I like watching Wimbledon. It’s unfortunate that many of the best matches occur during the middle of the day when we’re all at work. This can’t help but serve the perception that it’s a rich man’s country club sport, like golf. Only the best of British society can participate, indeed only the upperest of classes can even speak of tennis as if they know what they’re talking about.
But aside from all the petty English classist nonsense, I do enjoy Wimbledon. For the past couple of years I’ve been watching BBC’s excellent coverage. They always have a good selection of matches (and lengthy replays for us toiling middle-class working folk). And their multi-screen option is impressive – I look forward to seeing more of that during this summer’s Olympics.
But it will be the same with the Olympics. Once I start watching I’ll wish I could take the two weeks off so I could catch all the good stuff. There’s nothing like watching it live, you know? The whole thing. I guess I could start thinking about recording, but it’s just not worth the hassle. Configuring electronics exhausts me. And even if you think you’ve got it all set up, it will always throw up on your shoes at the most inopportune moment. I think you’d have to have the stamina of a grinning demon to set up a MythTV box.
The rules of tennis seem easy, but I still can’t always figure out who got that last point. Maybe it’s different if you’re watching on a wall-raping HD plasma unit, but from where I’m sitting I just can’t tell if the ball was in or out. So I (stupidly) look at the score in the upper left of the screen to see who’s point it was. But I’m damned, damned by the BBC. As soon as the ball is no longer in play they drop the scoreboard. Usually before it changes. Meanwhile the commentators are saying “Excellent point – her follow through was astounding”. Now I thought both of their follow-throughs were astounding. So who got the point? The umpire announces it but it’s not always audible. And even if it is, maybe by this time I’ve forgotten who’s serving. “40-love”. Yeah, but for who? Just because I’m watching tennis doesn’t mean I’m riveted to my seat. I’ve caught myself saying aloud, ‘Federer’s serving. Federer.’ So I’ll be able to interpret the umpire if I’m lucky enough to hear him.
It’s frustrating. The more I watched (and I watched a lot over the weekend), the more frustrated I got. Ninety-five percent of the footage is between plays, so no scoreboard. Maybe I’m playing with Bruce. Maybe I’m browsing through the paper, or trying to catch a few points while I’m doing chores around the house. I’ll hear a cheer and look up. No scoreboard. No visual indication about what the hell just happened or what’s happening now. I could wait for the slow motion replay, but I’ve lost patience with them. Why not replay it at normal speed? Because then the BBC wouldn’t be able to show off their fancy HD slow-motion technology. I admit it looks fantastic, but it simply does not convey any meaning or add any value. How about once or twice a match? Why every single point? Why do I want to watch Nadal tuck his hair behind his ear for twenty seconds in slow motion?
Please. Just replay the rally, OK? And keep the score on the screen, like real blue-collar sports do.
There’s a lot of things about televised sporting coverage that irk me up that tree, but I’ll leave it to tennis for now. A few more things:
Umpires
I know where the main umpire is. You can’t miss him in that chair. But what does he actually call? I think he just oversees the line umpires, but where are they stationed? There’s so many officials behind the baselines, which one is responsible for calling it? What are their instructions? And do they just watch and then yell whatever they want, as long it’s more or less just the one syllable?
Tie break
I’ve probably watched 10 full games of tennis this Wimbledon, and lets say another 10 the year before. That’s a lot of tennis. Enough to pick up a few rules, just by repeated observation. Why then do I still not know how a tie-break works? Maybe I finally figured it out yesterday (after 6 points, you have to win by two? maybe?) but what if, just what if the commentators reminded us? Or are they worried about insulting the average tennis watcher? Who do they think is the average tennis watcher?
Ball boys
What’s up with the ball boys? All their crazy over-emphasized gestures. It’s a little nutty. I’d love to see a wee feature about the ball-boy training camp. Draw me in. Give me information.
Hawkeye
What’s up with this eye in the sky gizmo, Hawkeye? How can that possibly work? I’ve seen probably forty or fifty challenges in the last two years, yet not once has the commentator explained how the technology worked. Come on, there’s geeks out here, watching tennis! And I know who you are.
…
Here’s an idea. How about just once – good God, just once – they show a five minute segment during the rain delays outlining the basic rules of tennis. Tennis is covered by the BBC but once a year; it’s not like other real sports like Hockey which you’ve been watching your whole life. Many people I’ve spoken to are as mystified by the details as I am. We are the proletariat, but sometimes we like tennis too. Educate us. Instead of all that stunningly-boring analysis between games, why not show us a little of how tennis works?
So if the whole broadcast package annoys me so much (and it does), why do I continue to watch it?
Because in spite of the BBC’s attempts to exclude me, I still like the sport, and watching athletes at the top of their form is one of the great pleasures of being alive. It reminds me that great things are possible, sometimes from unlikely heroes. I enjoy some team sports (ok, just one: hockey), but I find the intimate and adversarial nature of tennis inspiring.
I was sorry to miss my favourite female players this year. Justine Hennin-Hardenne retired this year as the world number one-ranking player, at the age of twenty-five. I saw her play at the Family Circle Cup in Charleston. She was magnificent. She says she no longer feels the passion. Fair enough. But I miss her. And I missed Sharapova’s grunts this year: she went out so early I didn’t even see one game. I was also sorry to see Jankovic go out. She blamed it on the court she had been assigned. Grow up girl. I thought I liked you, but I’ve changed my mind.
The Williams game was good, but not extraordinary. They looked ready to keep going. The female players have now achieved par with the males in terms of prize money. Good, I say. Good for you. Now give us par in return: five set matches instead of the current three. Both Venus and Serena weren’t done out there.
But of course the big game yesterday was the Federer-Nadal game. Although a tad long (5 sets, rain delays) it was highly enjoyable. They both tried everything they could think of to get back into their games and score that one more point. I think Federer is a lot like Justine: they both have this fluid style, floating around the court, making huge hits look effortless. Think Wayne Gretsky. Sublimely graceful and intensely powerful: a winning combination in any pursuit.
Enter Nadal. This is a sweating, fighting athlete that doesn’t give up. No country club memberships for this Spanish lad.
So who did you root for? Federer, the gracious, well-mannered gentleman, with his snazzy white jacket? Or maybe (like my wife), you prefer Nadal’s tank top and power grunts. He’s got some nice lines that Nadal. (Andy Murray’s little show-off was pathetic in comparison.)
We went for Nadal. He wanted it more. What a win. He never gave up. That’s the thing about watching the best. They give it their all, while we sit back on the couch and re-learn basic life lessons. Well done, Nadal. Good for you.
I enjoyed Wimbledon 2008, despite BBC’s insulting assumptions that we have no curiosity or desire to broaden our knowledge and appreciation of the sport. I certainly don’t want them to dumb it down – that would be even worse – but please, you could at least show us what the women’s locker room looks like.