Last Saturday morning, BBC Radio were asked to broadcast a message from their Wimbledon headquarters: “Please Stay Away — you won’t get in!”

Even people joining the queue at 8 a.m. would have had no chance of gaining admittance to the grounds until 5 p.m. — and even that would have depended on how many people had left, handing in their tickets as they went.
 With the sunny weather, increased capacity on Centre Court and the new 4,000 seat No. 2 in action for the first time, the first week of this year’s Championships produced an increase on 2008 of 24,002 with daily records being broken every day. The first week attendance hit 266,264 and that is on the basis of just one session per day, unlike the US Open and Australian Open where daily and evening sessions are separate ticket sellers.

 So is this just a Wimbledon phenomenon? No. One day the world’s sports media — and especially sports editors in the US — will pick up on the fact that we have entered a new boom time for tennis.

Let’s a tick a few boxes here:

PARTICIPATION: The figures published recently by the Wall Street Journal are staggering. Over the past eight years tennis is the only sport in the US that has seen a participation increase. And not by a small margin. Since 2001, tennis is 43 percent up and every other sport is down apart from basketball which is flat. Golf, which is often considered a competitor of tennis, is 13 percent down. That makes a swing of 56 percent in favor of the sport which takes less time to play and burns off so many more calories. Should the media reflect this, perhaps? One searches for examples of them doing so.

 TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE: Both Charlie Pasarell and Butch Buchholz were delighted to see that their ATP Masters Series 1000 events at Indian Wells and Miami were only fractionally down on the previous year despite the ravages of the recession. In Europe, crowds have ignored any financial downturn. Monte Carlo, with an increased Center Court capacity, was 8,000 up on 2008 with every ticket sold from first day to last. And, unlike the Formula One Grand Prix which followed, the tennis in Monte Carlo suffered no downturn in corporate  hospitality. The French Open posted record numbers at Roland Garros; the Aegon Championships at the Queen’s Club was also up and we have seen what has been happening at Wimbledon.

UPCOMING EVENTS: Promoters of the ATP World Finals (formerly the ATP Tennis Masters Cup played in Shanghai last year) which has been transferred to the mammoth 02 Arena in London’s Docklands took a deep breath when they decided to go with two sessions per day for eight days — leaving them with the task of selling 250,000 tickets for a new event in November in one of the world’s entertainment centers. To their surprise, 150,000 had been sold or allocated even before the official launch in May. Now that the event has been advertised another 60,000 have been sold. “The response has been amazing,” says assistant tournament director Chris Kermode. “Way above our expectations. It just proves that Londoners want tennis in the winter.”

SPONSORSHIP: On the day that Lehmann Brothers collapsed last September , BNP Paribas nevertheless decided to go ahead with its sponsorship of Indian Wells, offering both more money and a longer contract than the outgoing sponsors Pacific Life. Last year, the LTA secured a massive deal with Aegon to sponsor all British tournaments outside of Wimbledon and Aegon were thrilled by the exposure they got at Queen’s. (Any criticism of the media must exclude the British press during the Wimbledon period where even the most trivial tennis trivia becomes news).

INVESTMENT: The Government of Victoria have agreed to come up with nearly $620 million over the next ten years to re-develop Melbourne Park which is already one of the most modern sports complexes in the world. New entertainment areas and a re-configuration of the courts to take the site of the Australian Open even closer to downtown Melbourne (even now it is only a 10 minute walk) will ensure that talk of the city losing its Grand Slam will be nothing more than hype on the part of Sydney and cities in Asia.

NEW STADIA: The Caja Majica in Madrid may not be everyone’s idea of a magic box but as a statement on the popularity of tennis in Spain it could hardly have been more dramatic. Three stadiums with roofs inside the one massive building as well as outside courts and sleeping quarters for juniors to use year round make it a testament to the vision of impresario Ion Tiriac and the city fathers of Madrid.  Tennis Australia were also in on the act last year with a brand new tennis stadium in Brisbane for the ATP event that was switched from Adelaide while here at Wimbledon the new sunken No. 2 court has created a welcome additional element to the All England Club grounds, quite apart from the roof.

THE STARS: Perhaps no other individual sport has so many stars who are instantly recognizable around the globe.  Venus and Serena do not even need a second name. Maria Sharapova has already burst beyond the confines of merely being known as a tennis player. And for all the promise of Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro, it is the classic rivalry that Roger Federer has established with Rafael Nadal which has captured the imagination of sports fans the world over. Ask why tennis is recovering its popularity in Italy and the answer I get is “Federer and Nadal.”

Add another impressive stat — the 720,000 tickets that were sold for last year’s US Open — and it is very difficult to view tennis as anything other than a sport on the rise; a sport that is gaining popularity all over the globe, in major markets and small. That does not mean there is not room for improvements and all the game’s governing bodies need to work hard to create fresh, innovative ideas that will draw even more people to the game. But while the global economy struggles, tennis is riding a wave of renewed popularity that cannot, and should not, be ignored.

The Players Lounge at the Aegon Championships is the most spacious part of the over-crowded nineteenth century clubhouse at the Queen’s Club. Spread over a couple of indoor courts, it enables one to move freely; eat sumptuously; read the papers and go on line.

So I took the opportunity to sit down to chat with Peter Lundgren who had more than a passing interest in the French Open final as well goings on here where his new charge, the 18-year-old Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov won a round in the main draw as a wild card.

Lundgren, of course, was Roger Federer’s coach when he ascended to the top of the tennis world — a journey you can follow in the revised version of Chris Bowers’ excellent biography of Federer called a Spirit of a Champion. And, as a Swede, he had followed the sudden explosion in Robin Soderling’s fortunes in Paris with interest and no small measure of surprise.

“Yes, I must admit I was surprised at Soderling reaching the final,” said Lundgren. “He’d never passed the third round of a Slam before and to beat Nadal was just something I never expected. But he hit the ball hard and there is no question that, despite the weaknesses in his game, he has the weapons. Whether he can kick on from there is open to debate. If people in Sweden think he is going to reach the final at Wimbledon I think they will be disappointed.”

Lundgren, however, has no doubt about what a terrific effect Soderling’s success will have on Swedish tennis.

“As soon as he beat Nadal, tickets for the ATP tournament in Bastad in July started selling like crazy,” Lundgren said. “People see it on TV and the kids get excited and everyone wants to go to the tennis again. But Soderling alone is not going to save Swedish tennis. At the moment the coaching simply isn’t good enough. There are too many 18-year-olds who didn’t make it as players teaching at clubs and they don’t have enough experience. And the incentives are not big enough. Life is too easy. It’s no co-incidence that so many players are coming out of Eastern Europe. They want to achieve, they want to make something of themselves. They put in the work and find good coaches.”

Federer put in the work and Lundgren, by his side through his late teens when he was struggling to produce the results that people expected of him, never lost faith in Roger’s potential.

“I texted him after he won in Paris and said, ‘I always told you could do it,’ and he texted back saying that he remembered how I was always telling him he could achieve anything.”

Lundgren laughed delightedly. Few people know Federer as intimately and he can track the important moments of his career better than most.

“The real turning point came at that first Tennis Masters Cup in Houston in 2003 when he beat the three players he always had the most trouble with — Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero and David Nalbandian,” Lundgren recalled. “He actually beat Agassi twice — in the round robin and then again in straight sets in the final. That was the breakthrough. After that there was no stopping him.”

And even from a distance, Lundgren is still able to predict important moments. He was watching Federer’s first doubles match in Beijing when he set off on a path that would bring him and Stan Warwinka Switzerland’s first gold medal.

“I was interested to see how he would approach it and what sort of form he was in,” Lundgren remembered. “The match was on TV at home and he won his first service game to love. ‘That’s it,’ I said to my wife. ‘They’ll win now.’ She didn’t understand how I could be so sure but I just knew. And I knew it would give him a huge lift for the US Open which he won a few weeks later. Winning with Stan made it all the more special for him because he’s such an emotional guy as people have come to realize. He felt he’d done something great for his partner and his country and that carried over into the US Open.”

Lundgren was not surprised to hear that Soderling had admitted after losing to Federer in the Roland Garros final that he felt the Swiss had not allowed him to play.

“I can play against Nadal but Federer doesn’t let me play,” Soderling had admitted.

“I can see that,” said Lundgren. “Roger has all the shots; he got Soderling out of his hitting zone because he plays fast  but changes pace and uses the court so differently to all the other players. I know from just practicing with him through all those years that it is impossible to find your rhythm. He has you all over the place.”

It comes as no surprise to hear Lundgren wax lyrical about the young man he is now coaching. And he is to be taken seriously when he says he thinks Dimitrov has even more potential now than Federer did at the same age.

“He’s just a better player — especially mentally — than Roger was at this stage,” he said. “He has better volleys and his game has everything. There is something special about him. He is not cocky but very self assured and open — similarities with Roger in that respect.”

Dimitrov was brought up as a player by his father Dimitar, whom Lundgren praises for having done a great job, at the Tennis Club in Haskovo, Bulgaria where he was born. As soon as his talent became apparent, he was sent to the Sanchez-Casal camp in Barcelona to work with Pato Alvarez, the veteran coach who helped Andy Murray in his formative years. By then he had already won the Under 16 Orange Bowl and after going on to become Wimbledon and US Open Junior Champion last year, he switched to the Patrick Mouratoglou Academy in Paris soon after Lundgren joined as a senior coach. 

“I took on Grigor in March and I have been very impressed with him,” said Lundgren. “He is very motivated and I can see he really wants it. And it is fun because I feel I am a better coach now than I was back in the Federer days. You are always learning and I have more experience.”

Dimitrov is getting the results to back up Lundgren’s optimism. In Rotterdam earlier this year he beat Tomas Berdych and then took a set off Nadal before losing 7-5, 3-6, 6-2. Here at Queen’s, where he made a point of thanking tournament director Chris Kermode profusely for his wild card, he accentuated his prowess on grass by defeating the Spaniard Ivan Navarro in the first round and then pushed former top tenner Gilles Simon hard before going down 7-6(7), 7-6(5).

So watch out for young Grigor. Three Maleeva sisters are all Bulgaria has had to offer the tennis world so far. Dimitrov is about to change all that and what if Lundgren is right — what if he is as good as Federer? How exciting that would be.

Three days into Queen’s — now officially the Aegon Championships — and the talk is still of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Neither is playing here — they are not playing anywhere this week, in fact — but they dominate the tennis landscape to such an extent that no one can stop talking or writing about them.

Federer, of course, transcended a mere winning of a Grand Slam title in Paris. By drawing level with Pete Sampras at 14 Slams and adding the missing link of a clay court triumph at Roland Garros, Federer put more smiles on more people’s faces than anyone I can remember since Gustavo Kuerten had everyone doing the samba after winning his first French Open in 1997.

Federer’s decision to pull out of the German grass court event in Halle was only to be expected if one realizes just how much physical and, particularly emotional, toll his performances in Paris had taken out of him. He will be refreshed by Wimbledon and it will be fascinating to see how he plays now that he feels he has nothing left to prove. 

Nadal, suddenly, is the one harboring doubts and problems. The tension in the press room at Queen’s was palpable as we waited for the announcement from Barcelona. Would he play at Wimbledon or not? There was great relief when the news came through as affirmative because it would have been a tremendous shame if the World No. 1 and defending champion had not been able to take his place in the field. Hopefully his knees will be up to the task.

The great thing about men’s tennis at the moment is that, while Nadal and Federer dominate, that domination is being more seriously challenged than ever before by the likes of Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Juan Martin del Potro and, on grass certainly, by Andy Roddick. One has to include Robin Soderling in that company now, too, because the Swede, despite his inability to make any impression on Federer in the final, proved that his startling victory over Nadal at Roland Garros was no simple flash of Nordic light.

But it is Federer and Nadal that fascinate — and not just for their on court prowess. In the London Times today, Matthew Syed, a former world class table tennis player and now one of the paper’s columnists, devoted his column to praising Federer and Nadal as men as well as players. He pointed out that everyone who knows them well view the pair as decent, courteous, honest and sensitive human beings and added, “to put it another way, two of the greatest players in history also happen to be men with values, perspective and morality.”

Syed went on to make some interesting points, namely that when he started competing at the top level in the mid eighties, there seemed to be a code out there beyond the confines of sport that, to succeed, you had to step on people’s toes or even their necks. It was called “necessary selfishness.” But Syed adds, “You want to know a funny thing? It never had a scrap of justification, not even as a description of top sportsmen, far less as a justification for dodgy behavior. I have found, swanning around the world of sport, that there is no correlation whatsoever between selfishness and success. No connection between nastiness and accomplishment. Sure, sport is about winning but many of the greatest sportsmen and women I have met never lost sight of the context. It is no good winning if that means forfeiting one’s soul. Winning is not merely about claiming the final point but about expressing a wider philosophy of sport and life. Nadal and Federer demonstrate a deep and implicit understanding of this truth in almost everything they do.”

I find those words uplifting, not merely because I believe them to be true but because Nadal and Federer present the game of professional tennis in the best possible light and the article pays tribute to the two men who are enhancing its popularity and setting the best possible examples for the generations to come. Champions have considerable influence in the locker rooms of their sports. If they are intelligent, all the young players coming onto the tour now will take a look at Rafa and Roger and think, “so that’s how it should be done.”  

As a tournament, the Queen’s Club has always presented itself as a model on how to run a highly successful second tier event. Its position on the calendar ensures that it always gets its fair share of top players seeking much needed grass court match play before Wimbledon but the marketing skills of Frank Lowe and Ian Wight also inserted it firmly into the sporting calendar of the English summer — part of a social scene that encompasses Henley for rowing, Ascot for horse racing, the Lords Test Match for cricket, the British Open golf and, of course, Wimbledon. More so than those to be found at the All England Club, the crowd at Queens has always been heavily tilted towards the well-heeled residents of neighboring boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea even though, this year, there might be just a little less Pimms being sipped on the clubhouse terrace by young men in old school ties.

Having taken over from Wight a couple of years ago, Chris Kermode has succeeded in turning the place blue, the favored color of Aegon, from the trademark red of Stella Artois, the departing sponsor, while retaining the overall feel of a traditional Queen’s Club tournament — a tradition that dates back to the club’s founding in 1886. It’s been raining, too, so everyone feels right at home. 

And the Andys, so far, are doing just fine. Roddick admitted to be overjoyed at being back on grass and played like it as he defeated Belgium’s Kristof Vliegen 6-1, 6-4 while Murray was no less impressive against Italy’s Andreas Seppi, winning by an identical score. James Blake is also through to the third round, having disposed of Ivan Ljubicic in a tougher battle, 6-2, 7-6(4) thus ensuring an American quarterfinalist as he plays Sam Querrey tomorrow. In a battle of giants, Querrey beat South Africa’s Kevin Anderson 7-5, 6-3 yesterday.

The sound of Michelle Larcher de Brito’s screeching has been somewhat muffled by the cataclysmic exit of Rafael Nadal from the French Open but there are a few points that still need to be made.

In press conference after her defeat at the hands Aravane Rezai, the 16-year-old Portuguese insisted that the wailing, elongated sound she makes after hitting each and every ball is something that she had been doing since she started playing tennis as a very small girl.

Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. Despite the persistence of the questioning Michelle kept her cool and even managed to smile through most of the interview. She seems a pleasant personality and is certainly a highly talented tennis player who one hopes will blossom into the star she seems destined to become. But it is unwise to try to mislead people when you perform in public because there are too many witnesses.

It was my fellow commentator on Tennis Channel, Doug Adler, who first alerted me to the fact that the noise Larcher de Brito makes had not been part of her tennis for as long as she was suggesting. Adler had commentated on one of her matches a couple of years ago when she was playing for the Sacremento Capitals in World Team Tennis as a 14-year-old.

Adler could not remember her making much noise at all. So he phoned some people he knew who are connected with the team and asked them. He was told Michelle did make some sort of sound occasionally but nothing like the piercing screech she makes now.

Getting closer to the action I asked the player who had partnered her on court that summer — Mark Knowles. The Bahamian who is recognized as one of the best doubles players in the world and was a respected former member of the ATP Players Council for many years, confirmed that verdict. “Michelle made hardly any noise at all when I played with her,” Knowles told me.

So the young lady needs to be careful. Getting a reputation for telling untruths so early in your career is not good. Especially when it involves the kind of entertainment you — as a professional performer — provide for your public. The fact is that Larcher de Brito, for all her promise and talent, will start driving people out of the stands if she goes on hitting the kind of decibel notes she hits now. The younger generation may be more tolerant of noise because many of them lacerate their ear drums with heavy metal sounds that are going to put the people who make hearing aids in business big time in a decade or two.

But many others are simply going to walk away after listening to the awful sound Larcher de Brito makes. And her opponents are going to go on complaining just as Rezai did. It would be really sad if this controversy affected her career.

So the question arises: should rules be put in place to prevent this? Maria Sharapova, who also reduces the level of her popularity because of her screeching, will almost certainly resist such a move but the prospect of a whole generation of starlets pouring out of the world’s tennis academies all screeching like banshees is too awful to contemplate. Should it happen it will certainly harm women’s tennis.

How could you control it? With a Screechometer. Sound of any sort can be monitored and it would not be difficult to arm a courtside official with such a device and, after a couple of warnings, any player going above a certain tolerance level, should be docked a penalty point and eventually defaulted.

Some players may view this as harsh but they have to understand that they are in the entertainment business. And if people don’t like their act, the act needs to be changed.