Tennis' Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility: Exceptions and In-Between

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility

It is one of the basic principles taught to students studying economics. Introduced by Lord Alfred Marshall, it forms a crux in the micro-economic level often reflected in routine, day-to-day life.

The law states that greater usage of any item keeping the consumption of other items at the same level reduces the marginal satisfaction gained after every use. In essence this means that for any item, there is bound to be a time when we face a sort of disinterest pertaining to the same.

There are, however, a few exceptions to the above principle, which totally overrule the basic theory. The theory along with its given exceptions forms the complete Law of Marginal Utility.

In this article, I have incorporated a few names which I believe are justifying examples to Marshall's esteemed law, some which are perfect "exceptions" to it, and some which fluctuate from person to person, fan-to-fan, I call them the "in-betweens."

Examples Supporting the Theory:

1. Marcelo Rios

With his obnoxious, bad boy image, Rios is a perfect fitting in Marginal Utility's working. Each time that his idiotic actions were seen, they aggravated the fans of the game, making watching tennis a difficult proposition at the time.

His temperament on the court must have doubly sped up the actual working and effective process of Marshall's contribution.

2. Andy Roddick

He is a recent addition in this category. Earlier, I would have put him in the "in-between" list. After his recent outbursts he has made his fans think twice about his attitude. Since these petulant displays are on the rise these days, I leave the final result as a foregone conclusion in favour of Marshall.

Exceptions:

1. Roger Federer

In the days (they seem so far off now) when he used to win in and out, his fans never got tired of seeing him victorious, though it can be disputed that his critics never took to his conquering of all before him.

But then, most of the exceptions to DMU have a disputed background, so we can easily gloss over this one, and I am sure most will agree with Federer being rated here.

2. Rafael Nadal

He wins every time on the clay surface, and this doesn't bore anyone. On the contrary, it's a pleasure to see him lord over everyone in the dirt.

And now, as he has graduated to other surfaces as well, no one seems to be complaining about the additions and multiplications.

3. Novak Djokovic

Nole's antics, like removing his shirt and his comic talent (he doesn't do them now), are widely appreciated, even though, again, there might be a dispute from his non-fans about his "so called" attitude.

Yet, I like them and most of the people I know like it too, so I prefer to fix Nole's bill in this category, ignoring the ambiguity.

The "In-Betweens"

These are the individuals whose pendulum keeps shifting from here to there periodically.

1. Marat Safin

His fans love him in spite of all his tantrums and behaviour patterns. Even then I am sure, at some point or another they would be wondering when he will stop doing what he does.

But then the question arises; would Marat remain the same without his aggrieved on-court persona? No, he wouldn't, and therefore he belongs here.

We love him him-we hate him, but then again we hate and love the fact that he is "unchangeable."

2. John McEnroe

J-Mac's story and explanation is similar to Marat's.

His repertoire left us exasperated, but made us wish for more of those highly indignant rants at the same time!

PS: Creativity and thought inspired by Anand Ramachandran!