Tweet
Why do we want to watch certain players and not others?
What do players like Roger Federer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Patrick Rafter, John McEnroe, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Miloslav Mecir, Anna Kournikova, Pete Sampras, Garbine Muguruza, Martina Navratilova and Patty Schnyder have in common?
What do players like Novak Djokovic, David Ferrer, Andre Agassi, Nicolas Kiefer, Guillermo Vilas, Bjorn Borg, Eddie Dibbs, Justine Henin, Ivan Lendl, Chris Evert, Maria Sharapova and Victoria Azarenka, have in common?
I would venture the first group are exciting, likable players that spectators want to watch. The second group are players no one wants to watch unless they’re losing to players in the first group.
Being likable, having a beautiful game or a gorgeous one-handed backhand, looking good on court, being comically irascible, being a wonderful shot maker, moving like a cat and basically thinking outside the box make one a member of the first group, the group of ‘likable’ players. Being boring, disagreeable, predictable, robot-like, or grunting and playing uninspiring tennis—or a combination of all of these things--make one a member of the second group, the group of ‘unlikable’ players.
This ‘court presence,’ this vulnerability on court, this ability to be liked and watched makes up one’s TLQ, or Tennis Likability Quotient.
Notice that I have not mentioned ‘money making’ in the TLQ but often, the higher the TLQ, the more money a player makes. I also haven’t mentioned ‘winning’. Most people might equate winning with making money and having a high TLQ. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from prize money, will boring Djoko ever be the ‘money maker’ that Federer is? In today’s dollars, will Azarenka ever make the money today that Kournikova made in her day? Who wants to watch these bores?
Why were hundreds of people packed around World #20 Anna Kournikova’s first round match (which she lost in three sets by the way) on a small side court at the French Open while World #1 Justine Henin played to a half-empty and half-asleep central court (Philippe Chatrier) crowd? And Henin even had a more exciting tennis game at the time?
TLQ, that’s why.
I’m sure that Henin made much less money during her career than Kournikova did even though the former world number one made more on-court prize money.
Thus, we can do away with discussions about who’s better, who should be paid more, is women’s tennis less/more interesting than men’s, who was the best player ever and tutti quanti.
All we need to know is a player’s TLQ.
Players should be given a grade out of a hundred and tennis spectators should vote on them.
I submit that the higher a player’s TLQ, the more tennis time he or she should be given on TV, the more advertising dollars he/she should command and the more money he/she should make because high TLQ players fill more stands and arenas.
Low TLQ players should be relegated to the side courts, no matter how much prize money they make.
Richard Bonte
What do players like Roger Federer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Patrick Rafter, John McEnroe, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Miloslav Mecir, Anna Kournikova, Pete Sampras, Garbine Muguruza, Martina Navratilova and Patty Schnyder have in common?
What do players like Novak Djokovic, David Ferrer, Andre Agassi, Nicolas Kiefer, Guillermo Vilas, Bjorn Borg, Eddie Dibbs, Justine Henin, Ivan Lendl, Chris Evert, Maria Sharapova and Victoria Azarenka, have in common?
I would venture the first group are exciting, likable players that spectators want to watch. The second group are players no one wants to watch unless they’re losing to players in the first group.
Being likable, having a beautiful game or a gorgeous one-handed backhand, looking good on court, being comically irascible, being a wonderful shot maker, moving like a cat and basically thinking outside the box make one a member of the first group, the group of ‘likable’ players. Being boring, disagreeable, predictable, robot-like, or grunting and playing uninspiring tennis—or a combination of all of these things--make one a member of the second group, the group of ‘unlikable’ players.
This ‘court presence,’ this vulnerability on court, this ability to be liked and watched makes up one’s TLQ, or Tennis Likability Quotient.
Notice that I have not mentioned ‘money making’ in the TLQ but often, the higher the TLQ, the more money a player makes. I also haven’t mentioned ‘winning’. Most people might equate winning with making money and having a high TLQ. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from prize money, will boring Djoko ever be the ‘money maker’ that Federer is? In today’s dollars, will Azarenka ever make the money today that Kournikova made in her day? Who wants to watch these bores?
Why were hundreds of people packed around World #20 Anna Kournikova’s first round match (which she lost in three sets by the way) on a small side court at the French Open while World #1 Justine Henin played to a half-empty and half-asleep central court (Philippe Chatrier) crowd? And Henin even had a more exciting tennis game at the time?
TLQ, that’s why.
I’m sure that Henin made much less money during her career than Kournikova did even though the former world number one made more on-court prize money.
Thus, we can do away with discussions about who’s better, who should be paid more, is women’s tennis less/more interesting than men’s, who was the best player ever and tutti quanti.
All we need to know is a player’s TLQ.
Players should be given a grade out of a hundred and tennis spectators should vote on them.
I submit that the higher a player’s TLQ, the more tennis time he or she should be given on TV, the more advertising dollars he/she should command and the more money he/she should make because high TLQ players fill more stands and arenas.
Low TLQ players should be relegated to the side courts, no matter how much prize money they make.
Richard Bonte
Comment