MensTennisForums.com - View Single Post - Is world tennis more dramatic than world football?

View Single Post

Old 04-04-2012, 01:21 PM   #3
country flag duong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,346
duong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond reputeduong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Is world tennis more dramatic than world football?

Actually football is more "dramatic" by nature because it's much more unfair and depends much more on luck than tennis and than most of other sports actually : the better team doesn't always win, far from that.

BUT this dramatic dimension of football has been much lowered in club competitions for 15 years because of the inequality of the business of football to recruit players.

Of course that "business/recruiting" dimension is absent in tennis where players are alone on court : in a way that makes tennis more dramatic, and also that explains why tennis fans are so passionate about the personality of the players, their human dimension.

And with the homogenization of surfaces and the general slowing down of tennis, and also of course the strength of the top-players in recent years, the "dramatic" dimension of tennis has decreased, to the point that now you can even read fans who have forgotten the "glorious uncertainty of sport" and tell you "no way Fed is going to win a slam" or "no way Roddick will beat Fed" or "no way Söderling is going to beat Nadal on clay"

In the 90s tennis was much less easily predictable; also because on quick surfaces it only depends on a few points.

Anyway, business doesn't like too much unpredictability, that's also why the ATP prefers favorizing their best players probably, with the homogenization of surfaces. Like in football, best players need to lose sometimes to save the dramatic dimension (I've read a person working in the tennis business who said that the ATP had slowed down surfaces because Fed's wins had become too predictablme for the business to work) but not too often because sponsors need to be assured of their investments.

In football the dramatic dimension is for instance assured by referees who have the choice of calling a penalty or not for the same gesture, which, if the referee is free, ensures a dramatic dimension AND sometimes makes that the best team doesn't win (see Samuel of Inter Milan not sanctioned when constantly holding Drogba for Chelsea in the surface several years ago - Inter did win the Champions League later, defeating Barcelona), and, if the referee is not free and receives some advice from the UEFA, allows the team which is needed to win, to win actually, as some people say the UEFA has maybe talked to yesterday's referee between Barcelona and Milan AC because the referee penalized the same gesture (even less visible) against Milan AC, which had not been penalized several years ago against Inter Milan.

In the end, despite this "inherently hazardous" character of football, you can be sure that the journalists will explain you exactly why the better team did win, even if it's after a penalty-breaking session

That's football, so dramatic because so unfair hazardous yet the national championships are always won by the same because the business is so unequal (and then the coaches of these rich clubs are called greats while they had such a great team to coach ...)

Last edited by duong : 04-04-2012 at 01:47 PM.
duong is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote