BONUS - July Q&A!

38:19sport, and in particular, I think, tennis and the slog of it, quite frankly. Yeah, there's a lot going on. But, you know, I do also think the WTA has not helped itself in some respects, you know, in terms of some i know that they've been difficult decisions they've had to make and particularly financial but you know like i think the w the wmba to use that example again and women's sports generally have been an incredible space for minority communities and lgbtq fans and they've leaned into that and they've been welcoming environments and that the wta should be there absolutely and at its best it definitely is but going to play your premium event your wta finals in saudi arabia and you you're sort of alienating some of your core fan base there and taking away from what you want to be and stand for as an organization and always did and i know it was an incredibly difficult really financial hard decision as well but I feel like WNBA and women's football in this country was really leaned into that part of its identity and I don't feel like in the last few years that the WTA has quite so much and I think that would that would help establish and give it give it real meaning and cultural significance and cut through which it absolutely had back in the day when it was first formed.

39:54I think it's slightly lost that and been slightly, maybe not overtaken, but caught up by some of these other women's sports leagues around the world. Yeah, I think that's a great point. Next question is from Govind. Govind asks, I'm curious how you've seen the tennis podcast evolve and adapt from its infancy to today, especially given how drastically fan viewing habits have changed. Back in the early 2010s, streaming every court wasn't really a thing. So the pod often functioned like a news source to catch listeners up on what happened. Now, most of us have already watched the matches and are tuning in specifically for your unique analysis and perspective.

40:34For all three of you, Catherine, David and Matt, how have your own preparations and approach to the show evolved to meet that shift? Govind, you have made me feel like my approach and preparations should probably have evolved more. David, how have yours evolved? See, I think that they collectively, they've evolved enormously because of the way we put together an ongoing agenda throughout the week, you know, or leading up to a show. It didn't used to be like that. At least I don't think it did. I can't remember how on earth we did it. But that's just sort of... well firstly the matt roberts effect and secondly just generally becoming more professional as we've grown right i don't think that's necessarily tethered to the the evolving viewing no i take that point i mean trends i think i think we were always we were always giving an interpretation and an analysis of what we were seeing.

41:45And equally, we are still covering the news of the day. It's not like we've ever really changed the general process apart from ditching the interview idea that I had in episode one, which lasted for six months until we ran out of guests. And also when Catherine pointed out that people seem to prefer it when we just talk about what's gone on, which was actually correct. So anyway, and we still do interviews occasionally, but I'd sort of made it so that we had to do one in every single show. David was convinced that people were tuning in for Gaston Gaudio. I was, yes. I still enjoyed that interview that you did, Catherine, in 2012.

42:23Anyway,

42:26I mean, I think that it definitely goes through my mind when I'm watching tennis, you know, thoughts that I have are jot down and interpretations that I have. And I think we've become, yeah, we've lent in more to our own analysis and our own personalities and our own natural inclinations to go about things the way we do. Mine is probably to talk to people as the week goes on and just sort of, yeah, just kind of think, well, I know so-and-so's coach who's just played this match. i'm going to message that person or i'm or so and so used to coach him or her i'll get in touch with them see what they think about it and sometimes i might use that on air and be able to quote them other times i may just use it as background that's my approach because that's my sort of personality and my journalistic instinct and my general natural curiosity um and i think that probably that's that's always been you yeah but i those have always been your instincts Yes, I think maybe it's more about leaning into them more as years have gone on and realizing that, well, what is you start to try to work out, well, what's your unique selling position as a podcast?

43:49and I think with the with the proliferation of shows that are player personality led like Andy Roddick's like Sam Queries and Jessica Begula and their teams these we like for like we cannot compete with them we are not ex-players but we have something that we can do that they can't do or that they or that I think is offered over and above that and also I think we have to really believe in our own views and our own angles. And increasingly, I think we've, I felt like moving more into that because of it. You know, I not being so worried about interviews as we said at the start, everybody does interviews.

44:37Okay, well, nobody can do what we do exactly like us because we're us. That's just, you know, that's our unique selling position. Yeah, I think what we've done individually and as a team has evolved a lot. I'm just not sure. Certainly I've never thought of it in terms of, wow, the way people are viewing the sport is changing. Therefore, what they need from us is changing. I've never looked at it like that. And I think, David, even in the early days and, okay, I'm not sure when we, like, I think it wasn't the dark ages when we started. There was some level of court selection. You know, there was a red button.

45:29I think there was some, you know, pretty decent court selection, court choice available. But I think we always had the feeling of we're not a result service. We're not just going to tell you what happened. So for that reason, yeah, even then when people would have been less likely to have been able to see everything they would have wanted to see, I don't think we ever viewed it like that necessarily. Matt? yeah i think i think part of it is we you know we do have to tell people what happened and then we analyze it right like i i think my i think one of my flaws in life is probably assuming that people know more about tennis than they actually do and you know even our listeners won't have seen everything and may not have seen what we've seen necessarily so i think we there is part of it where we have to we have to bring people up to date but we never want to just do that we always want to try and analyze and and provide some perspective and as you say i think that's always been the case and that's what i think that's what you two have always done from from the outset really and i remember listening to a episode of um no laying up which is the golf podcast that that we listen to which we see as some kind of comp in in a different sport um and and dj who's one of the one of the people on there said that they cannot be an expert in telling you how something has happened in golf or why it has happened there are other podcasts out there which are going to be better technical analysts of the sport than they are and that is true for us as well there are other tennis podcasts with as david said with the players particularly which will give you more insight into terms of the technical stuff that's happening on tour we can do some of that we try but the dj said what i can be an expert in is telling you how it made me feel and i think i try and lean into that and i do back us as the tennis podcast that will most do that will most try and get across what a result feels like what it means trying to place it in history try and give some perspective on it try and hold the sport to account you know i feel like we we try and do that as much as we can that's kind of our usp i think that there's a there's a genuine like real love for the sport from all of us we've all we've all come to the sport not through not through playing it and are now podcasting at the end of our careers because it's kind of something to do and it feels like the thing that we should be doing it's it's what we want to be doing the primary thing in our lives is is this um so i i think that's what we can that's what we can kind of bring and that's what i always try and have in mind and yes as david said we all slip into certain roles and i'm sure when i'm preparing for a show i'm consciously thinking oh it'd be good to have a stat here it'd be good to have a historical comp it would you know these are kind of things that i know that people might be coming to me for so i try and do that in my research katherine might throw me under the bus here i'd better be better be prepared right yeah i appreciate appreciate it very much um yeah i actually think the the emergence in the last few years of other more other prominent tennis podcasts has really helped us i don't think it's changed our show but it's it's helped us really understand what we are i think and what we do that they can't and you know and what they do that we can't but it it focuses the the mind i think in a really in a really good way um next question i don't know if this is sort of the the title of the question or the name of the person that has submitted it but it just says old school name on the barge that's a username username on the barge hello hello old school old school asks which is it david do you understand burner accounts hang on a second i know yeah it's My new thing.

50:04Okay. And I feel like this is, well, I'm sure you'll love it too, David, but right up Matt's alley. Which of these records do you think will stand the longest? Okay. We have Rod Laver's two calendar year Grand Slams, Jimmy Connors' 109 ATP singles titles, Martina Novatova's nine Wimbledon singles titles, Rafael Nadal's 14 titles at a single Grand Slam. Novak Djokovic and Margaret Court's 24 singles Grand Slam titles. Chris Evert's singles winning percentage of 89.97. And a sub-question here, which of the above records do you think is likely to be broken first? Or do you think all of the above records will stand the test of time and remain unbroken?

51:01And this question has made me think of a clip I've seen from the Rafa documentary, which I haven't watched yet. I do intend to watch. Every time I sit down on my sofa to watch the telly, I think, and I'm looking for something to watch, I'm like, I should watch the Rafa documentary, but it feels a bit like work. And I feel like I've seen the clips of the good stuff. I know I'll enjoy it. I will watch it. Don't worry. I just haven't yet. But anyway, one of the clips I've seen is of him in the car. I think he's chatting with his wife and he's talking about his record of 14. I think they might be on their way to the goodbye Rafa ceremony that Matt's mum has the T-shirt from.

51:50And he looks in the clip to me quite anxiously saying to his wife, that record of 14 Grand slams that's that'll be harder to break than 24 i think maybe right do you think it'll be harder to break than than 24 um which i found a really real sort of insight because you know rafa's thing has always been i don't care about the records i'm not chasing anything i'm just in the moment and And of course, they all care, don't they?

52:28The only thing I would say to kick this off is the fact that one of those records already has two names, suggests that that might be the one most likely to be broken first, because two people have already done it. Although, you know, Margaret Court's way of doing it was a lot easier, dare I say, than Novak Djokovic's. She beat a lot of cousins along the way.

