'' 3 ways to fix tennis'' [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

'' 3 ways to fix tennis''

octatennis
06-17-2008, 02:48 AM
another example of a journalist on drugs:


If I guaranteed you that the 2008 Wimbledon men's final would be the best tennis match of the past 20 years, would you watch it?

Amazingly, many sports fans would say no. Maybe they'd flick over to NBC a few times to "monitor the action." Maybe they'd swing by for the fifth set. Maybe they'd watch a few games and get bored, then allow themselves to be sucked in by Under Siege or a Tila Tequila marathon. But I don't have a single friend who'd watch four hours of tennis on a Sunday morning and, I'm guessing, neither do you.

Once a successful mainstream sport, tennis now matters twice a year—during Wimbledon and the U.S. Open—and even then it's not like America shakes with Racket Fever or anything. The mainstream media still cover tennis, and the ratings for majors are still okay. But when was the last time you watched a big match from start to finish? When was the last time you attended one? When did you last have an argument about something tennis-related that didn't boil down to "Who do you think is hotter?"

Unlike golf, another time-sucking sport that appeals to a specific audience, tennis lacks a Tiger to keep it relevant. When tennis develops its own version of Tiger—first Pete Sampras, then Roger Federer—the guys do almost more damage than good. We see the best tennis stars as the Ping-Pong player at a family gathering who destroys all the uncles and cousins, and eventually kills everyone's interest in playing Ping-Pong for the day. Golf is a sport that hinges on luck and timing, streaks and slumps, and the quirks of different courses. So it's almost inconceivable for a golfer to dominate as Tiger has. But for Federer to dominate, it's completely conceivable. And boring.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WATCHED A MATCH FROM START TO FINISH?

Beyond that, a transcendent golfer may stick around for 40 years, and we're aware of this, so it's only natural for us to get more attached to him. We've known Tiger since he was crushing kids as a little guy, we knew him when his father passed away, and we'll know him when he's wearing a bad hairpiece and obliterating the Champions Tour in 2033. By contrast, a great tennis career always unfolds the same way: Guy kills himself for a few years getting to the top and staying there; guy gets bored; guy starts sleeping with actresses/models; guy drops in the rankings; guy makes a brief resurgence; guy loses hair and retires; guy disappears forever. This has to have happened 47 times since I was 10. I'd argue that we haven't attached ourselves to Federer because we know another Federer will eventually come off the assembly line. Because one always does.

Another big problem: Tennis got too fast (thanks to high-tech rackets, superior conditioning and 130 mph serves), which turned it into a young person's game. Remember an aging Jimmy Connors willing himself into the 1991 U.S. Open semis at age 39? Those days are long gone. Elite players have a shorter shelf life than porn stars. When you hit your late 20s having already won $25 million and a few majors, there's no incentive to continue to practice eight hours a day so you can keep up with the next generation. I mean, you could be doing more important things … like sitting courtside for a Lakers game, going to the ESPYs or eating Kobe beef filets with Mandy Moore at STK.

That's not the only side effect of the speed thing. Not to sound like Grumpy Old Man, but back when I fell for tennis, they played with wooden rackets—and we liked it! When John McEnroe and Björn Borg had their "Battle of 18-16" at Wimbledon, it wasn't serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley; some of the points lasted for 45 or 50 seconds, and they always seemed to end with McEnroe just missing a winner, then sagging in disbelief. Now, I'm not saying tennis should return to wood rackets. You can't go backward. The game has evolved to a faster version of itself, and that's that. But we'll never see anything like Borg-McEnroe again. The equipment prevents it.

As much as tennis needs it, I'm not sure the emergence of another guy like McEnroe is going to happen either. Other sports can have their LeBrons and Kobes, child prodigies or polarizing personalities whom we can obsess over and analyze endlessly. But these days, succeeding at tennis lends itself to being an exceedingly boring person. You need to be calm, focused and diligent, 24 hours a day. Could Allen Iverson have been a world-class tennis player? Athletically, yes. Emotionally, no.

That doesn't mean we can't move tennis into the 21st century. I see three fixes that can help the sport regain a little buzz, beyond more radical moves like no longer allowing female players to wear tennis bras, or if you hit someone with the ball you win the point.

ELITE PLAYERS HAVE A SHORTER SHELF LIFE THAN PORN STARS.

Fix No. 1
Allow cheering, booing, hooting, chanting—anything short of hooliganism—during matches. If you want to keep one "quiet" major, fine, take Wimbledon. For every other tournament, fans should be allowed to act like—hold on, novel concept approaching—fans. If A-Rod can hit a 101 mph fastball at Fenway with fans yelling about his sexual preference, Venus and Roger can handle a second serve amid some background noise.

(Seriously, have you been to a tournament? Tennis and golf are the only sporting events at which you're expected to drink liquor and not make noise. How does that make sense? I don't like being anyplace where I might be shushed. It's just one of my rules in life.)

Fix No. 2
You can't have four "majors" when absolutely nobody cares about one of them. (I believe not even The Schwab could name the last 10 Australian Open winners.) Why not make the Australian a major mixed-doubles event? Wouldn't it be fun to see who pairs with whom? It would be like waiting to see who's taking whom to the prom, right? How would they play together? Would they fall in love, like they do in Dancing With the Stars? You're interested already, I can tell.

Fix No. 3
Change the set format—make women play best of five, men best of seven—but tighten them (to first to four games) and extend tiebreakers (from first to seven points to first to nine). It's the Short Attention Span era, and there's no going back. I watch baseball while answering e-mails and texting my friends. I can't drive for more than five minutes without calling someone. I can watch up to 15 shows/movies/games at the same time. Even at a Celtics playoff game, I find myself habitually checking my BlackBerry during timeouts. And I'm in my mid-30s. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a kid right now. Or a teenager.

Yup, our attention is occupied every second of the day, and that cripples tennis worse than anything else. Back in the late 1970s, we had something like nine TV channels. If Borg went up two sets on Connors, I'd still watch the third because Tila Tequila and Steven Seagal weren't lurking on other channels. Now they are. Even Bud Collins would have to admit tennis matches have too much dead time and not enough meaningful moments. By adding sets, shortening the length of those sets and extending tiebreakers, we'd be redistributing the number of points and increasing their collective importance.

It's a radical move but a logical one. See, tennis didn't change. We changed. Maybe that's the biggest problem of all.



http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3446552

fast_clay
06-17-2008, 02:55 AM
visual laxative... reading that made me have a shit...

MrChopin
06-17-2008, 03:12 AM
One way to fix ESPN: take back the money Joe Klamer received for this article, fire his lame ass, and then use the money to buy the rights for Wimbledon from NBC to ensure that the later rounds are shown live and in their entirety.

Forehander
06-17-2008, 03:13 AM
change the grass court.

Fee
06-17-2008, 03:21 AM
Someone needs to tell this guy that tennis is a global sport and it doesn't have to bow to a few ignorant, lazy couch potatoes types in the US like the author and his friends in order to remain popular.

BigJohn
06-17-2008, 03:24 AM
This guy obviously knows more about porn stars than about tennis...


It is not the first time I hear a proposal like his #1 fix, and I still think it is stupid. I even heard someone saying allow music to be played DURING points. Now that would tryly be horrible.

Where do they find these sports journalists?

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-17-2008, 03:35 AM
Someone needs to tell this guy that tennis is a global sport and it doesn't have to bow to a few ignorant, lazy couch potatoes types in the US like the author and his friends in order to remain popular.

Damm Right

The only thing tennis needs is more in your face players like Rafa and Nole and less boring ones like Federer.

FiBeR
06-17-2008, 03:35 AM
De villieur is taking note for sure!

peterparker
06-17-2008, 03:36 AM
really boring. :( I used to enjoy his columns a lot about 7 years ago. Stopped reading him when I lost interest in baseball 3-4 years ago.

Roddickominator
06-17-2008, 03:43 AM
Wow. Bill is usually pretty decent, or at the very least a bit entertaining. This was just a bad column. Though he is right about the short attention span thing with many Americans.

peterparker
06-17-2008, 03:48 AM
Wow. Bill is usually pretty decent, or at the very least a bit entertaining. This was just a bad column. Though he is right about the short attention span thing with many Americans.

How short can it be? I would guess average baseball game is like 2:45 min. and I don't think baseball is in trouble. I remember there was some effort to reduce the length of baseball games several years ago.

Fee
06-17-2008, 03:52 AM
De villieur is taking note for sure!

He can take all the notes he wants, doesn't matter because he will be OUT OF WORK soon enough. Not sure when it will happen, but it will happen.

Tankman
06-17-2008, 04:04 AM
Ok let me get this straight - first he complains about tennis losing tradition and then he says we should turn it into a circus :rolleyes: Definitely on drugs.

Unlike golf, tennis has become a real competitive and athletic sport, not the whole nostalgic 'gentleman's' game that this guy longs for. Someone should tell this guy that if he wants to go back to bygone eras, that's his problem.

On another hope, I really hope EDV does not read this article :o

habibko
06-17-2008, 04:05 AM
somebody is nostalgic, imagine if everyone wanted to change the sport to the way he/she prefers :rolleyes:

Smoke944
06-17-2008, 04:20 AM
Bill Simmons is a moron, nothing new :D

JimmyV
06-17-2008, 04:35 AM
This is genius. Players should also play with a racquet in each hand and play at night without lights using glowing neon balls.

Tankman
06-17-2008, 05:39 AM
Not a bad idea :haha: :haha:

Fedex
06-17-2008, 05:54 AM
This article is pretty bad, even for Bill Simmons.

Naranoc
06-17-2008, 06:13 AM
Haha, he came up with better ideas than were suggested in our own Mr. Disney reform thread.

habibko
06-17-2008, 08:52 AM
One way to fix ESPN: take back the money Joe Klamer received for this article, fire his lame ass, and then use the money to buy the rights for Wimbledon from NBC to ensure that the later rounds are shown live and in their entirety.

Klamer is just a photographer dude :confused: the shitty article was written by Bill Simmons.

scoobs
06-17-2008, 09:16 AM
Well, you know - I take the view that if you can't be bothered to sit still for 2, maybe 3 hours, watch a full match in its entirety - if your attention span is that poor and your desire for some new distraction or for something to change to grab your attention again is that strong - go do something else. Tennis is not for you.

There are certain types of fans that tennis doesn't want or need. These are the types where the game has to bend itself into a pretzel to make it interesting to them - at the expense of what the game is actually all about.

If that's how you get your kicks, go question A-Rod's sexuality at Fenway Park. Tennis will get along just fine without you.

GuiroNl
06-17-2008, 10:14 AM
Just wasted 3 minutes of my life reading this utter crap :retard:

Sunset of Age
06-17-2008, 10:36 AM
Well, you know - I take the view that if you can't be bothered to sit still for 2, maybe 3 hours, watch a full match in its entirety - if your attention span is that poor and your desire for some new distraction or for something to change to grab your attention again is that strong - go do something else. Tennis is not for you.

There are certain types of fans that tennis doesn't want or need. These are the types where the game has to bend itself into a pretzel to make it interesting to them - at the expense of what the game is actually all about.

If that's how you get your kicks, go question A-Rod's sexuality at Fenway Park. Tennis will get along just fine without you.

Well said, Scoobs. It's a sad thing, reading all of this :bs: from 'journalists' thinking a sport should be turned into some kind of Hollywood Drama, or should I say Disneyland...?

Reading rubbish like that makes my eyes bleed.

Castafiore
06-17-2008, 10:42 AM
Incredible piece of journalism. Pullitzer prize material. :bs:

Being a John McEnroe fan, I watched quite a few of his matches on tv. I can't believe how many times I had to listen to the commentators going on and on and on about what a bad role model JMac is and how his personality is bad for the sport. Now, there should be more players like JMac?
Whatever. :rolleyes: I guess that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Besides, I don't believe for a second that there are no interesting personalities on tour currently but the rules have become more strict (in part, due to JMac and Connors's behaviour back then). McEnroe wouldn't get away nowadays with all the stuff he said on court against the umpires back then.

As much as I'm a Jmac fan, I'm not a defender of his rants on court and his behaviour. A tantrum is not a sign of an interesting personality.
I was a fan of him because of his creative game in the first place. I could do without his tantrums.

seljanin
06-17-2008, 10:43 AM
One of the most moronic articles I've ever read :retard:

Reading rubbish like that makes my eyes bleed.

Indeed.

NicoFan
06-17-2008, 11:29 AM
Actually I agree with him. :shrug:

And I believe his fixes were meant to be funny, not taken seriously. ;)

The fact is that TV viewership is going down in the US. And sports are competing in a very crowded field of choices of entertainment. Studies show that younger demographics prefer videos games (#1 choice) over even movies. (Which while the author didn't specifically mention them is part of what he is getting at - the short attention span of viewers today).

The question is whether those trends will move into other countries. Some say yes, others no.

Time will tell.

EDIT: I just remembered a conversation on Bob Costas's show on HBO (which if you have HBO you should check out if you are a sports fan - excellent quality). They were talking about how baseball is perceived as boring so Fox uses all sorts of tricks to make it seem as if there is a lot of action going on when in reality there is not. They use quick cuts from player to player and to people in the stands. Again, doing everything they can to get the attention of people who are used to videos and technology moving quickly.

cardio
06-17-2008, 11:50 AM
Well, you know - I take the view that if you can't be bothered to sit still for 2, maybe 3 hours, watch a full match in its entirety - if your attention span is that poor and your desire for some new distraction or for something to change to grab your attention again is that strong - go do something else. Tennis is not for you.

There are certain types of fans that tennis doesn't want or need. These are the types where the game has to bend itself into a pretzel to make it interesting to them - at the expense of what the game is actually all about.








Exactly.
If some americans hope that tennis will be like WWF ( or whatever they call themselves nowadays) freak show, they will be bitterly disappointed, I´m sure Federer will not show up on tennis court like this or act like this

marifline
06-17-2008, 11:51 AM
Fix No. 1
Allow cheering, booing, hooting, chanting—anything short of hooliganism—during matches. If you want to keep one "quiet" major, fine, take Wimbledon. For every other tournament, fans should be allowed to act like—hold on, novel concept approaching—fans. If A-Rod can hit a 101 mph fastball at Fenway with fans yelling about his sexual preference, Venus and Roger can handle a second serve amid some background noise.

Hum somebody never went to the French....:o I'm offended that he didn't mention RG, really bad journalism.

MacTheKnife
06-17-2008, 12:14 PM
Incredible piece of journalism. Pullitzer prize material. :bs:

Being a John McEnroe fan, I watched quite a few of his matches on tv. I can't believe how many times I had to listen to the commentators going on and on and on about what a bad role model JMac is and how his personality is bad for the sport. Now, there should be more players like JMac?
Whatever. :rolleyes: I guess that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Besides, I don't believe for a second that there are no interesting personalities on tour currently but the rules have become more strict (in part, due to JMac and Connors's behaviour back then). McEnroe wouldn't get away nowadays with all the stuff he said on court against the umpires back then.

As much as I'm a Jmac fan, I'm not a defender of his rants on court and his behaviour. A tantrum is not a sign of an interesting personality.
I was a fan of him because of his creative game in the first place. I could do without his tantrums.

Obviously I'm with you. JMac fan that is. One thing the guy is right about is that tennis is not for everyone. Neither is any other sport. I could not possibly sit through an entire hockey game. I have tried, but I just can't do it. Although, I can watch 12 hours of tennis straight, and do that every time tourneys are telecast that long.
I am certainly not for speeding tennis up, if fact, I don't even like that 20 second rule, thank God most of the time they don't enforce it. The only thing I would say is that some of the personalities are not as dominating as they were a few years ago. You are right, watching a Conners-McEnroe match was like sitting on a hand grenade, you were just waiting to see who exploded first. And, it was a love-hate thing, you either loved them or hated them, but they did generate interest outside the mainstream tennis fans.
Right now, tennis only gets the mainstream fans like us, and there is not much out there that attracts those from other sports. That may or may not change, but making dramatic changes to the game is not the answer.
Right now we have three dominating players in the game that are creating some real drama at each event among themselves. I would just like to see one or two more guys get into the mix. IMO, that's the main difference today, vs. 20-30 years ago. Back then you did have Borg, Mac, Conners, Lendal, etc, BUT there were several other guys that could upset them at any given moment.
My bottom line is, I love tennis just the way it is, I've been involved in the game for over 50 years. It has, and will continue to have it's ups and downs, but for God sakes, don't screw with my passion just to get few ratings from some wrestling morons, or other sports that I could get a crap about. Let them continue to watch their version of BS excitement, but let mine alone !!!

goldenlox
06-17-2008, 12:34 PM
I know Bill Simmons is a tennis fan, or at least a Kournikova fan.
The sport always needs a rivalry at the top. That's why the FO final was such a disappointment. They both had so much to gain, just like the Wimbledon final last year. But Federer wasn't competitive in Paris. A close match would have been great for the sport.
Another Wimbledon final like 2007 will be a boost for the sport. Neither of them is a given to make the Wimbledon final this year.

Fumus
06-17-2008, 01:13 PM
Great Article this guy is really on to something!

PiggyGotRoasted
06-17-2008, 02:44 PM
Three way to fix tennis :
Bet loads on a player who you then tell there opponent to tank if you pay them.

Threaten a player to retire from a match

Spike their drinks

groundstroke
06-17-2008, 02:45 PM
Shoot de Villiers. There you go.

lurker
06-17-2008, 04:23 PM
:lol: This writer is a US journalist right? That explains the lack of top US players coming up through the ranks right now. That is the US view of tennis, not the rest of the world. How many times can they ignore that fact that people around the globe wake up early or stay up late to watch live tennis? And for that matter, I agree about clobbering NBC. How dare they suddenly tape delay the men's semis at Roland Garros when we had been enjoying live tennis all week up until then? Grrrrr.

Kitty de Sade
06-17-2008, 04:30 PM
Someone needs to tell this guy that tennis is a global sport and it doesn't have to bow to a few ignorant, lazy couch potatoes types in the US like the author and his friends in order to remain popular.

:hatoff:

Aguably one of the most pathetic examples of writing I've seen in awhile. He's a clueless fuck who has nothing of value to say.

Writing an article about tennis, while referencing Tila Tequila and porn? Websters has his picture by the definition of the word, "hack."

