Are tennis players a protected species?

Silence during the point adds to the appreciation of what's happening. The pop of racquet on ball, scraping of shoes on court. It's a traditional sport and it's not football. Why have noise during the point just to bring in people who don't really get it? Better for the sport to live with lesser crowds.

I think the best example of said arrogance of tennis players might be Australia's own Nick Kyrgios at the Australian Open earlier this year. During one match he directly berated someone in the crowd for using his phone (and allegedly swore, etc) - talk about being 'precious' of noise during play... The problem is - if tennis is going to require that spectators keep quiet and stay respectful of players, players who themselves disrespect spectators should also be punished. Slamming rackets down, kicking advertising hoardings and abusing people in the stand is no more appropriate than spectators abusing players from the stands. Especially considering these players are role models for millions of kids around the world. Kyrgios should have been hammered for his disgraceful behaviour but the authorities allowed it to go unpunished - what kind of message does that send?

This argument has gone on far too long and I'm beginning to suspect both of us are starting to enjoy ourselves. This will be my last comment on the issue, although I will read yours if you choose to reply. Responding to your points, in order: 1. This is our fundamental difference in opinion. I'm not going to say that you are wrong, only that I disagree with you. 2. Fair point. I can only suggest I was using "you" in a collective sense rather than a personal one. I know that the sentence contradicts itself somewhat in the wording, but I did mean "you" as any paying customer, rather than "you" being Kev. 3. These majority of spectators are packing stadiums to the rafters, seemingly unperturbed by the fact they cannot talk during points. 4a) I was intentionally being facetious. 4b) It was not an irrelevant point, nor was it a poor attempt to link the two. I was illustrating the difference between a right and a privilege. You (being Kev in this instance) should note that in that point I mentioned jeering is "welcomed and encouraged" in this setting and in no way implied that it was promoting abuse. That's about all I have to say on the matter, enjoy the rest of your evening in peace.

"My opinion is that the spectator is not more important than the players who they are there to watch and should not expect any sort of special treatment based on the premise of “I paid money therefore I’m entitled to talk whenever I please.”" - Fans pay for merchandise, tickets, products produced by companies who sponsor these competitions which in turn, pumps money into the Aus Open, AFL, La Liga, EPL or any other sports league, driving up salaries or prizemoney. Without fans, the Aus Open couldn't have a $20 million prizemoney pool to distribute. That to an extent, does give the spectator the right to ask if something like maintaining silence between points is necessary. "I have already stated this opinion and indicated that I respect your right to think differently." - Your response to my opinion was "it is a dangerous display of egotism". If that's what you call "respect" then I wouldn't want to know what your version of disrespect is. "I have not attempted to be distracting and have stuck very clearly to my “ludicrous” opinion, which happens to be shared by almost all players and the majority of spectators." - Really? And where are the majority of these spectators who support your view? "I also very clearly differentiated between jeering and being abusive and racist in my comment and have not cast them in the same light. At this stage I will choose to ignore the irony in misrepresenting another commenter’s point." - If you are ignoring it why address it? I agreed that jeering and shouting at a stadium was acceptable but you for some reason decided to take it further and bring in the irrelevant point that being abusive can get you kicked out an arena. Anyone who goes to watch sports matches knows that that will happen. The only reason you bring it up is in a poor attempt to link the two.

There is always a balance between a product and a market and it is hard to determine which is the most valuable in a monetary sense as they are each defined by the other. Whilst it is true that if the market left tennis to support badminton the sport would die in a professional sense it is also true that largely the market have shown a preference for tennis as a product and have purchased it en masse. I believe it is fair to say that tennis has established itself as a very marketable product and I personally think that allowing people to talk during points is compromising this product and the number of old fans it will turn away is greater than the number it will attract. A corporate example of this would be McDonalds. In trying to captivate a new market with its salads, cafes, healthy choices and "gourmet" burgers whilst trying to stay true to its fast food origins it has ended up with a confused identity and has lost popularity and profitability as a result.

Professional sport is a recreational commodity paid for by consumers. In this context (key ingredient for a successful professional sporting league) consumers are almost certainly more important than the players (or even the sport). If the entire tennis fan and sponsor base redirected their spending to badminton tomorrow, it is completely feasible that in ten years time most people would be unable to name a top five tennis player. Can you name a current top 5 badminton player?

This is a strange article. As a tennis fan, I have to admit that I simply don't get it. I love going to live tennis. One of my greatest sporting moments was standing and cheering with 10,000 other fans last October when Nishikori won the Japan Open and that's just a 500 point tournament. The Japan Tennis Open is generally attended by diehard Japanese tennis fans who know when it's okay, when they should be silent and when to concentrate on the point. Why would anyone scream or cheer during the point? The time for doing that is after the point is won. And as for playing in the heat, they're precious about the temperatures on centre court in Melbourne? Okay. Tennis players can be primadonnas and brats the same as any other athletes, but I'm not sure the threat of heat stroke is a great example of their attitude problems.

Tennis is a soft sport that attracts soft people -- it's a toffs game with pretty much zero physical risk.

Beat me to it Max.... There are issues with humility in all sports, Grahams recent spat at a Ref in League is as bad as any tennis player this side of McEnroe.

I think Federer might have come across as a bit precious due to the Monica Seles incident. It is not that Federer doesn't allocate time for fans, I heard he is incredibly generous. It comes down to the unexpected. Just the same as unexpected noise during a serve is off putting so to is come clown jumping you after a match. All sports have their louts who show no respect for opposition or officials, but I don't think having someone invade your personal space when not expected is the same thing.

I agree that there are issues with humility in tennis and the abuse of officials and ball boys. I'm not convinced that the crowd being required to stay quiet is fuelling a sense of superiority though as it seems to be a common thread in many successful young people, whether sports stars or not. I don't think that Federer was being precious. One only has to look back at Monica Seles to see the danger of a single pitch invader (for those unfamiliar with the incident, she was stabbed in a similar intrusion which effectively ruined her career). He seemed to be more annoyed at the security for allowing it to happen than anything. If I am able to extrapolate on some of my earlier comments, this particular instance is as much a case of a self-entitled fan considering themselves above the rules as a case of Federer being big-headed.

This is definitely a site about opinions on sport. My opinion is that the spectator is not more important than the players who they are there to watch and should not expect any sort of special treatment based on the premise of "I paid money therefore I'm entitled to talk whenever I please." I have already stated this opinion and indicated that I respect your right to think differently. That being said, this is a forum where your opinions are expressed in a written form and your choice of words is important as it very much changes the tone and meaning of what you are saying. I have not attempted to be distracting and have stuck very clearly to my "ludicrous" opinion, which happens to be shared by almost all players and the majority of spectators. I also very clearly differentiated between jeering and being abusive and racist in my comment and have not cast them in the same light. At this stage I will choose to ignore the irony in misrepresenting another commenter's point. Let's just agree to disagree on the fact that one man's "sanctimonious and pious" is another man's "respectful of the game"

I doubt that silence will help correct Cloke's goal kicking. If he hasn't worked out the mental approach and technique to at 27, then he never will.

I am curious though, does noise during serving actually distract because of its volume or does it distract because players wouldn't be use to it at first? I would have thought that tennis players would have had the capacity to tune out and ignore it. May take a bit of getting use to but if batsmen can concentrate when 90,000 people at the MCG are cheering as a fast bowler runs in, surely they can deal with a few thousand people at RLA.

Good article, John. I concur.

"Kev, could you please provide me with your definition of both “self indulgent” and “right?” - Is this site about opinions on sport or about grammar Nazi's attempting to distract from their ludicrous point by asking me to define words and phrases? I suspect the former. "Buying a ticket to the MCG gives you the opportunity and privilege to jeer and shout at players as it is welcome and encouraged. At no point is this a right. If you abuse that privilege by being overtly abusive, physical or racially motivated you are ejected from the stadium." - I never said that jeering was the same as being abusive and racist. You did. But by all means, go ahead and deliberately misrepresent my point. "It is a very dangerous display of egotism to assume that, in paying some amount of money, you are more deserving of an opinion or respect than the players or umpires that you personally have chosen to watch." - No more dangerous than your display of sanctimony and piousness. As a paying member of the public, I have every right to ask whether keeping quiet between points at a tennis match is the right way to go about things considering how noisy every other sports environment is.