Is Wimbledon Losing Relevance?

In our latest mailbag, we look at the changing coverage of the tournament.

As it is written… Wednesday is Mailbag Day…

Some thoughts on Serena Williams and her contributions to tennis/sports/culture.

Onward...

Mailbag

This is a completely impressionistic response, but as someone now of a certain age I can't recall such little media coverage of men's Wimbledon perhaps since 1973 and the ATP player boycott (when Kodes ultimately beat Metreveli, who was from the U.S.S.R. but perhaps Georgian, if I recall), and then as now the attention was mostly on who wasn't there.

I’m not sure, as P.T. Barnum was, that bad publicity is better than none, and so I wouldn't necessarily trade with golf's coverage this week, but honestly there needs to be a reckoning with how far media interest in tennis—at least in the U.S.—has fallen, the participation improvement during and after Covid-19 notwithstanding.

All best, and good luck with the coverage!
—Leif Wellington Haase

• Good pull on Metrevelli. And good observation. You can add some data to your impressionistic response. Thanks to the Tennis Podcast, I know that Monday’s Day One Wimbledon attendance was the smallest opening crowd in 15 years. Networks that usually send gushing TV ratings press releases have gone silent. Personally, I can tell you that, in 20 years, I have never had fewer pre-tournament interview requests or, for that matter, run-up Wimbledon Mailbag questions.

The reasons? Who knows. Covid torpor. A rail strike that made it hard to get here? A global recession. The absence of Roger Federer, who, even at 40, remains a ratings driver and is not in the draw for the first time this century.

I also wonder if this doesn’t reflect sports and culture in 2022. Everything has become a niche. There is a core group of hard-core fans who can tell about Alejandro Davidovich’s ill-conceived tweener. But there are fewer casual fans. (This is not different for bands, films, TV shows, etc.)

For better or worse, this diminished…what? Buzz? Media coverage? Sense of punch-through relevance?...has little apparent impact on the finances. Attendance might be down and my mom might ask “Would I know any of the players this year?” but walk the grounds and it’s all talk of expansion and “enhancements” and “suites of global sponsors.” Strange times in sports. And media. And humanity. But between TV rights, investment from new markets (see golf), sports gambling lucre and social media and committed niche fans, sporting properties can still thrive without boffo ratings and boffo attendance and boffo column inches.

Casper Ruud is seeded below Matteo Berrettini. How does this make sense please?
—Jason G. Brooklyn

• Short answer: the seedings simply follow the rankings. Longer answer: tennis is in the throes of a pitched battle pitting the Slams against the Tours. But they need to co-exist and this is Wimbledon effectively making nice. By following the ranking—and departing from common sense in some cases—Wimbledon effectively says, “We are putting fidelity and legitimacy in your ranking system and thus your product.”

After seeing what’s happened with Dominic Thiem, my mind went to another great player ravaged by injuries: Hyeon Chung. Have you heard anything regarding a potential return? Seeing his ranking hover around 500 is simply absurd considering how he took the tennis world by storm in 2018.
—Collin

• Chung is a real tennis tragedy. Since beating Djokovic and reaching the semis in Australia in 2018, he has struggled to win matches, mostly because he hasn’t been able to kick the injury bug. He took time off. He tried to play through pain and keep up his ranking. Neither helped. He is now down to No. 510, has won less than $25,000 in 2022.

Do they just put Isner there on Court 18 by default?
—Helen

• Pretty much. It’s sort of the perfect place. He’s not a sufficiently big star to put on Centre Court or Court One. He’s a schedule constipator, whose matches often run long (including Monday.) And, of course, there’s the 70-68 history, and his name on the court; and was last seen losing in the French Open qualies.

Jon, I missed it. What happened to Beatriz Haddad Maia? She lost in round one?
—Diego

• She did indeed. To Kaja Juvan, who is no slouch. What a strange month for Maia. She crushed Britain, winning Nottingham and Birmingham and reaching the Eastbourne semis before losing to Kvitova, which is more than respectable. Then, arriving as the 23^rd seed and a hot pick, she crashed out on day one. Long as we’re here….a quick word about Haddad Maia. Here’s the paperwork from her 2020 doping violation.

