Tennis is about more than doomed Brits and strawberries
This year's Wimbledon has been genuinely surprising - major upsets as top seeds went out, fingernail-shredding tiebreaks, and an extraordinary performance from Andy Murray. But in the background ran another narrative - that of a man considered the best performer of his generation who suddenly, and for the first time in his career, began to look fallible. Could he overcome the doubts and return to his rightful place in the pantheon? Because, let's be honest, all of us want John McEnroe back on form.
There seemed to be a number of things affecting Big Mac this year. His wife, Patty, travelled with him, and he couldn't get through a set without letting us know where exactly she was seated in the players' box.
I also blame Tim "I Think People Will See Another Side to Me" Henman, whose reincarnation as a BBC pundit has cast McEnroe in a doubles role he's unused to. Henman was notably subdued at first - he didn't say a word during his first game in the commentary box - and Mac's flashy witticisms have been curbed as he attempts a more buddy-friendly role. No fourth-round defeat, no Roger Federer interview - no, not even a Cliff Richard-led singalong - could have been as excruciating as their intro to Andy Murray's game against Tommy Haas, when the pair stood on Centre Court and giggled about their All England Club ties while Sue Barker wore an embarrassed, frozen smile.
Mac: "How did you get into the club? Because your father was a member?" Tim: "You just won Wimbledon - that's the easy way." As pairings go, Cannon and Ball would have them in straight sets.
I suspect it's all bound up in this febrile obsession with introducing personality to tennis. There has for some time been a lazy argument that there are no interesting tennis players (perhaps this is why the Beeb thinks we want so many cutaways of Steve Redgrave and the 1968 Olympian David Hemery in the stands, instead of letting us see the players at change of ends). It's a myth: there are plenty of characters in the game. You've only to watch Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic or the Williams sisters to know that. The problem is that in the UK we spend so little time following the sport, Wimbledon excepted, that we don't know very much about them. And those about whom we do know - Andy Murray being the obvious example - we prefer, for our own peculiar reasons, to vilify.
Whatever they were saying on the Hill, there was no major crowd support for Murray, nothing like the fervour that used to greet Henman - until his fourth-round match against Richard Gasquet. One astonishing three-set comeback later, his so-called arrogance, volatility and reticence had officially been deemed passion, commitment and determination. It's amazing what a makeover Centre Court can give you.
The good news is that, from next year, tennis's end-of-season tournament (currently known as the Masters Cup) is coming to London. Not only is it a fiercely competitive showcase finale for the eight top-ranked players in the world, but it is to be held at the 02 Arena in front of tens of thousands, so the atmosphere will be entirely different from the self-conscious sophistication of Wimbledon. What better for a new appreciation of a sport that is still, in the British consciousness, so wedded to panama hats, strawberries and doomed endeavour?
Emma John is the deputy editor of Observer Sport Monthly
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
