I've heard for such a long time now about how interested those in power in tennis are about making the game "more accessible". How tennis leaders are desperate to get more people interested in tennis, and how this has lead to talks of getting rid of best-of-five, at least partially, at majors in order for people to be more likely to watch matches, and the introduction of the "fast four format", where players will play five sets to four games, which I guess is supposed to be more exciting than "traditional tennis". Whatever.
Of course there are slightly smaller changes that have been introduced, such as getting rid of let cords on serves and having no more ad-games, but the main goal has always been to make tennis grow to new audiences. And these new audiences are supposed to ensure the survival of tennis as a global sport.
However, looking beyond some of these changes, I think tennis, as it currently stands, is stuck in the mud of hypocrisy. The game of tennis, while trying to be accessible, I believe, is making itself more and more unaccessible for the common fan, and even the tennis super fan. Think about what is currently going on in tennis.
With the Australian Open now going to a super tiebreak when the last set of the match is at 6-6, instead of no final set tiebreak, this means that the four grand slams will have four different formats. The French Open still has no final set tiebreak, Wimbledon now has a final set tiebreak at 12-12, and the US Open has a final set tiebreak (not super tiebreak) at 6-6. Four slams, four different ways of figuring out a winner if the match goes to a final set.
And we are supposed to be making this more accessible for fans. A non-super fan of tennis might already be wondering why the US Open was playing a tiebreak at 6-6, when none of the other slams are, and now they will need to figure out which slam goes with which format, and will be utterly confused about the point behind all of the differences in final set format. Quite frankly, I'm a bit baffled why the four biggest tournaments in the sport can't come to consensus either.
Personally, while I am for no tiebreak at all, a good compromise seems to be Wimbledon's solution: in the final set of a match, have a regular tiebreak at 12-12. I thought the introduction of the super tiebreak in doubles to replace a set was ridiculous, and another variation of the rules in a sport trying to breakthrough to more fans, and now having a tiebreak to ten, when other sets have a tiebreak to seven, at the same point where the other sets would be having a tiebreak to seven, makes it even more confusing. And the need for consistency in tennis grows.
I don't even really want to get into this, because I'm still trying to understand it, but apparently now we have different ranking systems too? We have the WTA and ATP rankings, which I understand and which were the only rankings, with ITF integrated within this ranking format, but now we have something called the ITF World Tennis Ranking too. And this ITF World Tennis Ranking is a part of the ITF World Tennis Tour. Which is somehow different from the WTA and ATP Tours.
If I, someone who follows tennis extremely closely and understands how the sport works very well, is having a difficult time understand how this new ITF World Tennis Tour and IF World Tennis Ranking fit into the grand scheme of things, then what is a casual fan, or someone looking to get into tennis, going to think?
I understand the need for change in terms of ITF tennis, as corruption was a major problem on the ITF Circuit, however, I think that this change has overly complicated things, and instead of making tennis more accessible, has actually done the opposite and made tennis more inaccessible.
So, the leaders in this world might introduce any of these potential changes to try to make tennis a more popular sport. But, with regards to the things discussed in this article, all tennis has really done is confuse fans more, and possible, push more potential fans away.
And that's the whole hypocrisy of it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment