By Nick Carter
During his opening press conference at the U.S. Open, three-time runner-up at a major and world number five Casper Ruud had this to say about tennis talkers on social media:
“Yeah, it’s this new, I guess, feed where you can put, like, I don’t follow that many people on Twitter or X, but you can get, like, content that is kind of based for you, in a way, based on who you follow and what you have done in the past.
“So I read a bunch of these, like, so-called tennis experts and their opinions, and it’s just insane. It annoys me in a way, because it’s just – I feel like if you haven’t played professional in the past, most of them have no clue what they are talking about.
“Their opinions, for fans, if anyone listens to what I’m saying, I would just not take more than maybe 5% of what so-called tennis experts on Twitter say as good info because it’s just not the way it goes.
“I could probably reply to many other things, but I just leave it, because it’s just interesting to see how people just exaggerate all the time on social media about anything. You go from being the best player in the world to the worst player in the history from one week to another, and it shouldn’t be taken serious.
“But it’s new modern world, I guess. Sometimes I like to interact, because, you know, I feel like sometimes my opinion can matter, but it’s more I have to be really annoyed to actually take the time to actually reply to someone (smiling).”
Coco Gauff then made similar remarks in her title winning press conference, following a general theme of proving the doubters wrong:
“People are like ‘oh, she’s hit her peak and she’s done and it was all hype’. I see the comments, people don’t think I don’t see them but I see them. I am very aware of Tennis Twitter, I know y’all usernames so I know who’s talking trash and I can’t wait to look at Twitter right now!”
Both of these statements have got me thinking about how I view myself as a tennis fan. I know more about the sport compared to most people I know in real life (outside the Popcorn Tennis community) and probably more than most sports fans or casual Wimbledon watchers. Does this make me an ‘expert’?
Now, it is definitely possible that if you watch enough hours of a sport, you will pick up on the nuances involved. I can tell the difference between a forced and an unforced error after a point. I can look at the differences in shot technique and court positioning and understand the outcome. However, to fully understand the sport, you not only need to understand sports science, physiotherapy, psychology but also have experience of being on a tennis court in all kinds of environments. To be an expert, you need to completely understand what players go through. I mean 100% knowledge. That’s a high bar. You can still learn a lot from watching hundreds of hours on TV, it’s probably enough to get you 75-85% of the knowledge anyone on the ‘inside’ has. This is what Casper Ruud is getting at.
The reality is that there are multiple types of tennis fans out there. There’s the fans of the sport, many of whom have followed it for decades, and just love it for what it is and binge-watch it. There are those who are fans of a specific player (or players) and everything they talk (or think) about is focused around them. Some are passionate not just about watching the sport, but also playing it. They may watch less of the tour but may spend more time on the court instead. Some of us are “tennis nerds,” who pore over the stats and try to understand the technicalities of the game. Separate from this are those who bet on tennis, who do something similar but with the purpose of betting on the sport, which they do to enhance their enjoyment of it. There’s a group of fans who want to work in the sport, be it as coaches, line judges or journalists. This might also include those younger fans who dream of being a professional player! Finally, there are those who are obsessive enough to dream of working in the sport, but are content to write blogs or multiple social media posts detailing all their thoughts about it. I could put myself in many of these categories, in reality I’m probably in the latter (though I still have my favourites).
There are a lot of motivations to talk about the sport and to put forward an analysis of what we watched. Some of it is just about conversation with fellow fans. For others it’s about emotionally processing watching a certain player win or lose. For some, there is also an element of wanting to be taken seriously by the tennis world. To be noticed, whether you want to be employed or not. And there are those of us who find analysis really fun.
However, there is an element that as fans we will never get. Even if we play the sport, we are unlikely to hit a serve at over 100 mph or train for a five-hour tennis match or drill forehands until they become muscle memory. And, while we can ride the highs and lows of watching our favorites, the rush of winning and the crushing disappointment of losing is greater for the one on the court. Plus, we watch most of our tennis on TV. Anyone who has been to a tournament knows the sport can look very different at ground level. It’s why we appreciate commentators such as Chris Eubanks and Laura Robson because they have recent, first-hand experience of working on the court and the tactics needed to beat a modern player. They can give us insight based on first-hand experience.
This is not about spoiling people’s fun. We can still talk based on our understanding, but we have to be honest and admit that it is limited. Over the last year, I’ve been part of conversations about the flaws of Coco Gauff’s forehand, Iga Swiatek’s serve and the limits of Casper Ruud’s abilities. Now, in the context of analysing a match, it makes sense. Paula Badosa in Madrid hit to Gauff’s forehand waiting for it to break down (interestingly a less effective tactic against Coco this U.S. hard court season). We can frame it as what Badosa had to do to win the match. Or we can talk about how Novak Djokovic had the edge over Ruud in the Roland-Garros final. However, it is very easy to turn the conversation to how a player isn’t able to succeed at a certain level, and either suggest an improvement or (more likely) write them off. In the Gauff example, there were some views expressed that the way her forehand was she might have hit her limit. At 19! Most players don’t find their peak (or limit) until their mid-20s. Some don’t find it until their mid-30s. People calling for her to change the forehand without much thought for how long this would take (as it turned out, it took a few weeks) were oblivious at best and insensitive at worst.
The reality is it doesn’t matter how players win, as long as they do. Daria Kasatkina has long been called underpowered, yet she was ranked in the top ten last year and is safely top-20 in 2023. She wins more matches than she loses and has some good wins under her belt. Jelena Ostapenko should not have won a major with her high risk, low consistency game but she did at Roland-Garros in 2017. Casper Ruud has reached three major finals (plus a final at the ATP Finals) despite being most comfortable on clay and building a game around one shot, a very impressive forehand. He is also looking likely to be ranked in the top ten for three consecutive seasons. That’s within the Top 1% of pros and 0.1% of all those who play tennis. These players are professionals, they haven’t broken into the upper echelons of the game without having a crazy amount of success and hard work behind them. Any player has the level to beat the best in the world, the ranking gives a guide to how often they find it. Likewise, every tennis player loses. The higher their ranking, of course, the more scrutiny there is when they lose. But it feels like players can’t have bad days or lose to a low ranked player having a good day. When we turn on our TV, even for a 250 event we are watching highly skilled athletes. They are not bad at what they do, even when they lose, just not as good as whoever won on the day.
Of course, there is a difference between winning professional matches and winning the biggest possible matches. There is a difference between these achievements, and the margins between the players are fine. Coco Gauff still got to world number six with her shaky forehand, and a small change was enough to see her win her first major! Some of the conversations after the U.S. Open final immediately turned to what Aryna Sabalenka did wrong. She didn’t play her best, Gauff was able to frustrate her enough to stop her from finding it. Again people are setting limits on her abilities. This is what I think frustrates actual players. Once an ‘expert’, be it a former professional like Martina Navratilova or a Twitter fan like myself decides that Gauff’s forehand is vulnerable to pressure, Sabalenka’s footwork isn’t the best, Rybakina has too many injury issues, Swiatek isn’t able to evolve her game or Raducanu will never find that 2021 level again, that is it. That player is put in a box and they will forever be doubted. There’s no room for them to prove us wrong, until they do. That is what Gauff set out to do and where she found her motivation.
I am not an expert. I will give an opinion on what I see in a tennis match, because that’s what we fans talk about. It’s fun, it’s how we make friends and share our enjoyment of the sport we love. However, I know my limits. I have never even attempted to consider a professional career in tennis. My ethos regardless is that I’d rather look for what a player did to win a match than what happened for their opponent to lose it. Often, I post my views on social media, write about them for Popcorn Tennis or share them on YouTube or podcasts. However, I’m mindful of what a player would think of what I have written or said about them. Certainly, I’d be reluctant to offer opinions of what someone doesn’t do well or how to improve. By all means, I’ll mention any limitations I see during a match but I’ll reserve judgement on whether this limitation was temporary (brought about by the opponent forcing it or a bad day at the office) or a permanent fixture of someone’s game. Keep analysis to the moment, never assume it will stay like this forever.
Now, a lot of these kinds of judgments might be made in the heat of the moment, because we’re frustrated to see someone lose when we want them to succeed or because we lost a bet on someone we backed to win. To be fair, many fans acknowledge these emotions, and there should be space for anyone who needs to process how they feel. So, let’s be honest about our emotions in the moment and try our best to limit any judgments we might make.
Think of this as a manifesto for my brand of fandom. You don’t have to subscribe to it, life is probably more interesting if you don’t. But I refuse to claim I know better than Casper Ruud or Coco Gauff or any other professional tennis player. By all means, let’s talk about the amount of backhand errors someone plays in a match or how the winner exploited issues with the lateral movement of their opponent. Let’s talk about performances match to match. However, please, let’s not permanently write off or pigeon-hole someone. No one likes it when that happens in their own job. If I stray from this, call me out on it! In the meantime, let’s have a sense of perspective, be optimistic and have fun. We can still have an excellent conversation and my friends at Popcorn Tennis are very good at this.
Popcorn Tennis 