I haven't watched a lot to be honest! I've played a little and enjoy that it's easy to get rallies going. I've seen some insane reaction/incredible rallies on instagram sometimes so I certainly think as a sport it has it's moments of very entertaining/skillful exchanges.
Also loved the article! One thing that I have to say about badminton that tennis has that maybe padel doesn't at the higher levels is many opportunities for full-out power. I feel there is nothing better than ripping a forehand, but it's tough to get that feeling in either pickleball or padel I feel - but in badminton it's there with the smash.
You can definitely try to hit the lights out of a smash in padel, and you get rewarded if you do hit it hard enough, but the wall makes it a nice little risk/trade-off because if you don't hit it well the ball then essentially becomes your opponent's smash. It makes for an interesting dynaimc. Pickleball you can hit it hard but nothing happens, the ball is drained of power.
What does tennis need to tweak to ensure the game remains attractive into the future?
It seems like a lot of traditional sports are asking themselves this at the moment, about how to attract younger audiences and grow their sport. There's always a lot of strong statements made about what the younger audiences want to see, but I've never been presented with any research/facts backing it up. Then the current generation who manage these sports end up doing slightly cringey things that they think younger audiences want (excessively loud dance music, lights, gimmicky scoreboards etc., how do you do fellow kids stuff).
But I think the answer isn't that complicated, just maybe it seems hard to execute.
- Get stuff on TV/stream at a sensible price/free when it can
- Get good quality highlights online
- Governing bodies to be the correct mix of people who care about the sport driving the direction and good managers doing the boring bits making it happen
- Look after the players, they are the product, don't make them play 100 matches a year to make living, sounds like something needs to be done with the ATP balls, WTA cancun was a bit of mess. I'd also look if pay structure is distributing money well enough down the pyramid
I think the current game of selling out stuff to the middle east (ATP next gen etc.) is not a long term strategy for the sustainable growth of the sport - just a quick buck for current shareholders - could be wrong and it ends up driving good growth in a whole new market which would be great - but there's a lot of competition with golf, football, F1 etc. all being bought by that market.
Agree S R, while I think it is good to test things (and use it in events like the gimicky nextgen finals) the product at the top—for now—is pretty good and Matt Willis wrote about this in his modernisation of tennis piece that I linked in the article, Here it is again:
My worry is very long term seeing a lack of variation in play styles but there is certainly the case that players like rune and alcaraz are coming forward and using the drop shot a lot/more variation, so who knows.
About Padel, I think that it also suffers from being "boring" in the way rallies play out. From the highlights I saw, a lot of times it seems like a repetition of the same shot in the same place, with two players just volleying at each other, amd sometimes you can see a shot from outside the walls that's really impressive.
Now, if it was possible to play a single version, then the physicality required would make for a really good viewing experience, but as it stands we don't need to fear it.
I think every sport is guilty of boredom in some respect, but I think the highlights you can generate are what often matters in terms of what is marketable/instagram-friendly etc. An NFL game lasts several hours but all the highlights can get packed into a couple of minutes, and these parts are impressive and what drives attendance, I think. Most padel matches would have a couple of rallies that have more varation than any pickleball rally, purely because the dynamics of the game are friendlier to producing something considered a highlight.
Tennis is guilty of this too; Medvedev v Zverev can get pretty one-dimensional, or perhaps Isner v Opelka.
Comparing the highlights of that pickleball match vs. Alcaraz vs. Sinner is almost laughable. Yeah, no, I don't think it'll ever translate over here. I mean soccer has a tough time here...!
Padel is interesting, but it's a shame there isn't a singles version of it. I don't enjoy doubles in tennis...
Doubles tennis the rallies are usually quite short—the serve and return dominate. In padel, the serve is neutered by being underhand and the return isn't punished as much with the walls, so you end up getting into a lot more rallies with variation: lobs, volleys, smashes, wall angles etc. Try it out.
With regard to your question of "what does tennis need to tweak to ensure the game remains attractive into the future?" Personally, I believe that P. Mouratoglou is on the right track with the development of the UTS Tennis Tournament. Quoted from their website; "“UTS aims to appeal to a younger, more engaged new generation of fans to grow its fanbase community” – Patrick Mouratoglou. As the average tennis fan is 61 years old, and that number is increasing each year, tennis is currently in a danger zone." Now, UTS just needs a more robust and firm push from a social media standpoint however, the turnouts for the tournaments have been very promising! Also, regarding the professional aspect, forgoing the streaming rights all 4 of the Grand Slams to ESPN instead of 2 grand slams, would be a step in a positive direction as I am with the belief that the "TennisChannel" has done NOTHING beneficial to promote the sport. There are quite a few more factors to consider that could ensure Tennis remains attractive but, I'll save that for Part 2.
I think you would like Matt Willis' article on "the modernisation of tennis". Opening paragraph:
"A misquoting of one part of that stat and a misunderstanding of average slopes aside, I’m fairly certain Mouratoglou was just being intentionally incendiary. Proclaiming the average age of tennis fans to be ‘61’ is almost certainly silly (even sillier to imply the average age of a tennis fan in 40 years time will be 101), with that particular figure being plucked from a narrow study of broadcast and cable television ratings in the United States only. The study not only ignores every other country’s consumption habits, but also doesn’t include digital/streaming (read: young) viewership. Neither does it factor in on-the-ground tournament attendee demographics, whose avg age seems to actually be dropping in North America and has always been much lower in some of tennis’ faster growing markets like China (for e.g 70% of fans were under the age of 40 at the 2018 Beijing Open). Anecdotally, the events I’ve been to, including European ones, also seem to have a pretty even spread of ages, and certainly no shortage of GenZ & Millennials."
Thanks for sharing the article and I definitely am in agreement with your take on PM being intentionally incendiary as I certainly had my reservations about sharing the quote. (Lol!) Regardless, I do believe the UTS tournament is a step in the right direction. Especially with the implementation of different rules/format in comparison to the traditional format. Even now with a few WTA players joining in on the fun as well. (Rule #1: Matches are played in 4 quarters of 10 minutes each, Rule #2: Players serve twice alternatively. The player with the most points won at the end of the quarter wins the quarter, Rule #3: If the clock runs out in the middle of the point, the point continues on. If the quarter ends in a tie, a tiebreaker point will be played. etc.) I think this could prove to be exactly what Tennis needs; which is experimentation. Now, whether or not if any of the rules make their way into sanctioned tournaments, only time will tell.
Good post, one thing I did not see you mention is that padel also has a noice problem. The noice it produces can definitely reduce the amount of locations where it can be played.
Spot on again! Pickleball seems boring. Padel seems a lot more exciting to watch. I think you are spot on about the serve bots and the defensive style. Smallerish tennis players are just more agile. Once they are over 6 ft 1 or 2 they lose their ability to get to the net. I am wondering if the game will realize that they have made the game inside the court too rare in singles. They could bring back a faster slicker court which advantages those closer to the ground in at least some segment of the season. The servebots would be advantaged with the serve but the slicker surface would be a severe disadvantage as they would lose their footing much more easily.
The grass court even today is still a disadvantage for tall players. The tallest player I can see winning Wimbledon is Richard Krajicek back in the 90's. Three tall players managed to win the US Open, Delpo, Cilic and Medvedev. So maybe Wimbledon can still be a place where the "smaller" players dominate. It might bring the dynamic exciting part of tennis back.
I loved this article! What do you think of badminton as the sweet spot between playability and watchability?
I haven't watched a lot to be honest! I've played a little and enjoy that it's easy to get rallies going. I've seen some insane reaction/incredible rallies on instagram sometimes so I certainly think as a sport it has it's moments of very entertaining/skillful exchanges.
Also loved the article! One thing that I have to say about badminton that tennis has that maybe padel doesn't at the higher levels is many opportunities for full-out power. I feel there is nothing better than ripping a forehand, but it's tough to get that feeling in either pickleball or padel I feel - but in badminton it's there with the smash.
You can definitely try to hit the lights out of a smash in padel, and you get rewarded if you do hit it hard enough, but the wall makes it a nice little risk/trade-off because if you don't hit it well the ball then essentially becomes your opponent's smash. It makes for an interesting dynaimc. Pickleball you can hit it hard but nothing happens, the ball is drained of power.
What does tennis need to tweak to ensure the game remains attractive into the future?
It seems like a lot of traditional sports are asking themselves this at the moment, about how to attract younger audiences and grow their sport. There's always a lot of strong statements made about what the younger audiences want to see, but I've never been presented with any research/facts backing it up. Then the current generation who manage these sports end up doing slightly cringey things that they think younger audiences want (excessively loud dance music, lights, gimmicky scoreboards etc., how do you do fellow kids stuff).
But I think the answer isn't that complicated, just maybe it seems hard to execute.
- Get stuff on TV/stream at a sensible price/free when it can
- Get good quality highlights online
- Governing bodies to be the correct mix of people who care about the sport driving the direction and good managers doing the boring bits making it happen
- Look after the players, they are the product, don't make them play 100 matches a year to make living, sounds like something needs to be done with the ATP balls, WTA cancun was a bit of mess. I'd also look if pay structure is distributing money well enough down the pyramid
I think the current game of selling out stuff to the middle east (ATP next gen etc.) is not a long term strategy for the sustainable growth of the sport - just a quick buck for current shareholders - could be wrong and it ends up driving good growth in a whole new market which would be great - but there's a lot of competition with golf, football, F1 etc. all being bought by that market.
p.s. great article thanks - haven't played padel or pickleball yet but I am well more excited about the idea of playing padel
Agree S R, while I think it is good to test things (and use it in events like the gimicky nextgen finals) the product at the top—for now—is pretty good and Matt Willis wrote about this in his modernisation of tennis piece that I linked in the article, Here it is again:
https://theracquet.substack.com/p/the-modernisation-of-tennis
My worry is very long term seeing a lack of variation in play styles but there is certainly the case that players like rune and alcaraz are coming forward and using the drop shot a lot/more variation, so who knows.
Hi Hugh, thank you for the article!
About Padel, I think that it also suffers from being "boring" in the way rallies play out. From the highlights I saw, a lot of times it seems like a repetition of the same shot in the same place, with two players just volleying at each other, amd sometimes you can see a shot from outside the walls that's really impressive.
Now, if it was possible to play a single version, then the physicality required would make for a really good viewing experience, but as it stands we don't need to fear it.
I think every sport is guilty of boredom in some respect, but I think the highlights you can generate are what often matters in terms of what is marketable/instagram-friendly etc. An NFL game lasts several hours but all the highlights can get packed into a couple of minutes, and these parts are impressive and what drives attendance, I think. Most padel matches would have a couple of rallies that have more varation than any pickleball rally, purely because the dynamics of the game are friendlier to producing something considered a highlight.
Tennis is guilty of this too; Medvedev v Zverev can get pretty one-dimensional, or perhaps Isner v Opelka.
Another extremely well researched and presented article. Thank you.
Comparing the highlights of that pickleball match vs. Alcaraz vs. Sinner is almost laughable. Yeah, no, I don't think it'll ever translate over here. I mean soccer has a tough time here...!
Padel is interesting, but it's a shame there isn't a singles version of it. I don't enjoy doubles in tennis...
Doubles tennis the rallies are usually quite short—the serve and return dominate. In padel, the serve is neutered by being underhand and the return isn't punished as much with the walls, so you end up getting into a lot more rallies with variation: lobs, volleys, smashes, wall angles etc. Try it out.
With regard to your question of "what does tennis need to tweak to ensure the game remains attractive into the future?" Personally, I believe that P. Mouratoglou is on the right track with the development of the UTS Tennis Tournament. Quoted from their website; "“UTS aims to appeal to a younger, more engaged new generation of fans to grow its fanbase community” – Patrick Mouratoglou. As the average tennis fan is 61 years old, and that number is increasing each year, tennis is currently in a danger zone." Now, UTS just needs a more robust and firm push from a social media standpoint however, the turnouts for the tournaments have been very promising! Also, regarding the professional aspect, forgoing the streaming rights all 4 of the Grand Slams to ESPN instead of 2 grand slams, would be a step in a positive direction as I am with the belief that the "TennisChannel" has done NOTHING beneficial to promote the sport. There are quite a few more factors to consider that could ensure Tennis remains attractive but, I'll save that for Part 2.
I think you would like Matt Willis' article on "the modernisation of tennis". Opening paragraph:
"A misquoting of one part of that stat and a misunderstanding of average slopes aside, I’m fairly certain Mouratoglou was just being intentionally incendiary. Proclaiming the average age of tennis fans to be ‘61’ is almost certainly silly (even sillier to imply the average age of a tennis fan in 40 years time will be 101), with that particular figure being plucked from a narrow study of broadcast and cable television ratings in the United States only. The study not only ignores every other country’s consumption habits, but also doesn’t include digital/streaming (read: young) viewership. Neither does it factor in on-the-ground tournament attendee demographics, whose avg age seems to actually be dropping in North America and has always been much lower in some of tennis’ faster growing markets like China (for e.g 70% of fans were under the age of 40 at the 2018 Beijing Open). Anecdotally, the events I’ve been to, including European ones, also seem to have a pretty even spread of ages, and certainly no shortage of GenZ & Millennials."
link here:
https://theracquet.substack.com/p/the-modernisation-of-tennis
Thanks for sharing the article and I definitely am in agreement with your take on PM being intentionally incendiary as I certainly had my reservations about sharing the quote. (Lol!) Regardless, I do believe the UTS tournament is a step in the right direction. Especially with the implementation of different rules/format in comparison to the traditional format. Even now with a few WTA players joining in on the fun as well. (Rule #1: Matches are played in 4 quarters of 10 minutes each, Rule #2: Players serve twice alternatively. The player with the most points won at the end of the quarter wins the quarter, Rule #3: If the clock runs out in the middle of the point, the point continues on. If the quarter ends in a tie, a tiebreaker point will be played. etc.) I think this could prove to be exactly what Tennis needs; which is experimentation. Now, whether or not if any of the rules make their way into sanctioned tournaments, only time will tell.
Good post, one thing I did not see you mention is that padel also has a noice problem. The noice it produces can definitely reduce the amount of locations where it can be played.
Yeah probably louder than tennis, but do the walls stop some of it? It does seem to be less annoying than the higher-pitched pickleball hit.
Spot on again! Pickleball seems boring. Padel seems a lot more exciting to watch. I think you are spot on about the serve bots and the defensive style. Smallerish tennis players are just more agile. Once they are over 6 ft 1 or 2 they lose their ability to get to the net. I am wondering if the game will realize that they have made the game inside the court too rare in singles. They could bring back a faster slicker court which advantages those closer to the ground in at least some segment of the season. The servebots would be advantaged with the serve but the slicker surface would be a severe disadvantage as they would lose their footing much more easily.
The grass court even today is still a disadvantage for tall players. The tallest player I can see winning Wimbledon is Richard Krajicek back in the 90's. Three tall players managed to win the US Open, Delpo, Cilic and Medvedev. So maybe Wimbledon can still be a place where the "smaller" players dominate. It might bring the dynamic exciting part of tennis back.