Let Cords and Eco-Systems

Howdy, Tribe. I've been eager to talk to you all day but the first day back after a week or so off is brutal, as most of you know. That's especially true if you been away, away - completely out of touch with the looking glass of the Internet. I had a soaringly beautiful week up on the high prairie near the Montana/Alberta border, thanks to my friends at the ranch on Milk River, the Aagesons.

The brothers are cattlemen and grain growers, and their land contains some of the most interesting - and primeval - country you'll ever see: large tracts of prairie composed of cultivated fields as well as native grasses, interspersed  with rugged coulees and canyons that can be six or eight hundred feet deep, left over from the time when the plains were a great basin with saltwater and freshwater playing tug-of-war. The landscape can be other-worldly, with large patches of chalky salt flats and enormous bluffs composed of clay, topped with complex rock formations that might have been built by a whimsical child. I had a great hunt and an altogether amazing time.

But we're here to talk about tennis, right?

I want to thank all of our guest posters, some of whom will also be appearing this weekend. Here's one thing the Internet has demonstrated and I say this with absolute sincerity: Many of you posters write better than the "typical" tennis/sports journalist and easily have a greater appreciation for the nuances of the game, as well as the issues driving it. Oh, sure, this is a one-off chance for many of you to strut your stuff and you don't have to deal with the mundane realities of reportage. But you wrote some terrific stuff and the truth is out. Tennis fans, or at least members of the Tribe, have as much journalistic/literary horsepower as those of us who do this for a living. It's fascinating.

You did such a great job that TennisWorld hasn't missed a beat and some of the credit for facilitating that, as always, goes to Steggy. This time around, I was struck by what terrific taste and judgement she has in picture selection. These days, the lights are always on at our TW Tribal hut and that makes me feel great.

Real quickly, some thoughts on some subjects that caught my eye in recent discussions here:

Round Robin - The formats being proposed by the ATP are bizarre, in that they are not really representative of the format at its best, which to me would be something like: 16-man events, featuring four groups composed of four players each, the top finishers in each group advancing to a straight elimination semifinal/final two rounds. That's a classic RR tableau and it would represent a really dramatic experiment.

It seems to me that the  ATP's choice of formats was driven by two considerations that work at cross-purposes with the very intent of round robin play: a desire to keep the rank-and-file from revolting against any change that cuts down on the number of jobs and income built into the single-elimination format (16 players represents - at the very least - a drastic 50 per cent cut in the number of card-carrying ATP members employed in any given week), and a desire to get more work out of the top players, but not so much that they would revolt.

I suppose the ATP's cautious, all-things-to-all-players approach could be described as having a United Nations-grade commitment to serving all interests, but it falls short in exactly the same ways that critics of the UN say that institution falls short: by coming up with a toothless solution to a problem that may require predator-grade incisors. The net gain, in terms of the ATP's desire to come up with a more predictable schedule of matches and a greater chance for tournament attendees to see top players in action, appears to be the guarantee that fans will be assured that they will see a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal in action for, on average, one match more than they would in the most severe single-elimination format.

Sorry, but to me this adds up to a lot of fuss and noise about very little - and I'm predicting that when the the revolutionary euphoria wears off, the top players are going to have some serious gripes about the alternative formats. Most people, as usual, want to do the right thing - much as they did when, for instance, the ATP tour was created by a player revolt. But when the actual sacrifice is demanded and the surtax is levied, second thoughts don't just creep in - they flood the landscape.

On-court coaching: Dumb publicity stunt that has generated absolutely no buzz or grow-the-game feeling out there in SportsWorld. I don't know if any of you expressed this, but there is one facet of this that seems to have gone unnoticed - the degree to which having on-court coaching actually waters down the majesty of the game, not just in the abstract sense (tennis, after all, is the most individualistic of enterprises) but in a concrete way: having coaches on the sidelines and watching them confer with players muddles the otherwise clear picture of two competitors having at it, head-to-head. In that sense, on-court coaching turns singles into doubles.

As for Veruca Salt's intriguing laundry list (see previous post), here's my response:

What immediate changes would you implement? - Re-structure the calendar to create four distinct "Eco-systems" (comparable to the U.S. Open Series), each one leading up to a Grand Slam event (Roland Garros, of course, already has this). Get rid of all the extraneous tournaments that don't figure into that scenario and free up that time for the players to compete in more innovative ways: round-robins, exhibition tours, high-priced "challenge" matches (a la Jimmy Connors vs. Rod Laver in Las Vegas, back in the day). Base rankings on the Grand Slam Eco-systems and let the rest be all about the money - and fun.

What would be your long range goals? - Grow the game by capitalizing, rather than repudiating, on its image as an "elitist" (I prefer to call it standards-driven) undertaking. I'm not a golf fan, but golf seems to be doing fine working that territory. It's an insult to "diversity" to link it to watering down the image of the game. After all, nobody flocked to golf because of some new commitment to trash-talking or bizarre ambient manipulations (Tiger doesn't stroll the fairway between shots with AC/DC blaring over the loudspeakers, does he?). They came - and stayed - because Tiger breathed new life into the game; he did it through what he is and what he does, not by any changes in the game accompanying his emergence.

Also, building up the prestige and exposure of the Davis and Fed Cup competitions in the U.S. market.

What would you like to see more of? - Rivalries, one-off challenge matches, WTA mud-wrestling (rather than mere mud-slinging), media coverage of Davis Cup - hey, if Ameri - er, Gringo - reporters now flock in hordes to World Cup soccer and gush about the wonderful, international, and colorful nature of the game, why not Davis Cup?

What would  you like to get rid of immediately? - Meaningless, single-elimination tournaments, bathroom breaks, injury timeouts, delaying tactics (put the teeth back into the rule that the game proceeds at the server's pace), whining about the calendar and injuries, let-cords, the Champion's Race (I was originally a big supporter; I've changed my mind. The YEC should be based on Grand Slam performance and/or rankings, and it should take place not long after the U.S. Open).

And, finally: Many of you have seen the YouTube clip of Mary Pierce going down in Linz, in her match with Vera Zvonareva. Condolences to Mary; this is, at the very least, a career-ending injury. I'll return to this subject next week, but right now, my long-neglected family awaits. Have a wonderful weekend, y'all!