Although the Australian Open has the reputation of being immensely successful each and every year, I get the feeling that it’s the same people and the same families that are its biggest supporters.
Their annual seats at Rod Laver Arena are eagerly and happily filled, their couches often occupied and remotes ignored as their television stays locked on Channel Seven.
This peaceful picture is one that tennis is happily and intentionally central to during these often hot and painfully long January weeks. And while it’s been proven that targeting this audience is more than viable, I can’t help but notice the stubbornness of people who haven’t been brought up with this delightfully content home setting.
There are many – I think too many – of my friends who will never watch tennis, citing how boring and predictable it is for their stigma. You could mount many an argument against that point of view, but their passionate ignorance of the game is a sign of perhaps just how monotonous tennis can seem.
What tennis could do with is a new breed of players – or at least a player – that goes against the norm of toeing the party line. After every match on Rod Laver Arena you’ll hear the winner say all the right things in his or her interview with Jim Courier or Sam Smith. And this is part of the problem.
The correlation between a player’s ranking and their ability to delight the crowd with their vague, generic but somehow refreshing wit appears strong. Roger Federer – deservedly known as the master for his on-court prowess – has also served as the benchmark for post-match interview schmoozing. Federer’s knack for over-complimenting the lowly opponent he just triple-bageled has driven me – as an avid tennis watcher at this time of year – completely nuts over the years.
This kind of maddening politeness is a typical weapon in the armoury of talents that top tennis players must possess. Federer and company make every crowd they play in front of fall in love with them by thanking them for ‘making this my favourite tournament’, and go on to charm thousands by being respectful of their next opponent – ‘it’ll be a really tough match’ is a stalwart of any professional player’s bank of clichés.
What I’d like to see is a player bring genuine, unwavering confidence that borders on offensive arrogance to the court. It would almost certainly encourage a portion of the tennis-haters to tune in and barrack for this player to win because of the displeasure it would bring to tennis-lovers. And you wouldn’t lose that traditional audience either, because they would applaud keenly for the player representing the dreariness we’ve become accustomed to.
Tennis players aren’t meant to be supported like clubs are. Barracking in the stands comes from patriotism, as it would with any Olympic sport. But with a new wave of tennis players that offend the traditionalist majority of the crowd and ignite encouragement from the minority, tennis crowds could take on a completely different dynamic.
Imagine a player with the nerve to respond to Jim Courier’s friendly warning about the ‘dangerous’ next opponent by not only dismissing that player’s ability, form and credibility, but refusing to answer any more questions until Courier apologises for implying the possibility of a loss.
In a Anthony Mundine-like act, this player would hold so much self-belief that he would go in to every match expecting not only a win but the tennis equivalent of a first-round knockout. In opposition to the usual praise for the upcoming opponent’s game, he would deliver a stinging backhanded compliment, like ‘his strength is unquestionably his second serve returns, but that doesn’t matter because I’ll just serve aces’.
Jason Pollock
Roar Guru
I think this is a great idea. Too many people, in all sports, will just toe the party line and say what the media wants them to say. Nobody seems to have a personality anymore, they're all just robots regurgitating favourable soundbites for the press. As a big NFL fan, the Seahawks are a great example of this phenomenon, on both sides of the coin. Players like Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin are so entertaining because they're actually willing to speak their minds and go against the grain. Is Richard Sherman arrogant? Sure, but he has the right to be - he's one of the best corners in the league. If you watch an 'interview' he did with Skip Bayless on ESPN, he absolutely destroyed him - he was insulting, he was rude, he was arrogant - and it was great! On the other hand, I have a very strong dislike for Russell Wilson, for a number of reasons, but none more-so than the little act he puts on. Someone asked a journalist on Deadspin "Do fans seriously buy his "I'm just a hard-working, sensitive guy whose only fault is wanting to win too much!" persona?" and the answer was spot on: "Russell Wilson is either a complete phony or the boringest man on Earth. I could ask Russell Wilson what he had for breakfast, and he'd either talk about Jesus or doing what it takes to be the best he can be". Imagine if Roger Federer had a bit of that confidence and cockiness about him, how much more entertaining tennis would be. He certainly has every right to act that way, he's one of the greatest tennis players of all time. I used to dislike the Fed Express, but after months and months of having to endure players acquiesce to the media game, it's time for a bit of that 'mongrel' you mentioned.
NaBUru38
Guest
Trash talking like boxing? Me neither, thanks.
Pat malone
Guest
No thanks
Alan
Roar Guru
yeah Tom sometimes I think the same thing mate. I think Ernests Gulbis at the French Open last year was a breath of fresh air. I thought his press conferences were hilarious. I covered his match with Kokkinakis at the Aus Open and the drama that unfolded with him and the fans was good to watch.
Blinky47
Guest
I couldn't agree more. It's a good game to play but to watch ! snore !
Rob JM
Guest
This would be a terrible idea, A huge aspect of tennis is the mental side of the game, where overcoming nerves and self doubt can make all the difference. Being nice to the guy you just thrashed helps compound the losers mental problems. Being a poor sport and trash talking a defeated opponent is a good way of firing the guy up and getting beaten the next time you play, him while looking like a fool!
Timmypig
Guest
It's very possible that no player, however eccentric, aggressive or downright demented he might be, will interest people who simply find tennis tedious. I'm amongst those: I watch almost anything but 10-15 minutes of tennis is my limit. I admire the skills the elite players bring, and their athleticism and durability is incredible, but I just can't maintain interest. I can sit for 5 days of test cricket, I can even watch an entire NFL game (stoppages and ad breaks included), but tennis .... nope.
Johnno
Guest
This has been one of best OZ opens ever. I miss the John McEnroe antics and fire, but there is still plenty of passion now. I think technology has crueller the mongrel element, as now with reviews there's no need to get angry on line calls like in Mcenroe's time, as each player gets a good number of reviews and challenges. Each player gets 3 incorrect challenge calls per set, so that's plenty and that is 3 strikes if they keep getting it right per set, then they go on until they make 3 errors. And also they get an extra 1 in a tie break. So the line call accuracy is killing off the mongrel. A tennis umpire now is more a mediator and a butler, than a a real umpire anymore.