Things were better in the past, weren't they?

Remember when you only had to flick through four television channels to establish that there was nothing decent to watch, rather than the 800+ which clog up our televisions these days? Or when we managed to survive a day without checking Twitter? Or when our top sportspeople were interesting, not the boring, prosaic athletes – many of whom appear to have had a personality-bypass – that we are surrounded by nowadays?

This week some tennis legends have descended on Scotland until Sunday to play in the Brodies Champions of Tennis event in Edinburgh. John McEnroe is there, and will, no doubt, unleash one of his infamous rants at a line-judge or umpire during the course of the tournament. Goran Ivanisevic will be there, too, the Croat who won Wimbledon as a wild card in 2001 but who was almost as famous for his eccentric personality.

I give it 15 minutes of play before one or more spectators begin lamenting the fact that "there just aren't any characters like this in the game these days". Even current players themselves agree that the sport's elite are not very interesting. During the French Open last month, Ernests Gulbis, the Latvian who is ranked No.40 in the world, launched a candid attack on the big four – Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer – saying: "I respect them but, for me, they are boring players. Their interviews are boring. Honestly, they are crap."

McEnroe agreed with Gulbis' comments. "I don't disagree that it would be nice in a way, people going at [each other] a little more viciously," he said. "I'm not sure what's underneath the surface."

When McEnroe was in his pomp, one thing he could never be accused of was being boring. Uncouth? Yes. Petulant? That too. But never boring. Similarly, Jimmy Connors was far from universally popular as a result of his sometimes outrageous behaviour, but together they attracted a global audience to tennis. McEnroe claimed that tennis is struggling to grab the attention of the American public at the moment because they are unable to see a difference between the players.

The accusation of top athletes being dull spreads to almost every sport, not just tennis. Rugby, cricket, athletics: finding personalities in these sports is as easy as finding a publicly-educated Tory MP.

That top-level sport is now performed in an ultra-professional environment has certainly been detrimental to the survival of so-called mavericks. Sportspeople are now micro-managed; their public personas are continually monitored by management teams for fear of anything controversial emerging, which makes it that bit harder for these top athletes to portray themselves as different from the norm.

Social media also transformed the landscape. The reality is that any comment Murray et al may make is beamed around the world as soon as the words pass their lips which, understandably, has the effect of making sportspeople much more guarded than in the past.

The responses of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to Gulbis' comments were as bland and uncontroversial as might be expected but Murray was more forthcoming. He admitted that he is not always a bundle of laughs in interviews. "I always try to give honest answers but they are fairly boring so I don't have to deal with the aftermath of any scandals," he said. "I would say that I am different [privately] from what a lot of people think I'm like."

Even I, who existed in the badminton media bubble so small that a microscope would have been required to detect its existence, was burned for making jokes to the press. A flippant comment, once in print, is often a lot less funny, so why would Murray, or any of the top players, risk the backlash?

Is it unrealistic for us to expect these sportspeople to be great athletes but also sharp wits and great orators? I would argue it is. You wouldn't expect Barack Obama to finish a White House address then throw on a pair of tennis shoes and play a top-class game of tennis. So why do we expect the reverse from athletes? It is, of course, a delight when someone like Katherine Grainger comes to the fore: someone who is at the top of her sport but charming and intelligent into the bargain (she has just completed a PhD in homicide). However, she is the exception.

While the era of McEnroe and Connors was more interesting because of their on-court meltdowns and off-court feuds, there is little argument that tennis today is of a substantially higher standard.

So, perhaps we should give the top guys a break when it comes to their personalities and just sit back and enjoy the tennis.