The tennis season has begun, with the best ATP and WTA Tour players competing in warm-up tournaments across Australia before the first Grand Slam of 2026.

Following the 2025 season reviews on the men’s and women’s tours, this week, The Athletic’s tennis writers answered your mailbag questions on what to expect this season. Here are Matthew Futterman and Charlie Eccleshare’s responses.

Questions have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

Out of these four young WTA players — Victoria Mboko, Maya Joint, Iva Jović and Alexandra Eala — which one will be the first to win a Grand Slam? Or will none of them do it? (Anonymous U.)

Charlie Eccleshare: I would be very surprised if none of them win a major. They all have potential and time on their side.

I would go with Mboko. As she showed at the Canadian Open, she already has the ability to run extremely hot for half a dozen matches. Injuries permitting, I see no reason why she can’t win a major in the next few years.

Eala will have to improve her serve, but her 2025 Miami Open run, in which she beat Madison Keys and Iga Świątek, proved her ability to worry the top players. Joint and Jović are awaiting the kind of headline win that will rubberstamp their status as future Grand Slam contenders.

Matthew Futterman: I’m going to bet on Mboko, for two main reasons: her backhand and her movement. Both are top-notch, and the movement will only improve as her footwork catches up to her athleticism and she becomes more familiar with the highest levels of tennis.

At 5 feet 10 inches tall, I think she is also the tallest of the quartet, which may be one of the reasons I think she has the most advanced serve at the moment. Players really need a top-class serve to compete for Grand Slams these days, even moreso than they did before.

That said, I might bet on none of them winning a Grand Slam, only because the universe of players making the top 50 is a lot larger than the universe of players who have won one.

Who would you predict to break into the top 100 that we have never heard of? Men and women. (Chris B.)

Eccleshare: Anyone who read this tennis briefing or the WTA season review will have heard of her, but for those who did not … Look out for Austrian 17-year-old Lilli Tagger. Ranked No. 153 at the time of writing, Tagger won the French Open juniors in June without dropping a set, and then went all the way to the final of her first WTA Tour event in China.

Tagger has a powerful serve and baseline game, including a vanishingly rare (especially on the women’s side) single-handed backhand, and I expect she’ll be in the top 100 before long.

On the men’s side, his win over Learner Tien at the Next Gen ATP Finals in December brought his name to a wider audience, but Spain’s Rafael Jodar has been generating plenty of interest the past 12 months. Having not played an event outside of his home country until last year, Jodar won three ATP Challenger tournaments in 2025.

His forehand is a huge weapon, he can move, and his serve has some serious pace behind it. He should be troubling tour players in 2026.

Futterman: On the men’s side, I’m going with Colton Smith. He’s a terrifically athletic talent out of the University of Arizona, who is incredibly raw and who hails from a decently rural area of Washington State. That’s hardly a hotbed of talent, and Smith does not come from money either. With his limited means, he traveled little and worked with local coaches to get one or two good weeks away from the top 100. I thought he was going to get there last year.

As for the women, how about Nikola Bartůňková? She is 19 and the highest-ranked young Czech woman outside the top 100, after returning from a six-month anti-doping ban in 2025 after a positive test that authorities deemed unintentional.

If there is one thing I know, it’s that the Czechs are very good at producing young, female tennis players.

Does the Joker win another Grand Slam singles title? (Andrea B.)

Eccleshare: For those who have been living under a tennis rock, that’s Novak Djokovic — and no. He’s said himself that beating one of Sinner or Alcaraz is hard enough over five sets, and that to beat both of them as is necessary at the moment is borderline impossible. Maybe he’ll get lucky and only have to beat one, or somehow neither, but all things being equal I don’t see it.

His three straight-sets defeats to Sinner (twice) and to Alcaraz at the final three Grand Slams of 2025 were painful to watch at various points.

Futterman: I’m going to say yes, for three reasons.

It’s boring to agree with Charlie all the time, even though he is smarter than I am.

I hate saying Djokovic can’t do something, because he has proven me wrong for so many years.

And things almost blew up for Sinner and Alcaraz at two majors in 2024. They did blow up for Alcaraz in Australia, and Sinner looked finished in the heat for a while against Holger Rune, before an improbable break-point save and a broken net strap offered him a reprieve.

At Wimbledon, Sinner appeared cooked against Dimitrov before the pectoral tear with a two-set lead. Alcaraz needed a fifth set to beat Fabio Fognini in the first round. In the semis, Taylor Fritz was up 6-4 up against Alcaraz in the fourth-set tiebreak.

All this is to say, things got close to opening up for Djokovic. He remains the most likely character to pick up the pieces if the two best stumble or get hurt, because he has been there so many times — other players who find themselves with the good fortune of a Grand Slam final with Alcaraz and Sinner absent may suffer altitude sickness.

Let’s assume that Sinner and Alcaraz are abducted by aliens before the Australian Open and return, thankfully unharmed, in October 2026. Who wins the men’s singles Grand Slams in their absence? (Ryan F.)

Eccleshare: Starting with Djokovic: between 2020 to 2023, before Alcaraz and Sinner’s duopoly took full effect, he averaged two major titles per year. In the finals that he won, he faced Daniil Medvedev (twice), Stefanos Tsitsipas (twice), Dominic Thiem, Matteo Berrettini, Nick Kyrgios and Casper Ruud. All good players, but all players he would have taken the odds against.

Would the current equivalents, say Taylor Fritz, Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton, do any differently? Recent history suggests not. Djokovic beat Fritz and Zverev comfortably at the U.S. Open and French Open respectively this year, and he had Shelton at arms’ length when he stopped the American’s rousing run at the 2023 U.S. Open.

So, assuming Djokovic would stay fit in this scenario, I think he’d be good for at least two majors. That would leave two for the rest, and I’d expect Fritz to take one. The other is tricky. The sensible option would be Zverev, who could well find himself against a Grand Slam final debutant and take advantage of being the more experienced player.

Futterman: Australian Open: If not Djokovic, then Shelton because he’s made the quarterfinals and semifinals there in three tries.

French Open: If not Djokovic then Lorenzo Musetti or Casper Ruud. Both are sublime on clay in very different ways.

Wimbledon: Djokovic. Still the world’s best pure grass-court player.

U.S. Open: Djokovic is so tired by then, so (a healthy) Jack Draper. He generally plays great in New York.

I know every member of the team plays an important role on a tennis player’s career. But, I was wondering, who do you think has more impact on Amanda Anisimova’s success this year: Her coach Hendrik Vleeshouwers or her physio, Shadi Soleymani? (Anonymous U)

James Hansen: Sad not to be directing this answer at anyone, but it’s an interesting question. Anisimova and her team gave Soleymani a ton of credit during Matt’s interviews with them at Wimbledon, largely for how she has improved Anisimova’s ability to train harder, for longer. The relationship would appear to be symbiotic: the stronger and fitter a player is, the more scope a coach has to work with them and to push them closer to their end-range. For Anisimova, someone whose way of winning matches is so reliant on hitting lines at high speed, that’s very important.

Soleymani and Vleeshouwers tailor Anisimova’s training days together, so let’s see that one cannot have their influence on her success without the other.

How high in the rankings can Learner Tien climb next year? (Mike K.)

Eccleshare: He’s currently No. 28, so the top 20 seems like a realistic aim, though he has fourth-round points to defend at the Australian Open straight off the bat. I think top 20 is his ceiling at the moment, given the vulnerability of his serve and the fact that last year he benefited from largely being unknown and underestimated, which won’t be the case this year.

Futterman: Next year, top 15, but potentially top 10. I saw him play two practice sets with Alex Michelsen recently in California. His serve is much improved. There were plenty of aces and free points. Plus, he’s a lefty and I bank on him to stay healthy and focused — healthier and more focused than some of his rivals in and around those ranking spots.

What will be the key points to look at next year in the rivalry between Sinner and Alcaraz? What should we expect from it? (Enzo Z.)

Eccleshare: The year just gone was all about one player taking a step forward, and the other trying to cancel it out. When Alcaraz lost to Sinner in the Wimbledon final, he sought to counteract his rival’s greater efficiency. A couple of months later, he delivered the most clinical of U.S. Open wins.

After losing to Alcaraz in New York, Sinner said he needed to play with more variety if he wanted to meet his opponent’s top level.

Sinner then won the ATP Tour Finals, beating Alcaraz in the final, to cap a hugely successful autumn in which he was trying more drop shots and lobs than before.

They have both moved so far ahead of the rest — partly because of their relentless tinkering — that this year is hard to call. They are so good that their matches look more and more like serve vs. return battles, whereas their earlier meetings were more improvisational.

They watch so much of the other and are so focused on one another that whatever successful tactic one brings out at the Australian Open, the other will work tirelessly on trying to counteract between then and the French Open.

Futterman: I am more interested in the ATP Masters 1000s they play than I am the majors.  The three-set format allows for a little more variety and a little more danger, and they act as tests of consistency throughout the year with big changes in conditions over smaller timeframes than the Grand Slams.

