History of Australian Tennis Players	Browse Other Pages Homepage A Viewpoint on the Game How It Began A Viewpoint on the Game 2 A Viewpoint on the Game 3 Concentration; Practice Condition, Physical and Mental Keep Your Eye on the Ball Footwork and Weight Control Women's Tennis The Grips The Service The Drive The Chop and the Slice The Volley The Subtle Shots Courage Your Opponent's Weaknesses General Tactics Outside Conditions Pressure on Your Opponent Doubles and Mixed Doubles The Coaching Job Legendary Tennis Players Olympic Tennis Does Youth Rule Tennis Hall of Fame Amateurism to Open Tennis Some Defects in Tennis Doping Olympic Review Technology and Sport The Slice Service Flat Serve The American Twist The Drive The Backhand Drive Drive - The Main Uses The Volley Net Position The Volley Position The Overhead Smash The Half-Volley The Drop Shot The Mechanics of the Slice The Main Uses of a Slice The Grips Doubles and Mixed Doubles To Open the Court Doubles In Europe and US Legendary Tennis Players (1940's) Questions in Australian Tennis History of Australian Tennis History of Australian Tennis 2 History of Australian Tennis Players Women's Tennis in Australia Australian Tennis: Nature Ages of Tennis Players The Careers of Women Players
	Previous Hence, the answers to many of the questions concerning Australian tennis revolve around a major question that goes to the heart of many of the unique aspects of the game. Certainly it is like many other sports, but it is also unlike them. The basic question in this regard is, what is the nature of the game? The answer to that is best expressed - in making the points of contrast vital to understanding the social role and historical development of the game - in negatives; in terms of what it is not as well as what it is. It is neither a body contact, nor a team game; it requires relatively small space and is exceptionally adaptable to a wide range of skills and age restraints and similarity among players, It is playable by either sex, or both, and thus of peculiar social attraction, particularly to relatively small groups. It is also adaptable to flexible time requirements for social or age purposes. It can be as active and taxing or as slow paced and relaxing as the players wish. They can play for an hour or an afternoon - at whatever pace they desire. That being said about tennis, it may be suggested that one of the big unasked questions of tennis and sports history in general is - what is the cost of winning? History is about human beings as individuals as well as in groups. Sports history tends to unbalance or neglect this by concentrating on sport as a social, i.e. group phenomenon, in which team spirit is an essential aspect, or as a record of physical performance or achievement, in which the individual tends to be forgotten, Tennis highlights this problem of balanced historical assessment because it has more recently been based on the star (indeed mega-star) system and is perhaps better understood as an aspect of pop culture than as a traditional sport. It could be argued that tennis has now approached a position in which the winners are also, in a sense, the losers. That is, so great are the demands made on the individual for excellence to achieve success that his whole life is absorbed or at best distorted by this. The consequence in many cases is a disintegration or destruction of personality as it collapses under the strain. This may be of immediate interest to clinical psychology but it is also of great importance to the humane historian. It could be argued that this is a product not of the sport but of the superstar system. The effects of such a system in fact predates the modern media period, e.g. Suzanne Lenglen and Bill Tilden's personal decline; and by Adrian Quist's own admission, he and John Bromwich were just as temperamental in the thirties and forties as present-day players. Thus, the question arises of how much of a reality was, or is, sportsmanship? Moreover, because the sporting scene demands fitness, the usual superstar escape routes of drugs and alcohol are not available (George Best in football is a good example of that way out which quickly ruined his sporting career in a way pop stars can avoid or postpone). That is, the tennis scene demands total dedication, fitness, plus ambition and drive to a degree which places enormous strain on personality and on resources of human judgement to live some kind of balanced life. Thus, in tennis we see the personality problems of Borg, the difficulties of Connors' and Borg's marriages, the tantrums and uncontrolled rage of McEnroe. Of course, the question of the degree to which society or tennis is to blame for such trends must be considered and analysed closely. Women seem better able to cope: we need look no further than Chris Evert-Lloyd who has remained at the pinnacle of women's tennis for many years and has gained the title of 'the Ice Queen' which indicates her cool temperament on the tennis court. However, even she has had her own personal upheavals. Then there is the question of lesbian players. Of course, how much these issues are symptomatic of the lifestyle of tennis circuit society or the product of the individual is difficult to ascertain. The cost of winning therefore, in present circumstances may be to court personal destruction. The normal treatment and approach of sport, and sports history, is to avoid this sensitive area. Yesterday's champions are disposable. Hence there is a sense in which sport is anti-historical, focussing as it does on today's results and tomorrow's possibilities. There is nothing less interesting than yesterday's results. Sport is transient to a degree much more than politics because its focus and virtual entire concern is the physical dimension, or so it would seem. In fact it involves much more, but it tends not to be written in that way. Tennis, for instance, was a symbol of a certain section of English and Australian societies. By analysing the sport certain trends, reflections and insights can be gained providing different perspectives on these societies. Thus the really major question in sports history may well be how to write a history of losers, or of that which was lost. Sports history has a natural tendency to triumphalism, but true history must exclude the totality of human experience in the area: and that is mostly of losing. How does one write a history of losing? So, what is often described as 'history from below' has recently become a popular and accepted method of historical analysis, but has not as yet been attempted in writing a history of tennis, or sport generally. Next Home