53:00But yeah, Matt, very keen for your take on this question. the two that stood out to me as stand the longest least likely to be broken and i'm finding it really hard to choose between them are rod laver's two calendar grand slams and rafa's 14 titles at Roland Garros I think those two to me stand out above the other ones as like I'd be I'd be shocked if they went in my lifetime for example you know I think they're I think they're really standing the length of time I think Martina's nine that definitely also applies to our lifetimes David unfortunately oh I don't know I quite fancy myself you sound like Bryson DeChambeau David

53:56I think Martina's nine at Wimbledon to me there is the most under threat just because we've seen, you know, we've seen Djokovic get to 10 in Australia and we've obviously seen Nadal get to 40. Like I think nine is an incredible number. Federer got to eight at Wimbledon. And in theory, I know it's, you know, Tim Edmund and Et al would tell you less and less so, but in theory, grass is the most specialist surface, where in theory it should be possible for a specialist to come along and dominate there and have an edge. Yeah, of course, the women's tour has been totally not like that over the last 10 years, which has been wild.

54:44The grass has changed and that is less likely to be the case than before, but theoretically. Certainly feels more likely to happen at Wimbledon maybe than New York. Yeah. Definitely New York. Anyway, as you are. I think comparing Connors' 109 singles titles and the 24 slams is interesting because I do think there's been a shift since Connors played where the slams have become more important. And I think, therefore, it's potentially more likely that the slam record will go simply because there's more onus on trying to win more slams. You know, even in Connors' era, he didn't play them all. He couldn't play them all.

55:31Chrissie and Martina have got kind of false records, really, in terms of 18 slams, in terms of their dominance. You know, Chris Evert didn't play the French Open three years in the middle of her career when she was dominant at that tournament. so it's hard to compare those but I just think in this era slams have become so important with the Masters now being two weeks I think there's there's kind of less opportunity to win 10 12 titles a year which is kind of what you would need to do for a few years to try and hit Connors's number of 109 you know even even Federer who played through the era of one week Masters 1000s and won a shit ton of titles didn't quite get to Connors and it doesn't seem like Djokovic is going to get there either.

56:15I think it would need someone kind of, not gaming the system, but if Djokovic, if his raison d 'etre was getting that record, we've talked about this before, haven't you? You could engineer your schedule to try and make that possible. What's he need? Nine more? I mean, I wouldn't rule that out. Eight more? But I think he would need to be doing it now, wouldn't he? He'd need to be playing. Yes, I mean, that is so many titles. I've got to find a tournament that isn't Montpellier. But you know what I mean? Insert Montpellier equivalent here. It is. And I think it's probably already too late, honestly.

56:58But he could have been doing that if he'd set that as his target. But he didn't because the slams are so important now. Like getting, you know, getting Connors' record would not mean more to him than getting one more slam. It just wouldn't, you know. So I do think maybe the slams could go. But the thing is, the longevity ones are incredible. And that's why Rafa's 14. Playing 14 French Opens is quite something, you know. and playing the number of slams you need to be able to rack up 24 as well is a lot. Djokovic's had such a long career. Two calendar years. When I think of Novak Djokovic, David, in 2021, not being able to complete that calendar slam, yeah.

57:53You see, I don't agree with that. I didn't entirely joke when I said 12 in a row um i mean i didn't joke at all on a very recent podcast was it on air or off air you questioned whether carlos down crowds would ever be the same again i know i realized that but i also said that he would complete the calendar slam this year and then he got a terrible injury so i feel like he was bang on course for it um he was um he'd won two in a row and he was dominant. The thing is, getting terrible injuries is priced into this debate. No, I realise that. See, here's my thing. We're just only getting injuries.

58:34I mean, I think it's a serious point. I still think there is such an enormous difference between Alcraz and Sinner and the rest in men's tennis. I know those very often got better, but still night and day comparing those two against the rest.

58:53and let's say that Al Krause's injury was serious let's like serious and it knocked out the next two years I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sinner went and just won two years worth of Grand Slams wouldn't be at all surprised you wouldn't be at all surprised if he won eight in a row Head and shoulders better than the rest of the players in the world on all the surfaces. So he was Djokovic. But, I mean, he's been head and shoulders above the rest of the world in the last two slams, and he won one of them. Yeah, I know, but I think he's getting better, and I think he's getting over that problem.

59:34I wouldn't rule it out, him doing that, but you've got to be surprised if somebody wins eight. If anybody wins eight slams in a row, David, David, you have to be surprised. I don't see why not. If Alcrast wasn't there, I think that Sinner is getting over... Climate change? Sure, but he's getting out. He's owned up to it now. He's faced up to it, you see. And I would back him against all of the others. David, you're going to have to be surprised if that happens, which it won't, because it would be fucking mental. Put it this way. Rod Laver did it. I think one of those two could do it. Twice? Yeah.

1:00:27If circumstances helped them out a bit with the other one getting injured, I think that's what you'd need. But that literally has happened. No, I understand that. It could not have been more, like, circumstantially favourable for Yannick Sinner and he's only won 50 % of the slam. Sure. And it took an insane week of weather for him to be knocked out. But it's not insane anymore, is it? Sure, but my point is that at that time he was saying it's not a problem when clearly it was a problem. Now he's not saying that. I think he's getting better. But he's not saying he solved the problem. I think he's getting better.

1:01:05I think he's getting better as a tennis player and better at handling it. On the basis of what evidence? Well, on the basis of the fact that it was a very hot Wimbledon, he didn't have any troubles, and on the basis of the fact that he's said, it's a problem, I've got the testing done, and I think I know what I'm doing now. He hasn't said, I've sorted this out. No, no, but he's faced up to it. I think that will always be a weakness for him. I think facing up to it is half the battle.

1:01:38So, hang on. I'm going to be surprised if he wins eight slams in a row. facing up to it or not so david is is your number one most likely to stand drafters 14 absolutely 100 right nobody's ever going to get near that and is there is there one i think i agree i do think that's the one i do think what i'm saying is to put those two in the same group i think is nonsense to put two two calendar slams compared to 14 at the same one no i'm not having that.

1:02:12Okay, I don't think it's nonsense, but I agree that 14 at the same one is harder. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I don't think it's nonsense to debate. No, no, but I don't agree with it, is what I'm saying. I'm telling you I don't agree with it. That's my point. You don't agree with... I think 14 is considerably harder or considerably less likely to happen than either Sina or Alcraz pulling off two calendar slams. Yeah. Okay. Do you, do you put any of the others in between the 14 at one slam and the two calendar slams? Like, I think the one we haven't talked about is Chris Everett's winning percentage. I do think that one almost needs a little bit of context because you, you need a certain, you need like a certain number of matches, I think, to be played, you know, like you need to set the bar.

1:03:05It's possible that someone comes along, has an incredible career, but a really short career and gets a winning percentage somewhere in the 90s. I think, you know, we need to be saying you've got to have played at least 500 matches or something like that in terms of that one to get. But that is crazy. I looked at Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and their winning percentage is around 81, 82, 83 percent. You know, they're considerably behind Chris Everett there in terms of win percentage. Yeah, I mean, I haven't looked at the percentages, but, I mean, that is an extraordinary percentage, isn't it? Yeah, it's unbelievable.

1:03:51Yeah, I feel like I'd probably put Martinez at... Martinez 9 Wimbledon's is the most likely... I find the Everett one quite hard to place. So taking that out of it, I'd probably put Martina's nine Wimbledons as the easiest to surmount. Either that or the 24 Grand Slam singles titles. And then, yeah, I'd agree about the 14, but I don't see it as a nonsense to compare that to the two calendar slams. I would be very surprised if... To be honest, given how tennis looks, I'd be surprised if it gets done once, a calendar slam. Not like, oh my God, you know, blow me down with a feather. Never thought I'd see the day, but I wouldn't have it in the mix.

1:04:53Okay, we've got a few more questions. Dennis N says, who will be the next first time slam winner on the men's and women's sides in your esteemed opinion using all your best prognosticating tools well my best prognosticating tools are vibes

1:05:13dennis david this is so hard to answer without talking about without putting injury caveats in yeah i mean insert insert player here yeah well those are my two yeah it's tough isn't it yeah i mean those are my two and you're right i mean look i saw artifice the other day first against rafael hoda half an hour in artifice is going to win the french open artifice is going to win this tournament a half an hour later i'm not sure Artifice can be a professional tennis player. You know, that's the way it is. I know Matt's answered to this question. Yeah, of course. Jessica Pagula has been winning the US Open since whenever I said that.

