Rafael Nadal won the Wimbledon tennis tournament championship yesterday over Roger Federer in what some are calling the greatest tennis match ever played. We are told, breathlessly, that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time, and that we are watching two all-time greats at the height of their rivalry. ~Yawn~We saw some of the match, and thought that it was entertaining; but not in a way that’s much different from watching a good game of one-on-one hoops at the local gymnasium. We like tennis -- think that it’s fun to play sometimes -- but it’s hard for us to become too excited about the all-time greatness of Federer or Nadal because if tennis weren’t a country club sport, we might not know who these guys are.
It must be fewer than 1% of the number of folks who have the access and opportunity to discover and nurture a talent for sports like football, baseball, basketball, or soccer who have that same access and opportunity to do the same with tennis. As such, when we’re watching Federer and Nadal, we’re watching the best athletes of the country club set. The best of the ones whose mummies and daddies bought them rackets, took them to the club, hired them private coaches, and sent them to tennis camps. It’s a very small subset of mummies and daddies who do these things.
The success of this year’s Wimbledon women’s finalists, sisters Venus and Serena Williams, underscores the impact of this disparity in access and opportunity because their father so successfully gambled to take advantage of it. The story goes that Richard Williams saw a female tennis player receive a $30,000 check on television and decided that his next two children would play tennis. He realized that, as he puts it, “[y]ou don't have to be brought up in the country club. You can actually come out of the ghetto and play tennis.” Williams admits that, “[w]hen we got started in tennis, it was to go out and make a lot of money.” Of course, the Williams family has made many millions in tennis, but there simply aren’t very many parents out there with Richard Williams’ vision, drive, and tolerance for risk.
Which is all fine for the Williamses, and Nadal, and Federer; and congratulations to them all for reaching the top of their restricted-access field. We at Cleveland Frowns will continue to admire the beauty of a good tennis match, and will continue to look forward to a better day, when improved economic conditions, social justice, and increases in leisure time and access to athletic facilities will make for a less-risky environment for Richard Williams-type child rearing so that we might be more compelled by the individual greatness of professional tennis players. Until then, we’ll try our best to convince ourselves that it really did bother Federer to lose yesterday.
Excelsior.
11 comments:
You see, I love the Frowns because I never know what's coming. I love watching great tennis — the ebb and flow of a great match, to me, are beautiful to watch — but I say this without attempting to detract from your point, which couldn't be more on the money. Well done as always, sir.
I agree with your point, but that was a great match. I would guess you do not like watching Tiger either. At least you guys like soccer (the most boring outdoor sport in the world).
No CC See You Later Post?
interesting picture choice
I don't understand. Your enjoyment of the sport is tempered because the athletes involved come from well-to-do backgrounds? So is boxing your fav?
What about all the kids playing on touring baseball teams and receiving private instruction at an early age?
you can play at bath community center for free
Coachie: Yes. If NFL, NBA, or MLB players only came from the country club set as described in above piece, then yes, those games would be less interesting to us as well. Why is that hard to understand?
It's hard to understand because it means that you are watching for 'soap opera' reasons. Leave the soap operas and the players backgrounds to professional wrestling. It's not quite as simple as what i'm about to say, but the primary reason for watching a particular sport should be because you enjoy seeing that particular sport played well.
Leaving aside that "soap opera reasons" are perfectly fine reasons to watch sports . . . with only so much time to watch sports, one might prefer to watch the ones that draw from the largest talent pool because those are the ones that are being played as close to as well as they can be played.
I am obviously a bit late here, but I found this debate interesting.
frownie, I think your argument would have had more basis in fact many years ago. while I don't personally enjoy watching tennis all that much, I would point out that the sport has grown to the point where a star player like Novak Djokovic can come up through the ranks after playing in abandoned swimming pools, in bombed out Belgrade, for lack of places to learn the game properly. To the contrary, the NFL is much MORE a "club" than the world tennis community. Although the tide is likely turning as I write this, tuning into the NFL today is to witness competition among athletes drawn from a relatively narrow talent pool (that is, the U.S.) - baseball, soccer and basketball all draw from a global pool of participants and would be's. now, I have it on good information that you enjoy some NFL achschun. Given the fleeting time available for watching sports, why not wait until American football is played globally?
also is a tennis racket much more expensive than a baseball glove?
regards,
Big Dood
But what about the Barcelona Dragons? The Rhein Fire?
Seriously, good point. But think that Djokovic is the exception not the rule. One typically needs a lot of attention from a personal coach at a young age to put themselves in position to eventually be a pro. I'd say the number of people worldwide who have this chance is still lower than the number of big boys around the world who play football or rugby or sumo or whatever. And at some point, our enjoyment for the game itself comes into play.
Post a Comment