What do you think?
Rate this book
Short Circuit Cased
Six months on the men's professional tennis tour
- GenresSportsNonfiction
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1983
9 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
About the author
Michael Mewshaw
27 books15 followersMichael Mewshaw is an American author of 11 novels and 8 books of nonfiction, and works frequently as a travel writer, investigative reporter, book reviewer, and tennis reporter. His novel Year of the Gun was made into a film of the same name by John Frankenheimer in 1991. He is married with two sons.
Alan Cheuse, National Public Radio's longtime "voice of books," has called him "the best novelist in America that nobody knows."
Alan Cheuse, National Public Radio's longtime "voice of books," has called him "the best novelist in America that nobody knows."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 13, 2017
Tennis writing with a lusciousness about it, yet precision as well -- a feel for the "geometry of the game" as David Foster Wallace wrote in Infinite Jest, ripping off one of Short Circuit's elegant disquisitions. Indeed, aside from Mewshaw's exquisite and refreshing vocabulary, the most unexpected aspect of this book was just how ruthlessly DFW plagiarized from it. The narrative, third-person sections from Jest regarding ETA, its environs and life therein lift complete sentences from Mewshaw. You'll not find his name in IJ, but the essay collection Consider the Lobster (you can bet DFW smiled regarding the tennis pun within that title*) makes oblique reference to this source. Snarky, Mr. Foster Wallace! Anyway, the book itself is some of the choicest sports writing I've come across, with a fine bit of investigative reporting to boot. Mewshaw's writing in 1981, a few years after Bjorn Borg's time of dominance and immediately following the ascent of McEnroe.
* well until he hung himself. pooh-te-weet!
* well until he hung himself. pooh-te-weet!
January 23, 2019
This is an eye-opening expose of Men's professional tennis in the early 1980's. As such, it is dated in some respects. The WCT tour is long gone, appearance guarantees are no longer banned, and there are some other aspects of the tour that are perhaps more professional then they were back then.
But as he notes in the 2011 afterward, many if not all of his concerns are still quite relevant, such as questions about drugs, and it may be more of a concern now that it was back then with things like EPO and a drug testing regime that is not up to par with cycling, track and field, and other sports. Tanking still happens. Concerns about gambling are even more relevant now, and so on.
Some of his charges and concerns may seem far-fetched and overblown to some, but apparently Bud Collins and Arthur Ashe didn't think so. In general, he points out things that tennis people (whether insiders or fans) just take for granted are considered outrageous (if not illegal) in other sports and subject to investigation.
A few additional thoughts:
1. He makes at least a couple of remarks about homosexuality on the tour, and the fact that no one would talk to him about it. Did he have reason to believe it was widespread? Was this a stereotype carried over from the Bill Tilden era? Or was he attempting to allege that there was a double standard with the stereotype (especially at the time) that many if not most female athletes are lesbians?
2. With all of the ink spilled about conflicts of interest, the author admits to cheering for a player he was friendly with during one of his matches, with no apparent sense of irony or self-awareness. Sure, he wasn't exactly a part of the tennis establishment, (and he ensured he never would be with this expose) but he was there on an AP press credential nonetheless.
3. He points out that spectators are expected to remain silent during the points (and avoid the kind of heckling that is common in other sports) in keeping with longstanding tradition but at the same time, the decidedly nontraditional antics of Connors, Nastase, and McEnroe were tolerated and even celebrated.
4. The author's outrage about exhibitions being fixed or arranged struck me as a bit naive at first. I knew or suspected that they are arranged (at least to the point of them often going to 3 sets) when I was in my early teens. (Who wants to go to an exhibition and see a 6-2, 6-1 match?) But apparently professional tennis gained a reputation of being fixed or "fake" during the pre-open era (pre-1968) with it being considered hardly more legitimate than professional wrestling. There are also legitimate concerns if an event is billed as "Winner take all" or something similar.
But as he notes in the 2011 afterward, many if not all of his concerns are still quite relevant, such as questions about drugs, and it may be more of a concern now that it was back then with things like EPO and a drug testing regime that is not up to par with cycling, track and field, and other sports. Tanking still happens. Concerns about gambling are even more relevant now, and so on.
Some of his charges and concerns may seem far-fetched and overblown to some, but apparently Bud Collins and Arthur Ashe didn't think so. In general, he points out things that tennis people (whether insiders or fans) just take for granted are considered outrageous (if not illegal) in other sports and subject to investigation.