1:06:09So better stick with that. The thing is, I mean, I would have definitely been wrong about this. We've just had first-time winners, haven't we? You know, we've just had Zverev did it. I didn't think Zverev would win a slam. And he did. And I think maybe on the men's side, the way I've been viewing that question was who's the most likely to join Sinan Alkarez or break through and be able to beat one of them to win a slam. But actually the answer in front of us was who's the most likely to pick up the pieces if they don't win it, you know, or they're not at their best. And Zverev was that guy. And I sort of think maybe the next time someone wins a slam for the first time will be like that again.

1:06:54So maybe we're going about the question the wrong way in terms of trying to look for someone who can beat them because of everything David's just said. They're so much better than everyone else. It's those rare occasions where they're not. Who's going to be reliable and who's going to be able to win a title? The problem is it's really hard even when you frame it like that to think of who it could be because of the sheer amount of injuries that there are. Yeah. No one feels that reliable outside of Zverev. The best tennis I've seen from a non-Sinu and Alcaraz in the last few years was Mazzetti's clay court season last year.

1:07:45In terms of a sustained... And it was sustained. A sustained challenge. He felt like he could be a contender, but then his body broke down. And it's broken down since then. and I have a really hard time actually picking him to win a slam. I genuinely have no idea on the men's side. I have to throw Anna Samova in. I'm surprised she hasn't had a mention. Well, I think the women... Taking your US Open Paguda prediction out of it. Anna Samova? I don't think she's going to win the US Open. I mean, the last time I saw her play, she couldn't hit a forehand.

1:08:29Yeah, that is a problem. But she'd be in the list of, yeah, Mukova, Kostyuk, Svitolina, Mboko. There's so many, but I would say Pagula. Okay. And I'm cop out and not answering on the men because I've no idea. Couple more questions. David, I'm going to defer to you on this one from Jason because you are the doyen. Jason asks, given David's long history doing commentary for BBC Radio, I was curious how you view your role for the listener or viewer and what you try to convey to your audience. Do you as commentators prioritize certain details, visuals, feelings, analysis, etc., or focus on certain aspects of the match in one medium versus another?

1:09:18Take it away, David. um well suddenly i think feelings come into it on both radio and tv uh i yeah i commentate how i feel uh i i do and more so on the radio because you are you are the pictures um along with the the actual sound that you're hearing which helps create uh the the images in your your mind as well when you're driving along or listening to kitchen or whatever you might be doing um definitely stories um are a big part of it sort of the background and the things that interest me the the context um but on the radio just literally things that i'm spotting in the crowd um i i like to bring attention to and uh try to paint a picture i i i've been lucky enough to be written to by a couple of people with people who are blind or have sight issues and and they tell me that I am their coverage sometimes and I try to think of the the things I'm watching from their perspective sometimes um to to hopefully create a vivid picture and describe as as carefully as and as accurately as in line with what I'm seeing um but I I think the big difference between the two is is the sheer fact that on tv you can see what what's going on and and I think the biggest job I have is just to stay out the bloody way and just let people enjoy those pictures and the sights and sounds not make it about me um I actually interestingly when we were talking about the I I was talking about the commentators earlier and on the WTA side.

1:11:14And a couple were pointed out. One of them was Mikey Pereira, who I enjoy listening to as an example, just because it's good company. And I think being in good company is important. Don't get in the way. Don't irritate me. Don't make it about you. Don't make it about you. and it's so many people do do that I'm afraid and think that they need to be heard in order to be taken notice of and actually I think if you if you just pick your moments more and let the pictures and the sound speak for themselves and then come in with something that just adds a little bit or goes goes in line with what the viewer is feeling and seeing themselves you know so that they think yeah yeah that's that's what I was thinking that's that's kind of what I'd got in mind when I was watching it.

1:12:04I mean, I think on radio, you can really use your voice. You can really use your voice, and I use it with the crowd, with the sound, with the external sound of lowering even the volume and tone of my voice depending on how loud the crowd is, how quiet it is. If it's really quiet, I don't want to be shouting because you could hear a pin drop and I don't want to be shouting all over that. I want you to hear the silence. So it's intoxicating. But then if the crowd goes, you go with it. And this is just stuff that I've picked up over the years. Enjoyed that. Yeah, that was great. Yeah, I don't think anybody...

1:12:52I mean, there's lots of things that David does in commentary better than anybody else, I think. but that the gears going through gears and responding to the moment by picking the right gear for the moment is i mean nobody's even close to david on that i don't think i mean thank you very much i do remember one match point uh championship point at a grand slam i commentated on once you know i mean in my early early grand times i probably would have had like a couple of lines written down that i'm going to read out no matter what happens on the match point you know and okay so you do that and i stopped doing it when i got more confident um and i got a couple of story points in my mind as to what i need to make sure i cover on the match points to sum up the importance of the moment but what if something unexpected happens and i'm in the middle of a bloody prepared line that has nothing to do with what's playing out in front of me um and and i remember hearing i think it was the marion chilek beating nishikuri final and the moment um chilek won it i think he i think he might have hit three aces in a row and then he then he won the won it on this fourth um on a rally i think on an unreturned serve or something like that but just as i'm about to explain what this means to him he he lets it all out all the the stress and the nerves he lets it all out in one roar and i saw him and i'm just and i thought oh don't say anything let him let him be heard because you could hear it so and the same in in in on in tv commentary if they're having a row at the net don't start talking about it with a playing in the next round let's hear the bloody row

1:14:50so that's that's what don't start saying oh seems there's been a bit of a bit of disagreement here shut up let me hear the aggro yeah just go oh hold on yeah exactly

1:15:09yeah exactly uh wonderful answer matt the next one's for you we've got two more this one is going to you. Simon Robb asks, having just watched some highlights of Justine Ennan and her amazing backhand, a question for Matt and his iconic backhand list, cameraman Matthew, if he's listening to this show, which he's not, so we're fine, but he hates Justine Ennan. He would hate this question. He says, if you could have a legend backhand list, which only retired players could be on, who would feature? I thought it was time to just take this question you know i i i get it a lot i feel like i've probably not engaged with it i've probably been a bit weird about my own list in the past i've been a bit like well there wouldn't be a list without amanda and is some over is is this homeowner matt being is this a new grown-up just trying to yeah i'm trying to reach out to the people more trying to grow up um No, but it's true.

1:16:12I have always loved backhands, even before Nisimova. I'd never thought of making a list of them. But the backhands that stood out to me when I was watching tennis as a kid, Justine Enam, absolutely. Sorry, Matthew. But whenever I went round to my grandma's house, if Ndahl wasn't on the telly, if the Tour de France wasn't on the telly, then Justine Enam was probably on the telly. And I used to love watching her backhand. Beautiful shot. So small, but could generate so much power. And it's amazing now everything we talk about with clay and the high bounce and how difficult it is to generate power with a one-handed backhand, how she dominated the French Open with that shot.

1:16:56It was an incredible, incredible shot. So absolutely, Enam would be on the list. The other one that really jumps out is Jankovic. Yelena Jankovic. I loved her backhand. I bought a Yelena Jankovic racket when I was 12 or 13. She played with a Prince racket, black and white thing, and it had... I don't really know how to describe it. It had holes in the side of the frame rather than just grommets for the strings. It had literal holes in it. I think it was meant to make it more aerodynamic, more headlight, all that kind of thing. I'm absolutely going to get a text from my dad after this show about this racket.

1:17:46He's going to be, I bet he's putting an off a bid on eBay as we speak. And when you're 12 or 13, or when I was 12 or 13, I thought if I could buy Jankovic's racket, I would hit backhands like Jankovic. I bought this racket having never used it. You've fallen for big racket there, Matt, and the marketing. That's what they want you to think. I hated this racket so much. Yeah, it had holes in it. It lacked so much stability. I would mishit it, but I would persevere and I would bring it to tennis and that would be my racket that I would try. I was determined to try and use it and hit with it before I eventually gave up and went back to a Wilson thinking I could play like Federer.

1:18:37So, yes, Vicky watching on the brilliantly stage managing our live show has brought up a photo. It's a producer Yelena Jankovic. Right. A photo of the racket. And you can see the holes in the frame there, in the top and on the side. Honestly. That might be Vicky's best ever work. I just could not hit I just could not hit the ball properly with this racket I don't know how she did it this is like David this is like David producing stories somehow that we've never heard before how have we never heard about Matt trying to be Yelena Jankovic before and yeah it was just one of the best backhands in the world she had no serve her forehand was dodgy and yet she got to world number one and finished the year number one and reached the slam final and she was always a bit extra wasn't she Jankovic there's that incredible David Mercer commentary telling her to shut up which I watched somebody that decided to have a third child so that they could go on maternity leave to not have to work with her anymore I won't say what their role was

1:19:50yeah so what can I say I liked watching Jankovic and her backhand. So that's two. Yeah. The one other that I'm going to mention, and it breaks my rule because it's a men's backhand, but it's David Nalbandian. And that is just the best attacking backhand that I've ever seen on the men's tour in my time watching it. I think a lot of people now have changed the game in terms of backhands and being able to hit attacking shots from defensive positions, Djokovic and Murray and Sinner. That's an amazing thing that they can do. And now Bandian didn't really do that. His was an offense backhand, but his racket had speed, the whip of his wrist.

