Has Tennis Gotten Too Polite?

12/PostPhoto.jpg” alt=”” width=”380″ height=”278″ />When Serena Williams crossed the line last September and verbally accosted yet another U.S. Open official, a wave of outrage swept across the tennis nation. The sport’s collective upset only intensified when she dismissed her outburst with blasé denials and a sense of entitlement. She was fined a paltry $2,000.

Except for that rascal extraordinaire Jimmy Connors (who thought Serena’s meltdown was just dandy), tennis buffs justifiably insisted that players who abuse officials or rant ‘n swear should be severely sanctioned. Yet, for all of that, for years, many have insisted that when it comes to emotional expressions of frustration in the heat of the battle, tennis’ puritanical code of conduct has too many rules and petty limits that are far too uptight and controlling.

During Pete Sampras’ heyday, IT reader Doug Kruse contended, “The current game is a drain on the psyche. There’s no release. There’s no catharsis. There’s no stretching out into greatness. Those who have closely followed Sampras most likely have simpatico ulcers. Insurance analysts, estate managers and contract attorneys might have an affinity for the stultifying guy, but the populace does not. …There has always been a disconnect between the seemingly proper and the honestly human.”

More recently, the Wall Street Journal got down to business and succinctly asked, “Would you watch more tennis if it got down and dirty like ‘Jersey Shore.'”

One thing’s for sure: before the code of conduct and Hawk- Eye, tennis was an outrageous, rollicking theater of the absurd. Vic Braden said then that tennis “should be X-rated. Going to a match now is like going to the World Wrestling Federation.”

Eventually, the establishment struck back and put in place a no-nonsense code of conduct. Soon stadiums echoed with somber, cautionary pronouncements: “Warning, Mr. Know-It-All,” was the new mantra; “Point penalty, Mr. Wise Guy,” became a new reality. The inmates rebelled. Yannick Noah claimed the code was “the worst thing that’s ever happened to the game.” Marat Safin asserted, “All the people who run the sport have no clue. It’s a pity that tennis is going down the drain. …You try to make it fun. They do everything possible to take away the entertainment. You’re not allowed to do this, you’re not allowed to do that. You’re not allowed to speak. … It’s just ridiculous”

Analyst John Yandell put it all in a curious context, claiming that critics of McEnroe’s antics emerged from the same “elitist white mentality that gave us, among other achievements, the welfare state and the Vietnam War.”

Even the ever-benign Lindsay Davenport observed, “We get criticized for not showing our personality, then we get penalized when we do.” Of course, the code of conduct worked with great effect when Serena came unglued at the ’09 and ’11 U.S. Opens. More recently, Marcos Baghdatis was slapped with an $800 fine after smashing four rackets during a troubling courtside outburst in Melbourne – a snit-fit wrapped in pure indulgence. And when Novak Djokovic let it all hang out, slamming his racket three times in the third round at Wimbledon, it seemed to kick-start his play. The Serb soon surged and made a beeline for the coveted title.

Last August, after being accessed a key point penalty for harmlessly bashing a ball high into the stands in Cincy, Andy Roddick complained that tennis was too straight-laced, that players couldn’t express themselves. “It’s stupid,” he said. “I mean, in football, if someone throws a helmet on the sideline, it’s their helmet. And we wonder why we lose ratings to the WWE, Monday Night Raw,” he said, referring to the popular U.S. wrestling show.

Roddick went on to note that McEnroe “is still getting endorsements because he was allowed to throw [expletive]. I understand where the ump is coming from but at a certain point, you hit a ball into a stadium, someone goes home with a souvenir, yet it pretty much ruins the match from there. Seems counterproductive.”

Roddick added that tennis is “the only sport where you can break your own stuff and get penalized for it. If you take your shoe and throw it … it doesn’t really affect anyone else. If you’re hurting someone, or someone is in harm’s way [that’s different]… [If] you took a poll of who would want to see someone go mental and hit something into the stands … people would probably vote for that. … Let’s put it this way: McEnroe is still getting endorsements and he’s 87 years old … what does that tell you? Love it or hate it, but watch it.”

So where is the proverbial fine line? Roddick said, “If you’re saying something at the ump, I can certainly understand. … They should be able to handle you for that. If you do that to an official in the NBA, you get penalized, like most other sports. … I’m purely looking at this from a business standpoint, not trying to justify my own actions … At the end of the day we’re entertainment. We’re a business. The reason we play a game for stupid amounts of money is because of the guy yelling in the stands who’s had too many beers. We’re the only sport where we’re talking about this, and I’m not doing end zone dances. We’re not on that level. You like watching the end zone dances, am I wrong?”

