MELBOURNE — The Australian Open is no stranger to drama, but a first-round qualifying match on Court 3 descended into controversy as French showman Corentin Moutet secured victory with a contentious underarm serve on match point, leaving his Australian opponent, Tristan Schoolkate, and the local crowd incensed.
The incident, which occurred during the final game of the match, saw Moutet deploy the surprise tactic while leading 5-4, 40-30 in the third set. Schoolkate, caught off guard, could only shovel a weak return into the net, handing Moutet a 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-4 victory. The Frenchman’s celebration was met with a chorus of boos from spectators who perceived the move as disrespectful gamesmanship.
The Flashpoint: An Underarm Serve on Match Point
Underarm serves, while perfectly legal, occupy a grey area in tennis etiquette. Popularized in the modern era by Nick Kyrgios as a tactical weapon against deep-returning opponents, they are often viewed as a cheeky or disrespectful ploy, especially in high-stakes moments. For Moutet, ranked 140th in the world, it was a calculated risk. "I saw he was really far back," Moutet explained in his post-match press conference. "I practice it sometimes. It’s a shot like another one. For me, it’s not a big deal."
However, for Schoolkate, a 23-year-old wildcard ranked 257th, and the parochial Australian fans, it was a bitter pill to swallow. The match had been a tense, physical battle lasting over three hours. Schoolkate had fought back from a set down and saved multiple break points, with the crowd firmly behind him. To have it end on such an unorthodox note felt, to many, like an anticlimactic and unsporting conclusion.
The reaction was immediate and visceral. Boos rained down as Moutet celebrated. Schoolkate approached the net for the customary handshake, but the exchange was frosty and brief. In his post-match interview, Schoolkate’s frustration was palpable, though he chose his words carefully: "It’s within the rules. He can do it. It’s a bit frustrating, but it is what it is."
A Pattern of Provocation or Clever Gamesmanship?
For those familiar with Moutet’s career, the incident was not an isolated event. The 24-year-old left-hander is known for his flamboyant style, heavy topspin, and a penchant for psychological warfare. His matches are often theatrical, filled with underarm serves, drop shots, moonballs, and frequent dialogues with his box. This approach has earned him a reputation as a talented but polarizing figure on tour.
Critics, including former players and pundits commenting on the match, accused Moutet of crossing a line. The core of their argument was that using such a tactic on match point against a fatigued opponent in a high-pressure qualifier showed a lack of respect for the sport and the struggle. Some went further, suggesting Schoolkate was effectively robbed of a chance to win the point through a conventional rally.
Tennis legend John McEnroe, no stranger to controversy himself, weighed in during commentary, offering a nuanced view: "Look, it’s legal. Is it sporting? That’s the question. In this situation, with the crowd, the local kid, the hours played… it’s a bold choice. You’re inviting the boos. But you also have to say, Schoolkate was standing meters behind the baseline. It was a smart, if infuriating, tactical play."
The Broader Debate: Etiquette vs. The Rulebook
The incident reignites the perennial tennis debate: where does gamesmanship end and disrespect begin? The sport’s unwritten rules often carry as much weight as the official ones. Key arguments from both sides of the debate include:
- The Traditionalist View: Match point, especially in a Grand Slam, is sacred. Victory should be seized through skill and nerve in a standard rally, not a "trick" shot perceived as mocking the opponent's effort.
- The Modern Tactical View: Tennis is a competition. If an opponent positions themselves vulnerably, exploiting that weakness with any legal shot is fair game. The underarm serve is a legitimate, high-risk tactical option.
- The Crowd Factor: In a spectator sport, part of the "theatre" is respecting the emotional investment of the audience, who pay to see a contest decided on sporting merit.
Australian tennis great Todd Woodbridge was critical on social media, posting: "I’ve never been a fan of the underarm serve on match point. It feels like you’re playing to lose the moment, not win it. You win the match but lose the respect of the crowd and, often, your opponent."
Aftermath and the Road Ahead
Despite the controversy, Moutet advanced through qualifying and into the main draw. He won his first-round match before falling in the second round. The incident, however, became one of the early talking points of the tournament, overshadowing what was otherwise a gutsy performance from both men. For Tristan Schoolkate, the defeat was a harsh lesson in the cutthroat nature of professional tennis.
"It hurts," Schoolkate admitted later. "You put everything out there for three hours, and it ends like that. But it’s on me to be ready for anything. Next time, I’ll be standing on the baseline." His response highlighted a key takeaway: in modern tennis, players must be prepared for every eventuality, as the boundaries of conventional play continue to be tested.
The "Moutet Moment" serves as a microcosm of the evolving culture in tennis. As a new generation of players, unburdened by the strict etiquette of past eras, employs every tool at their disposal, the sport grapples with defining its modern character. Is it purely a clinical contest of points, or does it still hold space for unwritten codes of honor? The boos that echoed around Court 3 suggested many fans still believe in the latter, even if the rulebook permits the former.