Submissions have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Wednesday is mailbag day …

• Here’s the latest Served podcast, a re-draw for the 2025 Australian Open. Also, we are doing daily “Quick Served” episodes.

• A reminder that Tennis Channel pregame shows start at 5 p.m. ET.

• We’ll have our 50 thoughts wrap column on Sunday …

• Hang in there, Pam Shriver …

Onward …

Jon, I think you need to admit that best-of-five has had its day. The matches are long. The long matches injure players. And how many matches in Australia were duds because one guy had played so much longer than the other in the previous round? Enough is enough.

Jason S., LA

• The periodic best-of-five check-in. I agree with all of the above. I love tennis. And I struggle to watch a four-hour match in its entirety. What hope is there for casual fans? As for the players, they are injured too often—and don’t get paid when they are. Yet this format persists. Why?

My long-standing suggestion: Play best-of-three matches in Week 1 and best-of-five in Week 2. In the first few rounds, we save bodies, keep the schedule moving and avoid the ridiculous 3 a.m. local time matches. In the later rounds, we preserve the gravitas and format that differentiate the majors from other events.

I’ll argue the other side. Put this to players and there’s little support for changing the format. We can’t defer to players on everything. But if they—with full agency—decide they still want to play best-of-five, that carries weight with me. 

Also, I sometimes wonder if there isn’t something different, and even restorative, about a marathon match. So much in our society militates against length. If this sport zigs when so many others zag, maybe that’s not so bad? Maybe?

[Daniil] Medvedev completely destroys on-court equipment … and it just gets replaced and everyone moves on? He and press laugh and joke about it afterwards. I think of Serena [Williams] telling Carlos Ramos he’s a “thief” and making international headlines and [getting] fined $17,000.

@jthrahser

• Let’s be careful with our analogies and comparisons. Medvedev coughed up over $70,000 in fines from this event, surrendering more than 60% of his prize money. As I recall, there was a fair amount of support for Serena as well. (Here’s what I wrote, FWIW, hardly a fierce rebuke of the player.) I would also contend that we often view property damage differently from damage to individuals, perhaps especially when the anger is self-directed.

But your overall point is a fair one. Why does Medvedev seem to get a pass on acts that, if committed by other players, might receive more condemnation? Is it not hypocritical that the same fans, observers and media types who are outraged by players taking a dubious injury timeout, aren’t nearly as exercised by a player who breaks equipment, smashes rackets, dresses down officials with vulgar terms, etc.? 

I plead guilty to some hypocrisy. This is intended more as an explanation than an alibi but, A) reputation matters. Here is a player who is, in so many ways, a force of good. When you witness enough acts of kindness, accessibility and accountability, you have a hard time drawing good-faith outrage over the bad acts. B) Context matters. Most of the time, Medvedev is mad at himself, and offloading stress. There is seldom a sense that this is genuine rage at someone else. C) Aftermath matters. Often Medvedev is embarrassed, apologetic and light-hearted in the postmortem, mocking himself and inviting the world in on his eccentricity. 

More concerning: Medvedev’s tennis. It’s really slipped. He was a major winner and a reliable bet to go deep in events, especially on hard courts. Look at his results since he reached the Australian Open final in 2024 and you’ll see a player in decline. How will he reverse it? That seems to me a more pressing concern than his antics. In Medvedev adjacent news ...

Jon, a comment for your mailbag, please:

Danielle Collins is really hard to like. You’re playing an Aussie at the Australian Open. Just take it (“it” being the big fat paycheck she referenced) and chill. The ugly American act is not cool. 

Dominic Ciafardini, NY, USA 

• I have a not dissimilar response from the above. Knowing Collins a bit, and knowing her what-you-see-is-what-you-get modus operandi, it’s hard to get too worked up. This was a bit like Medvedev playing the heel at the U.S. Open in 2019, knowing it came with a wink. Would you or I have played an Aussie, gestured to the crowd to kiss our backside and thanked them for funding our next vacation? Perhaps not. But we are not Collins.

More concerning: How is this in service of winning tennis? I got the distinct impression that Collins was more wounded by the booing than she let on. And when she came back to play Madison Keys in the third round, the boos continued. I guess you can convince yourself that I am fueled by conflict. But I would submit that riling up a crowd gives you one more variable to contend with.

[Learner] Tien upsets Medvedev, [Alex] Michelsen upsets [Stefanos] Tsitsipas and [Gaël] Monfils upsets [Taylor] Fritz; which of these is the biggest surprise to you and why?

Bob Diepold, Charlotte, NC

• Good question. Honestly? I might say the latter. Medvedev played zero tune-ups and became a dad for the second time ahead of the Australian Open. He struggled in the first round. He was playing a talented, persistent lefty whom he had never met. This will sound like a humblebrag, but before the match, we talked about the upset potential on the Served podcast. 

In the case of Fritz, he is the No. 4 seed coming off a final appearance at the previous major. He is facing a player more than a decade older than him, known for style but susceptible to wars of attrition. Fritz was barely losing games coming in. Credit to Monfils. What a resurgence. But that was a deeply surprising result. And a deeply disappointing one if you are Fritz.

Jon, you forgot 5x GS champion Iga [Świątek]. Best tennis rivalry Iga vs. Aryna [Sabalenka].

@artmom97


• I think this pertains to a Tennis Channel segment we did on rivalries. But, yes, I should have included Świątek, the best WTA player over the past three years. The quiet dignity of Świątek? We as a tennis community—and I don’t exempt myself—ought to be doing more here to hype the rivalry. It’s a contrast of styles. Lord knows it’s a contrast of personalities. There is a geopolitical frisson. No. 1 vs. No. 2. Winners of majors in each of the past two years. More of these matches, please. 

If you simply follow the Australian Open by the headlines on the front page of ESPN a person would know two things. First, that someone recovered [Naomi] Osaka’s kid’s passport in Los Angeles and second, that Osaka retired from her match today.

James B.

• Yesterday, you would learn that Djokovic declined an interview. Today, you would learn that Jannik Sinner advanced despite “a broken court.” I get it. Engagement is engagement. Algorithms push the outrageous. Sinner wins by converted break points is not a traffic-driving headline. I have railed against this for years. Other sports make news with feats, records and results. Watch the crawl, or even comb the AP wire, and when tennis makes news it’s too often because of something negative (injuries, doping, fines, controversy) or something unserious having little to do with on-court action. 

Hi Jon,

Strange rules of tennis: Why can’t a let serve be played? In game play if the ball clips the net and lands in, it remains in play. Why the different rule for a serve?

Mark

• No argument here. Add it to the list. Whether it’s trialed, or college tennis, or pickleball, when service lets are played out, I have heard of no complaints.

Gosh, Jon, the fella who interviewed Learner Tien on court after his Medvedev win, can someone let him know that his job is to ask questions? That was a mess. He elicited nothing and the kid was willing to talk …  

Cheers, Ann

• That was not a success. And a few of you wrote in about it. But it was after 3 a.m. local time so I’m inclined to give the interviewer a pass … and not name-check him.

Hi, Jon,

Some fascinating matches, especially from mothers with young children, at the Australian Open. While the weather has provided some reprieve—no Snoopy sighting on court so far—if protecting players is a goal for all stakeholders, the super tie-break, which can last longer than the “retired” one, needs revisiting. Although [I’m] not a fan at all of the beautiful game—I say football, you say soccer, same difference—what about considering a “serve tie-break.” Once reaching 6–6, each player has five serves. Players alternate serving. Whoever has the highest score, wins the tie-break. Yes, of course, there is the risk of having 5–5 in the end and serving must continue. However, in theory, limiting serves should be shorter than the current, long name alert, best-of-10-with-a-difference-of-two-points tie-break, which has extended beyond 10–10.   

Regards,

L. Pereira (B.C., Canada)

• Not bad. I have to say, I quite like the first-to-10 session. And in a rare blast of solidarity, it is helpful for fans if all four majors ended matches the same way.

Jon, I consider you my life coach. If I cannot be a globetrotting young tennis player, what other ways are there to get money, girls and casino? Asking for a friend, obviously!

Deepak (NYC)

• This, obviously, pertains to the Medvedev quote. I was joking the other day. “How to say you spend time in Monte Carlo without telling us you spend time in Monte Carlo.” Medvedev no doubt associates “casino” with the tuxedo crowd consorting with croupiers alongside the Mediterranean. For Americans, a casino does not exactly convey exclusivity. If you don’t make it as a tennis player and want to avail yourself to a casino, go to the Port Authority, pay $8 and take a bus to Atlantic City.

ENJOY THESE CONCLUDING DAYS, EVERYONE!


This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: 2025 Australian Open Brings Rivalries, Drama and More Upsets.