Controversy Week

Cooler heads have prevailed—thanks largely to the unrelentingly detail-oriented guest host Andrea Petkovic—and we painstakingly dissect the two big controversies currently embroiling the pro tours: Jannik Sinner’s doping ban and Elana Rybakina’s coaching imbroglio.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:14):
One two one two one two okay one two one
two one too. Oh you were great. Okay, Hi everybody,
and welcome to the Tennis the Tennis. Welcome to the tennis.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Welcome to the Tennis. Hi.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Everyone, Welcome to the Renee Subs Tennis Podcast. I am
here with my great friend Andrea Pekovic is back. We
are back in New York.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
We're back in the city.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
We're back in the city. It's freezing. It's awful weather.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
You know, it feels like that's what I saw on
the weather app. I didn't think it was that bad,
but it feels like minus sixteen yea.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
They said it's whatever, thirty degrees toda or something they said,
but it feels like and I was like, no, no,
don't start with that because that's some horse shit. Anyway,
I just got back from Australia a couple of days ago.
You just got in from la you were working for
Tennis Channel over there. So we're going to get into
a lot of stuff today. We started talking before the
part and we're like, oh my god, We've got a
lot to talk about today. So Petco, it's time. Let's

(01:12):
start off by talking about, of course, the big news
of this last few days is Yanick sinner. You are
well versed in this situation. You had to talk about
it quite a bit on Tennis Channel, but give me
your thoughts on the situation.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
So I don't know if I said it on the podcast,
because I don't remember if I was if we talked
about it, but I said it somewhere. So when I
was in turn for the ATP final, I spoke to
a few Italian journalists. They told me, did I tell
you this? They told me that Yanick will be suspended
between Australian Open and French Open. And I thought like,

(01:50):
how do they know this? Because the cast appeal hearing
was set up for April nineteenth, I think or April sixteenth,
and they said to me that they heard there was
a meeting and he's going to be suspended between Australia
and the French Open. And I thought they were, you know,
talking out of the ass whatever. But now in this
news hit, I was simultaneously shocked because we all waited

(02:13):
for the hearing with the cast, and then I remember
this thing that they had told me during Turin and
I was like, oh, they knew, that's exactly what happened.
He got banned after the Austrian opened and he's supposedly
going to return in Rome. That's how that's what the
band is. So there was rumblings about it. I read
the documents, I read the statement from Vada. I read

(02:34):
his statement Vada. That was very German, and the gist
of it is, in my opinion, this is a political decision.
They are both trying to save face in a sense
that they in the statement clearly say they do not
believe he's cheated. They do not believe he had any
substance in his body that was performance enhancing, and they

(02:56):
believe his story.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
However, Okay, wait a second, I want you to say
that again, so people at home understand this. Okay, because
a lot of people have not read the actual findings,
they have not read what Lada has said. So repeat
that again so people can hear what you just said.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yes, so what the Itia came up with. This is
the first organization who looked at Janick Sinner's case. And
just a reminder, they looked at this case without knowing
that it's about Youick Sinner. Yes, they have anonymous case
studies of the samples that he's given and of his explanation,
but there are no names involved. So the scientists who

(03:35):
decide on this matter, it's three different guys or girls,
three different people. They decide on this matter without knowing
who the player was. Who the player was. That's very
important because people keep yelling preferential treatment, but it's not
the case in the moment when they decide whether they
believe the story of the player or not, they don't
know who they are talking about. So this is what
the ITIA found. The first organization, WADA appealed because they

(03:59):
had an issue with the no fault ruling, right, because
if you have that's why he didn't get any suspension
because they said he was at no fault because he
didn't take a substance. It was a team member, right.
If you compare this to somebody like IgA Sciontek, she
was at little fault, but she still took the medication.
It was melatonin, it was prescribed by a doctor. That

(04:20):
shouldn't have happened, so it wasn't technically her fault, but
she ingested it through her mouth into her body. That's
why she got that one month. That's the difference, right.
So I'm just trying to make it very clear. I
know we talked about this.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
No, I love that you're doing this, but I.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
Think it's important that people remember these things. So Wada
basically goes out and says, we think, no, we believe.
We looked at all the documents and we believe that
he was not using performance enhancing drugs. We believe he
didn't cheat.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
We believe the scientists and what the scientist said before
they knew it was a number one player in the world, correct, right.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
The problem for them is in their statutes it says
that the player is also responsible for a team, because
the problem for them will be in the future. If
they rule no fault for Janick from now on, every
single player or athlete who gets banned, who gets a
substance in their body, they can just say it wasn't me,

(05:16):
my doctor gave it to me, It wasn't me, my
physio gave it to me. It wasn't me, my coach
gave it to me. Right, So that's WADA's problem. That's
why they can't say no fault, no negligence, just go ahead,
no band. So that's why for them it was important
to get a ban. The problem now is if they say,
we don't believe he's cheated. The smallest band they can

(05:37):
give him is one year, but they ban him for
one year. What are we doing here? You can't simultaneously
in your name it says WADA. It's the World Anti
Doping Agency. So you're saying you're anti doping agency. You
believe he didn't dope, but yet we are banning him
for one year. This is a problem for WADA. This

(05:57):
is losing that, they are losing their credibility. But simultaneously,
if they rule no fault and give him no ban,
now every single player from henceforth will go and say, well,
it wasn't me, I didn't take it. My coach gave
it to me, right, So they needed a compromise. That's
what I mean by this is a political decision. It
was important for WADA to get something, and for Janik
it's better to it's better to take the three month

(06:19):
band between Austia and Open and French Open, rather than
maybe not be able to prove that it was in
his fault in front of cast the process going on forever.
And then the smallest band he can get is still
a year, so you would lose a full year. So
this is a political decision. And like in a political decision,
one party wants one thing, another party wants another thing,
a compromise is found and nobody is happy. Yeah, this

(06:42):
is exactly what happened.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, and this is exactly why. I mean, that was
such a great explanation. And I hope people listen to that.
If they didn't understand it, fucking rewind and listen to
it again. Okay, because the issue in all of this
as well is when you get statements from certain players
on Twitter, well, namely Nick Kirios, Stamma Vrinka, these types

(07:04):
of comments that they're making. It's like, guys, when when
someone makes a statement like why would he admit so
wait a second, he's admitted he's taking the three month band,
so he's admitted that he was at fault because of this,
and that he admitted that he had it in his system.
Why is he only getting this and why is he
getting to choose this? It's not It's like when you

(07:24):
get accused of murdering someone or committing manslaughter or whatever.
They're like, Okay, here's the deal. If you know you
haven't killed anyone, and then someone says to you, oh,
but we have you know this and that and we're
going to take take you here and we're going to
put you through court, and we're gonna we've got some evidence,
and you're like, what the fuck, I didn't do anything.
It's kind of like it's like, why would you admit

(07:45):
fault either, like because it's either three months or thirty years,
you know, because that's what it would have been for
someone like Sinner to take a one or two year
break from tennis that is enormously bad for his tennis.
Name one person that's had a drug suspension and come
back and played well, not many, and so he's probably going,
like you said, he's negotiating this deal because Wada needed

(08:05):
a win here. Wada needed this win. They needed to
be able to say, to have some integrity, to have
some you know, semblance of power still to say we're
still going to suspend you. My thing is this happened
over a well, happened essentially a year ago, a year ago,
and we are now suspending him for three months. It's

(08:27):
so ridiculous. It looks so bad from Wada and everyone's like,
you know, oh, you know, people come after me, he's
a doper. And as it's like read what the itia
what they came out with originally when they of course
did not know it was Janick Sinner. Okay, listen to
that again. They did not know who the player was,
and those are the conclusions that they came up with.

