*!98408013
*
by Pete Bodo
I wrote a post about Monte Carlo for ESPN earlier today, and like most posts with portions that aren't meant to be taken literally, it sure brought the mouth breathers out of the woodwork. But I have to admit that Monte Carlo is one of those places toward which I have a native antipathy; I never did figure out how to write about that event (which I covered a few times in past years) without feeling like I was laboring on behalf of a cheesy "lifestyle" show. Maybe it's all those $650,000 canary yellow or candy-apple red sports cars that, when parked, come about knee high to me. Maybe it's all those people with beautiful glossy hair, ultra-expensive sunglasses, and perfectly manicured fingernails. And don't get me started on the women!
Well, I'm big enough to admit that it's a personal thing; everyone needs something to rant about anyway, right? But independent of that, I believe that the Monte Carlo tournament is a throwback, and not necessarily to the best place - or, at any rate, to a place that doesn't particularly reflect the changes the last few decade have wrought in the game when you look beyond prize-money figures.
It' s not that I have a problem with an exclusive, private tennis club continuing to host a Masters 1000-level professional tournament. The thing that I find off-putting is that the Monte Carlo Country Club appears to make a conscious effort to trade on that its aura. As I wrote at ESPN, the tournament boasts of offering gourmet meals (as well as "one apertif") to single-session ticket holders, which suggests that the tournament is trying to attract schmoes who want to tap into a certain vision and way of life, and/or those who already live it. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it leaves me cold. Give me Cincinnati, and call me crazy.
To me, the MCCC also evokes the bygone days when tennis players were like jugglers and clowns brought in to entertain the court - although in this case the court doesn't consist merely of royalty and courtesans, but everyone who bought a ticket to experience for a day just how the other half lives (even the MCCC has to abide by the economic realities of pro tennis). I suppose that's truly democratic, in some least common denominator way, and there's no doubt that the remarkable surge in the compensation paid to jugglers and clowns swinging rackets tends to improve their standing in our eyes. Maybe all this is inevitable in the setting of a private club; similar feelings always percolate in me when I'm a guest at one.
But if there's a sameness about the private-club experience for guest as well as paid spectator, that dynamic isn't a mandate in the game. Every venue/event tends to reflect the habits and values of the people who run it, as well as its unique history and character. But throughout tennis, you can still feel the tension between the private and public approaches to presenting the game (check out the presser in the photo). I'm not entirely a Visigoth, and I appreciate the charms offered by spectacular settings and interesting environments, including those of private clubs. But I'll take a tennis landscape with fewer frills and distractions, and what I would describe as a more targeted focus on the athletes and games.
A number of tennis players have told me how much they enjoy playing at London's Albert Hall, to the pleasant background sound of champagne corks popping while liveried waiters serve up sensational meals, more or less court side. But I think if I were a player, I would feel like I'm the proverbial chopped liver (and not the stuff being dished out to all the swells, either). I don't mind inhaling a cheeseburger, knish, or hot dog, or slamming back a cold beer while watching tennis, but when I go to a sporting event I'm there to watch sports, not pore over the menu trying to choose between the roast duck or butterflied leg of lamb. It's decadent, and not in a particularly exciting or interesting way.
I suppose I'm saying that the it's the game that counts, and while some private clubs have done a good job of respecting that concept, others are either too enamored of their own wonderful selves, or are simply too overbearing, as institutions, to give the game right of way. The MCCC has made enormous contributions to tennis, spanning both the amateur and Open eras of tennis. It has navigated those sometimes turbulent waters with expertise and a shrewd promotional approach to the game. But unlike a major, the tournament seems unwilling or uanble to surrender much of its basic character (the Wimbledon has done, in a sneaky kind of way) and purpose in order to grow and flourish even further. For one thing, it's hard to imagine the MCCC building a proper stadium, or other permanent, fan-friendly facilities.
It was a similar problem that led the USTA to abandon the former home of the U.S. Open, the West Side Tennis Club, in Forest Hills, Queens. That's also why the new Madrid Masters is destined to further overshadow Monte Carlo, a fascinating event with one foot in the past and one in the present. We'll see what's in store in the future, but for now the tournament can count itself lucky to have the absolute loyalty of Rafael Nadal, while five members of the rest of the Top 10 are absent from the draw, either because of injury or indifference.
I hope everyone who attends or plays Monte Carlo has a wonderful experience, and I really mean it. It's just not my cup of Campari.