Laurie's Tennis articles

Indoor Tennis Surface Speeds - Dilemma for ATP & WTA

2012-03-05T15:06:00.001-08:00

The winter indoor season has just ended in Europe and the United States. However, the prestige of the indoor season seems to have diminished over the last 5 to 10 years. Indoor tennis used to have a characteristic all of its own, and in many ways it still does, but there are not as many tournaments as before and the surface used indoors is no longer distinct from the rest of tour.

That is because for many years, indoor tennis was played primarily on a carpet surface (not carpet as we know it obviously!). Tennis was played on either Supreme or Taraflex. Some of the most prestigious tournaments took place on carpet; the Masters Championships in New York was played on Supreme throughout the 1980s. The ATP World Championships in Germany was played on Taraflex from 1990 to 1997. The WTA Masters was held in New York on Supreme up to the year 2000.

However, carpet as an official surface has been phased out completely since 2008 and there are now no carpet events on the ATP or WTA tour. They have been replaced with either an indoor hardcourt or plexipave. This is a culmination of changes the authorities have made to slow the game down as they see it. But what it also means that we get the same type of tennis all year round, regardless of surface and conditions, diversity has gone out of the window in professional tennis.

The diminishing in importance of indoor tennis is reflected by the introduction in the calendar of outdoor hardcourt events during February in Doha and Dubai since 2001, which while not carrying a huge amount of points, attract the best players due to the weather and the money on offer. With these events held in February before Indian Wells and Miami, the Hardcourt season seems now to be extended from the Australian season right the way to April and the clay court season.

This is interesting because there has always been talk that playing too much hardcourt tennis is punishing on the joints for athletes, and yet hardcourt tennis is now played around 9 months of the year (not including the clay and grass court season). This is hardly conducive to limiting injuries of the top players, especially with the grinding style of play so many players adopt, and the medium paced courts mean it is harder to put the ball away for winners.

Players now play the same game regardless of conditions. It used to be the case that women played their game regardless of surface, and the men played different tactics depending on surface. However, this is no longer the case for the men and the result is that the volley is no longer a viable tactic in the game and younger players are being coached only to come to net on a sure thing. Jim Courier was interviewed on BBC radio in 2005 during Wimbledon and he attributed the demise of attacking tennis and net play to the demise of faster indoor surfaces on the tour.

I recently contacted a spokesman for the ATP based in Florida. He said that “medium paced surfaces is fairer for everybody as you have more rallies because of the style of play today”. I asked him if hardcourts were more punishing on the body, he pointed out that carpet had caused serious injuries as well and it didn’t necessarily follow that hardcourts were more punishing, he noted Alexander Chesnekov suffered a serious injury one year in Philadelphia playing on carpet “you may have cement rolled over the boards, not necessarily the case that carpet is less punishing on the body.” The ATP spokesman pointed out there were complaints that tennis was too fast, there were not enough rallies and many players favoured a change to a more acrylic surface.

That’s fair enough as the authorities have to act as they see fit. However, it gave me the impression that tennis from the past was somehow devalued. Indoor tennis was not all about big serves and no rallies during that era, some of the greatest baseline and clay specialists were great indoor players as well. Ivan Lendl, who won 28 claycourt events, also won 33 indoor events and is seen as one of the five best indoor players of the open era. Lendl won the year end Masters Championships on 5 occasions, overcoming incredible serve and volleyers often such as John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. Other great indoor players included Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Bjorg, Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles and Martina Hingis – all great baseline players.

During the 1990s, Andre Agassi won the ATP Championships in 1990 defeating Boris Becker in the semifinal and Stefan Edberg in the final. Jim Courier was losing finalist in 1991 and 1992 while, Michael Chang made the final in 1995 defeating Sampras in the semifinal before losing to Becker in the final, Yvegeny Kafelnikov lost to Sampras in the final in 1997. Alex Corretja defeated Sampras in the semi and Carlos Moya in the final in 1998. This clearly indicates that attacking players and baseliners had a chance on fast carpet. One of the greatest matches of the open era took place in the 1996 ATP final between Pete Sampras and Boris Becker. A match which lasted over 4 hours and was full of high quality tennis, great net play and great baseline rallies – all court tennis in the purest form.

I decided to get an ex player’s perspective who is now in administration. Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and 17 tournaments on the ATP tour, including titles on all surfaces. Krajicek had a great serve but was also a good mover across the baseline for a tall man, and of course a great volleyer.

You are the Tournament Director of ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, was the event always held on an indoor hardcourt?

“It was played on Supreme Court and now on wood painted with Plexipave ( similar to Hardcourt)”

What in your opinion is the difference between playing on indoor carpet and indoor hardcourt? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

“I only see advantages to Hardcourt. 1. you can control the speed of the court (you can make it a slow, medium or fast court).
The rallies are longer, but if you adjust the speed of the court, to the speed of the balls, it will be an honest surface to both attacking and defensive players)”

I spoke to an ATP spokesman and he believes introducing medium surfaces indoors has slowed tennis down and made for more rallies and more of a spectacle, I believe it has reduced the volley as a viable tactic. How do you view the situation and the demise of attacking tennis?

“I believe slowing down the courts has created more rallies, but I do not believe it has made players stay back because of it. It is just the way players play.
Even on grass everybody plays from the back. Mardy Fish is one of the few exceptions in the top 10.”

During your career, your game was based on fast court play, did you enjoy playing on indoor carpet surfaces and would you like to see carpet re-introduced to some events?

"The speed is good at most events. But the combination of ball and court is important. If you have a heavy ball and a slow court, then play might be slowed down too much.
And same if you have a very light ball and a quick court, then the rallies will be too short and that is no fun either."

As Richard Krajicek said, surface speeds should be fair for all of the players. At the moment current conditions favour the counterpunchers too much; this is reflected in the fact that indoor surfaces mimic the pace of outdoor surfaces. For some years now the number 1 player in both the ATP and WTA tour have been grinding baseline players who have many qualities, but lack flair, imagination and extra skill. One way to bring flair and imagination back into tennis is to reconsider speeding up indoor courts to encourage net play and improvisation, at the moment almost a lost art at the highest level. Long, attritutional 6 hour matches in major finals is not the long term solution for tennis. The authorities should consider bringing diversity back into the game.

My Visit to Open Gaz De France - WTA Paris Indoor 2012

2012-02-13T16:28:00.000-08:00

This weekend I attended the Paris Indoor tournament for the women. The tournament is called Open Gaz De France and is held in the South West sector of Paris, not far from Roland Garros. I got tickets for quarterfinals and finals day, although when I got my tickets in December, I had no idea that this year was to be a special occasion.

Open Gaz De France was celebrating its 20th year as a tournament and had organised a special exhibition doubles match featuring four legends of womens tennis. Martina Navratilova teamed up with Martina Hingis to play Monica Seles and Amelie Mauresmo, Mauresmo is also Tournament Director. It was a great moment in front of a packed crowd, the volleying skills and trick shots on display were incredible, I’m sure memories came flooding back for many in the audience.

The ladies had a lot of fun; Mauresmo even hit a hotdog winner at one point. At the end of the match (which Navratilova/Hingis won incidentally), there was a special birthday cake presented to commemorate 20 years, a huge cake brought out by at least 4 chefs! But no one cut into the cake!

Onto the tournament proper, I attended 3 excellent matches on quarterfinal day. I arrived on Friday, straight from London via Eurostar; I arrived too late for the first match between Yanina Wickmayer of Belgium and Mona Barthel of Germany but at least Germany’s Julia Georges was warming up to play Klara Zakopalova of the Czech Republic, I would see the whole contest. The match started how I expected with Georges attempting to make the play, firing a couple of big serves and aces.

Georges raced to a 4:1 lead and was looking good, Zakopalova had some good shots, particularly on the run, but made too many errors on the forehand side. By this stage, Zakopalova was fighting hard, saving more break points to hold at 4:2 down. However, Georges went on to close out the first set 6:3. I was expecting Georges to win in straight sets but was secretly hoping it would go to 3 sets. Zakopalova obliged by racing to a 3:1 lead in the 2nd set, Georges broke to make it 3:3 but Zakopalova broke at the end of the set to take it 7:5 and force a third.

By now Georges looked quite irritable and before we knew it, she was 4:0 down in the 3rd set. Georges called for the trainer and received treatment for what seemed to be either a back or leg injury, in the end Georges succumbed 6:1. A surprising result but Zakopalova upped her game, cut down on the errors and played quite well in the 2nd and 3rd sets.

The next match between Maria Sharapova and Germany’s Angelique Kerber was a repeat of their Australian Open encounter of three weeks prior. I had never seen Kerber play before but was looking forward to it as I think she has an interesting game and felt she would run Sharapova close. Kerber was broken in her very first service game and Sharapova held the lead twice but after an exchange of breaks Kerber held to reach 5:4 in the first set. Kerber then broke Sharapova to claim the first set 6:4.

The first set had some really good tennis; there was a good contrast in styles. Kerber is a lefty and is an interesting mix of puncher and counterpuncher, she can do both. Kerber is a good retriever who can also hit the forehand down the line and is not afraid to attack the net. Sharapova found that she had a lot of trouble with Kerber and getting a handle on Kerber’s game.

Sharapova broke early in the 2nd set but was broken back, Kerber then survived a long game with many deuces and break points to hold at 3:2. Both players held serve until 5:4 to Kerber, then lightning struck again as Sharapova was broken to 30 whilst serving to stay in the match. Sharapova hit a crucial double fault at 30:15 which cost her dear. It was unfortunate because Sharapova actually served well throughout the match and didn’t hit too many double faults, but as so often these days, it came at the wrong time. Having said that, Kerber was the better player and deserved to win 6:4 6:4.

The next match between home favourite Marion Bartoli and Italy’s Roberta Vinci was a real thriller. This was even more of a clash in styles, Vinci is a real old school player from the 1980s and 1990s – big topspin forehand, sliced backhand and very good volleys, in the mould of Novotna, Sukova, Sabatini and Conchita Martinez. Vinci’s sliced backhand, drop shots and sneaking in to volley floating balls were very exciting to watch and gave Bartoli a lot of trouble, Vinci also employed the drop shot often, exploiting Bartoli’s lack of forward movement.

When Bartoli attacked the net early, Vinci hit a beautiful rolled backhand pass; Vinci gave a wry smile because she didn’t practise a single topspin backhand in the warm up! Vinci broke at 4:4 in the first set and served out a tight set at 6:4. Vinci went up 4:1 in the 2nd set and then suffered a major wobble and lost 5 games in a row as Bartoli took the set 6:4. By this stage, the fantastic Paris crowd were really getting into it, the sort of atmosphere I had seen so often on television but was now experiencing.

