The End of Tennis

Ah, tennis. The rain-delayed U.S. Open — currently suffering through yet another rain delay — is on right now, and twitterer @jenningscraig says, “Would love to hear some commentary on this year’s tourney.” Sadly, though, the truth is that I’ve only watched bits and pieces of the Open this year. In fact I find myself following tennis less and less every year.

Why? Because it’s gotten boring. Sure, today’s players are phenomenal athletes, covering the court like gazelles and routinely hitting breathtaking shots. But every match is the same, what I’ve come to think of as “thug tennis”: huge topspin forehands, booming two-handed backhands, and endless baseline rallies. The power and shotmaking are mesmerizing at times, but in the end, I can hardly tell the players apart these days.

I always thought that the beating heart of tennis was in the matchups between the top baseliners and the top serve-and-volleyers. Brilliant points, contrasting styles, and blinding speed. I loved those matches. Borg-McEnroe. Lendl-Edberg. Sampras-Agassi. But a few years ago the last generation of serve-and-volleyers retired — guys like Sampras, Rafter, Henman, and Martin — and today, thanks to improved racket technology that favors returners more than servers, there aren’t any left in the top ranks. The clay court season now lasts 12 months a year.

And so I’ve slowly lost interest. Roger Federer is the last player who’s really attracted my attention: he’s a baseliner like everyone else, but it’s a different, more fluid style that’s a joy to watch regardless. And at least he has a one-handed backhand to set him apart a little bit. But that’s about it. I still watch tennis, but I’m not glued to the set and I don’t really mind that much if I miss a final — especially if Federer isn’t in it. When he retires I’m not sure if I’ll bother watching very much at all anymore.

I know the current state of the game has lots of fans, but aside from an intellectual admiration I just can’t work up a lot of enthusiasm these days. In the end, new racket technology and the coaching that went along with it have finally conspired to spoil the game for me.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate