Forty Deuce

Everyone Else Is Talking About It, So I Will Too

Because I'm a sheep like that.  Or maybe a lemming.  Take your pick.

Today Huan Hsu at Slate posted this article about the importance of "insane tennis parents" to the restoration of the American game.  Personally, having grown up as an athlete and having seen up close and personal the long-term effects of insane sports parents of any ilk on their athlete child(ren), their family, and the atmosphere in their sport in general, I find the idea completely revolting and I admit that it's near impossible for me to even pretend to be objective about it.  I think Hsu and I just come down on opposite sides of the argument: valuing, even desiring "insane tennis parents" is only justifiable if you think that the state of American tennis is more important than the potential long-term impacts on insane tennis parents' children-- the ones who make it and the ones who don't.  He seems to think, for tennis's sake, it might be.  I-- quite vehemently-- believe that it isn't.

Anyway.  Here it is (excerpts, at least):

With Andy Roddick's loss at the French Open on Monday, American men have now failed to take the title in 22 straight Grand Slam tournaments, extending the longest dry spell in U.S. tennis history. This stretch of futility, coupled with a dearth of young talent on the women's side, prompted the United States Tennis Association to overhaul its player development system last year, introducing a host of initiatives such as regional residential training centers, a new roster of national coaches to scout and train prospects, and an increased budget (upward of $100 million over the next 10 years). The plan is comprehensive and ambitious, intended to produce the next Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, and Venus Williams. Unfortunately for the USTA, national organizations with comprehensive mission statements don't produce tennis champions. Crazy tennis parents do.

...

While the bloated, bureaucratic USTA sputtered, tennis parents continued to spawn champions. Leading the way was Mike Agassi, a self-described "crazy Iranian from Las Vegas who browbeat his kids into mastering tennis." Mike indoctrinated his son Andre by hanging a tennis ball over his crib and taping a pingpong paddle to his hand. Stefano Capriati boasted that his daughter Jennifer was doing sit-ups as a baby and had a racket in her hand as soon as she could walk. Though Jim Pierce had no tennis background, he pulled daughter Mary out of school to train her full-time, working her up to eight hours a day, sometimes until midnight. He also punched a spectator at the 1993 French Open and was so unruly that he led the women's tour to add a provision for the banning of abusive players, coaches, and relatives. (In an act of solidarity, Richard Williams later called him "one of the best parents I have ever known.")

The approaches of these tennis tyrants may have been objectionable and the psychological damage they inflicted on their children immense. Nevertheless, these parents had a plan, and they stuck to it. They spent time and money and energy and didn't have to clear their decisions with a committee, answer to a board of directors (or even their spouses), or worry about overtraining or being fair to other players. And the expectations they put on their children, however misguided or unrealistic, originated from a resolute belief in their ability to become champions. Richard Williams' biggest achievement is not teaching his daughters how to hit forehands and backhands but inculcating them with, in the words of 1990 Wimbledon finalist Zina Garrison, the "strength, confidence, and arrogance you need to become the top player in the world."

It's no surprise that the USTA would try to cultivate star players—the organization doesn't have much to gain from acknowledging that it has nothing to do with producing Grand Slam winners. The reality, though, is that rational coaches and trainers with sensible development plans can never compete with the designs of an obsessed parent. The success of self-taught tennis players turned coaches such as Williams, Capriati, and Bollettieri—the famed coach didn't pick up a racket until college—reveals that it doesn't take long-tenured gurus and well-structured organizations to teach the game. Tennis consists of only a handful of basic strokes and strategies. As such, parents who wouldn't dare try to teach, say, golf can read a book, watch a few videos, and give capable instruction. What separates the best players from their peers isn't superior teaching. It's maniacal devotion.

It's no accident that three of ESPN's 10 Worst Sports Relatives (Dokic, Pierce, and Peter Graf) are tennis parents. The ugly truth is that for the United States to produce another Andre Agassi or Venus Williams, some crazed dad is going to have to add his name to that list. In its quest to develop a new generation of champions, the USTA would do well to remember the words of Robert Lansdorp, the former coach of Sampras and Lindsay Davenport. "The basic principle is the same," he said. "Every person who has made it in this game, Americans or foreign, it has been the parents who were behind it."

Thoughts?

Ode to a Superfan.

There was a Superbowl commercial a few years ago asking us why we cheer so hard for our teams.  It cuts between shots of a guy preparing to kick a field goal and fans all over the country holding their breaths, engaging in superstitions, standing up, etc.  And the basic premise of the commercial is that we cheer hard and do stupid shit because in the back of our minds, no matter how rational we are, maybe, just maybe, our actions will influence the flight of the ball.  Thus the mind of the SuperFan.

Peter Bodo has a great piece on what it means to be a SuperFan in the context of professional tennis.  And I don't know about you, but it really does capture my POV perfectly:

Sitting here at the farm, with a green piece of ash hissing as the wood stove boils out the moisture inside the log, I'm thinking about fans (as many of you know, I loathe what is commonly known as "bracketology") and the exquisite torture they'll be putting themselves through over these next two weeks.Two-hundred and fifty-six players will sally forth in quest of the men's and womens' singles titles, and only one man and one woman's mission will be a complete success. That gives you a rough idea of how perilous it is to be a fan.