I realize I'm biting the hand that feeds me here, but honestly, the US living rooms would be among the last places I'd look for tennis inspiration. :tape:

MacTheKnife
06-17-2008, 04:31 PM
:lol: This writer is a US journalist right? That explains the lack of top US players coming up through the ranks right now. That is the US view of tennis, not the rest of the world. How many times can they ignore that fact that people around the globe wake up early or stay up late to watch live tennis? And for that matter, I agree about clobbering NBC. How dare they suddenly tape delay the men's semis at Roland Garros when we had been enjoying live tennis all week up until then? Grrrrr.

Please, please don't lump us all in the same boat as this moron.. That is "his" view of tennis, certainly not the US's.. Based on my observations, every country has their fair share of morons..

r2473
06-17-2008, 04:40 PM
The way to "fix" tennis is obvious.

When was tennis most popular?.....

.....when the tennis stars were American (McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Sampras, Courier).

So, all we need to do is force Federer to become an American citizen. In fact, we need to force Federer to become an American citizen 4 YEARS AGO.

OK. I know you are skeptical. But think about this. What makes golf popular? Tiger Woods (and Tiger Woods only). If he were from Switzerland, do you think anyone would be watching golf? Of course not. Tiger has made everyone in golf filthy rich.

Federer could do the same thing if he would just have become American 4 years ago. The fact that he didn't just shows (as everyone on this board already knows) what an ARROGANT person Federer is.

America HAS TO win everything or we won't watch. And, if we can't grow the talent at home, we have no problem buying it.

Branimir
06-17-2008, 04:57 PM
I am sick of this: people complaining how back then it was good, and now it sucks, how personalities are important bla bla. You see, I can't really say that I don't care about personality, because that would be the big lie, but I can say that what I look from a player is their game. When I watch the game between two guys I never heard off, or know very little about them, first thing that I care about is how they play tennis. I can't care less about personalities. Many friends that I know look for personality in every sport. Like: This guy is the man, didn't you just see him doing that or that (unrelated to the sport). For example: Didn't you just see him laughing at referee (stupid example i know).
Anyway what most people fail to ackgnoledge is that every sport evolved. We humans evolve so fast doe to new technologies that are implemented every day. Basketball players used to be lanky, tall, non-athletic, uncoordinated people, look at them now? Football used to be different. I would love to see best Brazilian team with Pele in 1970s against one now. I bet it would be funny to watch. New generation would win probably like 5/6-0 minimum. Gym is today part of every sport. High tech equipment is part of any sport.

pricdews
06-17-2008, 04:58 PM
It's amazing how the first part of the article almost accurately describes a real problem, but then the solutions offered couldn't be more ridiculous.

Branimir
06-17-2008, 04:59 PM
The way to "fix" tennis is obvious.

When was tennis most popular?.....

.....when the tennis stars were American (McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Sampras, Courier).

So, all we need to do is force Federer to become an American citizen. In fact, we need to force Federer to become an American citizen 4 YEARS AGO.

OK. I know you are skeptical. But think about this. What makes golf popular? Tiger Woods (and Tiger Woods only). If he were from Switzerland, do you think anyone would be watching golf? Of course not. Tiger has made everyone in golf filthy rich.

Federer could do the same thing if he would just have become American 4 years ago. The fact that he didn't just shows (as everyone on this board already knows) what an ARROGANT person Federer is.

America HAS TO win everything or we won't watch. And, if we can't grow the talent at home, we have no problem buying it.

hahahaahahahahhaaaha.

pricdews
06-17-2008, 05:02 PM
And I believe his fixes were meant to be funny, not taken seriously. ;)

I completely missed that. I'm not sure he was serious, but he wasn't anywhere near funny. Maybe the piece was written too quickly? A better lead-in to the "fixes" ought to have set them up as being funny?

Eviscerator
06-17-2008, 08:11 PM
Maybe they'd watch a few games and get bored, then allow themselves to be sucked in by Under Siege or a Tila Tequila marathon. But I don't have a single friend who'd watch four hours of tennis on a Sunday morning and, I'm guessing, neither do you.



Someone needs new friends if they would watch crap like Tila Tequila.

star
06-17-2008, 08:40 PM
Well, clearly the article was meant for an American audience and addressing American viewership consers, so people complaining about that are sort of out in left field -- to use another ameri-centric expression.

I agree the author is on drugs, but what I want to know is WHAT KIND of drugs??

Ok. 1. The making noise thing is so off base. When you go to a tennis match people are talking all the time, right straight through points, etc. And besides that, it's great to sit without yelling or screaming and then when the point is over to explode into noise. You can stand up and scream and let out all the pent up tension. It's great. Even when I go to baseball games, I'm not hollering all the time. Basketball games are made for noise. So it's different. And I guess this author never read about tennis matches indoors in Sweden. Plenty noise there.

2. Well -- uh--- no. There's nothing that can be said about tennis with the stars. It's just bad. But, I do think that people like mixed doubles, and if there was encouragement for top players to play at the co-ed tournaments like IW and Miami, that would be terrific.

3. This one I don't get. Shorten the sets, but have more sets. How does that help? And as for typing messages on your blackberry and swapping stories with god knows who, I do that all the time at matches. It seems people are either talking about the match or gossiping with their friends about whatever. I use my blackberry all the time at matches. I email about the match during the match, or I look up stats about players. It comes in very handy. So, short attention span? How long does a point last? Not long. There's a little break between point and a bit longer break between games, etc. Plenty of time to let your attention wander. Although I am now addicted to fast tennis. I record and then speed between points and change overs. :)

marifline
06-17-2008, 09:18 PM
Ok. 1. The making noise thing is so off base. When you go to a tennis match people are talking all the time, right straight through points, etc. And besides that, it's great to sit without yelling or screaming and then when the point is over to explode into noise. You can stand up and scream and let out all the pent up tension. It's great. Even when I go to baseball games, I'm not hollering all the time. Basketball games are made for noise. So it's different. And I guess this author never read about tennis matches indoors in Sweden. Plenty noise there.

Exactly, I could'nt have said it better:yeah: That's what I love about tennis atmosphere, during tense match there's a dead silence for the time the point is played, only to release the tension at the end of it. The "silence rule" has a purpose :cool:
And yeah people keep talking during points (actually they comment the match or else yhey are just no watching it) just as they do in front of their TV, most of the time they don't do it too loud but on big courts, there's no way it's gonna bother the players.

octatennis
06-17-2008, 09:40 PM
Actually I agree with him. :shrug:

And I believe his fixes were meant to be funny, not taken seriously. ;)

The fact is that TV viewership is going down in the US. And sports are competing in a very crowded field of choices of entertainment. Studies show that younger demographics prefer videos games (#1 choice) over even movies. (Which while the author didn't specifically mention them is part of what he is getting at - the short attention span of viewers today).

The question is whether those trends will move into other countries. Some say yes, others no.

Time will tell.

EDIT: I just remembered a conversation on Bob Costas's show on HBO (which if you have HBO you should check out if you are a sports fan - excellent quality). They were talking about how baseball is perceived as boring so Fox uses all sorts of tricks to make it seem as if there is a lot of action going on when in reality there is not. They use quick cuts from player to player and to people in the stands. Again, doing everything they can to get the attention of people who are used to videos and technology moving quickly.



it is true, at the beggining i thought that the columm was 'serious', a stupid thing written by someone who doesn't know anything about tennis but in a serious way, and now i talked with a guy who said that bill 'nominated for nobel' simmons is writter who used to do that kind of ironic articles, always funny etc.. the point is that he actually is showing the reality that is living the tennis in us, people seems to be losin intrest in the sport, not just replacing the game with video games, not because the federer's dominace it is because the same 'morbo' the media is selling, look all that crapy programs on tv, wrestling,nude poker...tila tequila?

and well for sure americans will be more connected to the sport if they have another big tennis simbol. :wavey:

Fedex
06-17-2008, 09:48 PM
The way to "fix" tennis is obvious.

When was tennis most popular?.....

.....when the tennis stars were American (McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Sampras, Courier).

So, all we need to do is force Federer to become an American citizen. In fact, we need to force Federer to become an American citizen 4 YEARS AGO.

OK. I know you are skeptical. But think about this. What makes golf popular? Tiger Woods (and Tiger Woods only). If he were from Switzerland, do you think anyone would be watching golf? Of course not. Tiger has made everyone in golf filthy rich.

Federer could do the same thing if he would just have become American 4 years ago. The fact that he didn't just shows (as everyone on this board already knows) what an ARROGANT person Federer is.

America HAS TO win everything or we won't watch. And, if we can't grow the talent at home, we have no problem buying it.

Great post.

JediFed
06-17-2008, 11:20 PM
You mean Federer isn't an American?

He's so charming, so cultured. He even can slide on the Red Clay.

My world is shattered. :sad:

sawan66278
06-18-2008, 01:23 AM
Someone needs to tell this guy that tennis is a global sport and it doesn't have to bow to a few ignorant, lazy couch potatoes types in the US like the author and his friends in order to remain popular.

Exactly.

Incredible piece of journalism. Pullitzer prize material. :bs:

Being a John McEnroe fan, I watched quite a few of his matches on tv. I can't believe how many times I had to listen to the commentators going on and on and on about what a bad role model JMac is and how his personality is bad for the sport. Now, there should be more players like JMac?
Whatever. :rolleyes: I guess that the grass is always greener on the other side.

Besides, I don't believe for a second that there are no interesting personalities on tour currently but the rules have become more strict (in part, due to JMac and Connors's behaviour back then). McEnroe wouldn't get away nowadays with all the stuff he said on court against the umpires back then.

As much as I'm a Jmac fan, I'm not a defender of his rants on court and his behaviour. A tantrum is not a sign of an interesting personality.
I was a fan of him because of his creative game in the first place. I could do without his tantrums.

Well said.


:hatoff:

Aguably one of the most pathetic examples of writing I've seen in awhile. He's a clueless fuck who has nothing of value to say.

Writing an article about tennis, while referencing Tila Tequila and porn? Websters has his picture by the definition of the word, "hack."

I realize I'm biting the hand that feeds me here, but honestly, the US living rooms would be among the last places I'd look for tennis inspiration. :tape:

Truer words have never been spoken.

The way to "fix" tennis is obvious.

When was tennis most popular?.....

.....when the tennis stars were American (McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Sampras, Courier).

So, all we need to do is force Federer to become an American citizen. In fact, we need to force Federer to become an American citizen 4 YEARS AGO.

OK. I know you are skeptical. But think about this. What makes golf popular? Tiger Woods (and Tiger Woods only). If he were from Switzerland, do you think anyone would be watching golf? Of course not. Tiger has made everyone in golf filthy rich.

Federer could do the same thing if he would just have become American 4 years ago. The fact that he didn't just shows (as everyone on this board already knows) what an ARROGANT person Federer is.

America HAS TO win everything or we won't watch. And, if we can't grow the talent at home, we have no problem buying it.

Possible post of the month.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the present ATP chief is an ex-Mr. Disney, and ESPN (the bane of sports) is OWNED by Disney?

Stick to basketball, Simmons...and go back to playing Nintendo Wii.

amierin
06-18-2008, 01:41 AM
What an idiot. He got paid to write this crap?
The link between ESPN, Disney and the ATP is quite interesting and should be talked up.

djoky
06-18-2008, 01:59 AM
The only point he has is I/my firends cant watch a full 5 set match. I always take breaks, he almost had a point about being to quite but everything else was total bull shit.

GlennMirnyi
06-18-2008, 02:23 AM
You can't have four "majors" when absolutely nobody cares about one of them. (I believe not even The Schwab could name the last 10 Australian Open winners.

That's the only piece of gold in that sea of mediocrity.

AO = MM slam.

dam0dred
06-18-2008, 03:12 AM
That's the only piece of gold in that sea of mediocrity.

AO = MM slam.

What on earth are you talking about?

Tsonga, Gonzales, Clément, Baghdatis, Rainer Schüttler, Djokovic, Johansson, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Korda, Martin... all of these players have either won or finished runner up at this spectacular showcase of tennis, and each one is an absolute legend of the sport....

Oh wait....

AO is as much of a joke now as it always has been.

Lucinda
06-18-2008, 03:19 AM
Hmm. His three ways to fix tennis apparently mean inventing a new game.

BigJohn
06-18-2008, 03:37 AM
What on earth are you talking about?

Tsonga, Gonzales, Clément, Baghdatis, Rainer Schüttler, Djokovic, Johansson, Kafelnikov, Enqvist, Korda, Martin... all of these players have either won or finished runner up at this spectacular showcase of tennis, and each one is an absolute legend of the sport....

Oh wait....

AO is as much of a joke now as it always has been.

Not to be antagonistic, but...

Pioline, Washington, Cash, Curren, Krajicek did the same at Wimbledon.

Leconte, Chang, Berasategui, Medvedev, Norman, Costa, Gaudio, Coria, Puerta did the same at RG.

Martin, Philippoussis, Rusedski, Mečíř did it at the USO... OK, that one has usualy great finalists.

Surprising guests do pop up in finals at every stop of the GS.

dam0dred
06-18-2008, 03:45 AM
Not to be antagonistic, but...

Pioline, Washington, Cash, Curren, Krajicek did the same at Wimbledon.

Leconte, Chang, Berasategui, Medvedev, Norman, Costa, Gaudio, Coria, Puerta did the same at RG.

Martin, Philippoussis, Rusedski, Mečíř did it at the USO... OK, that one has usualy great finalists.

Surprising guests do pop up in finals at every stop of the GS.

The difference is everyone I listed has been within the last 10 years. Of course over the history of a GS there will be surprises, but every year some clown seems to get to the final (and it's usually his last at a slam).

Furthermore, anomalies are to be expected on grass and clay, they are specialized surfaces, but on a hardcourt (or Rebound Ace, close enough) you shouldn't see these kind of results - as you say, there are almost always good players in the US Open final. The AO is too early in the year, the players aren't ready or match tough, the quality of tennis is low and as a result = MM slam.

BigJohn
06-18-2008, 04:02 AM
The difference is everyone I listed has been within the last 10 years. Of course over the history of a GS there will be surprises, but every year some clown seems to get to the final (and it's usually his last at a slam).

Furthermore, anomalies are to be expected on grass and clay, they are specialized surfaces, but on a hardcourt (or Rebound Ace, close enough) you shouldn't see these kind of results - as you say, there are almost always good players in the US Open final. The AO is too early in the year, the players aren't ready or match tough, the quality of tennis is low and as a result = MM slam.

So it is only fair to compare the AO with the USO? Oh well...

I did go back what 20 years or so but I hardly dug deep in historical results...

As for clowns, I have to say that anyone who gets to a final of a major deserves more respect than that. Just my opinion.

dam0dred
06-18-2008, 04:10 AM
So it is only fair to compare the AO with the USO? Oh well...

I did go back what 20 years or so but I hardly dug deep in historical results...

As for clowns, I have to say that anyone who gets to a final of a major deserves more respect than that. Just my opinion.

It's not just the players, it's the quality of play as well. To use some of your examples, Puerta, Krajicek, and Philippoussis may not be great players but they came up with excellent tennis those weeks.

Did Schüttler, Clement and Johansson? No. You never get the sense that anything special or important is happening at the AO because the play is typically so uninspiring. I mean I commend the tournament for all they've done in creating a great atmosphere for the fans but it's just not in the same league as the other slams.

alfonsojose
06-18-2008, 04:28 AM
Homer Simpson is writing :eek: tennis articles :tape:

rolandg
06-18-2008, 10:50 AM
It's not just the players, it's the quality of play as well. To use some of your examples, Puerta, Krajicek, and Philippoussis may not be great players but they came up with excellent tennis those weeks.

Did Schüttler, Clement and Johansson? No. You never get the sense that anything special or important is happening at the AO because the play is typically so uninspiring. I mean I commend the tournament for all they've done in creating a great atmosphere for the fans but it's just not in the same league as the other slams.

That's rubbish

Timariot
06-18-2008, 07:31 PM
It's not just the players, it's the quality of play as well. To use some of your examples, Puerta, Krajicek, and Philippoussis may not be great players but they came up with excellent tennis those weeks.

Did Schüttler, Clement and Johansson? No. You never get the sense that anything special or important is happening at the AO because the play is typically so uninspiring. I mean I commend the tournament for all they've done in creating a great atmosphere for the fans but it's just not in the same league as the other slams.

Funny thing, I've always thought that AO produces best quality matches, due to surface which just enables plain more fun matches than grass or clay. USO used to be boring too, but surface is slower nowadays there too.

Anyways, AO is getting more important, not less, because it's only major tournament at Asian timezones.

Timariot
06-18-2008, 07:32 PM
Exactly.
If some americans hope that tennis will be like WWF ( or whatever they call themselves nowadays) freak show, they will be bitterly disappointed, I´m sure Federer will not show up on tennis court like this or act like this

Federer has actually stated that he likes pro wrestling. IIRC he named Undertaker as his favourite wrestler.

Timariot
06-18-2008, 07:43 PM
Actually I agree with him. :shrug:

And I believe his fixes were meant to be funny, not taken seriously. ;)

The fact is that TV viewership is going down in the US.

Well, globviously. In the '90s: Sampras, Chang, Courier, Agassi, Martin making it to Slam finals and winning them.

In the '2000s: well, there's Roddick, and, uh...

Honestly, I think I'm gonna shoot next "columnist" who brings out memories of Borg-Mac in Wimbledon final 1980 and how tennis should go back to that. (Of course, nevermind that we had
just as good Wimbledon final last year and in 2001, but alas, they did not feature American players so I guess they do not count).

How come nobody ever reminisces those classic Borg-Vilas Slam finals? Or how about another 5-set classic, Borg-Tanner? Wow, that Golden Age of Tennis, too bad we nowadays have to watch boring players like Nadal, Djokovic and Federer.

Of course, the guy shot himself in the foot claiming that 1980 final "wasn't all serve-volley blah blah blah...". NEARLY EVERY POINT IN THAT MATCH WAS SERVE-VOLLEY. Honestly, has even 5% of the people who talk about that match ever actually watched it?

GlennMirnyi
06-18-2008, 07:45 PM
AO = MM slam.

As ratified by Fakervic's title.

Sunset of Age
06-18-2008, 07:45 PM
Honestly, I think I'm gonna shoot next "columnist" who brings out memories of Borg-Mac in Wimbledon final 1980 and how tennis should go back to that. (Of course, nevermind that we had just as good Wimbledon final last year and in 2001, but alas, they did not feature American players so I guess they do not count).

Fully, fully agree.

luxsword
06-26-2008, 08:17 PM
Wertheim gives a link to this article (http://home.cogeco.ca/~courtcoverage/ESPN.html). It's a reply to the Bill Simmons article. Can't quote it. Worth reading.