the tour in the borrow. I
think I think JPEG's riding a popularity wave.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
Do you think this is a syop? Do you think
Jess Page has ever taken public transit before in our life?
Speaker 1 (45:35):
I'm gonna say she has. I'm gonna say she's taking
it abroad, you know, like she's not taking the subway
maybe that often in the United States, but in her
travel she has because we're a public transit is better.
I feel like these kind of things where you're like, yeah,
I'll take it to the tournament instead of the car.
Everyone's like, yeah, that makes total sense when you live
in a functioning city, unlike the majority of North America.
(45:58):
It seems it is true.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
It is very true for we wrap potting shots. I
think it is worth noting just on the rule changes,
that we didn't cover it last week. As an addendum,
I think this late night match policy is working, Okay,
the idea that yeah, yeah, the discretion is to move
it if it's I believe the policy is basically if
the match is going on later than eleven fifteen. Then
(46:22):
it's up to the discretion of the umpire and the
tournament director of whether or not they want to move
the match to another time just to prevent it going
until three in the morning. I think this is a
good policy overall, and it's something that I'd like to
see enforced in other places. I like it a lot.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
It feels like they put some thought into it and
found a solution. I know it's not going to appease everyone,
but it's something that clearly shows that working towards something
as opposed to what we've seen I think for some
of the other Slams when it comes to some rigid
decision making. So good on them, agreed, Simon. Okay, two
challenges remaining, sir.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
What do you got my two challenges from? Is the
run up to the British Columbia election, devang and oh
yeah yeah, what an interesting time in British Columbia politics.
So for those who don't know, which is probably the
vast majority of our audience, the runners and riders are
(47:17):
the British Columbia New Democratic Party here then referred to
as the NDP, who are currently the government and they
are facing the British Columbia Conservative Party that has read
led by a guy called John Roustad. The interesting part
about this is that John Roosted used to be a
member of the British Columbia Liberal Party, but was kicked
(47:38):
out of the party by their current leader, Kevin Falcon
for many things, including being a climate change denier and
also the some inflammatory comments that have been made in
regards to race based axations and many other things. It
has to be said, however, this has come full circle
with John Rooster now being the head of the BC
(48:00):
Conservatives and Kevin Falcon having to go cap in hand
to him. During the course of the week after the
Liberal Party had fallen apart completely, he disbanded the campaign
and then asked for support from the BC Conservatives. So
you have a situation where the official opposition no longer
exists as a party, which is absolutely wild. I can't
(48:21):
think of anything like this in the political history of
me watching either a place that I've lived or watching abroad.
So the government's in place, there is an official opposition,
but their party no longer exists, and who knows what's
going to happen. Canada is writing an extreme wave of
right wing populism that may carry this PC Conservative Party
(48:43):
into power in four weeks time.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Hold up, Bush, worse things. My man's name is Kevin Falcon, it.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
Is and he didn't win with that kind of name.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
Democracy is dead.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
You had everything handed to you is dead.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
That is a wild story. Thank you shared a link
with me in our chat that helped me understand what
was happening. But yeah, what a shit show. Canada's biggest
provinces just utter shit shows. Ontario, PC, Collect your boys, Canada.
What is going on here?
Speaker 2 (49:21):
It's about to be one hell of a right wood
swing in Canada across the home. Well, I don't know
if that's actually true. I don't think hospitibility to go
anymore right wing.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
Yeah, and I mean with the incoming likely Conservative win
at the federal level, maybe we'll see a swing back provincially,
hopefully to counteract. Well, I don't know. It's pretty bleak
at the moment. I am going to shout out a book,
an audiobook I listened to over a weekend that was
very long, but it's called twenty two Murders. It's about
(49:52):
those about the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in twenty
twenty and it was about the shooter self and the
community and the r c MP's utter failure both the
fore and during the incident. But yeah, just nabsolutely harrowing.
Listen into my case, I listened to the book, but
(50:13):
one of those ones where I started it on a
Friday and I ended it on a Sunday, just because
I was so into it. But the r CNP bush
read into it. Canadian friends, what the f? What the
f have we done here? What are they doing? Reform
them now? Arguably disband them. You should dispand them. It
sounds like it's so geez Louise, but yeah, twenty two murders.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Check it out. There is a saying that echoes around
the East side of Vancouver here, which is, don't trust
the RCMP, don't trust the VPD. I think that speaks
volumes for how a lot of these institutions are seen
in as part of the world.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Yeah, and institutional systemic issues that plague these these organizations
that are so so entrenched and can you in life
in society. It's pretty well. But I think that's it, Simon,
believe it. On that note, a reminder, we are on
patreon dot com, Forward Slash Open Air Pod, join us there,
(51:10):
get the show at free get it early on Sundays.
Plus join the best tennis discord in the land, where
we're talking tennis all the time, including right now during
the US Open. And that is it for us this week.
For producer Greg on the Once and Tuesday, and for Simon,
thank you so much for listening to Open Era. We'll
talk to you next week.
Hello and welcome to the Open Air Podcast. My name
is de Van de Sign have joined as always by
mister Simon Bushell. Halfway through the US Open, Simon and
holy cow, what the hell has happened?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well? I think it's a tale of two draws, isn't it.
Because the women's side is still loaded, it's still full
of exciting and interesting tennis. The men's side is a
bit of a disaster in terms of for the planners
and for those in the hierarchy and those sitting with
all of the money at the USTA. I think they
couldn't have scripted this going any worse. I don't think
(00:48):
it could be worse as watching Janick Senner be dumped
out tomorrow. But for the time being, David, it's been
a very, very exciting tournament.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yeah. I didn't think of the organizers and the marketers first,
but now I am thinking about them. It is interesting
because they still have a bootload of Americans in here
as well, right on the men's side too, so there
is something to lean on. But let's start there, because
I think this is the main story. After the first
week of the US Open, two of the biggest names
(01:15):
in the tournament, two of the big names on the
men's side out early, Carlos Alkaaz falling to Botch van
de van de segnder Slope, and Novak Djokovic falling to
the Montreal maven Alexey Poprin. Which one was more surprising
to you, Simon.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
It's a really good question because from reading the internet,
which is always a bad start, and also listening to
tennis commentators, you would believe that Botic's win here was
the greatest victory in tennis history, which to me verges
on a little bit disrespectful. It has to be said.
