Connect with us

Culture

Rafael Nadal is retiring from tennis right on time

Published

on

Rafael Nadal is retiring from tennis right on time

For more than 20 years, Rafael Nadal leaned into his reputation for authenticity.

Roger Federer was the tennis politician, an artless beacon of neutrality. Novak Djokovic was fated to manage the difficult task of fitting into a sport that the Nadal-Federer rivalry had come to define, by trying on a series of identities. He has only recently settled into his best fit: a tennis statesman prone to releasing the antagonistic tennis demon that he so relishes and which always lurks within.

Rafa just did Rafa. He was never afraid to be painfully honest with what was unfolding in front of his eyes or around him. Sometimes he used his words, punctuating a sentence with his trademark, “that is my true.” Sometimes it was one of those eyebrows, arched with the curve of his forehand, or the sarcastic grin that barely held back his disbelief.

“Really, amigo?” he might have said as Federer played on until 41, essentially on one knee in his final go-rounds, or as Andy Murray gamely tested rackets and tried to defy spinal surgery this spring and summer. Nadal shared with them the desire to have nothing left to give, but his decision to call it quits at 38 after the Davis Cup Finals in Malaga this November feels downright speedy by comparison even with the halting physical uncertainty of his last two years.

Nadal collected all the data he needed to conclude his time had passed in 16 matches over four months, all of them on red clay, the surface where besting him had once been arguably the toughest task in any sport. He won 10 and lost six, including two painful and somewhat lopsided defeats to Alexander Zverev and to Djokovic on Court Philippe-Chatrier at Roland Garros, his supposed living room. That was that, regardless of that raging-bull, never-quit mentality that has awed friends and foes alike for ages.

Advertisement

Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic’s last meeting was a signal to him that it was time. (Tim Clayton / Corbis via Getty Images)

“He’s the strongest player I’ve seen, mentally, and I’m not talking just about tennis, I’m talking about all sports,” his friend and compatriot Feliciano Lopez said in an interview Thursday.

The mentality was never his doubt. Nadal wanted to play without physical limitations. He couldn’t.

“It’s obviously a difficult decision, one that has taken me some time to make,” he said in his retirement video.

“Everything in this life has a beginning and an end. I think it is the appropriate time to end a career.”

How Rafael Nadal will leave tennis

Advertisement

It’s true that this has been in the works for something on the order of two years, ever since Nadal pulled up while chasing a forehand in Rod Laver Arena at the Australian Open in January 2023. He glared up at his box in mid-stride, his eyes so wide it looked like someone had stabbed him in the hip.

In June of that year, he had surgery to repair two muscle tears, then embarked on one last comeback, enduring another series of setbacks each time he began to feel like his game might still be within reach. Ultimately, Nadal proved incapable of deluding himself that he could ever compete with the best players in the world again.

In retrospect, it probably didn’t even take that long. At the top level of tennis today, players need to be able to collect a certain number of easy points on their serve. This was especially true for Nadal, no longer with the speed or the ability to chase down balls for four hours through five sets as he had for 20 years.

He could no longer inflict the same damage on his serve, a shot that was always something of a limitation, even as he had managed to turn it from a real weakness into something of a weapon. He could no longer lift or torque his body as he once had, and he was essentially hitting two second serves every time he stepped up to the line. That would not change, even while skipping hardcourt tournaments and the Wimbledon grass, prompting thoughts of one last trip to the French capital where he, the boy from Mallorca, has his statue.

Advertisement

Rafael Nadal’s final French Open saw him dealt a cruel hand by the draw in the shape of Alexander Zverev. (Alain Jocard / AFP via Getty Images)

If he couldn’t go there with the dream of doing something important, he wasn’t going to bother. He didn’t need another afternoon of adulation and parting gifts if the match that preceded it would be little more than valediction.

“I prefer to stay with all the amazing memories that I have,” he said during a news conference ahead of the 2024 French Open.

Hubert Hurkacz, who also served Federer the humiliation of a Wimbledon bagel, pummeled Nadal at the Italian Open 10 days later. Nadal blew off a post-match celebration and didn’t mince words about the performance.

“I did a disaster,” he said after the match.

