The first thing that happened at Wimbledon 2024 was the withdrawal of Aryna Sabalenka, and it’s testament to what an astonishingly consistent performer she’s become at Grand Slams (without having very much, in the way of titles, to show for it when compared to how many second weeks she’s appeared in) that it felt like a drastic unmooring.
*
The best thing about Grand Slams is, always, learning or being reminded of things about players which nobody knew, or which you knew but had forgotten, or which are recorded in one obscure article from two years ago. Case in point: Jessica Bouzas Maneiro’s ‘SSH’ tattoo. Yannick Hanfmann’s hearing impairment. Charles Broom’s Masters degree in Sports Pedagogy.
*
Ash Barty on commentary: Penetrating tactical insights delivered in the most understated, serene fashion. Why are recently retired players so much better than (most of) the ones who have been commentating for decades? Partly because they’ve played against the players they’re talking about, sure. But one suspects that they also learn, after a while, that lazy cliché and hegemonic platitudes get paid just the same as actual nuance and insight.
Also, when Andrew Cotter is on commentary, you can imagine the players are Olive and Mabel during moments of particular tension or boredom. And it’s fun to mentally classify the players, too. Emma Raducanu is an Olive. Carlos Alcaraz is a Mabel. Taylor Fritz is an Olive. Jelena Ostapenko is a Mabel.
*
One thing I feel like I’m always reminding people of, when it comes to Emma Raducanu, is the stalker experience that followed pretty much immediately upon the heels of her US Open win. I was reminded of that when I saw this article about Danielle Collins and her own experiences with stalkers. I fully believe that this is a factor that’s seriously contributing to driving women out of the sport (and I don’t want to assume that it’s not affecting men, too) and it’s something we don’t talk about nearly enough—probably because we don’t know what to do about it. But it’s sad and it’s scary and when you’re hand-waving away the psychological burdens of life as a professional player as champagne problems, you should think about this, too.
*
Jack Draper’s Wimbledon followed, in many ways, the perfect trajectory (although probably not for Jack Draper): First he takes us on an Andy Murray-style late-night rollercoaster, under the lights of Centre Court. Then in the second round, he shows us how actually hard it’s been to be Andy Murray, with players motivated to beat you, here, in a way that gives them fire and focus that’s been missing everywhere else.
*
I scribbled down: Nothing is more surprising than the happiness I feel at watching Andy Murray walk on to Centre Court with his racquet in his hand, ready to play a match. Not sadness, but joy! I am surprised by joy. Nothing will make me happier than this.
Roughly ninety minutes later, I crossed this out and wrote ‘SUE BARKER!!!’.
*
There is nowhere I’d rather be than the TTP Social group chat when Hubert Hurkacz Does a Thing, especially when the thing he does is something that was not previously (and still isn’t) A Thing.
*
Rain delay means an opportunity to watch a fawning, lazy piece with John McEnroe and Nick Kyrgios. The ‘bad boys’ of tennis. This goes on for ten minutes. Think about how much we could have potentially learned about players actually in the tournament in that time, for a fraction of the budget, and without implicitly lending credibility to a figure whose on-the-court-record behaviour and media alliances are problematic at best.
On the other hand, being able to watch every court, all the time, for free? This is an insanely good media offering and not one to be taken for granted. Even if I did get really frustrated when the Elena Rybakina v Laura Siegemund stream kept freezing (or so I thought—turned out that was just how long Siegemund was taking to serve).
*
Walkover from Lucas Pouille after qualifying. David Goffin in as a lucky loser and then performing one of the most dramatic chokes (I don’t like this word, but there are times when it’s applicable). Grigor Dimitrov unable to finish even one set against Daniil Medvedev. It’s been a tough fortnight for supporting-cast players of a certain age.
*
New policy idea: No one should be allowed to express an opinion about Iga Swiatek and/or Emma Raducanu unless and until they’ve completed a course of therapeutic journalling about how successful young women make them feel, I mean really make them feel.
And I include myself in that, because hearing both women held to standards that aren’t just impossibly high but multiply, mutually contradictory, makes me see red in a way that’s probably not fully rational. Still, can they live? Can they just, please, live and be insanely good (but not perfect!) at what they do? Is it so insane to politely request for that to be enough?
*
Players who I barely really knew existed ten days ago and now will forever think of when somebody mentions Wimbledon 2024: Jessica Bouzas Maneiro. Mark Lajal. Sonay Kartal. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard. Lulu Sun.
As someone who is fully afraid to be themselves, I have to agree – up to a point – with some of Danielle Collins’s critics. Sometimes I do find watching her irritating; sometimes her demeanour registers with me as off-putting. But every one of her matches is an invitation to me to notice my own instinctive discomfort with a woman in open, public rebellion against the duty to please.
Put it another way: I spend a lot of time thinking about how the likes of Iga Swiatek or Emma Raducanu could do things differently so that they pleased everybody, so that they didn’t incur criticism from this particular opinion-segment for a week or two, so that the media doesn’t write these headlines, so these questions aren’t asked. I fully acknowledge that it’s impossible to please everybody, but I still think about how they could be the most pleasing, because – shamefully – that’s still what I want for and from women: Immunity from having to see one of us being judged to be un-pleasing. As much as I know, I know it’s a rigged game where the prize isn’t worth claiming, there’s still a childlike fantasy of being, I suppose, the good girl. Winning the lottery of universal approval. Writing it now, I’m embarrassed most of all by the waste of energy these sentences expose.
Watching Danielle Collins, listening to her speak, I’m struck by how much more wisely she’s investing her time and resources. I can very much see how her endometriosis experience, in particular, might have been a brutal lesson in the very literal impossibility of being everything a woman is supposed to be, but I still think it takes a very remarkable person to learn it. It shouldn’t be revolutionary to not censor yourself, or silence yourself, or tone yourself down, but it absolutely fucking is, and that’s why Danielle Collins might be the most grown-up person in the room.
Well written is something I know we always get from you Hannah. Always. You’re clever and have a gift. But it’s the originality of the points you make that get me too. I just don’t hear these things discussed. Like the public disgust that rains down on women who don’t aim to please. And your bravery and honesty in admitting that you too suffer from the hard wiring that we should please. Me too. Something inside me clenches when an Emma R says it’s a no brainer to not play with Andy Murray. Not because I disagree with her; but because I find that breathtakingly daring and risky. A risk I wouldn’t take but would love to.
I too am fully afraid to be myself.
Your sweetness of expression here is remarkable - immunity from having to see one of us being judged to be in-pleasing. How beautifully put. Thanks for opening up a can of worms I don’t even really know existed within me. Reading things like this liberates women to be themselves. And not pleasing machines.
Great writing. I like your writing style and how well you express ideas. There will not be any successful person, man or woman, in this world that would not endure hard criticisms from everyone that look at them with envy, or with desires of get what they have, but without doing what it takes to have it. It is unfortunately, human nature. It is more painful in my opinion, when society allow this to happen to young people, again male or female, athletes or art performers suffer the most
I can’t begin to express how much I love your writing, the way you put things, your insights, your sense of humor (and humor), all of it. I am already looking forward to your next column!!
Thank you Hannah. Thought-provoking and well said. I appreciate your columns so much.
Excellent column Hannah!
Glad you mentioned how the media (or some of it) treats young successful women.
The patriarchy will do anything to put down female success and I think that percolates to other layers of society, as women politicians are also having a hard time (media, social media, stalkers etc) and some of them are even retiring!
If Murray would have partnered with Jack Draper and the latter would have retired because of having to play men’s signed quarters or so, I’m just everyone would have been very understanding, right?
Last year Alcaraz said in an interview after being asked, that he plays tennis only for himself. Imagine if a woman said that 😒
Excellent read as always Hannah.
Agree re Barty being excellent on commentary and the question asking why recently retired players are better than those ex players that have been commentating for years really rang true with me. Think it applies to a lot of other sports - and I think a big factor is that sport evolves and players who have been commentating 20 years aren't normally as good at picking up the technical aspects of play as someone that has just been there, problem solving against these players in the modern game, which as a viewer I feel I really benefit from when Barty is commentating.
There are exceptions of course, Chris Evert was really insightful on the Swiatek-Gauff French Open semi final on eurosport this year in picking up the technical aspects of their play and why Coco struggles in that matchup where I suspect the type of commentator your referencing would have just been "look at the head to head of course Iga is winning"
👏👏♥️
Is it possible to agree 1000% with something? It must be, for that's how on-the-money you are about tv filler featuring JMac and/or Kyrgios. I don't need milquetoast players for me to be happy, but c'mon...
Speaking of milquetoast, Collins is anything but, and I love her for it. Swiatek, too, however differently she manifests her competitiveness. I'm totally against the grunting, screaming, I-have-to-fist-pump-to-prove-I'm-fighting demeanor of so many of the women and men (as below), but Collins' raw competitiveness trumps that for me, as did Sharapova's.
Those whose grunts come well *after* the hit, well, that's another story...
tennis is a sport that rewards predation. My discomfort with Iga and Danielle is their overt predatory behavior on court. Iga mostly quietly and Danielle loudly. It is one of the curses of being a tennis fan. I grew up in the phony amateur era of the 1950's and 60s and appreciated the quiet professionalism of the great Australians of that era. That era was replaced by Conners and john mac, and the game has never really recovered its manners. Sigh.
Excellent column! We need more than a barge for the baggage women have had to carry!
Thank you for another thought provoking and well written piece. Is it possible to write without swearing?
( Here and on the barge). I know I’m older than many of the Friends but I really find it unnecessary and off-putting. Surely there is a better way to express extreme emotion.
I have actually seen studies showing that people who swear to express themselves are more eloquent in general. As an older member of the Barge who swears like a sailor and offends some family members regularly, I agree. 😄
I didn’t even notice that there was swearing.
Thought-provoking. On the last one, I’m only interested in seeing people live their values. That’s why, although Collins is just a bit aggressive for me (as are those men who are demonstrative in a similar way), I respect her and Iga because I sense they know their values and try hard to live them in all they do (without perfection, of course). I’m struggling with Raducanu because her choices and behaviours are so all over the place and don’t seem to reflect any consistent set of values - she comes across more like a politician worried about their seat than a professional sportsperson acting with conviction. I also get that she’s young and the influences around her seem not great and that she’s had a lot to deal with - but I do think it makes it hard to buy what she’s selling.
This is exceptional writing, Hannah.
So many good points and worded so well. And nothing stood out more than what you wrote and Emma Raducanu and Iga Swiatek... I am also guilty of expecting 'better' from Iga at times, when it would be way better to celebrate her for what she is, what she is doing, who she is - without measuring her and without comparing her. I know, this is often what we do best - with ourselves also - we compare. And it isn't fair.
When I heard that on court interview with Danielle Collins, I thought about Emma Raducanu - as it came on the day she was receiving so much criticism for pulling out of doubles. Her interview was so empowered, and empowering, but that line about how women need to support each other, seem to ring louder that day.
A few random thoughts on the back of your thoughts... That moment Sue Barker walked on court actually lives in my head. It was such a moment. Seeing her again, like that, it was perfect.
And, one of the best things about Wimbledon this year has been Ash Barty on commentary. Her insight has been fascinating, and she has actually added an extra layer to the matches I have heard her commentating on. I really hope she continues with this.
So, so well put (as always), Hannah.
I will now watch this Collins match from a different perspective.
Beautiful piece, Hannah. As a woman in my 60's who spent far too much time and effort trying to be everything to everyone, I encourage you to start rebelling now. The freedom is intoxicating.