It feels like a group of people that have never
(01:58):
seen someone win at challenger level and hung around the
sort of fifty to eighty range on the tour for
as long as he has done. He is an exceptionally
good player, and to imply that this is some sort
of incredible massive shock is I think a little bit
disrespectful to him. Now, obviously you can throw in the
(02:18):
narrative around him wanting to retire just three months ago
and all those sort of things. The dude is still
twenty eight years of age, still ranked seventy in the world,
still a very very good player. I think one that Yes,
is mimable because of the name and because of his
attitude on court, but overall is a very very good
tennis player, and I think it is exciting to watch
(02:42):
someone like that play and get a big win. On
the flip side of that, I would actually circle Alexei
Papyron's win over Novak Djokovic being more shocking, just given
the nature of the titles that Novakdjokovic has one given
him coming off of a gold medal. I think both
of us predicting him to make a very deep run
(03:02):
in this tournament and perhaps even winning it. I think
the manner of which he lost this match and also
the manner in which Papyron played, So I would go
with that one over the Alcaraz loss because Alexei Papyron
was full marks for it, but not by Jokovic looked awful,
just truly dreadful out there and in a situation that
we haven't seen him look like in a very long time.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Yeah, and the Olympics factor is the big one here. Normally,
when these matches happened, like after the first set for
al Chaaz, I assumed he would come back, and then
as the second set sort of emerged that looked debatable,
even though I think there was some early signs of
progress for Carlos in the second set. And yeah, the
level of flatness is something we haven't seen from him
(03:45):
really at this level in a long time. And just
to Zum, I would a bit an understand. I guess
the level of fatigue that accompanies the whole pairis thing.
It makes sense that we got this from him. And
then I guess that leads to why I was so
surprised about Novak a little bit. I mean, this is
someone who's done this before. He's he's managed to somehow
(04:08):
navigate the highest of emotions the lowest of emotions, Like
I felt like his experience would have helped him here,
but he did really play bad. Like I think his
serve has been an issue for him this whole tournament,
even when he was getting through matches, and it continued
in this one as well. So I guess the surprise
is that, like when Novak won the third set, I
(04:29):
fully believed that he would win it five, you know,
and the fact that he wasn't able to come through
was shocking.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Agreed, what should we say about Alexei Papyron? Like I
think everyone was I don't know if clowning that Masters
one thousand win in Montreal, I think that's probably a
little disrespect although he did a bit. Yeah, absolutely, And
when I say people, I mean us, and so I'm
just trying to cover my ass very briefly here, But
it has to be said that was a win against
(04:57):
the backdrop at the Olympics. It wasn't a loaded field.
It was you know, the extenuating circumstances behind why it occurred.
I don't think anyone is saying that he was a
fluke for that title. Now. Did you see his comments
after the match when he was asked which one meant
more to him that I thought it was very amusing
that he chose the Montreal title over winning this match
(05:18):
because it was for a title and this was just
a third round matchup against a random player. So I
thought that was very funny. I don't think he meant
it to be throwing shade, but I took it that way.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It's good. It led me to think about the opportunities
now for the rest of the field, and as we speak,
there's some matches going on, including I think a bunch
of people who have huge opportunities, whether it be orub
Levs or Dimitrovs or Fritz's or Rude. But another part
of me thinks, Simon, like, if if Francis Tiaffo is
to win this tournament, it's better for him that he
(05:51):
didn't have to go through Novak, because if you were
to win that match, he probably would have had to
sweat out the equivalent of Lake Ontario to accomplish that,
and he would have been gas going forward. But now
that he doesn't have to play Novac as his mentality change. Like,
I do think this is one of the most interesting
men's side of a Major in years, because we do
(06:13):
have a lot of a lot of variables here, and
even the favorites have some baggage with them, including Yannick
and Daniel.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Absolutely, I think you could probably make the case. Maybe
I think you probably could make this case. Let's go
with it and we can always work back from this point.
I think you can make the case that everyone who
is in the fourth round legitimately believes they could win
this title despite all of the roads ahead of them
and understanding that it's going to be difficult matches. All
(06:44):
of these players have won tour titles, have won at
tour level, they probably all feel like, given who's out
and given the road ahead of them, they're not looking
at any of these matchups and feeling like they can't
win them. And I think that mostly work because I
don't think that Tommy Paul is scared of that Cinner
match in the fourth round. I don't honestly know that
(07:05):
any of these fourth round matchups would be scared of
each other. And I think that makes for some really
exciting tennis. All of this against the backdrop that I'm
really nervous that Alexanders Farav is gonna win this tournament.
It seems like the road is so open for him.
I think everyone's gonna look at that top half and
feel like it's, you know, the winner is gonna come
(07:25):
out of there, just given that Cinner and Medvedeva there,
I'm looking squarely at that bottom half and feeling like,
oh God, there's one name in there that stands out
above the rest who has a really good chance of
winning this.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Now that was a nervous shuckle for me. But yeah,
in sense, in the sense of mission stop sphere of
let's put it this way, who do you have the
most faith in remaining? Because I think it's mad. It's
clearly Daniel Medvedev for me. So I feel like that
(07:55):
quarter final between Cinner and Medvedev, if they get there,
the stakes are ridiculous high.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah yeah, I mean everyone who he faces is gonna
is gonna give him a decent matchup. I would have really,
really fancied Massetti playing against him. But damn you, Brandon Nakashima.
You have to turn into prime Andre Agassi during this tournament,
just at a time when we need you most.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Best backhand on the men's tour or maybe at this tournament.
Holy yeah, what a backhead for Brandon Akashima. But yeah,
you're right. I think you also have the idea of, like,
if it's Rude or Fritz, that that'll be tough for
him as well. But yeah, it's also cool because I
feel like people like greg Ord Debytrov really believe right
(08:38):
now that there's a chance for them to maybe do
something that they thought a few years ago was impossible.
Because of the stats that are left in the wake
of Novaka losing. At this point is that we have
now for the first time since two thousand and two,
a year without the Big Three winning a title on
the men's side, which is insane. I went back and
looked at what happened in two thousand and two, Simon
(09:01):
on the ATP. We got some hilarious stuff here, but
all four slams are won by different people. But three
of those slams that was their only title. The player
that one I find hilarious and interesting. But for the
sake of trivia, can you name who won the four
slams of two thousand and two?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
So Lighton here at won win Wooden?
Speaker 1 (09:23):
Correct?
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Uh? Is that rotic roddick? Two thousand and three? The
US Open, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:32):
So it's not erotic. It's the last hurrah for a
great though.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Went in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It's Pistol Pete. It's Pete Sampress.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Yeah, Cumpress, Yeah, Cumpres makes sense. French will be the
year before Guestavo one. It wasn't kidding, right, kid won
in two thousand correct, Yeah it was.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
It was another one hit. Wonder this one. I don't
know if you'll get to be honest. He's Spanish and
he's not one. Carlos Ferrero.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
It wasn't Ferrero. Nope, it's not coming to the front
of mine.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Albert Costa, right, yes, down, And finally the Australian Open
two thousand.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
And two, three.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Two thousand and two. Yeah, he beat Marat Saffen.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
I get it right. It is your Hanson, right, it.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Is Thomas Johnson. Correct, well done. Thomas j Hansen got
into a lot of video games based on this win.
He was in virtual tennis. He got into games he
shouldn't have gotten into, and I have to applaud him
for that. That that random win. Two thousand and two
is also the year Fed became a top ten player,
So I found that stat insane. It did make us
(10:51):
feel old.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Who is the Thomas Johansson of the twenty twenty four
US Open Men's singles?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
It might be Jordan Thompson. I'll tell you that it
might be. It might be Toma himself, Tomo.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
I think it's probably Tommy Paul as opposed to Jordan Thompson.
Truth be told. Nah's too not just that's unfair.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Tommy Paul's a better player, and Thomas Jodson had a long,
lengthy career of being a top top something.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
As we reached the memory banks here of how good
Thomas Johansen was as a player, I think he was
all right, wasn't he? I think he was. He hung
around the top thirty for a decent amount of time.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
He made a Wimbledon semi quarterfinals a couple of times.
I think he was seventh in the world at one point. Yeah,
so you know what, I feel like we are shading
Thomas Yohtson too much. But Tommy Paul was killed to
have his career in the end, and if this is
his Slam, why not?
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Right? Absolutely? What do you make of the other damning
statistic which came out of this tournament, which was no
Spanish men into the third round since nineteen ninety nine.
That is an absolutely remarkable stat It speaks to, obviously,
the longevity of how good Spanish tennis has been on
(12:15):
the men's side. It also speaks to the fact that
it helps when you have both Rafa and Nadal and
Carlis Alcaraz and you know, the list goes on and on,
David Farrah, Wan Calus Ferrero, as you previously mentioned, Albert
Costa as well. There is just a long, long, long,
long list of exceptionally good Spanish male players. Feels like
a bit of a transition period, doesn't it, And it
(12:37):
speaks to the fact that since nineteen ninety nine, that
is an incredibly long time ago, I do not have
a man in the third round. That is in some
ways more crazy to think about than even the Big
Three's Grand Slam record since two thousand and two.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
And now you look and you can't miss an Italian
basically if you look any in any section of a
ATP draw, which is some that wasn't happening in the
past either. Yeah, it does feel like a bit of
a change. You see Australia extremely well wresent well represented here,
France as well the UK. I wonder as well if
this maybe hearkens to the power of the Slams and
(13:15):
those federations simon the countries with the most resources being
able to invest in the depth of talent they have,
because I mean, the US is obviously not two or
three deep. They've got a lot of guys. But I
saw this was the first first Top twenty matchup between
two men of the Slam, two American men since two
thousand and two. When Shelton and Tiaffo play, that is
(13:37):
insane to me as well. But now they've got it
looks like six guys, seven guys potentially Na Kashiba will
be back in the top top twenty and no time.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
I think Yep partly likes two thousand and two. Dev,
it's happening. We're going back. What is Old as New again?
Get your cargo pants out, power.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Just powers is back, baby, shagaedelic Baby.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, absolutely, get your blonde highlights center parting. That's coming back.
What is Old is new.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Post nine eleven hysterias back, baby, Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
The only thing we need now is long sleeved t
shirt and then short shirt over the top of it
and visors. Yeah, and we're good. Good to go.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Who man well the time? Okay, Just a word.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
On the men's side before we wrap up for your boy,
Dev Gario Diallo. Good tournament for him and I think
turned a few heads of people that perhaps are only
tuning in for the Grand Slams. Came through qualifying, had
a really good winn against ham monam wins against Arthur
(14:43):
Feast in the Battle of the Young Phenoms, goes out
of Tommy Paul in a very respectable match which he
had his chances in, absolutely had his chances in that.
Just a quick word from you on on the young Canadian.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Playing Munar, someone with so much more experience at this level.
I really enjoyed the fact that he went for his shots,
so many errors, but also extremely fun to watch Bush.
I think this boat's well for the future. It also
I mean he played Arthur Fees, he's older than him.
He's older than Fees by a couple of years, and
I think that's that's what happens. You do the collegiate
(15:15):
route and this, this win, this, this two wins I
think brings him really close to the top one hundred,
which I think is important for him in the sense
of avoiding qualifiers going forward. So really good week from him.
And I mean after a disastrous showing for the rest
of the Canadians, we needed something to be proud of,
and he was the one. Because overall Simon not great
(15:37):
from Canada.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Yeah, I think the last set about what Felix OJEARI
I seem phoned into this tournament. It's probably probably best
we wish him well. I s up, sim we need
you back. Come on.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
And Chapo lost to Boatitch All Caps, and after what
he did, I guess that was we all knew what
would happened if Carlos had played Shapo, so in the
sense of us being spared from that. Thanks, I guess
it's true.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Should we turn out attention to the women in a
thoroughly good Yeah, let's do it completely loaded fourth round
section dev Any matchup that you pick is pretty much fantastic.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
It's fantastic. I'm going to take credit, Simon. I saw
early Palla Padosa here against Taylor Townsend, and I thought
to myself, I think she's going to make her run
here based on her draw. It included Krtschikhova, who's nursing
a victory hangover of sorts, and the perpetually cursed Maria
Zachary So I felt like Podosa had a shot here
(16:38):
to make a run. And I'm liking what I'm seeing
so far. But you're totally right in the sense of stacked.
I thought Elise Mertens Keys Madison Keys was a phenomenal match,
and I want to shout out Elise Murtons for bringing
it consistently year over year and also being the thirty
third seed, which I like looks funky and weird. That
(16:58):
was great in Paulini, I mean, if she were to
win it here, this match between Mutchova and Paulinie is
like the two people we want to win the most,
who have probably suffered the most heartache. There's a lot
of storylines here. I mean, you've got Coco Goff, who
is trying to shake some some poor performances playing, Emma
Navarro who's been informed this summer. And then you get Sriantek,
(17:22):
who I think you thought might have maybe had a
slip up potential against pavlink Tchenkova, but she she looked
okay there as well Bush, who are you looking at?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Yeah? And that's before you even get to the the
luscious locks of and luscious bandanna of Diana Schneider as well,
who is wrapping communism everywhere, hammer and sickle, et cetera,
et cetera. We love the bandanna. I mean Jess Pegular
as well, if you if you, if I mentioned the
(17:52):
USTA not feeling great about the ATP side, they've got
to be loving the WTA side because they have strong
American flags still going. They have Cocoa Goff and Emma Navarra,
which has which has I won't say bad blood in it,
but it certainly has an element of revenge looking out
for Cocoa Golf on that side of things. You have comebacks. Obviously,
you have Caroline Mosniyaki turning back of the clock as well.
(18:15):
You have just so many things an eigas filantic of course,
as you mentioned, still in this tournament, I thought there's
a potential slip up, potential banana again against Pavilichenkova called
it didn't happen. Kind of looked mildly like it might
be the case for the first thirty five minutes and
then it very quickly became apparent that it wasn't. But
(18:36):
dev you mentioned it, I think that is that Mukova
Paolini section and those two players. I think we both
desperately want them to see a major, just because of
obviously the year for Paolini and the career of Mukova.
Just a really really good tournament and every single section
has great matchups, and I think you're eating well if
you're a fan of the WTA here you.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Are curious what you thought from Sabolenka so far, Simon,
because she felt like the favorite coming in. She had
to play at midnight thanks to some cris scheduling and
also I mean maybe good schedule. I don't know when
they could have put that faux Shelton match that wouldn't
have impacted another match just based on how long it
was gonna go. But she dealt with that after a
(19:16):
really shaky opening set against Alexandrova. Martins is a tricky
one though, Like I feel like this these next couple
of matches, should she get through, Like you're talking the
winner of shang Vekich, which should be an absolute barn burner.
You got talking about bad blood. Remember the Olympics, that's
that should be absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Yeah, absolutely, maybe we got bad blood. But like an
old tailor, West preference is not appropriate here in any capacity. Boom, Yeah,
totally absolutely Boo. That man sounded like has look fine
to me. I think there was I if you thought
that she's gonna win this title before the tournament, I
don't think there's anything that you've seen here which would
(19:57):
disprove that. I think she's completely, completely fine. I think
I don't think Muttins is a big problem for I
really don't as much respect that I can pay to
Alas Murtens, to a player that we both have a
huge amount of respect for and love eventslely, but Sabalanka
is on a different level at the moment. I still
think she wins this title. I really do. She looks
(20:18):
she looks great and of course has that Sabolenca double
the Mini Sabalanca in the crowd as well, dressed like her,
So yes, she has good vibes going as well.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Potentially, if if she does win, it's it's you beat Murtens,
then you beat winner of shang Beckage, then you beat
potentially let's say Cocoa Goth and then you beat potentially
let's say Fiantec. That's a hell of a road to
to another slam. She'll be full value for that.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah she will. But Schiotek goes to get through Samson
over as well, right, which is it's a it's a
matchup which has got its problems as.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Well, here's something, here's something for it, even with Sabolenka
dropping a set and those conditions aside, I feel less
confident about IgA, you know, and she I think she
has less star power in her section of the draw.
But I feel like Diana Schneider and Jess Peguila have
been extremely informed players this summer, and Wassniaki might be.
(21:15):
I mean, is she the most dangerous not unseated? Yes, definitely,
But I mean it's It's funny when the draw came out,
it seemed like there were so many other things to
pinpoint maybe in and around that section, whether it be
terbakkan Is health or looking at a potential quarterfinal against
against Naomi Osaka. But the fact that Osneyaki has looked
(21:38):
this good. I think it's a bit of an eye
opener as well, because from both wings, especially on the
hard courts, she feels like someone who has the ability
to hit with a Sablenka as well.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah, I agree with you. Wouldn't it be a turnout
for the books Davang during an Olympic year that we
get the most random two winners on at the US Open.
It definitely could happen. I don't think it will happen.