A spell of good health and a solid week of training ahead of that final French Open gave him some hope, but the draw delivered Zverev in the best form of his life. Nadal said he had felt good enough to perhaps improve with each match, but the pairing didn’t allow for that. Given where his ranking stood, and the state of his health, the draws probably wouldn’t have helped him again.

Advertisement

And then the final data point came at the Olympics in a second-round match against Djokovic, his longtime foe. In their 60th meeting, Djokovic won 6-1, 6-4 in a match that wasn’t as close as even that scoreline implies.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Game, Set, Match: Novak Djokovic sees off Rafael Nadal at Paris Olympics

Just as with Hurkacz, Nadal was cold and clear-eyed in his assessment of what had unfolded on that afternoon. He knew where his tennis stood. Djokovic had controlled the court all day, playing from all the comfortable positions, punishing Nadal on his serve and taking away his legs, as Nadal had done to so many on that red dust for so long.

“He was much better than me,” Nadal said then.

He could have played on. In an individual sport, no one cuts you from the team. Especially not tennis, and especially not tennis with Nadal, whose tournaments would dole out wild card entries to him as long as he could ask for them. He could have spent the next year enduring beatings like the ones from Hurkacz and Zverev and Djokovic, then letting crowds across the globe fete him in his anguish.

Advertisement

He didn’t need that. As he put it back in the spring, he preferred to stay with all his amazing memories.

(Top photo: Julian Finney / Getty Images)

Culture

Book Review: ‘The Granddaughter,’ by Bernhard Schlink

Published

on

Book Review: ‘The Granddaughter,’ by Bernhard Schlink

THE GRANDDAUGHTER, by Bernhard Schlink. Translated by Charlotte Collins.


When it comes to women revealing what they really think about their families after they die, it’s hard to top Faulkner’s Addie Bundren, reflecting from beyond the grave on the grudges and loathing she lived with as the unwilling matriarch of a dysfunctional Mississippi brood. A century later in Germany, the dead woman at the center of Bernhard Schlink’s new novel, “The Granddaughter,” gives Addie a run for her money.

Birgit grows up in East Germany after the war and dies in her 70s in unified Berlin. Her husband, a bookseller named Kaspar, finds her body drowned in the bathtub of their well-appointed apartment and can’t tell if her overdose was accidental or intentional. Bereft, he receives a postmortem query from a publisher about the manuscript Birgit was writing, which she never showed him. He finds and reads what seems to be an autobiography of Birgit’s thoroughly embittered life, much of which she kept secret from him: from her young love affair with an older Communist Party officer that left her pregnant and alone, to her passionless marriage to Kaspar in Berlin, where she endured years of triumphalist condescension from West Germans. She writes regretfully and searingly about her hopes to someday meet the daughter she abandoned at birth. All that Kaspar knows for certain is that Birgit turned to alcohol and pills to numb her many pains. “I am not a monster,” Birgit reflects, defensively, regarding the freedom she felt in the moments after letting her newborn go.

Instead of disagreeing, Kaspar finds a new purpose in his dead wife’s failures and frustrations: He decides to find Birgit’s daughter. This premise will feel familiar to readers of Schlink’s previous novels — including his best-selling “The Reader” (1995), which was adapted into an Oscar-winning film — many of which use individual relationships as proxies for examining the ongoing legacies of World War II and the Cold War in his native country. Schlink is not as elusive or cerebral a writer about modern Germany as W.G. Sebald, nor as intense or unflinching a storyteller as Jenny Erpenbeck; but he writes instructive tales that adeptly raise difficult questions and propose appealing answers.

In “The Granddaughter,” translated into clear and accessible English by Charlotte Collins, these answers are found along Kaspar’s journey into the former East Germany, where he eventually tracks down Birgit’s daughter, Svenja, who was raised by her birth father and his wife and never knew about Birgit. In and out of reform school as a teenager, Svenja now leads a quiet rural life with her neo-Nazi husband and 14-year-old daughter, surrounded by fellow proponents of a purist Germany who reject national guilt over the “Holocaust lie” and commit themselves to defending “the glory of the Fatherland” from foreign influence. Meeting them, Kaspar exhibits a measured, even respectful curiosity about their enthusiasm for ideas and attitudes that produced the most destructive period of modern world history. His fair-mindedness throughout the novel is so exemplary it becomes wearisome.

