← Control the Controllables
Loading summary
Transcript173 lines
- [00:00]
Candy Reid
Foreign.
- [00:09]
Dan Kieran
A big welcome to Control the Controllables and our Wimbledon review 2026. And big apologies. I know that some of you have been waiting. We normally get these done a couple of days after the event. But just on a little bit of a personal note, we've had a difficult week in our family, as my amazing mam, as we always call up in the Northeast, passed away earlier this week. And I just want to dedicate this episode and I guess a little, little story on when I set the podcast up. She was diagnosed with dementia eight years ago. Seven. Eight years ago. And one of the things she used to do in the early stages of dementia is she would sit and listen to the podcasts. And that was something that, you know, kept her very connected to me. When she told me, you know, my kind of heart sank that that's what she was doing. And that was, that was always a big driver for this podcast that when I was speaking, I was always speaking to ma'.
- [01:18]
Candy Reid
Am.
- [01:18]
Dan Kieran
You know, living in Spain and traveling the world as a coach, never got home quite as much as I would like. And I guess it's, it's very fitting that in a week that we've had as a family, as we've said our goodbyes to her, that this episode is absolutely dedicated to her. She loved the podcast, she loved tennis, she loved Wimbledon. And the fact that it is
- [01:44]
Vozy
the
- [01:44]
Dan Kieran
Wimbledon Review is all the extra special. So rest in peace to my amazing mom and I hope you enjoy what is an incredible episode. You know, it's an episode that it does get a little bit fiery as we are talking about a passionate subject of ours, which is tennis and how we, how we continue to develop the sport of tennis. In the news that happened during Wimbledon, as they were talking about the getting rid of doubles type narrative that has been put in place, that is a big part of the discussion that we have on this episode today. And as well as talking about the great, the great champions that Nkova, the Czechs that are taking over once again at Wimbledon. And then Yannick Sinner's first Grand SLAM win of 2026, his fifth Grand Slam and playing a final against Alexander Zver, much improved Alexander Zverev. It's amazing what getting Roland Garros under your belt does. Then of course, Arthur Ferry and his run, which was, as everyone kept on calling it, a fairy tale run for a British player. I think this is a good one. It's Calvin Bet and is with us. He comes in a little bit late into this conversation. Freddie Nielsen and ever present on on the show and Kieran Forster as well with a little bit of a towards the end, Candy Reid jumped in and joined us as well. So always thank those guys for their time and I hope you enjoyed at our Wimbledon 2026 review. So Wimbledon 2026 review. Panelists, how we doing?
- [03:27]
Freddie Nielsen
Good, thanks. How are you?
- [03:29]
Dan Kieran
Yeah, good, thank you. And I know, sorry we're a few days late guys, but I think it could be interesting for us to look at this one with a week's reflection. Sometimes we only have 24 hours reflection. Looking back on Wimbledon 2026 where we're going to start, Fred, I think my
- [03:50]
Freddie Nielsen
takeaway is a little bit the same from French Open. It seems like the ones that have been dominating are starting to maybe show a little bit of weakness and running out of steam and it's going to open up for a little bit. We talked about it in Paris, the Wild west with results and it makes it a little more interesting and on men's and women's side. So it seems like the days where you go into a slam and basically all the match are open are coming back. So for me it makes it a little bit interesting. If you look at it from a non analyzing spectator view, obviously analyzing the tennis and I think the quality is a little more random. But I don't mind it as a spectator because I found it to be a little bit boring at times as well that it was so stale. But yeah, I think it's interesting. I like it.
- [04:36]
Dan Kieran
Even on the men's side.
- [04:37]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, I think Sinat didn't look great. I think he got away with a few scares. Obviously he played his best tennis when he needed to. But my takeaway was he was such a big favorite in Paris and in Wimbledon and he had no physical scares in Wimbledon. But I wasn't convinced by his tennis in the first few rounds. He got away with a few and it left me with. If I were another player, I would be thinking that he might be there for the taking even though he ended up winning. And yeah, I think if a guy like Zverev is starting to make Wimbledon finals, I think he might be going into a few years where he has his best years and he could be potentially disrupting the top two a little bit if they continue showing, I'm not going to say weaknesses, but that they might not be as consistently good as they have been for, for a few years now.
- [05:29]
Dan Kieran
And Vozy on on Sinner, it is his first Grand Slam title of 2026. You know, I think we, we've talked about his dominance, but he hasn't dominated certainly the Grand Slams. I know he has the masters 1000s, and I think that's a. An interesting storyline to look out for the rest of 2026. Can he. Can he win all of them this year? You know, I certainly think he'll be. You'll be trying to give it a. Give it a, Give it a good goal, but what, what makes him. You. Freddie used the word boring there. I've used the word boring. It's not a. It's not a dis of Yannick Sinner. And then even Freddie.
- [06:07]
Freddie Nielsen
I mean, I mean, more to the fact. I meant more to the fact that the results were pretty much given.
- [06:11]
Dan Kieran
Yeah, that's what. But I know, and that's what I've said. It's not. This is not a diss of Yannick Sinner being boring, but like, it's, it's almost like. And we've all. You've also said there, Fred, that he looked like he was a bit vulnerable left, yet he. He didn't drop a hole bunch of sets. I think he dropped three sets in the whole tournament. So. So.
- [06:29]
Freddie Nielsen
But he won his first round in five sets as was down two sets to one.
- [06:33]
Dan Kieran
Yeah, but, you know, but, but, but my point is, what is it that makes him so good, Vozy? Because even when we're talking about not being at his best, he's still come away winning Wimbledon.
- [06:43]
Vozy
Yeah. I mean, obviously, I think your. Your great champions know how to win when. When they're playing badly. I, I was lucky enough to actually go and watch the final live. And the level of tennis that they both played was incredible for, I mean, for a set and a half. I mean, Zerev was a joke. I mean, he was serving out of mountain. He was ripping the ball, ripping the forehand, ripping the backhand. And I think, like it said, Sinner didn't know what to do. But then one thing I noticed with Sinner was he then started playing with the real estate on the return. So he started standing like, right way back, like five, five, six feet behind the baseline. And then he would step forward and, you know, he was just trying to break up the rhythm of Zara serve. Yeah, he was just his quality of shot like, like his lateral movement, his. His quality of shot like the, the. The way he hits that forehand and backhand and the way he just dominates in a rally, like standing so close to the baseline, forcing, Forcing the player back. And you know, he mixed it up a lot to Zara's forehand. And then Zara started making mistakes. He played mixed up the drop shots and then you know, obviously he, he serves incredibly well. I thought, I thought the standard of tennis in the, in the final was exceptionally high and he saved his best tennis to the last. So you know, having seen it, I mean, yeah, he, he struggled at the start of, the start of the tournament, but that center court is very different on day 13 than it is on day one. It was greasy, it was slippery. And also Manovich is a tough player for him to play because management plays fast as well and you know, he hits, he. It's to a certain degree similar to, to Sin in terms of the ball flight. But, but Sin is just a, just a better tennis player. So it was no surprise. I think, I think one of the big things for me is, is actually what Freddie said was it was going to be the year of the Brits and you know, he started with 0 for 10 on day one. So we were having a laugh on the group chat. But, but actually, you know, what Arthur did was, was incredible. So I think. Yes.
- [08:49]
Freddie Nielsen
Who won men's doubles?
- [08:52]
Vozy
A guy called Henry. Oh right, yeah, a guy called Henry Patton. But that's another, that's another conversation we, you know, we could talk for ages about. On, on.
- [09:02]
Freddie Nielsen
It wasn't a vintage call. It wasn't a vintage call, but I will say that the Brit still had some of the best results they've had in a long time. And it must, I wasn't there for the tournament but surely it was a big story that that fairy was doing well.
- [09:14]
Vozy
Yeah, it was huge. It was huge. It was in the manner he did it in, in the, in some of the results he had along the way, especially down against Bergs in the fourth and the, and the fifth. But I think the match against Dimitrov, I think it's fair to say that Dimitrov choked. Three, two up a break. Four, three up a break. And the fourth regain that Dimitrov played was atrocious. It was horrendous. But that's not taking anything away from the performance of Arthur and what he did in order to, to get to where he was. And you know, Zarab was a better player in the final but in the semi final. But you know, his feeling of belonging and knowing that or wanting to be there. I think he has great, that self belief. So it'll be interesting to see how, how he is for the next year because he's got a free shot at it for a year. He was going to be in all the all the big, big events and where the players now, you know, obviously will pay big more attention to see if they can work out how to play him or what they need to do. But I think he'll be fine. I think, I think he'll be fine up there.
- [10:14]
Dan Kieran
Yeah. I mean, I think cabal, it was interesting. Cavali obviously had the, the word on ferriers get after his forehand, right? He's got a beautiful backhand. He, you know, he times the ball fantastically well. And Caboli was looking up at his box and saying the old classic tennis player one, you know, he was serving to the forehand and Ferry was just hitting 4 on winner after 4 on winner and it was like the old thumbs up to the box. Yeah, good, good one. Yeah, good one.
- [10:40]
Vozy
Yeah.
- [10:41]
Dan Kieran
You know, like the old, the old classic the tennis players do now. I mean, I think just a quick one on Ferry, but I do want to bring you back, so I want to ask you, Vozy in particular, someone about sinner. And then I want to just have one quick conversation about Zverev as well before we fully move on into kind the rest of the tournament. But you know, Ferry, I think the most impressive thing for me is how he produced in the moments, I think where Freddy, where, where we've been used to the, the great losers, where we're good losers at Wimbledon. The Brits obviously taking out Andy Murray, taking out Tim. He and the players that, you know, have been kind of pushing to win the event. You know, these kind of lower rank Brits over the years have traditionally had these incredible matches at Wimbledon where they've lost seven, six and the fifth set or they've had a match point and then they've lost. Goran Ianisovic has served a second service and it was just a heroic loss. Or Barry Cowan playing against Sampras and went to five sets or you know, that we're, we, we're good at that. We've done, we've done that. Whereas Ferry came out of a couple of matches and that's against Bergs, who's actually two sets to one four one double breakdown. Yeah. And he was also then four one down again in the fifth set, you know, so, you know, the fact that he, he turned those matches around and the same with Dimitrov, turned those matches around and was able to stay composed on the biggest of stages in the biggest of matches and wasn't content just losing those matches, I think says so much about Arthur Ferry and what he's got gonna bring in his future. And I Think I think he probably is a legit top 50, 60 player in the world. You know, is he a legit top 20 player in. Not so sure about that, but I think he probably is a legit top 50, top 60. You follow his story. You see the way he's gone. He was probably ready to go pro when he was younger but decided not to because he's got his head on his shoulders. He wanted to go and get, you know, go to Stanford and experience the US College life. Now this is good timing that Calvin's come in and a big welcome, Calvin Petton and a big congrats again from, from all of us on this guy. Just kind of mopping up Wimbledon and Grand Slam titles. And I'm sure we're going to get to plenty of doubles discussions in a bit. But I was actually about the fraud to Vozi because we were talking about Jannik Sinner. Calvin, I remember you saying about a year or two back on here that Jannik Sinner is not an elite mover on the court. And I want to, I wanted to throw that to you, Vozy. We were talking about Sinner because I think, I don't, I don't think we often give Sinner the credit that he deserves. Like he, he serves his serve beautifully in the final and he serve his much more leap than we often give him credit for. What's your take, Bozzy, in terms of Yannick Sin as a mover, as a
- [13:37]
Calvin Petton
mover on the 10 spot, his, his
- [13:40]
Vozy
movement and lateral movement, it's like, I call it flow like it flows like water. He has unbelievable balance. He doesn't give any real estate away on the, on the baseline when he's in a rally. And yeah, I think, I think he moves, I think he moves exceptionally well. I think he can get better maybe at the foot, at the moving, moving forward, but his, his lateral movement and ability to, to, to, to get offense, defense into offense is incredible. You know, the amount of times I've been in that final where I watch you think Zarif has him and then he just turns, he turns defense into offense just based on what he can do. You know, he's very, he's also really, really low. So his, he stays very low on the court, on the baseline and he has very wide base and his lateral movement is incredible.
- [14:27]
Calvin Petton
How's it going lads? Glad to be on blah, blah, blah. I should clarify that I, I, I said I thought he was, I didn't think he was an elite mover. I thought he was a good mover. Now I'll say a couple of things there that I think since then, I actually think he's improved greatly as a mover. But I think what I was saying was like, in terms of, like, if I, if I put in people like Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Peak, Murray as the real elite movers of the generation that I've just watched, I'm, I'm still, I mean, his line of work, he'll know better than me. I'm not sure he falls quite in that category of the very truly elite, but I, as I, he has certainly proved me wrong and that he started moving a lot better than I thought he was capable of.
- [15:16]
Vozy
Yeah, I mean, I, I mean watching him, watching him up is incredible. I don't understand how those little skinny legs can do what they do. It's incredible. I mean, he, he, I, I just like, wow, you know, what. His ability, his ability of the backhand side when he's pulled wide, how he hits that with an open stance that is strong. He holds it strong, you know, so he's strong in the core and then able to, to recover is incredible.
- [15:41]
Dan Kieran
Send your kids to the ski slopes, folks.
- [15:44]
Vozy
That's it, mate. That's it.
- [15:47]
Dan Kieran
And, and the other one before we do move in. So Calv, we, we've, we started off, we, we actually started a bit later. So you, you're not, you're not too far away. So thanks for jumping on. But Freddie, I'll throw this to you as well, but I'll also use it. The thing I, Calvin's made for podcasts because he, he does have comments that kind of stand out, you know, like, it's like. So I, I also, obviously Calvin's been quite outspoken on Zverev over, over the years, you know, and I think, I think we all have to a degree and I think the whole tennis world kind of saw as this basic joker, right? He was someone who was, was a choker, didn't, you know, second serve let him down for a long time. Ability to kind of hit his way out of a paper bag on his forehand side. You know, under, under any kind of score stress kind of went away. But it, it just felt to me that we had a different Alexander Zverev at Wimbledon this year. It felt like Roland Garros had kind of added a couple of, couple of inches to his, to his. Better be careful what I say here. A couple of inches to his height and a couple of inches to his chest as well.
- [16:55]
Freddie Nielsen
Almost.
- [16:55]
Dan Kieran
There was a little bit of more of like. And, and I Think, you know, Darren Cahill said it after the final as well, you know, all of a sudden. And Fozzie talked about it there, that first set and a half, couple of sets, there was a different Alexander Zverev, someone who was kind of playing more proactively, taking the game to center, not just kind of lying down. And taken at 6, 2, 6, 1 loss like we saw in Rome a few weeks earlier. What's. What. What. What's your take? Is this. Now. Do we see Zverev going to a bit of a different level now?
- [17:26]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, I think. I think he will definitely take belief in it. And I think also that what we've been talking about throughout the years with him, the reason why he's doing better is because he's improved outside. I think that even though he showed a little bit of weakness on the forehand side in Paris, I think one of the reasons he did well was he was definitely hitting it bigger than I've seen it before, and the same in Wimbledon. And I remember Cal also said that his ability to put away forehands was a liability to him, and he does that so much better. So he's. I think we've been pretty fair saying that he's a good player, but that the. The stuff that held him back, I think that is what has improved his. His level and giving him a chance to compete at Slam level, winning Slams. And he's taking. I think, obviously, I don't know about this, but I. I would think that he will. He's the kind of player that takes a lot of gusto and belief out of winning a Slam and. And kind of thinking, okay, I'm here now, and build on it and not making it, oh, I did it, and be happy. I think he's gonna cement himself. I think he's got the. The personality to build on it. And seeing that, okay, he almost beats. In Wimbledon, the guys are maybe not as strong as they have been. Even just a small thing like he. He won very comfortably against Fritz, who completely has his number. And I think he's. Like I said earlier, he might be coming into his. His best years coming up because he. I think he's pretty good at improvement. The second serve, like you spoke about, is not the same liability. And he seems like he's taking it more to the opponents and trying to take the outcome more in his own racket. And I think it's a positive thing for him.
- [19:06]
Dan Kieran
You seeing the same car, I thought, in the final.
- [19:10]
Calvin Petton
I thought for the first hour of the final, he hit his Forehand as well as I've ever seen him hit it. And I thought was going to eat my words. And that's. A few people were texting me and I was there watching it with Henry and Lou was actually with us as well in the house that Henry and I were staying in. And, And I kept saying, although I wasn't entirely confident as I was saying it, I was going, let's see how it is in an hour as it gets to the business end of the match. And it went, it reverted to type. That's the thing. That was the change in the match for me. Well, in the first, the first set and a half, he was absolutely leather in his forehand. And then after that, he went back to doing what he tends to do on his forehand, which is not miss a whole lot and not do any damage on it. And when you start doing that, then cine will start eating you up. But, but yeah, you know, he's, he's improved certain areas of his game, like without a doubt, you know, he's, he's. Second serve's the biggest difference. His backhand's still a great shot. I still don't think he can volley and he doesn't miss many forerunts. That's the thing. He, you know, he doesn't. He can, he can just repeatedly put forearms in court, but I still don't think he has the capacity to, to put the ball away often enough at the, the very, very top of the men's game.
- [20:19]
Dan Kieran
Yeah, we're also saying he almost. What he did, he lost in four sets. Right. So it wasn't.
- [20:24]
Vozy
Yeah, but what I found, what I found, like when. If Sinner started playing him like not floaters, but gunk to the forehand. And then he, he shanks a lot, but if you, if you're hitting hard to the forehand, you'll use that pace. And I think Sinner started mixing it up a little bit in the, in the fourth and fifth set and yeah, he started missing a bit more, but nothing it should not take away from the, the, the, the level that Sinner played that final, he was exceptional, I
- [20:52]
Calvin Petton
think, as well in it. I think what it showed is that. And something for a lot of players to take note of that. It's not always you start great on the day and it just carries on that way. He was, he was out of sorts in the first set and half of the second, and then he found another level.
- [21:07]
Vozy
I thought Zerev's level in the first set and a half was exceptional.
- [21:12]
Calvin Petton
He was Fozzie. But I think that there was like, there were a few points where like Sinner had like, you know, he'd have like a mid court ball and he'd miss it and you know, balls that you don't think he normally misses. Zverev was playing great, there's no doubt. But it was more the balls that Sinner was missing during that first set and then specifically during the tie break and then for the first half of the second set, I thought like, yeah, he looks like a bit shaken up here. But you know, he steadied himself and brought the last hour of the match. He was phenomenal.
- [21:39]
Dan Kieran
That's where five sets is. Five sets is nicer for a player.
- [21:43]
Vozy
Yeah.
- [21:44]
Dan Kieran
You know, if you're playing best of three, that match can, that match can go. We, it's like we see on the double side, right? It's like, like when you're playing the, the match tie breaks, it's like poor. Anything can happen here. Sudden death match tiebreaks. But you play the long form of three sets, you kind of feel a little bit that you can, you can get your foot in the door. And that's only an added extra. I do want to mention Djokovic because we did him every night, apart from the last two, which I, I apologize to you, avid listeners for that. But hopefully at the start of the podcast that'll make sense to you if you listen at the start of the podcast, why. But every night I was building djokovic up to 25. I just, you know, and it's obviously it's a story, it's a big story in the sport, but it just did. It felt to me that it was, it was going in that direction, but he just, yeah, it almost was a non match really, in the semis.
- [22:41]
Calvin Petton
Freddy.
- [22:41]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, I was expecting a lot more from him, but. And maybe he was himself. Maybe he saw what I saw, that, that there was an opening for him against Sinner. Even though he was winning his matches, I wasn't completely convinced by it. And Cena came out and played pretty well. And I felt like he knows now, Novak, that he can't beat those guys when they hit close to home. And he looked defeated to me in a way that he would never have taken it like that 10 years ago. That was a little bit surprising to me, especially after that match against Felix. I thought two days off, I thought he was going to come back firing, thinking here's my chance. But I was very surprised by, by how it went down. It seemed like he didn't believe he could win it, which is pretty much the opposite of what he's been all of his career. This disruptor, this. Here I am. Nobody's telling me what I can and cannot do.
- [23:34]
Dan Kieran
And a couple of other little shout outs on the men's side. Mochizuki making fourth round. Pretty impressive. Pretty impressive run. I don't know if that's a player that any of you are familiar with.
- [23:48]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah. And, but also that match against Sinner also made me think that wasn't a particularly good match from Sinner either, even though he ended up winning in straights.
- [23:57]
Vozy
Look, I think, I think, I think the Novak, going back to Novak is that listening to his interviews, he just said, my body doesn't recover like it used to. And, and that that quarterfinal match took too much out of him. And I still stand by that. You know, if you, if you've got Novak playing two matches a week, he's top two, top two in the world. But he, he just. I can't see him doing it anymore. It's just too tough. It's. And he's. And you know, he said it's a biological age now that, you know, it's just taking too much out.
- [24:30]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, it certainly looks like it when you watch.
- [24:34]
Dan Kieran
You guys seen the Nadal? Netflix?
- [24:37]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah.
- [24:37]
Dan Kieran
Doc, like when you, when you watch that. I actually watched it on the flight yesterday. It was like, that was ages ago when Djokovic was doing all those things. Like, it was like, it was a long time ago. Like, when you. It puts in perspective the age. I think we hear an age, and we hear, you know, how old is he now? 38. Is it 38? 39.
- [25:01]
Freddie Nielsen
39.
- [25:03]
Dan Kieran
Yeah, 39. We hear 39. But then when you actually put the perspective on what 39 means, and he's playing these like, unbelievable matches in this period, like around 2010, 2011, you know, we're talking years and years and years and years. Like what that, what that takes out. So when you looked at it, and this was. This is, this is incredible. Since Roland Garros 25. Calv, I don't know if you know this. So you've got Roland Garros 25, you've got US Open 25. And then you've got the three slams that have happened this year. How many other tournaments has Novak Djokovic
- [25:46]
Calvin Petton
played since the US Open? 25.
- [25:50]
Dan Kieran
Since Roland Garros 26.
- [25:53]
Calvin Petton
Roland Garrus 25. Right. So he played Wimbledon.
- [25:56]
Dan Kieran
She's played five. So we're talking six slams. Yeah, he's paid six slams.
- [26:03]
Candy Reid
Right.
- [26:04]
Dan Kieran
Other ATP. How many ATP events has he played in that time period?
- [26:08]
Calvin Petton
Right. He played Shanghai.
- [26:11]
Dan Kieran
Yep.
- [26:12]
Calvin Petton
He played Athens.
- [26:14]
Dan Kieran
Yep.
- [26:14]
Calvin Petton
Randomly. Didn't play Turin. He played Indian Wells.
- [26:19]
Dan Kieran
Yep.
- [26:19]
Calvin Petton
Didn't play Miami. I don't know if he played another clay court tournament this year.
- [26:25]
Dan Kieran
Four. Yeah, he's played four. Four tournaments. So, like this undercooked thing. He's been doing this for like a couple of years now where it's like. Like he just plays the slabs.
- [26:36]
Vozy
Yeah.
- [26:37]
Calvin Petton
I mean, he's. It's a strange position he's in now as well, because when he plays the Slams, like, the level is still there, but he's almost not playing best of five. He has. If he has to. If he's got any chance of, like, winning another. I don't think he can go five sets in any match. It's like he has a finite amount in the locker and it just takes too much out of him. The match he lost, he lost this year's Wimbledon in the match against Felix in that. Even though he won, he actually lost, I think.
- [27:05]
Vozy
Yeah.
- [27:06]
Dan Kieran
Even the two days wasn't enough, was it?
- [27:08]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, it's just not, you know, as we, as all of us know. It's just not at that age. Like, you know. You know, it's like you need a. You need a bit longer, don't you?
- [27:18]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, but I think also it was so. It was. Maybe I'm ignorant to this, but it was also a late match. So you would have gone to bed late maybe if it had been earlier in the day or something like that.
- [27:29]
Dan Kieran
None of. None of us got Noskova, right. What's wrong with you guys?
- [27:36]
Calvin Petton
I wasn't on. I didn't pick. So I would have picked Noskova, actually.
- [27:42]
Dan Kieran
Like, come on, Fozzie, what's your deal?
- [27:47]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, but what's your deal, Dan? I mean, she wasn't one of your 45 names.
- [27:53]
Dan Kieran
I'm sure I mentioned. I'm sure I mentioned her at some point over the last six years. I'm sure we can find a clip of me mentioning Oscar. I mean, she's actually someone who you.
- [28:07]
Freddie Nielsen
I've scouted Emily used to. Emily used to mention her a lot.
- [28:10]
Dan Kieran
Emily mentioned her a lot when she was coming through. But she is someone who I've scouted a lot because the girls have played her a lot in doubles. And I watch her and I'm like. I mean, she hits the ball beautifully, but she looks so unbothered with playing tennis. Every time I watch her, I'm like, what is going on? But what an Effort. That was in the final, by the way, Fozzie. I mean, six two, five, two up to have all of those match points. Talk about like the definition of head in the shed. Like the towel was over her head. She was completely gone. We all know that feeling. We've all seen players with that feeling. And you're thinking, oh, no. Oh, no. How is she gonna get over this? This is horrendous. This is horrendous. And then she's come out and she's. She's stepped up and. And won the third set.
- [29:00]
Vozy
Yeah. And. And she was match points down against Serana Cristir in the third round. Yeah. So she's had some adversity to deal with, but, yeah, great effort. I saw bits of the final. Great serve. Yeah, it's one of them that been able to turn that around. Well done to her. I did like Makova. I like Makova's game. I think it's well suited for grass. And a good effort by her, by the way, coming down from 6,000, 252. But yeah, well done to her in the end. World and champion. Not too sure how the All England Club are going to approve of a full member of the ring through her nose. But, you know, that's. That's neither here nor there. But yeah, I mean, it was brilliant. Well done to her.
- [29:43]
Dan Kieran
Check tennis, Freddie. Yeah, I mean, that's. I think it's figured out the last four champions, huh? Women's champions.
- [29:48]
Freddie Nielsen
Absolutely. My takeaway from my. With my, you know, being a national coach and stuff, I'm thinking, why, if Noskova can win and let's get Clara on there as well, that's my takeaway. I mean, it's, It's. If players like this start to win, why can't Clara? That's my take. But yeah, you're right. Check tennis, they just keep getting. Making each other better. And I agree with you, Vasi Mohova is a great player. I was very surprised that she didn't win, especially coming through that semifinal, but maybe there's something personal there. They're great friends and it's always weird playing your friends. I'm sure it's even weirder if it's in the Wimbledon final. I haven't really played many of my friends in bigger events than the club championships or something like that.
- [30:32]
Calvin Petton
On that one, that was something quite interesting. I'm not convinced that they are actually great friends, you know, because. Well, at the Wimbledon final, she even kind of suggested so. Because Marcus Buckland, who's hosting, kept Referring to playing your great friend and, and NASCAR was sort of, I don't know, the language barrier thing or what. But she kept correcting him to. Well, we know each other very well and I think it might be. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that they, they don't like each other a lot, but I think it might be one of those. They're both from Czech and they've played doubles together.
- [31:03]
Freddie Nielsen
And it's a better narrative and it sounds. Is a better sell for the story for the neutral fan who might not be completely into who they are.
- [31:10]
Candy Reid
Yeah.
- [31:10]
Calvin Petton
It was interesting, though. She didn't let it go with that. She was like, well, you know, then, you know, she said like, what was the talk after? And then she goes, well, she hasn't spoke to me since the match, so I don't. Hopefully she will.
- [31:21]
Dan Kieran
Yeah. Again. Yeah, it's the narrative, isn't it? I certainly, I certainly haven't seen them hanging out with each other at all.
- [31:28]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, it's not.
- [31:30]
Dan Kieran
I think that was the. Or she said it wasn't. We call her. Said the ex friend. Anyway, I think was what she said after in her speech. And then obviously just a couple of other mentions certainly on the women's side, Sabalenka, first time out of 14 grand slams that she's not made the quarterfinals. You know, losing to Osaka. Who made her first. First ever Wimbledon. Wimbledon quarterfinal. Not that I'm asking anybody to start changing coaching teams because you're not getting the results that you. That you want or you go through a little bit of a period, but I guess, I guess the, the media, not that we're media doing a podcast. It's the sort of questions that people start to ask. Maybe Cal, you know, Sabalenka seems to have had a little bit of a. Bit of a glitch over. Over the last, over the last few months. She doesn't seem to me somebody that's overly happy when she's losing. Do we all of a sudden see her throwing her toys out of prime and changing her coaching team over the next few months, or is this just a little glitch of her?
- [32:35]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, I mean, I've seen her have some almighty tantrums, particularly after last year's Australian Open. I saw a destroyer runners up trophy against the wall in the gym. You know, I don't think that's anything new. I think what is interesting with, with Sab Lanker is that she's. For a few years now she's had the sort of. When you play that style of play where it's ultra aggressive, she's just going all out, leathering everything. That's kind of like. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's easier to do that when you're in good form and full of confidence. And losing the odd match doesn't really affect you that much. But then when you start having not won anything in a while, not with anything big, you start questioning the shots a bit and then you can't play that style all the time. And I kind of think that's where she's at. She. This is the style of play she has, but she doesn't have the unwavering self belief. I don't think she's still a very confident player, but it's not that unwavering self belief that she previously had.
- [33:29]
Freddie Nielsen
I, I kind of agree with that because she was also pulling out some serpent volley and stuff. And that to me is. Obviously, it's great that you're trying to be proactive, but maybe she shouldn't be serving volume. She's just like you said, Kel, just annihilate the ball.
- [33:43]
Calvin Petton
Yeah.
- [33:43]
Freddie Nielsen
Is.
- [33:44]
Dan Kieran
Is the bigger issue right now. Igish Viontech. Fozzie. The coaching change hasn't made any, any difference to her, it seems.
- [33:52]
Vozy
I don't know. I mean, I don't. I don't know the. The answer. I mean, I think there's been some strange ones. I thought Felix has changed as well. Medvedev changing as well. Yes. I don't, I don't. I don't get those two.
- [34:04]
Freddie Nielsen
But.
- [34:07]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, yeah, I think, I mean, Vozzy's took it into what looks like a fantastic ice lolly there.
- [34:13]
Vozy
That's right.
- [34:17]
Dan Kieran
He wanted out of that question, didn't he? And he was just like, yeah, whatever, psychologist. And then get me out of there,
- [34:28]
Calvin Petton
I think as well. Like what? Look, one of the things with Sabalenka is like, you know, and again, like this might. I might be completely speculating here, but she's. She's had quite a lifestyle change in the last year, you know, so like you wonder whether the. The hunger is still. Absolutely there.
- [34:49]
Vozy
I think that. No, I think that. I think the hunger's still there.
- [34:52]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, maybe, maybe. But then things have changed though, you know, it'd be. It'd be missive us to say, you know, to pretend that nothing has changed. She's. Yeah, I mean, she's. Listen, maybe she's always been financed. She's been independently wealthy herself, but, you know, maybe it's not entirely A financial thing. You know, priorities sometimes change.
- [35:12]
Freddie Nielsen
There's a lot of people in her team now.
- [35:14]
Calvin Petton
I do find that we. Don't you find that weird with the singles guys now they've got like two, sometimes three coaches. I just wouldn't fancy me.
- [35:21]
Dan Kieran
They need more, but they need more money. We will get onto that. Maybe that's why they need more money to be able to bring in all, all of these extra coaches. We are going to jump into a topic that I think, I think all of us have, have strong opinions on. Vozzy, I actually don't know your stance on it, which could be interesting for the sake of this conversation. But you know we, we spoke about it a lot on the daily pods. I know myself and Calvin have been on a couple of podcasts talking about it as well. I actually, I don't know if I told you cal this. I think I did. I had Riley Opelka appeared in my DMs at one o' clock in the morning one night during Wimbledon. I had a big chat with Riley on this. There's obviously been a lot of conversation for a lack of a better way of putting at the ATP of proposing that they're going to basically edge out double specialists. Seems to be the process that they're working towards. The best way that I've kind of explained it in my head is some countries that want to get rid of smokers, they have the age of 19 smoking one year, then you have to be 20 the following year, 21 the next year, 22 the next year until eventually nobody can, can have the. No one has the age to buy cigarettes. It's going to be a quicker process than that. But ultimately they, they don't want to have a pathway in for players to just be doubles specialists getting rid of jobs. We've had Henry Patton calling the proposals elitist and shambolic. We'll get to Henry's what I thought was amazing speech that he made after, after, after winning Wimbledon as well as what he said about his fiance which has gone viral as well. He's got he the heart throb after what he said about his fiance as well. You know, everyone's. I'm hearing green flags everywhere for Henry Patton on that. But I want to start with Vozy if he's not getting himself another ice lolly because I, I think, I think me and Carl certainly are quite clear on our thoughts on all of this. But what's, what's your take, Vozy? Someone who's. You've been around the sport for many Many, many, many years. What, what's firstly, your understanding of what is being proposed because I think that's really under important in this, in this discussion. And, and secondly, what's your take on all of this?
- [37:49]
Vozy
I think the, My understanding is obviously that cutting, cutting the drawers by half and my understanding is that the player council were not communicating with, with the, the players in question and a proposal was done by the board without, without proper notification. And so a lot of the players were hearing it like without, without being informed. So they heard the end result without, without the information being given to them. Now look, I think I've spoken to a few people on the board. I've spoken to a lot, a lot of people and I think the product needs, needs a revamp. And, and you can't, you can't compare for me, you can't compare Grand Slams with current ATP events. Grand Slams, for example. People are buying tickets for Court One and I know you put a tweet out, the tweet out on the stand, people are buying those, those tickets months and months and months and months in advance because they going to Wimbledon and they will happily watch whatever is on Court One on that given day. So you know, they're not, someone's not buying a, a, a Friday, a Friday ticket of Court One going, I can't wait to watch wheelchair tennis or I can't wait to watch whatever doubles put on there or mixed or whatever. They, they're happy just watching that. Now the, the problem, the problem you've got in, in any walk of life is that if you, I'm going to try and articulate this as best as I can. If you're running, if you're running a business and let's, let's just say an ATP 250 business, you, you as the, the owner of that event are surely not running that event to, to, to make a loss. So you want to look at all aspects of the business like you would do if you're running your tennis academy. So you look at all aspects of the business and you look at, okay, where can, where can we cut costs in order to streamline our business? And so if it's, if the first thing is okay, so let's look at the doubles. Well, we, we've. I'm not, I'm. Let's say there's 16 people in the drawer. There's not exactly, that's another 32 rooms, but let's say that's another 20 hotel rooms that we pay for because they're coming just to play doubles. Then the, the expense of having those players there and then the pri, and then the prize money going towards. So if they would. Okay, we're streamlining costs. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, redundancies are very, a strong part of what we do across all businesses. But it seems like in, in the world of sport, the word redundancy is not allowed to be used. It's, it's, it's, it's. Well, you've got to, you've got to grow, grow, grow, grow doubles. I think you've got to grow the sport as, as tennis. Not just a specific within that. So I think, and then, and then if you streamline it and, and you're still losing money, but you're finding that actually the doubles is now the pro. And, and then looking at that product. So for example, on that product on, on at ATP events, it, let's just say you went down the college route where there's no warmup, your match goes on at two and you're playing one set. And on that set it's no, no ads, let calls, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, you know, your timeline on the court is 30 minutes. So most college matches start at 2. They are finished by 2:30 in the doubles. And it's exciting. I've seen it firsthand. I've been at college matches and I'm not, I'm saying, I'm not saying that's the answer, but the product needs, it needs a revamp that is, is going to, and with it, whether this is right or wrong. You know, if all of then all of a sudden you've got say Sinner and Alcaraz playing, I'm not saying they're playing better doubles than Henry and Harry, but you're gonna, you're gonna fill the stadium. Now they've tried this, they've tried, they've tried the product, the mixed doubles products. And, and for me now, Grand Slams are three week events, they're not two week events. So they've tried the product at, at the US Open, I think it was, I think it was successful with the mix. And, and then you, you've also, you've also got, you've also got then another revenue stream coming in. Now I know Calvin, you put something out there about Craig Tyler. Craig Tyler's never run a tour event. So he's talking from, he's talking from the pinnacle of the sport. It'll be interesting to see what he suggests about the products at Grand Slam level.
- [42:16]
Dan Kieran
So can I ask you, because I think there's a lot to unpack here and I think these are good discussions. Part of me actually listening to you, as much as I do respect you, I think we're missing a couple of bits which will maybe get to starting points for these because there's some assumptions that I think we're still making. But who have you spoken to on the board?
- [42:45]
Vozy
I don't want to mention names in terms, in terms of that because that's.
- [42:48]
Dan Kieran
But it's just not the problem because, because let me, let me say this. This is where I think the problem is, or one of the big problems is. And by the way, Candy, hello and welcome.
- [42:57]
Candy Reid
Hello, Dan. Hi, everyone.
- [42:59]
Dan Kieran
Hello. You've come in at a good time as we're, we're talking about the, the doubles proposals or what they are. But there's, there's a lot of. There's a lot of assumptions and there's a lot of hiding that's happening here. And, and let me just, let me just start off and then, please, I'm sure Carl, Freddie, Candy, you guys jump in. I just want to say, probably quite passionately, let's, let's cut the. And let's cut the assumptions. We're making a lot of. We're making a lot of assumptions here and it's very dangerous because there's absolutely no transparency here. You. I. We're not getting any transparency on who you're talking to. Not. Not you, Vozy. We're not getting any transparency on numbers. We're getting people like Alex D. Manua in press conferences. Nothing against Alex D. Manua being asked the question where the danger in this, and this would be the danger in any business or any relationship. False. There's a big, big danger here. We have to be very careful of. Alex D. Manua's response to ask about the doubles is. I've got lots of friends who play doubles and I feel really bad for them. But ultimately the numbers need to add up. You show me one place where we can see complete transparency on the numbers, where we can understand that doubles product as part of what is happening in the world of tennis is not sustainable. If it's not and it can be shown, then that's a different conversation to be had. But let's not base this on assumption. We're basing this on propaganda. And assumption is what's happening first and foremost, because. And then the problem is intelligent people like yourself, Fozzie, and other people in the tennis world, we are assuming that that is accurate. Doubles is not sustainable is what we're being told. But, but who, who we've been told by. We're not. We're being told that by the ATP board. Who's the ATP board? When you dig a little deeper, it's actually, it's a couple of relatively failed singles players that have got some serious agendas here. Now there's obviously the tournament side of it as well, which I think that is a conversation that's worth having as well, to have a balanced view. The second part for me, which is really important here is what is the intent is in any relationship. If you have intent to have that relationship, then you come up with strategic plans to try. If you then know that something isn't working, do you want it to work? And then let's bring strategic plans in place to try and make it work.
- [45:38]
Vozy
If what we talk about the product, which we've talked about the product.
- [45:42]
Calvin Petton
Yeah, but.
- [45:43]
Dan Kieran
Exactly. But, yeah, but I think we jump into. Ahead to the product and the marketing of the product before we have the facts. We don't have the facts. And if you go to Indian Wells, someone's paying $200 to go to Indian Wells to watch tennis. That's what they're doing. They're paying $200 to go to India Wells to watch tennis and, and then they're spending 250 in Norbu and they're buying the T shirts and they're buying the hats and they're buying the giant hands and probably their kids have 15 hot dogs or whatever they do and the Big Gulps. It's very, very difficult to decipher into those numbers. So we make, it seems unless we're shown those numbers and there's something tangible that is, that is actually not factual what people are saying. The second one, which.
- [46:37]
Vozy
Sorry, sorry, Dan. It's just interesting how you brought up Indian Wells and I think, I think Indian Wells is, is a really bad example.
- [46:45]
Dan Kieran
Madrid,
- [46:49]
Vozy
what's happening, it's what's happening at ATP 250 level and ATP 500 level because those, those are the tournaments that lose money, massive amounts of money. And so there needs to be a. That's where the transparency needs to come out. Because if the transparency comes out that we're losing X X million or X hundred thousand or X thousands and we're looking at the bottom line to break even. We need to make these cuts in order to break even. It'll become a business. But I, I do agree with you in terms of the transparency, but you're not. These, the, the it, the 80, the, the grand Slams and probably the Master series are, are bad examples, but we need to find out numbers of what's happening at the 250 level and 500 level, because like, that, that is, that is where. That is where I think there's a huge cost to the business and whatever that cost is. I'm, I'm saying, like, if I said they rebound the product, they may even go, actually, we got too many singles players. We need to, we need to, we need to look at cutting that as well. I'm not, I'm throwing it out there as. But in life, in life, unfortunately, there, there are redundancies and in the world we live in today, it's really, really hard. And I'm not saying it, but I'm saying it should be looked across the board. But there's always going to be the easy targets first. Well, where can we cut, where can we cut cost? And it's the same in business. Where can we cut costs? Middle management. Let's get rid of middle management and we're going to save ourselves, you know, a million quid a year. So that's what, that's what I'm saying. So when you bring up examples, I think, I think the, the numbers and it'll be great to get a taunt director on this part who's, who's a tour director of say, a bustard, a Gustard or the event that was in Tel Aviv. And, and actually they can talk about the numbers because I, when, when Wayne Brera was on the player council, he, I remember him saying to me, these guys lose money, that it's just not sustainable. They're losing money every single year. It's not sustainable. And when, because this is what, when it came out that the players wanted more in prize money and they say, we can't give you anymore, we're losing money. So, so, so I think, I think, I think what needs to happen and the narrative, the narrative of the conversation and, and the key part of this is what, what is the vendetta? What are they trying to get out of it? And so if they're trying to eradicate double specialists, they'd better, they better validate that reason and be very, very clever on how they're doing it. But if they say we are looking to re. To cut costs, but unfortunately the first people we're going to are the easy targets, which is the doubles.
- [49:31]
Calvin Petton
I think a few things on that. And Fozzie's put his point across very eloquently there. I mean, there's a couple of things I would come back on like one. I've got a Twitter thread I'm sure everyone's seen. I don't know whether Voz has seen it. Basically just and around. About 70 of those videos are from ATP. Five hundreds and. And 250s like Barcelona. I've been at two years running. They have a doubles only court, always packed. Can't get on there. Bashtad last week I wasn't there but somebody sent me a. A video and a picture of the doubles court. Can't get on the court, no seats available. The problem is when we talk about numbers and I think there's two points to this, a couple of points. So the, the ATP is not a business. The ATP is a governing body. Even though it makes a fortune, it's there to refinance. Re. Re. Integrate that money into the Sport. It made £52 million last year or $52 million, one or the other. I can't remember what it was. The tournament's out of business. I have some sympathy there, but I fail to see where even if you. That these tournaments that are losing money and they are, they're not losing, that you can shave the doubles off and it doesn't make hardly any difference. They're paying fortunes in appearance fees for singles guys. The hotel rooms is used as an example a lot doubles players. I don't know whether any listeners know this. Doubles players get one hotel room for the duration of the tournament plus two nights. Singles players get four hotel rooms for the duration of the. The tournament plus 10 nights at ATP events. And we're talking about doubles players are the reason why these tournaments are losing money. If it's just doubles that they're losing and it's just hotel rooms, it takes nothing for the ATP to go. I'll tell you what we'll cover. We'll cover those hotel rooms and that's the only cost that it can be. The prize money is barely anything compared to. And they're not saving the prize money by the way, so they can't use that. They're just reintegrating. And that comes to my key point and, and I know through the conversations that I've had with people and the conversations that Henry's had with people and it's becoming more and more apparent. This business rationale is not the reason why we're doing this. It's really not. This is a, this is a transfer of wealth. The player council is using it in order to. Because they don't want to have the conversation that they're having with the, with the singles players. The, the ATP, the player council don't want to have that conversation about percentage of revenue that the, that the Grand Slams are having. So they think they're going to pacify them with, we're going to move the doubles on and we're going to transfer that money to the singles players. And that is what I find. Is it? There is a great dishonesty in this. I think they're using the business.
- [52:16]
Vozy
Is that the assumption, again, lack of transparency from, from all parties?
- [52:21]
Calvin Petton
No, that, that is what, that's common knowledge. No, that's, that's common knowledge. That's part of the, the proposal.
- [52:27]
Vozy
The, the Black Council and Play Council are too scared to, to, to, to, to actually squeeze, squeeze the tournament.
- [52:34]
Freddie Nielsen
So they just go.
- [52:34]
Vozy
The easy way to do this is get rid of the doubles and transfer even that.
- [52:37]
Calvin Petton
It's not even just that. It's not even just that, though, was it? The players on the player council are the players who are going to benefit financially from this. So when you're asking these, the player council are going to vote on, right, what's, what's the best for tennis as a whole, for the tournament. And, and you've got the players on the player council because it's specifically going to be reintegrated. That money that they save on doubles prize money is going to go to players ranked between 50 and 100. That's where it's all going to be reinvested. And the player council is largely made up of players ranked 50 to 100. And the players we know, the players who are ranked 5200 on the player council are the players who are pushing for this change in the extremity. So that's what it's becoming clear about. And the business element there's, as Keanu said, it's, it's actually impossible, the idea that the numbers don't add up. And that's what really annoyed me when Demon or said it and when I think Taylor Fritz said it as well because, and I know that the doubles players have specifically asked for the numbers. It's impossible, it's going to be impossible to actually get the numbers. Like how much money does doubles bring in? Because as Kino pointed out there, it's mainly we're talking about grounds passes here, people buying grounds passes. And then the secondary cell, the, the beers, the cocktails they buy at these tournaments, the T shirts, the caps, the burgers, the hot dogs, everything they buy while they're there. What is that bringing in things like Pro Ams. And again, when the pro AMs are basically run for the sponsors of the event. The people who they get to do those are the doubles players. So when you're, when you're bringing in fortunes and fortunes from, from sponsors and they want to do a Pro Am is the doubles players that do those. So it's, it's, I can't see any way that you're ever going to be able to say this is what doubles brings in, this is what singles brings in. The only way you can actually tell that there's certain elements of things. How much does the, how much money do we make from center court tickets? That's one thing, but the rest of it, it's just such a muddle. And it's because people are paying to watch tennis and you've got to have tennis on the courts for them to pay for that. And unfortunately with the nature of tennis, the draw halves every single day, you just don't have enough, there's not going to be enough tennis to watch come like in a two week Masters. Now just look at two week Masters by the time you get to Wednesday of the second week or there's only one Wednesday in most of these Masters but by the time you get to Wednesday there are only four singles matches and that isn't, that's in a mixed event, that's men's and women's. So all the two week Masters we've had this year, by Wednesday you've only got four singles matches and you want to sell grounds, they all go on on the center court and then you want to send grounds passes on those days you're going to need some tennis. Where are you going to get tennis from if you're not doing this? And that's where I think that the business argument just doesn't add up. It's impossible to get the numbers. The ATP have been asked to produce them on numerous occasions and they haven't the tournaments. I do have a bit of sympathy with the tournaments directors in that they're, they're losing money and that they're being told that this is the reason why. Although I think if you look at the serious where it goes, it goes on to things like paying for hotel rooms for the singles players and all their crews who choose to stay on when they're out of the tournament. I've been to tournaments. I remember tournament last year, Francis TFO had his whole team there staying for a full 10 days and he lost first round and that's an expensive hotel because he didn't move elsewhere. Now that's the kind of reasons why you lose money. But I think, I do think and I know that everyone on this side of the debate is quickly coming to the realization this is nothing to do with business. It's a transfer of wealth from doubles players to singles players.
- [56:20]
Dan Kieran
Let me just jump on that car very quickly just to give a. This is Aussie facts fact that it has been said is one example that was given was by people on the board who were making these decisions. We can't have Cabral ranked 20 in the world in doubles making more money than Roche who's ranked 150 in the world in singles. That's not acceptable. And we can't have Riley Opelka said this to me. We can't have Lloyd Glaspool making more money than, than Dardari. So, so this is, this is a, this is around.
- [56:58]
Vozy
It's a personal vendetta.
- [56:59]
Dan Kieran
Then again it's a per. It's personal. This is personal. This is, that's what this is. And, and, and, and the, the thing that makes me sad on this is this is not that there's bigger the way that I, I also see this like and I know this is a big job but like tennis as a whole as a brand as an industry could, could be so strong together. But we've got seven governing bodies that has worked separate so we don't end up fighting the good cause of tennis and everything that can be done the brand of, of all that because everyone's looking after their own little part of that. But then you go down a step and you've then got the ATP working in their in silo on their things. But they aren't fighting those, those bigger battles of how, okay, how does, how do we. Because if we, if we take the whole ATP tournament structure, the 250s, 500s that you might have some loss leading tournaments. So if we take, if we take, if we take like a clear coat season you might have two 250s, a 500 that then goes into roll masters. Well if they're all under the ATP banner they should, that should be working. Okay. You might lose a little bit of money in the 250s but that's okay. The ATP is making up on that because they're making a shitload in the 1000. You know, like it has to be viewed a little bit more together in. I don't know all of the details on this because it's not. The transparency is not out there. But it's like that. Why rather than having that argument and that push let what we're doing is we're then going down and we're splitting the players up. And when that, what, what, what this basically is. This is just, this is male ego. This, this is not happening under WTA. This is male ego. That, that is, that is getting involved in. This person shouldn't be making more money than this person. So we need to do this. And the transfer of wealth, like, like Calvin says. And, and these are the things that have been said. These are the reasons that are being given. And I'm sorry, I just don't, I, I don't see that. Forget everything else. We surely in our sport want to be growing opportunities for more people not taking it away. And, and, and it goes back to
- [59:09]
Vozy
that, it goes back to that same conversation. Like I remember I was listening to Steve Johnson and, and is. No, you know, they're talking about college places have been taken from foreign players. And actually Steve Johnson just went, well, the Americans need to get better on that argument. Then Darderi, he just needs to get better and then he'll earn more money than Glasspool. But his argument is that we can't have Glasspool any more than Dardari. Okay, fine, Dadaria, just get better and he'll earn more than Glasspool. You know, there's, there, you can have that argument. You can answer that.
- [59:36]
Calvin Petton
Can I just come in? One last thing? That Kierano. And again, I think this, this argument can't be made strongly enough that when we talk about sustainability, sport in general isn't sustainable. No sport is. It's, it's paid for by the very top. And that's how it should be to sustain the sport. If you look at, you know, look at, listen, there's about four players in the world who sell tickets and they keep the sport going. Like Sinner and Alcaraz and Djokovic and maybe Zverev and I don't know, Ben Shelton. People like that are the ones who sell the tickets. Like, all due respect, and, and I, I don't, I'm not disrespecting him as a player or a person at all. Dadari doesn't sell tickets. You know, so, so this idea that we need to move those guys on Vic Capriva, Riley Apelka, they don't sell tickets. Even players like Tommy Paul don't sell tickets. People come to watch tennis and they like to watch them. But if you go in any sport the Premier League plays pays for all of the football in Britain, like that, that's what pays for football in Britain. You look at cricket in the UK county championships, every single club loses money. They're not sustainable, that nobody goes to watch them. It's paid for by Test cricket.
- [60:47]
Vozy
Because that's not the Indian. The Indian. BCCI control tennis, control cricket globally, they control everything.
- [60:56]
Calvin Petton
But then they're paying.
- [60:57]
Vozy
And that's all because of the ipl. All because of the IPL that came out. No, they control everything.
- [61:02]
Calvin Petton
Fair enough. But then. Yeah, but then they're paying for it. It's like Yorkshire.
- [61:06]
Vozy
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it.
- [61:08]
Calvin Petton
You know, but you don't just go, well, they're not bringing any money in, so we got to get rid of that. Because you. You have to have. Any sport wants people competing, they want visible sport, they want. You reinvest the money into the sport otherwise. And I know, and this is my concern, I was told by somebody in the know, not in the know. I was told by somebody very close to the. To Gaudenzi, who has been speaking to him and knows him very well, that Gaudenzi wants tennis to be like Formula One. He wants 20 singles.
- [61:37]
Vozy
Yeah, I've heard that, yeah. Yeah. I'm not that. Yeah. And he's good mates with the CEO of Formula One.
- [61:41]
Calvin Petton
Yeah. And. And he sees that as the way to do it. Now, that is pretty grim, if that's where we're going. And I've said this to the singles guys as well, I've said it to all of them that when they've. When they've got rid of doubles, when they've gone, oh, the doubles guys don't bring any money in and they're taking up firm, they're taking up hotel rooms and that kind of thing. When they've done that, they're then going to come after the qualifying events, they're going to go, why are we paying money for qualifying? Like, we're spending hotel rooms on that. There's prize money going into that. When they've got rid of qualifying, they're going to go for the lower ones. They're going to go, wait a minute. Like this guy who's ranked 50 in the world, he's. Why are we paying for him? He's not bringing any money in. That's not sustainable. And before you know it, you've got 16 players playing tennis and that's it. And it all comes from. This whole thing comes from greed, because it doesn't come from a sporting sense. And like we say, there's no way of actually getting business numbers out of it.
- [62:30]
Dan Kieran
On that very quickly. And I want to bring Freddie and Candy in here because they've had to listen to us, us harp on. But if I, if we go back to this, let's assume for a minute that doubles isn't sustainable and the numbers don't add up. Up. Let's just assume that because that's what we do. We don't. That's not fact, but let's assume we do. The next conversation is, do you want it to work?
- [62:58]
Calvin Petton
Yeah.
- [62:59]
Dan Kieran
Do you, do you see that as part of your future? Okay, if the answer to that is yes, that's when we then go into product marketing, finding ways of bringing more money in and finding ways which I think actually one thing about the doubles tour is in general and you only have to listen to Henry Pat and how amazingly well he's spoken over the last couple of weeks. It's actually full of a lot of intelligent people that tend to have had college degrees that have been through, you know, got quite strong backgrounds. So there's actually a lot of brain power and also a lot of passion power in the, in the doubles world that would be more than willing to put their heads together to, to look, to develop, develop product and develop the marketing of that product if that, if that was the factual situation. But you only have to see the way that the product isn't marketed, which it's not. Or shown. You can't watch it on hardly any TV. You can't watch any ATP 250s anywhere. You can't watch them, not legally. ATP 250s cannot be watched legally. You know, so, so you, you only have to, to see that. You only have to see the way that it's, it's on social media, the way that it's. Nothing is pushed out in, in, in ATP doubles to see that that isn't happening. But that all that argument for me, which is an important discussion is only a valid discussion if we understand truly that it's not making sense. And secondly, is there an intention to work towards making that, making that happen? And that is the same thing in any basic business model, any basic relationship. You know, if my wife doesn't have the intention to be with me, then we can't find solutions to any problems that we might have. You know, but it's like product.
- [64:54]
Vozy
She doesn't believe in the product anymore, dad. She needs to move on from the product.
- [64:58]
Dan Kieran
Well, maybe I need to market it better. Do you know what I mean? But it's like, but it's, but that's, it's the Same basic kind of concept. Yes. We're getting lost, Intelligent people and people in our sport are getting lost on the assumption of what the propaganda. That's just the headline propaganda that's been thrown out there. And, and that's where. That's where the issue starts.
- [65:20]
Vozy
And almost lack of transparency, lack of transparency across. Across the board. And basically there needs to be a memo going out from the ATP about what is their agenda and what. What are they trying to achieve. And actually just. Yeah, if it's transfer of wealth, just say it. So then people.
- [65:35]
Dan Kieran
Discussions.
- [65:37]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah.
- [65:37]
Vozy
And people, people can say, well we. Wemin did disagree with your decision, but if that's the decision you're making, what can we do? That's the first thing. The second thing is, is then also then like actually we, we know that doubles as an integral part of the sport, but we, we need to revamp the product. So what we're proposing is X, Y and Z and we're going to pilot it at 250s and 500s and see if it brings rasmataz and jazz.
- [66:01]
Dan Kieran
You can't say a product doesn't work until you fully marketed it. You know, the, the one point tournament in Australia was talked about and watched by absolutely almost everyone in Australia. Why it was a one point tournament, for God's sake. Right. Where There was like 10 minutes in between points. Potentially boring as hell. But it was, but it was marketed from the rooftops and everyone knew about it. So then everyone wanted to be part of it. You know, we, we have the platforms and ability to market the. Out of our sport. Not just doubles, singles people Narrate storyteller We've got an unbelievable product in tennis. An unbelievable. And until you've done your due diligence and you've absolutely got it out there, but you have to have the intention to want to do that in order to do it. And that's where this seems to fall down with me. Calv, over to you then. I need to bring Freddie.
- [66:55]
Calvin Petton
I just want to say quickly on it that yeah, 100 and somebody made a point earlier on about looking to stare into the void, the complete lack of any publicity or marketing for doubles in general and then look at what they do for the US Open mixed and see what you can do with marketing. But on. Just away from that again, just on the. When I'm talking about a transfer of wealth here and I think this can't be stressed heavily enough to, to the public because this doesn't look good. We're talking like our doubles players are taking this much money off as that kind of thing. There's a player. I don't want to name the place, I don't want to name names, but he's ranked somewhere between 50 and 100 in the world, who has won six tennis matches this year in the. Sorry. Going into Wimbledon. I think he won a couple at Wimbledon, but going into Wimbledon, this player had won six tennis matches in the whole of 2026, and he'd earned $550,000. Now, who's telling me that somebody who's won six tennis matches should be earning more than half a million dollars in six months? That that's not enough. We need to get a bit more. And by the way, the. The bit more that it would come from would just be about an extra 10, 12 grand, I think it would, once you work out the percentages. So we're going to get rid of a whole low, a whole area of the sport. So. So these players who have won six tennis matches in six months can have $570,000 rather than $560,000 by the time we get to July. It's just abhorrent.
- [68:22]
Dan Kieran
Freddie and Candy, the floor is yours.
- [68:24]
Candy Reid
My opinion is, it's so sad because I love doubles and I do a lot of commentary and I would love to do commentary on doubles. I don't really know where to go with this. You guys are much more the experts. But I just think it's really, really sad because I think doubles is an amazing, amazing thing to watch. Most people play it in the clubs, when they go out and watch doubles, they love it. There's just not enough doubles on television. I think I've commentated on about 10 doubles matches in five years of commentary, so I think I'll leave it at that. I just think it's a massive shame, but I know you guys all agree with me. All yours, Freddie.
- [68:59]
Freddie Nielsen
Yeah, well, this, this transfer of wealth, I think it's pretty obvious because the whole proposition is they go from 20% formula to 90 and 10, right? So they just take 10% and put it into the 80 bucket. So that. That should be pretty clear in my book, but I'm not very intelligent with that kind of stuff. But I'm also really, really bad at this because I have a quite an ancient outlook on sport and I believe in sport and I'm not very fond of changes. And I think you have the sport and you keep the sport, and if you need to update it to the times, you update it, but you keep it. You know, to me it would be Preposterous to say that we have track and field but we don't want to pay for the long jumpers. So out they go. We can't have that and we're just going to have 100 meter run, whatever it is. To me, I think I get sad about the whole business talk of it because yeah, you gotta maximize the sport, make it up, possible for as many people to, to make as much money as possible within certain framework. And I think one of my big I, I don't dislikes about for example football is that they increase too much. You know, it seems like in tennis they go the other way. They're decreasing and making it smaller and smaller and whatever way it goes, I just don't like it. I think I'm also of the opinion that, but I was, like I said, I was different. I never ever played for money. I never knew how much money I was making at tournaments and I, I feel that out of principle that I want to keep the integrity of the sport and then lose money if it goes. And as it is now, tennis is doing quite well in my opinion and we can afford this. And tennis in my opinion is singles and doubles and then we keep that and whatever it takes. And I can objectively say I think it's been good to, to have the super tiebreaker increase chains to doubles. Even though I personally dislike it. I would still want it to be the same scoring. But, but, but, but I'm, I think you like, like basically what you guys are saying, you keep the sport and you do whatever you can to maximize it. You know, it would be impossible to think that badminton would get rid of doubles or all these things. And I feel saddened by it. You know, I, I don't like it. And like you also said people there, there is a lot, we all know that we've all been in tennis, we all know that doubles players are maybe not seen as, as legitimate tennis players from, from certain aspects of, of the tennis world, particularly the Senate, the singles players. And maybe a part of it has been that there are more specialists now than there used to be, you know, back in the day. It's impossible to imagine a situation where like McEnroe or Ed Burke that you were number one singles or doubles at the same time. And most people, they want to become singles players when they start playing, but that doesn't really matter. You make the most of what you have and I think you got to go to fight for it and not just try to get rid of it. And I think it's boring. And if it becomes, you know, if it becomes too much entertainment or business, then I think we might gain some fans. But I think we're also going to lose our credibility. And you see now all the small things in football, like I almost didn't turn on the second half at football because of this 30 minute halftime break and the hydration breaks and going and it makes the product more boring. And I think the tournaments are going to be more boring if it's going to be so elitist and you're going to limit it to a few players that sell the tickets. So, yeah, I'm much more in the sporting department and whatever we can do, we can do, but don't discriminate and cut things off. That's where I stand.
- [72:52]
Vozy
Thanks.
- [72:53]
Dan Kieran
A couple of just small little bits for me to finish up. I know we've talked about this topic a lot, but I think it's important that we keep getting these messages out there. And it's one. I'll keep going back to this intent thing because I think it's really important now. And I had this discussion again with Riley Opelka. We all know that a singles, doubles doesn't work. Okay. And the reason that doesn't work is there isn't any respect. The players that have high singles rankings have the opportunity to play doubles every week. And what they continually do is they either don't enter because they don't want to, because they want to focus on their singles fair. And I respect people for that. That they enter and they don't try and they don't give their best efforts, which is not entertainment for anybody. They, they enter and win a match and then they withdraw because it doesn't suit their schedules for where they need to move the next week or they enter. One of the shocking things we've seen over the last couple of Grand Slams and what's Grand Slams, not ATP, is they enter and then they withdraw because they have the right to take 50 of the prize money by withdrawing. Yeah. Which is also being. Being abused. Which is why we've seen it was like nine more. Nine, nine withdrawals in the last couple of Grand Slams on the men's side. So that isn't an option. If, if the option is to have the product of doubles as part of their tour, then, then you need to have players that respect it for what it is. Which is, which is a passionate, enthusiastic combination competition where people are trying to compete to win. That's where, that's where we see true live sport. Right. That we all are in love with. That's why we love watching live sport. Freddie, you often say it. There is nothing better than live sport with passionate people trying to win and for meaning something to, to, to you. Which is where actually my biggest issue is on this. I'm actually not so much jumping on the prize money side of things because money is money and I think, I think ultimately there needs to be some battles on that and I think we need to be collective on that and we need to be smart. If we have the intent, there's ways of bringing more money in because we've got an unbelievable product and it can be marketed better and so on and so forth. The issue I see in this when I'm reading it and I obviously we don't know because it's not fully transparent but the issue that I see here is that you can only get into ATP Challenger events on singles rankings. And I've even, and even I read somewhere that that's at 250 level as well. What that is basically doing is trying to cut off a pathway to becoming someone who can make money from the sport as a doubles player. Yeah, that, that. So, so the, what the messaging might be to Henry Patton and Harry Alavara and Neil Skupsky and these guys, don't worry, this is not going to affect, affect you guys because you guys are still going to get into the events. So the only effect on them technically is the 10 less prize money now. But the, what the real problem is is there's no longer going to be a pathway for Henry Pattons of the world to make their way through. In the world of doubles that's going to be fully stunted which again it's a bit like one of these like quizzes you do where you answer that question and then you move to that point point. I just keep coming back to what is the intent? What is the intent? Is the intent to have doubles as part of your tour? If it's not, do one get, get your balls on the line, get rid of it. Fully set up your Little tour with 20 players, off you go. And then there's a, there's a lot of money in the world and there's a lot of people in the world that might actually just go hey you know what? There could be another two are set up here, you know and this, this tour can be set up for players outside of 20 or 30 in the world and it will include doubles and it's going to be marketed right and it's going to be done in that way. Who wants to be part of that, you know, we'll deal with that. If that comes or if the intention is to have a part of it, then everyone gets around the table and says okay, how can we make this better for everyone? But let's stop, stop asking around and, and hiding information and having propaganda and let's actually get the, get those things out there. And I just want to finish this point with Henry Patton said it on center court. We should evolve the sport instead of taking opportunities from it. And I think that's what we all want in tennis.
- [77:23]
Vozy
Yeah, I think, I think the biggest, I think the biggest. I think, I think what the ATP are trying to do is I think when everybody wait as a young kid says they want to be a professional tennis player, they want to be a tennis player playing singles. I think what they trying to stop is people waking up and saying and I've never heard this because all the people I know who are double specialists are if I don't want to use the word but are failed singles players but have found an opportunity where they can play, play another part of the sport and earn a good living. Which is, which is, which is fair. And I think they, it's not very many business like sides where you have a second shot at your job and still earn money. Like if you're a bad lawyer you don't, you can't find another thing in the law department to make money. I think what the ATP are trying that, that I think what if, if they, and they should just come out and say it. We're trying to stop the double specialist pathway. We want people.
- [78:15]
Dan Kieran
What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Most, most footballers start as a striker and then they move into right back or they move into this or you might have a, you might a have sprinter wants to be 100 meter sprinter then they move into being a long jumper or triple jumper. People are moving cricket players that want to play test match cricket but they end up becoming. Why in our sport do we have this absolute disrespect? It's complete. It's full of entitled arrogant pricks. I'm sorry that, that, that, that for some reason we've normalized this disrespect and this degrading of players. I've worked with singles players, I work with double space. The single space aren't working any harder. The, the preparation that goes in for matches is, is, is actually a lot more than I see from the doubles guys like and, and the entertainment value. Some people like to watch singles, some people like to watch doubles. But for some reason in our sport, there's this degrading and disrespect for fellow professionals that completely blows my mind, completely blows my mind. And it's, and this is this constant narrative that is, that is being told and we've, some of us have started to believe it for some reason. How about just a bit of respect? Let's grow our sport, let's give lots of opportunities, let's try and draw the sport together and let's absolutely respect the people that are best in the world. Do you know how hard it is to go on Central center court and play Wimbledon final? No, I, I, I don't. I've never done it. But I tell you what, 99 of singles players have never done it either. The, the ability to turn up, to go into the fire in those big moments. I've been around and I've been around six Grand Slam finals. As a coach, what they go through, their whole country watching, the whole, the whole thing. These, these are elite athletes, there are elite performers. And it's about time people started putting a little bit of respect, just like anybody in our sport deserves. And that's where I see a monumental issue in our sport. Is this elitist entitled by, by people that continue to come up with this narrative that they're failed singles players and this and that.
- [80:32]
Vozy
No, that's what I'm trying to say is. But they need to come out and say it and be open and transparent.
- [80:38]
Calvin Petton
But this is, this is, come in. I mean, everything Ko said there was, was, was correct. And also what he said earlier on. And I know this because I've been relatively close to the conversations from people I've spoken to and the meetings. This is genuinely been pushed by seven or eight former singles players who think that they didn't make enough money in their careers considering how good they think they were. And they're now saying, why is it that doubles players now are earning more money than I did in my career? I don't want that. And this shouldn't be allowed to happen. And that's mental. That's mental that those decisions have been made on that basis. That they're sat there going, this is ridiculous that this player is earning this much money. I was miles better than him. And you think, well, are we really, is this what we're really doing? And in the conversations that, in the conversations in those meetings, in the conversations that are, in those meetings, there's never any talk about numbers or business or that kind of thing. You, you speak to Those people, privately, they'll say, the doubles players are just. I don't want them making money. And it's an amazing thing to listen to.
- [81:47]
Vozy
What.
- [81:47]
Calvin Petton
Why do. It's the same as when. When Riley Opelka made that comment, like, the other week about, you know, like, who should be earning more money.
- [81:54]
Candy Reid
Right?
- [81:55]
Calvin Petton
Should we just not have any tournaments then? Should we just ask. Should we just have players play and just ask Riley Pelka how much money they should get? Like, you know, like, how much. Riley. How much does he deserve for that match? Like, or ask. I don't know what his name. Joe Sousa. Like, Joe, how much money do you think this player is? You tell me how talented he is and. And what his salary should be. Shall we just have that now, going forwards?
- [82:19]
Dan Kieran
We're. We're in a. We're in a. It's a. It's good discussion. Apologies for my swearing, but, by the way, I never normally stay on this
- [82:25]
Calvin Petton
podcast, but I. I am going to have to go, guys. I don't know how long you're carrying on.
- [82:29]
Dan Kieran
I think we. I think we all do. I think it's a good place. I think it's a good place to stop. V, thank you, by the way, for bringing your. Your take on that. I think it's. I think that's really important for this discussion. For me, this is really important that this discussion has lots of different lenses to it and a lot of different sides. And like I said, my passion comes from. I just want our sport to grow. I want our opportunities to grow. And I'm talking about for coaches, for fitness coaches, for media. There's a big old world of people that have dedicated their lives to this sport. Right? It's in our blood. It's in all of our blood. We're here at whatever time, almost bloody midnight on whatever night it is Monday night. None of us needs to be here doing it, but we're doing it because, well, you guys are doing it because you're good people and because we have a passion for the sport and. And. And I think there's a lot of those out there. And. And I think we all need to just keep getting together and keep. I want. Let's. I want Rio Pelka to make loads more money. I want all of these guys. Let's. Everyone, let's. Let's keep growing the sport for every single. Every single person. So a big, big thank you, guys. You're all legends for continuing to give you time. And we'll be in touch soon because I'm sure we've got some tournaments around the corner.
- [83:47]
Vozy
What's up, man?
- [83:48]
Freddie Nielsen
Cheers. Good luck wherever you guys.
- [83:51]
Vozy
Cheers.
- [83:53]
Dan Kieran
Thank you.
- [83:54]
Freddie Nielsen
Thank you.
- [83:56]
Dan Kieran
So there. There we have it. It finished. Fiery. I do want to apologize for my language. Yes. It's. It's a. It's a. It's something that I am very passionate about, but it's. Yeah, not quite me to be dropping the F bomb. So apologies to anyone that heard that. I'd love to hear your thoughts. You know, is. Is. You know, do you. Do you agree with us? Disagree. What are your thoughts on this? On this whole taker. It feels like that has taken over, you know, taking a big piece of the sport away and, and getting rid of people's jobs ultimately for what reason seems wrong. But maybe. Maybe I'm just blinded, you know, maybe my. I'm obviously living a lot of my world within the doubles tour and have done over the last few years. So maybe I'm blinded. Maybe I'm coming from the wrong lens. I'm. I'm open to hear that. I really think I'm trying to give a fair take on all of this. And my bigger picture is, you know, the future of tennis, you know, and how we. How we grow tennis, how we develop tennis and not just getting too zoomed into to one area or one tournament, but actually how do we create more opportunities and ultimately grow the sport, you know, how do we bring more money, how do we bring more eyeballs on our sport, how do we grow the brand of tennis? How do we win the battle against all these other sports and then the Netflix and the Xboxes and all of this that's out there, paddle tennis, pickleball, you know, how do we make sure that tennis is. Is absolutely be a sport to be reckoned with because it's given me so much and it's given so many of us so much as well. So please do send your thoughts in on that. We will be back. We've got lots of different guests lined up over the. Over the next few weeks. I hope you were well, wherever you are in the world. Love hearing from all of you. So please do keep reaching out. Please keep getting these podcasts out there far and wide. But until next time, time, I'm Dan Kieran and we are controller controllables.