why do you watch tennis?

1

10sbeast888

Legend
I mean visually it's not very watchable.

- only 2 players on the court; much more action from team sports like hockey;
- monotonous play style; just bunch of cc's until somebody changes direction;
- the action itself is not that fast from the TV angle. lots of other things you can watch with much higher actions per minute. e.g. e-sport.
 
10sbeast888 said:
I mean visually it's not very watchable.

- only 2 players on the court; much more action from team sports like hockey;
- monotonous play style; just bunch of cc's until somebody changes direction;
- the action itself is not that fast from the TV angle. lots of other things you can watch with much higher actions per minute. e.g. e-sport.
Click to expand...
Hockey? Can't play a sport where a momentary lapse allows an undeserved goal and your team loses 1-0 in 60 minutes of playing time that actually takes 2 1/2 hours of watching time. That's not "action" to me.
 
The silliest part is how much universal pushback there is on any attempt to make this repetitive snoozefest of a sport any shorter.
Oh no no no, sir. If you're not watching five hours of the same ball over and over, it's not tennis.
 
cha cha said:
The silliest part is how much universal pushback there is on any attempt to make this repetitive snoozefest of a sport any shorter.
Oh no no no, sir. If you're not watching five hours of the same ball over and over, it's not tennis.
Click to expand...
Tennis does not need to be shortened. If anyone thinks it's too long I'm not sure it's the sport for them.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Tennis does not need to be shortened. If anyone thinks it's too long I'm not sure it's the sport for them.
Click to expand...
I would be okay with R1-R4 of slams being best of 3. As long as the QF onwards remains best of 5. I can see why purists would hate that though.
 
generally - team sports are good for spectating but not playing... if 22 idiots only have 1 ball, how many touches do you get in 90 minutes? why would anyone play this for recreation? seems just some idiotic running with maybe a dozen touches.

individual sports are good for playing, you have the ball all the time, but that makes poor spectating. and tennis is too monotonous.

after following esports (FPS) for a few years, traditional sports all look really slow.
 
Lol, records.
It doesn't just need to be shortened. It needs to be literally halved. Two matches take the whole efing day.
 
Tennis is too monotonous I agree and it feels even longer with the breaks, ball toss, towel time, medical timeout etc. etc.

It’s funny how people find certain players exciting while describing others as boring or robotic. I mean all the players are playing the same sport. Just because some are more active with their nonstop fist pumps and come ons, does not make the sport any more exciting. Not to all anyway.
 
Last edited:
10sbeast888 said:
I mean visually it's not very watchable.

- only 2 players on the court; much more action from team sports like hockey;
- monotonous play style; just bunch of cc's until somebody changes direction;
- the action itself is not that fast from the TV angle. lots of other things you can watch with much higher actions per minute. e.g. e-sport.
Click to expand...
I prefer to watch WTA
 
10sbeast888 said:
I mean visually it's not very watchable.

- only 2 players on the court; much more action from team sports like hockey;
- monotonous play style; just bunch of cc's until somebody changes direction;
- the action itself is not that fast from the TV angle. lots of other things you can watch with much higher actions per minute. e.g. e-sport.
Click to expand...

Thanks, this is actually a very good post, unlike most others on this site!
Sometimes I ask myself the same question.
Truth be told it can suck up an enormous amount of our precious time that we have on this planet.

Why do I watch?
1. To learn from the pros.
There are so many things I have learned over the years that have improved my game.
2. To keep in touch with which players are at or near the top of the standings and what their
strengths and weaknesses are. I'm very analytical.

I'm actually trying to wean myself a bit away from this addictive habit.
I rarely watch an entire match these days, it just takes too much time.
I'll tune in to the beginning say, and if it's not interesting I'll leave it for 30 minutes
or an hour and come back to see if there are any big developments.

I also rely heavily now on YT highlights.

These days if I am going to watch a match it's going to have be a very compelling one.
In a way I am grateful that Federer retired when he did, because I rarely watch
men's tennis anymore.
 
I've tried 10 minutes of the soccer world cup qualifiers.
There are things worse than tennis.

* This is epic.
The Irish are 2:1 up with 30 minutes to go.
They are planning to spend the remaining time rolling on the grass one by one.
What a pathetic excuse for a sport.
 
Last edited:
The good thing about soccer/football is that it lasts a relatively short and well-defined amount of time.

Summer sports are, however, filled with commentary about all kinds of irrelevant facts and records.
 
In general, I often find tennis doubles more interesting to watch than tennis singles. (Truth be told tho’, badminton doubles is even more exciting / entertaining to watch than tennis doubs).

Racket and string technology have made modern tennis somewhat less appealing / entertaining, with less variety, than tennis of yesteryear. The homogenization of court surfaces have also contributed to the lack of variety.

When Roger announced his retirement, I thought that I’d stop watching tennis altogether. But then the style, variety, creativity & athleticism of Carlos Alcaraz renewed my interest. As did the rise of the charismatic & athletic Coco Gauff.
 
There has been a number of tennis players, in the past 2+ decades, with a style of play that has been more entertaining to watch than the monotonous, grinding playing style that’s becomes the de facto standard these days. Those players exhibited a good mix of variety, creativity, charisma & athleticism in their game. Sadly, most of these players have retired.

To my mind, the most interesting play in the past 25+ years have come from the likes of:

Roger Federer
Carlos Alcaraz
Gael Monfils
Fabrice Santoro
Dustin Brown
Mansour Bahrami
Coco Gauff
Martina Hingis
Justine Henin
Patricia Tarabini
Agnieszka Radwańska
Kim Clijsters
Ons Jabeur
Patrick Rafter
Lleyton Hewitt

I might have considered Nick Kyrgios but, alas, I find him to be too obnoxious / annoying to be entertaining. Andy Roddick was entertaining both on the court and off. I loved players, like Simona Halep and Angelique Kerber who were athletic speed demons who were willing to push themselves to the limit to run down balls. Same could be said for Novak & Rafa. However, other aspects of their playing style seemed rather tedious / boring.

Some of most creative & entertaining players of the less recent past include:

Gigi Fernandez
Gaby Sabatini
Steffi Graf
Andre Agassi
Stefan Edberg
Michael Chang
Boris Becker
Yannick Noah
Guillermo Vilas
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Ilie Năstase
 
Bartelby said:
The good thing about soccer/football is that it lasts a relatively short and well-defined amount of time.

Summer sports are, however, filled with commentary about all kinds of irrelevant facts and records.
Click to expand...
Yes, and you can plan your day accordingly but with tennis, there’s no guarantee especially e when it comes to slams. I just find it very unproductive. And I don’t care how attractive their game is or their personality for that matter.
 
If you have a genuine interest and passion for tennis, it’s history and evolution over the years then yes I think it’s a wonderful sport to watch.
I think tennis over the decades epitomises the cultural changes that have evolved in our societies.
I find it interesting to observe the various generations of tennis players come through and how they move the game on, the athletic progression, the changes in court surfaces and balls and the equipment as well as the facilities and the scheduling of the tour. I enjoy all these things about tennis,
Australia in particular has had a rich history and culture in tennis and sport in general so I enjoy watching it.
 
The decline and fall of Australian tennis is not up to Roman standards, but it's there for all to see.

We used to live within a 15 minute walking distance to tennis courts and now mothers ferry their children everywhere.

Crocodile said:
If you have a genuine interest and passion for tennis, it’s history and evolution over the years then yes I think it’s a wonderful sport to watch.
I think tennis over the decades epitomises the cultural changes that have evolved in our societies.
I find it interesting to observe the various generations of tennis players come through and how they move the game on, the athletic progression, the changes in court surfaces and balls and the equipment as well as the facilities and the scheduling of the tour. I enjoy all these things about tennis,
Australia in particular has had a rich history and culture in tennis and sport in general so I enjoy watching it.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
The decline and fall of Australian tennis is not up to Roman standards, but it's there for all to see.

We used to live within a 15 minute walking distance to tennis courts and now mothers ferry their children everywhere.
Click to expand...
I think tennis overall is not what it was in the 70’s and 80’s and you could apply that to a lot of wider cultural issues;
The good thing about living in smaller populations and smaller 15 minute walking distances to the tennis courts is that it was based on a freedom model plus particularly in Australia we had a lot of thriving regional towns that thrived through agriculture and manufacturing. There was lots of ingenuity and creativity back then because you can do that when you are free and not overly taxed.
 
People weren't worried about taxes in the fifties and sixties, they were worried about having a living wage, a place to live and food to put on the table.

Crocodile said:
I think tennis overall is not what it was in the 70’s and 80’s and you could apply that to a lot of wider cultural issues;
The good thing about living in smaller populations and smaller 15 minute walking distances to the tennis courts is that it was based on a freedom model plus particularly in Australia we had a lot of thriving regional towns that thrived through agriculture and manufacturing. There was lots of ingenuity and creativity back then because you can do that when you are free and not overly taxed.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
People weren't worried about taxes in the fifties and sixties, they were worried about having a living wage, a place to live and food to put on the table.
Click to expand...
Back in the 60’s you could do well on one income and you could pick up second jobs and run side businesses without the machine looking over your shoulder, wanting to tax you double. The tax act was a very thin document. Now it’s heavily complicated. We have replaced freedom with red tape.
Houses were cheaper to buy and raw materials were next to nothing. You could go to the local farm and buy a huge box of oranges or capsicums for $3, now you get charged 10 times that price for just 2 oranges or capsicum. You know when you car registration was due or your home insurance and health insurance was due most people would pay this small amount for the whole year by cheque and cash. Now they can only afford monthly deductions and people have forgotten all this.
That’s why people came to Australia to live the good life. Now it’s been destroyed by the Club of Rome types and the other globalist entities and governments syphoning money out of people’s pockets under the name of net zero:
 
We have skyrocketing wealth and income inequality in contemporary Australia and your ideology does nothing but cement this fracturing in place.

Crocodile said:
Back in the 60’s you could do well on one income and you could pick up second jobs and run side businesses without the machine looking over your shoulder, wanting to tax you double. The tax act was a very thin document. Now it’s heavily complicated. We have replaced freedom with red tape.
Houses were cheaper to buy and raw materials were next to nothing. You could go to the local farm and buy a huge box of oranges or capsicums for $3, now you get charged 10 times that price for just 2 oranges or capsicum. You know when you car registration was due or your home insurance and health insurance was due most people would pay this small amount for the whole year by cheque and cash. Now they can only afford monthly deductions and people have forgotten all this.
That’s why people came to Australia to live the good life. Now it’s been destroyed by the Club of Rome types and the other globalist entities and governments syphoning money out of people’s pockets under the name of net zero:
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
We have skyrocketing wealth and income inequality in contemporary Australia and your ideology does nothing but cement this fracturing in place.
Click to expand...
Rather than natural social stratification due to merit based achievement plus spiritual social justice and wisdom practices the western world has moved more to a Chinese style techno feudalism with elites through government corporate partnerships exercising mass surveillance and human control. The extreme inequality in Australia right now is happening in the government sector and their corporate collaborators, not small and medium free enterprise business owners - as has happened happened in China. The richest 2 percent in China are CCP billionaires. The mechanisms for this to happen in the western include climate change money laundering ideologies and now digital AI which includes digital identity, digital currency, data centrex and ESG in the form cultural Marxism compliances
Is it not of note right now that governments such as the Australian government cannot reduce the price of petrol including removing the excise but claim they can change the temperature of the planet. Surely you must see this by now irrespective of your political allegiances.
Australia’s decline started with the Lima agreement followed by signing up to the UN climate accord and then the WHO health mandates. These are all centralised structures and transnational globalist structures( and they are not local community and national ideologies. It’s been proven many times over thst you can’t impose global and centralised ideologies on individual countries or cities because they don’t understand the local situation.
Australia is now paying for letting go of national sovereignty measures that empower self sufficiency in preference for a One World Government structure and globalism: I have been warning you about this for years but peopke do not listen and prefer to follow ideas that make no sense.
This is clearly evident especially with Ursula visiting here last week. Who knows what they signed us up to.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy the fact that I can have a match on while working and not have to pay attention to every single point. I know when the tension is building and can watch during those points. I also enjoy seeing the different venues and places around the world.
 
Not all tennis and tennis players are much worth watching.
To make watching worthwhile the opponents should have contrasting styles, or at
least styles of play that are interesting and entertaining., and additionally, should
have command of all, or most all of the shots and use then freely. Personality
and history come into play as well as self-confidence. Blandness is not all that entertaining.
And, I suppose we watch to be entertained.
 
BlueB said:
How about soccer? 22 idiots run for 90 minutes, taking a dive whenever someone is closer than 12" to them, and eventually the score is 0:0.
Click to expand...
So how do you spend your free time?
I think you kind of envy those idiots who can be millionaires doing what they do, and you’re indirectly insulting the vast majority of humanity who prefer watching them over other pastimes.
 
Sudacafan said:
So how do you spend your free time?
I think you kind of envy those idiots who can be millionaires doing what they do, and you’re indirectly insulting the vast majority of humanity who prefer watching them over other pastimes.
Click to expand...
I don't envy anyone, good for them being millioners. Too bad for people watching them and helping them become millionaires. Those who might feel insulted probably know it, deep down.
As for my free time, I barely watch anything - an occasional movie and tennis here and there. I spend my time snowboarding and skiing, playing tennis, boating and sailing, hunting and fishing, hiking with the dogs, traveling, reading...
 
at the end of the day - a sport's watchability comes down to

1. variety
2. APM (actions per minute)
3. action perception (difference between live and on TV).

tennis is very poor on 1. ok on 2, and terrible on 3 on TV.

I watch live at Princeton/Penn on weekly basis, never a dull moment. on TV, I don't even watch Sincaraz.

the term APM comes from gaming. if you watch FPS or TPS you know what I mean... traditional sports all kinda look like drying paint.

the only traditional sport I watch on the screen nowadays is badminton. faster pace, and is great on variety.
 
Kind of because it really resonated with me as a kid.

The idea of working hard all year long, grinding day in day out for that one slam, that one tournament, that one match up, that one ranking point and in the end all of it coming together on a single match day.

The idea of chasing glory all by yourself and everything depending on you and you alone once take the court is quite fascinating and to be honest exhilarating.

I know tennis players have an entire armada of specialized people contributing to their success but that's true for any sport.

This is also why I hate formalisation of on court coaching.
 
10sbeast888 said:
generally - team sports are good for spectating but not playing... if 22 idiots only have 1 ball, how many touches do you get in 90 minutes? why would anyone play this for recreation? seems just some idiotic running with maybe a dozen touches.
Click to expand...

It's actually very tactical. Many times what the guys that don't have the ball are doing is what opens up the field for the guy with to ball to be able to score a goal or pass the assist for the goal.
If you have some understanding of the plays involved it's actually very satisfying to see a team attack or defense played out very well.

Like in the world cup in Russia with our national Red Devils. Lukaku, striker, was in his prime then. There were matches where they went in, literally assuming he would get only 2 ball touches or something. They counted on him being tagged by 2 defenders at all times to prevent him from getting the ball. So his job was to keep 2 defenders "busy" and pull them away with clever runs, opening up space for Hazard and De Bruyne to get in there and do their thing against a now weakened defense.

I never played soccer but once a friend gave me a copy of Fifa 16 and got hooked on it, LOL
Learned about all the teams, players and tactics and wasted far to much time on that game haha.
Before that, I considered it to be "22 idiots running behind a ball" also. Once I realized just how deep and clever soccer tactics go, I looked at it through a very different lens.



10sbeast888 said:
individual sports are good for playing, you have the ball all the time, but that makes poor spectating. and tennis is too monotonous.
Click to expand...

Meh... kind of depends on the match up for me. I agree the mere baseline cc grind fests are boring to watch.
But when stakes are high, I can enjoy those also.

10sbeast888 said:
after following esports (FPS) for a few years, traditional sports all look really slow.
Click to expand...
Now e"sports" is something I will never get..... watching a bunch of dudes play video games.
 
NachoGPT said:
I would be okay with R1-R4 of slams being best of 3. As long as the QF onwards remains best of 5. I can see why purists would hate that though.
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't touch the slams. They are like the "tennis olympic games". Most kids growing up dreaming of pro tennis are actually more dreaming about winning a wimbledon or RG rather then just the idea of being a "pro".
But no kid is growing up dreaming about winning some atp 500 or whatever.

So if it were upto me, I'ld cut back on those "lesser" tournaments which more often then not just exist as money grabs or season fillers and perhaps introduce some more entertaining tennis events.
I like the concept of UTS for example. Tennis re-invented. I wouldn't want it to "replace" traditional tennis, but why wouldn't it be able to co-exist with it?

Watched a few of those matches on youtube and have to admit I really enjoyed it. Much faster, much more action. The play approach is very different as well... Knowing how long sets / matches will last, players also are not concerned with "conserving energy" and stuff.
In a slam, when it's set-set and you are down 5-1, you might stop trying and "throw" the set, just to conserve energy for set 3 (and perhaps follow up matches later on). Stuff like that just doesn't happen in UTS style formats.

It's also not surprising to me that those events - which mostly only last like what... a weekend? - are often sold out in record time.
 
ProStaffFanatic said:
It's actually very tactical. Many times what the guys that don't have the ball are doing is what opens up the field for the guy with to ball to be able to score a goal or pass the assist for the goal.
If you have some understanding of the plays involved it's actually very satisfying to see a team attack or defense played out very well.

Like in the world cup in Russia with our national Red Devils. Lukaku, striker, was in his prime then. There were matches where they went in, literally assuming he would get only 2 ball touches or something. They counted on him being tagged by 2 defenders at all times to prevent him from getting the ball. So his job was to keep 2 defenders "busy" and pull them away with clever runs, opening up space for Hazard and De Bruyne to get in there and do their thing against a now weakened defense.

I never played soccer but once a friend gave me a copy of Fifa 16 and got hooked on it, LOL
Learned about all the teams, players and tactics and wasted far to much time on that game haha.
Before that, I considered it to be "22 idiots running behind a ball" also. Once I realized just how deep and clever soccer tactics go, I looked at it through a very different lens.





Meh... kind of depends on the match up for me. I agree the mere baseline cc grind fests are boring to watch.
But when stakes are high, I can enjoy those also.


Now e"sports" is something I will never get..... watching a bunch of dudes play video games.
Click to expand...

ProStaffFanatic said:
Now e"sports" is something I will never get..... watching a bunch of dudes play video games.
Click to expand...

you have to play... otherwise it's hard to follow.

hero shooter 6v6 that's 12 players, each with 3-4 different abilities, that's 50 different things happening all at the same time.
 
I used to like the final 9 holes on the final day of big golf tournaments. It's also interesting to see the setting.

There is also something appealing about course layouts for those brought up on model train or racing car sets.

Sudacafan said:
Golf is too boring.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Guttersnipe
Do you find professional tennis boring to watch?
Replies
27
Views
760
Guttersnipe
Guttersnipe
N
Help me learn a slice serve
Replies
13
Views
1K
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
GraceGlad
most aesthetically pleasing current tennis players
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
ibbi
ibbi
UnderratedSlam
  • Poll Poll
Tennis on TV needs to be finally presented in a better, more varied way.
Replies
32
Views
2K
Tshooter
Tshooter
Hitman
Rune will be a reason why fans will tune into the watch this sport - Mark Petchey
Replies
32
Views
2K
xFedal
xFedal
Back
Top