4 hours ago
11
Tennis reporter Tumaini Carayol Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian
Tumaini has gone back to the tennis for the women’s semis. Thanks for all your questions. Follow Muchová v Gauff live now.
Key events
What is the Czech secret to nurturing talent?
treviscoe asks: Czechia is a country of about ten million and they’ve got a magnificent record in the women’s game, with Karolina Muchova at the moment in the last four. Can we learn anything from the Czechs in the way we bring young players on, especially female players? Or (as I suspect) do they just want it more than we do?
Tumaini: The most common question for Czech female tennis players over the past few decades is why they are so successful. No Czech player has ever really been able to explain the phenomenon.
They do, however, have strong tennis participation at grassroots level and they have a strong club system that helps to nurture the talent they have. The likes of Karolina Muchova, Barbora Krejcikova, Marketa Vondrousova, Petra Kvitova and Karolina Pliskova are all very different players and they mostly have such well-rounded games.
Are hard court players 'beaten' before they've begun?
RPDolan asks: Do you think there are high profile tennis players at Wimbledon who still see the ‘grass’ season as just a nuisance to be bypassed, before the hard court season returns, and therefore are often ‘beaten’ before they even start a game on grass?
Tunaimi: I don’t think there are many of those players left. Grass used to be so drastically different to other surfaces so many players, particularly clay court specialists, just did not bother. Now that everyone knows that players can be successful on grass from the baseline, and many different styles can succeed on the surface, I think most players give it a shot. There are certainly some players whose games don’t suit the surface and they do not perform well, but that is also true of clay.
Looking at the top 20 of both tours, I think Casper Ruud is the only player who doesn’t really care about grass. Thankfully, he finds joy on grass by playing golf.
Is Gauff headed for her first Wimbledon title?
OBooth asks: I’ve got a couple of questions about the ladies’ semi-finals. Firstly, which of the semi-finalists do you think has the best shot at becoming a first-time Wimbledon champion? And secondly, if Coco Gauff wins her first Wimbledon title, and presumably tops the rankings as a result, do you think this might give her the impetus to really establish herself as the number one player in the world for the foreseeable future?
Tumaini: I really think this is a great women’s semi-final lineup. Karolina Muchova just won on grass in Bad Homburg, Linda Noskova just won on grass in Berlin, Kostyuk has won a ridiculous 22 of her last 23 matches and Coco Gauff is a two-time grand slam champion. We’ll see in a few hours, but part of me thinks things might be coming together for Muchova. It has always been obvious that she is such a great player with such a complete, varied and talented game. Injuries have always been her biggest problem but she is finally enjoying an extended stretch of good health. Gauff presents an incredibly difficult match up for Muchova, and she leads the head to head 6-1, but Muchova would always choose to face her on grass rather than anywhere else.
As I said, though, the final four is composed of three of the most in-form players on the tour and a two-time grand slam champion. Anyone can win.
As for Gauff reaching No 1 if she were to win Wimbledon, I’m not sure. I thought winning the French Open last year would provide that push for her, but she instead spent the following months dealing with the biggest serving crisis of her career. Gauff has these glaring vulnerabilities with her serve and forehand. When they are under control, as they have been in this tournament, she wins big titles. She has so many great assets in her game, including her athleticism, backhand, intelligence and variety, and she is by far the best competitor on the WTA. In order to reach No 1, Gauff’s serve and forehand improvements have to be permanent.
Can Osaka win a major event again?
BeorgeGerry asks: I’ve loved seeing Naomi Osaka going deep into major tournaments again beyond her best surface on hard courts. I feel like she’s got less applause for coming back to this level after having her daughter than others. Given how open the women’s game can be, could you see her winning another major again?
Tumaini : I think Naomi Osaka played some of her best tennis over the past five years on any surface at Wimbledon this week. I thought her serving, the cleanliness of her ball striking off both wings and her movement were all so impressive, particularly against Sabalenka. She arrived at Wimbledon straight from her run to the Bad Homburg final and I think playing so many matches just caught up with her physically. Muchova, who beat her in the Bad Homburg final and at Wimbledon, also played the same number of matches, but Osaka just hasn’t won so many matches for such a long time.
Osaka’s game can still be quite one-dimensional and limited when things aren’t clicking, but I think she should absolutely leave Wimbledon with the belief that she can win another major title. Particularly as the tour will be on hard courts until April.
Are fans being priced out?
RFK1 asks: Is Wimbledon still for tennis fans or is it now for those that can afford debenture/hospitality tickets, ‘celebrities’ and ‘influencers’?
Tumaini:
I still think a grounds pass is the best value sporting ticket in the world. For £33 in the first week, you can watch some of the best tennis players in the world for up to 10 hours. Wimbledon also has not hiked its ticket prices as dramatically as other slams. At the US Open, for example, grounds passes have become remarkably expensive, partially due to the ticket resale market there. Fans can also bring their own food and drink (even alcohol) in.
Actually accessing those tickets is another question altogether. The queue, which I used a lot growing up, is so oversubscribed these days and forces people to arrive at ridiculous times in order to attain a ticket. If its popularity continues to grow, I think the All England Club will have to have some serious questions about its viability in the future. It is obviously also not great in terms of accessibility.
The pervasiveness of influencers and the focus on celebrities are always jarring, but I think Wimbledon has actually done a decent job of keeping its ticket prices and processes consistent for a long time. Things are far worse at the other grand slam tournaments, particularly the US Open.
Should Petra Kvitova's last match in 2025 have been on Centre Court?
Fbartol asks: Odd question but one which has bothered me for the last year - how was the decision to put two time champion Petra Kvitova’s final tour match on Court One as opposed to Centre Court viewed in the tennis world? It has continued to rankle me - felt it was quite disrespectful.
Tumaini: Petra was an incredible champion and, if I’m being honest, one of the players I most enjoyed watching, particularly at Wimbledon. However, I did not think the No. 1 Court assignment against Emma Navarro was disrespectful. It is still a massive stadium court and one of the most iconic stadiums in the sport.
She did not say anything about it (not that she would complain) or receive any questions about it in her press conference so I don’t think it was an issue. I think she was just happy to play on a big court at Wimbledon one last time.
Little love for Djokovic?
LlivracNhoJ asks: Why do the pundits, commentators and journalists not acknowledge that Djokovic is overwhelmingly disliked by tennis fans?
Tumaini:
Is Djokovic overwhelmingly disliked by tennis fans? I’m not sure about that. Djokovic is a polarising, controversial figure and there are definitely many people who dislike him and have rooted against him over the years. He has had to deal with many hostile crowds, particularly when Roger Federer was across the net, and people have often leaned towards his underdog opponents in the past. However, he has also always had a large, extremely vocal fanbase and I also think he has become more and more popular in the latter part of his career.
Felix Auger-Aliassime is a very pleasant person and a popular personality within the sport, but the crowd was clearly supporting Djokovic in their epic five-setter on Tuesday night. I think people now understand that he will not be here for much longer and his achievements at such an advanced age are quite incredible. I think he has become a far more sympathetic figure in the final stretch of his career and people also appreciate his achievements more. I would be surprised if the Wimbledon crowd isn’t cheering for him against Sinner on Friday.
On the ball - why do players take three or four?
HeathRobinson asks: I would appreciate some insight on what appears to be the latest ‘fad’ which is taking three or four balls before choosing two to serve
Tumaini: As I’m sure you know, new balls are introduced every nine games in each match (the first swap is after seven games due to the warm up). The balls degrade significantly during a match and that wear drastically changes how the balls fly through the air. In general, players often look for newer balls on their first serve as it helps them to attack and remain on the front foot after their serves. Some players will also opt for a more worn ball for their second serve so that it is slightly more difficult for their opponent.
However, everyone has different preferences. A more defensive player might only want to use the more worn balls, while a more offensive player might only want to use the fresher, more aerodynamic balls.
I actually asked Mirra Andreeva about this topic earlier this year. Some players, it turns out, don’t really have a reason: “I’m looking for a better-looking ball because when I was just going into the tour, I saw pro players looking at the ball. They were like, ‘No, I don’t like this ball and I want another one’. I never knew why they did that. When I got to the tour, I thought I’m going to do the same. At first I was randomly picking balls. Now I look for the one that looks prettier, that looks more new.”
Three or five set matches?
LoopLoop asks: What about both men and women playing best of three set matches in the first week of a grand slam and best of five in the second? In my opinion, best-of-three-set matches struggle to attain legendary status and it would also negate comments about the women playing less for the same prize money. Additionally, it would add unpredictability to the men’s draw as seeds could get sabred more easily in a best of three set match.
Tumaini: I have to say, I would love to see best of five sets matches in the women’s events one day. I am just curious to see what it looks like and how much things would change. It is obvious that some players, particularly somebody as physically impressive as Coco Gauff, would thrive in the format. Somebody like Elena Rybakina? Perhaps not. The final of the WTA Finals was actually best of five sets between 1984 and 1998, and the most memorable encounter was a five set thriller won by a 16-year-old Monica Seles against Gabriella Sabatini in 1990.
I don’t think there are enough hours in a day for both men’s and women’s grand slam singles events to start with best of five sets from round one, so I guess I am in favour of both events starting with best of five sets from the second week onwards, even just as a trial one day. Why not?
Also, I don’t pay attention to anyone who criticises the women for playing less yet earning the same money. If the men feel aggrieved by this, they are free to campaign for the grand slams to reduce their matches to best of three sets!
Is Britain really an underachiever in tennis?
Djsunset asks: Every year we get the “why does Britain underperform at tennis” hand-wringing, but is the premise right? Britain is under 1% of the world’s population, tennis is about as globally contested as a sport gets, and yet we routinely have several in the top 100, a recent slam winner, Davis Cup pedigree and now a home semi-finalist. Per capita that looks like massive over-representation, not failure?
Tumaini: I think the criticism British tennis receives is often quite reasonable considering the enormous resources British tennis has as a grand slam nation. Only the other three grand slam nations have anything close to our resources and can invest in players and infrastructure as much as the LTA. Every other national federation is operating at a disadvantage and many other players from different countries have to somehow find sponsors and figure things out themselves.
However, I agree things are much better nowadays than a few decades ago. There was once a time when Andy Murray was the only British men’s player ranked inside the top 200 and the British women could barely break into the top 200. There are many more British men’s and women’s players (five in the live rankings right now) inside the top 100 and competing in the biggest tournaments. We are also doing better than France and Australia right now, as evidenced by the amount of French journalists trying to pass Fery off as one of their own!
I think the biggest problem for the LTA right now is the injury proneness of its players. This tournament has ended on an incredible note for British tennis, but things were truly grim at the start of Wimbledon when Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu, two of the most injury-prone players on either tour, were both forced to withdraw from the tournament. Sonay Kartal, who reached the fourth round last year, is also out due to an extended period due to a back injury. It is unclear if this is all just bad luck or if this reflects badly on the physical preparation British players receive in the early days of their careers.
Does Fery have what it takes?
SidKirkwood asks: Can the wildcard Fery go all the way?
Tumaini: This has been a truly incredible tournament from Fery. First he showed his fighting spirit in consecutive comeback victories over Zizou Bergs and Grigor Dimitrov, then he showed his quality and level in that incredible performance against Flavio Cobolli on Thursday, where he was nearly flawless.
However, I find it very hard to see him winning the title. Fery had a fair draw against five opponents he knew he was capable of beating. The three remaining players in the draw, Jannik Sinner, Novak Djokovic and his opponent Alexander Zverev, are by far the three best players in the draw right now. I do not see him beating two of those three players back to back.
Would resceduling the grand slams reduce injuries?
Baronsamedi68 asks: Could the tennis calendar change to help ease the constant stream of injuries which players seem to experience and which seems almost bound to lead to burnout in some cases?
Tumaini: In a perfect world, the seven kingdoms of professional tennis - the ATP, WTA, ITF and the four grand slam tournaments - would come together, tear up the calendar and start from scratch. It is undeniable that the season is too long, inefficient and should be streamlined. This has been a talking point for many decades and there have been so many proposals over the years to address these issues. The increasingly physical nature of the sport has only exacerbated this problem in recent years and the number of injuries on the tour this year, particularly to younger players on the ATP tour such as Carlos Alcaraz, Holger Rune, Jack Draper, Lorenzo Musetti and Arthur Fils, is alarming.
However, the way things currently are, I do think players have a measure of power over their scheduling decisions. It can be tempting for them to chase points, prize money and appearance fees, and there are certain penalties that come with splitting certain tournaments, but in order to be a top player for an extended period of time, players have to prioritise their bodies when scheduling tournaments. I think the most obvious example of this is Alcaraz, who is still nursing the right wrist injury he suffered three months ago after opting to compete in Barcelona a couple of days after reaching the final in Monte Carlo.
Is success at top level tennis only for the wealthy?
Bungalows asks: Is it possible for an ordinary person from a normal background to do well in these tournaments or do you have to be rich? The LTA needs to address why the UK has so few top players due to the lack of investment.
McFilmCritic asks: Jack Draper came from our local (underfunded) tennis club in Sutton, but this is getting rarer. British tennis players need more support or else only the rich hedge funded ones will have any chance.
JC2024 asks: How much does it cost to be a top 10/20 tennis player? You can see the career earnings for some singles players who have never won a grand slam, maybe reached quarters or semis at best, and it’ll be in the tens of millions. But how much of that do they need to spend - coaches, physios, flights, hotels, training facilities, food etc?
Tumaini: There are some players from ordinary backgrounds who succeed in this sport. I think the most prominent examples inside the top 20 are players like Naomi Osaka and Frances Tiafoe. Novak Djokovic’s family did not come from great wealth. However, there is clearly a reason why there are currently multiple billionaire heiresses, Jessica Pegula and Emma Navarro, competing on the tour. Arthur Fery, of course, also comes from great wealth and Jack Draper’s father, Roger, was the chief executive of the LTA between 2006 and 2013.
This is an incredibly expensive sport that requires hundreds of thousands of pounds of investment into players each year in order to fund coaches, equipment, travel costs and so many other things. Unlike other sports like football, where the talented players are eventually employed by teams, that investment does not stop when players first “make it”. This is a financially challenging sport for many players that even make it to Wimbledon. Players ranked outside of the singles top 100 are unlikely to break even.
Great Britain is actually in an advantageous position compared to other nations due to the LTA’s resources. The LTA can invest in so many more players than other nations, so it speaks volumes that a large amount of British players still come from wealthy backgrounds. So many talented tennis players fall through the cracks because of how expensive this sport is.
Photograph: Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
Is Sinner ready for his semi-final against Djokovic?
Emiemi asks: What’s your take on Sinner’s game going into the semi vs Djokovic?
Tumaini: I think the good news for Sinner is that he is serving at an incredibly high level this year and since his tough first round win against Miomir Kecmanovic, in which he served a career best 31 aces, he has not dropped a set. However, he has had a great draw, avoiding a seeded player until the semi-finals and his forehand has looked erratic at times. Djokovic, if he is in good shape after his marathon against Auger-Aliassime, will be a massive step up in level for Sinner and it will be the first true indication of his level, particularly the confidence he has in his forehand right now
Welcome to the Conversation
After 10 days of high drama in SW19 we’re approaching the final weekend of the Championships, Tumaini Carayol an answers your questions live
Explore more on these topics
