Just the sort I had in mind.The sky isn't actually falling.
Those things get it moving in a big way.I think a big ass fan would work best.
So many rejected applicants, I fear.One with both a healthy respect, and disdain, for the past.
We need someone who can respect and understand the once great impact on the world this sport had, the all time greats underpinning its success,
and at the same time, a disdain for the past as being not as important as the here and now and future of the sport.
Too many fans fall into the first bracket while not being able to bridge the gap to the other, and have no interest in following the sport as it moves forward.
I go between blaming:So many rejected applicants, I fear.
Who's to blame for the bandwagon phenomenon, in your view?
Ain't that the truth.I go between blaming:
(the big 3) - Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Novak Djokovic in descending order.
(the players who are supposed to replace them) - Tsitsipas, Thiem, Kyrgios, Shapovalov, and Zverev for being rather useless and/or difficult to root for
But mostly I blame the USTA as one American star could have saved the entire lot of this.
Distance usually does help.Just watch the WTA for a bit while the ATP sorts themselves out. Bettwe competition, lots of bright new faces along with joureny women make for some exciting play and personalities. At least in my books.
ATP will drop for a few years I think before someone can really be seen as a stand out. Just a lot of players in the same space, with the same game and such right now.
Thing is... if the men's Tour loses audience support, they may resort to compensatory "sideshow" type tactics. Probably a shame for everyone concerned.
I mean, there's still a certain level of theatricality.I’m probably in the minority who find the current state of affairs very intriguing and exciting. The slam race, old vs young, two old guys trying to make a comeback and a third old guy hanging on by the skin of his teeth, new rivalries developing, toilet breaks and MTOs, it’s all great for tennis. The scenario could be made into a very good movie.
I mean, I wouldn't be here if I thought there was absolutely nothing compelling about it all.No idea really.
All of the youngsters look trash, so not sure what sort of fans they can attract.
Federer attracted class
Nadal attracted braun
Novak attracted some different sort of fans
Guys like meddy,sascha, sissy, felix, berretini r not worth following at all
Better or worse than before they arrived on the scene, in your opinion?It will be a better, more honest time to be a tennis fan once those three retire.
To be honest, you cannot expect to see any new player with Federer’s tennis quality in the next couple of years. However, even though Nadal and Djokovic enjoy tennis god status among the fans, if you want to be honest about it, their tennis isn’t technically any better than the best of the young guys. They are not as clutch but the tennis quality isn’t bad at all. I can enjoy a match between say Tsitsipas and Medvedev equally as much as I would enjoy a match involving one of the big 3.I mean, there's still a certain level of theatricality.
You pumped for whatever's in store for a couple of years down the road tho?
Better or worse than before they arrived on the scene, in your opinion?
Yes agreed. Tsitsipas and Zverev are equal talents to Djokovic and Nadal, who are nothing special really.To be honest, you cannot expect to see any new player with Federer’s tennis quality in the next couple of years. However, even though Nadal and Djokovic enjoy tennis god status among the fans, if you want to be honest about it, their tennis isn’t technically any better than the best of the young guys. They are not as clutch but the tennis quality isn’t bad at all. I can enjoy a match between say Tsitsipas and Medvedev equally as much as I would enjoy a match involving one of the big 3.
You can be a multiple slam winner without having a flashy style. Nadal and Djokovic are undeniably great champions but style wise they are not dramatically better from the current top 5. No one has the shot making and aesthetics of Federer but let’s face it, that doesn’t guarantee you winning slams. He’s the only player I would miss to be honest.Yes agreed. Tsitsipas and Zverev are equal talents to Djokovic and Nadal, who are nothing special really.
it’s a miracle those older guys have any Slams at all.
Djoko I can agree with, though it’s clear when you watch him, even in a random match, you’re watching a higher level of tennis than Zverev or even Medvedev are capable of producing. Something about his shot selection, movement, and return targets. of course on a high level he’s not that unique.You can be a multiple slam winner without having a flashy style. Nadal and Djokovic are undeniably great champions but style wise they are not dramatically better from the current top 5. No one has the shot making and aesthetics of Federer but let’s face it, that doesn’t guarantee you winning slams. He’s the only player I would miss to be honest.
You must be kidding about Dimitrov and ShapovalovDjoko I can agree with, though it’s clear when you watch him, even in a random match, you’re watching a higher level of tennis than Zverev or even Medvedev are capable of producing. Something about his shot selection, movement, and return targets. of course on a high level he’s not that unique.
Nadal though - for better or worse, I can’t think of anyone like him on tour at the moment. Left-handedness is a large factor but he has a very distinctive style and look on the court, especially his younger self, that stands apart and jumps off the screen even to a casual fan.
As for Fed, we still have Dimitrov and Shapo right?
This bit is endlessly interesting to me.To be honest, you cannot expect to see any new player with Federer’s tennis quality in the next couple of years.
Seriously, the game's gonna need a fundamentally different mindset from its supporters.
They're gonna need some folks who lack the capacity for disappointment.
Thoughts?
The sky isn't actually falling.
I'm reminded of this picture.Djoko I can agree with, though it’s clear when you watch him, even in a random match, you’re watching a higher level of tennis than Zverev or even Medvedev are capable of producing. Something about his shot selection, movement, and return targets. of course on a high level he’s not that unique.
Nadal though - for better or worse, I can’t think of anyone like him on tour at the moment. Left-handedness is a large factor but he has a very distinctive style and look on the court, especially his younger self, that stands apart and jumps off the screen even to a casual fan.
As for Fed, we still have Dimitrov and Shapo right?
I'm reminded of this picture.
I say this because I see that none of the existing players has the potential to match Federer’s virtuosity in the future. However, I like to keep my mind open to new upcoming talent that we haven’t seen yet.This bit is endlessly interesting to me.
In its essence, I do agree with you.
But why "next couple of years," specifically? Almost seems arbitrary. Is tennis going to experience some sort of renaissance and suddenly attract the best athletes?
If that's the focus—kids (same as it ever was, btw)—a lot of the format is going to be radically altered.avg age of tennis fan is like ~61.. so yeah how about a younger audience so we can get through the next 30 years
Well, kids will eventually be 61 and will actually have money to support their sport. No benefit whatsoever from trying to attract young viewers. Young is a very short period of time. Being old constitutes the longest period of ones life.If that's the focus—kids (same as it ever was, btw)—a lot of the format is going to be radically altered.
Which kind of smacks of desperation.
Well, I sense irony in your comment (and forgive me if I'm mistaken).Well, kids will eventually be 61 and will actually have money to support their sport. No benefit whatsoever from trying to attract young viewers. Young is a very short period of time. Being old constitutes the longest period of ones life.
I was partly joking of course, but only partly. Tennis should be made attractive to young athletes, I guess that’s obvious. But fans and spectators don’t have to be young. Appreciating tennis needs a certain maturity, just like appreciating a fine wine or classical music. Young people are attracted to other more exciting sports like mixed martial arts or football. They don’t have the patience to watch a slow and time consuming sport such as tennis. Older people have the money, they can afford to pay for tournament tickets and other tennis stuff, and they have the time. It’s like at my photography club, where most members are 50+ and 40 is considered young, because this is the age where people have the money to afford expensive digital cameras and lenses. I’m talking from pure business perspective. Of course I would love for young people to be interested in tennis but if I was the person in charge, I wouldn’t put all my efforts in it.Well, I sense irony in your comment (and forgive me if I'm mistaken).
I recognize the persisting value of appealing to youth, first.
But I'm really wondering whether the approach might have to be more personality-based, rather than straight demographics.
I thought tennis was pretty lame when I was younger. Once I sat through a couple matches and started understanding the basics of tennis strategy, that's when it dawned on me this is a brilliant sport.I was partly joking of course, but only partly. Tennis should be made attractive to young athletes, I guess that’s obvious. But fans and spectators don’t have to be young. Appreciating tennis needs a certain maturity, just like appreciating a fine wine or classical music. Young people are attracted to other more exciting sports like mixed martial arts or football. They don’t have the patience to watch a slow and time consuming sport such as tennis. Older people have the money, they can afford to pay for tournament tickets and other tennis stuff, and they have the time. It’s like at my photography club, where most members are 50+ and 40 is considered young, because this is the age where people have the money to afford expensive digital cameras and lenses. I’m talking from pure business perspective. Of course I would love for young people to be interested in tennis but if I was the person in charge, I wouldn’t put all my efforts in it.
Great points.I was partly joking of course, but only partly. Tennis should be made attractive to young athletes, I guess that’s obvious. But fans and spectators don’t have to be young. Appreciating tennis needs a certain maturity, just like appreciating a fine wine or classical music. Young people are attracted to other more exciting sports like mixed martial arts or football. They don’t have the patience to watch a slow and time consuming sport such as tennis. Older people have the money, they can afford to pay for tournament tickets and other tennis stuff, and they have the time. It’s like at my photography club, where most members are 50+ and 40 is considered young, because this is the age where people have the money to afford expensive digital cameras and lenses. I’m talking from pure business perspective. Of course I would love for young people to be interested in tennis but if I was the person in charge, I wouldn’t put all my efforts in it.