A few additional thoughts:
1. He makes at least a couple of remarks about homosexuality on the tour, and the fact that no one would talk to him about it. Did he have reason to believe it was widespread? Was this a stereotype carried over from the Bill Tilden era? Or was he attempting to allege that there was a double standard with the stereotype (especially at the time) that many if not most female athletes are lesbians?
2. With all of the ink spilled about conflicts of interest, the author admits to cheering for a player he was friendly with during one of his matches, with no apparent sense of irony or self-awareness. Sure, he wasn't exactly a part of the tennis establishment, (and he ensured he never would be with this expose) but he was there on an AP press credential nonetheless.
3. He points out that spectators are expected to remain silent during the points (and avoid the kind of heckling that is common in other sports) in keeping with longstanding tradition but at the same time, the decidedly nontraditional antics of Connors, Nastase, and McEnroe were tolerated and even celebrated.
4. The author's outrage about exhibitions being fixed or arranged struck me as a bit naive at first. I knew or suspected that they are arranged (at least to the point of them often going to 3 sets) when I was in my early teens. (Who wants to go to an exhibition and see a 6-2, 6-1 match?) But apparently professional tennis gained a reputation of being fixed or "fake" during the pre-open era (pre-1968) with it being considered hardly more legitimate than professional wrestling. There are also legitimate concerns if an event is billed as "Winner take all" or something similar.
May 23, 2019
A fascinating read
A book that the tennis administrators largely ignored because it brought out the dirt of the game in the 1980s. Players doing drugs, Borg and Connors tanking matches, top players pre deciding match outcomes, umpires and tournament directors favoring players who had been paid large appearance money so they could stay late into the tournament, this book has everything.
A book that the tennis administrators largely ignored because it brought out the dirt of the game in the 1980s. Players doing drugs, Borg and Connors tanking matches, top players pre deciding match outcomes, umpires and tournament directors favoring players who had been paid large appearance money so they could stay late into the tournament, this book has everything.
August 17, 2016
The difference between winners and losers is confidence. Any pro can hit winners in practice. But Connors can pump himself up and go for winners during a match. He had the confidence that he can hit one from anywhere on the court.
Tennis is not a team support, it's an individual sport, it's a selfish sport.
The book is actually about the state of tennis tour in early 1980's. With too much leverage given to star players, biased umpires chosen by tournament directors and focus on exhibition matches instead of points the tennis circuit does seem in a pretty sorry state at the point in time. But that is precisely the point, with enough perseverance and bloody minded will to grow the tennis brand, the tour has grown and grown to huge scale by now. Tennis fills the human desire to succeed as an individual against huge odds, an ability which gives it a romantic and cherished notion. The lesser players accept biased favouritism to star players similar to accepting adverse conditions when playing the far harsher Challenger Tour. I believe the rise of the tennis brand is due to its very successful marriage with big media conglomerates which can now produce stars and deflect any scandals. I am afraid this book might reduce some of the aura surrounding these super hero tennis players which we are so used to following on the media......
Tennis is not a team support, it's an individual sport, it's a selfish sport.
The book is actually about the state of tennis tour in early 1980's. With too much leverage given to star players, biased umpires chosen by tournament directors and focus on exhibition matches instead of points the tennis circuit does seem in a pretty sorry state at the point in time. But that is precisely the point, with enough perseverance and bloody minded will to grow the tennis brand, the tour has grown and grown to huge scale by now. Tennis fills the human desire to succeed as an individual against huge odds, an ability which gives it a romantic and cherished notion. The lesser players accept biased favouritism to star players similar to accepting adverse conditions when playing the far harsher Challenger Tour. I believe the rise of the tennis brand is due to its very successful marriage with big media conglomerates which can now produce stars and deflect any scandals. I am afraid this book might reduce some of the aura surrounding these super hero tennis players which we are so used to following on the media......
September 8, 2013
This kept my recent tennis infatuation going, but it was pretty dry. I'm not terribly interested in the finances that underlie the tennis industry, so a large part of the book was a little boring for me, but I enjoyed the author's outlook on different tennis personalities.
December 16, 2015
I've read most of Mewshaw now, and he is a fantastic writer. This book was about corruption in the tennis industry. How much has changed since he wrote this is hard to say, but it was a fascinating behind the scenes look at the levels and spread of corruption in this game.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews