Is Tennis Too Slow?

In 1998, Goran Ivanišević beat Richard Krajicek in a marathon Wimbledon semi-final 6–3, 6–4, 5–7, 6–7, 15-13 that might have been the worst, professional tennis match of all time, at least from a spectators' perspective. That match catalyzed a progression of changes that altered tennis ---  perhaps too much. 

As I recall, their average rally, if you want to call it that, was a little over 1 stroke -- one single stroke. After one exchange of three (count 'em 3) strokes, legendary commentator Bud Collins exclaimed, "Holy cow. Tennis broke out.". 

Clearly big-serve tennis had gone too far. So, the tennis powers went about slowing the game down. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too radically in the other direction. 

Tennis is at its best when players with dramatically different styles meet in big matches -- Bjorn Borg, the ultimate baseliner, vs. perhaps the best volleyer of all time, John McEnroe; Stan Smith vs. Rod Laver; Arthur Ashe vs. Jimmy Connors, Patrick Rafter vs Michael Chang. 

Today, tennis is dominated by defensive players that camp out often 12 feet behind the baseline. Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Giles Simon, David Ferrer, Gaels Monfils, Fernando Verdasco. 

Simon is a favorite of mine. I love Murray's game, and admire Rafa. But when those two met at Indian Wells last week they produced what may be the worst match since Krajicek-Ivanišević. 

Murray and Nadal spent two hours moonballing soft spinners to the middle of the court until, eventually, Murray's shot would fall so short even Nadal would approach the net, then Murray would mishit his passing shot. Block the players from view to just watch the ball and you could imagine Amanda Coetzer playing. {Nothing against Coetzer "the rabbit"; she is 5 ft 2 and has good reason to moonball.}

Admittedly, gusting wind had an influence, but the real problem was that neither player tries to create winners. Don't get me wrong, I love great, defensive players. I usually root for them. But they're only fun to watch when they play offensive players. The contrast in styles is what creates great tennis. That too seldom happens today because the courts have been slowed down to the point that it is seemingly impossible to hit an outright winner against blazing fast defenders that can now stand with their backs to the wall and, with modern rackets, still hit strong returns. 

It is no coincidence that the only Grand Slam that Roger Federer won last year was the U.S. Open, since it is the only fast-surface GS left. 

Most people don't recognize how tennis courts and conditions have been changed. In the last five years, Wimbledon has made all these moves to slow down play: Adopted a larger tennis ball, switched to different, more-densely packed dirt, and changed to thicker, tougher grass that doesn't wear out. The combination has added another variable. Since far fewer trips are made to the net, the worn patches that made serves much more difficult to return are largely gone. {I remember when a Kevin Curran serve at Wimbledon took such a bizarre bounce it hit Jimmy Connors in the groin. Nupe it, Jimmy.}

The result is that ground strokes bounce much higher and don't slide and take slice nearly as much as they did for decades -- thus making it possible to, as McEnroe once derisively said of a Borg-Connors match, "play clay court tennis on grass." 

Borg and Guillermo Villas once had a single rally at the 1976 French Open that comprised a remarkable 86 strokes. That became a stereotype of clay court tennis. But during that match, Villas, "the bull of the Pampas", came to the net 49 times in three sets. That's more than the paltry 31 net approaches by Nadal in the five sets of Wimbledon's 2008 final. 

That's right: Wimbledon now often has considerably less net play than the French Open of years past. 

Something is fundamentally wrong when grass courts now see less net play than past clay court matches. 

Caption: Where Are the Lines? Nadal makes a great return from back near the linesmen. When racquets enable 100 MPH forehands, players can camp out at the back wall and still hit passing shots on approaches that slow down and sit up. If no one can attack, everyone plays defensive, baseline tennis. From Flickr. 

The changes are even greater on many hard courts where professional tournaments are played. Several years ago, local hero Leyton Hewitt stopped in the middle of the Australian Open to throw a tantrum directed at the tour organizers. Hewitt was angry that the court had been slowed down so much that he, as a relatively smaller player, with an aggressive baseline game, could no longer hit the ball hard enough to get a winner. 

Yet that extremely slow court that upset Hewitt was much faster than the new Auzzie Open surface, according to several announcers. Not only is the new surface slower, but it is extremely grainy, which means top spin jumps up more. The combination is perfectly suited to big-swinging clay court baseliners, which is one reason you saw Nadal meet Fernando Verdasco in an all-Spanish semifinal. Their match was a tense five-hour slugfest. But, once again, it was an example of clay court slugging, with both players camped out in their backhand corners, slamming big, looping forehands in extended inside-out or cross-court rallies. 

Their athleticism was tremendous, but seeing these same style of matches over-and-over at every large event diminishes the game of tennis. The variety in both styles of players, and types of surfaces is part of the tradition and appeal of the sport. 

Masters Series events have followed the same pattern. Indian Wells moved to a highly grainy, bouncy surface. At Cincinatti last year, the hard court was so bouncy that an Ivo Karlovich serve jumped above opponent Roger Federer's reach into the third row of the stands, like a spiked overhead. 

Attacking tennis is being progressively eliminated from the professional game -- whether it is groundstroke winners of Novak Djokovic and Federer, or hard-serve-and-volley in the style of Pete Sampras or the craftier net play of Stephan Edberg, Patrick Rafter or McEnroe, or the work-to-earn-an-approach style of Radek Stepanek -- they're going away. 

The other problem is that tennis matches are getting far too long to watch. When no one can hit a winner and every match consists of repeated, long cross-court rallies, the five-hour match is now becoming standard fare. That's just too long for anyone to sit and watch. 

An occasional five-hour match is often tense and dramatic, but when they become standard fare, they're just boring and one dimensional. 

Rafael Nadal's ascension is symptomatic of the slowing of men's tennis. Nadal is a great athlete, and would be successful if transported to any period of tennis history. But Nadal's record on fast carpets is a dismal two wins against six losses (2-6); he's never won the year-end Masters Championship, which is played indoors on carpet. In fact, I can recall only three important tournaments played on fast courts -- the U.S.Open, the year-end Master's, and the Paris Open. Nadal has never won any of them and I don't believe he's even made the finals at those three. It's hard to imagine Nadal beating Sampras back on the slick grass of Wimbledon in the early 90s, although I'd love to see that match. 

Correcting the problems created by using space-age materials in a tennis racket made sense. But the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The heads of the ATP and organizers of the Grand Slam tournaments need to take a step back to make return balance to the game so we can again see great clashes of players with contrasting styles. 

Comments

[Jack]

GREAT perspective Jim . . . always enjoy your analysis! I think it is time to implement the ole '10n-out' rule, if server does not win point within 10 hits; the point goes to the receiver. :-)

[Ehkzu]

What about the effect of the rules on play? What if you allowed net balls on serves, for example? Expanded/shrank court size? Set time limits on serves (that would drive Sharapova and Djokovich nuts, wouldn't it?)? What if you required players' feet to remain within a certain perimeter line, as gymnasts and boxers have to do? That by itself would impact baseline play greatly I should think. I don't mean necessarily within today's baseline BTW.