By Richard Pagliaro | Monday, July 4, 2022

Time travel doesn't exist, but walking through the All England Club gates takes Brad Gilbert back to another time.

Celebrating his 37th Wimbledon this year, ESPN analyst Gilbert says returning to The Championships recalls the euphoria of his very first trip to SW19.

More: Garin's Dark Winter Prelude to Breakout Summer 

"You don't really understand the gravitas of coming to Wimbledon until you get here," Gilbert says.

The high energy former world No. 4 has been a man in motion around the grounds through the first eight days of ESPN's coverage bouncing around from No. 3 Court to the Hill to the broadcast center.

We caught up with the Winning Ugly author right in front of the testament to timeless tennis, the plaque outside No. 18 court memoralizing John Isner's 70-68 in-the-fifth-set win over Nicolas Mahut in the epic from-here-to-eternity Wimbledon match of 2010.

In this interview, Brad Gilbert talks the most impactful Wimbledon change, his most painful Wimbledon moments, what the 2022 season means to Novak Djokovic's legacy, the immediate future of American tennis and why he believes it's about time for the ATP's coaching trial. 


Tennis Now: Brad, can we start with your best and worst Wimbledon memories?

Brad Gilbert: My best memory was the first time I got here in 1983. Believe it or not, I’ve been here 37 of the last 38 Wimbledons. There was no tennis in 2020, I was hurt in 1988 so I’ve been to every other Wimbledon.

As a kid you think “What is it like?” You don’t really understand the gravitas of coming to Wimbledon until you get here and then kind of like ever since then it’s like “Wow, it’s another year back.” I probably spent two to three years of my life in this town.

It’s funny how your perception can change as you grow. When you’re younger you’re like “What is it with all-white rule?” Now, that you’re older, you’re like “That’s kind of cool.” That’s my best memory: Coming through the gates for the first time.

My worst memory? Probably coaching-wise I’ve had as much disappointment here that I had anywhere because Andre lost three times in the semi, once in the final. Roddick lost once in the final, once in the semi.

So six times as a coach in the semis with no ones. One of the craziest losses was once Andre lost here to Becker. Andre was up 6-1, 4-1 in ’95 semi and Becker was getting beat so bad he gave his racquet to the ball kid. It kind of loosened up the crowd, loosened up Becker and somehow he won.

TN: You’ve witnessed a lot of changes at Wimbledon over the years. This year, we’ve seen the debut of scheduled play on middle Sunday, we’ve seen the 10-point tiebreaker introduced at 6-all and we’ve seen them permit select players to practice on Centre Court before main draw play began. In your mind, what is the most impactful change we’ve seen at Wimbledon?

Brad Gilbert: I think the biggest change was in 2001 to 2002. When Hewitt beat Nalbandian in the final, Malisse was in the semifinal—that was the first year they changed the grass. And the next year, Fed completely dominating to begin the Big 3, Big 4 era.

Even when Andre won it was tough to stay back. You’d see guys who never came to the net, come to the net. So it started in 2002 when they changed the courts. It was like “Okay, I’m going to play my normal game.” And that’s why you’re seeing slower conditions, everyone playing more rallies. I actually think it’s much better watching it than watching the Gorans, the Krajiceks and the massive servers, which I actually think wasn’t so much fun for people. So I find the grass most interesting now.

I do think the change in the grass used on the court was positive. A lot of the old-schoolers hate it. I like it.

TN: I watched the BBC’s extensive interview with Billie Jean King last night. She’s a big advocate of best-of-three sets across the board because she feels you have to appeal to kids, the next generation of fans, and BJK asserts they don’t have the attention span to sit and watch a 5-hour match.

Question: Do you think we will ever see men’s tennis go to best-of-three at Slams and what’s your personal position on it?

Brad Gilbert: The men have always played best-of-five at Slams. If you change to best-of-three, then now you’ve changed history. All of a sudden, Slams are different. They are over 14 days every other day and you have a chance—when you’re down two sets to none—to turn around a match.

I’m thinking when Rafa was playing Medvedev in the Australian Open final this year and that match went five sets for hours. I don’t think there was one person there looking at their freaking watching going “Geez, this match is going too long.”

If two massive servers are serving you know okay it can be a little bit boring. But with the Anderson-Isner semi we went to all fifth-set breakers at majors. So there is a limit now to how long they can go. It’s four times a year. In my day, there were numerous tournaments that played five-set finals.

TN: All of the Super Nines, the Masters…

Brad Gilbert: Yeah all of the Masters and even a tournament like Vienna where they would have WCT and Davis Cup. Now, it’s just four times a year that we have best-of-five set matches. Let’s keep it that way.

TN:Are you of the opinion that Carlos Alcaraz is a future dominant superstar who will win multiple majors as the Big 3 transition on? Or do you view it as when the Big 3 move on we’ll see a collection of players—Alcaraz, Sinner, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Rublev, Rune, Korda, Fritz, etc.—winning majors?

Brad Gilbert: The beauty of tennis is that there’s a window and a time of opportunity. If you told me after Andre and Pete that things would have jumped to the way they are now I would have laughed.

Who would have possibly guessed then that Rafa would win as many French Opens as major titles Pete won in his career? Will we have a period where all of a sudden is there like six to eight different Slam winners? Or are we gonna see Alcaraz take his opportunity with the Big 3 getting older? These are all questions that are unknown.

If you told me in 2027 when Alcaraz would be 24, if you told me by then Alcaraz would have five or six Grand Slam titles, I would not be surprised.

TN: What is Alcaraz’s best surface?

Brad Gilbert: I actually thought after Indian Wells and Miami that hard court is his best surface. That’s to be determined. You know at the same age, Rafa’s best surface was clay and then Rafa grew into other surfaces.

Right now, I’m not sure with Carlos. But I do think that the beauty of him is that he’s a gamer and wouldn’t shock me what level he goes to. But you can’t just advance someone—you have to go out and do it. I’ll say this: Alcaraz is in with a great opportunity and he’s in a good window. It’s not like he’s got a three to five-year time frame dominated by the Big 3. He’s growing into his own soon.

TN: When history looks back at this 2022 season will historians say this was the moment the entire Grand Slam race changed? Where Rafa took charge and where Novak’s refusal to take the jab cost him that record for most majors? If Novak can’t play the US Open as it seems is the case as of today, what impact will that have on him and his career missing two of the four majors when he was peaking?

Brad Gilbert: Remember, a year ago we were talking about Novak potentially completing what Steffi did in ’88—the Golden Slam. He lost in the Olympics, he lost at the US Open. Now, there’s a really good chance he doesn’t play a major again until the 2023 French Open.

He got a three-year ban—he has to get reinstated to get back into Australia. There’s a 99 percent chance he’s not getting into New York unless something changes drastically. And that means he’s not going to get into Canada and Cincy and that means his ranking is going to drop. I’m not saying he’s still not going to have another three years to win the French Open and Wimbledon—he probably will. But listen, that’s the beauty of sports.

Tennis is a moving escalator—you get off, it keeps moving. And that’s the way it is. I do think these younger guys haven’t had the same experiences. Like Tsitsipas is young, but he’s already played these guys a lot, he’s had a lot of losses. There’s two or three generations of players wiped out by the Big 3.

I think these guys 19, 20 and 21—they won’t feel that pain. I think their opportunity and window will be more.



TN: The ATP will start to trial coaching next week. What’s your view on this off-court coaching trial and do you think we will see coaching expanding in the coming years?

Brad Gilbert: Let me say this: It’s about time.

We did this in 1999. I remember two tournaments that I was with Andre that they did this trial and Andre won them both. We did exactly what the WTA did: once a set you would come down on the court, you would be called down and boom you coach your player.

Then we decided not to continue—I was always disappointed by that. There’s always been third-base coaching [coaching from the stands] forever. For as long as I’ve been a player it’s happened. There have been times when you’ve been able to get away with it more.

So I like this new system. I think it will be a bit more transparent because you can only do it on your side. I like the fact it’s a trial. Hopefully, this is something that will continue. Hopefully, this will put an end to “Okay if he’s freaking cheating then he’s cheating.”

I’m an advocate for let’s eliminate cheating. So if Coach A and Coach B are sitting side-by-side and they’re wearing microphones. What’s always been crazy to me is the umpire has a tough enough job and now you want the umpire to look and watch the player boxes and see who is coaching?

Why isn’t there just an official sitting in each box? I’m happy we’re moving forward with coaching and I think it’s long overdue.



TN: What will we see happen first: An American woman win a singles major or an American man win a singles major?

Brad Gilbert: The American women have had an incredible run and it continues with Coco Gauff runner-up to Iga at the French Open.

Listen, I’d be surprised if Coco doesn’t win a Slam in the next 12 months. I’d be very surprised if she doesn’t. We’ve had Jennifer Brady in a Slam final, we’ve had Kenin win the Australian Open. I believe there are 10 to 12 different [American] women who are active who have made a Slam semifinal and six or seven who have made a major final.

There’s only two active American men who have made a major semi: Isner and Sam Querrey. That’s it. So it would be great if we had one make a semi here. I think Fritz winning Indian Wells was a huge step for American men.

Before that Fritz win, I was thinking we’re still a ways away, but now I think this group is pushing each other.

The women, Coco has a phenomenal future and Anisimova is doing good things. So I think the American women are closer to winning a Slam, but I think there’s more depth in the men.




TN: Last question: You’ve spent your life in tennis as a player, coach, writer, broadcaster. What change would you support to make tennis a better viewing sport, a more fan-friendly sport for the viewers at home?

Brad Gilbert: I’d like to see more access, which the Tours have resisted. The interview the coach in an NBA final at the end of the first quarter, at halftime at the end of the third quarter. They mic up a player.

I’d like to see Rafa mic’d up in practice. Maybe we can get a better feel of how hard they’re hitting the ball. More player access for the fan watching at home and sometimes maybe a lower camera angle as well. Other sports have had better access to players, like the NBA, and I think it makes fans gravitate toward them more. Formula-1 does a great job of that and I think the NBA does a phenomenal job with that, which I would like to see translated into tennis.

It's about making the sport better for the fans and viewers.