Uploaded January 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In a previous video, we looked at how the 671st-ranked Aussie—and notoriously out-of-form—Nick Kyrgios took on the current world number one, Belarusian Aryna Sabalenka. It was an exhibition match specifically designed to handicap the man: Sabalenka’s side of the court was shrunk by 9% and both players were stripped of their second serves to neutralise Kyrgios’ biggest weapon. Yet, despite the deck being stacked in her favour, the world number one still lost in straight sets, 6–3, 6–3. It seems it’s not so easy to defy biology.
Well… apparently, she wants revenge!
The ABC reported: “‘I need revenge’: Sabalenka targets Kyrgios rematch.” Specifically, she said: “I love revenge and I don’t like to leave it the way it is. I always say that when you are losing you are learning and I learned a lot about his game. I know Nick as a player and a person better, and I feel I know how to play against him. I would do it again. I need revenge.”
But what do you think this ‘revenge’ involves? More training? More hours on the practice court? Don’t be silly! This is 2026—she wants more rule changes.
Regarding the 9% reduction in court size on her half, she said: “I think for the next match we will come up with a different format. Before the match, I didn’t realise I would have to adjust and it was a bit tricky for me.” So essentially, she’s claiming that a 9% smaller area to defend made her play worse. It would be like a 100-metre sprint between an out-of-form man and the world’s fastest woman, where the woman had a 9-metre head start, and then, after losing, complaining that the 91-metre track was too short.
Regarding the reduced number of serves, she said: “I think I would keep the full court but I would take two serves. That would even our level a lot more.” So basically, she’s saying she would have two serves, while Kyrgios would only have one. Without a second serve, he is forced to play “safe”—that is, slower serves—because a single mistake equals a lost point. If Sabalenka gets two serves and Kyrgios only gets one, she can “blast” her first serve with 100% aggression, knowing she has a backup. Kyrgios, meanwhile, has to keep his “handbrake” on. She isn’t asking for equality; she’s asking for a safety net that he isn’t allowed to have.
But she isn’t just trying to rewrite the rules; she’s trying to reframe the result. After losing in straight sets, Sabalenka told reporters: “I am happy that I was able to challenge him, make him work and make him physically get tired and mentally get tired. I felt really excited to see a man getting tired and going for his full game.”
It’s funny—the ABC and The Guardian both highlighted his lack of fitness, yet failed to mention that a “tired” Kyrgios still didn’t drop a set. If a heavyweight boxer gets tired while knocking out a middleweight, we don’t give the middleweight a trophy for making him sweat. We call it a knockout. But in the ABC’s world, making an out-of-shape man ‘tired’ is some kind of victory for equality.
The ABC also quoted 18-year-old rising tennis star Mirra Andreeva, who said: “It is never easy to play against a man… She was pretty confident before the match. I saw all the interviews and she was saying, ‘I am going to beat him.’ I thought Nick would win because he is a man but she did great… It was good for her to win six games.”
In any other context, telling the World Number 1 that it’s “good” she managed to win a few games against a guy ranked 671st would be a stinging insult. But here, the media presents it as high praise. It’s the ultimate “participation trophy” mentality—pure condescension masked as a compliment.
I wish the media would just be honest with us. They obviously want the woman to win, no matter what. So why not just set up some rules where a victory is guaranteed? I don’t know—how about Nick is only allowed to use a 1920s wooden racket, he can only use backhands, and for the entire match, he has to wear a pair of scuba flippers.
But even then, when he inevitably wins despite all the baggage, the ABC would just run the headline: “Experts conclude that flippers actually improve lateral movement and tennis ability.”
So, is revenge a dish best served… twice? Only if you change the court, the serves, and the definition of winning. Because if the rules stay the same, the result will too. But don’t expect the ABC to tell you that.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
In a previous video, we looked at how the 671st-ranked Aussie—and notoriously out-of-form—Nick Kyrgios took on the current world number one, Belarusian Aryna Sabalenka. It was an exhibition match specifically designed to handicap the man: Sabalenka’s side of the court was shrunk by 9% and both players were stripped of their second serves to neutralise Kyrgios’ biggest weapon. Yet, despite the deck being stacked in her favour, the world number one still lost in straight sets, 6–3, 6–3. It seems it’s not so easy to defy biology.
Well… apparently, she wants revenge!
The ABC reported: “‘I need revenge’: Sabalenka targets Kyrgios rematch.” Specifically, she said: “I love revenge and I don’t like to leave it the way it is. I always say that when you are losing you are learning and I learned a lot about his game. I know Nick as a player and a person better, and I feel I know how to play against him. I would do it again. I need revenge.”
But what do you think this ‘revenge’ involves? More training? More hours on the practice court? Don’t be silly! This is 2026—she wants more rule changes.
Regarding the 9% reduction in court size on her half, she said: “I think for the next match we will come up with a different format. Before the match, I didn’t realise I would have to adjust and it was a bit tricky for me.” So essentially, she’s claiming that a 9% smaller area to defend made her play worse. It would be like a 100-metre sprint between an out-of-form man and the world’s fastest woman, where the woman had a 9-metre head start, and then, after losing, complaining that the 91-metre track was too short.
Regarding the reduced number of serves, she said: “I think I would keep the full court but I would take two serves. That would even our level a lot more.” So basically, she’s saying she would have two serves, while Kyrgios would only have one. Without a second serve, he is forced to play “safe”—that is, slower serves—because a single mistake equals a lost point. If Sabalenka gets two serves and Kyrgios only gets one, she can “blast” her first serve with 100% aggression, knowing she has a backup. Kyrgios, meanwhile, has to keep his “handbrake” on. She isn’t asking for equality; she’s asking for a safety net that he isn’t allowed to have.
But she isn’t just trying to rewrite the rules; she’s trying to reframe the result. After losing in straight sets, Sabalenka told reporters: “I am happy that I was able to challenge him, make him work and make him physically get tired and mentally get tired. I felt really excited to see a man getting tired and going for his full game.”
It’s funny—the ABC and The Guardian both highlighted his lack of fitness, yet failed to mention that a “tired” Kyrgios still didn’t drop a set. If a heavyweight boxer gets tired while knocking out a middleweight, we don’t give the middleweight a trophy for making him sweat. We call it a knockout. But in the ABC’s world, making an out-of-shape man ‘tired’ is some kind of victory for equality.
The ABC also quoted 18-year-old rising tennis star Mirra Andreeva, who said: “It is never easy to play against a man… She was pretty confident before the match. I saw all the interviews and she was saying, ‘I am going to beat him.’ I thought Nick would win because he is a man but she did great… It was good for her to win six games.”
In any other context, telling the World Number 1 that it’s “good” she managed to win a few games against a guy ranked 671st would be a stinging insult. But here, the media presents it as high praise. It’s the ultimate “participation trophy” mentality—pure condescension masked as a compliment.
I wish the media would just be honest with us. They obviously want the woman to win, no matter what. So why not just set up some rules where a victory is guaranteed? I don’t know—how about Nick is only allowed to use a 1920s wooden racket, he can only use backhands, and for the entire match, he has to wear a pair of scuba flippers.
But even then, when he inevitably wins despite all the baggage, the ABC would just run the headline: “Experts conclude that flippers actually improve lateral movement and tennis ability.”
So, is revenge a dish best served… twice? Only if you change the court, the serves, and the definition of winning. Because if the rules stay the same, the result will too. But don’t expect the ABC to tell you that.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
