Did Zverev Actually Get Better? | Post-US Open MEGA Mailbag (2026)

0:00Hey everyone, Gil Gross here and it is time for another mailbag where I answer your questions hot takes observations and ultimately your comments about tennis or anything else that is our first mailbag since the conclusion of the 2026 US Open over 150 comments under my post. It took me at least an hour just to read through all of them. Huge thanks to everybody who participated. Some US Open comments, some unrelated, I pulled 25 of them. It's going to be hard to get through all 25 but I'm going to really try to force myself to go quickly through these as best I can. So let's not waste any time. Starting with member Gavon C3, appreciate all my members who contribute $2 a month to the channel. You can do so if you so choose by hitting the join button. Okay, from Gavon, you can only beat who's in front of you but did Svera really make any personal progress or change this year?

1:00Or did he do the same thing he's been doing for years but Sincaraz were out. He choked his way through the RG final. Also like you noted on the draw news letter, he beat only two top 10 players all year. Still, Federer won RG and in retrospect, no one cares that he did not beat Rafa in the process. Is this a good comparison? It's a great comparison, really good. I don't know that I agree fully with the conclusion you're drawing from the comparison but I definitely think it's a good thing to explore. So let's do just that. As a record keeper, I agree with you. Roger Federer will always be the 2009 Roland Garros champion undisputed, unquestioned career grand slam winner. You say that without hesitation. You say that with your whole chest as a record keeper. As a storyteller, it never ends with just what happened, right? How it happened is always part of it. And I don't think as storytellers

2:04we have forgotten that Federer didn't beat Nadal or that we don't care that he didn't beat Nadal. I think as storytellers, we are telling the story of Robin Soderling beating Rafa Nadal. Every time we tell the story of Federer winning Roland Garros. Now for Roger, it was still an incredible triumph for so many reasons regardless. He really had one chance, one chance in his whole career to win RG without having to go through Rafa and take it to go one for one and to come through some tense moments in a great match against a guy like Juan Martindal Pocho. These are really memorable performances that Roger deserves so much credit for forgetting through. But I don't think no one cares that he didn't beat Rafa. I think it's part of the story. Imagine if he did beat Rafa. Imagine how differently that would be framed. It would probably go down as the greatest triumph of Federer's career if he

3:05were able to make that happen. Just like Fernandale, a lot of people will look at 2008 Wimbledon because he was able to beat Roger where Roger was dominant up to that point. Same thing. Anyway, bringing this back to Zverev. I think a lot of things are true at the same time. So did Zverev really make any personal progress or change this year? Yes, I think he did. I genuinely think he did. And not all of these things just suddenly popped up in the calendar year 2026. Some of them were slower processes. But as a transition player coming forward and volleying, he's been getting continuously better in the last five years. Now I find him to be a very reliable net player. Second serve is something that didn't just stop shooting him in the foot. Actually became one of the better second serves in tennis. Forehand is the biggest thing.

4:05Accelerating, flattening it out, going down the line, doing all of these things with more regularity, with more comfortability, and delivering that in big moments. That's why I highlighted more than any other moment in the final again, Shelton, the back-to-back forehands down the line that Zverev hit against Ben in the tie break. One was a passing shot. One wasn't to go up to love, three love, too many breaks because there was no moment in the match that I thought it was more vivid that this Varev was a little bit better than a past Zverev who I just don't think would have come up with those shots. The other thing is that he deserves a lot of credit for continuously putting himself in these positions in a very resilient manner where his contemporaries who were in similar situations could not maintain their level of play for enough years to put themselves

5:12in the positions that Zverev has. Daniel Medvedev has not been able to maintain his level. Stephanie C. T. Poss couldn't maintain his level. Those are the main two guys. I'm not going to put I'm not going to put certain other guys in that group who I don't think would have really challenged for major titles at any point, but certainly those two, right? So Zverev deserves credit for that. That said, I think when we tell the story of Zverev winning two majors this year, you tell the story of Alcara as being out at Roland Garros and sinner suffering a physical collapse on a hot day in Paris against one Manuel Surrendolo. That's just part of it. And as for the US Open, I don't think that drawlock is remembered very well. Zverev had pretty exceptional drawlock up until the final. But sinners out with the knee injury Alcara is playing his first tournament in four and a half months. He loses to Ben in the quarters. This is part of the story. And

6:16are Zverev's major titles going to be framed differently than Stanva Vrinka's major titles? Yeah. It's still three to two. It's not three to zero. It's not three to one. It's three to two. Undisputably, as a record keeper, that is objectively true. But the stories will be told differently. The context is not completely lost. Zverev got to play his opponents in the major finals or two guys who had never been in a major final before. That stuff is all part of the story. Hope I answered the question. From Fuzzy Yellow Soul, this got 19 likes, which I was a little bit surprised because I don't typically like to go on too much about this kind of thing. But from Fuzzy Yellow Soul, what was your favorite thing about being on US Open Radio? Any notable individuals you enjoyed working with? Thanks for the kind comment here on the bottom. Well, there are two things about US Open Radio that make me look forward to those few weeks, arguably more than any other couple

7:24weeks for the rest of the year. The first is that I get to interview a lot of players right after their matches. So they're coming straight from the court. I typically get two or three questions. We call them, we call it a flash interview, flash meaning right after the match before they go into their into the locker room. And then ultimately they'll do their press conference. A flash interview is immediately after the match. The opportunity to just interview players and to try to ask my curiosities is a privilege. It's something that I really enjoy about that job specifically. And then also I get to be in these stadiums. So much of tennis commentary is done off of a monitor in a in a sound booth or a closed door studio, so to speak, because of the logistical challenges that come with travel and the various stadiums that tennis is played in

8:24throughout the year. I can go on and on. There are so many reasons, but so much of tennis commentary is is done in this sort of sterile. Vio booth setting. And for the US Open, I'm in the stadiums. I'm in that energy. I'm on the court. And it's just more of a thrill. So look at as somebody who grew up in New York, go into the US Open was a ball boy there in 2013 and 2014. I call the US Open my my favorite recurring dream because I just feel so darn lucky to be able to do that job. And it's never lost on me. So those are the two big things. And then and then also the team, the the team that I won't go into going to go in a detail with, but behind the scenes, they're incredible play by the fellow play by play people who I'm working with and also the analysts, people like Mark Lucero and David Pearson and Sophie Amiac and Zina Garrison. And I'll miss some,

9:27but Jordan Thompson this year who's recovering from injury. Absolute thrill. So feel really lucky. This next one is from Scott Bra. High go most people, not you usually analyze tennis players pretty broadly X has a good forehand, etc. And they also often focus on the negatives. Can you give a rundown of the top 10 and talk about not what they're missing, but what they are so good at going beyond just good forehand, good serve, etc. All right, I got to be careful on this comment. Truly because if I'm not careful, I'm going to spend 30 minutes here. And especially because you're daring me to go in depth and you're telling me to go through the entire top 10. So I'm going to be really careful to not take too long here. Okay, Yannick center ball quality out of the corners. You think you've hit a good enough ball where you've earned an advantage in the rally.

10:27And because he is so good at playing off the ground from compromised positions, AKA under lateral pressure stretched out on the run. Because he is so good from these positions, he delivers ball quality that does not allow a player to take a lead in the rally like you normally would. And that's what I think if I'm going to pinpoint one thing about center, that's what I'm going to kind of highlight. For Zverev, you could say, Oh, he has a good serve. How would I make that specific? I would say, well, nobody probably in the history of tennis has been able to deliver that kind of consistent pace and that kind of percentage. I don't know of anybody else. And I'm sure like, Isner could have done this if he wanted to. He had a different serve style. But for Zverev to to be serving 70% one 30 mile per hour average. And for that to just be the match-in,

11:32match-out norm is exceptional, especially for a guy who can then grind from the baseline and move well and play really consistently. Alcaraz power and finesse and speed has never been combined in one package like it is for Alcaraz. And because of that, he has more options when he's in an attacking position, particularly on the forehand. He has more options from certain positions than any other player I've ever seen. Where he can cut the ball short angle, he can flatten out with injection of pace at the highest level. He can pull the string and suddenly it's a drop shot and you're having to run forward. And he's doing all of these things at the at the highest level. So combined with movement that is top tier to say the least.

12:35Ben Shelton serve variety, right? His kick serve kicks to an extreme degree. His slice serve slices to an extreme degree. And his flat serve is fast to an extreme degree. That is so unsettling as a returner. And it is impossible to get any kind of return rhythm. Hopeless. Felix O'Sulli seem. You know what I love about his forehand, right? Because again, I think that's what the sector size is. Instead of good forehand, it's well give me more. What I think is amazing about his forehand is he does not need time on the ball to produce his power. And that liberates him to take the ball really early and to never really rush himself, especially on like the plus one ball when he can kind of step inside the court, take forehands early and still deliver big pace.

13:37And the speed at which he plays his forehand at because you're combining those two things. You're combining his contact point and the closer it is, the faster the ball is coming to you. And obviously the speed of the shot, you're combining those things. And I feel like his pace, when you combine those two things is overwhelming on the forehand. Daniel Medvedev returns in play. I mean, that is what he still does better than anybody else in the world. You can look at his return numbers this year. They are still really good. And that's even even though he's a diminished version of himself as a bassliner. Obviously he's a diminished version of himself as a server, which are not going to see in his break numbers. But I feel as if the quality of his return are still carrying his break numbers where he's a top 10 break percentage guy on tour, even right now. And that's because with his wing span and his return position, combined

14:44with his ability to connect with the ball and find that that perfect trajectory to sort of fade the ball deep in the court. Yes, there are certain things you can try to do to beat it, like servant volley. But ultimately, he is going to be the guy where it doesn't really matter how good your serve is. You're going to have to play behind it over and over and over again. Flavio Cabulli. That's an interesting one. You know, Flavio is still the best thing he does right now is his movement. It's his speed around the court. That's still his greatest asset at the moment. So I don't know how much more there is on that. But I mean, he's pretty well-rounded, meaning there are a lot of other things I can think of that he does really well. But at the end of the day, it's very hard to get the ball through him because of how fast he is.

15:48I still think that's the thing that is sort of making him a top 10 player above all other things at the moment. Francis Tiafo. Francis is a guy with, I mean, I feel like his really, really greatest strengths are not as clear as certain other players. Look, I love the ball control on his backhand. That's probably my favorite thing about his game is that he puts his backhand on a dime. And it enables him to kind of break down right handers in that cross-court backhand, a backhand exchange more often than not. Then kind of find a ball in the middle to open up the court with his forehand or find a shorter ball on his backhand to change down the line. He's got great hands. He net rushes off of attacking balls as much as he can. But consistency and ball placement on

16:51that backhand, he's never leaving that ball in the middle. You just can't really attack off of it. It's flat. It stays low. So unattackability on the backhand would be my big thing with Francis. Demonore. Well, balls in play and toughness and rally tolerance combined with speed, of course. I also think demon and I haven't really gotten into the mentality of it, but he's really good at toggling his game plans. So if a matchup requires him to be a little bit more aggressive, he'll do it. If a matchup, you know, if he feels like he can get away from get away with being more passive and wearing somebody down, he'll play that way as well. If somebody has a weaker side on a big point, Alex is pretty good about, you know, finding it and being diligent about what the plan is. So I also think that he is a very good tactical player. Taylor Fritz. Well, he's one of the most

17:52accurate servers in the world. So I don't think I've given anybody props for the spot serving. The ability to hit corners. And then it's almost like Zverev only, instead of making a lot of serves at really high speed, it's putting a lot of serves in great locations at more modest speeds. And then similar to Zverev, not really going to break down and give you errors off the ground. Neither his forehand or his backhand are typically going to break down, not as speedy around the court as Zverev, but similarly solid in rally. Okay, we did it. Hope that didn't take too long. From Pastor Solonga, hey, Gil, who do you think Ferrero is going to coach next year? I often skip comments like this because it's like, geez, how am I supposed to do this? But I'm tempted

18:57to just give this one a shot. People have been talking about a potential Ferrero Center partnership. That falls into the, I'll believe it when I see it category. And it is so difficult to wrap my head around. I don't even know where to begin. And therefore, I'm just going to bypass it completely. But I guess if I'm making a list of candidates, I'm going to throw Yannick on that list because I've seen reports of it potentially happening, which is mind boggling. There are two other guys though who I'm thinking about. Felix Ojalei, Seam needs a coach. And I would be surprised if he hasn't spoken to JCF at some point or another about this. So that's one to watch out for. The second one to watch out for is Daniel Merida.

20:01If I'm looking for a young Spaniard who I could potentially mold as another kind of top five player, he's not there yet. And there's a lot of work to be done. But do I think the raw materials are exciting enough for Ferrero to be intrigued by that? Yes. As a young Spaniard, are you naturally going to gravitate towards somebody like Ferrero given his track record? Seam would be said for Carlos Moia, who hasn't been in the coaching game for a while. I would say yes. So if I were to put my money on two guys right now, it would be FAA and Merida for Ferrero. From IKW. Another member, thanks for being a member. In hindsight, are you a bit disappointed that you didn't pick Zverev? The number one seed and recent Grand Slam winner with the most Grand Slam wins on tour this year? Okay, at the time that wasn't true. But anyway, I recall you initially had him losing to Hodar in the quarter final, and then later Clam Sheldon

21:05was simply at another level. Well, let's be more specific than that. I claimed Sheldon's level of play coming into the final was clearly better than Zverev's level of play, which is really more than anything. Now part of it is, do I really trust Zverev to hold it together in a big moment versus a guy in Sheldon who has made a career out of overperforming in clutch situations. If you look at, like he is outperformed his ability level. Sheldon has, based on how he's responded to clutch situations versus Zverev, the exact opposite is true, generally speaking. That was part of it. But the biggest thing here was I watched a lot of Zverev's matches, almost all of them, and same can be true for Sheldon's matches. And I just, and I rarely fall for

22:07this. I just thought Ben was playing so much better. That's what it mainly came down to. Now, I typically try my best to discount that because I don't often think that it matters. Who's playing better? And it's a question that you see a lot. I fielded a lot over the course of a a two week major who's playing better, who's in better form, yada yada yada. And typically, I'm pretty good about being like, doesn't matter. Right? Tomorrow's a new match. Who cares who has been playing better in the last, you know, seven days? Right? Why should that have a bearing on what's going to happen tomorrow? And I am a little bit disappointed that I kind of got away from that in this case. And I should have recognized better that Zverev just had the ability to be so

23:08comfort zone oriented in this matchup. And also, you know, maybe I continue, maybe there was also a little bit of the mistake I made with Kaboli where no matter how, how good somebody is in bright lights. And I think Sheldon has been better than basically anybody else other than Alcaraz, in terms of responding to bright lights early in his career. First, first slam final, sometimes it's just a whole different beast. Sheldon played that entire first set, tight as a drum, case in point. But should I have overlooked or should I have put less stock into how they looked coming in? And part of it, by the way, was Zverev having such an easy path to the final made it more difficult for me to evaluate where his game was theoretically at. Because I kept coming away from these matches, feeling very underwhelmed by his opponent's performance.

24:10And then also slightly underwhelmed by Zverev's performance. But after the first two rounds, it was all straight set wins for Sasha. You know, I mean, that was certainly true about the semi-final against Hachinov, the quarter final against Botech. The Tbilumatch, I didn't see much of, but like these were matches where I just felt his opponent didn't deliver the goods much. You know, Hachinov was a little bit different because after the first set, Karen kind of stayed right there with Zverev and then just under pressure for him broke down on him. That was that. But it was actually a very close match. Sheldon, of course, had a much tougher path to the final. And as a result, I just came away a lot more impressed with his performances. But knowing, I guess, the way Zverev's return has been a neutralizing factor against Sheldon's serve, what he's able to do in both cross-quarts against Ben. Am I disappointed? Yeah, I am. This is one I probably should have gotten right and I got it wrong.

25:18I'm always a little bit disappointed if I get it wrong, but definitely it's varying degrees. For example, the Roland Garros match, I was actually not super disappointed because so much of what I said in my preview ended up being correct. The other thing though about the US Open Preview is I did it totally on a whim. And sometimes I do change my mind if I have time to map it out and think about it a lot and to kind of outline my preview. And I did not have time to do that for this final. Who knows? Like, if I had 24 hours where I was mapping it out, I might have changed my mind. We'll never know. So it was a less like, it was a less, I wasn't as exploratory when coming to that pick. I was a little bit more, I think I was a little bit more like reactive based on what I had been seeing in the last few matches, you know. From

26:18Bathometic, when you watch a match live rather than on television, what ATP level tactical pattern becomes obvious that television makes almost impossible to notice? I'm going to give some credit to television here. I don't think there's anything that is almost impossible to notice, but there are definitely some things that are a little bit harder. And I think the biggest thing is the height. The height of shot comes across live. And part of this depends on what angle you're watching from. But for most angles, height of shot comes across way better when you are live, especially when you're down lower on the court versus the TV angle, which is just a little bit high high up. So obviously you see the horizontal factor of a rally. And you see that geometry, but you just don't see the vertical geometry of a rally as much from the TV angle. And that can be not can be. That's often just a huge deal. When I'm trying to think of some examples,

27:22Lorenzo Musetti played Arthur Ferry. I think this was his third round. What round was that? Is that a first round match? I think it was actually a first round match. Musetti against Ferry. That was a match where Lorenzo was just trying to litter. The game plan was very obvious and clear. I want to get the ball to jump up as high as possible. Every ground stroke that Musetti was hitting was just I don't even think he was aiming for the baseline. I think he wanted the ball landing on the service line. He was trying to get a lot of net clearance. Tons of spin, height and spin was just the name of the game. And it was a great plan, right? Ferry was kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. Obviously he's a shorter player. What he tried to do in the first couple sets was just get inside the baseline to take that ball early and then come in. But could he produce a high quality enough approach shot time and time again to create a winning formula out

28:28of that? No. And then later on, he ended up kind of having to back up. But when Ferry is playing from deep behind the baseline, he's no longer an offensive threat because he doesn't have the power from the back to be threatening from back there. So that was one example of a match that I thought height was like the whole match. Sometimes you'll see it the other way. For example, look, Tiafo's a guy when I watch his backhand, I know I just praised his backhand. Part of what makes it really good is it doesn't check up for players. It's one of those shots where the consistency combined with the lack of net clearance is a rather remarkable combination. And it speaks to the precision of that particular shot. But when a ball stays really low, it is is one of the best ways to keep keep it out of trouble and to keep it from being attacked.

29:29Sometimes body type, you know, when I watched Alexander blocks at the US Open this year, just dawned on me. What a what a specimen he is athletically. His size combined with how well he moves. And it's not like string bean movement. It's not Zverev Medvedev string bean kind of thing. He's actually a really muscular six foot five and he can move that's some crazy athleticism right there. A little bit Shelton like. But that really jumped out to me in person. And then sometimes the ability to only watch the ability to control your eyeballs instead of being at the mercy of the television director can sometimes be really nice. Like if I'm looking for body language at a certain moment or in time, I want to see if somebody's rushing, if somebody looks tired, if somebody looks stressed or nervous, it's nice to be there when

30:31I can just say like in between this point, I don't need to worry about them cutting to a fan or showing the other player who I actually don't want to be looking at at any given moment. Good to have control over that in between points as well. All right. Long one here. From Cameron Adams. Hi, Gil. Given Zverev's recent triumphs over psychological scar tissue and sabbelanca's emotional turmoil seems like a good time to get your thoughts on the mental side of tennis. There are endless talks about hyper-specific tactics, physicality, and stroke production technique. But when it comes to what's between the ears, we mostly get platitudes from players and pundits like more belief and choked under pressure and lacked focus. Players go so far as to hire sports psychologists, switch coaches, seek therapy, have conversations with themselves or their boxes on court,

31:35yet almost none of the mental strategies they employ get discussed in any depth. Is this a matter of players keeping things under wraps, personality, mental strategies that are instilled so young that they're subconscious? The mental component just not being as important? I'm curious if there are some 10 commandments of tennis mentality and what those might be. I don't know what the 10 commandments are, but I think a good start is the inner game of tennis as a book. And that gets into some of the fundamentals of of concentration and evaluating your own performance in the healthiest way possible in a way that end up inhibiting you to deal with nervousness. Part of it is it's pretty personal and not only can it be personal in terms of a player is not always maybe wanting to share all of this

32:39stuff because it makes them vulnerable in a way that players do not wish to be vulnerable, but also different things are going to work for different people and it's just really hard from a distance. And I guess that's why there's a term for it, right? Armchair psychologist. Nobody really accuses tennis analysts of being armchair tacticians or if somebody starts to falter physically in some kind of way, it's typically a little bit harder to dispute it. Whereas anything between the ears, once you start to go into a great amount of detail, you get into speculative territory pretty quickly, right? Now you want to know about strategies, you want to know like what are things that players are actually doing or focusing on? And I should

33:42probably read more about this topic and learn more about this topic because you're right. It's the part that isn't as mainstream, but I'll give you some examples from Intergame of Tennis. Here's a strategy for concentration. I'll give you two. Try to read the writing on the ball. If it says Wilson, US open, when the ball is coming in, see if you can read it. Often the answer will be no, you can't read it. But the act of trying to read it is a good way to concentrate on the ball. And if you're telling yourself, read the ball, you're not going to lose concentration. You're actually going to zone in another concentration exercise if you count to yourself. This is something that I often actually do on my surf to get a rhythm, especially when I'm serving a basket of balls. So I guess there are two versions of it. You can count when the ball bounces is one, and then when

34:42you hit it, that's two. So if I'm like hitting four hands, one, two, right? I'm all cramped here. I don't want to hit the microphone. One, two, one, two. In the case of serving, it's actually three. For me, I count to three. So it's, and it's just to get the tempo right. So I guess one, two, so my one is my racket hold when I'm here, and then my two is my toss, and then my three is when I'm coming through and hitting the ball. That's just a way to help concentrate. And then I guess the way I would generalize the rest of it is a lot of it is interdialogue. A lot of it is what you tell yourself. One of the things that is interesting in, in inner game is there are certain things that you might think could actually be really good to tell yourself that end up backfiring. Like, wow, my forehand has been great today.

35:42Intergame preaches don't judge yourself positively or negative. Be non-judgmental. Be analytical with yourself when necessary, but don't be judgmental of yourself. And it's really the interdialogue that if you can completely tame and control, I think you're in a pretty good place. Typically, you're in a pretty good place with unleashing your best performance mentally, whether that mean you're fighting hard, no matter what, and you're dealing with pressure. And I think those are probably the two hardest things that you have to grapple with in this game is performing with pressure and performing with a lot of like resolve and just working hard and fighting hard effort level basically, effort level and pressure. So if those things don't,

36:45if your game doesn't fluctuate under pressure and your effort level doesn't fluctuate under any circumstances, you're probably dynamite mentally, right? Those are the two big pillars. Next one is from Julius. Hello, fellow German here. I got to stop you there. I mean, I do have some ancestry that traces back to Germany, but I do not identify as German, but I appreciate it. Anyway, because there was a lot of debate after the French open final, if Zverev will lose some motivation, like team or anything of that kind, he gave a 45 minute interview in German, where he said a lot of interesting things. One, he said his next goal is number one, and that he is not satisfied one bit. Two, he loves playing tennis and working out. Furthermore, that it was absolutely no possibility to not play tennis for some weeks or to stop going

37:46as hard as he does after French open. He kind of said it kind of in, he kind of said it was in his DNA, and so that he will keep working like that, whether he wins or loses. So with this in mind, his strength and mental attitude and consistency, what do you think big picture about Zverev? I personally think he will keep developing his more aggressive style and keep challenging Sin Karaz, and I also think that in the next two years, he will be able to defeat them from time to time, also in slam finals. Yeah, maybe. I mean, this whole thing is complicated by the fact that he's 30 years old. And yes, since I guess the turn of the century, I mean, look, Jimmy Conner's had a very long career and Andre Agassi started to play really well in his 30s, not started to, you know what I mean? Like he had a fruitful second phase of his career. Obviously, the big three,

38:47all of them were excellent in the first half of their 30s to varying degrees. Can be done. But you start to look at the health thing as a question mark, not anything you can take for granted. Just don't know that Zverev is going to stay healthy in these next few years. This tends to be when a player may begin to break down. Can he, and then if he loses some explosivity in his movement as all 30 year olds do, what level of adaptation can he implement to offset that? He's obviously already become a better offensive player, but how much even further would he have to take that? And does the foundation of his forehand technique allow him to be that player? Because there are still some difficulties that he has getting offensive off of that win.

39:54But I don't look at Zverev as a player who is bound to age poorly as long as he stays healthy. Because I do think that, look, I mean last year I was a little bit concerned because I thought there were a lot of little injuries that were popping up for him. And that mentally, he looked freed to me. Like I didn't think he was as good of a competitor last year. And he looked kind of miserable on the court a lot of the time. And there was, I think a shoulder problem at one point, in a back problem at one point. So just last year I was thinking, oh, are we starting to get a little burnt out? Are we starting to get a little bit of, you know, old age kind of body things this year, total like best year of his career dream, dream season. So I don't know where we're going to go from here. But I do think we should be pretty mindful of the whole idea that he is

40:5930. And that could mean a couple of different things. It could mean that he has one good year left or it could mean that he is four good years left. Maybe five, but you're you're pushing it at that point. Not too much time. From Phil OG, hi, Gil, is there a measurable difference in serve speed after changing to new balls compared to used ones after every nine games played? Glad you brought this up actually. This is always a fascinating topic. I have not seen serve speed measured. But what I have seen measured is serves unreturned percentage. I'll I'll actually put this graphic up here for the YouTube viewers. So Matt Willis looked into this via the tennis abstract match charting project, which isn't always exact, but if you take a huge data set. And in this case, it's 2022

41:59to 2026. You're in pretty good shape. So let's just look at ball set number two from from new balls. Which would be after seven games. So eighth game of the match when they're fresh. And just how unreturned serve percentage progresses from there. In the first game of new balls, it's a 43% unreturned serve percentage. Is this first serve unreturned? Yeah, it's first serve. Yeah, that's why it's so high. So first serve unreturned percentage, 43% with fresh balls, 42% next game, 39% game two. Actually, technically, that would be game three. 39% after that, then it's 37%, then it's 36, then it's 36, then it's 35, then it's 35. So that is consistent across the board. Every time you've got fresh balls, you've got unreturned serve percentages in the 40s. Every time you get to the last

43:04ball before the ball change, you have 37 at max maximum because it seems to me like the warm-up take as much out of the balls actually as the nine games because 37% is the seventh game after the warm-up. But then after that, it's 35%, 33%, 33% in the last game before the ball change. So there's like a there's a clear difference in terms of serve unreturned percentage. Now, Matt says that double faults also rise with newer balls. First serve in percentage decreases slightly. Hold rate changes, he said are actually very slight, which is interesting. I think sometimes we discount the other variable of new balls, which is that they are harder to control, fresh out of the can. So it's not always as straightforward as like, oh, the player playing offense is just going to be more efficient and therefore it's going to be way easier to hold. Well, I think on balance,

44:09yes, it's going to be easier to hold, but there can be some problems for the player who is taking on a little bit more risk, I think, with the balls that are harder to control in that moment. So very interesting. I don't know if there's anything, anything further I want to talk about here, but yeah, they are they are discussing what inspired this post from Matt Willis is they are discussing increasing the frequency of ball changes because the players and I think I support this. The players are saying that the balls by the by the end, the old balls versus the fresh balls, the disparity in playability is so vast that it requires just an incredible amount of mid-match adjustment and I think that level of mid-match adjustment probably hurts the product a bit, like think about how hard it is to suddenly like four times a match basically, sometimes less,

45:14sometimes more, usually less than four times, but a few times a match, you're just having to make that enormous adjustment where a ball is playing completely differently suddenly. I think that's pretty hard. From Mr. Dutty, Ben Shelton has made a lot of progress, but while he might be able to beat slash push Alcaraz, I don't see a path for him currently to be able to push center. Center serves better, which exposes Ben's return, has a longer reach in return, so harder for Ben serve to prevail the same way it did against Alcaraz, and he can pin Ben on his backhand side with constant pressure better than Carlos. I would imagine that with center, we'd see a more extreme version of what we saw as Verab due to him. What do you think Ben needs to work on to beat someone like center and what would be his best game plan? Well, look, the best way for Ben to be competitive against center is just to make large-scale improvements in his game that have nothing to do with center specifically. Again, I think that serve accuracy improvements would be a massive help for Ben

46:24getting better at finishing with touch. The touch volley is getting better. Would be a big deal for Ben, the slice backhand getting even better would be, I think, very helpful. Maybe the feet, footwork getting more precise. The shot selection has gotten much better. I almost think it's fully formed. That's been an improvement that he's really done well on. Game plan against center. I always just like it when players mix up heights a lot against Giannick, so I feel that for Ben to get out of maybe the neutral cross-court exchange on the doose side, I would love if Shelton could be confident in playing his backhand slice down the line into center's backhand. Usually off of that ball he'll get Giannick, especially if he keeps it low, he'll get Giannick to lift a backhand cross-court. Nadal was the best at this that I've ever seen. This particular pattern, lefty

47:29slice backhand down the line. Right-handed backhand is going to lift the backhand cross, and now with your lefty forehand you can try to inject some offense. And then on the forehand, on Ben's forehand, he's struggled a lot even on the ad side exchange against Giannick's backhand. I think he's been rather rushed in that exchange. I'd like to see Shelton slow the pace down, add a little height and spin and actually play higher against, against center's backhand, just like Zverev was playing slower and higher into Ben's backhand. And as a server, it's just hitting spots. So those are the big things. I think there are so many different areas that Ben can improve, part of what makes him so exciting, probably sound like a broken record with how many times I've said that. The one thing where I feel like he's

48:29always going to be somewhat limited on is the two handed backhand. I don't see that ever becoming a tier or I don't know, I don't see that ever becoming one of the better backends in the game. I don't see that ever becoming a backhand that's on par with most of his top 10 contemporaries. I just don't see it. I think the deeply rooted technical limitations there are going to be pretty hard to fully reverse, not that he can't make progress on it. But that's why I really do look towards things that Ben is already good at as the ways where I'm most looking for him to improve. Like obviously he's a great server. I think his server can get better. He's got a really good forehand. I think the forehand can get more consistent. He is a rather like daring and comfortable vallier. I think he can get more clinical. I think his finishing can be better. It's not actually

49:34the things he's bad at. I think it's the things that he's good at that have a potential to really improve. From Aztish, that's my best attempt. Hi Gil, this one is from the trophy ceremony. Both Shelton and Sasha praised Craig Tyley for making it the best in the world. I think you meant to say Australia and open. Praise Craig Tyley for making the Australian open the best in the world. I'm curious how he's made such a big difference. Have you heard anything from the players? Also thoughts on US Open accepting Kalshi as sponsors for next year. Well this year they actually, they accepted that that partnership for this year. I don't know if it applies to next year or not. I have no idea. But to answer the first part of your question, I don't have intimate knowledge of why the players love the Australian open as much as they do. I do think mentally it has the advantage of being at the very beginning of the year where

50:35everybody just went on a nice vacation and then had a nice training block. Folks are less beat down especially mentally. You're not in that slog of travel where it gets long and you get tired. So that's a built-in advantage. But do I think that's the only thing? No. When players praise tournaments, it's usually because of facilities, convenience and food. Those are the three things typically. Players want to eat really good food in player dining. They want to be able to get two in from site conveniently, which I think Australia is top tier with. Part of that is just the infrastructure of Melbourne. What was the other, oh facilities. They want to feel as if their spaces are nice spaces. Those are the big three. I imagine the Australian open up in class in some of, if not all of those departments. I think in a lot of

51:38ways the Australian open for a few years has had a chip on its shoulder because for so long, they were like the least prestigious slam. They really made a big effort. They really cared about trying to make their major so great that nobody could see it as lesser than anymore. We are going to make this thing so good that it's impossible for it to be viewed as the least important, the ugly step sister or the least important of the four majors. I think some of that happened. I almost forgot to answer the the Calci part of it. I think the hypocrisy is frustrating because I can't make sense out of the idea that a player cannot profit off of a Calci sponsorship. A credentialed member of the the media might have some issues like I'll actually go even further.

52:44Let's say you write for a website and the website is sponsored by Calci. You might have some issues. Even if it's once removed, even if there's a degree of removal, it's a problem. Players, media, and then there's a separate set of rules for the tournaments. It's fine for them. That doesn't make sense to me. That's just hypocrisy to me. That's the first part that's problematic. Now more broadly and beyond the hypocrisy. I and this is this goes a lot deeper than just this specific case. I think if most of your iron is directed at the companies or the brands or the podcasters accepting money from these companies, I think your iron is misdirected.

53:47Not that there's not damage being done that you don't have the right to be upset about. You certainly have the right to be upset about some of the damage that's being done. But whose job is it to actually reign that in? First off, you have the these companies themselves who have tons and tons of data that in theory would allow them to identify the problem gamblers, the the bettors who are over their skis, the bettors who are exhibiting problem behavior and cut them off. When you are at a bar, if you are so inebriated that you can barely get off the bar stool, the bartender stops serving you alcohol. The bartender makes sure that you're not about to get in a car. So this safety net does not exist with the sports books, with the betting

54:50companies. In this case, we're talking about a prediction market, but these safety nets absolutely could exist on an automated basis. The power is in their hands. The data is in their hands. They know exactly what they're doing. Instead of choosing to mitigate the damage of problem gambling, they actually probably choose to perpetuate it and target those customers to extract even more out of them because they know that in some cases, those customers can be their most profitable customers. And there have already been exposés about the practices that some of these companies are using to exploit their most vulnerable customers. That's where the outrage should be. And then there's the government. When there is a public health issue, which is what this is, it is the government's job to create regulation to mitigate the public health issue. Right.

55:55There are some pretty obvious safeguards, guard rails, just wait. There are ways to keep this as healthy and as under control as possible. And these regulations are not being put in place. Right. Things like getting rid of certain minute prop bets to protect integrity in sport. Things like making it so that a deposit is delayed so that people can put a thousand dollars into their account and immediately bet it, which is what somebody might do when they're chasing or when they're not in a good state of mind and they're panicked about the bet they just lost. And then they end up going into a, you know, sinking into a hole. If you made it so that they can actually bet that money for 24 hours, maybe you don't have that emotional betting spree. Things like this, right. This is called policy policy to mitigate the issue. This is what needs to happen.

57:01I don't relate to this very like widespread pearl clutching of like, oh, how terrible people are at the US open betting on matches. Okay. You know, a lot of these people are not problematic at all. So what if they're betting on matches? Many of these people are, are good smart tennis fans who don't send awful inhumane DMs when they lose bets and they're out there having a good time and there is nothing wrong with this. But there are certain things that need to be done from a regulatory standpoint and also from a morality standpoint, which is in the hands of these companies where where we should all be demanding that they do better. And as far as the US open accepting the CalChi sponsorship, I really just wish that the hypocrisy was not so blatant. Hey, forget something. Relax. You're taking grocery outlet home with you. It's right there in your phone. Shop Instacart or DoorDash with the same great item prices as in store. So if you

58:06forgot the milk, you didn't really forget the milk. Grocery outlet, Deals Delivered. From Matt Brash, fanatic. With center significantly behind Sverive in the race, but having a dominant year and owning the head to head against Sverive, who's your pick for year, year end world number one? I think that if center is fully healthy and plays the entire fall calendar at full capacity, I still think probably Yonic, but if not, then Sverive, right? I mean, center has been incredible in Paris. Well, except for, well, last year he skipped it, right? And then also he had, didn't he have a surprising loss there? Or no, he withdrew. Hold on. Let me actually check center in Paris. I know he's been phenomenal in Shanghai. And obviously ATP finals has been one of his most dominant events. The last two years, he's won it. He's won it in convincing fashion, which is pretty

59:11impressive for the ATP finals. Let me just find Paris masters because I feel like he missed it last year. No, no, he won it last year. He missed it the year before. I'm thinking of 2024 when he pulled out 2023. He also gave a walk over to Demonore. So that's why there's so much, there's been health stuff in Paris. And then, uh, and then 2021, it was a first round match against Carlos Alcaraz, so funny, first round Alcaraz against center. Good times. Yeah, last year he beats Felix and he wins it. And God, he killed everybody. He beats Varev love and one. He beat Shelton three and three. He beat Felix four and six. Yeah, look, if center, if center is healthy, he, he probably, I haven't done the math, but he probably wins at least two out of the three of those between Shanghai, Paris and, uh, and

1:00:14ATP finals. So in that way, I think maybe he, he still finishes number one, but I haven't crunch the numbers either. So I don't really know what the breadth of the situation is. From Mary, uh, I'm so glad guilt to have been able to mute ESPN and listening to a commentary instead of a few times on US Open Radio. Thanks for that. Uh, after the final, Varev was remarkably open about his tactics against Shelton, taking pace off the ball to Ben's backhand and even mentioning what he thought Alcharez and Tiafou had done wrong against him. Was that strategy obvious to you in real time while watching the match? Or do you think Varev was a little too open in revealing his tactical playbook? I was surprised that Zvarev was as open as he was just because it's not something that we're used to hearing from most players on tour, save for a few exceptions, like say a Taylor Fritz, but it's not going to backfire. And even if it did, they're not going

1:01:18to play a more important match than that more likely than not. But anyway, it's not going to backfire. You asked me if it was obvious to me watching the match in real time. The answer is yes, I had it written down in my notes that Zvarev was playing higher spinner balls into Shelton's backhand. On the forehand cross court, that was in my notes. So when Zvarev said it in that interview, part of me was happy because it meant that I was seeing it correctly and it meant that I was going to have stronger evidence to present when I was making the argument that this was indeed what Zvarev was doing. I could basically confirm it. But the other part of me was actually like, oh, now, now my analysis is not going to be as original and it was going to be one of the things that I was going to hammer. Now, I think I figured out the way to make it a double positive, which is we hit that and then we went even deeper. We talked about what Zvarev did to counter it and then what

1:02:22Zvarev did against that Shelton response, which was to flatten an inject pace on the forehand down the line so that Shelton couldn't just run around and he had to stay honest. We talked about, well, what is it about Shelton's backhand that makes him not as comfortable generating pace on his own. So it was all fine and well. But was Varev too open in a way that is going to compromise him? No. Right? I mean, Fetter knew that Nadal was going to try to get the ball up high on his backhand. Effective tactics don't need to be secrets. They just have to be, they just have to work for reasons that don't always include element of surprise. Sometimes element of surprise is part of it, but sometimes it's not, right? From Member Master Hegel, you said that Alkaraz doesn't really have the ability to reign in his

1:03:30style and reduce errors. Stop you there. He definitely has the, well, let me keep reading. Okay, but haven't we seen him do exactly these things for months on end? I agree that his style is less solid than sinners, joke of itches, Nadal's and Murray's. So are we to consider the fact that he doesn't play more conservatively when he is making more errors, a product of temperament? You said after the money, Carlo final that he could have played safely, but chose not to, or the fact that he can play in this way only when he is in particularly good form. Well, look, we saw Alkaraz as a young player. We got to see him when he was raw. And that is a glimpse at foundational DNA of a tennis player. That guy was not able to scale back risk. He did not have that was that was a weakness for young Alkaraz. He was bad at it.

1:04:32Juan Carlos Ferreiro spent a lot of time trying to work that out of him. Okay, so you're absolutely correct that part of the reason why Alkaraz had the most consistent stretch of his career, if you if you go from after he lost to Davi Goffan in at the Miami open March of last year, if you look at the the period of time after that, never has Carlos been so consistent tournament to tournament to tournament. And there are plenty of examples in individual matches like the Australian Open Final against Jokovic would be one this year, where Carlos was willing to to be a reactive player to realize that his best advantage in the match was going to be his defense. And he needed to actually allow Novak to take on more more risk in the rallies. And he

1:05:37was going to the easier path for him to win was going to be make Jokovic miss as opposed to constantly forcing the issue and trying to kind of gain offensive control of a lot of these rallies. Instead, he was comfortable shock absorbing against Novak, which was the right play given Jokovic's limitations in that match. So yes, he can do it. He has the ability to do it. I don't know what you mean really by temperament actually because I don't know if it's temperament, but I think the idea is that it's it's not in his nature. It's hard for him to do it. He has to fight himself in order to do it. And we know that because we saw that this the ability to play like that is something that he had to slowly develop where everything else natural. That's the difference. You know, in the match

1:06:42against Shelton, part of it might have been physical though. Also, it could have been he was feeling tired. He did not want to work the point. He did not want to do more running than he had to. He was trying to conserve. And I think the way he's wired is he feels like he need if he keeps getting after the ball eventually, he will find his range. They will start going in. He is not as quick to adjust to play safer in that's not his reaction to errors. His natural reaction to errors. His natural reaction to errors isn't let me play to bigger targets. Take some speed off the ball. Add margin. Not natural. For the other guys you mentioned, that's their reaction to errors. So I think that I think that Carlos got a lot better in working points and

1:07:46being selective about Winnipeg. The trigger and to play with some more shape at times, especially during the enclay the last couple of years. But it's learned. So what I look, what I would say about the US open matches, there was a bit of a relapse. And we saw sort of the negative performances that he has been capable of throughout his career. Right. Even if he had he just had a stretch where he sort of flushed those out of the system, there's that saying the ghost is still in the machine. From member Phil, I go longtime member there here or rather, if joke of it's were to be as healthy and injury free as possible in 2027, what is the likelihood of him winning major number 25? I don't want to speculate on injuries. And he probably had the fourth best results at slams this year, currently at the first three. I personally think that his mental strength can allow him to win

1:08:51matches that he shouldn't, but he can no longer manage to edge out the best players despite health problems. He needs all the speed and strength that he has. Thank you. Yeah. Look, I have seen at this point in time, overwhelming evidence that physically he's not capable of doing it. Physically, he has been capable of getting close in the last few years. But when the pattern and the story has been basically the same over and over and over again, where you get into these matches, whether it be a major final against Alkaraz or a semi final against center or Alkaraz, and the legs aren't there for him to win a match like that. You just start to have to face it. Take it at take it for what it is. He has the physicality to go this far, but not necessarily to

1:09:54to continue through those final hurdles that are necessary. Now, I guess what's particularly demoralizing about the last few or two out of the last three is because he did have draw opportunity in theory. He gets picked off by Fonseca who played a great match. And then at the US open, he was physically unprepared to even beat Amari on an abona in the first round. So I just can't see his body cooperating enough for him to get 25 at this point. Skills I still see, you know, you mentioned the mental strength. That's not the problem. I don't think the skills are the problem. Right now, I think there's plenty of evidence that his body is going to be a prohibitive factor. Next one is from Member Hank Jesse. Hi, Gil, awesome coverage this year on the US open. Always locked in. I feel like I have to ask and some may

1:10:55not like this. But do you think the tennis world and specifically the ones pulling the levers at the top have chosen to forget Zverev's off court and on court issues that have to do with violent behaviors? I want the champions to also be good ambassadors for the sport. As much as Zverev and organizers might want people to forget, he is not someone I would say is a role model for young players or someone for the masses to hold up. Well, to answer the first part of your question, are people at the top of the sport or the people pulling the levers or levers, however you pronounce it, choosing to forget? Well, yes, it is not in their interest to remember, right? They are you're referring, I believe, to the promoters of the sport, the tours promote the tournaments promote. So it is very clearly against their interest to do anything counter to Zverev's image, like

1:11:55intentionally. So it's really not up to them. Like, I don't think you should be looking to those specific spheres. If you want that story to be told, but I think that story is being told, right? Mary Carillo told it on the World's Feed broadcast. There are plenty of people around the internet who are continuing to tell that story. But like, ultimately, I think Zverev's lack of popularity is something that he, first of all, is quite evident in in a multitude of ways. Like, did you see the Forbes top highest played tennis players of 2026? Look at what everybody is making off court in endorsements, which means that brands want to attach themselves to these players because they feel these people can help them sell their brand. And like, I want to attach my brand to this personal

1:12:59brand. That's what that is, right? Off court endorsement money. Center makes 35 million. Alcaraz makes 38 million. Serena makes 40 million. Sabelanka makes 23 million. Coco makes 28 million. Joker which makes 25 million. Jun Chen Wen makes 22 million. Ega makes 15 million. Zverev makes 5 million. Rebok gonna make 6 million. Okay. So the eight highest paid tennis players above Zverev at number 9, they all make at least triple what Zverev makes off the court. And that's a result of brands not feeling as if he has either not a clean enough image or maybe not the popularity because I do think it goes so far beyond the two allegations against him for domestic abuse that just

1:14:10don't make him a player who brands want to attach themselves to. That's just one example of where you can see that there are like real world implications to what to how this is all gone down. And to just like Zverev's popularity issue in general, right? I know Jessica Schiffer at hardcore also did a piece on this directly related to the subject matter. Did some reporting on just like how brands seize Zverev and it's a I think the title of that piece was tough sell in her newsletter hardcore. From the cinnamon bun, Rebok gonna want the US open with only four days prep after taking a full week off completely to heal her foot. Could this be a signal the players that more complete rest is a beneficial thing rather than going pedal to the metal nonstop. I don't know, right? Maybe maybe a more extreme approach towards rest is something that could be explored

1:15:21above my pay grade. Seriously, seriously above my pay grade. I will say that I would like to introduce a different potential point of view because I also thought about this a lot and I thought about the fact that Francis Tiafo made the Cincinnati final having very, very limited prep. Not even knowing if he was going to play the tournament similar to Rebokina who wasn't practicing before the US open and wasn't sure that she was going to play. And I go back to the power of psychology. And I don't know how this could be weaponized or replicated, but it would just seem to me that especially in Rebokina's case with world number one on the line at a tournament that she's never done well at. It could have been a situation where she would have been under a whole lot of pressure. And once you haven't trained all week and you've had this this injury that should on paper

1:16:24completely compromise your chances, you're not really going to feel that pressure anymore. And I just wonder if same thing for Francis coming in a Cincinnati tournament that typically means a whole lot to him. He had a lot of points to defend as well. Maybe just didn't feel the pressure because there's like expectations were low. I think the power of low expectations might be a bigger takeaway for me than the power of rest. From Alex, Shelter's serve is obviously a massive hypersonic weapon. But as you mentioned in the analysis of the final placement and creating width are not necessarily strong suits. Meanwhile, you have servers like Nakashima, Sinner and Jokovic demonstrating the effectiveness of spot serving. Given that Shelter probably has some speed to spare, do you think it would make sense for him to take a few MPH off and go for more precision? Does it even work that way? Or could Shelter's extremely dynamic motion just not be conducive to accuracy? Yeah, that's the question, right? That's a fascinating question that you pose there. I think

1:17:26you're on to something there in terms of Shelter's extremely dynamic motion, not being as conducive to accuracy because if you put it next to a motion like Jokovic has or Fritz has, Jokovic and Fritz have unbelievably quiet service motions. There's no wasted movements, extreme positions, everything looks very, very easy and very serene is how I would describe their technique. Shelton has a more extreme load in the legs, a more extreme load in his hips, with that more extreme shoulder tilt, a more extreme elbow position. The position he puts his body in order to serve is a pretty remarkably explosive and athletic position, but it may compromise his precision. I don't think it's a matter of him taking MPHs off. I'm

1:18:33almost certain that's not it because I've seen Shelton take MPHs off to play his kick serve and his slice serve. And the accuracy, I will say on his kick when he just goes for the angle, it's pretty forgiving, especially on the ad side. That's a pretty forgiving serve that he can hit with good placement. His slice serve is not very precise and he does take MPHs off of it. He tries it, but he's just not as accurate on it as the very best are. So I don't know if in order for Shelton to get more accurate, he might have to look at certain elements of his motion that add to the explosiveness and maybe he needs to just dial them back a little bit. All of the fundamentals would remain the same. It's just we're going to kind of quiet down the motion a little bit and make those loading positions a little bit less extreme. I don't know. Maybe that's a horrible idea, by the way. I don't

1:19:37discount the idea that or the possibility that that might be a terrible idea, but I do think it's worthwhile, very much worthwhile for Shelton to get more accurate. If Ben were in a different position, I might just say, okay, the serve is great. Let's focus on other stuff. I'm just not as confident that the backhand will be elite, which I've already talked about today, or that the speed around the court is going to give him a chance for his defense to be on par with his top 10 peers. And when that's the case, you better be extraordinary in these other areas. That's why you got to even reach for more. All right, I'm pretty much going to try to wrap things up. Let's try to go quickly here from Bathom Medic, which player do you think is best at recognizing that a ball is not quite attackable? We talked constantly about shot selection after mistakes, but elite restraint on borderline balls might be one key difference between top 10 and top 30's

1:20:42tennis. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I've really been into Alexander Blox's shot selection. Recently, just through watching him, I feel like he's a guy who's always sort of choosing the right balls to attack, choosing the right balls to stay neutral on. And I'm just, I'm rarely questioning his decision-making. I feel like it's very clear-headed. So yeah, I'll shout him out. From Janis, hi, Gil. What do you make of the recent form of TTC POS? In the open, he won three matches with very tough opponents, while initially behind in the scoreboard playing good tennis, in my opinion, he lost to Shelton, who made the final. Before the open, he also won a 250 title. In his game, I see much better footwork, defense, forehand, backhand slice, and maybe the first serve. Maybe all of this is attributed to better mentality. Do you think the last three months was a one-off, or could it just be part of a resurgence back to the top 20? Well, I definitely want to see more.

1:21:43Especially because he just started working with Patrick Murata Glue. We often see somewhat of a honeymoon phase when you have a new voice in your ear, and that's something that can wear off, just like when you make a racket change and have a big result, you also get that honeymoon dynamic. So I definitely want to see more. But all in all, I think TTC POS consistently throughout the year has been more dangerous than he was last year, mostly because his forehand has gone back to being just bonafide elite at times. Last year that wasn't as often the case. Still think there are some major return issues, return of serve issues, but ultimately, I think the first serve in the forehand have gone back to being weapons that players have to fear, especially when TTC POS is on his day. I definitely want to see more though, before I predict a top 10 resurgence. All right, from Michael, a little off topic of the US Open, but why are there

1:22:56no serve bots in the women's game? I think of it like this. The very best men's players aren't actually the best servers. Whereas on the women's side, Reebokina right now seems to be the best player and best server. Thank you. Well, first of all, the reason there are no true serve bots in the women's game is because the main reason is because they're not tall enough. If you made Reebokina 6 foot 7, then she might be a serve bot, right? She might be able to just like, I mean, what's her ace rate? Her ace rate is probably probably 12%. Let me check that. I'm going to guess 12%. Ace rate. Oh no, I actually gave her too much credit. It's 10%. So Reebokina's ace rate is 10%. If you look at the men's side, Fritz is at like 17%. Just as an example. So not quite double, but I bet if, yeah, anyway, that is ner used to be like 20%. Ace rate.

1:24:02Yeah, some of it might be physical strength, but a lot of it is also height. I think if Reebokina were 6 foot 7 or 6 foot 8, then you might see her at 17% like Taylor Fritz, right? In the women's game. It is an interesting point you make, though, with with Sabelanka and Reebokina being two of the biggest servers in the game and the two top players. Broadly speaking, when I watch their dynamics against fellow top players, it's actually not the first serve that sticks out. It's the second serve. So much of women's tennis at the top of the game is attacking second serve returns. Like the typical play off of a second serve return is to attack it in the women's game. And Sabelanka and Reebokina are to me pretty unique in the sense that you cannot attack their second serves. They're just a little bit too good, a little bit too big to to safely attack.

1:25:09I felt like that was easily the biggest difference when watching Jessica Pagula play Sabelanka in the semi-final at the US Open. Is Pagula's second serve was going to be slaughtered? And Sabelanka's second serve, look, Pagula would love to do the same thing. She's a good, aggressive second returner. You just can't. You know, I'm sure Pagula was, she wants to attack it. It's too good a second serve. You're not going to be able to do it. So that I think is a bigger difference than the idea that they're hitting the most aces. From Madesio, you often talk about the US Open having wild results and the best players underperforming there. But why doesn't that happen in the WTA? This year's top four seats made the semis in Sabelanka keeps making it deep year after year. Great question. I don't have a great answer for it. But most of the best women prefer hardcore. So that would be my best theory for it by

1:26:13far is just for whatever reason. And yes, you know, Coco likes the red clay and Shviontek obviously likes the red clay. So does Mira Andreva, but Rebacan and Sabelanka are clearly best on hard courts. Pagula is clearly best on hard courts. And golf, well, I don't know, golf, it's pretty close for her between the red clay and the hard court. It's anything but grass really for Coco in my view. So that would be my best answer for that. I am going to leave it at that. Thank you everybody so much for watching. Hope you enjoyed. Don't forget to subscribe and I will see you next time.