By Pete Bodo
I spent this afternoon working on a piece for Tennis.com about the Super Saturday concept, a "tradition" that was wildly popular with some fans, especially high rollers who couldn't be bothered helicoptering in from the Hamptons for anything less than something with "Super" in front of it - and even for that only because it's always been the hot ticket. Anyone looking to score status points, or to hob-nob with the likes of The Donald (Trump), was always keen to get hold of a ticket for the (notionally) penultimate day of the US Open. It was just one of the many things that turned me off about Super Saturday, the most over-hyped concept in tennis.
The players have shown a remarkable deal of tolerance for the Super Saturday concept, even in its present, less lethal form (the women's final is no longer the meat in the SS sandwich; it's now a separate night session and ticket, played in television's prime time). After dispatching Fernando Gonzales in the conclusion of their rain-delayed quarterfinal in a mere 30 minutes (the cost of those 30 minutes was having to call a Monday men's final, but with the rain still falling at 7:55 pm, it looks like Nadal was awful lucky to play at all today), Nadal echoed the over-arching argument against Super Saturday:
"I think the players prefer don't play Saturday and Sunday in a row, because - for example, that's my feeling, no?" Nadal was at his charming best here, displaying a kind of tongue-tied humility, and reasonableness that wins him friends and admirers. "If one player have the same match like I had in semifinals of Australia this year, you lose the final. It's impossible to win the final, believe me. So depends on how is the match in semifinals, you lose a lot of chances to play the final, no? But it's everything the same, so that's fair."
This argument has been made countless times by legions of players, pundits and commentators. Yet the commitment by the USTA to play both men's semis on Saturday, instead of Friday (as the other Grand Slam events still have it), remains steadfast - in the face of all opposition.
As tournament director Jim Curley said yesterday, in yet another bloodletting over this issue, "From a much larger perspective, from a tournament perspective, we think that being able to have the men's semifinals on network television on Saturday and the women's singles final on network television in prime time in this country, followed by a great slot on Sunday afternoon on network television (is great). It's important from our USTA perspective to promote and develop the growth of the game. It gets to a much larger audience, and that's one of the reasons we do it."
The USTA/CBS position is more defensible than the more outraged critics acknowledge, and part of the problem is the almost reflexive cynicism with which those institutions are often regarded. But I don't buy the idea that these institutions are driven by "greed"; they're powered by the desire to succeed and produce the best product. Greed in general is for losers, and they almost invariably pay a heavy price for it (Bernie Madoff, anyone?). Whereas if you succeed, at least in an enterprise as potentially lucrative as pro tennis promotion, the rewards automatically follow. That is, doing something right, or at least in an appealing way, makes greed a moot issue. I suppose you can call the effort to maximize profits "greedy," but refusing to get the most out of your "product" isn't exactly noble, either.
If a musician refuses to tour to support an album, or a writer eschews the radio talk circuit, that's his business. But when an outfit like the USTA feels no mandate or pressure to perform at the highest level, it's downright harmful.
The one thing I'm certain of is that the USTA has managed to turn the US Open into a tournament of enormous international and domestic impact, and the experience of the typical fan visiting the tournament is almost uniformly positive - or better. I'm not sure it would be any different if the men's semifinal would be played on Friday, which is my main beef these days with the Super Saturday approach, even in the current Super Saturday Lite form.
I broached this subject in the presser with Curley and Gordon Smith, Chief Executive of the USTA, and Smith said, "Well, I don't think it's a schedule (the Friday semis) that everyone wants by consensus, because Super Saturday has been hugely popular for a long time. . .We have talked about it (a move back to Friday). We will continue to talk about any option we have that we consider would improve the tournament. After this tournament we'll go back, as we do, and reassess all of those issues, including that one."
The important point is that the Saturday schedule, for better or worse, has become institutionalized and widely embraced. Because of the success of Super Saturday, going back to the alternating day format would seem regressive, if noble. Basically, CBS and the USTA created a monster; that the monster has been an enormous net-plus makes nostalgia for the good old days, when all of 8,000 people showed up for the US Open semifinals and there was no television coverage, seem wrong-headed.
One huge "problem" that Super Saturday-antis can't really reconcile with their point of view is that the system has produced remarkably few finals that were clearly sub-par because of the toll taken on the semifinalists. In fact, McEnroe, who played the late match in that notorious 1984 Super Saturday marathon, beat Lendl the following day (see my piece at Tennis.com for more details on that).
So I don't really see any way we could - or should - go back to the Friday semis, as much as I believe it's the best and fairest approach when it comes to the quality of play. We've had many top-drawer US Open finals; the complaints about Super Saturday have really been more conceptual (which is valid enough) than realistic. Another way to look at the SS dilemma is this: Isn't amazing, the extent to which the players have stepped up and answered the challenge of Super Saturday? It's a testament to the resiliance and drive of the players. Frankly, I'm kind of glad they're the kind of guys who can and will take on a daunting challenge, and find a way to surmont it.
Of course, the problems this weekend were caused mostly by the weather, and that's ignited the debate over the roof. It's funny, but suddenly Arthur Ashe stadium no longer seems so state-of-the-art, and the tight weekend scheduling only emphasizes even more emphatically how convenient it would be for the stadium to be covered. Here's what Smith said about that:
"It would be great to have a roof today, would be great to have the money to put up a roof. . . but it's a much more difficult decision than that, and the reason is that we're a non-profit (corporation). Our mission is to grow and develop the game of tennis. We spend a lot of money we make on the Open on grass roots tennis. . . so the question is, are you going to spend $100 million or more, on a roof that you might use once a year, which would be the average. Or is the money better spent promoting the game? Because over the last five years, grassroots tennis has grown tremendously, tennis is growing more than any of the traditional sports in our contry. So it's a very difficult balance to make."
What he left unsaid is that an extravagent outlay for a roof could be interpreted by IRS officials as a violation of the USTA's non-profit status. Entire teams of lawyers at every layer of government now have divisions that scrutinize the legitimacy of non-profit organizations and how they spend their money.
USTA President Lucy Garvin has a planning group studying the roof and other construction issues, but I wouldn't expect them to come up with a recommendation for a roof any time soon (although an architectural firm has already come up with a preliminary plan).
This, too, is where the wheels fall off any theory about the USTA and CBS being in cahoots to screw tennis pros, steal our money, blah, blah, blah. . . all for their own glory and benefit. One British pressman pointed out that Wimbledon was under "pressure" from broadcasters to come up with a roof. Now wouldn't CBS have a great interest in seeing a roof over Ashe?
"CBS would love to have no rain," Smith said. "They'd love to have a roof (note to Smith: Hey, suggest that if they want the roof so much, they can go out and buy it!) . But again, going back to Jim (Curley's) point, this is the first time in 40 years that the tournament has had back-to-back Monday finals. We'll obviously take our broadcast partners opinions into account, but let's face it - there's a bigger issue in London than there is here with the rain."
Personally, this Super Saturday Lite (thanks to the advent of the prim-time Saturday night women's final) is a lot better than the previous version. One thing that always amazes me in these discussions, and they come up all the time on the much larger platform of national policies as well, is that people sometimes forget that each tennis major, like each nation, has its own indigenous way of doing things - its own philosophies, traditions, objectives, fears and aspirations that exert a shaping influence on every institution. It's as silly to expect the Americans to do something the way, say, the French do it as it is to ask the French to do it the American way.
This holds true in tennis, too. The majors are among the most cherished and jealously guarded of national sporting/cultural institutions. Has any event insisted on maintaining its organic integrity more than Wimbledon? Isn't that one of the reasons Wimbledon continues to enjoy pre-eminence? I don't like the Super Saturday idea much, and I wish there were a roof over Arthur Ashe stadium. But I can live with what the USTA has created here, and I think the players have discovered that they can, too.