Okay, so another Wimbledon is behind us, with Sampras crashing bombs and Novotna mowing down the field on the
distaff side. Now, the press begins to heat up over what's wrong with
Wimbledon and the Slams generally.
Remember three years ago when almost
everyone was wondering why tennis was dead? Suggested solutions for
what to do about it were everywhere. Now, the hot topic is Wimbledon:
Why it is boring and what can be done to boost its drawing power and,
more to the point, TV ratings. One commentator suggested that the
grass should be removed and some other surface put down. How that
would help was left to the viewers imagination. Another critic offered
the usual remedies (many of the same ones offered two years ago to
save tennis): A softer ball, one serve rather than two, best of three
sets rather than of five, require the server to stand 3 feet behind
the baseline, and permit only less powerful rackets.
Some of the
suggestions would lead to tennis going the way of golf, in which the
majors look and feel like any other tournament except for the label
(and publicity). Golf lost some respectability when the only unique
major folded its tent and capitulated to TV and the PGAA: Does anyone
remember when the US Open was 36 holes on the final day? That made the
Open a unique test of golf and endurance. Now, even that feature is
gone, leaving behind only the tall rough for the millionaires to whine
about.
Come to think of it, some of the suggestions for Wimbledon sound
like requiring Michael Jordan to play in shorts with a 54 inch waist
because he's too good. (Hmmm, as a matter of fact, that would be
entertaining). Wimbledon is a Grand Slam with more tradition than each
of the other three Slams. Does it need fixing? Probably not. But any
changes should rely on its history and not on contemporary visions of
modern-day tennis. Here is a list of changes that would help Wimbledon
while preserving its history. Most of them will make this slam even
more of a one-of-a-kind tournament:
- Require the use of only wooden
rackets.
High-tech rackets offer more power, and that's fine for the
other tournaments during the year. But going to wood would assure more
rallies and the use of strategy without destroying the beauty and
appeal of a serve and volley game. Remember that Jack Kramer, Rod
Laver, and Arthur Ashe played serve and volley with those clunker
rackets.
- Use only white balls.
Hey, they were good enough in the
past, so they should be good enough now. The problem involves how they
show up on the TV screen.
- Dispense with linesmen.
Is anyone else
embarrassed when their basketball buddies watch tennis and we hear some
cracked voice screech out? Here's the new rule: Each player will call
his own lines, just like you and I do. The umpire will decide any
disagreements in the following way: A player thinking a shot is good
(but called out by the opponent) can ask the umpire to make the
decision. If the shot was in fact good, the umpire reverses the
incorrect call. If the call was correct, then the call stands. Each
player will have only 3 free wrong appeals. On the fourth wrong appeal
(a ball called out that is in fact out), the player is assessed a
warning. On the fifth, a point penalty. On the sixth, the player is
defaulted. That should stop the whining and keep the match moving.
- Dispense with the net-cord let.
Play it. This must be the second most
embarrassing and useless rule in sportsdom. The first? The field goal
in football. What is different about a net cord on a serve and one
during a rally? Nothing. Wimbledon should set a consistent standard
for all of tennis by either requiring a net-cord let on any shot or
never permitting one. The latter makes sense.
- No chairs beside the court.
Look back at old films (and tapes) of Wimbledon and you won't
see players taking a casual break when changing ends. The only place
we used to see this was in Davis Cup when the Captain was permitted to
coach the player. The rules of tennis say "Play Is Continuous." Lets
make it that way at Wimbledon. I would suggest eliminating the
90-second rule between changeovers, except that it is necessary for TV
commercials. So keep the 90-second rule and get rid of the chairs.
- No towels at the back of the court.
Do you agree that it is demeaning to
the ball boys and girls to be responsible for a sweat towel? Think about what's
in it! The players
should carry their own towels like Wimbledon players of the past
did -- tucked neatly and nicely in the belt.
- The winner from the
previous year does not compete in the tournament.
The tournament
decides who the challenger to the defending Wimbledon champion will
be. That's the way it was many years ago, and it makes sense now. The
incentive to get to the challenge round would be the same as it is now
to get to the final, and the challenge match could be on, say, a
Tuesday night (for TV purposes). Winning the challenge match would be
more important than just the cash because of the opportunity to rest
for two weeks while the blood-letting of the tournament grinds the
opposition down.
Any chance of these changes being implemented? Picture
a snowball in Hell. Of course, the chances increase geometrically if
TV likes their sound.
I will point out that now is perfect time for the tournament
committee to begin discussing these modest suggestions, and 1999 will
be the perfect time to implement them. What a way for the 20th century
to bow out!
