
Tsitsipas splits with coach Ivanisevic after less than two months
'Working with Goran Ivanisevic was brief but an intense experience and a truly valuable chapter in my journey,' Tsitsipas posted on his Instagram story on Wednesday.
Tsitsipas, ranked 29th, appointed Ivanisevic as his coach in May after a string of disappointing results at the Grand Slams.
The 2021 French Open and 2023 Australian Open runner-up was forced to retire from his Wimbledon first-round match in June while trailing 6-3, 6-2 to French qualifier Valentin Royer due to a back injury.
Following Tsitsipas' opening-round exit at Wimbledon, Ivanisevic gave a scathing assessment of the 26-year-old Greek, saying he has 'never seen a more unprepared player' in his life. Tsitsipas has made one quarterfinal in his last nine Grand Slam tournaments.
Tsitsipas expressed thanks 'for the time, effort and energy he dedicated to me and my team'.
'As we are now following our separate ways, I have only respect for Goran — not just for what he's achieved in tennis, but also for who he is as a person. I wish him nothing but the very best moving forward.'
Ivanisevic, who won Wimbledon as a player in 2001, helped Novak Djokovic claim nine of his 24 Grand Slam titles before leaving his team in March last year. He then had a short stint with Kazakh world number 12 Elena Rybakina this season.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Cricket diplomacy can serve India in the neighbourhood
Broadly, soft power is utilisation of a country's cultural strengths as opposed to being coercive to influence and prevail over other nations. More commonly, the arts, entertainment, language and institutions have been components of cultural diplomacy. But sports, too, plays a role, from the extravaganza of the Olympic Games and football World Cups to the Wimbledon championships. In the early 1970s, ping-pong diplomacy broke the ice between the US and China. Cricket diplomacy has occasionally been employed by India and Pakistan as confidence-building measures. Today, the game has bestowed India with a valuable soft power ingredient. In 1928, India, despite being under British rule, stunned the world by lifting the gold medal in hockey in the Amsterdam Olympiad. Other than Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent freedom struggle, no facet of India in that period made an impact on the international community as Jaipal Singh's team's triumph did. Thereafter, India completing a hat-trick of golds in the 1936 Berlin Olympics rather jolted the German dictator, Adolf Hitler, whose world view was of white Aryans constituting a superior race. To his dismay, India thrashed Germany 8-1 in the final. In short, independent India inherited hockey as an instrument of soft power. People worldwide would yearn to witness the Indians' dribbling skills. Fast forward to Mexico 1968: India earned neither a gold nor a silver in hockey for the first time in 40 years. In contrast, three years later, India caught the imagination of the cricketing world by notching back-to-back Test series victories in the West Indies and England. Then, India's unexpected triumph in the 1983 World Cup pitchforked cricket as its new soft power implement. The win instigated the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to reach out to the Pakistan Cricket Board to jointly stage the next such event in 1987 — after England had monopolised hosting rights for the first three competitions. The Indo-Pak collaboration conjured a financial package neither England nor Australia could match. India's friendship with other stakeholder countries ensured decisive support for the bid. As cricket burgeoned in popularity in India and the footprint of television simultaneously expanded, Indian corporates started bankrolling broadcasts. This, in turn, created an opening for the BCCI to demand licence fees undreamt of before from broadcasters. Progressively, India became cricket's financial powerhouse. Today, BCCI's monetary stranglehold over cricket is such that not merely other cricket boards, but also the International Cricket Council (ICC), are at its mercy as in no other sporting discipline. India, contrary to Brazil in soccer, have never been undisputed champions of the game, indeed are yet to win the most prestigious World Test Championship; but BCCI unequivocally controls the sport. India as a team are the darling of BCCI's counterparts, because they fill their coffers with bountiful revenue from digital and TV networks, advertisers and sponsors. But they are not always popular with host cricket lovers, as they perceive BCCI to be a bully and as having inequitably captured the ICC. BCCI was party to ICC's decision to award this year's Champions Trophy tournament to Pakistan. Therefore, India's refusal to play in that country was not only a breach of its commitment, but an infringement of the ICC rules applied in the 1996 and 2003 World Cups, namely forfeiture of points for abstentions, which Australia and England suffered. India also derived unfair benefit from playing at a solitary venue and by summoning spinner Varun Chakravarthy as a replacement in their squad to suit the consistent conditions. ICC allowed the special dispensation. A majority of the participating sides permitted this for pecuniary gains; but it did not please the non-Indian public — thereby impairing India's potential goodwill. It is also opportunistic to meet Pakistan in over-limit World Cups, but not in the World Test Championship. The powers-that-be in India are understandably displeased with Pakistan. So, the principled approach would be to have no links with them at all. In 1974, India preferred to default against South Africa instead of playing against them in the Davis Cup final because of its apartheid regime. The BCCI's muscle is best channelled towards magnanimity, consequently in winning hearts and minds; not arm-twisting and seeking undue conveniences in the field. India can capitalise diplomatically on the robust following the Indian Premier League enjoys in England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the West Indies and South Asia, many of whose cricketers figure in the tourney. In 1987, with the anti-India General Zia-ul-Haq holding the reins in Pakistan, India's ties with it were unsatisfactory. But BCCI seeking PCB's cooperation helped to temporarily soften Pakistani people's wariness towards India. Therefore, South Block could consider lifting its long-standing ban on Pakistani cricketers partaking in the IPL. This year, Bangladeshi cricketers were also de facto debarred. Lifting the barrier would encourage people-to-people friendliness. The Indian government's anger with its neighbouring counterparts to its west and east and their proxies need not spill over into punishing individual cricketers. Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricketers crossing swords with the world's best in franchise Twenty20 would likely delight and suitably melt cricket fans in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Ashis Ray is a journalist and author of The Trial That Shook Britain. The views expressed are personal.


