Today’s Tennis is Shameful (and Roger Federer is under-valued)
September 2, 2009 by dwil
Sampras and Federer played one of the greatest Wimbledon matches ever in 2001.
Tennis has reached its low point. There is little thought on the court and even less technically sound play. The volley is a lost art, as is the approach shot. Serve and volley? Not on your life! Today tennis consists of big serves and big groundstrokes, all hit by increasingly big players in both the men’s and women’s games.
What needs to be done to revive the beautiful game? Consider this quote given Tuesday morning by Martina Navratilova:
“The sweet spot was the size of a golf ball [with wooden rackets]. If you hit it outside that zone [with wood] the ball didn’t go anywhere. You had to hit it flat and go against the ball. You couldn’t brush up on the ball because you wouldn’t hit the sweet spot. Now, if you hit it anywhere here [Navratilova hold her hands about one and one-half softballs apart] you’re good. So you can create that much more pace because you can do all this spin and use your hand [she makes a motion as if hitting a tennis ball with a ping-pong or squash shot] and all that stuff. And also the balls are lighter than what we used, particularly in Europe.
“If you gave me a today’s racket and Serena [or any women's player] a wood racket I beat her. That’s how much difference there is in equipment. You have to adapt the technique -the technique had to be much, much better back then. Now you can get away with sloppy technique because the racket does most of the work.
“Because of the equipment you don’t really have to know the nuances of the game. You just sort of hit hard to the corner and hit a short ball the other way. Some players cannot hit a slice, you know. [With wooden rackets] you had to have more variety because you had to work the point before you you could create that opening. Now it’s much, much easier to create that opening.”
Later during a telecast of a match Navratilova lamented that the game has devolved to the point that there are growing number of coaches who do not teach volleys at all.
This is ridiculous. To fail to teach parts of the game necessary for success is beyond comprehension. Yet when players like Novak Djokavic, who has good volley technique, hires a coach after he became a top five player in the world to help him explicitly with learning how to transition from the baseline to net and what to do with his volleys once he gets to the net, something is wrong with tennis. When players like recently deposed number one in the world Rafael Nadal still come to net and use the wrong grip to hit volleys after they become number one, something is terribly wrong with tennis.
Just this morning the great Jimmy Connors was watching the Frenchman Gael Monfils play his first round match. Monfils, the number 13 seed at the Open is known for his powerful groundstrokes, his speed, and his touch, rarely traverses the distance from well behind the baseline, his preferred position on the court, to inside the service line, where he must volley. When asked what he would help Monfils with to advance his game, Connors quickly said Monfils has what he calls “quiet power,” which is to say the Frenchman can hit the ball very hard with very little effort. Connors added that it is as if Monfils needs to have a string attache to his waist and, in order to come to net, be forcibly pulled to the net. But to advance Monfils needs to take advantage of that power, move inside the baseline to hit groundstrokes when he has the opportunity, and ————— come to net to finish off points.
But. Connors added that Monfils, like many, many players on the men’s tour today like to “sit back at the baseline and slug away and see which one misses first.”
Monfils, like Djokavic, has fine volley technique, but unlike Djokavic, knows what to do once he gets to the net. But Monfils was once a dominant world junior champion and it is evident that he defeated many of the players he faces today from the baseline. And it is equally evident that he feels he can do the same today. If he can avoid the injuries that have plagued his career so far Gael Monfils will soon crack the top 10 in the world. But will he realize his full potential and become a dominant male number one player in the world? Not unless he rounds out his game and becomes willing to take advantage of shory groundstroke replies from his opponents and uses their shots to get to the net and finish off points.
Finally, despite their complaints and wistful talk about tennis as it was in its heyday of the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, there exists a collective double standard about how today’s players are judged. Despite his gross deficiencies, Rafael Nadal is spoken of as a tennis player in glowing terms. Rather than speak of Nadal as a player who wins in spite of his limited game, winning instead because of his tremendous will which manifests itself in being willing to run down every shot and hit just one more ball than his opponent every point, he is already spoken of as one of tennis’ all-time greats. The word at this year’s U.S. Open is, if he wins this year’s Open, the claim can easily be made that Nadal, because an Open win means he would have won every Grand slam tournament once and because he has a better head-to-head record against Federer, he is a greater player than is Federer.
And nothing could be farther from the truth.
These former great tennis players who still have an active hand in the game do the public and the game they represent a disservice by spreading such disinformation about Nadal. There is no mistaking his will to win, but because Nadal must work so hard to win points against the world’s best players week in and week out, his time as a top player is short. Before this year’s French Open Nadal came into the tour’s clay court season healthy and allegedly playing better than ever. Yet he lost a final to Federer on clay in his home country in Barcelona and then was soundly defeated by Robin Soderling, 6-2, 6-7 (2-7), 6-4, 7-6 (7-2) at the French Open. Suddenly Nadal claimed he had an injured knee that had bothered him since the beginning of the clay court season. The Spaniard missed Wimbledon and a fair amount of the summer season.
Was his knee injured or was his seemingly indomitable will broken? Though he reached the finals of a tournament this summer Nadal does not seem to be the same player he was at this time just one year ago. It is not at all a lock that he will reach the finals of the U.S. Open. In fact, there is the understanding that Nadal must put together a supreme effort just to reach the finals. And once there it is being said that he will be defeated by world’s number two Andy Murray (Nadal is number three in the world at present).
It is still this author’s feeling that by the time he is 25 Rafael Nadal will be hard-pressed to ever win another Grand Slam event. Nadal’s limited style of play is reminiscent of Bjorn Borg’s. Borg, too, dominated the French Open. Unlike Nadal, Borg also dominated Wimbledon for many years. But Borg, the consummate baseliner, was a far better volleyer than is Nadal and understood how to get to net from the baseline. However, when John McEnroe, perhaps the most gifted tennis player ever, gained enough experience and began to defeat Borg, he literally forced Borg into retirement by the time Borg was 26. Seeing McEnroe’s style of play, Borg intimated that he was unwilling to spend two years attempting to overhaul his game to match that of McEnroe’s, only to find that after those two years he still was not as proficient than the supremely gifted all-around player McEnroe was.
Rafael Nadal will soon enough find himself in a similar predicament.
This leaves us with back with Roger Federer. The number one player in the world has won the last two grand Slam events, the French and Wimbledon and in the process won his 14th and 15th Grand Slams to break Pete Sampras’ record of 14, yet is not a favorite to even reach the finals of the U.S. Open. At both Wimbledon and now here at the U.S. Open Navratilova and John McEnroe have mentioned that Federer is a baseline player just like the vast majority of players on the ATP Tour. They say he is not the player Pete Sampras was and that Sampras would today defeat Federer because Sampras would attack Federer and his baseline game mercilessly until the present world’s number one would succumb. They say Federer’s style of play is limited and would wilt in the face of a player like Sampras or the great Rod Laver, who was also a fantastic serve-and-volley player.
Oddly, these people, admittedly two of the greatest tennis players in the history of the game, forget that it was Federer who ended Pete Sampras’ great Wimbledon run of four championships in a row in a round of 16 match. Federer played points from the baseline, but just enough to keep Sampras guessing. Roger Federer defeated Pete Sampras because his serve was every bit as hard as was Sampras’. He defeated Sampras because his service return was far superior to that of Sampras. Federer stood squarely on the baseline to return the, then number one’s 130 mile per hour rockets and crushed many of those returns.
But there was one aspect of Federer’s game that separated him from Pete Sampras that penultimate year before Wimbledon strangely decided it would change the type of grass with which they surface their courts and hardened the dirt under the grass (all of which acted to slow the courts to the point that they more resembled clay courts than grass). That day Roger Federer out-serve-and-volleyed Pete Sampras. And when Sampras chose to stay on the baseline it was more often than not Federer who transitioned his way to net first to finish off points and not the “great” Sampras. Roger Federer “out-Samprassed” Pete Sampras.
But today it is said that Sampras, who never won a French Open, never even reached a French Open final, was a better player than is Roger Federer.
Oh, and one more thing, both players used metal composite rackets that had the smallest racket faces on either the men’s or the women’s tours. Both used heavy Wilson Pro Staff 85 square centimeter head rackets. They were the rackets seen as closest to wood rackets, Their frames were stiff like wood, their sweet spots were a little smaller than the size of a baseball. And very few players wielded them.
Pete Sampras did. so did Roger Federer.
————————————–
Part 2:
As you can see, Roger Federer can express every facet of the game of tennis ———- and with equally great acumen.
It’s just too bad people’s memories are so very short.
dwil,
I remember that match. There were some that have said Federer defeated an aging Sampras, but that was more a changing of the guard match than anything else. Pete was dominated in his house, plain and simple.
Nadal reminds me a little of Jim Courier, a solid champion, but more transitional than transcendent. When Soderling beat him at Roland Garros, it reminded me more of Mike Tyson’s loss to Buster Douglas, his aura of invincibility was gone. Like you, I think his days of dominance are over. He’ll still be a threat to win, and he’ll be a perpetual favorite at the French, but that’s all.
des -
Yeah, I remember the talk. And he was getting older, but he wasn’t done. What Federer did to him was announce that there was a better version of him coming down the pike.
And about Courier, even Courier was a proficient volleyer. The only player of that crew of Sampras, Courier, Chang, Agassi, and Martin that was not proficient until much later in his career was Agassi.
But Courier, as does Nadal, did have that will to win that other players had to catch up to.
I’ve been predicting this downfall for over two years now.With all the past players like Muster, Courier, Arias, Krickstein, Kuerton, and back to Vilas, who played this style and physically ground themselves into dust at varying ages, I do not understand why no tennis writer found themselves able to make the comparison between Nadal and past players like him.
Oh well, better late than never, huh?
D always learning something new on the tennis posts
I do remember that Courier was really really good for about two years and then just disappeared from that top status overnight it seemed
Also would you favor a return to wood rackets? Is such a thing even possible?
despite being the greatest of all time, federer is seriously under rated. the main stream media down plays his success because he isnt american, he doesnt jump all over the court, and he isnt dating a super model.
during wimbledon, bspn were openly rooting for andy roddick. after his 2003 us open win, everyone jumped on his bandwagon HARD.
MODI-
There will be no return to wood. Not enough $$$$$$$$$$ to be made. BUT. They could return to an 85 sq. cm. max head racket limit and have everyday layer models made off them.
rey-
Yeah the American thing counts a lot. But that doesn’t account for Nadal – oh RIGHT! He’s “dark” and handsome (whatever).
Interesting assertions…but entirely BS. Martina, John, et al…failed to account for one simple fact. The object of any contest is to win…by whatever means that you can employ. To suggest there is a superior way to win…an ideal way to play, suggests an egotisitical mind-set, more obsessed with securing their own place in the history of the game.I remember how the public gushed and adored Hingis because she employed the techniques being advocated here….but what good does it do to master a style of play, that can only be successful when a superior athlete (ie..stronger faster, etc)… only when such a player has an off day. Put another way, in her hey day, imagine Hingis playing her best game against Serena playing her best… it would be sad to watch. The fact of the matter, players of all eras, the good ones, develop a style of play best suited to their own attributes, the competion, and of course the available equipment as well.
Loved the read and I get what your saying D’Will, I think it may be gone forever the game we seek I do not see the game changing again.
Juniors coming up are bigger and stronger than the previous generation – the reference points they have are not of one serve volley player not one – it is testament that the modern game asks for a more powerful athlete than in previous generations seen the fact there has not been a teenager been able to crack into the men’s tour for some time (Del Potro did well at 19 tho).
For me Tim Henman was the last serve volley player.
Points on Rafa…
“When players like recently deposed number one in the world Rafael Nadal still come to net and use the wrong grip to hit volleys after they become number one, something is terribly wrong with tennis”
Rafa uses the wrong grip for every shot he’s got every single one, thats where he gets that spin he is odd on every stroke he’s got…
“The word at this year’s U.S. Open is, if he wins this year’s Open, the claim can easily be made that Nadal, because an Open win means he would have won every Grand slam tournament once and because he has a better head-to-head record against Federer, he is a greater player than is Federer.”
I can’t stand jive that is spouted on this – the debate isn’t important – I really love the contrast of both players – but luckily in all these debates as to who is better than who – we right now have the two great modern titans playing in the present day – we don’t need to wait long to debate or guess who is better…
For me Fed has not yet beaten Nadal when it counts since the latters ascendancy to the top – we were starved this year of an encounter at the French and the preceding Wimbledon…
I yearn for two or three more grand slam encounters over 5 sets between the two. Fed has now fixed his back problems and got over illness’s that deprived him of playing at his best the past two seasons on and off. Nadal will be better for this lay-off it is not so much his game that kills his knees but how many times he plays and how often he trains his schedule this year for the clay court season was way to much and the year before it was a joke he played way to much tennis. I can’t wait for the two to meet – the U.S Open may be to soon for Rafa but maybe the grand slam event might bring his comeback along quicker than masters tournaments 4 more matches and maybe a few four setters will do him good to then take on Murray which will be a huge test outwith a Federer match my fellow Scotsman is still learning but he is the real deal!
I am a Club Fed boy thru and thru he is everything I love about tennis, I see Edberg in him and Sampras but he has molded it in his own way nobody plays like him or has ever.
Sampras/McEnroe/Fed
McEnroe who I dig a lot even more over the past years when Wimbledon is on in the UK he is the BBC’s main talking head – but his view that pistol Pete being able to beat Fed is even for me slightly harbouring how upset he is that the U.S has no great tennis player not one to call on that he speaks of the last great American titan (love Roddick tho)…
Equipment
I stopped playing for a couple a while on going back I got hold of one of my fav players racket a Prince racket used by Pat Rafter (great serve volley player and US Open Champion) but I have since gone back to my Wilson 85 square centimeter racket. The control I have compared to the bigger Prince racket is amazing.
I am trying to convince my dad to go to a smaller racket compared to his minging Wilson XL racket…
Control the rackets you control the type of game that is played…
Loved the read D’Will…
Marc-
There is a superior way to win in tennis. Thanks to the changes in courts in Australia and at Wimbledon Rafael Nadal is the first player EVER in the men’s game to be number one without a transition or reliable volley.
And I do believe the distinction between men and women is an obvious one, so your Hingis-Williams comparison is a straw man argument. However, if you really want to go there, NO WOMAN today plays tennis worth a shit today. And the first woman with comparatively strong groundstokes and strong serve who also knows how to transition to net and volley will be the best women’s player in the world -period.
Ask Martina Navratilova…. oh and she’s absolutely correct about playing with a metal racket and playing against any woman using a wood racket who has never used one. The technique is so different, where the ball must be hit in relation to the body, that the woman with the wood racket who never used one would be lost. That squash shot everyone uses now? The ball would dribble to the net if you try that with wood (that’s why you never saw anyone ever use the shot w/ wood). Those heavy topspin shots w/ today’s racket? Impossible with wood as the rackest head MUST be at least 80 sq. cm. to even attempt the shot. To try it w/ a smaller racket head is disaster; every attempt would be a shot hit off the racket frame.
D-
I see your points, and Navratilova is one of my 5 favorite athletes of all time. That said, getting all nostalgic doesn’t address the core issue. You can’t say on one hand that Federer is the best ever and in the next breath say the guy who consistently beats him is able to mostly because of his equipment and the surfaces makeup. They play on the same surfaces and have access to the same equipment especially since they are both Nike guys. I will admit tennis was consistently more compelling and varied in the previous 3 decades, but that shouldn’t demean the accomplishments of those playing today with today’s equipment and by today’s rules. Essentially, you are saying everyone but Federer is weak, yet there is this guy who has consistently beaten him… on every surface playable TODAY. With the equipment in use TODAY. Your point on the women’s game is well noted, however. Apples and oranges. The one think you aren’t accounting for is that if, let’s say, Navratilova was consistently beating Venus or Serena BECAUSE OF a more varied game and because she was just plain better… do you not think they would at least try to adjust? They… and many of the men and all of the women… have no incentive to adjust. They only loose to other players who happen to play the exact same game a little bit better on a given day. No one is finessing their way to titles… not even Fed.
Marc-
I am saying Nadal is limited and will be hard-pressed to win grand slams past the age of 25. Right now is everyone else “weak?” I don’t think so – you said that, not me. However, I will say that Federer has the most complete game in tennis today.
That’s what I said. I actually made little mention of other male players. The next group of champions will be from the group just behind Federer now, not including Nadal. That means, Andy Murray, Juan Del Potro, Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, Novak Djokavic, and if he becomes more aggressive, Gael Monfils (who has more athletic ability than all of them, including Federer).
And Federer is, comparatively, finessing his way to titles today. Who do you think brought back the trend of hitting the soft, short slice to draw players to net? That would be Federer. Who brought back the strategy of pulling players off the court with that same slice and the soft, rolling forehand crosscourt? Federer.
Nadal’s equipment IS NOT the same as Federer’s. His racket head is 10 sq. cm. larger than Federer’s, which makes a HUGE difference in his ability to create spin on his shots. He has used a variation of this racket since he was a kid.
Meantime Federer grew up using a racket with an 85 sq cm. head, so even 90 sq. cm. is a stretch for him. When players switch frames, let alone racket head sizes, it can take six months or more to adjust to that racket, and much more when the size of the racket head is changed. Djokavic just went through this when he switched to Head rackets.
And as Sampras said when he used a 98 sq cm. head, “I felt like I was cheating.” He was able to hit so many more shots than he ever could with his old Pro Staff he actually thought for a second of returning to the tour last year.
So Nadal DOES have an equipment advantage. It’s the same complaint levied at Andre Agassi. It’s why players will say he was a great champion and great for the game but hesitate to say he was an all-time great; his racket head was 102 sq cm.! He was the first man on the tour to use that large a racket head – the size many, many women use.
With Nadal, as I have maintained, as soon as players lose their fear of him, he will begin to lose. As soon as they become as fit as they can be, if they possess the power or the all-around game with close to as much power, he cannot beat them unless they play poorly.
When baseline players face all-court players of similar ability, baseliners are hard-pressed to win. It just a fact of the game; always has been, always will be.
Finally, something I noticed with Federer in his match with Sampras compared with now: he might have a bit more varied game and he certainly thinks his way through matches better, but his backhand was much, much better than it is now. He used to rip the shit out of it. Today he can be afraid to pull the string. His serve was definitely harder then than it is now. And he was more fearless with his service returns than he is now.
And most of that is age, especially when you have been so dominant without having to hit the shots he had to hit to defeat Sampras but when another group of players rises to the challenge of your game, it is difficult if not impossible to regain that total fearlessness with your game.
That is another facet of tennis every great player must face: mental and physical mortality. Federer actually reached his peak in 2005 when he had and 81-4 match record (second to McEnroe’s peak year of 1984 when he went 82-3 for the season).
Look Nadal, along with Borg, is the greatest clay court player ever. But Borg was the greater player, as he won how many Wimbledons when the grass was twice as fast as it is now? If the surfaces were the same now as they were then, or in 2001, Nadal would be hard-pressed to win any other major other than the French. Players don’t even count Wimbledon as a “different” surface from others, and haven’t for four years – ironically coinciding with Nadal’s rise at the tournament (and that’s something I’ve detailed in past articles; last year players complained that they played a clay court tournament in Sweden where the clay was faster than the grass at Wimbledon!).
So even Nadal’s wins at Wimbledon and in Australia are manufactured wins because he has had the luxury of playing on all surfaces other than at the US Open where the surfaces have been purposely slowed to accommodate the emphasis on baseline play.
Sorry, he’s just not the player people think he is. Like I wrote, his will to win is unparalleled (to the point where he will use PEDs to win – documented in sworn testimony – look through the archives here and you’ll find the mentions) but beyond that he’s just another great baseline player who has had every circumstance possible go his way, from racket technology to court speed. His technique on his “great” forehand is awful, he can’t hit an approach shot, and he can’t volley. You can get away with winning on athletic ability and will for only so long.
Oh, and one more thing. A sure sign his knees weren’t hurt at the French – that he was just butt-hurt? He’s come back and doesn’t look rusty at all. NO player takes two months off the tour to rehab an injury and comes back as sharp as he has. He took time off to make some slight changes to his game and get over losing the French.
great points all around. Some of this discussion has a familiar historical ring to it most notably Ty Cobb blaming Babe Ruth and the live ball for ruining the art within baseball… rinse and repeat after juiced ball, juice bodies, smaller strike zone, and brought-in fences. Not quite the same but some similarities.
I think the difference is that in baseball, most prefer the home run so fan interest trumped artistic interest and nuanced skills. But in tennis fans love things like long rallies and serve and volleys. So the game has lost points in all around skills and its watchability…
“Just butt-hurt,” you wrote. Reminds me that the problem my mother has with Nadal’s game is that he keeps picking at the rear of his shorts before serving!!
LA-
Hahahahahahhaha!
While I’m not familiar with tennis, I am familar with the overarching themes being discussed. It’s interesting how these issues come into question in every sport as MODI said.
D-
I see most of your points. I think though that winning is the goal, and if you can win with what you have, why make adjustments. I truly believe if Fed’s game starts to distance itslef from Nadal, Nadal would attempt to be more varied if that increased his chances to win. But if he is beating him more than the other way around, he’s simply isn’t going to go out of his comfort zone in an actual match.
Today’s tennis is indeed shameful or should I say the media’s reaction to it is shameful. The media is about to have an orgasm over Natalie Oudin. I agree that it is a nice feat for a 17 year old to be playing so well. It got me to thinking how the media that will villify any kid in the United States that objects to having to be one year removed from his high school graduating class before he can play professional basketball in the NBA.
Here is a young lady that seems to be well-adjusted and succeeding in a professional sport at the age of 17. She started being home schooled in the 7th grade and the New York Times said her game took off when she started practicing four hours a day.
Now imagine the outcry if a kid from Atlanta, like Natalie, named Kareem Jackson from a poor family was home-schooled at age 12 for the sole purpose of improving his baskeball game. Mike Wilbon, Terrence Moore, Mike and Mike, Tony Kornheiser, etc. would fall all over themselves telling us all of these cautionary tales of kids like Scotty Thurman that didn’t make it in the NBA. Never mentioning the thousands of kids at tennis camps all over the country that devoted hours of practice and never even sniff the rarefied air of the Opens.
Its so hypocritical that its damn near funny. Why isn’t anyone talking about age restrictions? Why isn’t anyone talking about how she needs to stay in school and mature? Why aren’t her parents motives questioned about the decision to home school her and let her practice four hours a day?
The rules sue are different for brothers.
Mactown,
You are 100% correct. I’m glad for American tennis to a degree that a nice, blonde, homespun gal from Georgia is here to save the sport. But fuck American tennis for shunning the Williams sisters early on (USTA, I’m talking to you) and then bitching about them dominating (Evert, Navratilova and Austin, I’m talking to you hating bitches) and then when they go away, you bitch some more about it (Evert, Navratilova and Austin, you again,) and then when Serena comes out of nowhere to compete in a Slam (like Clijsters is doing now and everyone’s having an orgasmic experience and wanting to look up in her hoo-ha), the media says she’s overweight and is dissing the game (Evert, stop hating.)
I do appreciate Evert deciding to be the white benefactor and developing her own black tennis star (Madison Keys,) so we’ll see what she does when she gets her chance as she’s showing some promise. But the USTA youth programs? Where the stars at? Of any color? Crickets chirping? Good. Because whatever bullshit about inclusion and diversity the USTA is talking is just someone talking out their neck.