(08:49):
You cannot say, well, this player was given preferential treatment
because he was number one in the world. It's not true.
Now did he have the resources to be able to
do it in a quick time? Absolutely? Did they know
exactly where it came from, yes, but that's good for him,
good for him. That's why when people start throwing around
names like well, what about about Hallop, Well, Hallup took
four or five months to figure out where it came from.

(09:11):
What do you want to That is an obvious sign
that she doesn't know where it came from, and so
therefore they had to go in and do this investigation,
and they had to announce it immediately because she couldn't
come up with any feasible reason why it was in
a system. So of course that's going to happen. So
this is why everything is treated very differently. But in
the end, this is a major problem for WADA period

(09:36):
and they are ruining and I got a name, I've
got a text, message from us.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Sorry to interrupt you, but I think this will underline
your point and make your point is that this is
really important to say that both cases of Igoshiantek and
Janik Sinna will have WADA change their rules from twenty
twenty seven on these micro dozing incidents where they catch
like what the they say, a grain of salt in

(10:02):
a swimming Olympic swimming pool, they won't be falling into this,
so they because of Jannick Sinner and Igasciantek, they are
changing their rules. So clearly something was one wrong with
the rules.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Are they changing the rules to make it harder or no?

Speaker 2 (10:19):
Micro yes, So these micro doosing events what happened now
with EGO, where you clearly see it's a contamination won't
be ruled performance enhancing any longer because they weren't. You know,
if you can, as these two cases could very quickly
show what the contamination was and where it came from.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
Yeah, and again this is sort of like important because
you know, I had a text message from a really
good friend of mine who is a former swimmer. Olympic
swimmer went to multiple multiple Olympic Games, one of our
greatest swimmers ever and you know. One of the things
that she text message me and was just like, what
the hell is going on in tennis kind of thing?

(10:59):
And you and I I've had similar conversations about that
right now this morning. But she basically said, totally makes sense,
but the injustices of the system still grates on me.
This is what from her. There needs to be a
massive overhaul of WADER and the global antidoping code. Less
than one billionth of a gram is nothing, And she
wrote that in all caps. I know that it might

(11:21):
indicate microdosing, but I'd love to see the data supporting
the catching of those microdosing cases versus the number of
contamination cases. Its cause, you know, and see, this is
what I'm saying. She says, Sinner is so lucky he
could quickly point to it and.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
What it was.

Speaker 1 (11:36):
I do find it a little suspicious that they had
enough evidence to appeal the case in less than an hour,
although I think it was I would think it was
a little bit longer than that, although I think they
knew exactly where it came from straight away. Although one
hundred percent agree with you, in no way did I
think ant Yanik ever doped other athletes like Simona and Eger.
I'm sure many of other lesser profile athletes are being

(11:58):
caught out because they can't immediately pinpoint where the contamination.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
That's the problem.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
And that's what happened with Shana Jack, an Australian swimmer.
The exact same thing happened to her. It's a classic
case in Australia of contamination. Yes, and she said, these
old these are her words, not mine, These old, stale
males in power are damaging the sport by having policies
like these. How many truly guilty people are are they
catching versus how many innocent athletes careers and reputations are

(12:24):
being destroyed. And that's the thing that is worrying to me.
And if you read what Saberlenka said this week where
she was like, I am so worried now that I
don't take anything. I don't leave my water out for someone,
I don't leave anything to chance anymore. Because I think
that someone like Sablenka really also realizes that this could

(12:46):
happen to her. Yeah, do you know what I mean?
These microdosing little things where it to be contaminated this
and everyone's like, oh, why are you taking stuff that's
prescribed by doctor. Why an't you taking the WTA melatonin alls. Yes,
all of that is sort of true, but there's also
no guarantees that every single supplement you take is not tainted.
And this is what could happen.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
Well, you saw it with IGAs melatonin. It was prescribed
by a doctor from a source that she's been taking
for years, years, and it never came up, and all
of a sudden, there's some contamination, a fault in a fabrication, whatever.
I'm not a medical expert, but something happened, and a
medication she could rely on for years, prescribed by her doctor,

(13:27):
all of a sudden turns up contaminated. And we are
both clearly arguing here as former players. And that's why
we are so firmly on the side of players, and
that's what makes me always upset with these statements from players.
I use this example before during the COVID and at
the Australian Open Tennis, Australia sent out an email and

(13:48):
was like, hey, you will be in quarantine for fourteen days.
If you need any fitness equipment in your room, please
let us know. Now that was two months before, so
these emails players didn't read the emails, right, this is
what I'm telling They say it was about, and then
they complained about it for days, like why does Angie
Kerber have a running track in her room? Yeah? Because
she read her emails, wrote them an email, and then

(14:10):
she had a running check in her I had a bike,
running track, running machine, a running machine, another full check.

Speaker 1 (14:17):
They put a track in her room, Jenesistriya, I really
know how to do it. They put that track down
the whole way around the building and back in, but
she was isolated throughout exactly.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
That would be amazing. I had a bicycle because I
read the email and I wrote them, and I realized
ninety five percent of players don't even read emails that
concern themselves. So now they are going to go ahead
and read a twenty five page document on Yannick Sinner's
doping case. I guess not. You know, if they can't cannot,

(14:51):
but if they can't read a freaking email that concerns
their own well being and their own fitness before the
biggest tournament after one year no tournaments at all, COVID year,
they are going to go ahead and read a WADA
statement that goes on for thirty pages I don't mak
me unconvinced.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Thank you very much. Unconvinced. Okay, so you're you know,
I think you and.

Speaker 2 (15:16):
I but sorry, I just want what I wanted to say.
I still if but if somebody comes up to me
and I have these cases, people say like, I don't
know the story just sounds fishy. I don't believe the
physio spray the spray. I think that's fair. I think
it's fair that people go ahead and go like, I
don't believe it. You know, that's fair. You can't say anything.
I believe him. But that's also we know him, we

(15:38):
like him. We are always biased. This is very important.
We are always going to be biased, and I think
it's important that we let people know that we probably
will be biased towards him because he's a good guy
and we can't believe he did it. Does that exclude
him from maybe doing it after all? No, just because
we like him doesn't mean he's not going to do it.
But this is important for me to say that if

(15:58):
you read the articles and are somewhat well informed, soay,
like I still don't believe it, that's absolutely fair, and
you're entitled to your opinion. What I don't like is
if when you don't read the thing, you just read
the headline and then put out just blank statements of
the sport isn't clean, everyone is doping. This is what
I don't.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
Yeah, because because it's bullshit. Because it's bullshit. There is
no athlete that is I believe, more tested than a
top ten tennis play. That's true, Okay, we are talking
about players that are tested all the time in competition,
all the time out of competition and out of competition,
and all the time by their own associations, particularly in

(16:39):
Olympic years.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
Yes, so this is important, Reneja said, because there are
three different organizations, the ITIA, the WADA and the NADA.
And I had a few cases where all three of
these organizations were in front of my were in front
of my door and wanted to test me. So the
NADA is the national in our case, the national anti

(17:00):
doping agency. You have the WADA and you have the ITIA.
So and you're right, the higher you are. So when
I was top ten, which was not very long, but
when I was top ten, I got tested or between
thirty and fifty times a year. And this is just
out of competition. And another really important thing that people forget.
And big tournaments. What are big tournaments? Those are Grand

(17:21):
Slam tournaments and ATP Masters and WTA one thousands, fifty
percent of players get tested. They lose in the first round, right,
fifty percent, Then fifty percent of players get tested if
they lose in the second round. From third round on,
seventy five percent players get tested. And from the round
of last sixteen, every single player gets tested. And Yannick

(17:43):
pretty much plays last sixteen every single time, so he
will be tested at every single tournament. Same goes for Ega,
same goes for Sablenka, for whoever is a top player,
if they reach the rounds from third round on, they
will be tested one hundred percent.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, So that it's not the most, it's the most.
For me, it is the most tested sport in the world.
In the world. I talked to WNBA and NBA players
and they're like, they never get tested ever, and they're
an Olympic sport. They never get tested unless it's like
literally going into the Olympics. So it's like every single
tennis player has to watch what they're putting in their

(18:20):
system and to hear what Sabalanka said over the last
couple of days by saying basically, she's so afraid that
this essentially could happen to her. And then you've got
other people going out and saying sport's not clean. I
just I don't understand it exactly what you're talking about.
Read the stuff, Read what they said, and understand the

(18:40):
entire process before you make these comments, and don't say
that he negotiated. Yes, Okay, could he have negotiated, Yeah, absolutely,
Because there's so much ambiguity in the shit that Wada
was saying. You're just like, okay, well, what's the ruling.
You should have made that ruling seven months ago. They
should have made this ruling seven months ago. The guy
has gone on to win two Grand Slams since the
initial findings, and now you want to suspend him. It's

(19:03):
fucking embarrassing. It's embarrassing, and I feel badly for him
because now everyone's saying, well, you know, oh, we conveniently
got this. Well not really. In a lot of ways,
this is WADA's problem. This is WADA's fault for putting
themselves and him in this situation. They should have done
it originally. Why did they change the goalpost? Now that's
what I don't understand.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
Yeah. I think because they were they realized that if
they let the slide, every player and athlete from now
on will say, but it was a member of my team,
and then they are in real shit.

Speaker 1 (19:32):
You would then say, from now on, as of twenty
twenty five, if you are going to blame your team,
too fucking bad. That's what should have been said. Okay,
And everyone's going to say, well, you know what happened
to this player and this player and this player. Yeah,
rules get changed all the time. Maria Sharapou was taking
meldonium for years and years and years and years and

(19:54):
years and then stopped. Should have stopped taking it and
didn't it? Why? Because she didn't read your emails going
into this. That's my point.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Take away from this is read your fucking emails.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
Read your emails. That's gonna be the name of the part.
Freed your emails, all right. Another thing that is controversy.
I think we've laid the sinner thing to bed. I
hope that everyone can just let it go now, but
they're not going to. There are likes of a lot
of players out there saying a lot of shit about him,
and I think you should do your due diligence a
little more and read a little bit more about it.
And I think understanding that they didn't even know who

(20:27):
this player was when they made this decision is very important.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
That is very important. People forget that. Yeah, And I think,
like everything, it has nuance. And that's why I said,
this is a political decision, and it is a political decision.
Nobody is happy with it. Yes, there was negotiation, but
there is nuance. When they decided he didn't cheat, they
didn't know who he was. Now they know who he was,
and that's why he was able to negotiate. So that's

(20:51):
also there is a grain of truth today exactly because
if Wada messes up on this one with jan Nick Sinna,
who is the number one player in the world and
who won multiple grants lambs, everyone in the world is
talking about it, whereas if it's somebody ranked three hundred,
they can kind of like just be who cares, right,
So that's why they really needed it, as you said,
they needed this win, and that's why they were able

(21:12):
to negotiate. So there is like a sort of truth
to it in a sense that in the beginning he
didn't have preferential treatment and now he has, although I
will say is a preferential treatment. He did get banned
for something everyone agrees on he didn't do. Why are
we banning the kid? This is my question. If everyone
from it Tia to Nada Tuada to who God knows who,

(21:35):
to Maria and Jesus decide this kid did not cheat,
he is clean, we believe his story, why are we
banning him?

Speaker 1 (21:42):
That's again, that's my that's exactly my my.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Well, they will change the role. I will say, this
is the one thing I didn't read. That's what Mark
Petchi told me. So if I'm wrong about them changing
the I'm gonna mark Petchi. But he's super diligent about
these things. That's why I believe him. That's why repeeded it.
But supposedly what he told me is in twenty twenty seven,
they are changing the rules on contamination and if it's

(22:06):
like it was now a billionth of a grand blah
blah blah, it won't be ruled a doping violation.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
And what did I say originally, if you go back
to one of the original pods that we did, I said,
why don't have to change this rule if it is
so minuscure? Like this. Why are we putting players' names
out there? It should not be out there. That's how
I feel about it. And listen, I am for a
clean sport. I fucking hate cheaters. Yeah, okay, I hate cheaters.

(22:34):
But when it comes to this situation now where we
are getting a few a bit more contamination stuff going on,
it's like we are also possibly I'm not saying all
of everyone's telling the truth or everyone's lying. I don't
the bottom lines. I don't know. So why are we
ruining reputations based on a billionth of a gram of

(22:56):
a piece of salt in the pool? And yes, it
could be microdoc, but fucking hell, he has to be
real good at it considering as you said, he's in
the semis or finals of every single event that he's playing,
and he's getting tested all the time. Then you know,
so he's also been tested since and does everyone forget
that he's still getting tested?

Speaker 2 (23:17):
And the thing I will say, what is a big
marker to me? Did he perform the same before he
got caught and the same after he got caught? Yes?
He did? Yeah, and you're trying to tell me he
was doping, gets caught and then he just continues doping,
then he's a fucking psychopath.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
He also, he won the Australian Open. He would have
got tested out the wazu there, okay, including blood being taken,
everything being taken. He was fine. Nobody said, oh he's
got micro dosing uney system at the Australian Open. Okay.
So all of a sudden he's gonna say, ah, you
know what, in Doha, Dubai, in Indian Wales, I'm going
to start taking some shit now and hope I get

(23:55):
away with it.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
Oh, come on, And in this case for these guys
again we talked about them already to take out snippets
of people saying things, if you do this in this case,
you really are an asshole. If clicks matter to you
more than the nuance of this case and the importance
for the sport of having understand and grasps every single
minute detail of it, then you really are an asshole.

(24:19):
We already told you to fuck off, but we're telling
you again pemptively.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
There's a lot of these these stupid tennis dot com sites,
not tennis dot com, but various different things dot com
that the report on tennis that take little snippets of
apparently like I am, I wanted to coach Emarada Khanuh
from the last podcast. Did you read this, No Renee
stops and it's always former coach of Serena Williams, like

(24:44):
fuck off, guys, like I did more than just Serena
Williams for two weeks, so if you're gonna get it right.
But they like that because they know Serena Williams that
that algorithm will come. So it's like, no, I did
not say I want to coach Emarada Khanu. I said
if I was, But I mean if Emma Radakano came
to you pet Go and said, hey, do you want

(25:04):
to coach me? You would say, oh no.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
No, not because of Emma, because I really don't want
to coach.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
You don't want to coach. But if you wanted to coach,
of course you would say yes.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Yes, of course. I mean, if you're a coach, then
so much potential.

Speaker 1 (25:17):
It's a fucking dumb but they you know, they blasted
out on it. Just it pisces no.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
But I give you an example. I said, I think
maybe even on this podcast, I said about Carlos that
when he's playing, well, he's the best player I've seen
in the last thirty years. And when he plays bad,
boy does he play bad? And they only took when
Carlos plays bad he plays so bad? And I got
so much hate from some Carlos fans. They were like,
what do you know? And I was like, what did

(25:42):
I say? Did I say that? And I'm a normal person.
So I listened to the podcasting and I was like, oh, okay, no,
I said, it's okay. There was so much more nuance
to it. But that's why it's not it's not fair.
It's not fair to us. It's not fair to the
players because we have to interview the players. And now
he thinks I said about him that he's really bad.
Come come on, man, I would why would you say that?

(26:03):
Like he's the best player.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Yeah, So all of you people out there that are
going to take clippets and snippets from clippets is.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
That a word?

Speaker 1 (26:09):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Maybe not?

Speaker 1 (26:10):
It is now snippets from our podcast and put it
up there and blast it. Fuck you.

Speaker 2 (26:15):
Yeah, no, really, take the whole thing. Write an article.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
Be a man, Yeah, be a man, write the whole
Be a fucking person that writes the whole article, doesn't
just take one line of what we've said. If you
want to take one word, one line from us, it's
funk off.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:29):
Okay. So another very very controversial, difficult conversation is Elena
Rebakina the situation with her former coach whatever he is
now boyfriend's disaster situation with Ukoff, her coach. Is that
how you say his name?

Speaker 2 (26:48):
Your Croatian Stefan? What are you? My parents? My mom
is busting and my dad to Serbian.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
I'll see, that's why I messed out. Okay, thoughts, Well,
we just read.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
So for anybody who has the time, there is a
very article in the New York Times. I think for
us we knew most of it already, so it wasn't
necessarily new things. But for everybody else who's maybe not
around the tennis tour and wants to know what's up,
I think that's a great way to start, because there's.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Really a lot in the Bleach and maybe Athletic, sorry
not athletic.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
The Athletic and the New York Times. Yeah, so I
think there's a lot of thoughts. What are my thoughts?
Clearly the relationship between them is on the edge of abusive.
Can I say it's abusive. No, I can't. I'm not
in the relationship, and I think this is a very
important to say. If you're not in the relationship, you
don't know what is actually happening. On the other hand,

(27:47):
the WTA has decided that it's not his behavior is
not aligning with the guidelines of their code of Conduct.
And that's a strong statement and a strong decision on
part from the WTA. And they had their investigation. So
chances are they know things that I don't know because

(28:07):
I'm not around them. But they had an investigation, they
asked I think they had twenty people as witnesses. I
think around twenty people who came forth and gave witness statements,
and that's their decision, trying to protect the player. On
the other hand, the player doesn't want to be protected.
Rebakkena has come forth multiple times saying that she wants

(28:29):
him around and that she doesn't agree with the decision
that was made by the WTA. I honestly, Renee. That's
why I'm like stuttering. I don't know what to say,
because on the one hand, I really strongly believe in
independence and an adult player who has to take responsibility
and make decisions on themselves for themselves. On the other hand,

(28:50):
I've seen toxic relationships around me, and the thing is
that at one point you can't make decisions for yourself
any longer because you're so caught up in this dependence
that you're not thinking clearly. So that's why I'm really
at a loss for words, which rarely ever happens, because
what is it? It's hard to say from the outside.
Is she an adult and responsible enough to say, like,

(29:12):
I want him around and this is my decision, or
is she so dependent on him at this point of
her life that she can't think clearly? Had for me
to say, what do you think?

Speaker 1 (29:53):
The w t A if because we have, because we
do rate things. The w t A basically in their
findings are saying that you made her dependent on you
essentially what made her. Yes, You've you've made her feel
like she can't play without you. And listen, I know
I have seen it way too. I mean we're talking

(30:15):
way too many times. I've been around a lot longer
than you, and I have seen so many of these
toxic coach player relationships where they literally say you are nothing,
you will be nothing, you are not going to be
good anymore. Without me, you didn't You wouldn't have done this.

(30:37):
Without me, you would still be in Russia picking potatoes,
is what he said to her.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Yeah, that's what quote from the New York Times article,
and that is.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
From her a team member of hers. Okay, So now
the difference is the w T are getting factual information
from team members of Elena Rebukinger. Okay, so you think
about it. There's physios, there's fitness chainers that have been
with her for a long time that are now no

(31:05):
longer with her. So use your head and understand. So
when people are out there just absolutely ripping on us
for saying she's you know, or ripping on the WTA,
they have factual information of people around her on a
daily basis making these comments. Now, Okay, so think about
that for a second. All right, they saw the abuse,

(31:27):
they saw the mental abuse. They saw him throwing tennis
balls at her. That's physical abuse. First of all, they listen,
I've coached, I've been coached, I've seen other coaches. I
know what abuse is, and he is abusive to her. Period.
You can say whatever you want. I've seen him yelling
at her. I can be I could have been one

(31:47):
of those witnesses, and I probably was one of those
witnesses because they interviewed me years ago about him. Okay,
because I made comments on this podcast years ago about him,
and I never said anything about him abusing her. I
just said he was very, very negative, and I felt
like with a positive coach, Wow, how much better could
she be? Imagine how good she could be with a
really positive coach. And so those are the comments I

(32:10):
made about him. And then he actually, just so people know,
he contacted the WTA and wanted to come after me
for making those comments. Okay, so I'm putting out that publicly.
I have not told anyone that publicly. He came after
me and wanted to sue me, Okay for saying things
about him that were true that have been now investigated

(32:32):
for years are now true. He has been banned for
a year now because what I told them years ago
has been now backed up by several other people who
are in her actual team. Okay, So this is happening
on a consistent basis now a lot of people don't
say stuff. A lot of people want to be anonymous
because in the tennis world, just like you, just like me,

(32:55):
we have to interview Elena Rebakina. She is one of
the best players in the world, is a really nice person.
She has obviously had an adverse reaction to me for
years because of what I said about him years ago.
And so we are put into this quandary of a
problem of not being able to have this relationship with

(33:15):
her if she doesn't want to have a relationship with
us because of what we've said. Right, So, there's a
lot of people want to be anonymous because they want
to keep a good relationship with her. Our issue now
going forward is I don't care about my relationship with her.
She can hate me forever. My thinking now is somebody
needs to speak up about this and she needs to

(33:37):
be protected. And the WTA now have done that. They've
put their due diligence in, They've done this investigation for years,
and people can say whatever they want to me. For example,
I've been around a long time. I can see toxicity,
and that is a toxic relationship. And how is she
going to get out of this? I honestly don't know.
That's what I'm worried about.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
Well, that's my question. My question is this, I agree
with everything you said. Obviously we've talked about this many
times on the podcast. Should he speak to her differently? Yes,
one hundred percent. The question for me is what I'm
asking and what I don't have the answer to. Is
it the WTA's task, Yes, because it's like what makes

(34:22):
her decide, you know what I mean? Or is she
an adult person that should decide for herself who she
wants to have around.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
Well, they're kind of sort of doing that right now
because he can coach her away from any WTA sanctioned
event unless it's a Grand Slam, and Tennis Australia made
it very clear they don't want him on site, and
now they've said with this suspension that she cannot stay
with him in a player hotel. So she she wants
to stay with him in a player hotel, that can't

(34:49):
happen anymore. So she's going to have to pay for
her own room at a different hotel every single tournament
if he wants to come and stay with her in
a hotel room, which is what he did in Melbourne.
And the reason for that is is what Caitlyn point
it out last week, which I thought was a really
good way of putting it, is that if you're in
a business situation, and you have a toxic relationship there
and it's sort of like around other people the company

(35:09):
get to say no, no, no, no, this is not
an okay situation. People have come to me at HR
and have said, this is now affecting many days my workday,
my business and so frankly, like every single player could say,
and every coach which has come forward and this is
part of the investigation. If you read the New York
Times article and stuff we already knew. And guess what.

(35:31):
I've spoken to many a coach and many a fitness
trainer that have told me this exact story. So they're
obviously part of this investigation. And I won't name names
that have come forward and said this is the behavior
I saw him do, okay. These are first hand accounts
of situations where they felt the need to go and

(35:52):
tell the WTA of how he was acting and reacting
to her in plain view of players and other coaches.
That is not a work environment you want to be in.
Nobody wants to be around that. It's like living next
to an abusive relationship and not calling the cops. That's
exactly what's happening right now. So the coaches and other
coaches and players and fitness trainers and physios that are

(36:15):
around that situation with Yukov yelling and screaming at her
and being an asshole to her have had it and
they've gone and said something to the WTA and so yes,
in this situation, it is a toxic environment that is
not allowed in the code of contact on the w
TED tour, and it was put there for a reason
to stop people like this, to stop guys like this

(36:36):
taking advantage of young women. He's been with her since
she was like sixteen years of age. This is a
toxic relationship. The parents want him gone, the sister wants
him gone, like they know her. So this is where
it's gotten real tricky. And for Elena. I feel so
badly for her. She is stuck right in the middle

(36:57):
of this. I mean, it is cohersive behavior. It is
not good. I don't know what to say about it
other than that I think the WTA have done the
best that they can do.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
I think so too. And that's a really good point
about the work environment, because if you were at a
company and somebody would yell at their like you would
see in a different department the boss yelling at their
at their secretary or something. You would also say something
to HR. That's a really really good point because it's
not only them, even though it's an individual, even though.

Speaker 1 (37:28):
Board watching him yelling and screaming at her in the
gym in Australia. I remember that I went up to
another player who may have been playing doubles with her
at the time, I believe, and I said, what the fuck?
So we see this stuff?

Speaker 2 (37:42):
I mean, I went I told his story on the podcast.
I think many times. I went up to him one
time and said like, what are you doing? And then
they just kind of went, it's just yeah, I mean.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
That's you and okay, so you and me have seen
his behavior. That is the two of us. Imagine everybody
else onto it. Everyone else is saying this, and some
people close their eyes to it and say it's not
my problem. But you know, I know that there was
a top player that saw her in Abba Dhabi and
saw him there and said to her, what the fuck?
So Pias do care? Yeah? Pi Is It probably shouldn't

(38:17):
care if she's mentally healthy because I have to play
against her. Yeah, are going what the fuck? So? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (38:24):
Anyway, Well, and I think a really important point that
was made in the New York Times article is that
whether because of it or whether in general, but her
health has suffered tremendously from the toll that all of
this has taken on her. And it was very clearly
stated in the New York Times article. If you have
the time to read it, I would recommend it just

(38:45):
to make it because I think what I liked about
the article. Yes, it's lengthy, but he's just they are
basically telling you all the situations that they could confirm
from multiple witnesses, and it's up to you to decide
what you think about it.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Yeah, I think behavior at the US Open last year
was just appalling. That's where it really hit the fan
after she basically flicked him after in August, so prior
to the US Open. But yes, read the article. Let
us know your thoughts. Actually tweet to us or don't
tweet to us.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
I don't. I delayed the leaded for you.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
Yeah, because Blue Sky us or put us on threads.
We're on Blue Sky and threads.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
So I deleted it just for why if in case
somebody mentions me there. Elon Musk supported the Nazi Party
and endorsed the Nazi Party in Germany. And that was
my last star that broke the camel's back because Nazi Party.
You know, it's not like it's in Germany. The Nazi Party.
You cannot do this. This is Germany, like both, friend,

(39:48):
this is Germany. You can't support the Nazi Party.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Why why don't the German authorities ban X in Germany?
That would be great.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I don't think you can do that free you know,
free speech and so on and so forth.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
Yeah, anyway, that's a whole difference to even remotely get
me started. But now you've maybe think it's time for
me to get rid of.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
It as I'm not even political, but that was such
an no go for me. I just I deleted it
right away.

Speaker 1 (40:13):
Working arsehole. He's such an asshole. Okay again, let's not
get into that, all right, Let's get to some good news.
Good news. Yeah, the last finally, Oh my god, this
was thank you because this was heavy. Yes, we have
had heavy forty minutes so far. Amanda, Yeah, can we
talk about Amanda Anissa Moba. I want to talk about
her in more ways than just well done for winning

(40:34):
the tournament. This is a kid that was well like
years ago, was seen as the next big thing, right,
winning tournaments. You know, she's the next Maria Sharapa over
blah blah blah.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
Right.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
I want to talk about the fact that she lost
her father years ago. He was her coach. He was
probably the most important mentor in her life in her
tennis career. She's had a hard couple of years since then.
She had a great couple bit of a run, and
then Darren k Hill called it quits on her at
the start of a really good start of the year.

(41:09):
It was in the COVID years, and a lot of
people were like, Yeah, she's gonna yeah, she's coming back,
this is great. And then Darren sort of pulled the
rug out because he was just dealing with his own
physical and mental health issues that he needed to go
home and didn't want to travel all that much at
that time of the year. And then she walked away
from the sport for like almost a year. Was it

(41:30):
a year?

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Eight months? I would say yeah, because.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
She mentally was fried. And I think the combination of
her probably her father's death and the expectation and the
physical part of it, and her own emotional wellness.

Speaker 2 (41:48):
She also struggled with injuries every now.

Speaker 1 (41:50):
It was just like, I need to step away. She
started painting, she started doing all this other stuff.

Speaker 2 (41:54):
She went did some courses at college.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
She just glimped away. And I don't know if you
saw my Instagram when she won, and I just said
along the lines of I'm so proud of this girl
who basically trusted her own gut and trusted her own
instincts to step away from the game and come back
and won her biggest tournament this year. After having a
good run at the Strain Open and losing a match

(42:19):
that we all thought she should have won.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
Sheat She lost in the second round against Emma rod
Ukanah that she was up for to one in the
first I think three to zero in the second, and
she was up a break.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
But she stayed in Australia for like two weeks after that.
The whole I was like, what are you still doing here?
She's like, oh, I'm playing Singapore and then playing in
you know, Doha and Dubai, and I was like, oh
my god. So she literally just got home to Florida.
I was speaking to her last night, literally on the
plane ride home, and so she was way that whole time.
She put them work in in Melbourne and then went
and won in Doha, and I'm just so I just

(42:56):
hope every tennis player realizes you don't need to play
every week. You don't need to prove yourself all the time.
And after Mattie Keys, Wenday Strain opened saying I wanted
this so badly, but I didn't. I knew I didn't
need it. And for a man a Nissam over to
walk away from the game, going I don't need this sport.
What do I want? I want to take care of

(43:16):
myself and then realized I love playing this sport. I'm
going to come back and I'm going to do it
and I'm going to do it one hundred percent. And
then look what happened. So and then went and lost
in Dubai. And one of the things I talked to
her about was, well, maybe you know, it's a lesson
that maybe you shouldn't have played.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
We were talking about it on TC LAB. I was like,
is she going to play? I don't believe, but she
went good for her Honestly.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
Her words to me were I wanted to see I wanted,
you know, to be a good play. You've got to
do these week after week you got to put it,
and I said, yes, that's true, and maybe this is
a lesson for you to learn what you need to
do to prepare it for that next tournament.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
Okay, but this is tough because a lost first round.
Alexandrova lost first round, Amanda, So everyone who did well
in Doha lost first round or second round. Right in Dubai.
These are the two. Even though it's forty five minutes flight,
it's maybe the most opposite from each other. You can
be in.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Ters five minute flight. Don't you have to go around?

Speaker 2 (44:11):
Well, now you have to go around, but because of
some kind of yes.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
You have to go around Iran.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
Yeah, there was this. I think Guitar and Iran have
a no flights. I don't want to get into because
I'm not sure and I don't want to say wrong things.
But it used to be.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
Exactly like try Pekovitch's seen as debating the Middle East Conference.

Speaker 2 (44:35):
So I have no idea, but you're right. It used
to be a forty five minute flight, and then there
was some kind of no flight zone, so now you
have to go I remember that.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
You're like, what the fuck?

Speaker 2 (44:44):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (44:44):
Used to be way quicker?

Speaker 2 (44:45):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right, but anyway, so despite it
being very close in terms of in terms of geometry geography,
in geometry geometry, it is actually conditions wise the most
the sit of whatever you can. So in Doha, you
play at night, it gets so cold and so slow.

(45:09):
The courts are gritty, it's slow. You can barely hit
an ace. That's why Ega always plays well there. She's
one of three times already and lost Tosa panclin the semis.
But it's like for these players who have a bit
of spin on it, it's perfect right, and talking about
Amanda winning a bit of spin on it, and then
Dubai is super fast. It's like the fastest hardcore we

(45:33):
have on the WTA tour. You played during the day,
it gets hot and dry and the ball fly. So
it's literally the opposite from each other.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
That's why, like it's very rare to see people win
Indian Wells and then win Miami.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
Yes, it's very similar to this differ. It's actually very similar,
with the big exception that in the welles, if you
lose early you have a week to prepare. Even if
you go far, you still have four or five days.
Dubai and Dubai, so Amanda played on Saturday the final Endoha,
and she played on Monday morning, Yeah, like Monday first

(46:06):
match or something like. She played her next match, so
she had a day to travel, celebrate, get ready, and
then play another match.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
This is good love impossible, which is why I'm really
proud of Madison Keys, because I know I don't take
credit for this, but I did see beyond after the
Austrain Open, and I said, if there's one advice I
could give you from people I did not win a
singles Grand Slam, but from people that did that sort
of it was like a bit of a shock to them,
including Sam Stozer, who I talked to about it. Sam

(46:34):
regrets playing immediately after winning the US Open. She wished
she hadn't gone to Asia, and I suggested to be on.
I'm like, why why are you going to Dohandubai. It's
in like ten days. There's so much shit she's going
to be doing. Get her And Sam said, a great thing.
And I don't know if you listened to it, but
she said, just because she won the Austrain Open doesn't
guarantee you're going to win your next match, So you've

(46:55):
got to be prepared to put that same effort in
mentally and physically for the next time you play. And
I think that's a great idea that she chose not
to go to the Middle East. And I think Maddie
Keys is going to be really tough to beat in
Indie Wells because of that now. But anyway, Yeah, but
really for Amanda.

Speaker 2 (47:10):
No, im really happy you made the mental points amazingly.
One hundred percent agree with you. But I just wanted
to talk about her tennis a little bit because I
called all her matches in Doha and it was not
only the mental side, but she improved so much. So
two things that we all knew about Amanda. She doesn't
have a lot of spin, and especially on the forehand side, right,

(47:32):
she has a bit of margin. Now it's not going
to be an Egociontec forehand, a Jasmine Paulini forehand, but
she has a bit of height on the forehand she
has a bit more security. And what it helped her
with there was the other thing we always talked about Amanda.
She plays amazing the first set and a half, but
then she tends to get nervous, right, and it's not
that she gets and this is a very important point.
I want to make. It's not that she gets more

(47:52):
nervous than others, but she has less margin than others.
So when Amanda gets nervous, the balls start to go everywhere,
whereas somebody like Ego, when she gets nervous, she can
still make a lot of balls. Sure, exactly, it's just
shorter in the court. Angie was the best example. Kerber.
When she got nervous, she still made you play thirty
five shot rellies. She just played a bit shorter. But Amanda,

(48:15):
with that little margin, that is the thing. And she
because she had that bit of more spin on her
on her forehand, she didn't get so nervous. She had
only one match where she got tight. That was against
Marta accostuc That was the toughest match of all for her.
It's the only set she's lost. She was up for
one and I think forty fifteen in the first set
to win the first set, and then lost it. But
that's also the new mental side of her, the new

(48:37):
mental forty two. She came back and wanted seven five
sixty four after that, which I thought was an incredible
statement to the rest of the draw, saying like, yes,
I got nervous, but I bounced back and I played well,
and she played an amazing final. She did not get
nervous at all, served it out like a champ. No,
she actually broke to win it. And the back and

(48:57):
down the line is still as mesmerizing ever and the
shots are still as clean as ever, just with that
added margin and that edit added taking care of her nerves.
She was the best player there and she deserved to
win the tournament.

Speaker 1 (49:12):
And I just think, you know, taking care of herself
mentally over the last couple of years has really made
a difference with her winning these matches as well, because
she's like Maddie, it's not life and death anymore. It's
about I want to play because I enjoy it. And
so just I'm just ultra ultra proud of what she
was able to do. Can we just briefly talk about
the fact that Ostar Panko is now five and oer against.

(49:34):
If there's one player on the drawer that Egert like
just hopes is nowhere, what the fuck? Five and O? Now, Okay,
you did the match the match, and we talked about
it prior to the pod. Give me your thoughts on
why Eager cannot win a match?

Speaker 2 (49:48):
So there is two things. It's partly because of us
Stepanco and partly because of Eager. One part of Sapanko.
I want to talk about that quickly. She's so motivated
against Eager. She came out, she had to determine in
her face. She really wanted once to win these matches.
That's number one. Number two, she believes she can win
because she has done it four times before and now

(50:09):
for the fifth time in Doha. And the third thing,
and not enough people talk about it. Ostapenko is actually
a little bit different to the other girls. A lot
of girls, most I want to say, have their preferential
strike zone around hip high. Ostapenko prefers it a bit
higher than hip hi. She actually likes when it sits
a little and she can go. If you think about
the play, not too high, no, no, no, just a

(50:31):
bit higher, maybe an inch to two.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
About exactly where Ega hits it.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
Exactly where Ega hits it. So this is terrible matchup
for Ega. And if you think about where Ostapenko has
triumphed in the past French Open, and if you think
about the player she's beat there, Stoser, Osniaki Halip, those
are all tremendous I know Sam was.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
Her winning record against her. Broke her hand in that match, Yes,
the year she won the French Open. Okay, broke her
hand in the match.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
But if you think about if you go and I
had a.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
Good record against her, yeah you know why.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Because she hits it even higher and slice. That's the thing.
And the thing is if you look at Ostapenko's big
successes at the French Open, the players she's played, they
played a bit higher and they don't play so fast.
Was Niaki haleeb right. And the thing is with Ostapenko
she hates playing other like it's it's like a weird
rule of life. Big hitters hate playing other big hitters.

(51:26):
She came out against Anisimova and she looked overwhelmed. She
was like, what, I don't have time, She was late
on everything. So big hitters hate playing other big hitters.
So Ostapenko loves EGA's game. She just plays well against her.
Even if she has lost ten times first round, she
will play Ega and she will feel comfortable. That was
the one part. The other part about EGA's game is
she did so well with win by her side to

(51:49):
not ballbash with other ball bashers. In the recent times,
since she's She did well at the Austrian Open. She
just got out played by Madison Keys, but she hadn't
met at one point exactly, she had a match point,
so she's doing a lot better. She beat her Bakina
now twice in a row, a player she hated playing.
She beat her at the United Cup and she beat
her Heandoha, and she beat Noskova, who had won the

(52:11):
first set, who she also doesn't like playing she.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
Lost to, and who she's lost to.

Speaker 2 (52:15):
Yeah, and she did well with like putting a bit
of margin on staying closer to her Dna that is
more of a clay cult player, right that can play
very aggressive but has that heavy spin can open the court.
And she started playing Ostapenko and went straight back into
the she isolashing. She regressed to the ego we saw
last year on the quick hardcourts when she would panic

(52:37):
and just ball bash with the other players, and she
did exactly that against Ostapenko. And I understand it because
when you have a negative head to head that is
so bad, you start to lose clarity, and that's what
she did. She lost clarity.

Speaker 1 (52:48):
Okay, so if you're losing clarity, you're not clear right,
you're not clear on what you need to do. That's different.
And I think that reason why she went back to
ball bashing against Ostapenko. So she feels like, I get
the first strike in exactly because Ostapenko there's no there's
nothing in Ostapenko's brain that says I'm going to play
a long point here. I'm just gonna go for it.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
You know.

Speaker 1 (53:10):
So I think she needs to be really prepared to
hit the variety, hit the drop shot again, hit the
high balls, get it out of the strike zone. Change
up where she's serving all the time, because she clearly
has a problem with where she's serving against Ostapenko as well,
because Ostapenko just crushes the return on that, especially on
that kickserve.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
And that's a great example. The kickserf that bothers a
lot of girls goes right into where Osta Penkele likes it.
You know, it's just like a bit hired than hippie,
and she just crushes it.

Speaker 1 (53:39):
She's better off hitting the kickserve as a first serf
to surprise her, yes, and to mix up the speeds.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
But anyway, well, and so just as an interesting and
this is the first time I never thought about IGA's
game that she needs to add a slize. That was
the first time I thought, oh, she's missing a size
because a Jabour actually has a five to one against
Ostapenko to her in the quarters, but she was cooked mentally.
She had beaten Chinway, and she has beaten a lot
of very good players, and she's just come back from injury.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
First, like really good back to back to.

Speaker 2 (54:10):
Exactly, and so she was really mentally and physically fried
against Osta Penkel. But she has a five to one
and in the second set she started to just slice
it and Osta Penkel got nervous. She got away with it.
But that was the first time I thought, oh, if
Ega had a slice, even if she doesn't feel comfortable
with putting it up high, maybe with a slice she
could you gain.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
Sometime Ostapenko if you don't junk her, which is why I.

Speaker 2 (54:33):
Say you either have to over You have to either
overpower her like Amanda, did you know, because she hates
other big hitters, like she always loses to Osaka as well.
You know, you have to either overwhelm her with pace,
and if you can't do that, then you have to junker.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
You have to junk her that which is why Sam
had a good record against so actually she could hit
that junkie slice and that heavy forehand that would jump
away from her on the forehand, and also the kick
serve is way bigger than Egers. Yeah, could have a okay,
really quick golf and Seblenka, what's going on there?

Speaker 2 (55:04):
So Zabalanka I called them. I didn't see Cocos match,
so I can't say. I just looked at the stats.
She had forty unforced errors. It's tough against Marta costjoc
on those slow courts, you.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Know, Australia. I just think mentally she wasn't and she made.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
Her the last time seven six in the third in
Stuttgut when they play after the Australiana Open, So clearly
this is a tough matchup for her. I didn't see
the match though, because it was in the middle of
the night in La. I think they played at three
thirty am, so I was flying, okay, So I don't
really know, but I think Marta Costyuk is always tough
when she plays well for anybody. Arena Sabalenka played Alexandrova,

(55:40):
who was red hot and freaking playing amazing. She had
just won Linz and She made the semis after that,
so she was clearly playing very well and Arena lost
seven six in the third. So it was a good match.
It wasn't like she played a terrible match and lost.
It was a good match. I will say that you
can tell now that the something is off with a serf.

Speaker 1 (56:00):
I can tell you what it is.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
We know, we talked about it already in the last part.
Her baltas is a lot higher. But what I meant
more by it is that she gets broken a lot
more and she can't hold. As you know, usually when
you watch us a Balenka match and she breaks, you're like, oh,
this match is done unless something crazy happens. And now
you don't have it, and you can feel that she
doesn't have it, and that gives her a little bit

(56:22):
of insecurity. And so that's just worrisome about the sert.
It's not like she's hitting double faults.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
It's just she's not getting free points like she was
yes and then an important moment, because she doesn't believe
in it in important moments, she pulls back and then
again it was a perfect example. Is straight and open.
When she wasn't going for the serf in the last game.
I mean, she hit a couple of big serves and
she served well. She did miss one for a serf,
but Maddie was able to get on them because she

(56:50):
wasn't hitting an ace or hitting an unreturnable well.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
And she took off. We remember we talked, we shook.
She took eight nine kilometers per hour off, which is
like four or five miles.

Speaker 1 (56:59):
That's a lot.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
Yeah, that's a lot. And that's a difference for somebody
like Maddie who has big swings, and it was the
same against Alexandrova, who also big takes big swings on return.
She in the important moments, was able to create something
off the serve and I think that's the that has
that has given Saballenka a bit of an insecurity and
important moments for sure.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
I mean, she's obviously going up against Kuda Matova today
actually as we do this this pod, so we'll see
how she comes through this particular tournament. Golf is also
on the court, just on GoF just real quick. I mean,
you know, it's just starting to be a little bit
of what's going on here because she was the hardest
player going into the Australian Open. But again I've said

(57:42):
it over and over. She played every match indoors, and
it does make a difference with where the ball moves.
And if you're not feeling good on your serf, if
you're not feeling good on your forehand, you know, and
you start. Things are much harder outside than they are indoors.
Things are indoors. It's just pure hitting. It's just easier.
Everything's in the slot, everything's in the zone. And you know, outdoors,

(58:07):
you've got wind, you've got sun, you've got stuff to
deal with, and if you're not technically sound or don't
feel confident on it, it's going to pay the price.
And clearly that's what's happened over the last couple of weeks.

Speaker 2 (58:15):
Eager she on Tech.

Speaker 1 (58:16):
Beat sabial Anka as a ranker today to and love.
I mean, I don't know as a ranker. I mean
there's a former world number one and a player that
was you know, two time Grandsam champion. To be keep
losing like that, I mean, that's got to hurt you.
But seon Tech is playing good this year. No, she's
playing well, I tell you, and make my prediction, well,

(58:36):
she will not lose a match on clay this year.

Speaker 2 (58:39):
Okay, yeah, well I would mean she didn't lose a
match on clay last year, did she? Or she lost
against Rebuccin and Stuttgat. That's indoors and it's on five
hundred meters higher so but still but she barely lost
the match. And she's a much better player this year
than she was. This was really it felt like against
Usta Pankell, it felt like a regression because I could
see the development in her game month in month out

(59:01):
against the heart hitters and then against a Stapenko was
boom you got from last year.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
Hopefully on her from her standpoint, she can sit back
and go, oh yeah, that's why I lose to her.
The thing I have to change that.

Speaker 2 (59:14):
Yeah. The thing with with IgA was though in Dohat
there was again the which I didn't see in her
so much at the Astan Opened, the nervousness, there was
a lot of tensions. She was yelling out at her
box at Daria. There was just like a lot of
nervousness which I hadn't seen so much at the Austrian Open.
But also again she had won this title three times.
She could have won it four times in a row,

(59:34):
which was unheard of and there was a lot of
pressure on her. But just one more. I want to
end on a positive note. Fonseca, what a beautiful name
and what a freaking beautiful tennis game. Are you kidding me?

Speaker 1 (59:50):
He's but starting to talk about the top the next
three Big three, Right, let's see him sometime.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
I mean, he's incredible and I would name him right
away with them. The only thing that I hope he's
eighteen years old. When you see him play, when you
see him play, when you hear him talk, he is
eighteen years old. You can just tell. It's like it
was funny to me because he won the title and
he was crying. He was so excited and everyone around
was like, oh yeah, that's his first from like seven

(01:00:18):
thousand more to come, but for him it was his
first title. He was so emotional. It was so beautiful
to watch. And what is incredible with him He gets
a little tight, but then he doesn't is not affected
by it, you know. So for example, in the semi final,
he was up six three five three, serving for the
match twice, didn't get it, but then plays a great tiebreak.

(01:00:39):
Same in the final, serving for the match twice, doesn't
get it. Gets it in the tiebreak. Who does that
sound like against Jarrett? Who?

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
Who does that sound like?

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
Who does it sound like?

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
Every great player?

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
But that's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
That's what I mean by but he's still to let
go of disappointment and understand the task at hand.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
But that's what I mean by why I pointed out
is not he because he gets tight or whatever. But
what I want to point out is that's why you
can still tell that he's young, because he does get ted.
In three years, you won't get tight anymore. Said, let
me just finish this thing, right, But let me just
finish this. The thing why I'm saying this, this is
what I'm trying to make the point of, is I

(01:01:18):
hope that everyone just calms the farm and lets him
steadily improve and progress, because then we will have an
incredible player vying for multiple major titles for the next
fifteen years. If now, because you have to remember in
Brazil there wasn't a player vying for major titles since
Googa Curtain. They are incredibly passionate fans. If he gets overwhelmed,

(01:01:40):
he's now playing in rio. If he gets overwhelmed by
this expectation and emotion and everyone wanting him to do
so well, we might not see him on the top
of the game for the next ten to fifteen years.
And that's why I'm hoping everyone slows down and gives
him the time he needs to evolve, because then, yeah,
because then we will have this Because I don't know

(01:02:01):
if you've watched him play, it's the greatest thing. It's
like watching al Karas and Cinera play. It's so freaking fun.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
Yeah. No, I've watched him play. Of course, I've watched
him play. This guy is so exciting. I am so
excited about the possibility of this top next best three
and they are clearly his stand out best three potential.
I mean, Sino's now one, you know what, three Grand
slams three Yeah, three Grand slams Auchress, I mean wow,

(01:02:29):
that in and of itself is incredible and fun. Take
it for sure. He'll be a threat at the French Open.

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Well yeah, I mean I know.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
He's eighteen, but no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
French Open at eighteen.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
Yes, no, one percent his threat at every tournament. The
only thing I have seen with him so far is
he gets so excited emotionally that sometimes he burns out.
That's eighteen exactly. That's what I mean. He is going
to learn.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
We all learn. You know that that's not going to
help us get super excited to break it one love
and the first sets. It's what you see in juniors,
you know, when they're playing a top player and they
win the first game, they like, oh, come on, and
he's like, uh.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
There's a lot more whoa, whoa, whoa, there's a lumma
would to cut.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
Come the farm, little one. You've got two and a
half hours left of this and if you can get
through it, you can give the come on after winning
a set maybe, but until then. But these are all
things you learn because you don't know how to react
in big moments, and he's just gonna learn to. This
is like and I will also say second nature for me. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
He played I think twenty five Argentinians in a row
in Argentina. It was incredible. I was like, oh my god,
he's playing an Argentine again and he handled it. And
granted that there were a lot of Brazilian fans there
and they kept a nice balance against the Argentine wall
of fans, but but man, that was incredible. He not

(01:03:54):
only won his first title, he wanted in Argentina again
basically except for Jarrett in the Semis against every single
Argentinian player that plays out there right.

Speaker 1 (01:04:03):
Now, Well done, mister Fonseka. We cannot wait to see
the future for you. We cannot wait to see what
a man a Nissa Mova can do at Indian Wells.
I think she's going to be real tough to be.

Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
There was there was, honestly, you go in bed winning
and Marseille defending his title. But I think honestly there
were a lot of favorites that lost early on Zvera
f lost to Cirrindolo.

Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
Never did what is happening with him? Coaches, He's like
moving on. He can't win a match he won today
against Hutchanov.

Speaker 3 (01:04:32):
Yeah but but but just in the end, it was
a super fun week having any Simova on top, having
fun second on top, in bed, defending his title in Marseille.

Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
It was a fun week in the end. I think
everyone got what they wanted.

Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Including Sinner. Yeah joking, I'm joking, would have liked to
have not had three months, says, yes, Sinner got exactly
one who.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
Wanted does not clear.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
Anyway, We are sitting here watching Baratini, Djokovic. Nice to
see Novak back because we weren't sure about his leg
situation after straight and open, but he.

Speaker 2 (01:05:10):
Is back and he's playing doubles.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
And he's playing doubles well, he hasn't played a lot
of matches.

Speaker 2 (01:05:14):
Since he's one with Verdesko and six black sixth six one.

Speaker 1 (01:05:22):
Was anyway, all right, guys, Well thanks for joining me
again today. Petco. We are back in New York. I am,
and we'll be in Indian Wells and Miami, so you'll
see me there and we'll do some player interviews. Maybe
maybe we can grab a couple of players. But in
the meantime you're going to New Welles. I am.

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
Nice.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
Yeah, so we'll talk about that off camera, off Mike,
just kidding. I'm gonna go get my hair cutter.

Speaker 2 (01:05:48):
We were pretty good one.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
We looked at our schedule for today and thought we
got a lot to talk about. But anyway, guys, Ipe
you enjoyed it for today. You'll hear from us again
next week. Appreciate you. I cry

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
F