News18
4 hours ago
- News18
'I Won My Second Slam': Naomi Osaka's Playful Jab At Emma Raducanu After Defeat At DC Open
Last Updated: Emma Raducanu defeated Naomi Osaka 6–4, 6–2 at the Washington Open, advancing to the quarterfinals. Osaka's playful post-match response highlighted their parallels. In a long-anticipated showdown between two of tennis's most commercially powerful—and frequently scrutinized—young stars, Emma Raducanu defeated Naomi Osaka 6–4, 6–2 on Thursday to advance to the quarterfinals of the Washington Open. It marked their first-ever career meeting, and Raducanu delivered a sharp, composed performance to outplay the four-time Grand Slam champion. But while the match added another impressive win to Raducanu's comeback arc, it was Naomi Osaka's tongue-in-cheek response to a pointed post-match question that stole the show. Speaking to Bounces newsletter, Osaka was asked to reflect on the parallels often drawn between herself and Raducanu. Osaka responded coolly, if not a bit playfully: 'I won my second slam after I won my first slam." For Raducanu, Thursday's win was more than symbolic—it was proof of progress. 'I thought it was going to be a really difficult match," she told Sky Sports. 'Naomi's won four slams, she's been world number one, won Masters. She's so dangerous and on the hard courts, I think she's particularly comfortable." Both players skyrocketed to global fame after major Grand Slam wins—Osaka with her 2018 U.S. Open title and Raducanu with her historic 2021 U.S. Open triumph—and both have faced career turbulence and inconsistency in the years that followed. Still, the statistical and cultural parallels between the two remain striking. Both are ranked outside the top 40—Raducanu currently at No. 46, Osaka at No. 51—and neither has won a tour-level title since their respective 2021 Slam victories. Their rankings have often hovered in the same range, largely due to extended absences—Raducanu due to injuries and surgery, Osaka due to mental health breaks and maternity leave. Raducanu's Next Test At the DC Open, Raducanu faces Maria Sakkari next, the former world No. 3, in the quarterfinals after the Greek stunned second seed Emma Navarro in straight sets. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.


New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Medvedev eyes redemption on hard courts after five Slam final runs, US Open triumph
WASHINGTON: Daniil Medvedev figures this is his time to shine: He loves playing tennis on hard courts like those used at the D.C. Open. And he loves the U.S. Open, which is just a month away, in particular. Doesn't matter what else he's done this season or how things ended for him at the Australian Open, French Open or Wimbledon. He's reached six Grand Slam finals in his career, all on hard courts. 'Usually, this is the most important part of the season for me,' Medvedev said in an interview in Washington, where he was scheduled to play Corentin Moutet in the quarterfinals on Friday. 'And this year, it's really important for me, because I didn't have the best year. I had a lot of time after Wimbledon, so I'm feeling ready and I feel in good shape." After dropping his opening set at the D.C. Open this week against big-serving Reilly Opelka, Medvedev took the next four sets he played at an event where he was the runner-up in 2019. What works so well for the 29-year-old Russian on hard courts? 'A lot of different things. My ball goes through the air the most. My serve goes faster. And this year, the courts seem pretty fast. On the ATP lately, the courts seem to only get slower and slower. But here it's super fast. I like the way it plays,' said Medvedev, who has been ranked No. 1 and is No. 14 this week, his lowest spot in more than six years. 'It's one thing to like the way it plays and it's another thing to win. But I do feel like I can do big things.'