by The Spin Team
Women's tennis has
always been about beautiful women.
Before the open era,
women like Suzanne Lenglen were noted more for the clothes that they wore and
what they did off the court. Stories were told of Lenglen's penchant for
drinking brandy and there are articles that described her as a diva. Lenglen
was beautiful and she was very in your face with the way she behaved on court,
as well as how she dressed to play matches. There are numerous articles
that talk about Suzanne Lenglen, and rightly so, as she accomplished much on
court. However, the media's relentless obsession with style over
substance has carried over into the Open Era of tennis. There have been
numerous articles written about the way that certain players are covered, as
compared to their opponents.
 |
| Suzanne Lenglen |
When the Open Era
arrived, the stories focused on Chris Evert, as the newly created WTA Tour
believed she had the star power they needed to succeed. She was cute, blonde
and pretty and she could play tennis. Yet, she was never up to the standard of
a Rosie Casalis or indeed a Billie Jean King. There were stories that Chris
Evert did not wish to be associated with an organization that was distinctly
gay.
Fast forward to the
present and who among us can forget how Sharapova, after her back to back wins
against Serena, was elevated to superstar status. Years after that triumph at
Wimbledon, pundits are at pains to paint her as a player recovering from
injuries, rather than a player who had been banned for systemic doping and
whose aura of invisibility has been scraped away for the whole world to see.
When Ana Ivanovic
retired from the sport, the WTA hosted a send off party at the scene of her
lone triumphant Grand Slam victory at Roland Garros. I wondered why that
was even necessary seeing that Ivanovic had retired to the joys of matrimony
and was now seeking to start a new chapter in her life. There have been many
players who have retired, some with many more Grand Slam titles than Ivanovic,
and I can't seem to recall a ceremony being held in their honour. Justine
Henin comes readily to mind.
At the beginning of
the 2020 season, Caroline Wozniacki and Carla Suarez-Navarro both announced
that this year would be their final year on Tour. Wozniacki would retire
after the Australian Open, the scene of her lone Grand Slam win.
Suarez-Navarro would no doubt play the whole season and possibly retire at the
end of the Asian swing (I assume). However, both women played their final
matches at the Australian Open, but it was only one player, Caroline, that got
the WTA send off treatment with tributes from fellow players and an on court
interview.
Suarez-Navarro has had
some of her biggest wins at the Australian Open. It was there that she
defeated Venus Williams in 2009 to make the quarters, a feat that she repeated
on 2 other occasisons in 2016 and again in 2018. While she may not have
won a Grand Slam, Suarez-Navarro has been one of the more gratifying players to
watch on Tour. If you are a tennis purist, as some commentators like to
style themselves, you would have been fascinated with her one handed backhand
which she used with brutal precision to take down opponents who were much
stronger and had bigger weapons than she did.
Suarez-Navarro was one
of the unsung heroes of the WTA. A steady player with a workmanlike
focus, Carla was really too nice for professional tennis. She was not
given to outbursts on court and even when her one time doubles partner, Garbine
Muguruza hit it big and no longer needed Carla and made some very scathing
comments in the media, Carla did not rise to the challenge of responding in
kind. For a sport that likes to describe players as classy, it has
treated one of the classiest players on Tour with a degree of callousness that
I have not seen in a long time.
Contrast that to the
outpouring of love and affection for Ms. Sunshine herself (a name actually coined by the media), Caroline
Wozniacki. Ons Jabeur, who I believe is the lone female player on Tour
from her native Tunisia wins a battle for the decade to make her way into the
second week of a Major for the very first time. However, that achievement was
virtually overshadowed by an on court interview of Wozniacki, followed by video
tributes and a celebration by her family.
🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰@CaroWozniacki takes one last lap of Melbourne Arena to the tune of 'Sweet, Caroline' 🎵#AO2020 | #AusOpen pic.twitter.com/r3pIt1o86c— #AusOpen (@AustralianOpen) January 24, 2020
The WTA's blueprint
has not changed since that moment when Billie Jean King and 8 other women
formed this association. They have believed, and still do, that in order
to sell this sport, you need players who are tall, thin, attractive, blonde,
smile prettily for the cameras and are classy (whatever the hell that means).
I have been an avid
fan of women's tennis since 1999. I have seen and heard how players who
do not follow the script as it relates to their behavior are sold down by the
river by the media (with the blessing of the WTA which does nothing to
counteract negative stereotypes). Who can forget the media's handling of
Monica Seles' grunts at Wimbledon? Who can forget how much they wanted the
world to forget Martina Hingis during the rise of Kournikova or forget how
great a player Serena would be just because she lost a match to Sharapova?
Tennis will continue
to do what it does. The media will continue to do what it does when it
comes to talking about women's tennis, but the WTA needs to do better. It
positions itself always as the foremost voice in women's sport. Billie
Jean King has positioned herself, and by extension the WTA, as an exemplar of
fairness and equality. One would hope that these are not just mealy
mouthed words but a core belief in the WTA's product, i.e. all the players, not
just the media darlings.
Things that make you go Hmm
Ever wonder what happens to the talking points when a relationship between 2 tennis players who allegedly inspire each other on the court goes awry. Does anyone ever say that as a result of the demise of that relationship that player is not playing as well? Why is that?
I say this because I recall how many people in the commentary box said how Vekic was inspired by Wawrinka and how they were good for each other and pushed each other. Now that they are no longer together, who is worse off in that situation?
There is now talk about Monfils and Svitolina. At first the really bad talk was that Svitolina was inspiring Monfils. With Svitolina once again losing early at a Slam and Monfils still in the tournament, who is inspiring whom in this situation?
I saw all that to say. Let players live. A relationship between 2 tennis players neither inspires or takes away from their achievement. If that were the case, Fernando Verdasco would have been a greater player than he is right now.
Things that make you go Hmm
Ever wonder what happens to the talking points when a relationship between 2 tennis players who allegedly inspire each other on the court goes awry. Does anyone ever say that as a result of the demise of that relationship that player is not playing as well? Why is that?
I say this because I recall how many people in the commentary box said how Vekic was inspired by Wawrinka and how they were good for each other and pushed each other. Now that they are no longer together, who is worse off in that situation?
There is now talk about Monfils and Svitolina. At first the really bad talk was that Svitolina was inspiring Monfils. With Svitolina once again losing early at a Slam and Monfils still in the tournament, who is inspiring whom in this situation?
I saw all that to say. Let players live. A relationship between 2 tennis players neither inspires or takes away from their achievement. If that were the case, Fernando Verdasco would have been a greater player than he is right now.
