The most Daniil Medvedev sentence in the English language, delivered to a bemused American crowd on Wednesday after his second-round US Open win over wildcard Sebastian Gorzny, was this one:

“I saw them straight away, and I thought the point would stop straight away, but it didn’t.”

The word “them,” in that sentence, refers to two house sparrows.

The sparrows in question had, midway through the second set of Medvedev’s match, landed on top of the net during a lengthy baseline rally. This is, statistically, an unusual thing for a sparrow to do during a professional tennis match. Sparrows are prey animals. Sparrows are, as a species, generally uninterested in being at the geometric center of a rectangle enclosed by thousands of loud humans and two men hitting a small yellow ball at 120 miles per hour. And yet: on Wednesday, midway through the second set, two sparrows landed on the net, sat down, and appeared to enjoy the show.

Chair umpire Timo Janzen watched this happen. He said nothing. The point continued. It continued for, per the on-court timers, approximately forty-five seconds. During those forty-five seconds, Medvedev — the Russian former world No. 1, the 2021 US Open champion, a man who has spent his entire career treating the boundaries between tennis and performance art as more of a suggestion — hit what appeared to be a clean winner.

At which point Janzen leaned into his microphone and said, on the public address system, in front of everyone: “Due to the birds, we will replay the point.”

The Reaction

The crowd, according to multiple observers, took a full beat to process this. There was a sound. It was not quite a laugh. It was not quite a boo. It was the particular noise a stadium makes when it collectively realizes the chair umpire of a Grand Slam has just, live on ESPN, said the words “due to the birds” as if they were a valid tennis explanation.

Medvedev did what Medvedev does. He walked to the chair. He stared at Janzen. He said, into the on-court microphone, with the flat delivery of a man who has been rehearsing this exact grievance since the moment he watched the sparrows land: “This is the most ridiculous decision I’ve seen in my life.”

He then, for good measure, added: “This is very bad.”

He did not, notably, add anything else. Medvedev’s talent as a courtside monologist is that he understands the value of the incomplete thought. He does not explain. He does not qualify. He states the position, offers no rebuttal, and moves on. The full corpus of his in-match commentary Wednesday amounted to two short declarative sentences. The two sentences will be quoted in tennis writing forever.

The Actual Question, Which Is A Real Question

The actual question — the one Janzen was, in his own way, trying to answer with the “we will replay the point” call — is: what is the correct ruling when two birds have been sitting on the net for forty-five seconds and you did not notice?

The tennis rulebook, as several outlets have now pointed out, does address foreign objects on the court. Balls from other courts. Programs blown in by wind. The various physical items that a doubles partner might drop mid-rally. In each case, the rule is: replay the point. The rule was written to handle situations lasting fractions of a second — a ball rolls onto the court, a player calls a let, everyone resets. It was not written to handle situations lasting forty-five seconds and involving passerine species. It also was not written to be applied after one player has clearly won the point.

But that, on Wednesday, is what happened. Janzen watched two sparrows land on the net. He watched the point continue. He watched Medvedev win the point. And then, presumably realizing that he had failed to act at the correct moment and now needed to somehow retroactively act at the correct moment, he made the call he would have made if he had made the call in the first place.

This is, in the profession of chair umpiring, called committing to the bit.

The Match

Medvedev, in what may be the most inexplicable detail of the entire evening, won the point on the replay too. He went on to close out the third set 7-5. Final score: 6-1, 6-3, 7-5. He advances to the third round. In his post-match on-court interview, when a reporter asked him about the incident, he laughed. He said, more or less, that he had been unhappy with the decision but that it was what it was. He then added the sentence at the top of this article — the one about seeing them straight away.

This is the Medvedev magic trick. He gets furious. He escalates. He says something that will play on tennis highlight reels for a decade. And then, three sets and one victory speech later, he is a professional adult who watched two birds land on a net and understood that this was a strange thing to have happened. The furniture is thrown across the room mid-match, and by the time the interview begins, he has already put it all back.

Somewhere, on a windowsill in Queens, two house sparrows are telling this story to their friends. Nobody believes them.

Sources: