Wimbledon withdrawals shake up draw

The entries have been lightly edited to make them shorter and clearer.

As written: Wednesday is mailbag day

Here are the latest episodes of the Served with Andy Roddick podcast: A drawing example for Wimbledon and some scattered early round thoughts.

A good reminder that Tennis Channel will be airing a six-hour show featuring Brett Haber, Lindsay Davenport and Jim Courier's last ball in one studio followed by Martina Navratilova, Steve Weissman and me in another.

Forward

There have been a lot of questions this week about the injury withdrawal protocol, after a flood of players, particularly Andy Murray, Aryna Sabalenka and Victoria Azarenkap had to leave Wimbledon due to various injuries after the draw was announced.

Seriously, this is much ado about nothing. Players, understandably, want to give themselves every chance to compete and win despite injuries. As long as there is a non-zero chance of playing and miraculously recovering, why give up? If/when players withdraw, it’s not like anyone is being deprived of anything. A lucky loser is standing there, waiting in the wings, happy to take advantage of the chance to play (and earn over $75,000).

In a perfect world, would Sabalenka have withdrawn before the draw so that her quarter wouldn’t be robbed of a top-four seed? Sure. But in a perfect world, a top player doesn’t withdraw with a shoulder injury. In the real world, we’re all good. Let’s pick another problem to address.

Jon, will Wimbledon start on Sunday like the other majors? Is that being discussed?

Karel

Note that two of the four majors, the French Open and now this year the Australian Open, start on a Sunday and last three weekends. The US Open is holding off. The same goes for Wimbledon.

A few years ago there was only one Sunday match in the whole tournament, the last one. Now we are talking about a third Sunday session?

Seriously, I asked a friend who is a member of the club about this: Hold your breath, he replied. There are several considerations, not least the neighbors who have already been put off by the golf course expansion plans. (Remember, many of the neighbors are also members of the club.)

The big priority here is to get permissions and approval to hold the qualification on site and develop another showground. Anything that complicates this effort or requires additional cajoling and horse trading is a non-starter.

Jon, what's up with Ben Shelton? I see he's losing again. Overhyped or sophomore slump? Or something else?

Elizabeth, LA

First, let's note that Shelton overcame a 12-set deficit against Mattia Bellucci to advance to the second round at Wimbledon.

Where's Shelton? This falls right in that zone between let's all calm down And don't insult us. That is to say, Shelton is doing fine. He is 21 years old. He is a top 15 player. He is learning as he goes. He has great athleticism and talent. And at the same time, it would be naive to characterize his current run as anything more than disappointing. He lost his opening match at the Stuttgart Open before being knocked out in the first round of the Queens Club Championships. He ended a drought that stretched to the French Open with a win in Mallorca, only to lose in the quarterfinals to then-No. 289 Paul Jubb. Shelton is also skipping the Olympics.

My question about Shelton: How many gears are there? He can really hit it, we know that. He has a great serve and a lot of power. But can he win by going back? Can he win by changing his tactics? Can he win with returns?

There is still a lot of time. Time to mature. Time to develop more of a tennis cortex. Time to improve his shot selection. Look at it this way: he has already reached the top 10. Imagine the ceiling when he really masters the sport.

Five LL's [lucky losers] for men and four for women. That must be in the media, almost or even an absolute record, right?

Tom, California.

From our friends at the ITF:

It's the most LLs at Wimbledon since 2018, when there were also nine (seven men, two women)… Also nine (seven men, two women) in 10. The last time there were more than nine was in 1991 when there were 10 (five men, five women). That's just Wimbledon, I haven't checked any other Slams yet…

Jon, this might be a stupid question, but can you explain to me why the player rankings are different from their seedings? For example, I see that Daria Kasatkina is ranked #12 in the WTA rankings, but was seeded #14 at Wimbledon.

Rodney, London

No stupid questions here. Sure, the seeds follow the rankings. But the draw limits and the placements are made in advance, especially since players need time to prepare for travel and schedules. That's why Hugo Gaston could be in 71st place, but he had to qualify for the main draw.

It’s less of a time-lapse, but the seeds are made based on the previous week’s ranking, not the current week. In Kasatkina’s case, note that her ranking got a boost from her win in Birmingham last weekend. By that point, however, the Wimbledon draw had already been made.

As long as you bring her up, you'll keep an eye on Kasatkina in her wide-open pocket of your drawer.

I love the money podcast you did it with Andy Roddick. I wonder though why tennis agents don't take prize money like agents in other sports take a pay cut?

Anonymously

I think the objection would be that tennis prize money is A) actually earned and B) fixed, i.e., non-negotiable, like a contract or a salary.

Also note that in team sports, commissions on contracts are usually capped. In the NFL, agents are allowed to make a maximum of 3% of their salary. There is no cap on commissions on sponsorship deals and outside income. I suppose a tennis agent could charge 3% of the prize money. But that seems petty to me. You would get $30,000 on $1,000,000 in prize money. If I were an agent, I would say: Keep what you earn. If I win a deal, I take 15 or 20%. A $1 million deal that makes the agent $150,000 makes everyone happy.

Jon,

I'm not one to bash anyone for making incorrect predictions (because predictions are hard), and I can't fault any predictor for occasionally taking a chance on unproven or lower-ranked players making a run (because those runs happen). But I'm just wondering if you could explain it your choice of Lucia Bronzetti to reach the semifinals of Wimbledon. Did you literally just pick someone at random to illustrate a theory that someone will randomly come out of that quarter? It didn't corpses so; I read it as a kind of endorsement of Bronzetti's abilities. So can you explain why you think she could do it? (As I write this, your prediction is not wrong!)

Srikanth

Yeah, that was a pretty arbitrary attempt at A) the 2024 Marketa Vondrousova (the same Vondrousova who lost in the first round this year) and B) to drive home the point that there’s a high probability of a low probability rise. Bronzetti (currently ranked No. 81) is a fine player, but one who shows little sign of doing much at Wimbledon. Which would also describe last year’s champion right now.

Jon

Did [Bernard Tomic] abandoned a challenger event after being down 16 points due to a bizarre argument with his girlfriend during the match?

I thought [Tomic] changed his life?

Do you have any more context on this? What’s going on with Tomic?

Deepak (New York)

I didn't have Bernard Tomic on the bingo card, but Deepak refers to this bizarre incident from last month.

This is one of the saddest stories in tennis. Thirteen (gulp) Wimbledons ago, Tomic, then a teenager, reached the quarterfinals of the major as a sui generis player, lacking in athleticism but a clean shot and a mean slice. Now 31, he’s ranked 245 and has his own controversies subheading on his Wikipedia page.

I was also struck by his finances. He has earned about $6.4 million in prize money for his career. Take away, say, three quarters of that for taxes, training, travel and Testarossa. Amortized over the 16 years since he turned pro, no one here retires rich. And for that matter, no one retires.

Great newsA film adaptation of the best tennis book i've ever read (no disrespect to Venus envy) that you recommended to all of us back then. It will be wonderful to see Gottfried Von Cramm's story introduced to so many people.

Cheers,

Mat

Good info. Thanks.