Tennis: There are slams... then there are paychecks

[Lleytonstation]

Tennis has been going down a path that is leading them to their own destruction for some time. Now it is being realized.

Slams are by far the most important thing in tennis as it should be. It is what you strive to win, what you focus on, and what you should be most remembered for. We all agree on this. However, the shift over the past decade or so has made tennis so slam eccentric that it is now hurting the sport.

Fans like me, as we see discussed here on TTW are losing interest until slams. This will be detrimental to the sport. We no longer care for Masters, 500's, or even YEC. Heck, many cant even name the winners of this years masters or the past few YEC winners.

It has got out of hand. It has obviously been more noticeable considering the richer (big3) have got richer, and the poor (next gen) have stayed poor. No one cares that next gen are mopping up masters, because in the end all it is... is a paycheck.

You either win a slam... or your nothing. That is what the sport is selling, and many are buying this. Especially here on TTW. But at least them NGBS are getting paid. They are like professional NFL qb backups. Paid to make no impact.

Imagine if they actually were to raise the slam points? Yikes.

 

[Lleytonstation]

When I made this thread, I literally said @Devtennis01 would argue against this ha.

 

[Arak]

Before I started to play tennis, all what I knew about tennis was the slams. In my youth, local tv only showed RG and Wimbledon. So I guess it has always been like this.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Before I started to play tennis, all what I knew about tennis was the slams. In my youth, local tv only showed RG and Wimbledon. So I guess it has always been like this.

Yes, for the casual tennis fan, but not for the hardcore tennis fan. Now I wont lie, maybe the next gen are the reason why some have lost interest, but I also think they go hand in hand with slams and their importance.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Yes, Slams and #1 stats are everything.

 

[Arak]

Yes, for the casual tennis fan, but not for the hardcore tennis fan. Now I wont lie, maybe the next gen are the reason why some have lost interest, but I also think they go hand in hand with slams and their importance.

You’re probably right but I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I personally am starting to follow a number of young players, but small tournaments are just not so interesting. The slams are the main events that feature the entire playing field.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

The eccentricity is too damn much.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

When I made this thread, I literally said @Devtennis01 would argue against this ha.

Lol.
I was thinking how even in the late 80s and 90s as a youngster I thought slams were more important just from the fact they were in TV and I only really heard players talking about how special they were.
Recently I stopped watching ATP 1000s even though I have access to them. I don’t know if it’s because I am also so slamcentric or that I have just lost interest in the sports.
But I never miss a slam! See, I was slam focused since day 1 of tennis fandom and am even more so now.
is it bad for the sport? Yes. The 1000s are in my view not even seen as a gateway to slams any more. I think many people want to see a progression of a player through the ranks. Nowadays players win 1000s and then don’t come through in the slams. So I think this is one reasons attention is turning away from non slams. Plus we need to see a bunch of slam champs winning the slams and competing for the 1000s because there will always be that narrative of rivalries and stakes. Now all the stakes are tied up in the slams and even more so with the media and ATP love of records.
So I don’t know if I agree or disagree. But personally I judge players by how they did at slams so I guess, yes, I disagree. Slams are where it’s at. I just wish more guys were winning them.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I have Hewitt and Safin ahead of Wawrinka.

I have McEnroe ahead of Agassi.

And Nadal is still far from being the greatest of all time.

There you go.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Slams are by far the most important thing in tennis as it should be.

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you there:

 

[StifleYourself]

It’s always been like this. Non-major tournaments are for hardcore fans and people who happen to live near the tournaments. For me, Cincinnati is the biggest tournament of the year because I live here and can go and watch in person. The biggest slam for me is the USO because it happens in my timezone. If I lived in Rome or Madrid, I would feel the same about my local tournament and RG.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you there:

Yes, that event is bigger than tennis and its Slams.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

We no longer care for Masters, 500's, or even YEC.

Bug 3 fanboys are no tennis fans, so please speak for yourself. For me slams are no different than masters or yec, I watch them all when I can.

 

[spottishwood]

Bug 3 fanboys are no tennis fans, so please speak for yourself. For me slams are no different than masters or yec, I watch them all when I can.

What about mug 3 fanboys? Are they tennis fans?

 

[The Fedfather]

Fans are losing interest because their favorites play less fewer while new players who are prominent now just aren't that good to become favorite for many. And then also an important detail is that non-Slam tourneys are every-day events. In football, for instance, there are normally 2 matches a week. So you have your time for other things and entertainment, and plan for two evenings to be show time. Tennis, it's literally all day, every day, so it becomes an effort to watch. Yes, you can schedule here and there, but for an entire year? Of course not, unless you're a hardcore fan. And this gets us back to the first point.

So we need the new stars to shine brighter to light up the entire tour.

 

[Mainad]

Slams are the most important events on the tour but there are only 4 of them. They could not survive without the rest of the tour.

It's never been all about the Slams (unless you are an ageing ATG trying to outdo other ageing ATGs in number of Slam wins).

 

[The Blond Blur]

Tennis: There are slams... then there are paychecks

How many times have we seen #NextGen ball out in the Masters or now the YEC and Olympics, only to MUG it up in the schlems

Even in last year’s USO without any of the Big 3 present (with Ol’ Rog’s injury, RAFA preparing for RG, and Joker getting DQ’d) they still found a way to disappoint. Granted the memes were hilarious and as the one who started the Tom and Jerry trend in the match threads, I enjoyed myself thoroughly.

 

[topher]

Because the big slam contenders (Big 3) are skipping the smaller tournaments, they make them less interesting.

Once/If the nextgen show they can be real slam contenders by winning one, these warmup tournaments will start meaning something.

Right now who cares if Zverev has gained an edge over Tsitsipas at Cincy or the other way around? They’re playing for 2nd place where it counts (the slams).

 

[Tennisfan339]

I admit, it's sad how little fans (not only on this forum) care about Masters, 500, Olympics, WTF.
Hardly any comments in the live threads for Opelka-Medvedev and Rublev-Zverev finals. Hardly any threads discussing the Cincinnati Semis, even though it was 2 incredible matches. When the draw of a Masters is out no one seems to care. I won't even talk about 500 or 250. Even the Olympics didn't create much hype. Djokovic breaking his racket against PCB brought more hype and comments than Zverev's winning gold. The number of comments in the Khachanov/Zverev live thread says it all. When it's a slam you easily get live threads with 50+ pages, and every big matches bring its share of reactions/threads.

But this is what it is. Regarding Masters, most people will only remember who has the record and maybe who has won all of them. Unless you're a passionate tennis fan, you won't remember Hurkacz won Miami 2021 or Sock won Paris 2017. But Cilic or Delpotro winning USO will be remembered forever. Medvedev and Zverev can win 15 or 20 Masters if they want, they will always be ranked lower than Cilic or Delpotro as long as they don't win a slam.

 

[liriel]

It’s always been like this. Non-major tournaments are for hardcore fans and people who happen to live near the tournaments. For me, Cincinnati is the biggest tournament of the year because I live here and can go and watch in person. The biggest slam for me is the USO because it happens in my timezone. If I lived in Rome or Madrid, I would feel the same about my local tournament and RG.

Exactly. For me it's RG by default for the very same reason. Smaller tournaments are usually with fewer megastars. Also my friends not uber fans don't even know ATPs exist etc. You tell someone "I went to Wimbledon" and they're impressed. Tell the same person about ATP Finals and they'll be "duh? oh good for you".

 

[Azure]

When I was a child only two tournaments would be telecast on the national tele- the French Open and the Wimbledon and only the singles semis and the finals, so come to think of it, these two were earmarked by the broadcasters as the two most important tournaments.

As far as my knowledge goes, Forest Hills, Italian Open etc were also super prestigious back then by these names, before the Masters concept came around.

Also the 3 set format of the masters and other ATP tournaments is kind of tuning the players of today to condition themselves for not more than 3 sets even at the slams, causing them to probably not be able to last longer especially in marathon matches.