KEY POINTS:
Professional tennis players do their sport few favours for the most part with the businesslike way they go about their game, on court and off it. With notable exceptions such as the now retired Andre Agassi, they treat spectators with indifference and give the impression they take no particular pleasure in playing before crowds that rarely see their quality. The best of them seem to regard tournaments such as the Heineken Open that begins in Auckland today as little more than practice for the year's first grand slam in Melbourne and drop out early.
All this has been less true of Auckland's tournament for women, the ASB Classic, that finished at the weekend. The event has attracted a loyal following of players at its level. Some of them turn up early, have a rapport with their hosts and seem to relish their time here. So it comes as a blow that a restructuring of international women's tennis could take Auckland off their tour.
Next year's classic could be the last unless the organisers can find much more sponsorship. The Women's Tennis Association is reshuffling its four levels of prize money into two and the lower of the new minimum amounts is considerably more than the fourth-level prizes Auckland has afforded for the classic. Tournament director Richard Palmer says he is trying to find the finance and talks have been under way for several months to try to ensure the classic survives after 2009 or 2010 when the changes take effect.
It could be a difficult task. Tennis has not exactly got a mass following in this country, as a spectacle a little goes a long way for most people and women's tennis is harder to appreciate for the uninitiated than the heavier, faster, men's game. The more pleasant demeanour of the women on court can only compensate so far.
The gap, in fact, between players at the top of the women's rankings who can play a powerful game and the rest appears considerably greater than it is in the male professional ranks, and it must be wondered whether the women's association is wise to be compressing its range of tournaments. The restructuring might produce larger purses for the top 10 or 20 players but at a cost to the earning opportunities of those on the third and fourth tier of the present structure.
The association aims not only to increase prizes for its top players but to reduce the number of tournaments they need to play, shorten their season, ensure the best players compete against each other more often and have more tournaments combined with the men. It believes this will benefit women's tennis but it is hard to see how, if lower rungs of the earning ladder are removed and it becomes harder for young players to climb into a professional career.
This country has waited a while for a new player as competitive as Marina Erakovic, who is fresh from world junior ranks and showed her mettle at Stanley St last week. She lost in the second round of that fourth-tier tournament, suggesting she has a hard road ahead but showing also that she has many of the mental qualities she will need. It would be a pity if players of her ilk find themselves shut out of a more restrictive international format and with no means of paying their way as they try to realise their potential.
If women's tennis is taking these steps in an attempt to bring itself closer to the men's tour in earnings and as a spectacle, it would be unfortunate. Women's tennis shares centrecourt with the men's game at the grand slam events and deservedly so. Those festivals would be much less varied and pleasant without them. But at lower levels, both tours need to nurture as many players as possible and retain their distinctive showpieces in as many parts of the world as tennis is established. Let's hope the women's classic is not priced out of here.