I think there's still enough. I think the top players
and the WTA are still playing well enough that I
(22:11):
do back them to make very deep runs in this tournament,
and for you know, I think one of the favorites
to win it. That says if we are sitting in
a world where the men's side is won by Tommy
Paul and the women's is run by Powell of Pods, Yeah,
that's not that's not a ridiculous situation to predict, given
(22:35):
all the things that have happened, and how compressed the
schedule has been, and just everything that we've seen so
far in this tournament, I could certainly believe it.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Also imagine the synergy there, Tommy Paul Paula Badoza. That's fantastic.
We've got to stop laughing when we mentioned some of
these names, and then Slam winner. But I think this
is what the culture has made us do in that
Big Three era, that curse there, bring us back the
era of Thomas Johanson winning slams damn it. I will
(23:06):
ask for your picks, then your revised picks. I think
I pick Novak, so I'm gonna have to pick again
on the men's side. But on the women's side, are
you sticking with Sabolenka or are you changing? It sounds
like you're not changing.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
I'm not changing. I still think Sabolenka wins this title.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
On the women's side, yeah, and men, are you going
sin Man?
Speaker 2 (23:26):
I'm picking Alexander's viab I think he's gonna win this tournament.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
What basque off?
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Mask off?
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Is this some reverse jigs following your sword thing?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
I don't want him to win. I just think he
will win.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Wow, I'm shaken to my core. I'm going to switch
my women's pick to Pala Medosa un ironically, I want
to see it. I want to see it. I want
to see her sore like a phoenix post see fast.
So I'm going Podosa. And then on the men's side,
I think the cinner me bit of quarterfinal. If we
get it, knock On would get it. It's going to
(24:04):
be a knockdown, knockdown, drag him out, leaving both of
them face. So we're gonna get a winner from another
feeling good force. It's Grigor Dimitrov, boldpick, doing it live
as he's playing a match that he could lose. But
I'm picking Dimitrov to win, Simon.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I think everyone would love it, would they know? Do
you see? During the course of the week, they asked
a bunch of players who they would most like to
see on Love Island, and Gregor Dimitrov was the overwhelming
choice on that, so clearly fan favorites. On the checks,
he is a fan favorite among the players. Will he
ride that emotion to winning this US Open title? I don't.
I don't think he's looked that good, I have to say,
(24:47):
despite the cleanliness of his will, well.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
He also he looks quite tired at times. I listen,
I want anyone from that section a teazer in a win,
and I have a feeling the spinner. You know, Med's
fitness is and underrated quality about him, and I love
his dog in this like I do think he'd get
up to take out his verb in the finals, so
like I won't discount him. But Dimitrov also doesn't look
(25:13):
a hundred percent like health wise as we're watching him
against rube Lev. Who have you noticed Bush When Rublev
is yelling at his box often his box is as
confused as all we all are, Like, isn't that concerning
that they don't know what he's yelling about.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, it's not very enjoyable to watch him play at
the moment, given all or historyonics that comes out of
the Russian's mouth. I think I was listening to Naomi
Brody who was being into you on the BBC, and
she referred to it as just a player that has
as a player who you can tell from watching from
(25:47):
the outside. Once it's so badly that is unable to
control the emotions that are coming out of him like
it's it's obvious when you say it like that. But
at the same time, this is not a kid anymore.
This is not someone who is still trying to learn
his learn his craft and is still new to the tour.
This is how many time called a finalist? Is he
(26:08):
at a major eight to nine? It's a lot anyway
to the point where the expectations are that I don't
think it's I don't think it's great when you're continuing
to throw your toys out the prom and completely lose
your head that you think that's going to help you
getting over the line to a semi final. Maybe try
something else at this point.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Yeah, we'll leave it there. When we come back after
the break partying shots, we talk about outfits, the good,
the bad, the fugly, Dominic team, Sinners, doping scandal, plus
Jess Pegialer takes a Subway. All of that coming up
next on Open Air. Welcome back to the Open Air Podcast.
(26:57):
Simon Well into the US Open and you know what
that means. It means we've seen a lot of fits,
hot outfits, good, bad, really bad. But I think Diomiasakas
outfit stole the show. A lot of comments on this
frills no frills. I don't know what you want to
call it, pute green, the green mistake, But what are
(27:20):
your thoughts?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Yeah, and you left out the most important part was
the bow on the back of it as well, wrapped
up like like a present. Sure, I guess I thought
it was all right. I kind of liked it. I
don't know why it got some of the hate that
it did.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
The color. You know, if it was any other color,
I would have been okay with it. Just something about
that color that literally made me sick. And you know,
I love Naomi Osaka big fan, but I don't know
what pantone color that is. I don't know if you
can buy that legally or you have to get it
on the black market because it's so hideous. But now
I'm not in I'm not in it at all.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Did you see the outfit, the just Pagoula fit, the
added as purple thing.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
It's terrible. So it's worse than that. And that's the thing. Like,
as much as I be rating the Nike green puke fit,
that Adidas thing, the purple thing, it's maybe the worst
thing I've ever seen. And I'm not even being like
clownership about it. I mean this full fullheartedly.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Against the backdrop of a course that we are clearly
not the target audience that they're pitching to. Here. I don't,
I didn't, I didn't care for it. Put it that way,
It's true.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
And I'm asking people every day that I see do
you like this? And they're all saying no, So that
must mean the bowling works.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I did, however, quite enjoy the bench out and shirt,
the on running one. Yeah, it's doing the round. I
believe it's sold out.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I saw on listen on is making not not bad
stuff in the tennis space.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
I never thought it was possible to merge the two
audiences of fourteen year olds and ninety year olds, but
somehow they have. They did have walked the thin line.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
The Venn diagram that would never be one circle. They
did it. Baby.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
There's a period of time, wasn't there whereas people doing
the old classic zooma or boomer who wore it better,
like between between the crocs and the cargo trousers and
all those kind of things, which is maybe we were
Maybe I'm incorrect on this in the sense that it's
actually been a market for a long time it's true.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
I just generally like the Hugo boss stuff. I wonder like,
are people wearing that? Are they coping that at their
local tennis warehouse? Do you think it's going to become
a mainstream thing.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
I don't think so, Hugo Bosses. It's interesting if you
walk around the stores though, if you go into any
big mall in North America, you do see Mathio Bertini
plastered in underwear all across the front of their stores.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
So how yeah, I wonder I would love to do
a pool speaking of Poul so like to yell at people, hey,
do you know who this is? As they walked, Well,
I'm nearly naked material Barattini for research.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
So interesting they chose perhaps the two most handsome men
on tour in Taylor Fritz and Matia Barattini to be
there too. People they marck it around. I feel like
they know what they're doing. I don't know whether or
not that's a good thing or not, but they certainly
have an audience they're trying to cater to.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It's given off Abacrovi and Fitch early two thousands vibes,
which is upsetting. So we'll leave it there, Okay, Dominic
Team Simon last Grand Slam match at a place that
means a lot to him, of course. The winner of
the twenty twenty US Open, Dominic Team lost his final
match to Ben Shelton. Simon, what do you think of this?
(30:45):
I'm glad they gave them ash. I did think it
was a bit weird because it was in the daytime,
so it felt like a bit like they were playing
him off Oscar style where he was doing his speech
at the end. But Dominic Team gave a dissol. Clearly
loved the shit out of this gate. It was really
good at it, but like some greats before him, his
body wouldn't allow him to keep going. Really glad he
(31:07):
got that one, though I know it sounds kind of
how Harlow saying this when he's having to stop early,
but is really important. I think in the sense of
like tennis history that I think Donali team got one
because he pushed a lot of these guys to the
very limits, had won some awesome matches. Well.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I think he's an interesting person as well, simply because
from a personal standpoint, from a podcast standpoint, I think
we we were around at the time of watching him.
I mean this this podcast kind of book ends his
career in some ways, the top end of his career,
because I remember talking about that ascent and like distinctly
remembering myself saying that I thought he was the best
player in the world. I thought he was a world
(31:46):
number one in a period of time when Roger feder
raf and Adal and Novek Drookovic and Nandy Murray were
still playing and still at the top of the game.
That's how good I think Dominic team was for the
period of time that he ascended to the sport twenty nineteen,
twenty twenty, even twenty eighteen. You can make the case
as well, like was he was, like he was the dude.
(32:06):
And I think that's somewhat lost on the fact that
we've seen so much of his career derailed because of
injury and the fact that he was kind of a
late riser as well. He had to work very, very
hard to make that transition between being a someone would say,
a clay court specialist of being able to play on
all surfaces. I think he is going to get, unfortunately
(32:26):
lost to the annals of history. I think he's going
to be a bit of an afterthought on the men's side,
and I think that's a bit of a shame because
he was so so good, and the downfall from there
because of injury and what we've been robbed of, I
think is really really sad. I think it's really really
sad because I think we all enjoyed watching him play
and it was nice to get a sendoff against a
(32:49):
young kid in Ben Shelton, who was very gracious magnanimous
in terms of how he encouraged the crowd to wave
Teham off as well. So we've lost a good one
and that.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Quickly. I wonder who do you think leaves a larger
legacy in the game, del Potro or Team I don't know,
probably Team. I wonder if if Delvo not being European
pushes edges him out for me, because I think the
other other thing about being an outlier during this era
(33:23):
is that literally he was all European people winning these
these titles that Delpo kind of managed to disrupt that,
and he was kind of an outlier in a sense
of like the size and style of him. Like, I
wonder if that pushes him slightly ahead. But I think
it's an interesting question because they're not in that of
Rincas tier, right, So I think they're they're a step below,
(33:47):
but food for thought for our listeners out there.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
But I think that's an interesting question as well, is
that what what do you pick? Do you pick the
heights that someone achieved in their career, because I think
we would, we would both claim I think right as well.
And I think this is controversial to say that Verrinka's
peaks up much higher than team and del Potro was
just given that he ascended to be the greatest player
in human history to win his three Grand Slams. But
(34:12):
I think the team and del Potro had more longevity
in their career in terms of being at the top
and winning matches in that position. Yeah, an interesting one,
an interesting comparison point three outstanding, excellent players, but very
different in their own right.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
Yeah. Nick center Bush surviving, not looking good at times,
but making it through when when his peers were not
obviously dealing with the doping stuff. Though in front of
the cameras doing some press. I saw ESPN had like
a big sit down with him and they went through
it all. But I did think Med as usual had
(34:48):
some interesting comments on the doping.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Stuff he did. Do you see the ESPN sit down
with him was referred to as a presidential puff ball
sit down. I thought it was really funny combo who
said it. I apologize that I didn't bring it with me,
but I think Danny reveit. I've had some interesting comments
on Yannick Sinner, just sort of, I think, honestly echoing
(35:12):
a lot of the same things that we were saying
on the podcast last week, just around the idea of,
by all accounts, the rules were followed, and then the
question comes down to whether or not you believe the
rules are fair and whether or not there is equality
in those in how it's set up. Here a very
very specific thing that he referred to as whether or
not a player ended up with cocaine in their system,
(35:33):
which I did raise my eyebar slightly, but I understand
the point that he was trying to make on it,
and in short, that version being if they come to
you and the test is that being, and say we
found cocaine in your system, and you're like, well, what
the fuck, I don't know where, I don't know where
that would it could have came from, then they'll just
suspend you because you don't have a good case to
(35:54):
go ready, like you don't have it available to you,
and in that kid situation you are you are punished,
which again makes this whole thing with sinn It seems
so so convenient that you just had this perfect excuse
ready to go, and you knew you were ready on
the spot and all your team was ready to go. Yeah.
(36:16):
I don't know, man, it seems all a bit a
bit too convenient for me.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
Having some more time to think about this, Like part
of me is like, well, isn't this exactly how it
should work for all athletes where this thing happens and
they're like, oh, I didn't do it, and I'm going
to prove I didn't do it, and their name isn't
bleed it out there and pumped out there when there's
no guilt, no confirmation of guilt yet. So they go
through their appeals, they go through all the processes, and
(36:44):
then it's found out that they're cleared, and it all
comes out like that's typically how you would want it
to go, I guess, but it never does go that way.
So that's why we're raising our eyebrows. But like in
the sense of how do you properly enforce doping? This
is like a textbook case of a success. You could
spin it that way, couldn't you like the idea of, yeah,
(37:05):
we caught them, But it turns out we went through
all these things to prove that he was clean, and
he was we didn't have to tell you any of this.
Maybe that's me just being put fully Darren k Hill piled,
but I don't know.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
I think you're right though. I think it's kind of
the point that I was trying to get at last week,
which is that I think the system worked. I think
what they were when they were writing down on the
whiteboard and they sort of had the goals that they
were trying to achieve. I think they wanted to keep
players anonymity intact if they failed a drugs test, give
them the opportunity to to sort of counter that and
(37:44):
appeal that in a space where they would have time
and available to do so, and then to allow the
players to keep playing until the resolution of it. And
I think that everything happened here correctly. It's more to
the question of whether or not you yeah the two,
whether or not you actually believe what sinner is saying
in the camp, and whether or not you have faith
(38:04):
in the system. And then there's of course the question
of equality in fairness, of whether or not everyone has
the ability to defend themselves and can get the same
legal advice and the same legal defenses that Sinna had
available to him, and whether or not you could do
it on time as well, all of those things that
are very up in the air.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
I agree. And there's other things like why they waited
to fire those guys that were his physio and the
massage till now we're not right away. I guess there's
optics and other things involved, and how it would look
be I we'll see. I do think it's interesting to
think about the process and how it works because obviously
(38:46):
there has been so many other tennis players, or not
so many at least, but more than a handful of
players who haven't been afforded these same sort of anonivity
during the process, which I think has been key and
that is key for everyone going forward if this is
truly to work. So yeah, let's see how it moves
forward in terms of the case. What's next time?
Speaker 2 (39:07):
What's next? Is Chrisy Everett commenting on Carolina macov quote
she wants to play like a guy. She wants to
play like a guy. These guys have bigger serves than
the women. They have better volleys. In the most part,
they move a little bit better. Close quote, which prompted
a debour to write back, mccover is an amazingly talented player.
(39:28):
She doesn't have to be a guy to have a
great serve volley on movement. Can we please stop stereotyping
based on gender? Dev Let me ask you this question.
What the fuck was Christy evert thinking on this?
Speaker 1 (39:42):
It's bad man. I have a bad update on the
Power rankings or tennis commentators. Cliff Drysdale has surpassed in
the Power rankings. I didn't think I'd see the day,
but Cliffy has moved ahead of Chrissy in the Tennis
Our rankings for commentators.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
During the course of the week, I went with a
colleague of mind to go and pick up a table.
There was a there's a story behind this, I promise you,
and the guy that we picked it up from was
the I could not have picked a more perfect embodiment
of a tennis fan, of a guy living in a
beautiful house on the west side of Vancouver who was
(40:24):
wearing a Roger fed or a hat watching the uslbody
and I was chatting to him about it because I
had some time while like my colleague was taking the
table apart and putting it in the car. And he
did not know anything about what was like the player's
backstory or anything to do with it. He only watched
the tennis and I think when you look at it
(40:45):
through that lens, you only hear what ESPN wants you
to hear, Like yeah, there's like he he Literally, this
is a guy who watched every Grand Slam and every Master's.
He didn't know that Janick Sinner had failed a drugs
test Like that is remarkable to me.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
Holy caw. Did you at least drop an open era
CD in how you share podcasts?
Speaker 2 (41:11):
By the way, I couldn't think of someone who would
less like to want to listen to us, truth be told.
I just I just gently encourage him to listen to
the tennis podcast and moved on.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Hey buddy, open a newspaper.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
That something which more fits his target demographic.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Yes, okay, video review, signon.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Yeah. So a couple of big policy changes that we
didn't touch on going into the US Open. Obviously, the
free fan movement, the what I like to call it
is the US open schn gun zone if you want
to use that kind of analogy here, which I think
has actually been fairly successful just reading some stories about
it during the course of the week. And of course
(41:54):
the biggie var is here, video replayers in place, and
it's already a fuss. So this match between Vitrice Adadmira
and Kalin Skia took place. We had video review, which
honest to god, looks like the most ridiculous thing in
the world in a tennis tournament, to watch two grown
(42:15):
men sitting side by side in a command center bunker
which looks like, you know, a tech Bros. Basement. We
go to video review for the double bounce. It is
reviewed by the video umpire, it comes back without a change.
(42:35):
Anyone in the world who watches the same replay can
understand that the point was clearly for Kalin Skier. And
yet the rule is upheld, which is to say that
you can put video replay into the system, but there
is always going to be a level of human fallibility
in this whole process.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
We didn't carry this bit. Great Britain's great shame Jack Draper,
So I'm just making your run here after his shameful
actions a few weeks ago in Cincinnati. How are you taking.
Speaker 2 (43:09):
This, Well, let's just move on from Jack Draper. No,
I think he's again he is a player on that
side of I think he's got a really really good
chance as well to think this guy could be a
semi finalist very easily, just given his given his pathway.
He's not going to be afraid of my hack, He's
(43:29):
not going to be afraid of demon Or, and he's
not going to be afraid of Thompson either. Like I think,
you turn around and you have a semi final which
is Danny Mavett. Ever he has Jack Draper. I think
you know, I wouldn't raise my eyebrows at that at
all given where we are at the moment.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Yeah, and I'm obviously joking about the Jack Drapers stuff,
But the aftermath of that incident, in the sense of
like getting something that is helpful to fixing things, didn't
seem to be top of mind for everyone involved. Like
after it's like, oh yeah, like we still have the
people involved who are not going to get it right
all the time, and it's still going to lead to
(44:02):
events like we saw in that Dad Maya calling the
sky a match so that's well said Simon. And finally
Jesse from the block question mark.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
So there was a video cyclacking during the cost of
the week, which is the US Open put out of
Jess Pagoula taking the subway to Flushing and to the
US Open, and this was I thought it was a
good video, honestly, like before I get into us, before
I get into ripping this and perhaps being cynical about
the whole thing, I thought it was quite it was entertaining,
(44:33):
and I think it gave a good insight into who
Bagoler is. However, I don't believe this for a second.
The way that she was trying to interact with those
ticket barriers and the way that she was trying to
navigate the subway, it looked like she had never been
on public trans in her life.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
She hasn't been below ground. This is what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
The way that she was talking about it applied to
me that it was like, yeah, I mean sometimes I
go on this this train when it's too busy to
take the car at some tournaments. Nah, that's unfair. I
don't think she was doing that, but it was. It was.
It seemed a bit a bit ham fisted. To me,
listed she's riding a wave.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
You know, I think she's now that there's a more
hated billionaire, perhaps on the tour in the borrow. I
think I think JPEG's riding a popularity wave.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
Do you think this is a syop? Do you think
Jess Page has ever taken public transit before in our life?
Speaker 1 (45:35):
I'm gonna say she has. I'm gonna say she's taking
it abroad, you know, like she's not taking the subway
maybe that often in the United States, but in her
travel she has because we're a public transit is better.
I feel like these kind of things where you're like, yeah,
I'll take it to the tournament instead of the car.
Everyone's like, yeah, that makes total sense when you live
in a functioning city, unlike the majority of North America.
(45:58):
It seems it is true.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
It is very true for we wrap potting shots. I
think it is worth noting just on the rule changes,
that we didn't cover it last week. As an addendum,
I think this late night match policy is working, Okay,
the idea that yeah, yeah, the discretion is to move
it if it's I believe the policy is basically if
the match is going on later than eleven fifteen. Then
(46:22):
it's up to the discretion of the umpire and the
tournament director of whether or not they want to move
the match to another time just to prevent it going
until three in the morning. I think this is a
good policy overall, and it's something that I'd like to
see enforced in other places. I like it a lot.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
It feels like they put some thought into it and
found a solution. I know it's not going to appease everyone,
but it's something that clearly shows that working towards something
as opposed to what we've seen I think for some
of the other Slams when it comes to some rigid
decision making. So good on them, agreed, Simon. Okay, two
challenges remaining, sir.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
What do you got my two challenges from? Is the
run up to the British Columbia election, devang and oh
yeah yeah, what an interesting time in British Columbia politics.
So for those who don't know, which is probably the
vast majority of our audience, the runners and riders are
(47:17):
the British Columbia New Democratic Party here then referred to
as the NDP, who are currently the government and they
are facing the British Columbia Conservative Party that has read
led by a guy called John Roustad. The interesting part
about this is that John Roosted used to be a
member of the British Columbia Liberal Party, but was kicked
(47:38):
out of the party by their current leader, Kevin Falcon
for many things, including being a climate change denier and
also the some inflammatory comments that have been made in
regards to race based axations and many other things. It
has to be said, however, this has come full circle
with John Rooster now being the head of the BC
(48:00):
Conservatives and Kevin Falcon having to go cap in hand
to him. During the course of the week after the
Liberal Party had fallen apart completely, he disbanded the campaign
and then asked for support from the BC Conservatives. So
you have a situation where the official opposition no longer
exists as a party, which is absolutely wild. I can't
(48:21):
think of anything like this in the political history of
me watching either a place that I've lived or watching abroad.
So the government's in place, there is an official opposition,
but their party no longer exists, and who knows what's
going to happen. Canada is writing an extreme wave of
right wing populism that may carry this PC Conservative Party
(48:43):
into power in four weeks time.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Hold up, Bush, worse things. My man's name is Kevin Falcon, it.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
Is and he didn't win with that kind of name.
Speaker 1 (48:58):
Democracy is dead.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
You had everything handed to you is dead.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
That is a wild story. Thank you shared a link
with me in our chat that helped me understand what
was happening. But yeah, what a shit show. Canada's biggest
provinces just utter shit shows. Ontario, PC, Collect your boys, Canada.
What is going on here?
Speaker 2 (49:21):
It's about to be one hell of a right wood
swing in Canada across the home. Well, I don't know
if that's actually true. I don't think hospitibility to go
anymore right wing.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
Yeah, and I mean with the incoming likely Conservative win
at the federal level, maybe we'll see a swing back provincially,
hopefully to counteract. Well, I don't know. It's pretty bleak
at the moment. I am going to shout out a book,
an audiobook I listened to over a weekend that was
very long, but it's called twenty two Murders. It's about
(49:52):
those about the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in twenty
twenty and it was about the shooter self and the
community and the r c MP's utter failure both the
fore and during the incident. But yeah, just nabsolutely harrowing.
Listen into my case, I listened to the book, but
(50:13):
one of those ones where I started it on a
Friday and I ended it on a Sunday, just because
I was so into it. But the r CNP bush
read into it. Canadian friends, what the f? What the
f have we done here? What are they doing? Reform
them now? Arguably disband them. You should dispand them. It
sounds like it's so geez Louise, but yeah, twenty two murders.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Check it out. There is a saying that echoes around
the East side of Vancouver here, which is, don't trust
the RCMP, don't trust the VPD. I think that speaks
volumes for how a lot of these institutions are seen
in as part of the world.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Yeah, and institutional systemic issues that plague these these organizations
that are so so entrenched and can you in life
in society. It's pretty well. But I think that's it, Simon,
believe it. On that note, a reminder, we are on
patreon dot com, Forward Slash Open Air Pod, join us there,
(51:10):
get the show at free get it early on Sundays.
Plus join the best tennis discord in the land, where
we're talking tennis all the time, including right now during
the US Open. And that is it for us this week.
For producer Greg on the Once and Tuesday, and for Simon,
thank you so much for listening to Open Era. We'll
talk to you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.