I've often written that, to my mind, there are two kinds of fans out there: general tennis fans, for whom the game overshadows the transient individuals who play it (even though those fans have their heroes and villains), and those who sometimes seem more enamored of specific individuals than of the game in general.

I suppose that's true in all sports, but in tennis the pool of fans who attach their devotion to a single player (or players) is much greater - this is why you still find the occasional outlier who bangs his fist on the virtual table in a place like this and says something like: tennis ain't been the same since the days of McEnroe and Connors! He has a point, of course, but it's the self-evident one: nothing is ever the same as it was 10, 20 or 100 years ago. That's what happens when your interest is rooted in individuals, not the enterprise itself.

Team sports are in many ways much easier on the fan. Every day, I see guys wearing nylon New York Giants red, white and blue windbreakers, or OSHA-certified hard hats modeled on the Giants' helmet, complete with the logo. These guys are willing to sit in Giants' stadium in freezing rain in December, so you know they're committed. Yet very few of them are first and foremost Eli Manning fans - what they are is Giants fans, and if Manning happens to wreck their dreams, they're more than happy to throw him under the bus. Oh, they like some players more than others, but their allegiance is to the institution (the Giants), not to one or another of the people who, at any given time,  happen to play on the team. This is a liberating and generous mandate for the fan, because it allows him to be a fan as well as a critic. Nobody questions the Giant blue blood of a fan who boos a missed tackle by Antonio Pierce. How often does your typical Novak Djokovic fan boo when Nole blows a passing shot?

But tennis isn't a team sport (even Davis Cup in certain ways fails the smell test). Only those who are fans of the game in general are given latitude for dissent when it comes to the players, but they also are denied the heart-wrenching agony and the spiraling, concentrated joy experienced by fans of specific players. In some ways, those who resist - or keep in perspective - the siren song of personality issuing from each player are realists; those who do not, the diehard fans and KADs, are romantics.

I've often wondered, why would someone live and die by how Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal did on a given day? What's in it for them? Why make that investment?

Not to get too heavy about it - okay, I'll get all heavy about it - I think having a specific, overwhelming favorite, while a narrow and in many ways unforgiving undertaking, gives the fan a way to express and perhaps experience unconditional love. And that's something most of us have spent at least portions of lives hunting. The born-again Christian will understand what I mean; the secular parent will also know -all he has to do is think about how he feels about his kid. We feel good about ourselves when we love unconditionally; we also long to be loved unconditionally, at least partly because it allows us to, well, get away with stuff. But by entering into this kind of relationship with a hero, we stake a partial claim to his or her conquests. When Ana Ivanovic wins, I win too, because I love Ana and this win is my reward for it - unconditionality be damned.

At some level, it's risky to transfer powerful emotions and loyalties to someone you don't know, or know only in his or her limited context as a tennis pro (that is, at some level, a machine. Because anyone who does anything "professionally" is just that, and the lengths to which players go - think Venus or Serena Williams - to try to demonstrate that they aren't "just" tennis players shows it.) How do you know that Janko Tipsarevic really is a "good" person -  because he has a Dostoyevsky quote tattooed on his arm?  Hey, maybe at heart he's more like Raskolnikov, an axe murderer!

We'll never really know how justified our love is, but isn't that moot, when the love we're trying to give is unconditional?  Besides, expending unconditional love on a tennis player is only risky in theory - unlike, say, expending unconditional love on a girlfriend, or spouse. It isn't like any of you guys are going to have to run out for milk because Jelena forgot to pick it up on the way home. The problem with being a uber-fan is that there's only one way to express that unconditional love (or to even show if it really exists, which really means that you have the capacity for giving it), and that's by loyalty.The fan who doesn't understand or accept that is on his or her way to becoming a stalker. And while loyalty to an institution, like a team, leaves you free to criticize anyone who appears to be an impediment to the success of that organism, you can't really do that with an individual. You're in for a penny, you're in for a dollar. Every tennis player out there is an institution unto himself, and his wins and losses are an open and shut case in which the glory or blame is undistributed.

The down-side of unconditional love is also the true test of the effort:  It's easy to give when you get something in return, but what do you do when you get nothing in return? That almost never happens in tennis, where everyone lives to fight another day, and those upon whom we're most likely to shower our unconditional love tend to be the ones who pay us back in spades. There's a reason the world is crawling with Federer and Nadal fans, while a Vince Spadea or Igor Andreev manages only a bemused "well done!"  now and then. We are, after all, human, and our urge to express and/or experience unconditional love is neatly offset by a considerably more rational desire to see a return on our investment. This explains the gallows humor and wry resignation exhibited by so many fans of Marat Safin. Being his fan is like giving money to that irascible but adorable con man, cousin Charley. It's just the toll you pay for being in his good graces.

Perfectly said. 

2008 Sucked. Except For You Guys.

Seriously, I'm looking forward to drunkenly throwing 2008 out by the scruff of the collar, pushing it down the stairs, kicking it to the curb, pouring lighter fluid on it, and ever so dramatically and coolly flicking a cig on it.  Fuck you, 2008.

But there were some highlights.  And one was starting this blog up, which I did for shits and giggles.  And the other was people actually reading it, which was weird.   And the next was people starting to comment, which was creepy.  And the next and most recent was the weird little community we've all somehow formed, which was awesome.  It's pretty neat.

Which brings me to this awesomely apropos article from The Onion, entitled "If Someone Wanted To Publish My Blog Entries For Money, I Wouldn't Say No":

Let me make one thing clear right off the bat: I started my blog because I needed an outlet for my thoughts and feelings during the 2004 elections, not for the prestige and loyal readership it might bring me. I just needed a personal creative space where I could jot some things down that someone might be able to Google.

Now, if my friends happen to read my blog, great. If they e-mail others about it, fantastic. If people I don't even know check it out—and according to my hit counter, as many as 62 a day have—so much the better. And if, say, Harper's, Rolling Stone, or any other publication ever wanted to publish some of my blog entries for money, I guess that's their prerogative.

My blog is more of a hobby than anything else, something to do for fun when I get home from my bookstore job. I've never dreamed of making a living from it. Though hypothetically speaking, if The New Yorker—a publication that I'm sure pays top dollar—wanted to publish my August 9, 2005 post "Creative Thinking Spots" in its "Shouts And Murmurs" section, I'd consider it. Didn't cross my mind when I wrote that post, and that's certainly not why I wrote it, nor why I have a Google news alert set up for New Yorker  editor David Remnick, but I can understand how someone on their staff might think the piece is a good fit for that section. 

The No. 1 rule of my blog is that there are no rules. I write about everything from movies I've seen to crazy observations that just pop into my head about Starbucks. And sometimes I'll just write, "Had a pretty boring day today," take a picture of myself eating cereal for dinner, and call it a night. It's a web log, people. I'm not striving to be a great essayist, but if by chance some amazing commentary flows out of my keyboard, so be it. I don't write my blog to entertain anyone else, especially not some uptight Esquire editor. But if an Esquire editor is crazy about my work, and wants to run a three-page spread on my hilarious reviews of horrible movies, who am I to dismiss it out of hand?  

If the Old Media bigwigs ever do decide to visit my blog (http://bentiedemanntellsall.blogspot.com) they would see it doesn't have that familiar opportunistic "look at me, look at me" feel of so many others. They'd see I'm just a small-town guy, humbly making his way in the big city, who happens to have a lot of unique and humorous outsider perspectives on that experience. For example, I got a few comments (from as far away as Boise!) on how interesting my post was about how in my hometown of Akron everyone is really laid-back, but in New York City, everyone is always on edge. I could see how these types of entries could be adapted into a syndicated column with a title like "Small Town Takes A Bite From Big Apple" that could run in a dozen papers. Though I'm not one to put myself out there and try to initiate these things, I wouldn't turn my nose up at them either.

Some of you are thinking that I'm just a sellout. But the true sellouts are blogs like Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo that blatantly rely on advertising. Sellouts are bandwagon bloggers like my colleague AudreyGrrrl, who recently got written up in Wired as one of the best bloggers under 30. Have I spent the last three and a half years trying to get profiled in Wired? No. Do I think some of my daily musings, such as the times I've blogged about missing the bus, are more interesting than the entries posted by those so called "best bloggers"? Yes. But blogging shouldn't be a competition. It's not about getting published in an anthology with a foreword by David Foster Wallace and going on a 30-stop book tour. I don't need that kind of attention. AudreyGrrrl might, but not me. 

Look, if I wanted to be a "professional" print writer, I could easily do it. Last week I posted a very insightful piece on why Saturday Night Live is emerging from the bleak shadows of the past several years and may be on the cusp of experiencing a renaissance. Nearly three of the seven people who commented on the posting said they could envision the piece being published in the New York Times' Arts & Leisure section. Hey, I didn't say it, they did. And to be honest, by the looks of the section, they could use some new blood over there. Just saying.

I'm not some pathetic, lonely soul who sits in front of his computer refreshing his e-mail in hopes that somebody from HarperCollins, Three Rivers Press, or Random House will offer me a book deal. In fact, to prove how little I'm expecting from the blog career-wise, I'm taking the next few weeks off to focus on my spec script for Two And A Half Men—which I'm doing strictly for the practice, you understand. I could care less if it lands me an agent and a three-movie deal with Paramount.

I'm just doing this for me, after all.

Happy New Year, Forty Deucers!  Here's hoping 2009 doesn't suck donkey balls.

Air Quotes: Shriver on 2009

"Venus will be the favorite again next year to win Wimbledon, but then where else is she going to sneak in?  Maybe the US Open, because I can't see her winning either Australian or the French. Serena is the best bet and maybe her time at the French is over, but at the other three, if she enters them healthy and is a reasonable frame of mind, she'll be at least the co-favorite if not the favorite. A lot depends on how Sharapova comes back because she should be good for winning one Slam a year, too. It looks the injury will come and go, just like her serve and toss, but when it clicks in, she's can best player. Ivanovic looks like she went through the typical first Slam win, followed by a big slump. She might be like Maria was after she won her first Slam at 2004 Wimbledon – following it up with mediocre year. And then you have the stayers, like Jankovic, who plays her 20-25 tournaments, reaches her semis, finals and gets some titles. She'll just plod along and rack up the points. It's been a year of bizarre twists and turns and a little intrigue. In some way it's been absolutely fascinating, but some have been frustrated with whether anyone can actually take No. 1 and embrace it."

-- Pam Shriver, on the uncertainty and unpredictability of the 2009 WTA season (subscription required).  Other interesting thoughts from Pammy going into the YECs:

• She thinks JJ and Lena D will each win a Slam in the next 18 months
• She thinks that regardless of what happens at the YECs, 2008 will be remembered not as the year of a dominant #1 emerging, but as the year that a dominant #1 retired;
• She believes JJ is a deserving #1;
• She wonders if Serena's tank is empty after it took 9 months of hard work to win the US Open;
• She hopes that the YECs being held in not-so-woman friendly Doha will inspire the local women.

Tidbits from My Boyfriend's Mailbag

This week, from Jon Wertheim's Mailbag:

How do you think the end of year championships will shake out?
-- Greg Beyer, Naugatuck, CT

• Still another earmark of his professionalism, Roger Federer always seems to have a bit more left in the proverbial tank when the Masters Cup rolls around. Maybe it's all that Net-jetting. As was the case at Wimbledon, I think you have to call him the favorite until someone else proves otherwise. As for the women, you're better off picking the stock market. At this point in the year, with a banged up and mentally exhausted field playing on an indoor court in a far-flung locale, no result would surprise me.

Not a question but an observation. It was at the Stuttgart tournament when Jankovic's coach was timing Venus' serve. It strikes me as being quite funny since it appears Jankovic looks over at her coach/box before challenging a call, which I thought was not suppose to be the case.
-- Susan, Boston

• A few of you have mentioned that. It strikes me as more than a little bush league. And of all players, Venus Williams is probably the single most sporting out there. She doesn't even like to challenge line calls; you really think she's milking the clock on purpose? Insofar as this was an attempt to "get inside the head" of Venus, I suspect it had the opposite effect. When a coach does something like this, is he not in effect saying, "I'm not sure you can beat her outright; so I'm resorting to the dark arts?"

What's the back story on Feliciano Lopez that might have prompted this comment from one of the Tennis Channel commentators at the finish of Lopez' victory over Wawrinka in Madrid: Lopez excelling in front of a celebrity crowd that he will feel came to watch him -- and only him."
-- FP, Nashville

• I'm responding to hearsay, but I'm sure this was an innocent comment, simply alluding to the fact that Lopez is from Madrid, the tournament's host city. I'm sure it has nothing -- not a thing -- to do with the fact that Lopez is alleged to make Narcissus himself look modest, a man who will singlehandedly wear out the reflective surface of the locker room mirrors. Seriously, there seems to be an interesting dynamic among some of the Spanish players. There's apparently the urban, pretty boy camp (Verdasco and Lopez) and the more rural, rugged camp (Ferrer, Nadal, Almagro.) Nadal is good friends with Lopez, but calls him "Galactico," a reference to the Real Madrid soccer "superstars" but also a gentle knock on his disco-lizard, appearance-conscious persona.

"Deregulation" Is Not a Word You Want Attached To Your Candidacy.

Joel Drucker's take on McEnroe Sr.'s potential move to become the ATP's new CEO.  I wrote about this a little bit yesterday and while I applauded Big Mac's comments about the players' being the engine that drives the tour, there were a few comments that I didn't quote in my post that freaked me out a bit, namely the implication that he wants the players to run the tour and for there to be no rules regarding what tourneys they play:

A letter McEnroe has sent to the ATP spells out the crux of his vision, right down to the selected deployment of capital letters lest his point go misunderstood: "The rules for participation on the Tour are an abomination. My own view is that NO player should be required to play in ANY TOURNAMENT if he doesn't wish so to do. Also, as long as a player's ranking entitles him to entry, he should be able to enter any tournament without requiring a minimum of tournaments each year. This is a position I have held for over thirty years."

Yeah, that ain't gonna work.  As per usual, I totally agree with Cliffy Drysdale's comments:

"Back in the '80s it was a free-for-all, with variations in prize money, inconsistent depth in player fields, exhibitions cutting into the tour. The days of playing wherever and whenever were a disaster."

It's all about balance, and while extreme positions may get you attention and ultimately elected, they don't work in practical application. 

When It's Not About the Money, How Do You Get Them To Play?

Interesting article by Matt Cronin on the uncertain state of the ATP.  It sounds like they're trying to solve the same problem the WTA's Roadmap is attempting to solve.  When the top players are making enough money off the court so that prize money is no longer as alluring, how do you get them to commit to tournaments?  Because obviously, without them, the tournaments will fold because people want to see Fed, Rafa, and Nole.  Not Stan, Tabasco, and Tipsy. 

It's a tough problem but it sounds like McEnroe Sr. is on the same page as Larry Scott, at least conceptually:

"The rules as they exist now are terrible for the players," McEnroe Sr. said. "De Villiers lost support of the players and tournaments. He was making rules that the players didn't like and he should have never done that. The tour is a car. The engine is the players, the tournaments are the body, and wheels are the sponsors and TV. Without all of them working in concert, the car won't work. But without the engine, the car won't move."

You can't force players to play but you also can't give players free reign to decide which tourneys to play and which to sit out.  For as much as I've criticized the Roadmap, at least it was put together with input from the players and for the most part it sounds like the top players are on board, which is key. 

Who's The Fairest One Of All?

As a sportsfan, it is inexplicably disappointing than when your favorite team/player loses.  It's even worse when they lose when they should have won.  And it's kick-you-in-the-nuts-spit-on-your-neck-fantastic when you realize your team/player is losing when it should be winning and they get the same obscene paycheck either way (I'm looking at you, Zito).

Which leads me to this interesting little analysis by Peter Bodo, comparing the player compensation systems between sports.  Pete argues that tennis, with it's true performance based system, is the fairest:

Are tennis player salaries out of whack? I took a quick look at the most relevant prize-money figures (those in golf) and discovered this: The top tennis player and golfer (Rafael Nadal and Vijay Singh, respectively) are in a virtual dead heat, at about $6.5 million each. But the No. 5 golfer (Kenny Perry) has earned $4.6 million so far this year. His counterpart in tennis is Nikolay Davydenko, who's earned just $1.5 million.

No. 10 golfer Justin Leonard has raked in $3.8 million, while No. 10 tennis player Juan Martin Del Potro hasn't broken the $900,000 mark. Golfer Jonathon Byrd is at the entry level of the PGA Tour's million-dollar club for the year and ranked No. 85. His counterpart in tennis is Leander Paes, who's earned a little over $310,000.

Of course, it's hard to take actual dollar values and compare them across sports.  Golf has larger sponsorship contracts and in America at least, is a premier ad-value sport. Therefore the numbers are inflated and misleading. 

But there is something "romantic" about the "eat what you kill" mentality on the tennis tours.  If you win you make money, if you lose you don't.  It makes the matches, especially in smaller tourneys, more intriguing because it seems more primal.  It makes me respect true "journeyman" players a whole lot more.  They really are playing to put food on the table, flying from country to country, lugging their own gear, in hopes of pocketing $10-30k to pay for their travel, training, coaches, etc.

The Butterfly Effect: How Will Crashing Markets Affect Tennis?

Bonnie Ford details the potential ripple effect of the U.S. market crash on tennis.  All in all, tennis should be fine, but we'll see how the U.S. tournaments are affected.  As far as I know, Indian Wells still doesn't have a sponsor lined up.

In Memoriam: David Foster Wallace.

"Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.

This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger."

-- David Foster Wallace, in a 2005 speech to Kenyon College

I was shocked to hear on NPR last night that David Foster Wallace passed away from an apparent suicide.  DFW was one of my favorite contemporary writers and he was, and this is not hyperbole, a fucking genius.  Within reading the first four sentences of any book or essay he wrote I felt like an illiterate imbecile.  The way he structured sentences and argument was absolute artistry, sometimes complex and difficult to work through, but artistry nonetheless.  But what set DFW apart was his humor.  Even when tackling the most intense, dark, moody subject matter, the guy was hilarious. 

What kind of world do we live in that we couldn't keep this guy alive?  I'm heartbroken.

This is a loss to the tennis world as well because DFW was a big tennis fan.  He played competitively (and was quite good) when he was young and remained a fan through adulthood.  In 2006 he wrote a famous piece for the New York Times called "Federer as Religious Experience".  Here is a choice excerpt:

A top athlete’s beauty is next to impossible to describe directly. Or to evoke. Federer’s forehand is a great liquid whip, his backhand a one-hander that he can drive flat, load with topspin, or slice — the slice with such snap that the ball turns shapes in the air and skids on the grass to maybe ankle height. His serve has world-class pace and a degree of placement and variety no one else comes close to; the service motion is lithe and uneccentric, distinctive (on TV) only in a certain eel-like all-body snap at the moment of impact. His anticipation and court sense are otherworldly, and his footwork is the best in the game — as a child, he was also a soccer prodigy. All this is true, and yet none of it really explains anything or evokes the experience of watching this man play. Of witnessing, firsthand, the beauty and genius of his game. You more have to come at the aesthetic stuff obliquely, to talk around it, or — as Aquinas did with his own ineffable subject — to try to define it in terms of what it is not.

One thing it is not is televisable. At least not entirely. TV tennis has its advantages, but these advantages have disadvantages, and chief among them is a certain illusion of intimacy. Television’s slow-mo replays, its close-ups and graphics, all so privilege viewers that we’re not even aware of how much is lost in broadcast. And a large part of what’s lost is the sheer physicality of top tennis, a sense of the speeds at which the ball is moving and the players are reacting. This loss is simple to explain. TV’s priority, during a point, is coverage of the whole court, a comprehensive view, so that viewers can see both players and the overall geometry of the exchange. Television therefore chooses a specular vantage that is overhead and behind one baseline. You, the viewer, are above and looking down from behind the court. This perspective, as any art student will tell you, “foreshortens” the court. Real tennis, after all, is three-dimensional, but a TV screen’s image is only 2-D. The dimension that’s lost (or rather distorted) on the screen is the real court’s length, the 78 feet between baselines; and the speed with which the ball traverses this length is a shot’s pace, which on TV is obscured, and in person is fearsome to behold. That may sound abstract or overblown, in which case by all means go in person to some professional tournament — especially to the outer courts in early rounds, where you can sit 20 feet from the sideline — and sample the difference for yourself. If you’ve watched tennis only on television, you simply have no idea how hard these pros are hitting the ball, how fast the ball is moving,how little time the players have to get to it, and how quickly they’re able to move and rotate and strike and recover. And none are faster, or more deceptively effortless about it, than Roger Federer.

Seriously, people.  If you haven't ever read DFW please take the time to give him a try.  Pick up A Supposedly Fun Thing I Will Never Do Again (for his famous essay on his experience on a cruise ship), Brief Interviews With Hideous Men, or if you're feeling ambitious, Infinite Jest.  The essays are interesting, well-reasoned, and beautifully argued.  The stories are just so vivid and carefully told.  Fantastic stuff.  And I promise you you will never look at a footnote the same way again.

RIP, DFW.  Rest assured, you moved us all.

Do people really go on "Tennis Dates"?

Nice little article about tennis fashion on Tennis.com.  But I got a little confused at this part:

Golf-clothes designer Linda Hipp, whose label Lija is launching tennis clothes this spring, says an increasing number of athleticwear customers want to be able to wear their outfits even off the court. An evening player might be on a date or enjoying time with her spouse and might want a little more fashion in her outfit.

So while tennis dresses are unlikely to be mistaken for a bona fide cocktail frock, there's no reason not to incorporate a ruffle here or ruching there to make a flattering, flirty garment.

Evening tennis has a more lively social component," she says.

People go on "Tennis Dates"?  As in an evening of tennis with someone you're kind of trying to impress?  This is a completely wacky to me.  I doubt that Steffi puts on a nice frilly top when she goes to hit with Andre.  And I'm pretty sure Mirka doesn't don some nice earrings and a velvet dress when she hits with Fed.  Like, if you're going to play tennis, just go play tennis.

Though now that I think about it I did once go to play tennis in the afternoon with a guy I was dating.  But it wasn't a "Tennis Date" and I definitely didn't go into my closet wishing that I had Masha's Audrey Hepburn dress.

Incidentally, I do not recommend the tennis thing when you're dating someone.  At least not if (a) you're uber competitive like I am and (b) your date is uber competitive and refuses to be beat by a girl.  Long story short, I almost sprained my ankle, he was dripping in sweat and in a foul mood because I beat him, we went to eat non-sexy Mexican food afterwards because we were starving, and then we were exhausted so we parted ways.  And we also ceased dating a few weeks afterwards.  Then again, some might argue that it was a good thing we played tennis, as people's true personalities tend to reveal themselves on the court.  That dude was lame.

Wow.  That post totally didn't go where I thought it was gonna go.  Anyhoo....

Brad and Mary: On Andy, Serbs, GOATs, and American xenophobia

In this month's Inside Tennis there is a fantastic round table discussion with Brad Gilbert and Mary Carillo on various topics generally related to the US Open.  Topics include the state and future of American tennis, the popularity of tennis in America, Andy Roddick, James Blake, Maria, Venus, Serena, GOATs, rivalries, and the importance to Americans to have a top American player competing for titles.

Now, I'm a big fan of straight shooters.  I don't agree with them a lot of the time, but I respect their candor.  Like them or hate them, BG and MC are straight shooters.  I agree with MC way more often than I agree with BG, but I really loved this round table discussion and I encourage everyone to read it.  Lots of food for thought.

Some of my favorite exchanges:

IT: This year, watching Andy lose to Philipp Kohlschreiber in Australia and to Janko Tipsarevic at Wimbledon, he was busting his ass, fighting like hell, trying to add variety, but he may not have the skill set to consistently play with the top-three guys.

MC: He knows that. His candor when he loses — he knows he’s not getting it done. He’s worked very hard, but does he work on the right things?  I honestly thought that when Connors was working with him he would develop a much different way to handle the court. Court management was a hallmark of Jimmy’s game, how to keep your court small and the other guy’s big. It’s got to be rough for Andy because it’s not like he’s not working.

It's pretty obvious why I like this exchange: I agree.

MC: Who do you say are greats? Are Venus and Serena all-time greats?

IT: Obviously, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court and Chris Evert are in the top five, and if you go top 10, you can throw in Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong...

BG: Maria is only 21 and has five to six good years left.

MC: Venus and Serena are two of the best of their generation, but they aren’t in double figures yet [Serena has eight Slam titles; Venus seven]. I honestly thought they would take over and we would have twin tigers.

BG: They can get to 20 combined, and that’s a hell of an accomplishment.

MC: A great accomplishment, but Steffi had 22 by herself, so that “all-time great” conversation is different.

BG: Because we’ve had periods where one or possibly two women dominated. It’s so much better when we have up to eight players who can win a tournament. It’s much more interesting.

IT: Maybe back in ‘02, ‘03, when Serena was winning everything and Venus was reaching all those Slam finals, too much was expected of them  — that they could win 15 or 20 Slams each. You look at Venus and some days she’s world-beater and other days she’s technically breaking down. It’s not   like she has the cleanest game in the world.

MC: Not at all, but what are you saying: that we should expect Pete and Roger to do that and not Venus and Serena? Why aren’t women expected to do that?

IT: Some are. I’m talking about where the bar should have been set for Venus and Serena specifically. Maybe it was set too high. Plus, the contention that they should be winning everything they enter downgrades the games of some of their elite competitors. Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic are very good.

MC: I thought they were going to have ownership of the tour.

BG: Venus and Serena are doing a great job. They’re complete and happy people, and that’s more important. If they had total obsession they might have burned out and might not be happy people. They’re active in other things and are still good at what they love.

MC: Aren’t you happy that Roger, Nadal and Tiger dedicate themselves that much?

BG: Not everyone can be that way.

MC: I’m glad they want it that much.

BG: I haven’t second-guessed them for one second. Everyone’s   different.

MC: Are you glad that Steffi was Steffi?

BG: Yes, but not everyone can be Steffi.

MC: I’m not questioning their lives. All I’m saying is what   I thought was going to happen.

I found this exchange interesting for a few different reasons.  First, I found it surprising that Brad Gilbert, a guy who is known as a great motivator who can push people to be better, who is so unforgiving when good players lose, actually has a fatalistic view of success and greatness.  I physically blanched at his "Not everyone can be that way" comment on dedication.  I completely disagree.  I think everyone has the capacity to dedicate themselves fully and commit to greatness.  Whether or not you achieve it is a completely different issue, but you can pour everything into it.  If you can't that's your fault.

Second, I'm 100% with Mary on her "disappointment" with Venus and Serena.  I don't mean disappointment in a "you have failed" sort of way.  Clearly they are great champions who have achieved so much.  But when they came up, I really did think they were going to dominate tennis and change the way it was played.  And it would have been so great for American tennis if they did.  They haven't failed, but I guess I expected more from them and hoped more for them. 

Last, I like that Mary called Brad out on the different level of expectations placed on the men as opposed to the women.  Why is that Roger loses a few matches and everyone is up in arms because he is not living up to expectation, but when Venus and Serena lose people tend to give them a mulligan and just pat them on the head and let them live their lives.  Why can't we call them out on it? 

IT: So how do you explain Serbia? There’s no real explanation other than the standard “They’re more hungry” thing. You have three elite players, all of whom came from middle-class backgrounds.

MC: And the poor Russian women are so tired of it. They really want to kill them.

BG: That’s a little misleading. Jankovic went to Bollettieri’s; Djokovic went to Nicki Pilic in Germany; and Ivanovic went to Switzerland. Had they stayed in Serbia would they be this good?

IT: No, they would be like Tipsarevic, who stayed in Serbia and is ranked No. 45.

I just liked that they called Tipsy out. 

Na Li bears the wrath of billions for trying to teach them the rules of the game.

Ok, I'll give you a mulligan on this one, China.

Na Li is apparently getting crap from Chinese bloggers for yelling "Shut up!" at the Chinese crowd during her semifinal loss to Dinara Safina.

"The yell came as Li lost a critical set point shortly before losing the match to Russia’s Dinara Safina 6-7 (3), 5-7, ending China’s hope to win a silver or gold medal in singles tennis play. The incident, now dubbed as “Shut-up Gate” in online chat rooms, provoked wide accusations of Li trying to distance herself from her Chinese identity.

“Can’t she just speak Chinese? She thinks she’s so Westernized just because she plays a bourgeois sport,” is typical of the barbs bouncing around cyberspace in the last few days.

Although Li has admitted that the shout came from her frustration over losing control of the game, some angry netizens remained skeptical and skewered her for failing to accept the audience’s good will.

“You can’t expect everyone to understand the rules of watching a tennis game,” one sports blogger wrote. “What we can do as Chinese is to cheer as much as we can whenever we see our players competing. What’s wrong with that?”

I watched the match and yes, the crowd was rowdy.  But no more than a typical Fed Cup match.  Was it classy?  No.  Did it show they weren't he savviest of tennis crowds?  Yes.  But I don't think it portrayed Chinese fans as being disrespectful.  If anything, throughout the tennis tournament, they seemed so excited and enamored by the quality of tennis they were seeing.  I thought it was great.

But behavior like this is only acceptable when you're first learning about the game.  The Chinese crowd now do have a responsibility to learn the game and the traditions and respect them.  Because the game is bigger than them and it is universal.  Cheering when someone misses a first serve is bush league.  Booing the supporters of another player, no matter how partisan or patriotic the crowd, is not sporting. 

So I guess my point is that there comes a point where innocence turns into ignorance and the latter is much uglier.  I hope the Chinese were able to see something awesome at the Olympic Green Tennis Center last week and that it encourages them even more to get into the sport of tennis and become more knowledgeable. 

Pic This: Yeah, you're right. Tennis doesn't belong in the Olympics.

In response to Jon Wertheim and Steve Tignor, and all the other idiots (you know who you are):

 

 

Hey Steve, get in your jammies. It's storytime!

"Yes, women’s tennis exists right now, but can you really say much more than that?"

So began Steve Tignor's recent posting on Tennis.com bashing the WTA. If you read the comments there you'll see a fairly healthy debate on the numerous topics he raised. But more importantly you'll see a number of WTA fans who took great umbrage to Steve's blanket statement that there were no storylines worth following in the WTA. 

Uh, are you even bothering to watch any women's tennis right now, Steve?  Or are you too busy writing 8 articles a day about how amazing Roger and Rafa are.  Rafa's got a pretty big entourage but I'm sure there's room for someone to carry his jock.  You should sign up.

The best response I've read was by an anonymous poster in the comments section of the article.  I'll quote parts of it here:

Wait a minute, 6 different players have a legit chance of ending the year at #1 (with Safina looking like a strong contender to do so soon after), and you couldn't come up with a positive narative for women's tennis? Are you kidding? And what has been up with all of the criticism of the women's game for not having a dominant player? Those of us without short attention spans can remember just a few years ago, when the WTA was dominated by Williams/Williams, then Henin/Clijsters, and before that by Graf/Seles, or even Navratilova/Evert. And what did the tennis media do? Blasted the tour! Having a couple of players dominate, and routinely meet in slam finals, we were told was "boring", "predictable", and "exposed a lack of depth", and we were told we "might as well not even bother to watch before the semis". Now it's happening on the men's side, and it's suddenly the greatest thing since sliced bread? Holy Double Standards, Batman!

I've even seen one wag make the ridiculous comparison of the current WTA to what the ATP went through earlier in the decade, with the likes of Johansson and Costa winning slams. What an insult, to compare the recent WTA slam winners, Mauresmo, Henin, Williams, Williams, Sharapova, and Ivanovic, all lead-pipe lock Hall of Famers, to those two guys who, while good, were not great players.

...

This is not meant to disparage the men's tour-- only to point out how vastly underrated the women's tour is. If you guys could spin the Johansson/Costa era, and try to come up with positive takes, you sure as heck ought to be able to do it with the current WTA, which is leagues ahead of that. I'm not saying the WTA is at the best it ever has been, but it is a damn sight better than it's being given credit for.

...

But, hey, this is the tennis media. If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. If you guys actually followed women's tennis more than 4 weeks a year (the 2nd weeks of the majors), you'd have no problems finding interesting naratives. Certainly, were the situations on the two tours reversed, you'd come up with some for the men (and we'd be bombarded again with how "boring" it is to have 2 players dominate)...[T]he inability to come up with a compelling narative about the WTA is not a fault of the tour, but the media's lack of familiarity with it.

 

TennisReporters.net also posted this response to Steve's baseless ranting:

Tennis.com’s Steve Tignor is a buddy of ours and a terrific writer, but we were disappointed to read his WTA-bashing column, “Picking up the Story,” where he says there are no storylines of note during the start of the hard court season. We didn’t see Steve at Stanford and LA, where there were plenty of them, on court and off. Sometimes, it’s simply a matter of paying attention, talking to a few players, watching some live matches. Tennis Mag editor James Martin, another thoughtful guy, said much the same for ESPN.com, even though he rarely attends tournaments or speaks to players. Maybe Tennis magazine should hire ESPN’s Bill Simmons (aka the sport’s Public Journalist Enemy No. 1) to begin penning more lazy, easy-target, anti-tennis pieces for them. He would have fit right in during the last week. Of course, Steve and another writer will get a chance to follow the storylines more closely when they start blogging about the Olympics for NBC from their New York homes and offices, not from Beijing.

There is a reason why the vast majority of my posts are about the WTA.  I find the WTA more interesting because of the storylines that Steve and most of the Tennis press are ignorant to.  And unfortunately for me, I have to work pretty hard to find a lot of the stuff because the press doesn't cover any of it. 

Everyone has a story.  And more often then not, they're stories worth telling.  All you have to do is pay attention.