Post Rome - LIVE! 

It’s not a trial coming up, it’s an appeal against a verdict that’s already been made, that was made because there was compelling evidence he did it. Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to prove because, by definition, it happens in private behind closed doors. It’s not unreasonable to believe that the judge who issued the penalty order made the right decision based on the information he had - it’s not like they draw “guilty” or “not guilty” out of a hat while gossiping over coffee… As an aside, the fact that he maintains his innocence means very little since the majority of abusers don’t see their behaviour as abusive.

THANK YOU!!! I was just scrolling to check if anyone else had said the same thing!

Yeah. It would have been; and there really is nothing else quite like it. Roddick's comes closest. His break-downs of tennis is extremely fascinating, and he is a really smart bloke. But he is highly opinionated, and abrasive and aggressive... a bit too American. What ruins the Tennis Podcast for me is the one extremely spoilt, self-absorbed individual who is constantly imposing themselves on the pod, and its packaging. There are times when it gets SO annoying that I just stop listening! If only Matt and David could get together with someone like Mary Carillo, or even Petkovic or Rennae Stubbs and build a pod!

@@atakerofmickies4300 Yes Roddick is interesting but opinionated. But it’s good to have the insight of a former top player.

If Iga gets near Rafa’s Roland Garros’s record - would almost imply that she will end her career with 25 slams.

@@tennissir1986 Yes or at least around the 20 mark. Who knows, fitness permitting she should reach double figures and she seems a cut above the players who won 2, 3 or 4 majors and then stalled. Could well be ten more years of dominance.

@@mostynf Yes. If Iga’s pattern continues she will get better at the Australian open and figure out grass and maybe snag a Wimbledon or two. If she gets anywhere near Sarena Williams results I would say she is the all time best because the competition is greater for her than Serena had.

Lol. She has a real "daddy's little princess" vibe about her, doesn't she? Otherwise, the Whitakers seem like a fun people on the whole: the parents and the brother seem very cool. "On the Boat" was fun. It was a unique expression, and it communicated a certain je ne sais quoi that's difficult to put onto words. But, I didn't really get the making a big deal of "in the mix". That's a fairly common expression, and everyone knows what exactly that means. I think that's the thing with Cath. She is a naturally funny, witty, articulate person. But she seems deeply insecure about her tennis credentials, despite working in the industry, rubbing shoulders with former players who know what they are talking about. I think it's an insecurity that began at home with dad and brother, and now with Matt. So, she often starts milking fairly simple ideas or simplistic insights for all they are worth with tautological statements and sheer repetition, a lot of attempted witticisms and laughter, without really developing the ideas themselves; and this happens when one of her anodyne statements are met with the slightest approval from Matt or one of the experts she's hanging out with. CW: Zverev just hangs back and rallies on the big points. MR: Yes. What he does really well though is... CW: (Interrupting) He is a 6'6" counter-puncher!!! (Laughter). He could come in off a lot of balls, but he just seems to go further back towards the backboard, on breakpoints! (Chortling) Oooh, how many Slams would he have won if only he had been more proactive on some of those points?! What does all of this MEAN?! Is he in the Mix? At Roland Garros? At Wimbledon? Oooh, at the OLYMPICS! (More laughter) Quite transparent, really. It is a good podcast overall, and it would be even better if only Cath. would tone it down.