Mary Carillo begs to differ, noting, “What happened in Andy’s situation – and it happened again [in New York] at the Open last year, when a woman linesperson accurately called a foot fault and he went on a harangue against her for about half an hour – that’s the part that’s just terrible. It’s bad form. … I’m sorry, I don’t get entertained by that. I get very disappointed by that kind of behavior. I have to believe that Andy gets disappointed in himself. There’s plenty of play within the code. And with the umps, you can tell it’s a ‘feel’ game. But, I don’t seem to be as entertained by bad form as others. I’m very entertained watching Tsonga play his brand of tennis, and Federer play his, and Nadal and Djokovic. I don’t need jawing between the player and the ump and cursing and throwing rackets. That’s not what I really came for.”

Needless to say. John P. McEnroe had a different take. When we asked him whether there should be more emotions expressed in the game, he joked, “You have to be kidding. This has to be a set up. I mean, is the Pope Catholic?” The man who once said that Hawk-Eye took the soul out of the game added, “Everyone wants to see emotion. They want to see players giving their ultimate effort … [showing] how much they want it. That’s what makes sports so great. …’The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.’ There’s no question that people gravitate toward players they can relate to emotionally. That’s why the game’s on an upswing … because you’re seeing guys show more personality.”

McEnroe believes officials condoned his snit fits because it was good for the sport – a comic sideshow of spit and bluster. ”They had a show to put on and my presence put behinds in the seats,” he wrote{TK WHERE?]. ”If I went home they lost money. The tournament directors knew it, and I knew it.”

Recently, Mac contended that officials “realized when they tightened the rules for me and Connors and a few others, that they squeezed it too much. I think they are trying to loosen things up. That’s definitely something they need to do.”

Surprisingly, Roger “Never Makes a Fuss” Federer sort of agrees with Mac. The Swiss said, “Umpires try to understand the players. Some don’t, some do. It’s a tough call. It’s important also that we are good role models. Otherwise it gets out of control again and people use too many things to try to win, which is unfair. … [But] a bit more leeway could be not bad.”

Swede Mats Wilander opined, “If you hit a ball in the stands, you could potentially hurt somebody. But if you hit it straight up in the air, it’s not a problem. If you throw a racket and it breaks and bounces wildly it could hit somebody, then yes [there should be a penalty]. But if you throw your racket and it’s clearly under control but you happen to crack it, it’s okay — what the hell. They’re too strict. We’re defeating the purpose. This is a game about personalities, not robots.”

In the end, there are essentially three takes on the code: 1.) Post-Edwardian traditionalists – chests out, tweeds in place, lips quivering – insist that decorum is not only critical, it is at the very heart of our splendid game. So enforce those all-but-sacred codes and while we’re at it, let’s take a good long look at even more outrages: lengthy delays between points, unabashed sideline coaching and, of course, the most high-profile hindrance of all these days – grunting.

2.) At the other extreme, free-form types say, “No way, let ‘er rip.” Look how popular the X-Games are, notes writer Micheal Kay. “Perhaps tennis should jump right in the cultural muck, right down there in the slop with the reality-show train wrecks and carnage ghouls. But why stop at racket-tossing and sulking at the umps? Full-on fighting between players should be encouraged. Doubles matches can operate as high-flying tag teams. Imagine the Bryan Brothers versus Roger and Rafa – Federer leaping off Nadal’s shoulders, smashing a folding chair over Bob and Mike. Tennis brawls could be used to settle line disputes. … Had fighting been legal … John Isner and Nicolas Mahut could have solved their 11-hour epic so much earlier.”

Besides these two vastly different extremes, I would propose that tennis is not only a sport, it’s entertainment, and one of its great gifts is that it so adeptly displays emotion, shows expression and reveals passion or fear. Few other endeavors deliver so many spontaneous, unscripted feelings and amplify character with such uncanny clarity.

So if no real harm is done and there’s no real foul, let’s loosen up the rules a bit. Who knows, Western Civilization just might manage to muddle through, even if Ryan Harrison cracks his racket three times in the second set or if Andy Roddick launches a Wilson into row Y after blowing a sitter overhead which would have given him a mini-break in decisive third set tie-break.