The Rally: Unwrapping Serena-Venus XXXI; the writability of Coco Gauff

Steve Tignor and Joel Drucker talk about Thursday’s scorched-earth masterpiece between Serena Williams and Venus Williams; and players, like Coco Gauff, whose games are easy to write about.

Hi Joel,

Leave it to Serena and Venus to turn what looked like a potential death march in the Kentucky heat into a competitive, compelling and admirably well-played three-setter. Because of the circumstances, it may go down as one of the most memorable of their 31 meetings.

The weather looked oppressive at the Top Seed Open on Thursday, and for the first few games I wondered how long the two sisters would last in the heat. Venus had to stop and catch her breath a few times, and she took a long, slow walk to the bathroom between sets. Serena was also breathing hard.

I don’t know about you, Joel, but I’ve found my tolerance for heat has dropped dramatically over the years. Yet despite being 40 and 38, respectively, Venus and Serena actually began to play better as the match went on. In the end, after going down 2-4 in the third, Serena locked in and won the last four games. It probably wasn’t an enjoyable experience for either of them—I don’t think competing against a sibling can be—but it was an enjoyable experience to watch. My respect for their continued professionalism after two decades on tour grew with each game, and the fan-free atmosphere made it feel like we were privy to a serious practice match between them, one where they were just slugging it out together in the backyard.

This week Serena said it’s “annoying” to have to play her sister so often, and it’s easy to understand why. But this one made me think that, even after all these years, there may still be more big-stage contests between the Williamses in the future.

What did you think of Venus-Serena XXXI, Joel, and what else has caught your eye this week?

Getty Images

Hi Steve,

Venus-Serena XXXI was raw, real and a great way to fully signal the return of WTA action. It is amazing how there’s nothing quite like a tournament singles match to remind us what can make tennis so compelling. Fitting indeed that Venus and Serena were the ones who made that happen. As we have all known now for more than 25 years, this is arguably the greatest story in the history of sports—not just one, but two young women who came from Compton, Calif., and each became No. 1 in the world.

And now that remarkable storyline continues. That is what was so great about watching that match. It wasn’t just the drama of a battle that went deep into the third set. It’s the significant saga of each sister, still seeking to win one match after another, be it Venus at 40 or Serena at 38. It unquestionably whets my appetite for the US Open.

In watching Lexington and Prague this week, I realized how spoiled we tennis zealots are. For all the complaints certain players make about the season being too long, for fans, tennis has always been an all-you-can eat bonanza. This week, as much perspective as we’ve all gained these last five months of no tournaments, it’s sure been good to see high-stakes tennis once again.

Naturally, it wouldn’t be the early rounds of an event without witnessing Simona Halep struggle—twice going three sets—but somehow emerge with a victory. Call her travails tennis’ version of “Groundhog Day.”

I’ve also been struck by the way players have adjusted to competing in front of no fans. Tricky as this is, there comes a point when a player must simply get down to the business of the match—and it’s been pleasing to see the way Venus, Serena and Halep have all handled that.

As far as your thoughts on weather go, let’s just say I’m lucky to live in California, where even when it’s 80 degrees there’s scarcely any of the humidity that I’ve long found incredibly enervating. Surely, much tougher in the rest of the country.

Beyond the dramatic Venus-Serena match, Steve, what have you enjoyed about seeing tournaments resume?

Getty Images

Joel,

I agree with you on the all-you-can-see bonanza of the pro game. I’ve complained about tennis overload in the past—the season’s too long, the players and tournaments are too scattered, there are too many events in too many different places each week. I’m not feeling that way right now, and probably won’t be for the rest of 2020.

As a fan, you can’t beat getting up in the morning and watching Halep from Prague, and then seeing Venus, Serena and Coco Gauff in the afternoon in Kentucky. I’m also learning to live with the no-fan atmosphere; it keeps the focus on the competition. A match with no spectators only feels dead when you know that they were allowed to be there in the first place.

Speaking of Gauff, I’ve been impressed all over again this week by her ability to come out on top of matches that I don’t think she has any business winning. First against Caroline Dolehide, and then against Aryna Sabalenka, all Coco did was win. She fell behind, she blew leads, she double faulted, she missed routine shots. And then she won.

More than anything else about her, that’s a reason to like Gauff’s chances in the future. And it also is a reminder that, even at the highest level, so much of tennis is about simply about not making as many mental mistakes as your opponents. Top 20 pros, like the rest of us, are mentally fragile and prone to imploding. If you can avoid those implosions, the way Gauff seemingly can, you’re already ahead of the game.

On Wednesday, I did the recap of Gauff’s win over Sabalenka—what we used to call the Racquet Reaction at TENNIS.com. As I was thinking about what to say, I realized that Gauff is one of those players who is interesting to write about. To me, her game is less about the prowess of her shots, and more about her thought process, her composure, her poise, her ability to make the right play at the right time. There are only so many ways to describe a beautiful or brilliant stroke; but Gauff is constantly giving you little moments of maturity and intelligence to appreciate and talk about. In this, she reminds me of current stars like Rafael Nadal, Daniil Medvedev, Bianca Andreescu and Sofia Kenin.

Do you find Gauff an interesting competitor, Joel, and who are some players you think are “writable?”

Getty Images

Steve,

That’s a great question, Steve—a question that in large part defines our work as writers: to identify and articulate the areas of interest of tennis players and their matches.

Right now I’m finding Gauff extremely interesting to watch. You can see how at this young age she is in the process of building her own distinct playing style. So there’s a mix of creativity, problem-solving and variety, all filtered through the pressure of competition and an education that’s taking place right in front of our eyes. What’s also clear at this stage is how much Gauff genuinely enjoys working her way through all of this—and the mystery of wondering just what new skills she’ll continue to sharpen and just how good she can become. For at heart, we live to see these promising youngsters blossom and thrill us.

I feel the same way about Gauff’s doubles partner and fellow teenager Caty McNally, a player who clearly relishes such lesser-seen tactics as coming to net, slicing the backhand and applying pressure through forward movement. Ditto for Ashleigh Barty, reminiscent in some ways of a longstanding fan favorite, Evonne Goolagong. I continue to hold hope for Daria Kasatkina.

I’ll concede that my formative tennis years were the 1970s, when there were still plenty of net-rushers and all-courters and the game hadn’t become heavily based around baseline play. This is one reason why, in the 21st century, I’ve enjoyed such eclectic stylists as Agnieszka Radwanska, Martina Hingis and Justine Henin. I could write thousands of words about what I miss about Henin in particular. To me, her game was a rainbow.

So it’s this rainbow notion that to me makes a player “writable”—a spectrum of color. By that I mean, a wide range of ways to play a point. For this is what makes tennis compelling—diverse styles and variety in the rallies, with each player asking one another a wide range of questions, daring the opponent to come up with the answers. Back and forth.