Men’s tennis is as lame as
matches have become longer and longer. They see two blokes bashing the ball back and forth at each other from the baseline during 20, 30 stroke rallies. It’s repetitive and, to them, it’s boring.
I see the past in all that is now, the echoes of my youth. I see the volleys of McEnroe, the shots that still might be. The kids just see the here and now and it is not exciting.
Even Chris Kermode, the executive chairman of the ATP, said: ‘‘In another 10 years, is anybody coming to watch a sixhour product? I doubt it. I really doubt it.’’
Maybe that’s why the players booted him out. They didn’t want someone telling the truth. They’ve got sponsors to massage. It’s bad enough when some kid at a Wall Street Bank (see Moneyball author Michael Lewis in a former life) writes young bankers don’t have a clue what they are doing and are laughably overpaid. But when the old guy at the head of the ATP says tennis bores on for too long, then he’s got to go.
There’s a bit of pep around the women’s game right now with the likes of the 15-year-old Coco Gauff and tellingly the women’s fan demographic is six years younger than the men’s game and getting younger. It’s bucking the trend. Gauff’s match against Naomi Osaka at last year’s US Open smashed the prime time ratings on Saturday night American TV.
Kobe Bryant tweeted; ‘‘Great match @CocoGauff and @Naomi_ Osaka_ the future of the tennis is in great hands.’’
Maybe the future of women’s tennis is in great hands, but what about the future of men’s tennis?
Federer and Nadal are surfing off a generation of tennis fans created by Rod Laver and John Newcombe and Ilie Nastase and Billie Jean King and Evonne Goolagong and McEnroe and Borg and Gerulaitis and Martina Navratilova. My fandom was created back then and is happy to be still fed, because a part of it feeds a nostalgia for my youth.
But I don’t think today’s kids will be watching tennis in 30 years time. The irony is that the Federer generation may be killing the game. We think they’re great and we pay ridiculous amounts of money via sponsors and gate receipts and TV and all the rest of it. But the kids think they’re boring.
And do you know what, I’m starting to think the kids are right. This current generation of players don’t represent biodiversity, they represent fossil fuel, metaphorically and literally. Federer got called out by activists recently for his sponsorship deal with Credit Suisse, a bank with strong links to the fossil fuel industry.
Greta Thunberg upped the naming and shaming when she reposted an activist’s tweet: ‘‘Since 2016 @CreditSuisse has provided $57 BILLION to companies looking for new fossil fuel deposits – something that is utterly incompatible with #ClimateAction @RogerFederer do you endorse this? #RogerWakeUpNow.’’
And Federer’s response: ‘‘I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amidst devastation from the bushfires.
‘‘As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions.’’
I mean, yawn. How corporate is that. It’s a press release. The bloke is turning into a financial institution. He puts out righteous, solemn statements and keeps the bank doors open to whoever’s paying. Sorry kids, you’ve got this one right. Let’s watch the B Ball. Those guys are for real.