Tennis is Theatre
Let me tell you something about tennis. The something may be true, it may not be true – honestly, it is completely subjective and has to do with creating a frame for something you know and/or understand nothing about. So if you’re expecting a DFW-level of tennis writing, or even writing in general, I cannot provide that for you. I can’t break down the physicality of the sport, the discipline and demand, the stats and angles and strategies, or even the accurate history of it all. I wish I could. And I wish I had Wallace’s penmanship. Only instead, in my clunky, still-emerging voice which will likely never be polished, I can tell you this something about tennis.
Specifically men’s singles major tournament tennis, as that is what I’ve somehow ended up watching (and because I’m writing this the night before the Australian Open final). That’s not to say I dislike women’s tennis. I just stopped watching the tournament after Iga got defeated – my heart couldn’t take it, and neither could my sleep schedule. And as for doubles, well, that’s not so exciting to me. Because to me, tennis is theatre.
No, but really. It was only after I came to this realization that I got to enjoy watching the sport as someone who notoriously refused to watch sports out of principle*. Last summer, at the ripe age of 20 – and eaten by guilt of spending too much time isolating in my room instead of actively spending quality time with my family during summer vacation, knowing full well I should do better – I sat down on the couch and apprehensively watched some of the 1/8 final Wimbledon matches with my parents. I listened to the commentators. I observed the strange rituals and neurosis of the top players. I watched the outbursts of emotion, the real displays of pain and the performative exaggerations. The arguments with the people in the box or regular-shmegular audience members. Sometimes I would even stay a bit longer to listen to whatever the hell they talked about in Eurosport Cube after. And I knew that the moment winter comes and I’ll be back at home, and my parents will undoubtedly cut the family nature walk short in order to make the game, I will sit right beside them and refine my analogy.
This is the breakdown after my additional “research” this winter (I watched maybe 4 matches front to back and some singular sets and a bunch of highlights idk I also chatted with some peers and read maybe an article so do not take this as a serious piece of journalism [as if anything I put forward is but nevermind let’s get to it]).
THE SEASON
The season of the play takes place in the span of a year and has 4 runs (Grand Slam tournaments) in a “world tour” sequence of Australia (Australian Open), France (French Open), UK (Wimbledon), and US (US Open). The actor who delivers the most outstanding performance (wins all 4 in a calendar year) gets something of an EGOT (the Grand Slam). But they also give out special awards if you need a little longer to refine your craft (non-calendar-year Grand Slam or the Career Grand Slam).
THE PLAY
The play is plotty, with twists and turns and room for surprises,, but you always think you know what to expect due to the immense character work of the actors involved (the players). The barebones script (the rules) is quite simple, and ranges the story arcs of a 3- to even 5-act structure (the sets). Each scene is ALWAYS a dialogue (the games). The lines are improvised (the points), but have to fit within certain guidelines specified in the script. The most traditional aspect of the play would probably be its inclusion of the prologue (the warm-up) and epilogue (the interview and conference), as well as the presence of the choir (the audience) whose voice may not necessarily foreshadow the events but certainly has influence on the story (like they will majorly change who they root for during the match so that it lasts longer and they can keep watching).
THE STAGE
The stage layout is always the same, although the conditions may vary (the courts – grass, clay, hard, artificial glass – wtf?). This is not only important to the play itself but also determines the blocking – some actors stick to the standard performance but some are eager to stand out through their position on the stage (Medvedev, it’s Medvedev, he always stands so far from the court and I don’t care about actual strategy or whatever, I think it’s for the spotlight).
THE CHARACTERS
The Anti-heroes
Love to hate them, hate to love them, but boy what fun to watch them! The obvious one is the currently reigning king of the kingdom, the no.1 on the ranking board, the Serbian anti-vaxx emotion-charged water drinking champion, Novak Đoković, playing both the king and the jester (in-play nicknamed the Joker). You may not agree with his controversial politics and unorthodox worldview (he climbs a specific tree in a certain botanical garden and hangs upside down from its highest branch to bring him luck in tournaments), or even the medical opinions the man puts forward (advocating against vaccines is one thing, but self-diagnosing celiac disease by pressing bread to your abs is another). But you just can’t look away, whether he wins or loses, the delivery of his performance is nothing short of what to expect from a main character. He turns the theatrics dial to full force and provides an entire scope of emotions. My favourite story beats include: the “ouchie ouchie my wwist it huwts” sequence in crisis before winning the duel (usually comes in the 3rd act of a 4-act play and makes for a really interesting climax), the portrayal of codependency and toxic love (any time he takes it out on his coach or the other people in his box), and the enemy-focused tunnel vision (whenever he picks a guy in the audience who roots for the opponent and provokes him or like sends him kisses and stuff to gloat by the end of the game). And often tears. Although it’s lonely at the top and he may not have many friends, the character’s most redeeming quality (apart from all the winning) is declaring appreciation for each opponent unprompted (he’s one of the few players I’ve noticed always makes sure to point out what the other guy did well or what he was impressed by).
