A TENNIS WISH LIST FOR THE YEAR AHEAD
After an eventful 2016, observers are hoping the sport would soon embrace some revolutionary changes, writes Christopher Clarey in Melbourne
ennis got more than its share of undesirable events in 2016: Roger Federer’s first surgery, Maria Sharapova’s suspension for a doping violation, the knife attack on Petra Kvitova that left the future of her career in doubt. But the sport also checked some longempty boxes.
Novak Djokovic won his first French Open to become the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all four major trophies at the same time.
Serena Williams tied Steffi Graf’s record for Grand Slam singles titles in the Open era by winning her 22nd.
Argentina finally won their first Davis Cup, and Andy Murray became Sir Andy Murray, even if he sounded as if he could have happily waited quite a bit longer for the honour.
With the new season beginning in earnest with the Australian Open, what might 2017 bring?
One longtime observer’s annual wish list:
Tennis needs to follow the lead of other sports and get better at prologue. A draw is too good an opportunity to waste, but for now, the major events are not taking full advantage. There should be more spectacle and, above all, more suspense. Consider the buzz generated by the draws for the World Cup or the Champions League. Or by the NCAA basketball tournament selections in the United States.
Professional tennis can do better. At the Grand Slam events, cutting back to 16 seeds in singles from 32 would be the boldest way forward. There were 16 until 2001, when the US Open successfully pushed for 32, with an eye towards increasing the chances that stars would still be in contention on the first weekend, when major television coverage then kicked in. The change was originally linked to an agreement to use surface-based seeding, but at this stage surface-based seeding exists only to a limited degree at Wimbledon, yet the 32 seeds remain.
It is unclear how big a role the move to 32 has played in the unprecedented stability at the top of the men’s game over the past decade. The women’s game, which is also played with 32 seeds, has been more unpredictable and egalitarian, even as Williams has racked up many a major title. But she won her first major singles title with 16 seeds at the 1999 US Open.
Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Rafael Nadal would surely have won plenty under the old rules as well. Some statistics indicate that the real beneficiaries have been the sport’s second tier — those seeded between 17 and 32, who have been able to limit the turnover in the rankings without generating the same star power.
Returning to 16 seeds would improve the early-round match-ups and, just as important, the early-round anticipation. But even if the stars and the tournament directors elect to keep the status quo, more can be done with draw ceremonies.
Jazz them up, but also slow them down. Take the time to analyse the matches as they go up on the board rather than waiting until the whole draw is complete. Describe the landscape as it emerges. Get more of the players themselves to attend and react in real time. Educate, but above all, entertain.
Tennis is not alone in needing an independent drug-testing system, but it needs one sooner rather than later. As 2016 proved beyond a reasonable doubt, no sport can be trusted to police itself in this domain. Even if it could, the appearance of a conflict of interest is too great. Best to outsource it all, perhaps in tennis’ case to an entity that will also aim to prevent corruption. Until then, a change in anti-doping leadership at the International Tennis Federation also seems wise.
More electronic line-calling on more courts at more tournaments. Playing without it is tantamount to being a second-class citizen in this era, and the sport can hope that as the technology matures, the price of installation per court will also drop. Tennis could also use a low-cost alternative at the lower levels — something for amateur events, above all junior events, to eliminate some of the cheating and acrimony.
More money and oversight at the lower levels of the game. This would provide at least two benefits: greater exposure for the sport in small markets where challenger and future events are usually the biggest tennis show in town, and an answer to match-fixing concerns, which loom largest where the paydays are smallest. Tennis, with its international visibility and revenue-spinning major tournaments, should provide a good living to more than the top 100 male and female players in the world.
Many more women as coaches and administrators. Progress remains too slow, particularly in the coaching ranks, where only a handful of top players have a primary coach who is a woman. Tennis is a rare sport in which men and women often share equal billing. It also has a large female fan base. It is time to better reflect that off the court.
More top players from Africa and South America. Tennis is best served globally, and encouraging that requires a renewed emphasis on funding and a rethinking of player development in emerging regions and markets — not just from the ITF, but from all the major entities in the sport.
An end to the reciprocal wildcard racket among Grand Slam nations, whereby the French get one guaranteed slot in the Australian Open and the Australians get one guaranteed slot in the French Open (and so on). Spots in the majors are precious enough. They should not depend on elitist favor swapping.
More quiet time and less self-referential chat from commentators in the television booth, particularly at crunch time in important matches when the players are quite capable of carrying the moment by themselves.
An end to service lets. For all those who say it would be a shame to lose a big match or a Grand Slam title on a net-cord service winner, consider that it can happen on a net-cord groundstroke or volley winner. What would be the difference? College tennis and World Team Tennis do without the service let. So do other racket sports, like platform tennis. Pro tennis — which already has a time-management problem — can, too.
One more big upset for Tommy Haas, the new tournament director at Indian Wells, California, who is returning to the tour at age 38 after yet another operation. One more big upset for Kimiko Date-Krumm,
still mulling a comeback at age 46. One more major title for Juan Martín del Potro, who has certainly paid his dues. One more major title for Federer, who has reached the last 16 at the ongoing Australian Open, to reward his enduring excellence and passion for the game. One more French Open title for Nadal (no stranger to the passion department), which would give him a nice, round and mind-boggling 10.
In the interest of keeping the stars and the would -be stars healthier: A decisive-set finish line at all the Grand Slam tournaments how about a tiebreaker at 12-12?) and better research on both technique and rackets and strings to determine what changes truly might help reduce injuries.
A strong and enduring comeback for the French Open, which has been poorly served by the elected French Federation leaders and by its on-again-off-again expansion and improvement plans. As a result, it has slipped to fourth in many Grand Slam pecking orders — an unsatisfactory state of affairs with Paris and the rich hues of the red clay in the fading light for a backdrop.
A strong and enduring comeback for Victoria Azarenka, reaffirming what Kim Clijsters and other stars have shown before her: Motherhood is not an insurmountable obstacle to tennis excellence.
Above all, a strong and enduring comeback for Kvitova, a two-time Wimbledon champion and one of the gentler souls in the game. Kvitova, whose left hand was badly damaged during an knife attack at her home, deserves all the support the sport can offer if she manages to get back onto the court in 2017.