Note to Sinner etc: Tennis should be entertaining!

[Spencer Gore]

Tennis is an entertainment as well as a sport. If there are too few personalities the entertainment value is far less and people will switch off.

When I first started going to Wimbledon you had a brilliant variety of personalities with a fascinating variety of playing styles: Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Ashe, Rosewall, Gerulaitis, Borg, Tanner and then of course came McEnroe. Every one different. Every one their own distinct personality. And their personality was reflected in how they played the game. When they played, each match was its own little soap opera as well as a sporting contest. Entertainment!

Now, we not only have players who all play the same but most seem to have the same lack of personality. Sinner is the worst of the lot. A bland automaton blasting the ball from the baseline. Thank goodness for Alcaraz. He has personality. Life. That's why the public have reacted to him. But he can't do it alone. No wonder Netflix cancelled that tennis show. The players were even more boring off the court than they were on it!

The players need to realise they are in an entertainment. The tennis authorities need to realise that people won't want to watch five hours of baseline rallies between bland, robotic players.
Start entertaining the public or tennis will die!

 

[Rosstour]

This is why people still like Federer

You know, that mug who you say was 3rd best of his era.

 

[Spencer Gore]

This is why people still like Federer

You know, that mug who you say was 3rd best of his era.

The 3rd best of an era is never a mug. The 3rd best of an era is a brilliant tennis player.

 

[weakera]

OP is correct. Sinner is utterly boring and it's bad for tennis.

 

[Mr.Lob]

What are you suggesting Sinner do to be more "entertaining"? Whatever he does, or doesn't do, works for him. Just like over the top celebrating worked for Nadal, and being a jerk worked for McEnroe and Serena.

 

[FreeJannik]

imho he need to work on his court entrance and take inspiration from westling stars of the 80's:

 

[nighthawkrr]

This is why I hope Shelton gets a lot better. He is polarizing and exciting. I think he'd win slams in the 90s, but the equipment and surfaces favors returners too much now.

 

[Hansen]

was borg bad for tennis or sampras ? its not the wwe. and being entertaining isn‘t the same as having „personality“. you can argue that connors, kyrgios or mcenroe were entertaining, but that doesn‘t mean that they had more personality, they just were „more“ insufferable p####s. what made them watchable, were their games, not the obnoxious behavior.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Do you want to be entertaining or win a couple of matches?

 

[GRASScaraz]

Sinner has more haters than Joko?

 

[Spencer Gore]

connors, kyrgios or mcenroe...what made the watchable, were there games, not their obnoxious behavior

Don't be silly. Millions tuned in to see McEnroe and Connors knowing they were going to be entertained not only by brilliant tennis but by their interactions with the crowd and each other. It was spectacular ENTERTAINMENT!

 

[JoJoHackshow]

Is this why Nole does so much shady crap? An effort to balance out his boring game style?

 

[jeroenn]

Don't be silly. Millions tuned in to see McEnroe and Connors knowing they were going to be entertained not only by brilliant tennis but by their interactions with the crowd and each other. It was spectacular ENTERTAINMENT!

There are plenty of hot heads on tour if this is your thing. But without darkness there is no light so let Sinner be Sinner. His tennis does the talking.
Edberg had his place between the McEnroes, Beckers & Lendls too.

 

[Tennfan123]

Lord we just recovered from an era of Djokovic Murray AO finals.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

was borg bad for tennis or sampras ? its not the wwe. and being entertaining isn‘t the same as having „personality“. you can argue that connors, kyrgios or mcenroe were entertaining, but that doesn‘t mean that they had more personality, they just were „more“ insufferable p####s. what made the watchable, were there games, not their obnoxious behavior.

Sampras wasn't good for tennis. Nobody really cared for him or missed him when he was gone. He's one of the main reasons for the slowing down of surfaces and balls. People got bored with no-rally tennis.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Lord we just recovered from an era of Djokovic Murray AO finals.

Both very distinct personalities.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Honestly, I can understand that Sinner's apparently calm and relaxed personality during matches may arouse little empathy with a good portion of fans and non-fans alike.
However, I understand less the issue inherent to his playing style.

Sinner is a player who reflects modern tennis based on baseline rallies and few variations, but there is a lot of rock in his style.
Sinner has a monotonous but super aggressive game of someone who is always pushing and trying to generate winners, ergo, he is not a player who speculates like others on his opponents' mistakes.

I mean, if Sinner's style of play is considered boring, then I can't imagine how that of players like Zverev (the emblem of passivity) or Medvedev (counter attacker) can be defined.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

It's like when Bud Collins was obsessed with Lendl and his seemingly boring game and personality. He wanted him to "put som fun into his game". Shut up and let the guy play his game. It's not Sinners responsibility to to somehow be more entertaining. It's his job to win tennis games. I actually think Sinner IS pretty boring, but I can still enjoy his game and have fun observing how others try to figure out how to beat him.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Shot making, mental toughness, court IQ, and point building guile will never appeal to those thinking water bottle antics are fun on court.

So awesome.

 

[johnmccabe]

I actually agree with the title of the thread. But there are so many posts here claiming that winning, slams and records are the only things that matter. Then it becomes clear the fans only want their own favorites to win. We have a good enough diversity of styles and personalities on ATP. Not to mention excellent dramas on WTA. Just appreciate and enjoy what we have. Why is it so hard? Go outside, breathe some fresh air and play some tennis.

 

[junior74]

The 3rd best of an era is never a mug. The 3rd best of an era is a brilliant tennis player.

Fed was dominant in his own era with 237 consecutive weeks at #1.
3rd in the Djokovic era.

He did well.

 

[Icsa]

The Joker was the same when he started his rise to the top. Boring, robotic but efficient etc.
After he broke all the records and won the highest number of titles, somehow his lack of entertainment didn't matter anymore. The GOATness level was achieved. Same thing could happen with Sinner.

The fact that Sinner is winning everything with his lethargic ball blasting from the baseline points to:
1. The game needs a change again. Sinner's success is made possible by slow courts, controlled but powerful poly strings, spin racquets. It is going to be a tough decision to choose what to change.
2. His competition is not good enough and inconsistent. ATP can't do anything here.

Now, this doesn't mean that Sinner doesn't deserve credit. He is making the best of the current rules, conditions and equipment. Good for him. With one exception though, the whole clostebol story puts a bit stink on ATP and his legacy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

While OP is creating repetitive threads on this. Let's all be very honest first.

Sinner has fair amount of touch. Screw popularity. Andre Agassi played similar to sinner and was popular for exterior reasons unrelated to tennis. And Agassi didn't move like Jannik at all.

 

[jeroenn]

While OP is creating repetitive threads on this. Let's all be very honest first.

Sinner has fair amount of touch. Screw popularity. Andre Agassi played similar to sinner and was popular for exterior reasons unrelated to tennis. And Agassi didn't move like Jannik at all.

He indeed has touch and good volleys. He could employ them more though and from the looks of the last two tournaments, he's actually trying to do so. I would love for him to go through the same volley tactical training as Fed did with Edberg - it would add another dimension to his game and increase his options. He certainly has the technical skills to go there.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He indeed has touch and good volleys. He could employ them more though and from the looks of the last two tournaments, he's actually trying to do so. I would love for him to go through the same volley tactical training as Fed did with Edberg - it would add another dimension to his game and increase his options. He certainly has the technical skills to go there.

He doesn't have to right now. He is 23 , that's peak of his physicality. By the time he is 28 and above, he would start becoming more all court. Because net play is inherently risky shot. And why risk if he has the legs to run down every point.

Sinner's slice is pretty poor. He will need to work on it a lot before he can become fedberg style player. But Andre Agassi barely sliced and his net play was also not that great. I think Sinner is already better because of his movement, he can close the net very fast.

 

[jeroenn]

He doesn't have to right now. He is 23 , that's peak of his physicality. By the time he is 28 and above, he would start becoming more all court. Because net play is inherently risky shot. And why risk if he has the legs to run down every point.

