Letters to the Editor

Tennis and Cross Dressing

Sir/Madam

I find myself in a state of unprecedented befuddlement, not unlike that time I tried to assemble a gazebo without consulting the instructions, only to end up with a highly aggressive wind chime. The recent news that Novak Djokovic retired injured from the Australian Open has left me pondering not only the fragility of tendons but also the curious connection to cross-dressing.

Let me explain — or at least attempt to. You see, as Djokovic limped off the court, clutching some ligament or other (I am not well-versed in anatomy, but I assume it was a vital one), I couldn’t help but wonder: could this be the universe’s way of suggesting he try something entirely different? Perhaps a foray into heels, wigs, and sequins might heal both body and soul. I mean, if a tutu can transform a goose into a prima ballerina, surely it can work wonders for a tennis champion.

But I digress. My concern is that we may be missing a larger point entirely. For years, tennis has insisted on its uniforms—starchy whites at Wimbledon, muted tones at Melbourne — and yet, what if Djokovic’s injury stems not from overexertion but from the repressive monotony of such garments? What if, had he worn a feather boa and stilettos during his matches, he’d have been so liberated that his hamstring would have no choice but to comply?

Of course, my neighbours have misunderstood my theory. One accused me of being frivolous while another suggested I start a campaign for ā€œthe right to rhinestones in sport.ā€ Both, I feel, missed the subtleties of my point, much as Djokovic has perhaps missed his calling as a glamorous purveyor of cross-court couture.

In conclusion, I urge us all to rethink both tennis and fashion, for who’s to say the two aren’t intrinsically linked? A world where backhands meet ballgowns could be the very antidote to sporting injuries — and just imagine the television ratings.

Yours in perplexity,
Eustace Flabberthwaite
(Once tried to serve an ace in fishnets; the results were spectacularly inconclusive)