Emma Raducanu reveals Andy Murray congratulated her after latest win at the Australian Open

Andy and Emma Make-up

Video Player is loading.

Play Video

Play

Mute

Current Time 0:00

/

Duration 0:38

Loaded: 5.19%

0:00

Stream Type LIVE

Seek to live, currently behind liveLIVE

Remaining Time -0:38

 

1x

Playback Rate

• 2x
• 1.75x
• 1.5x
• 1.25x
• 1x, selected
• 0.75x
• 0.5x

Chapters

• Chapters

Descriptions

• descriptions off, selected

Captions

• captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
• captions off, selected

Audio Track

• en (Main), selected

Fullscreen

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

Text

ColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-Transparent

Background

ColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparent

Window

ColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaque

Font Size

50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%

Text Edge Style

NoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadow

Font Family

Proportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall Caps

Reset restore all settings to the default valuesDone

Close Modal Dialog

End of dialog window.

Close Modal Dialog

This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.

EMMA RADUCANU and Andy Murray are two of the UK’s most high-profile tennis players – but their relationship became strained when Emma made a shocking decision. 

However, there are signs that tensions might be easing between the pair after a surprise meeting at the Australian Open 2025. 

Tennis legends

Emma was born in Toronto, Canada, but was raised in Bromley, London. 

She started playing tennis at the age of five and has risen to a career-high Women’s Tennis Association ranking of world No 10. 

The star was the first British woman to win a Grand Slam tournament since Virginia Wade at the 1977 Wimbledon Championships. 

Emma has often said that Andy Murray, who has been ranked world No 1 and won Wimbledon on two occasions, is someone that she looks up to. 

Andy retired from tennis in 2024 and made his final professional appearance at the Paris Olympics competing in doubles with Dan Evans.

Murray and Evans suffered a straight-set defeat in the Olympic men’s doubles quarter-finals to Americans Taylor Fritz and Tommy Paul.

Relationship gone awry

Reports of a rift between Andy and Emma began in the summer of 2024, when Emma withdrew from their mixed doubles match at Wimbledon.

The match was set to be Andy’s farewell game, meaning Andy didn’t get to say a proper goodbye on the legendary court. 

His mother, Judy Murray, weighed in on the issue on X (formerly Twitter) when Emma announced that she would be continuing her singles campaign at Wimbledon despite pulling out of mixed doubles. 

Judy wrote: “Yes, astonishing,” which many interpreted as a dig towards Emma. 

She elaborated shortly after by posting: “Not sure anyone understands sarcasm these days. 

“Pretty sure the scheduling (4th match court 1 with a singles following day) will have played a major part in any decision making.”

Emma Raducanu wins Australian Open opener but promises to address part of her game that had 'a mind of its own'

RADUCANU FEAR

Video Player is loading.

Play Video

Play

Mute

Current Time 0:00

/

Duration 0:10

Loaded: 18.86%

0:00

Stream Type LIVE

Seek to live, currently behind liveLIVE

Remaining Time -0:10

 

1x

Playback Rate

• 2x
• 1.75x
• 1.5x
• 1.25x
• 1x, selected
• 0.75x
• 0.5x

Chapters

• Chapters

Descriptions

• descriptions off, selected

Captions

• captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
• captions off, selected

Audio Track

• en (Main), selected

Fullscreen

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

Text

ColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-Transparent

Background

ColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparent

Window

ColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaque

Font Size

50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%

Text Edge Style

NoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadow

Font Family

Proportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall Caps

Reset restore all settings to the default valuesDone

Close Modal Dialog

End of dialog window.

Close Modal Dialog

This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.

Emma had pulled out of her match with Andy because of “stiffness”.

She said that she needed to “prioritise myself, my singles and my body” and claimed that Judy was “entitled to her opinion”. 

The tennis star was eliminated from the women’s singles competition by New Zealand’s Lulu Sun. 

Hope for the future

Andy and Emma have reportedly cleared the air, after running into each other at the Australian Open. 

According to Emma, Andy congratulated her on her victory against Amanda Anisimova.

She said: “I saw Andy today, and he said: ‘well done’, and congratulated me.

“That was really nice. He’s someone that I look up to a lot. So it’s good to have that pat on the back from him.

“Whether or not I can turn back time and do things differently, that’s in the past.

“All I can do is kind of evaluate that and learn going forwards.

