For once, the 20,000-odd fans on a packed Arthur Ashe Stadium sat quietly engrossed during points.

The sight of the Williams sisters back on court together at the US Open – possibly for the final time – commanded ultimate respect from a chatty crowd known to let their attention wander.

The siblings changed the face of the sport when they emerged as precocious teenagers in the 1990s, going on to dominate the sport with a combined 30 Grand Slam singles titles and 14 doubles victories as a pair.

Three decades later, the sport remains captivated by them.

Serena, a record 23-time Grand Slam women’s singles champion, coming out of retirement this summer sparked excitement among those who saw them in their prime and those too young to have witnessed it.

Seven-time major winner Venus has never “evolved away” from the sport – the words chosen by her younger sister when she last played in 2022 – but instead continued her career with the help of sporadic wildcards.

While that has proved controversial in some quarters, there were few objections about the sisters being invited to play once again at Flushing Meadows.

Their planned return at Wimbledon was scuppered by the knee injury which Serena suffered in her singles match there – ironically a defeat by 20-year-old Joint – before they finally reunited at the WTA event in Cincinnati.

The comeback ended in a match tie-break defeat by Ukraine’s Marta Kostyuk and her American partner Peyton Stearns, with the same fate befalling them in New York.

When the Williams sisters last played on Ashe four years ago, they suffered a straight-set defeat by Czech pair Lucie Hradecka and Linda Noskova in the first round.

It looked like being a similar fate as they meekly surrendered the first set against Chan and Joint, then batted off four break points in the fifth and seventh games of the second set.

But once Serena upped her level to match her impressive sister, they managed to switch the momentum back in their favour and level the match.

An absorbing contest featuring some sensational points saw the Americans fight back again in the decider, only to falter from a commanding lead in the tie-break.

Overall it was a more than credible performance from the veteran pair. Their solid groundstrokes, sharp movement and never-say-die attitude caused problems for their opponents, who deserve huge credit for staying focused in a partisan environment.

“The atmosphere was surreal,” said Joint.

“It was something we’ve never experienced before, and to play against such legends of the game was super special.”

The most impressive debutant in the Premier League’s opening weekend, by common consent, was Brentford midfielder Mamadou Sangare. The Malian international, who had already been heralded as an astute signing on the back of an excellent season at Lens, showed composure in possession, broke forward at the right moments and teed up Keane Lewis-Potter for the opening goal in the 3-0 win over Tottenham.

Sangare looked good because he is good. He has the technical and physical characteristics for the Premier League, and is an excellent all-round midfielder. But he also looked good because he was the only new signing in a well-organised, cohesive side who continually punch above their weight. The rest of Brentford’s starting XI already had a good understanding. Sangare’s role was clear. He had the right conditions to succeed. He slotted into a well-oiled machine.

And for all the obsession with declaring good and bad signings at the end of a transfer window, the simple reality is that new signings — as a general rule — look good in good sides, and look bad in bad sides. It is extremely hard to fight against the tide.

Were last year’s flops really bad signings? Newcastle forward Yoane Wissa was considered the worst signing of the summer by one newspaper, and as “a £55million deadline-day panic buy which simply hasn’t worked” here at The Athletic. Anthony Elanga fared little better on the wing. Of course, Wissa had previously been a consistent performer at Brentford, while Elanga had an excellent final season for Nottingham Forest.

They hadn’t become bad players overnight. They were simply moving to play for a team who had, in retrospect, reached the end of their cycle under Eddie Howe. Their team-mates looked exhausted. There was perhaps a sense that the Carabao Cup victory the previous season would always be that side’s highlight, and their best player, Alexander Isak, spent the summer trying to leave. It’s difficult to walk into a dressing room full of doom and gloom and lift spirits as a newcomer. It’s also difficult to raise standards on the pitch when finding your feet. Wissa and Elanga were both poor. But it was largely a reflection of their new side’s general level of performance.

Anthony Elanga and Yoane Wissa struggled last season but have started strongly this one (Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Both have been excellent so far this season: Wissa was man of the match in the 2-2 draw with Liverpool and scored against Tottenham, while Elanga has scored in both games. Were they disastrous signings? Or were they actually perfectly reasonable signings who struggled because their team-mates were struggling too? Matthias Jaissle has refreshed the side, and suddenly Wissa and Elanga look at home. It’s perfectly conceivable that Nick Woltemade, who made a decent initial impact before regressing to the level of his team-mates, could have had similar surge, had he not been loaned out to Juventus.

Most of the success stories from last season were joining sides where they could slot into defined roles. Adrien Truffert and Rayan, for example, adjusted so well to the Premier League because Bournemouth had a clear identity under Andoni Iraola, even when they lost key first-team players. Players who had a good impact at promoted sides — who had necessarily made several new signings — were based around good collective organisation: take Granit Xhaka at Sunderland or Dominic Calvert-Lewin at Leeds United, for example. But it’s probable that Truffert, Rayan, Xhaka or Calvert-Lewin would have struggled at Tottenham Hotspur, who desperately lacked any sense of cohesion under Thomas Frank.

It is extremely rare for new signings to make a good impression when their manager is figuring out the overall structure of the side. Neither Isak nor Florian Wirtz were anywhere near good enough last season for Liverpool, but that’s largely unsurprising given all their team-mates were underperforming too, and doubtless suffering in the aftermath of Diogo Jota’s death. If Mohamed Salah goes from the best player in the league to fighting for his place in the side, and if Alisson goes from one of the most reliable shot-stoppers in Europe to looking immobile and unreliable, it’s hardly surprising that a player who joined once the season was already underway, and another who was adjusting to living in a new country, were unable to settle too. Liverpool were trying different solutions every week.

Hugo Ekitike, in fairness, did settle well. But if anything, that probably made it more difficult to integrate both Wirtz and Isak. That, to a certain extent, is not their fault. All this doesn’t excuse poor touches, wayward passes and poor shooting. But in a more positive environment, those things happen less.

Alexander Isak and Florian Wirtz came into an unsettled Liverpool team last season (Alex Livesey/Getty Images)

The Athletic’s Tim Spiers has attempted to rank every signing by a Premier League club this summer. Personally, I think the signings who will fare best include Tarik Muharemovic of Leeds United (32nd on that list) and Luka Vuskovic of Brighton & Hove Albion (31st), largely because they are joining settled sides, familiar from last season, with the same manager in place. Those surrounding conditions are generally as important as the quality of the players themselves.

Football teams are a collective, and just as you wouldn’t be impressed by the one fresh ingredient in an otherwise rotting salad, you won’t be impressed by a new signing if the rest of the team is off form.

Editor’s note: Mike Sando is on the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee and has served since 2010.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame revealed an overhauled selection process Friday, including changes to policies dating back decades, seven months after Bill Belichick’s omission from the 2026 class created controversy and confusion.

The changes, which the Hall described in a news release as the culmination of a review lasting 2 1/2 years, include:

• Reducing the selection committee from 50 to 25 members, plus three nonvoting participants, with voting status determined annually.

• Eliminating the senior category for players retired at least 25 years.

• Enshrining between three and seven candidates each year from a 15-person pool: 13 players, one coach and one contributor.

• Scrapping the system whereby one selector from each NFL market takes the lead in presenting the case for candidates associated with that market. Instead, one person who is not on the committee will present all candidates.

The separate senior category has been used since it was established in 1972. The selection committee has included at least one representative for each team/market since the Hall’s inception in 1963, with an increasing number of at-large selectors more recently. The new committee will be the smallest since 1976, when the league expanded to 28 teams.

The Hall said it hoped the new rules would curtail “unintended biases” in three areas: disparate presentation skills among selectors; team markets from which selectors hail; and the pressure to enshrine candidates before they transitioned from modern-era (retired between five and 25 years) to senior status.

The changes also appear to address unintended consequences that arose from new rules implemented in August 2024, beginning with the Class of 2025. Those changes included forcing three senior candidates, one coach and one contributor to compete for between one and three slots each year.

The Hall of Fame hoped selectors would choose the three strongest candidates from that five-person bucket. Had that happened, Belichick, the six-time Super Bowl-winning head coach of the New England Patriots, surely would have earned selection in his first year of eligibility.