It’s very simple. Zizou Bergs beat Carlos Alcaraz in the third round of the Shanghai Masters 1000. I said it back in January. Not Shanghai, not the third round, but the spirit was there: a Belgian, one day, somewhere, against someone.
After the match, Alcaraz said: “I don’t want to make excuses, but I found the playing conditions much slower than in the first round and in practice. The balls seemed bigger.” Bigger balls. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for years, nobody listens to me. Me, in Kitzbühel, in ’92, against a future top 10, the ball doubled in size in the second set. Or the third. Anyway, it had got bigger, that’s the main thing.
Careful, I’m not saying the opposite of what I said. I’m clarifying. In March, at the Léopold club, I told my interclubs team (Belgium’s weekend team league) that the ball doesn’t matter, only the arm does. That still holds. Except when it grows. In ninety percent of cases, and I’m being kind, the ball grows for the man who loses.
Benoît Maylin, for his part, called the match “rubbish from him” and counted four winners. He also admitted that Bergs played very well. On that, I agree with him, but I agreed before him, you know. And he reminded everyone that Alcaraz had won Tokyo before arriving in Shanghai. Tokyo, I saw that coming too. All right?
Jean-Pol, in March you blamed your strings. I noted it in my folder.
My strings have nothing to do with it. Bergs played very well. But with a normal ball, we’d have to see. I’ve put my three tubes of balls from the Léopold in the fridge, in case they swell in Belgium too.
It’s true, we checked: We Love Tennis.
