Stephen Bierley Tennis
The warning from Russia’s Yevgeny Kafelnikov is brutally blunt: “Tennis has a big problem and is slowly going downhill. We definitely need to make some changes.” Nobody in their right mind would ever pretend that tennis, an essentially middle- class game, could ever rival football or any other of the world’s major sports in popularity. This year’s Wimbledon has been notably obscured by the Soccer World Cup, although despite a third successive spell of indifferent weather the crowds have been good.
The four Grand Slams are thriving, yet fewer and fewer people throughout the world are playing the game. Kafelnikov’s fears are well founded.
So here is what might be done.
The equipment
The trade names of the rackets and the advertising slogan say it all: the hammer. The power of light. Titanium technology. Thunderlight. Dominator. Power is everything and power, particularly in the men’s game, is ruining tennis as a spectacle.
It is virtually impossible to tinker with grass, so Wimbledon suffers the most. Hard courts can be slowed down while clay is patently slower, although the trend in recent years has been to keep the top dressing to a minimum to speed things up.
The weight of balls also varies, but tennis thrives on variety and all surfaces, fast or slow, can be accommodated. The major problem is racket technology. Many yearn for a return to the days of wood, but this is a pipe dream.
Nevertheless a radical rethink is imperative. If tennis rackets can be produced to “reduce shock and vibration”, and to provide “higher swing speeds and more power” then it is surely not beyond the makers, in conjunction with the game’s ruling bodies, to construct rackets which shift the emphasis away from power and back to artistry.
The rules
Philippe Chatrier, the former president of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), regarded the service ace as an abomination. He believed tennis should be a conversation, with the serve no more than hello. The ace he saw as a full stop.
Tennis rules have changed very little in modern times, the most radical being the introduction of the tie-break. The ITF are currently considering doing away with the net cord, but a more drastic approach would be to eradicate the second serve. This would not stop the big hitters going for aces, but it would certainly make it more risky. And it would speed up the game enormously.
The dimensions of the court might also be altered. The serve is clearly the bte noire and another suggestion, apart from raising the net, would be to make a mark beyond the baseline from where the service would be made.
Clearly the problem currently pertains more to the men’s game, although Venus Williams, now serving at more than 190kph, may herald a new big-hitting generation of women.
A less radical move would be to insist that the server had one foot, perhaps both, on the ground when serving. Another change being mooted is that the point after the first deuce should decide the game. As usual the male players and their governing body are dead set against any change.
The players
Spain’s Manuel Santana, the 1966 Wimbledon champion who used to send love poems to his wife during the tournament, said this week that John McEnroe was the last “beautiful” champion. It is the beast in the American which many still recall, but his stupendous grass court encounters with Bjorn Borg will remain in the memory far longer than any of Pete Sampras’s finals.
Sampras, a perfectly personable man and a gifted player, frequently talks about the court being his “office”. This may be no more than an affectation, yet it reflects an attitude which is all too prevalent.
The advent of Open tennis in 1968 improved the game immeasurably, with the general public enraptured and amazed by such players as Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad.
New generations followed: John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Arthur Ashe. Borg, McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. But these days the men are paid such vast sums of money that they no longer have the need, or the will, to sell themselves as entertainers while too often the pride in winning has gone.
Andr Agassi is arguably the last of a line. The current men’s game is virtually devoid of personalities and the conclusion has to be that the players are simply being paid far too much. In 1969 Laver’s official earnings were $124 000 (about R731 600). Last year Sampras’s prize money was just short of $6,5-million (about R38,4-million).
The governing bodies
The men’s and women’s professional game are run by the ATP Tour and the WTA Tour respectively with the ITF the umbrella organisation for the rest, including the four Grand Slams and the Davis Cup.
It does not take a genius to see that, for a minor sport in terms of world popularity, tennis has far too many disparate and opposing groups trying to run it.
Effectively the ITF is lacking in clout while, conversely, the Grand Slams and the Davis Cup increase in popularity in direct contrast to the dwindling lustre of the weekly tournaments, even those with an illustrious history such as the Italian Open.
Women’s tennis, with the arrival of Martina Hingis, the Williams sisters and Anna Kournikova, is currently on a high although their game will never be as popular as the men’s.
The ATP Tour is attempting to make the game more user friendly but it is largely run by American marketing men who regard the Europeans as a bunch of merchandising recidivists. The popularity of tennis is plunging alarmingly in the United States while the game in Europe is steadily and obdurately on the downturn.
The spectators
Ill-served by television, which sees tennis in parochial terms while too often (if understandably) regarding the sport as a cheap option. Also ill-served by the grandiose schemes of individual federations and organising committees who make believe that tennis can become a rival to the world’s major sports.
The new Arthur Ashe stadium at Flushing Meadow is an abomination, with the real fans pushed further and further away from the action. And for all its pleasing architectural lines, Wimbledon’s new number one court is similarly too big and totally lacking in atmosphere. Think beautiful, think small.