It's been a while. What can I say? I haven't been busy enough to watch tennis, but I have been too busy to write about it. Which is kind of sad because I've had a lot of thoughts -- about Rafael Nadal not being at the French Open this year, about Carlos Alcaraz already being the top seed and world No. 1(!), Aryna Sabalenka finally harnessing her game and power to be a real contender in Paris -- and basically everywhere I think, about the lob I just saw Taylor Townsend run down to keep a doubles point alive and then single-handedly won the point herself (yes, I am aware doubles is a team effort, but did you even see this?), lots of thoughts, beautiful thoughts.
But the thing that caused me to dust off this blog was not even a recent development. It was one thing that has always annoyed me, and the perfect analogy to describe my beef.
During every Slam, someone has to get on Twitter to talk about how five sets is too much tennis. I usually jump right in, especially when people start laying out their arguments. I usually drop in to tell them that there are a certified megaton of other sports available to watch if watching two (or four) athletes duke it out isn't quite their jam. No one ever takes me up on it because they come back every. single. TIME.
Last night, someone posted that there's a lot of throwaway tennis in five-setters. I responded (and by the way, I know it's useless. No one has ever been able to articulate their concerns with five-setters beyond their general boredom and it's not going to happen on social media, but I can't help it) by saying you could say the same about three-set matches. The person just responded, "no."
Sorry, girl, but: yes. The nature of the scoring of tennis means that there is "throwaway" tennis in almost every match. (And I am assuming "throwaway tennis" are the points that don't end in sizzling winners bouncing off lines.) There are points you play just to slow things down, or speed things up, or try to get your opponent tired, and that is not always attractive tennis. But it is part of the game. It's called strategy. And honestly, it's almost as if none of these people have managed to stress-clean their entire house while watching a Rafa/Medvedev French Open final!
So anyway, I woke up the other morning with the perfect analogy for this debate. It's like watching a boxing match. I'm not much of a boxing fan, but my dad was, and so I watched quite a few matches. Boxing is a timed sport, so you can predict when it will end. But what if you wanted to shorten it? Where do you start? At the beginning? When it's "boring?" Hi, you need the "boring" stuff to get to the good stuff.
What about chess? Now, I would never watch a game of chess, but it is like tennis in that it's a game of strategy. So is it boring to watch players try out tactics on each other? You wanna just skip to the part where they're both going toe-to-toe? If so, maybe just push for a spirited round of rock-paper-scissors. Or maybe sports betting -- seems like you just want the result, not the battle. Or not too long of a battle. Or just the good parts of the battle.
You see how silly that sounds?
Another grievance to air: Beefing with players who are from a war-torn country. Sabalenka had to play a Ukrainian player in her first round -- Marta Kostyuk. Kostyuk has been vocal about all her family has lost in the war, and has not been shaking hands with Russians or players from ally countries with Russia (like Sabalenka, a Belarussian). Before their match, Kostyuk said she wished Sabalenka would say more about the war because she has a microphone. Sabalenka is like, "My name is Been-it and I ain't in it." This whole back-and-forth reminds me of when Trump was elected president in the U.S. It turned out that qwhite a few American players were Trump supporters and that felt like a slap in the face. I definitely didn't want to hear John Isner talking about how he wanted MAGA-man to see him win a major.
Still, I think you have to pick a side. I mean, do you want players talking politics or not? Whatever your answer is, you need to be consistent across the board. The question isn't whether you agree with what they're saying, it's whether you think they should use their advantage to make a difference. I think it's worth a couple Muhammad Alis and Colin Kaepernicks if we also have to get an Isner in there. It is what it is. But then, just because you've settled on your answer doesn't mean you then get to push Sabalenka around because you want her to talk. Does she want to talk? No? OK, then. Respect players for their own stances and move on, even when it's murky. Because maybe you're like Paula Badosa, who thinks politics has no place in sports. Maybe you're more like this player who looks and sounds suspiciously like Paula Badosa, who thinks women should be paid the same as men. It's confusing, OK?!??
