Simmons may not have written this headline himself, but for most of ESPN’s readers, it’s the only impression they’re going to have of the article as they flip past it to read about someone who plays for the Vikings named Jared Allen. It’s a vaguely intriguing line: Anyone with an interest in tennis will wonder what he’s talking about. But what’s more important is the message it sends to the majority of the magazine’s younger, non-tennis-loving readers.
Sports Illustrated covered tennis in the 1970s as if it was a major sport because it was popular among baby-boomer professionals. Today ESPN's and SI's focus has been narrowed to the young males that advertisers want. To these fans, this headline perpetuates the story that ESPN, SI, and most well-known sportswriters/pundits like to tell about tennis: That it’s what you should not be watching. As an American sports fan, you’ll be doing your duty by turning Wimbledon off. In this sense, tennis serves the function that soccer once did in the U.S.: It’s the Other. To be a real football fan, golf fan, baseball fan, etc., you shouldn’t also like tennis.
This idea has spread to the culture at large. During last year’s NFL season, an ad ran regularly for, I believe, a credit card, where NFL fans (were they Saints fans? I can’t find it on You Tube) whipped happily through a merchandise store until one clueless dweeb ruined the party by paying with cash. Is it any surprise that this person was buying tennis balls?
In this respect, Simmons is part of the problem. He may be the most famous sportswriter of his day—if not, he’s at least representative of the combative, passionate fan’s perspective that blogging has helped inject into journalism. Compare him to the most famous sportswriter of the 70s, SI’s Frank Deford. Can it be a coincidence that DeFord’s primary beat in those days was tennis, that his magazine featured the sport semi-regularly on its covers, and that we now see that era as tennis’ heyday? Simmons claims, rightly, that tennis isn’t as popular in the U.S. as it was in those days. Some of that has to do with the fact that upper-middle class baby boomers have moved on to golf, and that the sport’s top male players are no longer American. But there’s also a chicken-and-egg component to it: If today’s sports media, and its most famous regular-fan columnist, don’t deem tennis worthy, a lot of regular-guy fans are going to believe it.
I’ll continue through the rest of the piece, picking out bits that are worth responding to, starting with its opening line:
"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?"
Yes (clearly not the answer he's looking for).
"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."
First, yes I do. But I see Simmons’ point: Four hours is a long time to sit in front of anything. But I also read an article a couple years ago about Simmons that described him powering through NFL games on a Sunday, armed with his all-powerful DVR—it’s what allowed him to do his job. I do the same with all the sports I watch, including last year’s Wimbledon final. Cutting out the ads and prematch BS made the time commitment much more tolerable. Either way, it's pointless to criticize a sporting event for taking too long. Baseball games are routinely three hours; a golf broadcast is pretty much endless; the NBA, with its many, many timeouts, is borderline-unwatchable without a DVR.
Here we get a Simmons' comparison of the relative longevity of tennis players and golfers:
“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.”
How seriously can we take his assessment of tennis when it relies on barroom hyperbole as analysis? Maybe he’s talking about Bjorn Borg, who did burn out and disappear forever. Perhaps he’s thinking of Andre Agassi, who did go bald, but whose resurgence lasted a good seven years. Maybe he’s thinking of Juan Carlos Ferrero? No, he’s not. It doesn't accurately describe Pete Sampras, who was at the top for six full years and played for 13. Or Roger Federer, either—even after four years at No. 1, he clearly hasn’t gotten to the “sleeping with actresses/models stage.” Still, Simmons maintains that this phenomenon has happened “47 times since I was 10.”
“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.”
Has the Sports Guy already forgotten someone named Andre Agassi, who “willed” himself to the U.S. Open final three years ago at age 35, then gave tennis fans the night of their lives a year later in a five-set match win over Marcos Baghdatis? Simmons talks about needing years to connect with an athlete, the way we have with Tiger Woods, while tennis players are here and gone before you can get to know them. Agassi is Exhibit A in tennis’ defense: Very few athletes have grown up and matured so publicly for such a long period of time.
“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.”
What sport has the Sports Guy been watching? No one serves and volleys now, and I would say the points between Federer and Nadal in last year’s final were longer on average than they were between Borg and McEnroe (who alone served-and-volleyed more often than Federer and Nadal did together) in 1980.
This is an example of an odd dichotomy. People inside tennis lament the death of the serve and volley and the rise of baseline slugging, while casual viewers are still convinced that “technology” has made the game just a battle of sonic serves and killed off all rallies. Simmons, preaching to the converted, does his best to keep the misconception alive.
*“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.)”*
I’m not opposed to more fan involvement in tennis. Davis Cup is better for it, and the 2001 Monday Wimbledon final between Ivanisevic and Rafter was more exciting because of the partisanship of the crowd, who were let in on a first-come, first-served basis that day. But it isn’t essential. Tennis doesn't need to become more like team sports to "regain buzz." I’d say the sport is more unique, and more attractive to the people who might want to watch it in the first place, when it stays true to its basic traditions (within limits, of course: I don't like the all-white look outside of Wimbledon either).
Simmons eventually undermines his argument by comparing the civilized decorum of tennis fans and golf fans. No one in the mainstream media is writing articles instructing golf on how to enter the 21st century, and no serious person thinks the sport would be better if golfers had to take their swings while people were yelling at them. Golf has succeeded in part by maintaining its class traditions and drawing people who see it as a gentlemanly—as well as manly—pursuit.
“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.”
Let’s not spend much time on this one. The Aussie Open is one of the few great success stories in tennis in the last 20 years. It has grown commercially and reclaimed its full Slam status among the players. It also has the most egalitarian and down-to-earth atmosphere of the majors, something Simmons might appreciate. To say the sport would be better off if this tournament were more like Dancing With the Stars is bizarrely American-centric. It’s also nonsense.
“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.”
OK, he has a point here, and his idea is at least worth experimenting with in an exhibition event. I'm not advocating the change—would it really save the sport?—but at first glance, making each game and point a little more urgent might keep people’s attention longer, and wouldn’t hurt the traditional competitive style of the sport. From my perspective, the 6-game set is just an arbitrary number (I know purists will differ with me here.)
Anyway, I guess we owe the Sports Guy in one way: He's reminded us, for better or worse—mostly worse—of how tennis is viewed in most corners of the U.S. I await his inevitable return to lay waste to our humble little niche sport this fall, when the NFL starts up on the same day the U.S. Open ends. Football fans have to have something to hate, after all, or the NFL wouldn’t seem like quite as much fun.