1:20:38He could tug it cross court, thread it down the line. It was brilliant. And at his best, he could dominate whoever with that shot. No room for Marit Safin in there? if you're having men? I feel like personally, I slightly missed out on the best of Marat Safin. For me, like if I'm speaking my truth, He's too young, David. If I'm speaking my truth, Safin is highlights for me, I'm afraid. And I didn't live with the backhand in a way that I enjoyed these other ones. But those are the three that really stand out. You can only pick three. Can't even make a list of five. Wow. that is how young you are Enan

1:21:26I know it's not my list but I did just throw one name down when I was reading this question and that was Martina Hingis who I used to love watching Martina Hingis because she was fun, like you really enjoyed her peak, you two I mean I don't know how much you remember of her, Catherine at her peak A bit I think he'd have loved the vibes, the sort of, the kind of, the bit of petulance and cockiness and sort of, it was fun. But, I mean, some of it was a bit off at times as well. I cut her a bit of slack because of her age. But her backhand, I would watch matches just to watch her backhand. Because I'm like, if you get it on that shot, she's going to be in charge.

1:22:16She didn't have point-ending power in the way that Anissa Mova does, but she could just put it anywhere on the court she wanted, from anywhere, and it was pretty much without fail. The Marit Saffir one, I always used to say, it's like he's wielding a lollipop, a little tiny thing in his hands. Okay, well, Matt can have his three, and you can pop Hingis on and I'll pop Safin on. There we go. There we go. Lovely stuff. Great. We have one more question. It's to all of us. I love this question. It's from Laura. Laura asks, if you could click your fingers and be world class at any sport, Laura's assuming we're not already world class at any sport.

1:23:06Thanks, Laura. If you could click your fingers and be world class at any sport, what would it be? and what is your criteria? For example, some criteria a person could prioritise would be travel demands, earning potential, length of career, injury risk, Olympic versus non-Olympic sport, training load versus competition frequency and team versus individual sport and fame. Who wants to go first?

1:23:43I mean, I'm happy to. I fear my answers might be a bit boring, but I do think it's golf. Me too. It's a goal for both of you. I'm allowed because I'm 52 and I can't do any other sports really now. No, no, no. But this question, you would be elite at it. Well, that's the thing about golf. You still can be world class at any sport. Yeah, length of career. You don't need your magic Laura wish to be world class at golf. Just get out there, David. Yeah, longevity is good. Plus, it's got four majors like tennis, but they only last four days. So that's nice and relaxing. If you're world class, you get to play in the Ryder Cups.

1:24:34There's a bit of a team element there. Exactly, yeah. Matt, you and me, we can be two parts of the Ryder Cup team. Well, I don't get to play in the Ryder Cup. Solheim Cup. I know, yeah, but... I don't get to play with you two in the Ryder Cup, do I? I'm on my own with Nelly Corder.

1:25:00Against Nelly Corder, yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, like, you know, in the... Yeah. Hanging out with... I think like low injury risk compared to a lot of other sports. Yeah, non-dangerous. There's non-contact. It's very catarude of both of you. Look, I love golf. I'm playing golf tomorrow. I was expecting a bit more from you both. I wouldn't have been saying this when I was 18, Catherine. But this is the thing. You're clicking your fingers and you can go back to being it. What would you have said at 18? Well, probably tennis, but I would also have given boxing a go. But now I don't even watch boxing.

1:25:42Okay. Wrestling. My other answer to be different, if I could be genuinely world class, like. That is the premise of the question, yeah. We're talking one of the very best in the world. Yeah. I would be a footballer and try and help Fulham win something. Single-handedly. Yeah. You're not messy. You said I'm allowed to be one of the very, very best in the world. Yeah, but not Messi. Okay, Haaland. That's what you need to be. Haaland. Can I be Haaland level? He needs service though, doesn't he, Haaland? Exactly. Who's passing to you? Prime Messi, you don't need teammates. Who's popping those crosses in, Matt?