Those slow hard courts in the dry desert air of Indian Wells, Calif. are one brain-teaser. Then there is Miami, with its slick surface but the draining humidity. The Madrid Open and Italian Open are back to back but could not be more different, because of the Spanish capital’s altitude.

I assume both will skip the Canadian Open, though there is an extra week of rest after Wimbledon this year. Cincinnati brings the heat. Then in the fall, who is still pushing for the No. 1 ranking and has the energy to chase points in Shanghai?

At the Cincinnati Open this year, one of the breakout stars of the tournament was Terence Atmane. In one of his post-match interviews, he talked about what the prize winnings would mean for his career. He earned more from one run than he had made all year in prize money — a figure north of $ 300,000.

I know tennis is an expensive sport, with the constant travel, paying the salaries and fare of a coaching team as well as equipment fees, and the prize structure is often winner-takes-all. What concrete investments can a now top-100 player like Atmane or Valentin Vacherot now make in himself that he couldn’t before? (K P.)

Eccleshare: For this one, I consulted a former player who didn’t quite make it into the top 100, but saw many of their peers take that step. They spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize relationships in the sport, but this is what they had to say:

“The obvious change is to hire a traveling strength and conditioning coach and trainer,” the player wrote via text message. “They keep you fresher, and should prevent stress injuries from happening.

“Outside of that, the key one is that you don’t need to play as many weeks. Points- and money-per-match-win is significantly higher, so just winning two matches in a week will keep you ticking over. When you are ranked 200, you’ve got to keep playing and keep going deep to get any movement in your ranking, so your overall volume and load is much higher.

“Things become more focused as well. The tournaments you are playing now feature plenty of players that you can’t beat. Whereas in a Challenger, you can likely beat all of them. This means you have to be ready to perform when the draws open up, and able to accept early exits.

“It is a totally different mindset … Every week on the Challenger Tour you need to be making the final or winning it to keep confidence high. Players can get used to needing five match wins to feel confident.

“Now, a player will need to adjust his mentality so he can feel good about not losing in the first round. Unless he decides he is going to be top 10, then he’ll just be fine whatever. But for most players, that change of mindset is a very difficult thing to achieve.”

Futterman: That says just about everything, except for this: It’s not just about the money. It’s the peace of mind that comes with knowing you are going to have entry into all the majors and most of the Masters 1000s. You can actually set a schedule, with only minor adjustments along the way if you lose early and want to grab some matches at a nearby Challenger during the second week of a Masters 1000, or add another 250 on an off-week.

Even if you lose every first-round match, you’re still banking maybe $ 700,000 in prize money and appearance fees. Maybe it’s worth hiring an accountant or a business manager.

How optimistic are you that 10 years from now, the scheduling issue will have been addressed in a manner that is positive for top 50-level players? What about lower-ranked players? What about fans? (Ryan F.)

Eccleshare: I seem to remember similar debates about an overstuffed calendar 10 years ago, so I’m not massively optimistic.

Starting with next year, I’m not convinced that we’ll see any major changes, though players do seem to be mobilizing. They seem to realize that they are the most precious commodities the sport has, which brings with it a certain power. But for real change to happen, I think back to something Djokovic said during a news conference at the U.S. Open.

“This is an ongoing story of the players, particularly top players,” he said of the stasis that has existed for so long.

“They express their feelings, but then you really need to put in the time and the energy into conversations, meetings, which I know is very difficult. I have been there, trust me, many times. But it’s necessary because then, you know, you’re doing something not only for yourself but future generations, and you’re making the right moves, the right steps and contributing.”

There is a tension at the heart of players’ desire for change. Can any of them, individuals who have got to where they are by being inherently selfish, put that to one side for the greater good of the sport and to affect meaningful alterations?

Futterman: Time to disagree with Charlie again.  I’m going to bet on some change but it won’t be for reasons of benevolence.

I think the money at the ATP and WTA 1,000-level events is going to keep rising dramatically and good players are going to keep getting smarter about the value of rest. More players will be able to afford to skip supposedly mandatory tournaments. Tour organizers will realize they have to make some changes to reflect a new reality: An increasingly two-tiered system of the Slams and 1,000-level tournaments, and everything else. The bigger 1,000-level draws have caused problems, but they have also let more players play more often at that level.

The obvious way to do that is to make the smaller tournaments play some role in qualifying for the larger ones, the way the Championship serves the English Premier League. I don’t know how or when it formally happens, but I think it’s going to happen informally and then get formalized as an actual structure — because someone will figure out how to make money off it.

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Sports Business, Tennis, Women's Tennis

2026 The Athletic Media Company