“And I wanted to take the initiative, because growing up, he was one of my idols, and he still is, with everything he’s achieved in the game, coming from the UK and the same system and everything.”

The recent announced tariffs were computed using a formula that is almost universally viewed by economists as making no sense:

Now we discover that even if you think this formula does make sense, the specific calculations were based on the wrong elasticity estimate.  The following is from an AEI report by Kevin Corinth and Stan Veuger:

The idea is that as tariffs rise, the change in the trade deficit will depend on the responsiveness of import demand to tariffs, which depends on how import demand responds to import prices and how import prices respond to tariffs. The Trump Administration assumes an elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices of four, and an elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs of 0.25, the product of which is one and is the reason they cancel out in the Administration’s formula.

However, the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs should be about one (actually 0.945), not 0.25 as the Trump Administration states. Their mistake is that they base the elasticity on the response of retail prices to tariffs, as opposed to import prices as they should have done. The article they cite by Alberto Cavallo and his coauthors makes this distinction clear. The authors state that “tariffs [are] passed through almost fully to US import prices,” while finding “more mixed evidence regarding retail price increases.” It is inconsistent to multiply the elasticity of import demand with respect to import prices by the elasticity of retail prices with respect to tariffs.

Correcting the Trump Administration’s error would reduce the tariffs assumed to be applied by each country to the United States to about a fourth of their stated level, and as a result, cut the tariffs announced by President Trump on Wednesday by the same fraction, subject to the 10 percent tariff floor. As shown in Table 1, the tariff rate would not exceed 14 percent for any country. For all but a few countries, the tariff would be exactly 10 percent, the floor imposed by the Trump Administration.

The Cavallo study was gated, but a tweet by Cavallo seems to confirm their interpretation:

Unless I’m mistaken, the stock market briefly rose at the beginning of the tariff announcement, as it looked at first like there’d be a uniform 10% tariff on all countries (which would have been a relief to the markets).  Stocks then crashed when it became clear that our major trading partners would face far higher rates.  Thus it looks like $5.4 trillion in wealth was destroyed by a math error by a low-level government official.  (To be clear, there are many other problems with the formula, but this mistake is especially significant.)

Of course it is likely that the administration had already decided on high tariffs, and this equation was reverse engineered to provide cover.  Nonetheless, this equation was used to compute the specific rates for each country, and thus probably explains why the EU was hit with a 20% tariff, China with a 34% tariff, and Vietnam with a 46% tariff.  Mistakes do have consequences!

All this reminds me a bit of the Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, when grown-up experts were banished to the countryside and important parts of the economy were turned over to students.  

You might argue that anyone can make a math error, and that’s true.  But in an administration that includes skilled economists, it is more likely that someone will catch the error, especially when the final results look “fishy”.  To be fair, even the previous administration fell short in this area.  Larry Summers warned the Biden people that excessive fiscal and monetary expansion could lead to high inflation.  The current administration seems even more anti-elite than the Biden administration, and is especially hostile to the views of economists.  Most talented people have either left the government or are laying low to avoid involvement in the current mess.

The administration now has three options:

1. They can admit that the wrong figure was used, and correct the tariffs.
2. They can admit that the wrong figure was used, and also admit that the formula was not the actual justification for the tariffs.  In other words, they can admit that they lied.
3. They can deny that the wrong figure was used in the formula.

In the old days, choice #3 would have been unthinkable.  But we are in a new world.  Just a few weeks ago, the administration responded to the Signal chat scandal by claiming that the highly specific battle plans leaked to a reporter at The Atlantic did not constitute “classified information.” Yes, and the sky is green.

My wife lived through the Cultural Revolution.  She hoped that she was leaving all that behind when she moved to America.

PS.  When I think of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, I often recall this scene from the 1994 Chinese film To Live:

Months later, during Fengxia’s childbirth, her parents and husband accompany her to the county hospital. All doctors have been sent to do hard labor for being over educated, and the students are left as the only ones in charge. Wan Erxi manages to find a doctor to oversee the birth, removing him from confinement, but he is very weak from starvation. Fugui purchases seven steamed buns (mantou) for him and the family decides to name the son Mantou, after the buns. However, Fengxia begins to hemorrhage, and the nurses panic, admitting that they do not know what to do. The family and nurses seek the advice of the doctor, but find that he has overeaten and is semiconscious. The family is helpless, and Fengxia dies from postpartum hemorrhage (severe blood loss).