Understudies: Nick Kyrgios? I mean, they’re buddies, no? He’s also not short of controversies I think and he’s currently taking time off playing so it’s kind of perfect, right?
The Golden Boys
See, each character gets into some conflict at least, so it’s kind of hard to find a true golden boy but I put down Stefanos Tsitsipas for a couple of reasons. 1. Baby face. Just look at him! (pretty self-explanatory). 2. The strict-parent storyline and all the family drama (his parents are still married, but never sit together in the box – that is most likely because his dad yells. So. Much. At his son, at other players also? I mean, his dad is/was/is again (!) also his coach, so it gets complicated. Sometimes-reaching-the-point-of-physical-altercations complicated. It’s a lot). 3. I’d say he’s currently the main love interest in the romance subplot (his relationship with fellow tennis player Paula Badosa is highly publicized, and they played mixed doubles together at some point and won, and at Australian Open this year the cameras would just.. follow them around in matching outfits and show them doing some stretches with commentator coverage on it as well?).
Actually, good moment for tangent – although the romance subplots aren’t technically the main focus of the story at play, they sure seem relevant to everyone. Not only because many tennis players get together and publicize their relationships but also due to the nature of the game? This may be false but at one point sometime last year, I stumbled upon a video which touched on why everyone has to wear white at Wimbledon, and it was because they thought sweat stains would show less and in the 1800s it was considered improper to sweat. This information is again available when I try to look it up now. But in a seemingly lost internet video essay, they also said exactly why it was improper. Apparently the game itself – with the strict elite clubs with the courts – was only a pretext for the upper classes to openly hang out with the opposite sex, making the early games a flirt fest. A bunch of rich people wanted to run around in hopes of getting laid. Or that’s what I remember at least, but can’t confirm or deny because the essay is nowhere to be found!!! Somebody, help!!!
Golden boy understudy: Carlos Alcaraz, cause he’s so young he’s really a baby, and he wins a lot and almost never stops smiling. So far, at least!
Post-final understudy candidate is Jannik Sinner after I was informed everyone loves him and his team and apparently he’s also a great friend and everyone wants to spend time with them. Cute!! Good win also!!
The Villains
My top contender for the villain is Sasha Zverev. Not an anti-hero, cause I actively dislike to see him win and I don’t understand why we celebrate the guy or root for him in the first place, I certainly don’t. First he got accused of domestic abuse by one former partner, a couple years later a newer ex-partner who’s also the mother of his child actually pressed charges against him also for domestic abuse, a German court called for a penalty order without trial because the evidence against him was so strong but of course, he contested the order and keeps denying all allegations and now the case will be brought to court. He probably won’t show up though, since the court date is during another major tournament, and then the following ones as well, so we’ll see. All I can say is, I don’t enjoy his on-stage presence, his over the top costuming (he plays in multiple gaudy gold chains that he chews on and sometimes I quietly wish he would choke on them a little bit just like he allegedly likes to violently choke the women he’s involved with) and I’m surprised he’s this prominent in the story still (or why would Netflix choose to spend a whole episode on the guy trying to clean up his image or the lack of domestic abuse policy in men’s tennis governing body ATP).
Understudy: Not as serious but Holger Rune? For yelling at his mom in a really nasty way and acting really, really angry and overall giving me bad vibes. I also don’t like to see him win. So definitely a contender for the villain in my playbook.
There you have it. This is what I came to see about tennis in the past 6 months (but actually maybe 2 weeks of proper engagement). You have romance, you have family tensions, you have winners and losers and underdogs, and best of all – ultimately it’s you who gets to play the director. So next time there’s a tennis match on television, try looking at it through this weird theatre lens. And maybe you’ll have more fun than anticipated. Your parents will certainly be happy they get to have you in their presence for another period of time. Or just don’t watch the match, what do I care? I told you I’m no David Foster Wallace.
*Do not ask me about the principle. It is irrational and inexplicable and arbitrary and boils down to “it’s just not for me” and I know I am not the only one who has lived life in accordance with the principle. Them’s the rules, babygirl.
