Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Likeability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Likeability

    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

  • #2
    Nice post....good questions, but:

    This is probably your opinion and not that of many others. A couple of players in your group one I wouldn't go next door to watch, a couple of players in group two I would move heaven and earth to watch. I like shot-makers but I also like those who work with what they've got and maximise themselves. I also greatly admire the mental fortitude of some of the players in group two. I also like to see contrasting styles...the genius versus the workman...and good versus evil.

    I assume when you say "unlikeable", you are referring to game-style not personality? It varies no doubt from country to country, but here in the UK you would be hard pushed to find players more popular then Evert or Borg. Navratilova and McEnroe were unpopular but gradually gained respect on the back of the aforementioned players...and of course through their own great ability.

    I like to watch Djokovic because he is so bloody good. He epitomises the modern game which can be one dimensional and dull unless played at the very highest level. Djokovic plays the modern game to the highest level of all. But he needs a contrasting opponent. He needs Federer to make his games really interesting. Contrast is such a valuable ingredient.

    Wimbledon is interesting because people flock to certain players on the outside courts. People flocked to see Anna Kournikova but I can tell you it wasn't for her tennis. Most of her spectators were males in their teens and twenties, and old fogeys like me couldn't get a look in...although I gave it a good shot.

    Mostly spectators a Wimbledon flock to the highest ranked player of the day...watchability doesn't common in to it. This is a plain fact. I have witnessed it many times over. A new kid on the block also has great appeal.
    Last edited by stotty; 04-02-2016, 08:35 AM.
    Stotty

    Comment


    • #3
      TIQ…Tennis Intelligence Quotient It's a Dumbed down game.

      Originally posted by labete50 View Post
      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
      As tennis metaphors life ad infinitum…I find all of the modern tennis players nauseating to watch. The endless mind numbing baseline duels are by definition as boring as the Midsummer Day in Sweden is long.

      On the other hand the classic era of tennis had a long and storied list of great players that one could watch solely on the merit of their play but you also had the huge entertaining plus of their personalities. The modern fellows are robotic monotones…perfect for their games to match.

      I should qualify my remarks about the modern day tennis player…there is one player worth watching. In fact…he is so watchable he makes any opponent watchable. This is the magic of Roger Federer. I am no longer so certain that he is as good as he appears to be. Much of his appeal is because of the lack of appeal of the rest of the herd. Watch Andy Murray? Whining self avowed feminist. Watch Novak Djokovic? As fake as it gets. All back court…all of the time. Rafael Nadal? Don't get me started. Oh why not…let's just consider his pre-serve routine and his use of the ball/towel boys and girls.

      It's like Rock and Roll these days. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's there were literally plethora's of musicians and bands. Nowadays what have you got…Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga? It's trash when compared to the dozens and dozens of bands that there were back in the day. What happened to all that creative juice? What about movies…what do you prefer? The old classics or the junk comprised of special effects in lieu of wonderful artistic performances.

      Here's an example of one of the great entertaining musicians from days gone by…remember him? One of hundreds? Thousands?



      The same is true for tennis. The soul of the game has been engineered right out of the body of the game. It is impossible to watch an entire match from start to finish without falling asleep from sheer boredom. I went to the French Open a couple of years ago and paid a fortune for tickets to see Maria Sharapova vs Garbine what's her name…and the mens quarterfinals with Novak Djokovic and Milos Raonic. I swear to God I needed half a dozen cups of strong Parisian Java to stay conscious. It was mind numbing boredom. Lack of tactics. Lack of anything entertaining for that matter.

      TIQ…Tennis Intelligence Quotients? The game has been dumbed down beyond recognition. FUBAR…you know the acronym. Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. That's the professional tennis game. They should have maintained the racquet standards of the classic era. The game was never more popular than when John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg played out their dozen or so masterpieces in the twilight of classic tennis. There were many supporting characters as well. Ivan Lendl was considered more or less a dour individual but he put on Oscar winning performances compared to the current crop. There was no shortage of entertaining players. There was no shortage of style…contrasting styles. The game was never the same after the equipment changed. It wasn't broken that was for sure…but now it sure as hell is.
      Last edited by don_budge; 04-02-2016, 10:38 AM. Reason: for clarity's sake...
      don_budge
      Performance Analysthttps://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...ilies/cool.png

      Comment


      • #4
        Reply to Don Budge

        Thank you for your reply and your opinion. But I'm interested in how likability translates into dollars, pounds or euros? And going back to Borg and Evert, there was never more boring even though they were well liked in the UK. In the post after yours, there was someone who felt he had to drink coffee to get through certain matches. Like with certain teachers or in movies or plays, boredom is a BIG problem. And Djoko is very boring even though he plays perfect tennis (from the baseline) and always the right shot. He's a monster to play against; he's brilliant. But he doesn't get my interest and he doesn't get a lot of people's interest. And I've played all my life and at university, too. I've put tennis ahead of everything.
        You talk about the new flavor of the month: granted, if the player is exciting. If he/she is not, B-O-R-I-N-G. Djoko is like Ted Cruz running for President of the Republican Party in the US: boring. Watching Fed (for a few more months I think before he retires) is like watching Trump (whether you like him or not): exciting. To me excitement=TLQ=marketability.

        Comment


        • #5
          labete50, first of all welcome to the forum! Great to have a new poster here, and one with a thought provoking first thread.

          While I agree with much of what you say (the likeability factor applies to all areas in life: beautiful children get more attention at school, beautiful people have an advantage at work, etc.). Life is not always fair in this respect. In the old days, I would always root for Chris Evert, Sabatini. Today, if I watch all of Federer's matches, and hardly ever watch Murray, for example.

          Beauty, in some cases, is in the eye of the beholder. As you mention, there are a number of facets to beauty: physical appearance, style of play, court presence, personality, etc.

          I would not, however, go to the extreme of relegating those with less of the above to lesser courts. The ATP ranking is all that should matter, whether you like or dislike a player for his type of game or whatever.

          The area where differentiation will appear is with the sponsors. The attractive players will gain more contracts for the qualities you mention. Marketability.
          Last edited by gzhpcu; 04-02-2016, 11:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Excitement=TLQ=marketability...

            Originally posted by labete50 View Post
            I've put tennis ahead of everything.

            You talk about the new flavor of the month: granted, if the player is exciting. If he/she is not, B-O-R-I-N-G. Djoko is like Ted Cruz running for President of the Republican Party in the US: boring. Watching Fed (for a few more months I think before he retires) is like watching Trump (whether you like him or not): exciting. To me excitement=TLQ=marketability.
            Ok labete50…you've introduced a new concept to the forum. By the way…it's don_budge not to be confused with Don Budge.

            At one point I put tennis ahead of everything too. The concept of the game is a beautiful thing. It's God's gift to mankind in terms of recreation…along with golf. Individual pursuits that test the human species in every facet of their being. Be it physical, mental, emotional and even spiritually. This business of excitement might also be interpreted in style. At least it used to be and it is the reason that the modern game is so as you put it so eloquently…B-O-R-I-N-G!!! I couldn't have said any better myself. It is the absence of style…save for Roger Federer…that has doomed the modern professional game of tennis to a second tier event.

            I find it somewhat ironic that in times and days where the mantra of the herd is DIVERSITY…DIVERSITY…DIVERSITY, that we end up with such a monotonous and dreadfully, homogenized, mind numbing boring sport in tennis. All of the players play in either one of two styles. The one-hand backhand is actually against the law in some parts of the world. Sweden is one of those.

            Your simile between Federer and Trump is not lost on me. I get your drift.
            Last edited by don_budge; 04-03-2016, 02:58 AM. Reason: for clarity's sake...
            don_budge
            Performance Analysthttps://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...ilies/cool.png

            Comment


            • #7
              Man, the ignore list is the greatest invention since sliced bread!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by labete50 View Post
                But I'm interested in how likability translates into dollars, pounds or euros? And going back to Borg and Evert, there was never more boring even though they were well liked in the UK.
                Borg and Evert were the wealthiest players of their generation. Both were good looking and so made a small fortune in endorsements that way too. Both were very popular worldwide and not just here in the UK? Maybe their style of play was boring to you but it certainly wasn't to others.

                I think likability amongst the public goes deeper than a player's game style. The public tend to develop affinities towards some players and not others, just like we all do in day to day life amongst the people we meet.

                I can see where you are coming from with your posts but I'm not convinced the majority would share your view. Where is your evidence? Were Borg and Evert ever booed off court, did they play to empty stadiums, did spectators switch off their TV's. The Borg and McEnroe 1980 final at Wimbledon is still the most watched tennis match over here (even Federer has never drawn an audience that big) and it was massive worldwide too.
                Stotty

                Comment


                • #9
                  Agreed, exciting tennis sells... but likeability does go beyond playing style at times. Q rating, looks, entertainment value in press conferences... Ahem...Number of followers and likes on social media.

                  Alex Corretja had a boring game but was one of the most well-liked on the tour (by players and fans alike). I would put Vilas and Wilander in this category, especially before Mats' Us Open win over Lendl.

                  Guga Kuerten had a wonderful, varied and exciting game (for a baseliner), and was beloved on every continent. Yannick Noah had quite a following despite some shaky groundstrokes. Might place Baghdatis and Safin in the exciting class, too.

                  Goran Ivanisevic enjoyed a lot of popularity even though, in the 90s, there was some resentment of the big serving short point ethos.

                  Yevgeny Kafelnikov could do just about anything with a tennis ball in singles or doubles. Not a ton of fans, though.

                  Nastase typified the excitable buffoon.

                  Cool thread topic. Likeability.... Likely to change in the quantifiable age of social media.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nastase…the perfect antagonist

                    Originally posted by maxply View Post
                    Agreed, exciting tennis sells... but likeability does go beyond playing style at times.

                    Nastase typified the excitable buffoon.
                    Early on in his career he was anything but a buffoon. Even so…the word clever comes to mind. Like him or not…I guess this is where likability comes in. The perfect antagonist. Dark, swarthy and devastating good looks. Petulant. Beautiful and silky smooth. The middle finger fixed in an upright position flipping off the establishment. Immediately post Vietnam War era. But most loved him and if they didn't love him…they loved to watch him. He was most watchable. A tennis match is best if it has a plot…you need the good guy and the other one. This is why Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe had a rivalry that was the greatest of all time.

                    Exciting stylist…the young Nastase. The indulgences started to catch up to him and manifested themselves in extremely erratic behavior yet the genius was always there.

                    I loved him…and his protege as well. John McEnroe.

                    Playing style has a lot to do with it…appeal that is.
                    Last edited by don_budge; 04-05-2016, 11:51 PM. Reason: for clarity's sake...
                    don_budge
                    Performance Analysthttps://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...ilies/cool.png

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ilie Nastase. One of the finest players ever. Occasional scrapes with good judgement and bad...antagonistic but also beloved for his game and for his humor. Lovable. Reviled. And also lovable.

                      By the end of the seventies, he was a caricature, though.

                      I was there for the convoluted us open match between Ilie and Mac. Rough night at the Armstrong. i do not normally sympathize with officials, but i genuinely felt for ken blanchard and frank hammond that night.

                      So much untold about this golden era of tennis. So much crazy texture. We will never know the "whole truth" because the game's titans never took to twitter as a means of communication. See: Kyrgios, murray, stakhovsky, capriati, et al.

                      Ilie was nasty to most, but somehow seemed to be the guy who everyone adored. He had a complex relationship with great people like Arthur Ashe. Was really tight with Borg. He and Jimmy were thick as thieves. He and Mac seemed to understand eachother. Mac probably understood the benefits of not formally being a nastase protégé. Nasty and connors seemed like lifelong pals in the mid-70s. Even played dubs together, which had to make the godfather smile (Pancho Gonzales).

                      Wonder what the godfather thinks of Kyrgios.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Remember the story with Nasty and Panatta and the black cat?

                        Last edited by johnyandell; 05-01-2016, 10:35 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I remember Nastase very well. maxply is right about his demise. In the early 70's he was a phenomenon, the most talented and outrageous player who ever walked on a tennis court. He was quite brilliant in the early 70's. By the mid seventies he was fading, save for a wonderful Wimbledon run in 1976 where he reached the final without dropping a set. He lost that final to Borg.

                          Post that 1976 Wimbledon final Nastase never won anything of any consequence or even got close. He simply lost his nerve. I saw him dump a Wimbledon quarter final match against Okker because he didn't want to face playing Borg in the semi. He clowned around against Okker and didn't take the match seriously at all. I watched that match and could sense all the reasons. I found that sad.

                          Other than a still heavy first serve, by the end of the seventies Nastase's game had lost most of its penetration. His volleys became pushy and his forehand had lost it's sting. He spent the majority of the late seventies playing to the crowd.

                          Nastase was fascinating player. The old videos never do him justice in my view. To watch him play just yards away, waving his wooden racket like wand, was one of the best sights I have witnessed in the game of tennis.
                          Stotty

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Stotty,

                            Well said. Like a conductor's baton, Ilie waved that Maxply, and the ball just listened. He volleyed with touch, but could thump it, too, like Tony Roche.

                            What got me was his speed around the court. Not a small guy, but man could he move. Then at the end of an impossible sprint, he could spin a forehand in the alley around a great volleyer...then make the ball land an inch or two inside the singles sideline.

                            He must smile when players gush about:
                            The banana pass;
                            The topspin lob winner;
                            The one handed backhand swing volley;
                            The tweener, or the (Bucharest) backfire lob retrieval;
                            or a sick little drop volley after a heavy serve.

                            Like Hoad, Laver and Santana, this guy invented most of the coolest shots.

                            Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
                            Remember the story with Nasty and Panatta and the black cat?

                            http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...r_nasty_part3/
                            Thenks for that. Yes! Tignor describes it so well. And to hear an aging Nastase tell the tale on a British talk show is just hilarious.

                            And who could forget the early days of the American Express card? When Nastase's card was stolen, Ilie joked that he delayed reporting it because the thief was spending quite a bit less than his wife.

                            Likeable.
                            Last edited by maxply; 05-02-2016, 02:31 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Black Cat Story…Ilie Nastase

                              Originally posted by maxply View Post
                              Stotty,
                              Tignor describes it well, but to hear an aging Nastase tell the tale on a talk show is just hilarious.
                              Nastase sort of moved like a cat come to think of it...from the horses mouth!

                              Last edited by don_budge; 05-02-2016, 03:26 AM.
                              don_budge
                              Performance Analysthttps://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...ilies/cool.png

                              Comment

                              Who's Online

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 8255 users online. 3 members and 8252 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 31,715 at 05:06 AM on 03-05-2024.

                              Working...
                              X