Tennis Mailbag: Daniil Medvedev’s U.S. Open Meltdown Is Shameful

As it is written, Wednesday is mailbag day …

• Here is your U.S. Open men’s and women’s seed reports.

• Here’s Martina Navratilova on the Served podcast from the Hall of Fame. And we’ll do “Quick Served” episodes each night recapping the U.S. Open.

• Programs, programs! Get your U.S. Open programs here.

• RIP Angela Mortimer Barrett.

Onward …

Hey Jon

It is pleasantly cool and mid 70s in NYC—and am sure the players appreciate it more than we do. What a great story! My jaw dropped when the GOAT showed up to introduce Maria Sharapova into the Hall of Fame last week. I immediately thought of [Tom] Brady showing up to Peyton Manning’s induction into Canton and sitting nonchalantly in the crowd (being boo’ed by Colts fans nonetheless)

Classy move by the GOAT.

After they hang up their rackets or cleats, fierce rivals realize they have more in common than they ever cared to admit, don’t they? I’d love to get your thoughts on this.

An add on: What the hell is going on with 2025 and [Daniil] Medvedev? Is there a larger problem with his game, or do we just write this year off as a random one off ?

Deepak (NYC)

• We’ll get to Medvedev next. But let’s start in Newport. The U.S. Open mixed doubles event (we’ll get to that in a second, too) wasn’t the only “reimagined” tennis institution this month. The Newport Hall of Fame induction, usually held in July in conjunction with a tournament, was rescheduled for this weekend preceding the U.S. Open.

The first time of any change always induces nervousness. What happens in 2025? With cloak-and-dagger secrecy, Maria Sharapova was presented by her former nemesis, Serena Williams. This was a poignant and meaningful gesture on many levels. It spoke so well of both of them, “rivals” (which here means less head-to-head matches than competing personalities and styles) with an admittedly frosty relationship back in the day, to two women supporting each other—“friends for life,” as they both said. People evolve. Relationships evolve. Athletes are not frozen in their playing dynamics. This was an A+.

Speaking of the Hall of Fame. You know who is eligible next year? Roger Federer. Assuming he gets the necessary votes, all other players should be removed from the ballot for a year and this should be his ceremony alone.

First up I am so glad that [Benjamin] Bonzi won. However, why did the chair umpire not throw the book at Medvedev for his outrageous behavior? There was at least one time violation and one code of conduct violation. Frankly speaking, it should have been game, set and match to Bonzi by virtue of a point penalty. I am very interested to know what you thought of the whole situation?

Thank you,
Nikhil

• This question is in reference to Daniil Medvedev’s shameful first-round loss. Where to begin?

I had a DM exchange with one of you recently about different standards. What defines a good year or successful tournament for player X is different from what defines a good year for Jannik Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz and Coco Gauff. This isn’t biased. It is simply using context and history and applying different standards. If you know Casper Ruud to be a quintessential good guy, you are more inclined to give him a pass for behavior that might earn other players more wrath and chastising. If you know a player is a rookie, you might excuse a mistake that a veteran would be faulted for making.

Still, there are absolutes and objective lapses.

A big wind-up to say: Medvedev is known—and loved—for his antics, sui generis personality, and propensity for on-court theater. We all love that he presents in bright, unabashed colors, rather than pastels. He is going through a brutal season, as a former No. 1 losing four consecutive matches at majors. But that doesn’t dismiss, or even mitigate, awful—and uncharacteristically unsportsmanlike—behavior. Watch the clip of his first-round match. It’s a catalog of bad behavior. The lack of grace in letting his opponent play a first serve. On match point no less. Then, he goaded the crowd on his opponent’s match point. Then he questioned the umpire’s manhood. Then he referenced Reilly Opelka. Then he had a meltdown after losing the match.

INSANE scenes in the Medvedev & Bonzi match at US Open

A cameraman was trying to leave after Bonzi missed his 1st serve.

The umpire gave Bonzi a 1st serve.

Daniil: “Are you a man? Are you a man? why are you shaking? What’s wrong huh? Guys he wants to leave. He gets paid by… pic.twitter.com/nzlqgoWxre
— The Tennis Letter (@TheTennisLetter) August 25, 2025

Involve the crowd? Great. Get mad at yourself? Your prerogative. Have a go at a chair umpire. Fine, provided there’s a baseline level of respect. But the breach of sportsmanship was bad and—this I know for a fact—did not go unnoticed among other players. (Here’s Bonzi: “Daniil started it, and he put oil on the fire … He went, with the crowd, crazy. He went with them. Yeah, it was, like, honestly I never saw that.”)

This was shabby stuff. Medvedev owes a lot of people apologies, starting with his opponent.

Hey Jon,

This new mixed doubles format at the U.S. Open is quite interesting, but I have a couple questions. Considering the shrunken field (in terms of quantity of players—certainly not star power), a lot of the journeymen and journeywomen doubles players aren’t in the event this year, when intuitively they would have been if not for this change. Are they not pissed? It seems like another example of the cliché of the rich getting richer. What has the response been like? I totally understand the shift as a business decision, but I’d imagine there are some unhappy players who are casualties of it…

Best regards,

L.T. (Toronto)

• A week later, and there is still so much chatter about the mixed event. A few quick points:

A) This new mixed event was—and is—predicated on star power. To attract the stars, there must be an assurance of minimal time spent on court. That means short-form sets and a 16-team draw. Anything more onerous and the stars—the folks trying to win singles titles; the folks trying not to roll an ankle before the singles event—will be scared off.

B) To attract the stars, there must be a financial inducement. The dirty secret: There were fees paid—based on a ranking formula—in addition to prize money.

C) There was a novelty to this year’s maiden event. I suspect any number of singles players—feel free to speculate which—are not going to enter in 2026. Been there, got caught out of position, and exposed my poor volleying, that. I suspect other players will happily volunteer for replacement duty.

D) Consensus: We need a few more doubles specialists. My idea: The winners of the mixed in Australia, Paris and Wimbledon—as well as the defending champs—get automatic wild cards for the U.S. Open.

E) This was a smashing success by any measure. Player buy-in. Level of tennis. Fan engagement. Attendance. Unquantifiable buzz. Quantifiable commerce. Let’s not get so caught up in tweaks and suggestions that we lose the plot.

F) Wimbledon can’t do a similar event on Centre Court on account of the grass that must be preserved for the singles. As for Roland Garros and Australia, your serve.

It’s kind of giving Wimbledon banning Russians and Muscovite Rybakina wins. Perverse tennis gods!

Wiliam T.

• This submission was in reference to the mixed final. That’s a funny comparison. You “reimagine” the U.S. Open as a condensed event based on star power and who wins? Doubles specialists, Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori, in a third set super tiebreak.

You ban Russian players as a statement—well-intentioned but poorly conceived—against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and, after all that Sturm und Drang, who wins? A Moscow-born, Russian-speaking player who left for Kazakhstan when the federation picked up her expenses. Yes, the tennis gods come equipped with wicked senses of humor.

Jon, I know you were joking on Tennis Channel about whether Serena Williams might come out of retirement and play in the mixed doubles. But I wonder if she would be able to because of the [weight loss drug] she is using and advertising. Is Ozempic legal under the tennis code?

Anon

• This issue had been swirling, not just in tennis, but in sports as a whole. Millions of people—including Serena—are using GLP-1 drugs and appetite suppressants. These are popular, approved and regulated drugs. They are also potentially performance-enhancing. Athletes may not be the primary target consumers, but plenty of athletes would benefit from an appetite suppressant that alters fat and muscle composition.

We put this to the ITIA. The response: “Currently, the substances themselves are not on the prohibited list but on WADA’s ‘watch list’ so may well be at some point depending if they feel it meets their criteria.”

A story to follow for sure.