Growing Tennis in 2021

These days it only takes a longboard, some Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry and that Stevie Nicks vibe to distract me from putting down thoughts on tennis. They say legacy brands like Ocean Spray are seeing massive sales numbers during the pandemic as consumers come home to comfort foods and products that offer certainty during uncertain times.

For tennis fans, having any form of ATP, WTA or even ITA tennis the last few months has been a sorely missed diversion. Grateful that tennis leads the way as a socially distanced sport, with continuing storylines of dominance (Nadal) and disgrace (Djokovic), the year in tennis provided several memorable moments that will be talked about for decades. Yet, one must acknowledge that tennis is not comfort food for the average sports fan in the U.S. Ask an American what they think about decisions to reorganize the 2021 tennis schedule and they will look at you with a blank stare.

While tennis is one of the most popular spectator sports in the world, with an estimated following of over one billion people (surpassing the NBA, NFL and MLB), the popularity and reach of tennis in the United States is palpably in retreat. Much has been written about the junior competitive pathway, the factors that keep potential tennis players from finding the game, and the strange investment strategy the USTA employs to grow the sport. One must also acknowledge how tennis participation lags population share among African Americans (8.9 to 13.4%).

Keeping tennis relevant in the United States is tied to how tennis events are produced for television. When tennis was booming in the 70s and 80s, it was network television that brought the game out of the country clubs to the masses. When tennis was relatively new as a professional sport (the Open Era), network television had a captive audience and tennis had a stable of personalities who were also some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Pro tennis events are best in person when a fan can roam the grounds surveying a smörgåsbord of options between men’s and women’s singles and doubles; and if they’re lucky, find a spot to view multiple matches at once. Live college tennis has that same festival atmosphere. Most college meets begin with three simultaneous sets of doubles across three courts. The event then moves to six courts of singles action, where each match counts for a point on the big scoreboard. Throw in a partisan crowd and things get wild. Still, nobody seems to have figured out how to produce college tennis compellingly for TV. Some of that is a function of limited resources.  Yet, even ESPN, when it carries the NCAA team tennis finals, misses the story while it’s unfolding. The immediacy of the team element is mostly ignored. The smörgåsbord is left on the table.

College matches are not the only disappointment in television coverage of tennis. Many casual observers lack an appreciation for the speed of the game, or the physicality that used to make Dick Enberg exclaim, “Oh my!” The camera angle during live points has not changed since 1939. TV producers experiment with new perspectives from time to time, but television is never content to let viewers see a point from ground level for more than a serve and return; always reverting to the long view of the court.

While the long view has its place, why not try a full point from a fixed corner, or from over the shoulder of the server? If viewers can understand what 130mph looks like at ground level, they will appreciate the speed of the game. With new camera angles and more variety, fans may see how patterns open the court from the players’ perspective.

Understanding what is happening strategically in a tennis match is a challenge for seasoned fans, much less casual observers. Television viewers get no help whatsoever from tennis announcers. Tennis announcing has been the object of mockery for a long time now. I always think back to the vapid announcers in Terrence McNally’s 2007 Broadway play, Deuce.

Tennis announcing today reflects a conversation in the player’s lounge circa 1990; gossipy, fratty, white and only peripherally attuned to tennis. What once seemed connected to the inside game is now completely out of touch and insulting on many levels. Tennis announcing today degrades the sport. Consider the insane obsession of TV announcers this past year discussing players on the women’s tour who are also mothers. How backwards is the thinking to believe the world’s greatest female athletes would be challenged to continue competing while raising a child? What year is it? Why is this notable beyond a brief mention in the context of a return to fitness after pregnancy? Why are we in awe that women can have careers and be mothers? Can Victoria Azarenka not afford child care on a weekend? Is there a player on tour raising a child alone? Is it really that inspiring to realize a tennis career is not finished with childbirth? Hearing Chrissie Evert and Pam Shriver discuss this marvelous new world is like hearing one’s great grandmother discuss knee-length skirts. And they do this on live television!

Tennis on TV doesn’t just provide little of substance, it alienates casual observers the sport needs to convert into fans. The “voice” of tennis is out of touch with our time. It’s not diverse, it’s not cool, it expresses none of the urgency and immediacy of the battle on court. Tennis coverage on TV also leaves the most loyal fans without an ounce of insight into the modern game. Analytics has taught us so much that was previously hidden about tennis. Analytics leaders like Craig O’Shannessy and Warren Pretorius have redefined strategy for touring pros and college players. O’Shannessy has written extensively about which stats matter most to winning and losing and how training should change to reflect this. Yet, the lead announcers and former champions who call tennis on TV struggle to describe the game as it is played today.

The statistics that most determine winning and losing (forehands on first shot after serve, rally length, net point %, forehand %) are completely missing from tennis coverage on TV. Instead, serve speed, aces and unforced errors dominate the light statistical discussion. Talk of “unforced errors” often devolves into psychobabble about nerves and inner strength. I mean what could be less useful to tennis viewers than discussion of a meaningless statistic that isn’t even real? Unforced errors? Anyone who has ever played at a reasonably competitive level of tennis knows, there is no such thing as an unforced error. Every error is forced in some way, by varying degrees. The idea that a professional tennis player can become more competitive if they could just stop making mistakes, stop choking, insults the players and the viewer’s intelligence. Are we to believe that the world’s fittest athletes are just out there goofing up?

I grant that even pros miss “sitting winners.” These moments are rare. They are not the majority of “unforced errors” and they don’t have meaningful statistical impact on the match result. Yet, former world champions, who know better, are handed stat sheets in the broadcast booth and feel obligated to mention which player has more or fewer unforced errors without discussing the myriad ways a player’s technique has been broken down by their opponent.

Restructuring the professional schedule, increased coverage of college tennis and unionization of touring professionals are all on the agenda for 2021. However, if I have only one wish for tennis in the new year, it would be for television coverage to bring fans closer to the strategic game. O’Shannessy’s work reveals the true battles within a tennis match. Helping a nation of rabid sports fans follow the action will go a long way to growing tennis again.   – Jeff Menaker