In the high-stakes world of professional tennis, where every swing of the racket can rewrite history, few moments capture the imagination quite like an underdog’s improbable ascent. The sport thrives on these fairy-tale runs—qualifiers storming through draws, top seeds tumbling in shock defeats, and narratives that blur the line between dream and reality. But when a retired star weighs in with a controversial verdict, it doesn’t just spark debate; it unleashes a torrent of passion from fans who guard their heroes fiercely. Such is the case with former world number eight John Isner, whose recent podcast musings comparing British sensation Emma Raducanu’s historic US Open triumph to Monegasque qualifier Valentin Vacherot’s stunning Shanghai Masters victory have left Raducanu’s supporters seething. What began as a casual chat among ex-pros has snowballed into a full-blown online skirmish, highlighting the enduring reverence for Raducanu’s 2021 feat and the raw emotions tied to her legacy.
Let’s rewind to that fateful September in New York four years ago. Emma Raducanu, an 18-year-old fresh out of high school and ranked a modest 150th in the world, arrived at the US Open as little more than a wildcard entry. She’d dazzled in qualifying, but few dared dream she’d conquer the main draw. Yet, in a run that defied logic, Raducanu stormed through 10 matches—seven in the tournament proper—without dropping a single set. She dismantled seasoned pros like Sara Sorribes Tormo and Shelby Rogers, before outclassing Olympic gold medalist Belinda Bencic in the quarters and saving match points against Maria Sakkari in the semis. The final against Leylah Fernandez was a masterclass, sealing her place in immortality as the first qualifier in the Open Era to claim a Grand Slam title. Overnight, Raducanu wasn’t just a champion; she was a phenomenon, catapulting into the top 25 and pocketing $2.5 million in prize money. It was the stuff of Hollywood scripts—a teenager, in her second Grand Slam main draw, rewriting tennis lore on one of the sport’s grandest stages.
Fast-forward to October 2025, and the tennis calendar delivers another qualifier’s miracle in Shanghai. Valentin Vacherot, a 28-year-old ranked 204th, entered the Masters 1000 event as a long-shot hopeful. What followed was pure pandemonium: he toppled higher seeds in qualifying, then carved through the main draw with surgical precision. Vacherot stunned Holger Rune in the quarters, edged past Taylor Fritz, and delivered the knockout blow by dethroning 24-time Grand Slam king Novak Djokovic in a gripping semifinal. The final against Alexander Zverev was his crowning glory, earning him his maiden ATP Masters title and etching his name as the lowest-ranked champion in the tournament’s history. It was a nine-match odyssey that sent shockwaves through the ATP Tour, proving once again that in tennis, rankings are mere suggestions when momentum takes hold.
Enter John Isner, the towering American known for his marathon serving battles and now a podcast host on the Nothing Major Show alongside fellow retirees Sam Querrey, Jack Sock, and Steve Johnson. During a lively October 14 episode, as the hosts dissected Vacherot’s heroics, Querrey posed the million-dollar question: “Is this a more impressive run than Raducanu qualifying and winning the US Open, or can you compare them?” Isner’s response was unfiltered and immediate. “I think it is more impressive, yes,” he declared, leaning into the mic with conviction. He elaborated, acknowledging the spectacle of Raducanu’s win but doubling down on improbability: “[For Raducanu] it’s a bigger story because it’s the US Open, but I think this is more improbable than what she did.” Painting Vacherot’s path as the rarer gem, Isner wrapped it up with a flourish: “I am giving it to Vacherot there. It’s just unheard of.”
The clip spread like wildfire across social media, and Raducanu’s loyal fanbase didn’t hold back. What Isner saw as a nuanced nod to underdog grit, they viewed as a blatant undervaluing of their icon’s unparalleled achievement. “Ridiculous claim. The best players weren’t even there,” fired off one supporter, @SteveRedfearn2, zeroing in on Shanghai’s depleted field—absentee stars like Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner, and Taylor Fritz meant Vacherot faced a less formidable gauntlet than Raducanu’s Flushing Meadows gauntlet, which brimmed with elite contenders. Another devotee, @MavisTennis, dissected the math with surgical precision: “Emma was 18, playing only her second grand slam event and hadn’t even won a match on the WTA tour. She won 10 matches and Vacherot 9.” The recency bias accusation flew thick and fast, with one user quipping, “At age when Isner was figuring out that tennis is more than just a serve, Raducanu won a slam.”
The backlash escalated into a chorus of dismissal. “What a horrible take,” one fan blasted, while another dismissed the ex-pro outright: “Firstly, I am not interested in what John Isner thinks about anything.” A particularly pointed retort captured the protective fervor: “Leave Emma Raducanu alone.” Even those appreciating Vacherot’s grit couldn’t stomach the direct comparison, with one observer noting, “People are so twisted when it comes to Emma Raducanu. She won a slam. Her win as a qualifier >>>.” The sentiment echoed far and wide: Raducanu’s feat wasn’t just improbable; it was singular—a flawless, set-free rampage by a literal rookie against the world’s best, on a stage where pressure crushes dreams. Vacherot’s triumph, while electric, paled in the shadow of a Grand Slam’s mythic weight.
Yet, amid the uproar, a sliver of support trickled in for Isner. Some neutral voices argued the merits of his point: Vacherot’s deep run, capped by a Djokovic scalp, showcased endurance against ATP heavyweights, even in a thinned-out draw. “You can only play who is in front of you,” one commenter reminded, urging appreciation for both stories without pitting them against each other. It underscored tennis’s subjective beauty—debates like this fuel the fire, reminding us why we obsess over margins and moments.
This dust-up arrives at a poignant time for Raducanu, who’s navigating a 2025 season marred by injuries and inconsistency. Fresh off a quarterfinal run at the Ningbo Open—her first deep push in months—she’s hinted at coaching tweaks and a cautious build toward 2026’s Australian Open. The controversy, while unwelcome, reaffirms her grip on the collective tennis psyche; four years on, her US Open glory remains a beacon, untarnished by doubters. For Vacherot, the win catapults him into the top 100 and secures a Paris Masters berth, a launchpad for bigger dreams.
In the end, Isner’s hot take serves as a reminder of tennis’s endless capacity for wonder—and division. Whether you side with the qualifier queen’s flawless fairy tale or the veteran’s improbable upset, one truth endures: these runs aren’t just victories; they’re revolutions that redefine what’s possible. As fans continue to rally around Raducanu, the sport hurtles forward, primed for the next chapter where another unknown might just steal the spotlight. After all, in tennis, the oche is always shifting, and the arguments? They’ll rage on, as passionately as ever.
Leave a Reply