Advertisement

What follows is a rather schematic plot turn in which Kaspar persuades Svenja and her husband to let their daughter, Sigrun — whose “heroes” include Irma Grese, an infamously brutal young guard in the women’s sections of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen — visit him in Berlin every few months, in exchange for payments from Birgit’s estate. This they decide after Kaspar has met the couple only twice — a couple who are protective and generally distrusting and knew nothing about Birgit, let alone Kaspar, a week earlier. But the all-too-convenient arrangement allows Schlink do what he really wants to with this novel: stage an intergenerational encounter in contemporary Germany between a responsibly contrite, open-minded, aging postwar German and a rebellious, confidently nationalist post-unification teenager.

And so Sigrun spends more than a year traveling between her home and Kaspar’s, where she has her own bedroom and piano lessons, where the two cook and travel and go to the philharmonic and museums together, and where Kaspar patiently tries to convince her of the authenticity of Anne Frank’s diary. Unsurprisingly, this “Pygmalion”-style denazification project involves giving her books to inform and challenge her worldview, which inevitably leads to conflicts back home.

After disappearing from his life without warning, Sigrun shows up again on Kaspar’s doorstep two years later, needing him to hide her from the police. At 18 she has inherited her mother’s stubbornness, which ironically makes her rebel against Svenja’s “Völkisch” politics and Third Reich nostalgia. She’s eager to fight in the streets for her own vision for Germany — especially against her leftist peers — which Schlink shrewdly conveys as a kind of reactionary idealism to what she perceives as the political mushiness of her parents’ generation.

However disappointed and worried he becomes about Sigrun’s situation, Kaspar remains unconditionally supportive, losing his temper only once, on the perfectly calculated occasion of delivering an impassioned speech in defense of moderation — to a Sigrun who proves, also conveniently, more and more open to her step-grandfather’s perspective.

And so this novel, finally too pleasing and affirming for readers who are rightly worried about political violence and radicalized youth, ends with a dignified old man envisioning a stable, cosmopolitan future for a wayward young girl. Some will read Schlink’s latest as an inspiring fable of intergenerational unity and redemption. Others might find it more like fantasy fiction.

Advertisement

THE GRANDDAUGHTER | By Bernhard Schlink | Translated by Charlotte Collins | HarperVia | 326 pp. | $28.99

Continue Reading

Culture

Jason Kelce’s new late-night show needs more Kelce, less comedy: Takeaways

Published

on

Jason Kelce’s new late-night show needs more Kelce, less comedy: Takeaways

For all the talk of Tom Brady’s TV debut in 2024, few pro athletes have made the transition off the field and into the pop-culture landscape more effectively than Jason Kelce, whose unique professional and personal alchemy includes: notable on-field success, including All-Pro honors, a Super Bowl title in Philadelphia and a role as a lead performer of the Eagles’ “Tush Push”; off-field media stardom as a co-host, with brother Travis, of the wildly popular “New Heights” podcast; and commercial ubiquity (Buffalo Wild Wings and Campbell’s Chunky Soup, among others).

That led to a multiyear deal with ESPN, including participating on “Monday Night Countdown” and, as of 1 a.m. ET on Saturday morning, a new role as late-night talk show host — arguably one of the the most challenging jobs in TV.

Taped in front of a live audience at Philadelphia’s Union Transfer, “They Call It Late Night With Jason Kelce” was the first of a four-week “pop-up” experiment in sports TV leading up to the Super Bowl, and the results were a not-unexpected mix of raucous, ragged and relatable.

Here are key takeaways from the show’s debut:

Kelce’s bearded, beer-swilling “everyman” vibe is at the heart of his charm

And the show leaned right into that. Kelce wore a letterman’s jacket and T-shirt, with jeans and work boots.

Advertisement

He set a tone quickly, asking his audience: “How did we get here?” Actually, his very first words were “Holy s—.” The late-night license to curse was used liberally but not particularly gratuitously (the s-word went unbleeped, the f-word was bleeped).

From the show’s name, logo and intro to its retro-fun set to a few of its bits, there was a running homage to the best of NFL Films. “They Call It Pro Football” was one of NFL Films’ earliest projects, and the appreciation Kelce has for NFL history popped, from a warm studio cameo and toast with Hall of Fame Eagles receiver Harold Carmichael to Kelce’s awe for framed photos of the NFL’s most famous “mangled hands” hanging in the studio.

Kelce’s opening monologue gets graded on a curve

That’s because the late-night host monologue in front of an audience is among the most challenging work in all of TV — let alone by someone with limited hosting experience. The audience was friendly and forgiving of the occasional faltering riff, if not laughing their heads off. The bits involving actors — like a segment where Kelce met himself as a 14-year-old and as an older person — were more cringe than comedy.

Advertisement

The second segment shined

The show was at its best in the second segment, when Kelce brought out a roundtable of guests: the rapper and actor Dave “Lil Dicky” Burd, the NFL TV analyst Brian Baldinger and — in an impressive flex by Kelce and ESPN — Charles Barkley.

Their roundtable conversation felt like listening to a podcast in all the right ways — casual and conversational. From his experience co-hosting “New Heights,” Kelce seemed so much more comfortable as a moderator than solo star.

They covered some good “newsy” topics — the Eagles sitting Saquon Barkley before he could try to set the NFL single-season rushing record (Charles Barkley: “I’m glad he’s not playing.”), players’ mindset heading into Week 18 and Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell. Giving four professional talkers a classic sports-talk framework was a great idea.

The show could use a tighter run time

As the show got deeper into its hour-long run-time, the conceits and viewer experience got demonstrably more strained: A segment where the four panelists were tasked with doing their best impressions of legendary NFL Films voice (and Philly native) John Facenda was derailed by the panelists being totally unprepared to read their cue cards and the content of the cards being clunky and corny. (Burd: “I don’t know what I just read.”)

A final segment featuring four super-fans in a beer-chugging contest felt tacked on and featured the fastest chugger being disqualified for not ending by flipping his mug onto his head as instructed. (Watching it was even more raggedy than describing it.)

Advertisement

The show could — and would — benefit from a tighter run-time (30 minutes makes sense), which would allow it to really zero in on Kelce as an expert moderator of an interesting panel of guests.

The show needs more Kylie

One area where the show should not skimp going forward: Air-time for Kelce’s wife, Kylie, who sits at a table  in the wings (“Kylie’s Korner”) and acts as lead voiceover, lamentably used only sparingly in the debut.

Kylie — who recently displaced Joe Rogan as the most popular podcast host on Spotify — is way too talented (and way too big of a star in her own right) to have such a minimal, marginal role. The show would benefit from way more Kylie, and it could easily replace the final two blocks with the couple bantering about topics together — or adding Kylie to the roundtable.

I have a lot of empathy and appreciation for a production team trying something new, and debut episodes are the moment all your fun ideas in the writers’ room meet reality.

Advertisement

In this case, they don’t need the canned bits and actors — they have Kelce, in all his authenticity and talent for holding a conversation; they have Kylie; they have ESPN’s convening power to get big names like Barkley; they have a friendly Philly crowd and a welcoming studio set-up — and they should double down on letting Kelce do what he is best at.

Required reading

(Photo: Andy Lewis / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

Continue Reading

Culture

2 Books About the Moneyed Class

Published

on

2 Books About the Moneyed Class

Dear readers,

When a friend forwarded some fresh ridiculous news about billionaires recently — you might have heard it’s a gangbusters time to be one — I scoffed the scoff of the comfortably righteous. Boo, hiss, the filthy feckless rich! Let them eat crypto, or whatever.

My reading preferences, though, tend to look a lot less proletarian. Tales of the 1 percent take up too many percentages of my personal library, a veritable Davos Forum of prosperity and privilege crammed into wonky Ikea bookshelves. Give me outrageous fortune in all its forms, fiction or non-: old money; new money; money so big it seems bottomless until in a dribble or a rush it’s gone, leaving a wash of disgraced tech moguls and shabby aristocrats in its wake.

All that abundance allows for endless subcategorization: The picks in this week’s newsletter were both published in the 1980s (didn’t they call it the Greed Decade?) but are set in the early years of the 20th century and were written by women who were, you could say, born to the material.

Leah

Advertisement

Fiction, 1980

“The Shooting Party” opens on an English country manor, with a sprawling cast of characters and death on the mantel. But Colegate’s novel mostly swerves away from Agatha Christie territory; it’s not murder so much as class disparity and vast carelessness that snuff out a life in the last pages.

Along the way, Colegate introduces the many houseguests, residents and scurrying servants of Nettleby Park, a bucolic Northamptonshire estate that in the fall of 1913 contains only whispers of the war that will shortly upend the old world order still preserved there. Sir Randolph is hosting a hunt, and it takes a village to sustain the roundelay of white-tablecloth meals, shootable wildlife and social intrigue.

The pheasant body count is high, but most pursuits take place indoors: There is much covert coveting of other people’s partners and simmering rivalries among highborn men for whom day jobs are as foreign as dressing themselves for dinner. The service staff, from the scullery maids to the local laborers hired as “beaters” to bring out the game, have their own romances and resentments, and a lonely little boy spends a lot of time trying to track down his pet duck. Other odd birds emerge, including an earnest vegetarian schoolteacher eager to spread the gospel of animal equality to Nettleby.

Julian Fellowes, the creator of “Downton Abbey,” supposedly gleaned heavy inspiration from “The Shooting Party” (he wrote the introduction to a 2007 reissue). But Colegate has him beat for on-the-job training — her father was a knighted member of Parliament and her mother the daughter of a baronet. And her storytelling is drawn in finer ink than his gilded soap operas, even when the party turns to its final, fatal calamity.

Advertisement

Read if you like: Buckshot, in-depth descriptions of British flora, tasteful infidelity.
Available from: Penguin Modern Classics, or your favored local viscount.


Nonfiction, 1985

The über alles of poor little rich girls, Vanderbilt lost her father, the industrialist heir Reginald Claypool Vanderbilt, before her first birthday. He was 45; her mother was 19 and not particularly bound to her husband’s social calendar. (On the night Reginald died at his Rhode Island estate, she was off at the theater in New York City with “a friend of the family,” Vanderbilt writes in “Once Upon a Time,” the second of six memoirs published before her death at 95 in 2019.)

Almost immediately, the custody of baby Gloria became a family power struggle and then a tabloid mainstay. Like the ongoing churn of nannies and chauffeurs she was largely parented by, it was all more or less normalized, though the battle dragged on long enough that her comprehension eventually caught up with the more sordid points of the case: “I tormented myself by imagining that the only clothes I wore were made of newspapers, and on each would be words in those black thick spider letters spelling out what I could no longer pretend not to read.”

Mostly, she pined for the barest crumbs from her mother (also named Gloria), a distant glamourpuss who slept past noon and regularly disappeared to London or Paris or Biarritz with some lover or another. Even when physically present, she was rarely there — taking a preteen Gloria for a promised meeting with her idol, Marlene Dietrich, for example, then ditching her in Dietrich’s driveway for hours while she slipped inside alone.

Advertisement

Vanderbilt recalls all this with the breathless prose of a bygone schoolgirl, crowding the page with whimsical nicknames (Big Elephant, Tootsie Eleanor, the Little Countess), and looping her most fervent words and phrases when she really means-means-means them. Still, it’s hard to resist her guileless takes on what passed for adolescent social events: weekends with William Randolph Hearst or the Prince of Wales; a “Wizard of Oz” premiere gala at the Waldorf Astoria (Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney never showed at the afterparty, nor a single munchkin, though Errol Flynn did).

And you know exactly what she means when she describes a boarding-school classmate as “cold-muffiny.” Vanderbilt was too warm for her world, a Dorothy who probably would have been happier in Kansas but learned to make Oz home.

Read if you like: Drinking soda pop at the Stork Club, vintage issues of Vogue, “scrambled eggs with brandied peaches and champagne” for breakfast.
Available from: Estate sales and eBay, generally.


  • Shake the family tree further via Consuelo Vanderbilt’s rococo 1952 memoir “The Glitter and the Gold”?

  • Dip into the preppy-handbook idyll of Will Vogt’s “These Americans”? Jay McInerney (naturally) wrote the foreword.

  • Consider the cautionary tale of Leona Helmsley’s late Maltese, Trouble, the abiding lap-dog heiress of our times?


Thank you for being a subscriber

Plunge further into books at The New York Times or our reading recommendations.

Advertisement

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.

Friendly reminder: check your local library for books! Many libraries allow you to reserve copies online.

Continue Reading

Trending