The ATP Doubles Trouble
The ATP doubles trouble has focused more attention on doubles during the last year than in the last thirty years all put together. I hate it when both sides of an issue talk right past each other. Then you know that neither side has a leg to stand on.
Nonetheless, I'd rather see the changes than nothing done. The ideas put forth by the doubles specialists as "proposals" amount to nothing. Nothing but more money wasted down the black hole Peter Bodo aptly calls the "Doubles Welfare State."
Indeed, why should they want to see any change? They like things the way they are.
On the other hand, the ATP had the lawsuit coming. Maybe it's just because I'm the daughter of an autoworker, but jeez, what made anybody think it was a good idea to have the players' union run the tournaments?
Yes, I know teachers' unions like to do stupid things like have administrators as members, but jeez, tennis players should know better.
Maybe back when the players held all the cards, they liked the idea of having control (they shouldn't have) over those who pay them. But that pendulum swings both ways. Which is why we have just seen the anomaly of a players' union acting in behalf of the tournament directors against . . . PLAYERS. Sheesh.
Something must be done about doubles. Every love has its traditionalists, and tennis has more than its share. So, back in the 1960's it was open tennis that was going to "destroy" the game. Then it was the 12-point tiebreak. Then it was metal rackets. Then it was allowing anything but white at Wimbledon. Then the bigger ball. It never ends.
The motive is either sentimentality or, as in the case of the bigger ball to make tennis less discouraging for novices, the motive is egotistical. Hey, I had to learn with the small ball, and I don't want anyone to come along today and have it any easier than I did, because then I'm superior to those who decide they like golf better.
Those are silly and selfish motives for clinging to tradition against the best interests of the game.
I do think that the ATP went too far with no-ad sets, a tiebreak at 4-all, and a match tiebreak if you split sets. But I wouldn't throw out the whole plan because of that. That isn't carved in stone. So long as the procedure for reviewing the format is prescribed so as to be fair and accurate, I'll bet that we'll see 6-game sets with a match tiebreak when sets are 1-all.
As for no-ad scoring, I originally hated the idea too, and I still prefer traditional scoring. But out in the sticks of high school tennis, matches often must be drastically shortened. Guess what I found out? It isn't the end of tennis as we know it. Yes, shortening matches makes upsets more likely. But is that really such a bad thing? The better player still usually wins.
And, hey, who IS the better player? The one who handles pressure better, who would win that match your life depended on? Or the one who strikes the ball better?
The top players won't always be your best doubles players. But when your top seeds in the doubles can't even play in the singles because they have three-digit rankings, something's drastically wrong.
And the answer isn't just promoting doubles more, because the media won't. The media is part of the problem.
Ever since Hollywood discovered how to sell movies -- by using the actors as selling handles in the cult of personality as idols, stars, the media have had eyes for nothing else.
That's their one idea and they are fixated on it to the exclusion of any other sales tactic. They know that we don't relate to the real person. We relate to the image of that person -- or rather the image of that person's (preferably attention-getting) public persona. Just as we relate to a fictional character in a novel.
So they focus on the individual -- the individual specimen of humanity, the modern gladiator bleeding for us in the arena, as we watch them go through all their trials and tribulations for our entertainment.
Even in the big team sports, like football, basketball, and baseball, we get less and less about the team and the play, and more and more up-close-an-personal stuff about individual athletes. This has taken its toll on team spirit among professional athletes.
In tennis, why should the media bother with doubles, the team sport, when they have a perfect showcase for the individual in singles? What's more, when on a team, in doubles, players don't play to the crowd and act up to provide delicious controversy for the media to broadcast. Just recall how differently John McEnroe behaved in doubles than singles. "Blah!" say the media moguls, "Boring!"
So, they won't give doubles the attention it deserves. Never. They'll find some way out of it.
They are sure it would hurt their ratings. But I'm not. The media (both print and TV) have proved less than brilliant in understanding their audience during the last decade, and I think they are just as far off about tennis.
One reason is that, unlike in basketball and football, your average tennis fan is a tennis player. Most of us play mostly doubles. The game itself does interest us. We aren't necessarily more interested in "the thrill of victory" or "the agony of defeat" in the faces as we are in the lightning-quick exchange of spectacular shots among all four players at the net.
I think people WOULD watch doubles IF better players were in the doubles draw. The things now preventing that have to be changed. This will require some giving on both ends. Like a more sensible distribution of prize money and a cleaning up of what goes on behind the scenes with things like appearance money.
3:06 PM Permanent Link
0 comments
