Floaters v. Lungers
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but to my eye tennis looks as if it has become much more a game of exertion than it used to. For example, you now routinely hear commentators and players talk about how a player plays "defense," by which they mean how he or she employs speed and athleticism to stay in a point. I don't remember being told to play defense when I took up the game; I was taught how to stay in a point, but if the other guy hit a really good shot, more often than not it was winnersville. You clapped and moved on.
That was then. Now, with bigger, stronger players, tennis on hard and clay courts has begun to resemble squash, with players stretching and lunging for shots all over the place. Think of Federer's aptly named "squash" shots, where he kind of flips at wide ball and hits them back floaty, with underspin. The velocity is high, some of the recoveries incredible, and the points, especially on clay, can go on for a long time. In short, it's like softball squash, where the quality of play is gauged by length of rallies, in many cases.
One thing this style of play has led to, I think, is the need to be in very, very good physical shape. The demands of play are just so much greater than they used to be. Still, injuries are rife. A guy like Agassi, who still possesses plenty of game, has to give up clay-court tennis because it's simply too hard on his body.
Like squash, movement in tennis for this style of play is explosive. James Blake is another good example. The guy can flat-out fly, exploding off the mark and then exploding into the ball. Nadal is another one, who plays with explosive, lunging intensity.
What's less common is the graceful, floating style that was prevalent when I learned to play, back in the '70s. The idea was that you...well, floated to the ball with measured, graceful steps, then little mincing steps before pausing to strike the ball. You were constantly in motion, and you never exploded off the mark. This approach led to fewer injuries, I think, and also made it possible for hardcourt American players to adapt more easily to clay. It also led to fewer unforced errors, because shots didn't have to stretch the other guy so far out of court. Points could be more deftly constructed. (Watch some old Davis Cup footage and you'll see what I'm talking about.)
I'm not lamenting the older style of play, except in an aesthetic sense. The way they do it now is more lively to watch. However, it has shortened careers, due to the sheer physical demands. It's also unclear whether it can survive on hard courts, as even the fittest players on tour are having a tough time maintaining the level of conditioning necessary to hang in there.
That was then. Now, with bigger, stronger players, tennis on hard and clay courts has begun to resemble squash, with players stretching and lunging for shots all over the place. Think of Federer's aptly named "squash" shots, where he kind of flips at wide ball and hits them back floaty, with underspin. The velocity is high, some of the recoveries incredible, and the points, especially on clay, can go on for a long time. In short, it's like softball squash, where the quality of play is gauged by length of rallies, in many cases.
One thing this style of play has led to, I think, is the need to be in very, very good physical shape. The demands of play are just so much greater than they used to be. Still, injuries are rife. A guy like Agassi, who still possesses plenty of game, has to give up clay-court tennis because it's simply too hard on his body.
Like squash, movement in tennis for this style of play is explosive. James Blake is another good example. The guy can flat-out fly, exploding off the mark and then exploding into the ball. Nadal is another one, who plays with explosive, lunging intensity.
What's less common is the graceful, floating style that was prevalent when I learned to play, back in the '70s. The idea was that you...well, floated to the ball with measured, graceful steps, then little mincing steps before pausing to strike the ball. You were constantly in motion, and you never exploded off the mark. This approach led to fewer injuries, I think, and also made it possible for hardcourt American players to adapt more easily to clay. It also led to fewer unforced errors, because shots didn't have to stretch the other guy so far out of court. Points could be more deftly constructed. (Watch some old Davis Cup footage and you'll see what I'm talking about.)
I'm not lamenting the older style of play, except in an aesthetic sense. The way they do it now is more lively to watch. However, it has shortened careers, due to the sheer physical demands. It's also unclear whether it can survive on hard courts, as even the fittest players on tour are having a tough time maintaining the level of conditioning necessary to hang in there.
posted by Matthew DeBord at 3:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home