Sinner's slice is pretty poor. He will need to work on it a lot before he can become fedberg style player. But Andre Agassi barely sliced and his net play was also not that great. I think Sinner is already better because of his movement, he can close the net very fast.

It might give him an extra tool to shorten points or become less predictable. Good tool to have if you need something to get out of trouble.

Yes, slice could be better too. Matter of fact, I think he can improve in a lot of area's still, which is a scary thought really considering where he is now... Same goes for Alcaraz though and that's why I personally feel it's an exiting rival - they can push each other to even greater hights.

 

[joekapa]

This is why people still like Federer

You know, that mug who you say was 3rd best of his era.

Well Federer wasn't exactly animated on court either.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It might give him an extra tool to shorten points or become less predictable. Good tool to have if you need something to get out of trouble.

Yes, slice could be better too. Matter of fact, I think he can improve in a lot of area's still, which is a scary thought really considering where he is now... Same goes for Alcaraz though and that's why I personally feel it's an exiting rival - they can push each other to even greater hights.

Yes one area where he has remarkably improved is dropshot. He is hitting 1.4% of shots as dropshots now. That's already better than his career percentage of 1.2%.

 

[Tallawah Tennis]

Man, this place. Each to their own, but for me, Jannik entertains with the only thing that counts on court - his superb tennis. Tennis fans watching will recognise the 'wow' factor of what the dude does on court. It's all that matters for a successful career. That's why I enjoy his game, appreciate his efforts. Open 1000 more threads, but the stated facts will not change.
I hope Jannik never tries to be something else. Similarly with Carlitos & other young players developing their game / their career. Whilst adapting and improving skills is necessary, trying to be something you are not as a person should, I suggest, be avoided.

If the only criticism is that Jannik is boring, it speaks volumes that there isn't much to be said to criticise his game / achievements. I suspect he can live with that.

 

[Shaj]

Thats right. Forever i have said, there should be stand up section after the first set and beginning of second set. And player who wins this section should get a 3 game headsup for the second set.

Going forward we should just scrap the 3rd set onwards, we should just keep a standup and Grand Slams should be decided on that.

 

[Aabye5]

 

[captainbryce]

Who should Sinner be more like exactly?

I assume you believe that Nick Kyrgios, Gael Monfils, Dustin Brown, Denis Shapavolov, and Ben Shelton are good for tennis (being a champion of “personality” and all). And yet they all have ZERO slams between them and none of them have been a top 5 player. Sinner has two slams and is the number one player in the world. Should he change his personality and risk sacrificing results for showmanship? Or should he turn into a clone of Alcaraz? And if every player adopted the same outgoing personality, that kind of defeats the point of your complaint doesn’t it?

Consider this…for every John McEnroe, there was a Bjorn Borg (who accomplished more). For every Andre Agassi, there was a Pete Sampras (who accomplished more). Between the big three, I’ve always found Federer and Nadal to be more entertaining than Djokovic. Djokovic is BORING and one dimensional by comparison. And yet, he is the undisputed GOAT, who has surpassed both of them by every metric.

I’m not saying that Sinner will accomplish more than Alcaraz, or even that this will necessarily become the primer rivalry of the decade. But the point is, it’s not all about theatrics and entertainment for many of the greatest players, it’s about winning! Your enjoyment isn’t necessarily a priority for them. And even if it was, other people gravitate more towards winners and dramatic contests than personality.

 

[gamelovergold]

simner has his own style of play and all that matters is winning . Alcaraz is blow hot blow cold player. Si nner is playing consistent game. No need for any change . One person or another will find fault no matter what you do.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Who should Sinner be more like exactly?

I assume you believe that Nick Kyrgios, Gael Monfils, Dustin Brown, Denis Shapavolov, and Ben Shelton are good for tennis (being a champion of “personality” and all). And yet they all have ZERO slams between them and none of them have been a top 5 player. Sinner has two slams and is the number one player in the world. Should he change his personality and risk sacrificing results for showmanship? Or should he turn into a clone of Alcaraz? And if every player adopted the same outgoing personality, that kind of defeats the point of your complaint doesn’t it?

Consider this…for every John McEnroe, there was a Bjorn Borg (who accomplished more). For every Andre Agassi, there was a Pete Sampras (who accomplished more). Between the big three, I’ve always found Federer and Nadal to be more entertaining than Djokovic. Djokovic is BORING and one dimensional by comparison. And yet, he is the undisputed GOAT, who has surpassed both of them by every metric.

I’m not saying that Sinner will accomplish more than Alcaraz, or even that this will necessarily become the primer rivalry of the decade. But the point is, it’s not all about theatrics and entertainment for many of the greatest players, it’s about winning! Your enjoyment isn’t necessarily a priority for them. And even if it was, other people gravitate more towards winners and dramatic contests than personality.

There is nothing boring about Nole that isn't about Nadal. Nadal played more boring brand of tennis, camping farther back and not having initiative.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Tennis is an entertainment as well as a sport. If there are too few personalities the entertainment value is far less and people will switch off.

When I first started going to Wimbledon you had a brilliant variety of personalities with a fascinating variety of playing styles: Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Ashe, Rosewall, Gerulaitis, Borg, Tanner and then of course came McEnroe. Every one different. Every one their own distinct personality. And their personality was reflected in how they played the game. When they played, each match was its own little soap opera as well as a sporting contest. Entertainment!

Now, we not only have players who all play the same but most seem to have the same lack of personality. Sinner is the worst of the lot. A bland automaton blasting the ball from the baseline. Thank goodness for Alcaraz. He has personality. Life. That's why the public have reacted to him. But he can't do it alone. No wonder Netflix cancelled that tennis show. The players were even more boring off the court than they were on it!

The players need to realise they are in an entertainment. The tennis authorities need to realise that people won't want to watch five hours of baseline rallies between bland, robotic players.
Start entertaining the public or tennis will die!

Actually tennis is all that should matter. You should know that. Otherwise Djoker would be third not first.

 

[Lleytonstation]

There is nothing boring about Nole that isn't about Nadal. Nadal played more boring brand of tennis, camping farther back and not having initiative.

That is the problem, it is all opinion. You know what is not opinion? Winning.

 

[nolefam_2024]

simner has his own style of play and all that matters is winning . Alcaraz is blow hot blow cold player. Si nner is playing consistent game. No need for any change . One person or another will find fault no matter what you do.

Plus the h2h is 6-4 not 3-0. Yes raz won 3 this year but until last year sinner had 4-3 including a win at wimby and another match lost mp up in USO.

It is not that bad. Nadal had 16-7 or something over Djokovic and in 6 years Djokovic totally reversed it despite Nadal having clay crutch. Nadal won just 2 matches outside clay afterwards. So let's not worry about 6-4 and 3-0.

In the end titles matter not h2h.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

What are you suggesting Sinner do to be more "entertaining"? Whatever he does, or doesn't do, works for him. Just like over the top celebrating worked for Nadal, and being a jerk worked for McEnroe and Serena.

Obscene gestures? Colorful socks?

 

[Spencer Gore]

To repeat, for those who think this thread is only about Sinner*. He epitomises the problem, but he is only the most blatant example of it.

"The players need to realise they are in an entertainment. The tennis authorities need to realise that people won't want to watch five hours of baseline rallies between bland, robotic players.

Start entertaining the public or tennis will die!"

 

[nolefam_2024]

Despite this advice I see tennis is in much higher demand today.

 

[Aabye5]

There is nothing boring about Nole that isn't about Nadal. Nadal played more boring brand of tennis, camping farther back and not having initiative.

There is nothing boring about Rafa

 

[NYTennisfan]

The Joker was the same when he started his rise to the top. Boring, robotic but efficient etc.
After he broke all the records and won the highest number of titles, somehow his lack of entertainment didn't matter anymore. The GOATness level was achieved. Same thing could happen with Sinner.

The fact that Sinner is winning everything with his lethargic ball blasting from the baseline points to:
1. The game needs a change again. Sinner's success is made possible by slow courts, controlled but powerful poly strings, spin racquets. It is going to be a tough to choose what to change.
2. His competition is not good enough and inconsistent. ATP can't do anything here.

Now, this doesn't mean that Sinner doesn't deserve credit. He is making the best of the current rules, conditions and equipment. Good for him. With one exception though, the whole clostebol story puts a bit stink on ATP and his legacy.

Djokovic was always way more entertaining than Sinner. Yes his style was brutally efficient and robotic like Sinner but he always had a colorful personality on and off court whereas Sinner is just sort of robotic in all aspects although a nice young man but boring. Not hating on him, he's a great player, but he's not entertaining in the least for me which is why I gravitate much more to Alcaraz who is pure showtime.

In any event, these threads are kind of pointless anyway because different people are entertained by different things so when you debate something as subjective as this it tends to go in circles and ends up nowhere.

 

[nolefam_2024]

There is nothing boring about Rafa

There is a lot boring about Rafa. He served far slower, didn't take his chances and gave up too much court. You like that brand but it's too boring watching him slug it out vs guys he ought to destroy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Very few easy winners as well. Everything is a struggle. He could have worked on his serve as well as return a lot more.

 

[Aabye5]

There is a lot boring about Rafa. He served far slower, didn't take his chances and gave up too much court. You like that brand but it's too boring watching him slug it out vs guys he ought to destroy.

Sure, but this is like the people who whinge about the ball-bouncing, "robotic"-rallying of Nole. There's an art to it. Whether you can appreciate it or not, is about taste not substance.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sure, but this is like the people who whinge about the ball-bouncing, "robotic"-rallying of Nole. There's an art to it. Whether you can appreciate it or not, is about taste not substance.

But people do whinge about this.

If Nole is boring to them, the Nadal is far more boring. Because he has many more things to it than Nole.

 

[Aabye5]

But people do whinge about this.

If Nole is boring to them, the Nadal is far more boring. Because he has many more things to it than Nole.

What makes Nole "boring" and what makes Rafa "boring" is different.

Still, I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I seem to be the one person on earth who found Roger to be the most "boring" of the three.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Nadals game could be entertaining when he wanted it to be. It’s hard to find much excitement in sinners game. He’s basically berdych 2.0. Combined with a bland personality and there is issues with it. Sampras had the personality of a boring knob but his game was exiciting to watch. You gotta be Exciting in one of those aspects to carry the tour.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Don't be silly. Millions tuned in to see McEnroe and Connors knowing they were going to be entertained not only by brilliant tennis but by their interactions with the crowd and each other. It was spectacular ENTERTAINMENT!

Big personalities of the McEnroe and Connors variety were entertaining, but I was there to know it was their astonishing games which everyone wanted to see above all else. Strip their games from them and what do you have? Certainly not the ingrdients which made both crucial to the Tennis Boom.

Sampras wasn't good for tennis. Nobody really cared for him or missed him when he was gone. He's one of the main reasons for the slowing down of surfaces and balls. People got bored with no-rally tennis.

Wrong. Sampras was great for tennis, not only for being the leader of the next generation of Amercian male players after McEnroe & Connors were past their majors-winning capabilities, but his game-changing, fantastic talent (following a similar effect from Becker and Edberg), which I recall crowds cheering for when he was dismantling / outplaying opponents. This was evident when he served as a super-talented contrast to dull baseliners such as Agassi, et al. Slowing down the courts was more about pumping up underachievers such as Agassi, who was marketed as great long before he won a single major, and with Sampras on the scene as the player of his generation, the tennis PTB had to do something in order to give the pigeon-toed Agassi a chance.

 

[nolefam_2024]

What makes Nole "boring" and what makes Rafa "boring" is different.

Still, I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I seem to be the one person on earth who found Roger to be the most "boring" of the three.

Probably because Roger is not boring to me. Yes what makes them boring is as per our choice.

But nolefams don't find rafa as very entertaining. He played in typical clay courter fashion most of the times. Which is why I loved when he was forced to play on fast surfaces and adapted and then he was not boring.

You can watch USOpen 2011 semis and finals back to back and see how much the vertical game of Nadal slowed down the play. Same opponent, 1 day apart. But Fedkovic played on very fast rally pace. While Rafole were doing moonballs vs each other.