This week I'm discussing the 2006 season, and looking forward to 2007, with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and at Tennis World).
Steve,
I'm going to try to tie a few of the threads together from the last couple of posts, because I think much of this stuff is interconnected, and I'd love to hear what you think and what the other commentators think.
As for those commentators, I'm assuming Juan José is so happy that Manchester United is 5 points clear of Chelsea that he's basically unable to post due to pure ecstasy, but perhaps he'll weigh in soon.
The "rising stars," the "arrivals,' scheduling, ATP, WTA, TTC: I'm fully with you on the fact that the Masters Series events, with their mandatory entry system, is a great development. What is lacking at the moment is comprehensive TV coverage of all of those tournaments. By "comprehensive," I mean not only that you could, in theory, watch each of them, but that, ideally, one network would cover all of them so you could have some cross-promotion.
The lack of this coverage and cross-promotion, in my mind, next affects the entire way tennis is covered, at least the way it is covered in the United States. Its hardly surprising that you and other professional sportswriters are to a certain extent burdened with having to not only report on the players, but also to drum up interest in any player who is not at the very top of the game. It is somewhat of a travesty that players like Ljubicic and Davydenko may get a couple of minutes of television coverage out of the U.S. networks at the Grand Slams. Not that the younger guys are not interesting; I mean, as an Australian Open finalist Baghdatis wrote his own story, but the reality is that a sport where four of the top eight players in a given week lose before the weekend had better figure out a way to get press coverage of those matches, or suffer the consequences.
For those who follow the game closely, this is hardly news, but, looking ahead to 2007, I think the relatively new development of streaming video on demand on the internet may be the thing to watch. Coverage of earlier round matches in Master's Series and Tier 1 events would, I think, have a real cascade effect on the sport.
Its sad, and ironic, that Lamar Hunt passed away this week. For those to young to remember, the original WCT tour signed a group of 32 players to play the entire year. I believe there was a co-ordinated TV contract, and there certainly was plenty of cross-promotion. Ironically, the WCT tour was seen at the time as a half-step between the old Jack Kramer tour, in which it was almost a barnstorming exhibition of four to eight guys, and the "modern" era of separate, independent tournaments with separate entries was seen as a huge step forward, which, obviously it was in certain ways.
But one of the intersting things is that guys who were not particularly famous on the WCT tour of 1972, such as, say, Marty Riessen, recieved much more promotion than Davydenko does in 2006.
I'm willing to hear an opposing view, but I don't think there is much argument that the WTA is a bit behind the ATP on thier player commitment requirements.
Doubles and Playing Style: I think the lack of top class net play is certainly fueled by the fact that doubles is so out of favor these days. You should be aware that its affected the junior tournaments as well; the dubs draws don't seem to be one-half of the singles draw, that's for certain. Plus, in the U.S. college tennis de-valued doubles a number of years ago.
A couple of things need to happen before it comes back. First, see my thoughts above. Without TV coverage of doubles players and doubles matches, I frankly don't see how any support for the doubles side of the tour. People already overwhelmingly play doubles at the club level, but rationally they know that who is the "best" is determined by singles play.
In 1972 on the WCT tour all players played both, and although I am not sure its possible they were required to do so. If Bob Hewitt and Frew MacMillan did not occasionally beat Laver and Rosewall and Smith and Lutz, there's no way they could become famous.
But, we already know that in 2007 there are bascially going to be no rule changes vis a vis doubles, so its seems that there is not much to be on the edge of our seats about. Other than eliminating it on the tour completely, I am not sure how much lower it can go.
Really, if Roddick wants to continue to develop his net game, he ought to play doubles every week. At his age it can't possibly be physically draining. Will Connors notice or recommned this? Connors had a great volley compared to Roddick and many of the modern guys, so perhaps Jimbo will suggest it. If Roddick started playing doubles every week, and then beat Federer a few times in big matches with his newfound skill, that might—repeat, might—change things in a hurry.
All that said, I don't think you can underestimate how the change in grips affects the comfort of the players at net. With a Western grip no one is going to hit a flat/slice approach, even if the court allows it. If you're coming in on a topspin groundstroke, you pretty much have to wait until you have the other player on the run. That's only going to happen one out of every four points at the most.
And, of course, the reverse is true: If you're not comfortable at net, doubles is simply not that much fun.
Connections, connections. Anybody else see others?
Hank