by Pete Bodo
It's been a long and eventful Wimbledon, and as usual I regret not having carved out a part of my notebook where I could jot more-or-less random and not necessarily "large" thoughts. I'll have to make a better effort at that in future majors. But let me noodle out a few reactions to some of the events of the past two-plus weeks. Feel free to comment on them, or better yet, to add your own.
Let's start with something that wasn't revealed at Wimbledon, but was an open secret confirmed in a press release today. Wimbledon is dumping NBC (and making a new alliance with ESPN), after an extraordinarily long and generally successful partnership, marred at times by the scope and priorities of the American mainstream television network. One of the problems many of us saw with NBC's approach was the subtle, underlying belief at the network that while Wimbledon was a "trophy" event, it was, after all, still "just tennis." That is, when anything of seemingly greater importance or priority for the American mainstream audience came on the radar, Wimbledon coverage paid the price.
In that sense, the deal with ESPN is huge—and perhaps even a milestone in the history of television (and sports broadcasting). The precise wording in the press release from the All England Club is: "The All England Club, Wimbledon, today announced that ESPN has acquired the exclusive U.S. television rights to live action from The Championships including both the Ladies' and Gentlemen's Singles Finals, in a 12-year agreement beginning in 2012. Comprehensive coverage from start to finish across a variety of platforms will result in more tennis for fans and all of it live."
The key words in that excerpt are "variety of platforms" and "all of it live." I believe this deal happened because of the enormous potential (already partially realized) of the Internet and ESPN platforms, including the ESPN3 digital site. In this day and age, there's no rationalization whatsoever for tape delayed broadcasting, nor for ignoring potentially riveting matches just because they don't feature the players the network wants to promote—at least not as long as you have multiple, integrated platforms, a la ESPN.
Over recent years, the network behemoths have increasingly looked out of date and often acted like they just don't get it. This new Wimbledon deal is an example of how they're starting to have to pay the price, although I imagine NBC will try to spin this as something less than a major blow. The big question, though, and the only aspect in this that may leave NBC feelinig relieved, is the impact the current lack of American players will have on long-term viewership in the U.S.
In that regard, ESPN seems to be taking a significant risk (unless they got a bargain basement deal from the AEC, which I can't imagine is the case), trusting that the endemic as well as general sports audience is well on the way to embracing great tennis regardless of the nation-of-origin of the featured players. That's all the more reason to appreciate the way ESPN stepped up and snatched the rights.
At the end of the day, the one class that can be said to have emerged as big winners, no matter what happens, is tennis fans. With that, let's move on to a few more thoughts.
Henman Hill is the single greatest location in tennis
Sure we love Centre Court, the Grandstand at Louis Armstrong stadium at the U.S. Open, those three saucer-shaped arenas sunken into the promenade at the Australian Open. But Henman Hill has become a wonderful, living, reliable testament to not just the power of Wimbledon and tennis, but to the oft-questioned demographics of the sport. The very existence of Henman Hill and the attraction it has become sends the right message—that Wimbledon tennis isn't just for the corporate or cucumber sandwich set.
Caroline Wozniacki might have them right where she wants them
The slamless No. 1 took it on the chin when she failed to make her seeding (she was No. 1, and thus expected in the final) for the second major in a row, especially because she lost in the fourth round to relative unknown Dominka Cibulkova. Wozniacki's stock has plummeted among pundits as well as fans, but let's remember that she's torn it up consistently on the hard courts in the summer, and probably feels most comfortable and plays her best in late August. I can already see the rehabilitation of Wozniacki as a big story during the second week of the U.S. Open.
Isn't it weird that if Rafael Nadal were a horse, they wouldn't have allowed him to get an injection and, so to speak, stay in the race?
Just sayin'.
About those smiling Aussies
Ashleigh Barty of Australia was seeded No. 12 in the junior girls division, but she simply crushed opponents as she rolled to the final (the one exception: U.S. player Madison Keys, who took Barty all the way to 6-4 in the third set of their quarterfinal). Barty won the final in straights, 7-5, 7-6 (3) over No. 3 seed Irina Khromacheva.
When you consider the tournament her countryman Bernard Tomic had (at 18, he was the youngest Wimbledon quarterfinalist since Boris Becker in 1986), you can see why the Aussies are smiling. The Aussies also had five junior boys entered, including semifinalists Jason Kubler and Luke Saville. The U.S. had seven boys and seven girls in the juniors, but only one boy made it as far as the third round, and Keys' quarterfinal loss to Barty was the best result by a U.S. player in either junior draw.
Juan Martin del Potro confirms what many of us already knew
One of the silliest themes as Wimbledon got underway was the surprisingly common assumption that Delpo can't play on grass. His strokes are too long! He's too tall! He's not nimble enough! He's never been past the second round! Yadda-yadda-yadda. . .
It was nice to see Delpo go all the way to the fourth round before he capitulated to defending champ Rafael Nadal in a tough match, losing two of three sets in tiebreakers—wouldn't you ordinarily like Delpo in tiebreakers, because of that big serve and unruffled manner? Bottom line: Until this year, Delpo played just three times at Wimbledon. He's got plenty of grass-court game and showed it this year—and probably will continue to do so in years to come.
Tennis needs a shot clock
I'm pretty much a traditionalist and anti-bureaucrat; I dislike the way tennis feels obliged to legislate ethics (the ATP Code of Conduct, complete with a fine structure based on degree-of-violation) even if seems like the appropriate or inevitable reaction to growth. I hate to see the game get all gummed up with rules, buzzers, clocks and all the other gizmos that come with a pro establishment in which lawyers visibly bob in the foreground, like so many channel markers.
But I think some players play just too danged slow, and don't believe they need to do so. They do it because they can; it's almost like that Murphy's Law, stating that your work expands to fit the time you've allotted to it. So I could live with it if the powers that be decided on a set time during which a player must begin his service motion; the best way to achieve that would be to have a visible clock that the umpire punches the moment a score is called, creating a countdown to when the server must deliver the ball.
Andy Murray doesn't owe anybody any explanations
The guy was in the semifinals for the third year in a row, which is a great result for the least senior member of tennis' Big Four. Once again, he had a big Wimbledon; do we need to say repeat again that Nadal made an absurdly low number of unforced errors (7) in their match?
A Victory for Silence
See the preface to my thoughts on the shot clock, and while I'm not sure a proper sound meter is the way to go on this, the awful noises made by the Sharapovas, Azarenkas and Schiavones of the game really do make tennis less enjoyable—and sillier. But did you notice that Petra Kvitova, a player who interrupts the relative silence only with a brief if piercing shriek of delight when she wins a big point, beat the tour's two shriekers in back-to-back matches?
We all know that the shrieking is, at best, an affectation. Shriekers often practice without making a sound. But the shriek has become a distracting war cry, not an acceptable expression of strain or fatigue.
*
I'll be back tomorrow, with a look at the Davis Cup.