Thursday 28 Mar 2024
By
main news image

This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on February 6, 2023 - February 12, 2023

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh.”

“If only,” sigh tennis fans. If only that Biblical truism (Ecclesiastes 1:5) still applied to their sport like it used to. Despite the epic defiance of Novak Djokovic, 35, whose win over Greece’s Stephanos Tsitsipas, 24, gave him a perfect 10 Australian Open final victories, there is an underlying sense of the sun setting on a golden age.

Roger Federer and Serena Williams, both 41, have retired and Rafael Nadal, 36, is raging against a creaking body as well as the dying of the light. The Davis Cup — the game’s equivalent of football’s World Cup — which began in 1900, has lost its sponsor and faces an uncertain future.

Tennis was described as “a failing industry in need of restructuring” by the New York Times at last year’s US Open. In Melbourne last month, Australia’s Channel Nine broadcaster lamented “the loss of big names”. The women’s game was hit especially hard with the retirement of the host nation’s former world No 1 women’s player, Ashleigh Barty, and the prolonged absence of another in Japan’s troubled Naomi Osaka.

Record crowds did a good job of disguising it, notably the fervent Serbian and Greek diaspora backing their respective men’s finalists, but sports-mad Melburnians may merely have put a gloss on long-standing faults on and off the court.

For months now, many in the sport have followed developments in golf with a keen interest. And some have wondered if tennis is ready for a LIV-golf style rival tour. Meanwhile, when asked how long Djokovic could stay at the top, his coach Goran Ivanisevic said ominously: “Definitely, two to three more years.”

On court, what the sport is crying out for is another generation. Specifically, one with worthy successors to the aforementioned giants as always seemed to happen from time immemorial. Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe took the baton from Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, and their rivalry raised the game to new heights. Then Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi brought a winning combo of power, precision and showmanship.

In the women’s game, Billie-­Jean King and Margaret Court gave way to Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova who were followed by Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. But since then, pretenders of both genders have been swatted aside.

Like rulers who refuse to budge when their term is up, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal in the men’s game, and Williams in the women’s, played on and on. But, instead of overstaying their welcome, they took the sport to another level: clashes between any of the three men seldom being less than classics. The next generation couldn’t get anywhere near them.

The trio divvied up a gluttonous 64 of 78 titles in 20 years. Making Sampras’ once “insurmountable” tally of 14 look puny, they ran an oligopoly for the best part of two decades. Federer finally signed off with 20 but Djokovic and Nadal are locked on 22 apiece and counting: they have won 16 of the last 19 between them.

Only Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, with three Grand Slams each, plus Juan Martin del Potro (with just one from an injury-ravaged career) have been fit to string the Big Three’s racquets. Other winners have been one tournament wonders.

Playing concurrently, Williams went one better with 23 singles titles, the most in the Open era and the second highest of all time. She eclipsed her elder sister Venus with whom she won 14 Grand Slam doubles titles and three Olympic golds, as well as a singles gold.

Her powerful physique dominated from the turn of the century and she won 84% of her singles matches. Allied to a strong personality, the American was a force of nature that brought the women’s game into the modern world.

It may now be Djokovic’s turn to mono­polise the men’s game in a similar manner. Tsitsipas offered brave resistance but, like all the other hopefuls, eventually succumbed: overawed and overwhelmed. Perhaps the teenage Spaniard, Carlos Alcaraz, can break the mould. Absent in Australia because of injury, the US Open cham­pion looks the best of the coming men and beat the Serb in their only encounter in Madrid last year.

Meanwhile, it will be fascinating to see if Djokovic can win the French Open where Nadal has reigned supreme with no less than 14 titles. The King of Clay should be fit after sustaining a hip flexor injury in Melbourne.

You can never rule him out and can almost see him as a grunting, thinning-haired 50-year-old still stalking the court and making impossible returns. Many will hope that his young compatriot can make Roland Garros more than a private duel.

A new face would be welcome as, for all Djokovic’s greatness, he is not everyone’s idea of a role model. Controversy seems a hitting partner and whether for his “NoVax” stance on Covid-19 (which denied him a shot at three of the four Slams last year), or his father’s affinity with pro-Putin Russians, he seems unable to avoid the radar.

The game, though, needs more than one new star. There are no less than seven organisations that run it like rival fiefdoms. There is the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the titular governing body, but tours are run by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) for men and Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) for women. But each Grand Slam tournament is a law unto itself.

Staggeringly, in a sport where the Grand Slam winners collect a minimum of US$2 million, only those in the top 80 are making a decent living. According to Dealbook Newsletter, “If you’re outside the top 80 and definitely the top 100, you might be breaking even, but there’s a good chance you’re not.” In comparison, the 100th best footballer would probably be earning US$10 million a year.

For a US$2 billion business with a global reach (155 countries take part in the Davis Cup), something has to give. And former ATP president Cliff Drysdale says: “Tennis is ripe for the plucking because there are many resources in tennis, but they aren’t being properly mined.”

But is it ripe? The irony is that the sheer number of squabbling entities might help it resist a hostile bid, deterring any thoughts of a takeover or rival. After all, the Saudis are having enough resistance from the PGA Tour and DP (formerly European) Tour in golf to want to mess with seven organisations. And if the elite are happy with their lot, the lesser lights wouldn’t be the type a LIV-style operator would want anyway.

Anyone in tennis will be wary of new approaches after the debacle with the Davis Cup. The storied competition, that is 30 years older than the Fifa World Cup, is reeling from a cancellation of a US$3 billion, 25-year deal with Kosmos, a Chinese-backed company, brokered by former Spain footballer Gerard Piqué.

If it sounded too good to be true, that’s how it turned out. It lasted less than five years and was divisive from the outset. The switch from home and away ties to a World Cup-style format proved unpopular with both players and fans. Home matches were the only time tennis ever had the tribal fervour of football.

It is now hoping that a Netflix series, Break Point, will give it the fuel injection that Drive to Survive did for Formula One. It needs it.


Bob Holmes is a long-time sportswriter specialising in football

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share