B (2:07)

It is match point. As most people know, in Slam season, the men play best out of five sets. Benjamin Bonzi, a Frenchman who has beaten Daniil Medvedev before, in fact, dismissed him in the last Grand Slam, meets Daniil Medvedev, a former U.S. open champion, a Russian who. Who is sort of hilariously volatile a lot of times, sometimes more Volatile than hilarious, but usually a mix of both. Um, and Benjamin Bonzi is on the verge of seeing off Dani Medvedev again and really making a complete dog's dinner of what has been already a pretty bad season for Daniil Medvedev. Uh, Benjamin Bonzi steps up to the line to serve, hits a fault. The cameraman, thinking the match might be over, runs onto the court. The umpire says, no, no, sir, and tells him to get off the court. Benjamin Bonzi looks up to the chair umpire asking if he will get, in fact, a second, a second attempt at a first serve. Instead of a second serve, the umpire grants it to him. Daniil Medved loses his top and basically turns the Louis Armstrong Stadium into the Coliseum of Rome.

A (3:13)

And it sounded a little bit like this.

B (3:15)

It's not a Medvedev US Open match without some late night theatrics though, right?

C (3:20)

Totally inflaming this crowd.

B (3:23)

I mean, look at him. I'll tell you what, if Bonzi doesn't win this next point, it's gonna be difficult. Please, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bonzie is ready to serve. Please. And good luck getting this crowd to quiet down.

A (3:49)

What was your reaction to that?

B (3:51)

Hearing it, I ran into the stadium, I was leaving, and I said, whatever's about to happen is something I need to see. Keep in mind, match point means literally just moments away from sealing victory. What happened in the moments that transpired after another like five and a half, six minutes of what we just heard? Booing, raucous incitement. And, you know, the crowd, late, filled with a lot of Grey Goose honeydewses, is not inclined to, you know, not be dramatic.

A (4:15)

That's a drink, by the way.

B (4:16)

That's a very popular cocktail that in and of itself is, you know, worth millions of dollars of ip. That's they're pumped because this is not only now a circus, but also potentially a match. And Danil Medvedev, because he's an entertainer and because he's experienced and even though he's having a very, very bad season, knows that if he can turn the crowd into a bit of a weapon, then he's got a chance to stay in this match. That's exactly what he did. You just heard ESPN commentator Sam query right there saying, if Benjamin Bonzi doesn't win this point, this whole thing could change on its head. And that's, in fact, what happened. Daniil Medvedev won the third set. Seven, six. In a tie break. He won the next set, six love. And the two of them had what became a very epic battle that I stayed for until about 1:30 in the morning to watch. And it ended in a very grateful speech from Benjamin Bonzi and a complete nuclear level breakdown from Daniil Medvedev who annihilated his racket. And basically, you know, if he had any marbles left, he left them on the court. So you know, it's a great one moment in the first day.

A (5:22)

Wow.

B (5:23)

Of what we have to look forward to for two extra weeks. Usually there's some drama.

A (5:27)

First day though, that's pretty big first day.

B (5:29)

A headline the world round about a epic umpiring photograph credentialing player. You know, conflagration, you know, it's great. Like what a good, you know, we can parse the individual pros and cons of each participant's you know, activities during this, this happenstance. But you know, look, we're talking about it, it's dramatic and you know, for, for people heading out there, they, this could always, you know, you never know what's gonna happen.

A (6:00)

Listeners, are you planning to attend the US Open in Queens this year? Are you gonna watch a tournament on tv? Do you have a favorite player? Our phone lines are open to you. 2124-3396-9221-2433-WNYC. I'm speaking with Caitlin Thompson, founder of Racket Media. We're discuss open tennis tournament. All right, Italian Jannik Sinner is the world's number one player. What is his style of play, if you had to describe it?

B (6:30)

Hmm, good question. It sort of matches his personality. It's sort of insistent, very, very stoic but powerful. He's sort of, you know, the ice to the fire and ice of Janik and Carlos Alcaraz who we talked about just a little bit before. He's, you know, he's an Italian, he's from the northern part. He's sort of Swiss, German in his kind of demeanor. He's very low key and he's somebody who puts his head down. He's not going to overwhelm you with flash or shot making but he is going to punishingly move you side to side largely from the ground and just absolutely not miss. This is really his tournament to lose. And so it's appropriate that we're kind of starting out with him. He's very, very impressive but he's also like a fine tuned machine.

A (7:18)

He had a virus earlier this year. He had earliest year a few weeks ago.

B (7:23)

That's right.

A (7:23)

And a fever as well. Do you think this is gonna affect his chances?

B (7:27)

It's Hard to know. I kind of doubt it. He's had a couple of days to recover, but he has had what most folks would say is one of the more envious seasons of the year, which is he started out by winning the Australian Open, which was amazing. He beat Carlos Alcaraz to win Wimbledon, which. Which is an incredible turn of events because Carlos Alcaraz has sort of widely been seen as at least the superior player on the natural surfaces. As you know, the tournaments move from hard to clay to grass, back to hard courts. And Jannik Sinner on hard courts has been sort of perceived as sort of very, very, very difficult to beat. He's definitely the best player on that surface, whereas Carlos Alcaraz has been the natural surface player. They had a match earlier this year at the French Open preceding Wimbledon, and Carlo Alcaraz came back and won it. So really, the reason I'm bringing those two into conversation is they're not only a contrast in styles and emotions, but also the titles of the Grand Slams for really the past two years plus have gone back and forth between the two of them.

A (8:30)

They're like Federer or Natter Nadal, very.

B (8:32)

Similar to Federer Nadal both in terms of the fire and ice duality, the tactics, the style of play, but also the fact that they have their each sort of more preferred surface. And the other ones are kind of trying to catch up. So Yannick Sinner is certainly the favorite. He pulled out of the final against Carlos Alcaraz after a few games just last week in the final of Cincinnati, which a lot of people were looking at as like, okay, this will be a preview of what's going to happen. I am curious. I'm going tonight. I'm curious to see what kind of Carlos Alcaraz will see, because how well Yannick Sinner's chances are really depend on how good Carlos Alcaraz is playing. Kind of no matter what, I still give Yannick Sinner the edge. So I think for betting purposes, not that I want to endorse any of that, but for betting purposes, I still think it's Yannick Sinner's tournament to lose.

A (9:17)

Talk about the women's side. Now, the two favorites are Zvitek and Sabalenka.

B (9:21)

Right?

A (9:24)

Who do you think has the upper hand going in?

B (9:27)

It's a great question. And up until even a few months ago, weeks ago, I would say Irina Sabalenka, who's won the title. She is a ferocious Belarusian. She's got a massive tiger tattoo. She's basically the walking embodiment of charisma, swagger. You know, there have been players, especially on the women's side, who we can maybe come to mind. I don't want to make too many comparisons, but, you know, she's an outsized personality. She's the number one player in the world. She is also the number one player in the world without a title at a Grand Slam this year, which is sort of. That's interesting. Yeah. And I think a lot of people favored her not only to win the Australian Open, but also certainly Wimbledon, where her fast and sort of penetrating groundstrokes have an advantage over IGA Witek, who kind of like we were talking about with Carlos Alcaraz, is a much more comfortable clay court player. She likes to play a little slower. She likes when the ball bounces up a little higher. Now that IGA Witek has seemingly cracked the code and had a breakthrough at Wimbledon, one Cincinnati on hard court, which she hadn't won before, she's kind of going in with, I think, both confidence and the right amount of expectations, which is to say, you know, I think she, it's kind of her. Her tournament, I think, to lose. Irina Sabalenka has not looked herself. I think she has been sort of self conscious and her outsized personality and all the endorsements and all the stuff that comes with it. You know, I'm never one to say, like, oh, well, you know, you're an athlete, stick to sports. But I do think a lot of her game is predicated on the fact that she's a little bit fearless. When you become a sort of. When you sell that fearlessness and that's part of your performed Persona, I think sometimes it might seep in and you might start to wonder how much of that is really real. I think kind of that's what we're seeing with Sabalenka. That said, she's still super dangerous and she could beat anybody in any day, on any surface, at any time. So those are the most sort of likely characters. But, you know, really, both tours have a lot of depth, especially the women.

A (11:14)

Let's take a couple of calls. This is Pia calling from Long Island City. Thanks for making the time to call all of it.

B (11:21)

Hi.

D (11:22)

So I'm Pia. I'm a lifelong tennis player, and I've been going to the US Open for decades. What I've seen in the last few years is like, more people are engaging with the US Open, more people are interested in watching and playing tennis. And the crowd has evolved, like at one point, like a couple, like a few years Ago, I was watching at the US Open and it's like a shot happening and in between the match, someone's like, hey, can I go to my seat? And years ago, it wasn't like that. People followed more tennis etiquette where a light clap was only heard, and now it's like cheering and booing and more engagement, like a baseball and football game. So I think definitely how the US Open has changed over the years, for better and worse.

A (12:11)

Do you think American audiences are unique?

B (12:14)

I think they are, yes. I think they are unique and they are a little bit more similar to the Australians than the Europeans. If you were to just compare Grand Slam to Grand Slam, I think when we were talking a little bit earlier, Pia, about the innovations that the US Open has given, it has really been ahead of the curve for a very long time. I think they were the first to preview night sessions, which is when, you know, if you've had a few cocktails in the afternoon, then the night session rolls around, things get raucous and it sort of faint. Famously been the place where, you know, a lot of late night theatrics happen. The players kind of know that they talk about it, and to hear them talking about it, it is something that, that they really realize and know and, and kind of have to prepare for or prepare around. So if you're asking me if my opinion of that is that it's good or bad, I, I, I can, I can sort of see both sides of it. I'm not a traditionalist, I'm not a purist. I remember taking my wife, a lifelong basketball player, to tennis and her being appalled at how soft the tennis players are, that nobody can make a peep and sit down. And, you know, she came up of age when the New York Knicks, you know, Spike Lee, was basically getting in Reggie Miller's face. So, you know, I do think part of the evolution of the game is just this embrace and for better or for worse, an evolution of the type of fanship. If we want more engagement, you know, I think we, we, we kind of have to accept that there's going to be a little broader of a definition. I will say my hard and fast rule is I am a cheerer. If somebody is doing something you like, cheer. I'm never a booer. I tend to only applaud good shots. I never applaud double fall to root against anybody. That sort of is the little bit of tradition that I kind of keep inside me. If you're looking for a little bit.

A (13:55)

Of fun, you write, you wrote that Jack Draper and Ben Shelton are both big hitting, fun, charisma bombs.

B (14:03)

Yes, that is absolutely true.

A (14:05)

What does that mean on the court?

B (14:07)

You can see that there are certain players like we were just talking about who kind of get a lot of energy from the crowd. They really like the idea that things are raucous. Ben Shelton is the best example. Ben Shelton played US College tennis at the University of Florida. Now, anybody who can read between the lines of that means that he likes a gladiator, gladiatorial. He doesn't mind, you know, a hostile crowd. He doesn't mind a supportive crowd. He's going to use the crowd kind of like Daniil Medvedev did as a weaponization last night. Jack Draper is sort of similar. He's a big hitting lefty who's both got swagger and, you know, they enjoy the stage of it. Neither of them are going to shrink from the moment. We were kind of talking about Yannick Sinner a little bit ago. He has embraced the pressure. He understands the moment. He knows that he's got to win on the greatest stages. He's not somebody who's going over to the crowd and pointing at his ear to hear a little bit more cheering right now. That's not a critique of him. But in contrast, you've got the Ben Sheltons and the Jack Drapers. They're definitely fun to watch. Even if I don't know that either of them are going to win, lift a trophy at the end of this thing, you know, don't miss them while you can, because they will make your U.S. open experience that much more engaging.

A (15:10)

I wanted to ask you about Coco Gauff. She just fired her coach.

B (15:15)

Yes.

A (15:17)

What was the reasoning?

B (15:18)

What's going on?

A (15:19)

Yeah.

B (15:19)

Well, I have to preface this by saying the last time you and I spoke, Alison, about Coco Gauff, I made a prediction that I didn't see her getting to the second week, and that was the prediction that turned out to be the year that she won the tournament. So, you know, I will say take everything I say with a grain of salt in terms of the results, because sometimes the players come alive and you don't think they're, you know, they're going to do it. I truly don't think Coco Gauff's gonna get so far this tournament. She's had a fantastic year. She won the French Open, which is amazing.

A (15:43)

She's only 21.

B (15:44)

She's only 21.

A (15:45)

In my mind, she's been around forever, and I was like, she's just 21.

B (15:48)

I watched her play in juniors when she was probably 15, seven or eight years ago. I just. She's absolutely still somebody who's in formation. I think it's a fantastic sign that she has hired a new coach and fired her old team, because Coco Gauff has done amazing things for her sport. She's done amazing things on the court, but she still candidly has some technical. I don't want to call them flaws, but she's got some technical stuff with her game that could get better, which is actually kind of really exciting. She's got some mechanical problems with her forehand, and she's got some mechanical problems with her serve, which is why when you watch things go bad, and they don't always go bad, but when they do, they go real bad, and it's usually because one of those two shots or worse, both kind of goes offline. So what she has hired is not only a new coach, she has hired a mechanics expert to break her game down and rebuild it. This guy also worked with Irina Sabalenka when she couldn't hit a serve in the court and was hitting 20 foot long, you know, bombs, and basically rebuilt the motion, which is very, very cool and actually kind of interesting and worthy of its own exploration. So whether they get that fixed in time for her to have impact of the matches, it's very unorthodox to hire or fire a new team, you know, days before probably what is arguably the biggest slam, certainly if you're an American. But, you know, I love that she did it, and I think that there's only gonna be positives that come from it. Maybe they're gonna be, you know, longer in the making, but either way, always eyes on Coco. Love Coco. Rooting for Coco. Don't know what she's gonna do this year, but I like that she's making progress.

A (17:12)

All right, Caitlin Thompson, we're about to run out of time, so I'm gonna book you for next week.

B (17:16)

Yes.

A (17:16)

Um, what should we keep in the last 30 seconds? What should we keep our eye on this week? Who should we keep our eye on?

B (17:22)

I think we gotta watch Carlos Alcaraz. And if you're at the grounds, go to the outer courts and watch somebody like Alex Yala, somebody from the Philippines who breaks through, you know, the. Some of the new players who have just nothing but potential in front of them, because then you can say, I saw them win.

A (17:37)

Kaitlyn, we'll get on your schedule for next week.

B (17:40)

It's a deal.

A (17:40)

That's Kaitlyn Thompson, founder of Racket media. And that's all of it. I'm Alison Stewart. I appreciate you listening. And I appreciate you. I will meet you back here tomorrow.

C (17:50)

Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.

B (17:58)

I need a coffee.

C (18:00)

And you need Lifelock. Because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. Or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

E (18:19)

I'm Ira Flato, host of Science Friday. For over 30 years, our team has been reporting high quality news about science, technology and medicine. News you won't get anywhere else. And now that political news is 24 7, our audience is turning to us to know about the really important stuff in their livescancer Climate change, genetic engineering, childhood diseases. Our sponsors know the value of science and health news. For more sponsorship information, visit sponsorship.wnyc.org.