|
Mornin', everyone. Well, it was a glorious three-day weekend at the farm in game-rich Andes. We had my niece's dog Lucy for the weekend and guests on Sunday. The only down-side was that the Orange Blossom, my Allis-Chalmers tractor (she's a mere three years younger than me, but I wouldn't dream of divulging her name; she is, after all a lady) quit on me in the pasture below the barn, making for a hectic session of cursing, rock-kicking, wrench-throwing, battery-frying, and a general panic about having to leave the old gal out in the open overnight (instead of in her quarters in the barn). Where was Codepoke when I needed him?
On Sunday, Luke and I went on an "adventure." We traced the river (the overflow outlet of the pond) down into a lower field. I stopped along the way to point out a burdock thistle. After studying its properties (Burdocks are the original velcro when it comes to your jeans or sweater), Luke turned to me and asked, "Daddy, how come you know everything?"
Ah, such music to the ears. I looked at him gravely and replied, "You know, cowpuncher, I've often wondered that myself. . . "
Ha! I'm making the most of these days because I know they won't last forever.
We ambled through the warm sunshine to a cluster of deformed but fertile apple trees down in a nicely concealed draw, which also has a spring seep, making the entire area a deer magnet. We picked some apples off the tree, and I lay down and stretched out on my side in the sun. Luke sat on my hip and ate his apple, and we listened to the breeze whispering in the nearby pines.
We decided that this would be our "secret" spot. Luke spent an hour climbing the maze of boughs, and when he tired of that we followed a game trail uphill, and slowly circled back to the house. It was an afternoon I won't forget, although I'm sure he will, because at his age there is so much newness, and such a lack of awareness of what is - or isn't - transcendent, that real appreciation is still a foreign, irrelevant concept. What's not to like about life, when you're (almost) 5, besides certain vegetables?
I filed my latest ESPN post on Sunday night from the McDonald's in the nearby town of Delhi; it was a jarring experience, rushing out to get that done and then driving back slowly along the moonlit country roads a little after 11 PM. I did the 15 or so miles without passing another vehicle, with the windows down and cool night air rippling through the Jeep.
The Kremlin Cup is now underway, and it strikes me that this has quietly evolved into yet another premier dual-gender event - just like Tokyo last week. While many of us, along with tennis administrators, have been obsessing about the "big" dual gender events (Indian Wells, Maimi, the projected Beijing fall event that is now in the pipeline), tournaments a little lower on the scale of events have done some important spadework in the the evolution of the pro game. 
Counting the Grand Slams and Masters-grade events, we now have 21 weeks (I count Indian Wells and Miami as two week events) during which the men and women play at the same site, at the same time. That's a lot more than I would have guessed. Now factor this into the equation: the deference given to Davis Cup and Fed Cup weeks takes another eight potential dual-gender weeks off the table. And then there is that de facto six week "off season" at year's end. All told, men and women pros are playing together rather than apart for a significantly greater number of possible weeks. And as this trend seems to be growing rather than diminishing, we are getting that many steps closer to what some of us think is the best-case scenario - a unified tour.
Oh, there are huge problems here - not least of which are the men's Masters events. For various reasons ranging from infrastructural limitations to calculated attempts at high visiblity, the ATP has carved out the Masters (with the exceptions of Indian Wells and Miami) as for men only. It's also true that during many of of the dual-gender weeks (like 's-Hertogenbosch [oh how maddening it is, trying to get that one spelled right!] or Kitzbuhel), other, single-gender tournaments are also played. But hey - it's a start.
In fact, it seems to me that some of these sub-Masters (or Tier 1) weeks have actually survived and perhaps flourished because, lacking the money or intrinsic appeal to draw a significant number of stars from either tour, recruiting from both tours potentially doubles the star power of those events. I have a funny feeling that the best tournament deals on earth, for fans, are to be had at places like Estoril (I hope Miguel Seabra weighs in on this), New Haven (although being so near the US Open hurts), Moscow or Tokyo.
What does it all mean? At face value, this is an advance in pro-tennis parity or, if you prefer to think of it in these terms, gender equality. Years ago, tournaments like the Italian Open were loathe to host the men and women together (in some cases, purely because the logistics of hosting a dual -gender were prohibitive). Some of this was undoubtedly driven by prejudice (if only commerical prejudice) for or against either gender. Today, it seems to be swinging the other way. People, led by promoters and sponsors, seem hungry for dual-gender events.
Historically, though, this is a step back from the model established by the fledgling WTA, which was committed to establishing a successful, independent, women's circuit - Billie Jean King's dream. That vision was realized, with significant help from the cigarette-selling industry, via the Virginia Slims tour. Depending on your point-of-view, the remarkable success of the VS Tour was either a high-water mark for tennis (and, tangentially, something we'll just call "the women's movement"), or a high-water mark for the tournament sponsoring and marketing business - with a sponsor that only the most counter-intuitive of thinkers could have dreamed up. You could embrace whichever option you like from the Dickensian menu: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . .
Nevertheless, successful business models are a powerful recruiting tool, and the collapse of the VS Tour, and the failure of the WTA to replace it with anything nearly as professional, popular and fiscally viable, suggests that the VS Tour was an anomaly. The market spoke, and it rejected a full-on, all-women's tour, perhaps because there wasn't a single sponsor who had anything like the marketing horsepower of VS, perhaps also because supporting an all-women's tour simply because it was for women only became less appealing to all concerned. Most likely, it was a combination of the two.
So the vacuum has been filled by these dual-gender, non-Grand Slam (or Masters) events. And if they continue to pull fans, sponsors and television, the trend is apt to continue. This approach could be especially valuable in ripening tennis markets (portions of Europe and much of Asia), and it seems to have intrinsic appeal in them, irregardless of whatever other larger, cultural gender issues are at play there. Note that these emerging events are unrestrained by the conventions of an established order that still drive tournaments in the the mature, perhaps even overripe markets - Hamburg or Monte Carlo come to mind.
All this seems to me to be driven by the market - by the sponsors, promoters and fans, rather than the tours, which have not only been informal competitors, but also fixated for generations on establishing their independent "brands." Etienne and Larry should spend a lot more time talking; so should Roger and Maria. This return to a mixed field is no the norm, especially when you consider order-of-importance., But it is a growing trend, and something that the Lords ought to recognize and capitalize on, while the opportunity exists.
|