1:26:27You've not seen our new signing, Fessar Palafios. All you need is a half-decent goalkeeper if you're Messi. my answer is obviously the olympic i know golf is in the olympics but let's be real about this folks um the olympics thing was big for me um the sort of happiness element was big for me i know maybe i've just got matt fotteman's book on the brain but like tennis players don't look particularly happy to me that puts me off from choosing tennis as much as I love it as a sport and that puts me off some other sports as well but particularly tennis golf was a contender but I decided I would go for

1:27:24heptathlon I wanted an I wanted a track and field event that's a lot of hard work That's peak Olympics. I've always been told I'm a good all-rounder, which is a complimentary way of saying Jack of all trades, master of none. But you get a sort of slightly team vibe. They always do the lap of honour together. The heptathletes don't know there's a real collegiate atmosphere among the heptathletes, but it's also an individual sport. You get to stand on the podium on your own. I think, again, I've taken Laura's question to mean that I will be winning Olympic gold at this. And I think that that would come with a sort of a decent amount of money and an okay amount of fame.

1:28:10Like I think Jessica Rennes can probably, you know, she probably gets people coming up to her at the post office saying, watched you on Super Saturday. Yeah. And she can go on holiday very easily, can't she? But I don't think, you know, it's a nightmare for her leaving the house because of paparazzi. No. I do think that thing of like your whole career really being like defined by how you perform once every four years, like two or three times. But if I perform brilliantly. Yeah, you'd need to. Once every four years. Yeah, you would need to be winning the medals. As I said, I've assumed I'm winning gold.

1:28:45Three years off. That's what I've assumed with the question. Okay. Of course, I considered ice skating and my heart wanted to say ice skating, but I don't think professional ice skating is particularly conducive to happiness either. I think there's a lot of problems in the sport. Unfortunately, as wonderful as a sport, it is. So I'm going heptathlon. Like it. I've always thought it'd be fun to be really good at those. those things that are like people debate whether they are sports like darts or snooker or chess or whatever like so so you can just challenge someone i feel like you might have to quit being a tennis podcaster but i feel like you could go pro at darts if you really put your mind to it like that i i don't but i but i think but i think the vibe of like Just being able to know that you can just beat literally anyone in the pub that you're in.

1:29:46If someone challenges you, you are going to win. You could do a hustle. I kind of think that would be a cool thing. That's how David feels about Paul anyway. Yeah, I know David feels about that anyway. But I kind of think those sorts of games, sorts of... Bar sports. Yeah, bar sports. You just want to be cool in pubs. I think it would be epic to just be so good at that. You'd rather be cool in pubs than win an Olympic gold. Going back to your happiness thing, Catherine. Yeah. I can clean up in pool. I'm telling you. Yeah. I'm already great at that. I believe you. I've beaten all the tennis players at pool.

1:30:25You've beaten Roger Federer at pool? Oh, he's too scared to play me, isn't he? I mean, everybody else. Who's the most famous person you've beaten at pool? Dan Evans.

1:30:38Colin Fleming okay

1:30:44was expecting more from that answer but I would I'd take them all on you said I've beaten all the players well all the ones I've played are you undefeated? I would back you have you never lost to a tennis player? and you've played more than Dan Evans and Colin Fleming no

1:31:06so you're you're 2-0 you've played two tennis players 2-0 I'm losing

1:31:16okay if there are any tennis players out there listening that would like to challenge David Law and test that record at the moment it's a record better than it's a winning percentage better than Chris Evertz yeah that's why we need the 500 match rule yeah it's why in Hannah's words this is why sample size and on that bombshell is where we end tonight's show with me as a heptathlon Olympic gold medalist and Matt and David piddling around at the Ryder Cup what a time we would all have thank you all for your brilliant questions on the barge, thank you to everyone that joined us live tonight and joined in with the chat thank you all for being friends of the tennis podcast, we love these shows and we will be back with our regular show on Monday when we will address the Alcaraz hair.

1:32:16Have we all got takes? Yeah. At the ready? I feel confident in mine. Okay, we'll be back on Monday with those important takes and others as well. We will speak to you then, folks. Thank you all for joining us tonight. We'll speak to you soon.

1:32:36King's