I am recalling our discussion about Zverev and his domestic violations allegations.... but at what point do we mention her doping ban? Once a set? Once a match? Never? Her recent run deserves great praise. But she also was judged to have cheated her colleagues. It underscores our complicated relationship with doping. Fans and players are disdainful of cheating and the idea that someone is getting one over on the field. Then, when a player tests positive, there is often sympathy for the extenuating circumstances and disdain for the protocols. 

I don't get it. [Djokovic] was allowed to play the US Open last year but not this year??? Makes zero sense.
—@robvegaspoker

• You know what makes no sense? Taking yourself out of the mix—at great harm to your reputation—by refusing a vaccination that billions of people worldwide have taken. Are there inconsistencies and head-scratching double-standards? Absolutely,. But that’s true of most protocols. I don’t want to turn this into a vaccination/anti-vaxx/vax-skepticism debate. (It’s tiresome. No one on either side is being convinced by the other. We’ve moved on to other intractably polairizing issues. “Djokovic is an anti-science narcissist.” “No wait, he’s a hero who stands by his convictions.”)

But I can’t stress the tennis angle enough: for more than a decade we have had this GOAT debate, this captivating derby for history Who would have guessed it could turn on a player’s voluntary decision to remove himself from events?

• Shonn Moore writes:

Good morning, Mr. Wertheim! I do not know if you have already cited the movie, “The French,” in one of your articles but if so, I missed it. Anyway, I saw it last night in Baltimore. The trailer’s synopsis best describes it: “William Klein was the first person to be granted full, exclusive access to the tournament in its 90-year history, and using that doorway into locker rooms, TV studios, and players’ boxes, he shot the ultimate behind-the-scenes look at the 1981 French Open—a crucial moment in a crucial year in the history of a game, and its iconic players Björn Borg, John McEnroe, Chris Evert, Yannick Noah, and Ivan Lendl. With Klein’s customary eagle eye and whirlwind energy, The French captures the noisy bedlam that accompanies any major sporting event, while also revealing a level of candor from his subjects that is impossible to imagine in today’s secretive media-trained world.”

My takeaways:

· The short shorts 

· The far less meaningful post match handshakes 

· Virginia Ruzici and Chris Evert(-Lloyd back then) sharing a magazine and laughs, then playing a match 

· The disparity in size of the men’s and women’s trophies (is it still like that?) 

· As much as I enjoy John McEnroe now, yikes, he was a tormentor back then

· Bjorn was king! The awe he inspired in other players, his fitness and speed, the adulation from fans and so forth.

I believe it has a limited release. The trailer: 

Shots

Congrats, Vijay Armitraj:

• The International Tennis Hall of Fame has unveiled four new exhibits, just in time for Newport’s summer season. Featuring carefully curated selections of artifacts on display and a new interactive experience, the collections showcase items from Hall of Famers’ personal collections, unique pieces of tennis-themed artwork and global contributions to the sport.

Hanlon, take us out:

Wanted to submit a mailbag question below to consider...

We Need to Celebrate Serena's Doubles Accomplishments More

After seeing the excitement around Serena's dramatic first round doubles win with Ons Jabeur in Eastbourne, why don't we talk about Serena's doubles success more often? And what kind of impact should doubles have in GOAT conversations?

A snapshot of Serena's doubles career below...

- 14-0 in major finals and 23-2 in career finals

- 15+ wins over former doubles world No. 1s

- 3 Olympic gold medals in doubles

- 190-34 career doubles record

- 72-7 doubles record at her peak between 2008-2012 when Venus and Serena both became No. 1 in doubles in 2010

- Most accomplished doubles team this century (by a long shot)

I recently took a Serena doubles deep dive in my latest piece for The Tennis Tribe in case you're interested in including.