Vinci broke early in the 3rd set with another topspin backhand pass as Bartoli approached, and seemed to get it together. Vinci now served for the match at 5:2 and it went all horribly wrong again, by this stage Bartoli and the Parisians were incredibly pumped. Vinci tried again at 5:4 and was broken again, now Vinci somehow managed another crisis at 6:5 down to get to a tiebreak, but the force was with Bartoli and she won it convincingly 7 points to 2. It was 10:30pm and I had witnessed an excellent day of tennis with an incredible climax to the evening.

Finals day was another festival of tennis. The Doubles final between Huber / Raymond and Greonefeld / Martic was first up at 12pm. The experience of Raymond and Huber proved too much for the new pair and they won the match 7:6 6:1. After the presentation I had a brief chat with Lisa Raymond, I told her that the first match I saw was between her and Gabriela Sabatini in Wimbledon in 1995 and now we are in 2012 and she’s still winning titles. She said it has been a long a career, I congratulated her on her longevity, which she appreciated.

The final between Angelique Kerber and Marion Bartoli took place after the exhibition, and it was another cracking match; played in front of a raucous Parisian crowd. There were exchange of breaks but Kerber held the upper hand and served for the 1st set at 5:4 but was broken, but then held her nerve to claim the first set on a tiebreak. In the 2nd set, Kerber served for the match at 5:3 but wobbled, which got Bartoli and the crowd really worked up, Kerber couldn’t respond and was broken again as Bartoli took the 2nd set 7:5.

Kerber steadied herself and broke early in the 3rd set and ran to a 4:1 lead with a double break. Bartoli broke back to 4:2 and Kerber survived an incredibly long game to get to 5:2. Bartoli saved at least 3 match points but in the end the pressure was too much and Kerber closed it out 6:2 to win her first title on the WTA tour.

I thought Kerber was the better player on the day. She had the better serve and teased Bartoli with sliced backhands and drop shots, exposing Bartoli’s relative lack of movement. Kerber also retrieved well and showed a good level of athleticism because Bartoli really pounds the ball from corner to corner. Kerber has the potential to be a consistent top 10 player for years to come.

There were some tears in the presentation by Bartoli but it was a great match and the crowd was tremendous for Bartoli, but very fair to Kerber and applauded her good shots. I had the opportunity to congratulate Kerber after the presentation on a job well done.

I had an excellent time at the Open Gaz de France; I met some interesting people there as well and would definitely consider attending the tournament in future years.

Kvitova v Azarenka - The Next Big Rivalry?

2012-02-03T17:09:00.000-08:00

Well, the first major of the year has been decided. Victoria Azarenka emphatically beat Maria Sharapova 6:3 6:0 to claim her first Grand Slam title and the World Number 1 ranking at the same time, not bad for a day’s work. Two of the last three major tournaments have been claimed by Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova. In 2011, the two also played each other in the final of Madrid, the semi-final of Wimbledon and the final of the year end WTA Championships in Istanbul.

Victoria Azarenka is now world number 1 and Petra Kvitova world number 2. It seems appropriate that we could see these two players swap places quite a bit over the next few years, much in the way Federer / Nadal, Agassi / Sampras, Graf / Seles did in recent history. They have all of the ingredients for a great rivalry – contrast in styles of play, contrasts in personality and both have a will to win and desire to improve their game.

It is almost ironic that both players beat Maria Sharapova to claim their maiden grand slam title. On each occasion Sharapova was made favourite by the pundits and bookmakers, although I thought Kvitova and Azarenka would come through in their respective finals, they were the players in form and ready to claim the big prize.

Looking at their personalities, Azarenka is a feisty character on court, someone who plays hard and throws her heart and soul into a match, which has led to many “meltdowns” as Azarenka herself puts it. I first saw Azarenka as a junior in the 2005 French Open and I remember her being almost hysterical in her match, on the court and during changeovers, virtually sobbing in her chair! I wasn’t impressed and questioned how far she could go at senior level acting like that on the court but Azarenka sure left an impression on me that day. It is great to see her come so far, banish her demons and realise her potential.

Azarenka is a player that makes fans take sides, there are not too many neutrals out there. Some will love her fighting spirit, others will dislike her grunting (or wailing) and the way she orders ball kids around. Although at the same time she is still young at 22 years and will probably mature further as time goes on.

Whilst Azarenka is the feisty player out on court giving everything until it hurts, Kvitova is often as cool as a cucumber. But like all great players, looks can be deceiving; Kvitova has a burning intensity to win her matches, that’s displayed often when she screams POK! after winning an important point. Kvitova also makes it look easy often, she has incredible natural power and timing, she doesn’t look like she’s making a huge effort, and yet the ball whistles off her racquet for winners.

Their differing personalities and styles of play are the perfect ingredients for a great rivalry. Kvitova is the player with the all court skills, great net play and natural power with a great serve. Azarenka is the solid player with a great groundstroke game but doesn’t have the best serve out there. Traditionally, the attacking player with more options has the better head to head in this type of rivalry. And so far that has proved to be the case, they’ve met 6 times so far and Kvitova has a 4:2 lead. Kvitova won most of the big matches in 2011, the finals in Madrid and Istanbul, plus the semi-final in Wimbledon. Kvitova also beat Azarenka in 2010 Wimbledon, coming from 5: 3 down in the first set to win 9 games in a row 7:5 6:0. Azarenka beat Kvitova in the 2009 Australian Open 1st round 6:2 6:1 and in Prague in 2008.

Kvitova has proved a bad match up for Azarenka so far, Kvitova usually has all the answers to Azarenka’s play. Azarenka likes to play solid and manoeuvre her opponent from side to side, but Kvitova nullifies that by going for lines and coming to net often, putting Azarenka in situations she doesn’t like. Kvitova plays high risk tennis which when it comes off, Azarenka hasn’t got an answer to as yet.

In a press conference during the Australian Open, Azarenka was quoted as saying "New rivalries are being set up like the one I can have with Kvitova. Maria and Serena came back to the top. Kim's still there. We are playing at a very high level." With Kvitova and Azarenka being the same age, that rivalry will be around for many years and they will play each other in many semi-finals and finals. Both Clijsters and Serena are in the autumn of their careers and Sharapova is currently going through a phase Boris Becker once experienced, where he was just 2 to 3 years older than many of his rivals like Agassi, Sampras, Courier and Ivanisevic, but it seemed a world away because he broke through to win Wimbledon at 17, just like Sharapova years later. Sharapova is now playing catch up against her younger opponents.

This is an exciting period for womens tennis after the problems that were caused by Justine Henin’s sudden retirement in 2008. Serena Williams didn’t play enough to stay number 1 consistently whilst we’ve had 3 number 1 players without major titles to their name. Now we have two players who could help take the game to the next level; Azarenka is looking to improve her movement and variety all the time, Kvitova is looking at ways of making her game solid whilst keeping that level of creating something out of nothing, her lefty game making her angles and improvisation even more spectacular, much in the way Marcelo Rios once did on the ATP tour.

Who Will Make the Next Breakthrough in Mens Tennis

2012-01-15T16:26:00.000-08:00

2011 was an incredible year for mens tennis, primarily due to one player – Novak Djokovic. Djokovic won 3 major titles and went on a 43 match win streak between January and June claiming the Australian Open, Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome, an incredible feat. Djokovic also went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open. But what Djokovic managed to do was break the cosy monopoly of Federer and Nadal at the top of mens tennis. Now that Djokovic has shown that it can be done, the question must be, who will be next to make the big breakthrough and can it happen in 2012.

Andy Murray is the player most pundits, fans and bookmakers are looking at to be the next player to win a major title. Murray has been to three major finals so far but has yet to win a set in any of those matches. A lot of people point to Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi as players who suffered similar results in their first few finals but both those guys had 5 set final losses, at the French Open, Lendl in 1981 to Bjorn Borg and Agassi in 1991 to Jim Courier. Therefore, you have to come to the conclusion that Murray is actually overwhelmed in major finals; and is not able to play his game or impose himself on his opponent.

That’s partly the reason as Murray’s style of play is also a contributing factor to his lack of major success. Murray is a counterpuncher by nature but to win a title match you have to do more than hope for your opponent to miss. That is precisely the reason why Murray hasn’t been able to claim a set in any of his finals. Other players who can be counted as counter punchers have learned their lesson well. Both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have added aggressive strategies to their game to complement their defensive skills, making them formidable opponents on the generally slower surfaces in the professional game today.

Andy Murray has been content to surround himself with guys who do not want to rock the boat and say what was needed to be said, that is evidenced by Murray’s attitude to his camp during matches. Miles McClaghan is a good coach but in any of his interviews pre and post Murray, McClaghan gives the impression that Murray is more or less the finished article and just needs minor adjustments. I happen to think Murray needs major adjustments, adjustments in his mentality and his game plan.

And Murray has acknowledged that by hiring Ivan Lendl as coach. A brave decision in my view, some argue that they won’t get on and it won’t work as a partnership but I hope it does and I am sure it will. Murray will have instant respect for Lendl due to his standing in the game and Lendl’s achievements. Also, Lendl knows what it is like lose many major finals before claiming one and what needs to be done to get another opportunity. Lendl can show Murray discipline and how to impose his game on his opponent. Murray’s forehand has often appeared a liability and I also think Murray relies too much on his 1st serve; his form has declined badly if he doesn’t get his 1st serve in consistently. What Lendl will impress on Murray is to have a good game and strategy behind his 2nd serve. When Murray puts in a 2nd serve, what type of serve will it be and will it be designed to win points or just get it in and hope for the best.

This is really an indication of how mentality and skill is intertwined. You have to have the skill to construct winning points behind 2nd serves against top returners, but also the courage to play like that in pressure situations. If Lendl can instil the mentality to be more courageous in pressure moments, Murray could and should make a big breakthrough in 2012 with his 1st major championship, hopefully for him at the Australian Open where he already has an excellent record as twice losing finalist.

Joe Wilfred Tsonga could not be more different to Andy Murray in terms of attitude and temperament. Tsonga is a real showman on the court, and by all accounts quite shy off the court.

Tsonga is a great talent for sure, I first saw him play in 2007 at Wimbledon in the 3rd round where he comprehensively outplayed Feliciano Lopez to win in straight sets. I knew that day he was going to become a top player and that has proved to be the case. In 2008 Tsonga lost to Djokovic in the final of the Australian Open after taking the first set. Tsonga hasn’t quite hit the heights since then which is a bit of a surprise, mainly due to injuries and inconsistency.

Tsonga has shown he can live with the big boys by taking Federer out at the quarterfinal stage in 2011 Wimbledon. Tsonga also got to the final of the ATP World Tour finals, losing to Federer in a thrilling final. Tsonga has the game to blow his opponents away, especially when he gets inspired. However, Tsonga’s biggest challenge is playing at a consistent level throughout a five set match without having too many ups and downs. I like the way Tsonga goes for his shots when the pressure is on, what Tsonga has to ensure is that he makes those shots at key moments and not miss them, that’s the fine line Tsonga is walking. If Tsonga can get that consistency under pressure, he has the skill and power to defeat the best players in the world and claim a major title. What better place than Wimbledon? Tsonga has the perfect game for grass.

If we think of other players that can make a breakthrough, or at least re-establish themselves, then Juan Martin Del Potro would be a good candidate. Del Potro had a great 2009, getting to the semifinal of the French Open, where he held a two sets to one lead against Federer before losing. Del Porto returned the favour, coming from behind to beat Federer in the US Open final, his only major title to date. Del Potro also got to the final of the ATP World Tour finals, losing to Nikolay Davydenko.

Del Potro has suffered a nasty wrist injury and was out of the game for virtually 12 months, returning in early 2011. It’s fair to say that Del Potro is struggling to get back to top 5 status, which is understandable. Del Porto is a great shotmaker with an incredible forehand and good movement for a tall guy. And that’s where I feel Del Potro has a problem, almost all top players who are 6ft 4 inches plus ( 1 metre 96cm) have had serious injuries - Todd Martin, Richard Krajicek, Robin Soderling, Mario Ancic, Goran Ivanisevic all suffered long term injuries. In tennis, there seems to be a threshold that players over a certain height are more injury prone. Also, the way Del Porto hits the forehand, i.e. the technique he uses; he is vulnerable to a recurrence of his wrist injury.

If Del Porto can stay injury free and recover his self belief and movement, he’s a threat because he’s already proven he’s a champion and has the mentality to beat the best players in the biggest matches. Mentality and self belief is as important as talent at the highest level.

There are not too many other players who will be seen as potential major winners, other than two more tall guys, namely Milos Raonic and Tomas Berdych. Raonic is an exciting young player from Canada with an incredible serve. Raonic is 6ft 5 inches tall, and already has suffered a lot of injuries. 2012 may be too early for Raonic as he is a raw talent, but a player to watch for the future, especially on grass. Berdych has the talent to win a major and reached the 2010 Wimbledon final. Berdych probably requires a bit more self belief and a bit of luck at this stage, but he’s a threat at the majors and shouldn’t be discounted in 2012.

Previewing the 2012 WTA season

2011-12-27T19:04:00.000-08:00

The 2011 WTA season turned out to be a very interesting one with four different nationalities winning the major titles. Serena Williams did not win a major title for the first time since 2006 whilst Petra Kvitova announced herself as the most exciting young talent to emerge for many years, perhaps since Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters 10 years previously. An exciting transition at the top is certainly taking place. With the season about to commence in Australasia, it’s a good time to assess the contenders for the major prizes in 2012.

Caroline Wozniacki

Currently the world number 1 for the past 18 months, Caroline Wozniacki has come in for quite a bit of criticism. There are a number of reasons for this, Wozniacki didn’t win any major titles or make any major finals. Traditionally, tennis fans or media do not like to see a number 1 player with no major titles. Wozniacki’s style of play is a contributing factor to her lack of major success; a counterpuncher by nature, winning majors is all about being brave on the day and taking the game to your opponent before they take it away from you.

As for 2012, Wozniacki is still only 21 years old and has time on her side to win a major title, that could happen in 2012 as she will be top seed for the Australian Open and still holds the edge on many of her opponents. Wozniacki had a good 2011 winning 6 titles including Dubai and Indian Wells. To go one better and win a first major title, Wozniacki would need to work on her serve and making her forehand a bigger weapon, plus improve her play in the forecourt, volleys in particular.

This sounds a tall order, and it’s surprising a number 1 player has so many technical deficiencies. Therefore we will see whether Wozniacki has improved or allowed the pressure to get to her. If Wozniacki has worked to improve during the off season, she has every chance of winning a major.

Petra Kvitova

This is the player which has made the new season such an exciting proposition; I would imagine this is the most anticipated new season for a number of years. Kvitova had a great breakout season, winning 7 titles including Wimbledon, Madrid, WTA championships and the Federation cup with Czech Republic defeating mighty Russia in the final. Kvitova won titles on all surfaces and finished the season 115 points off Caroline Wozniacki’s number 1 position. Kvitova also won a host of awards including WTA player of the year and breakout player of the year, and fans favourite player of the year.

The question for 2012 will be whether Kvitova can build on the momentum she’s established. There will probably be some downs along the way but Kvitova has the game not only to become number 1 but to dominate the game for the foreseeable future. That’s due to the fact that Kvitova has more shots, weapons and skill than probably all of her rivals and has recently shown she has mental fortitude under pressure, often coming from behind in the score to win.

Kivitova has yet to master outdoor hardcourts, I think she can make her serve more of a weapon on that surface and add more topspin to her forehand for control to account for varying conditions. It’s entirely possible Kvitova will defend her Wimbledon trophy and is capable of winning the French Open as well, 2012 should be another great year for Petra Kvitova.

Serena Williams

Serena Williams is certainly at a crossroads, she’s been the top player since 2008 with the demise of Justine Henin during that period, winning a hatful of major titles. However, a life threatening illness meant that Serena couldn’t start her season until June at Eastbourne, which didn’t give her time to get enough matches for a proper Wimbledon challenge.

Serena did go on to claim the Canadian Open title (Rogers Cup) and reach the US Open final before succumbing to an inspired Sam Stosur. That has turned out to be Serena Williams’ last match of 2011. The simple questions are, is Serena motivated to enter enough tournaments to keep her match sharp for the major tournaments. Also, will the rise of Petra Kvitova motivate Serena to get back to the top to challenge the younger players? Serena has the best serve and return of serve in the womens game, but Kvitova is looking to challenge that position. Serena has the edge on athleticism but has a litany of injuries to contend with.

If Serena can challenge for the major titles, it could be a vintage 2012 for the WTA.

Victoria Azarenka

Azarenka had a great purple patch in the spring winning Miami for a 2nd time and Marbella on clay. Azarenka also won Luxembourg in the autumn and made the final of Madrid, the semi final at Wimbledon and the final of the year end WTA championships, each time losing to Petra Kvitova. Azarenka has a great solid groundstroke game and has the ability to come to net from time to time to finish off points. That type of game usually means hard courts will be her best surface but the French Open is also a realistic possibility in 2012.

Azarenka should be able to continue her progression to a possible major title in 2012; she’s feeling confident and has improved her movement and fitness, her chances for a great 2012 look good. The only problem I see is Azarenka facing Kvitova in a major semi final or final. In that scenario she becomes the immediate counterpuncher because of Kvitova’s aggressive attitude. A lot of people predict it to be the great rivalry for years to come; I see it developing in the same way as Agassi v Sampras, with Azarenka playing the Agassi role.

Another analogy / comparison will certainly be Janica Kostelic and Anja Paerson who had that great rivalry in skiing, Azarenka being similar to Paerson and Kvitova similar to Kostelic. Contrast in styles and personalities make for great rivalries and Azarenka has the opportunity to help create something special in 2012.

Maria Sharapova

It’s strange to think that Sharapova won the Italian Open, Cincinnati and got to the final of Wimbledon and the semi final of the French Open. And yet Sharapova is kind of the forgotten player in the top 5 despite her being such a renowned figure in the world of sport.

And to me there’s a simple reason for that, despite having such a great comeback in 2011 playing great tennis and winning big events, you never know when she’s going to hit a double fault! And you certainly don’t know when she’s going to double fault during a crucial stage of a big match. Double faults are the reason why Sharapova hasn’t reclaimed a major title.

Assuming Sharapova recovers from her foot injury sustained in Japan in October and continues to be relatively injury free with her right shoulder, Sharapova could have a great 2012 and win a major title as long as she can somehow banish the demons (i.e. nerves) within her and cut out the double faults in big matches. John McEnroe reckons Sharapova should cut the 2nd serve out of the equation and work on getting a high first serve percentage. I don’t know if that is realistic but Sharapova has to rectify the situation to get back to the top of tennis.

Sam Stosur

Sam Stosur had a great 2011, winning the US Open title in emphatic style, comprehensively outplaying Serena Williams in the final. Stosur also got to the final of the Italian Open where she lost to Maria Sharapova, and the year end championships semi final, playing a great match against Petra Kvitova before losing in 3 sets.

Stosur will always be a threat at the French Open, clay being by far her best surface. Stosur also has the experience of playing a final there, so a good opportunity to win there in 2012. Stosur will also be a sentimental favourite with the Australian fans to win the Australian Open, there will be a lot of pressure and it will be interesting to see how she handles it.

My only concern for Stosur in 2012 will be that she just doesn’t win enough smaller events. In fact, besides being a great doubles specialist before her illness and reincarnation as a top singles player, Stosur has only won 3 singles titles so far in her career. Stosur has a game to become a dominant player at the top of the womens game, with an incredible forehand and topspin (kick) serve. However, Stosur needs to win some smaller events to give her the confidence to win the big events consistently.

Other players that can make a breakthrough in 2012 include:

Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova – I think Pavlyuchenkova has the game to become a top five player in the next few years; she’s a natural ball striker with a good serve. Pavlyuchenkova needs to work on her fitness and mental game but has great potential.

Kim Clijsters – You never write off a naturally talented player who has a lot of experience, Clijsters is defending Australian champion after all. With Clijsters it’s about fitness, motivation and making time for her daughter, if she can stay fit, she’s a threat at the majors.

Jelena Jankovic – I keep thinking Jankovic is too talented not to breakthrough to win a major title, but for some reason Jankovic just cannot get it together mentally. It’s not too late for her so let’s see what will happen in 2012.

Na Li – Pete Sampras recently joined Na for an exhibition in China and said some kind words about her. Along the lines that it will take time for her to adjust to being a grand slam champion in the way it did for Novak Djokovic and for Sampras 20 years ago. I think the difference is that both those guys were very young where Na is almost veteran status and probably not as hungry for success. Na certainly has the talent; if she can find the motivation she can surprise everyone again in 2012.

Vera Zvonareva - Similar in game style and temperament to Jelena Jankovic, Zvonareva has the talent to be a major champion. However, like Jankovic, Zvonareva may lack the self belief to be a champion and beat all of the contenders in 7 matches. Zvonareva still has about 3 years to make something happen, let’s see if that can be in 2012.

Assessing Federer and Sampras

2011-12-08T15:11:00.000-08:00

The last 20 years have been a very interesting period for men’s tennis with two of the most prolific champions of the 1990s and 2000s overlapping each other. Both players had significant rivals and set many records along the way. With Roger Federer breaking yet another record at the year end ATP World Tour finals a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to assess how both players have helped to define their eras.

Pete Sampras’ major achievements

Sampras won 64 titles including 14 major championships. Sampras finished year end number for 6 years from 1993 through 1998 which is a record. Sampras currently holds the record for most weeks at number 1 (286 weeks). Sampras won Wimbledon on 7 occasions which is an open era record; he’s also tied with Jimmy Connors and Roger Federer for 5 US Open titles. Sampras is the youngest ever US Open winner at 19 years and 28 days. Sampras won the Davis Cup in 1992 and 1995 and was a losing finalist in 1994 and 1997. Sampras won the Australian Open in 1994 and 1997 and was a losing finalist in 1995. Sampras won major titles every year from 1993 to 2000 and appeared in major finals from 1992 to 2002.

As far as other titles go, Sampras won the ATP championships 5 times and played in 6 finals. He won Miami, Cincinnati, Indianapolis three times each plus Indian Wells, Queens, Los Angeles, Paris Bercy twice. Sampras won 11 Masters Series including the Italian Open.

Roger Federer’s major achievements

Federer has won 70 titles including 16 major championships which is a record. Federer has participated in a record 23 major finals and played in over 30 consecutive major quarterfinals. Federer is tied with Sampras and Connors for 5 US Open wins. He’s tied with Andre Agassi with four Australian Open wins in the Open era; he’s won Wimbledon 6 times and the French Open on one occasion. Federer spent 237 straight weeks as number 1 between 2004 and 2008 which is a record, and 285 weeks in total so far. Federer won Olympics doubles gold in 2008 in Beijing with Stan Warinka. Incredibly, Federer has not missed a single Grand Slam tournament which is very unusual, no doubt accounting for his consistency of results as well.

In terms of other tournaments, Federer recently broke the record of winning the ATP World Tour finals on six occasions, going one better than Sampras and Ivan Lendl. Federer has won his local tournament Basel four times, Cincinnati, Canada, Dubai three times each. Federer has won 18 Masters Series titles so far including Hamburg on three occasions.

1990s – Sampras era

1990s was very much Sampras’ decade; he won 61 titles from 1990 to 1999. It was an interesting decade because there were more sanctioned surfaces on the ATP tour, and court speeds varied starkly depending on location and time of year. Most indoor tournaments in Europe and America were played on indoor carpet (Supreme in America, Taraflex in Europe) and the surfaces were fast and low bouncing, although kick serves were still effective, the surface suited attackers and baseliners as long as they played aggressive.

Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass and heavy balls were used on clay. Hardcourts were also quite varied in pace, Australia used rebound ace which was often very slow and high bouncing, whilst hardcourts in America were relatively fast (except Miami which has always been slow).

The many different types of surfaces meant there were a variety of styles of play on the ATP tour, serve and volleyers, aggressive baseliners, counterpunchers, grass and claycourt specialists. This is reflected by the fact that, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Moya, Rafter and Kafelnikov all held the number 1 position, a cross section of serve and volleyers (all court players) and baseliners.

2000s – Federer era

As often, eras overlap; Federer won his first major title at Wimbledon in 2003, 10 months after Sampras’ last in September 2002 at the US Open. From 2000 to 2009 Federer won 62 titles. As the decade progressed, there was a convergence of surfaces and surface speed, and with the gradual retirement of attacking players, there was a convergence in styles of play. Court surfaces also changed, indoor carpet was phased out to be replaced by indoor hardcourts, which were slower and higher bouncing. This change along with the change of composition of grass at Wimbledon ensured that net play would become an exception rather than the norm.

Clay was also speeded up as the decade progressed; lighter balls were introduced, which ironically would have suited the many attacking players of the 1990s. String technology also advanced and more top players used synthetic strings or a combination of synthetic and natural gut. To reflect the slowing down of surfaces, players on average were stringing their racquets much looser than top players of the 1990s.

The Australian Open changed surfaces from distinctive rebound ace to a more conventional plexicushion hardcourt which is medium slow and high bouncing, again favouring baseline play. Tennis shifted from players with natural ability, athleticism and improvisational skills to a more physical, functional style which favours stamina and percentage play.

Sampras style of play

Sampras is an interesting player because he seems to fit into many categories of peoples thoughts about his game. Sampras once said that the media didn’t understand him or his game, there might be some truth in that. Depending on who you speak to, you get a different view of what Sampras’ game was about. Some see Sampras as a serve and volley specialist, some view him as having a big serve where the returner didn’t get a look in. Some view him as an all court player with great movement, one guy I spoke to recently didn’t remember him for a big serve, whilst another guy remembers him been very cool under pressure.

Fred Perry made the famous quote in 1993 which said Sampras “moves like oil, you don’t hear him, you just hear the other guy, and the other guy’s losing.” In 1999 Agassi described Sampras’ forehand as “obnoxious” during a Wimbledon press conference.

Sampras talked about his versatility in his book, which is reflected by the many conceptions different people have of his game, he can be described as all of these things. Sampras was one of the most talented players of the open era who modelled his game after Australians Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall. Sampras was very much a product of the modern era, and I would describe his game as a hybrid between Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker, the movement and big forehand of Lendl and the big serve and athleticism of Becker.

Sampras had every shot and improvised shot in the book, as evidence by the many YouTube clips that document his game. Sampras also has what is considered the best and most beautiful rhtymic serve of the open era, which had twice as many rpms as his rivals, which made his 2nd serve delivery fantastic because it was delivered at pace with an incredible amount of slice and topspin. Sampras also played differently depending on the surface, on grass, Sampras served and volleyed on every serve, first and second, on hardcourts he often played a more baseline oriented game, especially in the early 1990s on slower hardcourts like Indian Wells, Miami and Australia.

Sampras’ game also went through a few phases, under Joe Brandi in the early 1990s, Sampras was a raw talent who blew hot and cold, under Tim Gullickson, Sampras became the number 1 player who could play on any surface. Under Paul Annacone, Sampras used his athleticism and big serve and volleys more later in his career. Sampras also started chipping and charging more, something he hardly did before. Sampras’ more aggressive game late on in his career sacrificed his game on clay which requires more patience from the baseline.

Sampras' return game also changed as he got older, in his early years he often ran around his backhand to smack forehands, later in his career he used the chip and charge and backhand drive down the line return more often.

One aspect of the game which really gave Sampras a different dimension was his ability to hit winning returns and passing shots, off both wings, down the line and crosscourt plus lobs, that separated him from other attacking players of that era and was the reason he won Wimbledon 7 times. In the 1995 Wimbledon final against Becker, Sampras hit over 25 passing shot winners and in the 2000 final against Rafter, Sampras hit over 20 passing shot winners, and 12 return winners, on each occasion he lost the first set in a tiebreak.

Federer style of play

In Federer’s case, there are no arguments or discussion; he’s universally admired as having a beautiful game. One of the reasons for this is that Federer likes to bring out his best regardless of who he’s playing, whether it be a journeyman or a top player. For instance, some of Sampras’ greatest performances are against his peers like Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final, Federer makes great performances against journeymen as well, something crowds appreciate.

As Sampras gradually got older, his game became less and less baseline oriented, whilst as Federer got older, his game became more and more baseline oriented. In the 2003 Wimbledon final, Federer served and volleyed on over 3 quarters of his first serves, in 2004 that ratio fell to under 20%. The reason for this is the slowing down of surfaces, however, this allowed Federer to play an expansive baseline game which is great to watch, especially on grass where the ball should move quicker and stay lower.

The speeding up of the clay surfaces also helped Federer as it allowed him to play his game and create lots more opportunities to hit winners with the faster balls and more modern strings. Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free for long periods of time, or at least, not have the serious injuries many of his colleagues suffer.

Federer also has a mean backhand down the line and exceptional improvisational skills. Federer also has every shot in the book and seems to invent new ones as well, which is no mean feat. What would have been even more interesting is if Federer had used his volleying ability and athleticism at net even more, that would have given him an even extra dimension especially in the really big matches he plays at this stage of his career.

Recently Federer has been playing a more aggressive game under the guidance of Paul Annacone, who of course was Sampras’ long term coach after the death of Tim Gullickson. Federer has been running around his backhand more to hit forehand returns and is using the chip and charge as a tactic at opportune moments.

Sampras’ Rivals

Sampras was one of the few players to dominate virtually all of his top rivals. Sampras only had losing records against Sergei Brugera, Michael Stich and Richard Krajieck amongst his peers, whilst having close losing records to Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, but there’s a ten year age gap (11 years in Hewitt’s case). This was due to Sampras’ ability to raise his game in the big matches, and match his opponents from the baseline, that again separated him other attacking players of that era.

v Andre Agassi 20-14
v Jim Courier 16-4
v Patrick Rafter 12-4
v Thomas Muster 9-2
v Michael Chang 12-8
v Goran Ivanesivic 12-6
v Boris Becker 12-7
v Greg Rusedski 9-1
v Cedric Pioline 9-0
v Albert Costa 5-0
v David Wheaton 8-0
v Todd Martin 18-4
v Jonas Bjorkman 9-2
v Yvegeny Kafelnikov 11-2
v Michael Stich 4-5
v Mark Phillipoussis 7-4
v Richard Krajieck 4-6
v Sergei Brugera 2-3
v Tim Henman 6-1
v Stefan Edberg 8-6
v Petra Korda 12-5

Federer’s Rivals

Federer also enjoys healthy leads on many of his rivals. However, he has a comprehensive losing record to Rafael Nadal, mainly because Nadal has been able to get to Federer’s backhand in a way no other player can. Federer also has a losing record to Murray, but Murray has never beaten Federer in a grand slam tournament. Other than that, Federer has excellent records against many top players.

V Rafael Nadal 9-17
V Novak Djokovic 14-10
V Andy Roddick 21-2
V Joe Wilfred Tsonga 8-3
V David Ferrer 12-0
V Marat Safin 10-2
V Juan Martin Del Potro 7-2
V Nicolay Davydenko 15-2
V Lleyton Hewitt 18-8
V Juan Carlos Ferrero 9-3
V David Nalbandian 11-8
V Andy Murray 6-8
V James Blake 10-1
V Tomas Berdych 10-4
V Gael Monfils 6-1
V Carlos Moya 7-0
v Gaston Gaudio 5-0
v Guillermo Canas 3-3

Roger Federer’s career is still on and it may be a while before he retires, but make no mistake, all achievements today are a bonus and his career has been defined by his exploits in the 2000s. It’s remarkable how he and Sampras have had such similar careers in some ways and different in other ways. Both men can identify as having a unique talent and the ability to use a small headed heavy Wilson midsize racquet that most other players will not touch. These guys are one offs.

Can ATP Tour Learn from WTA scheduling?

2011-11-16T12:28:00.001-08:00

We’ve had a tremendous finish to the 2011 WTA season, probably the best finish for a number of years. Petra Kvitova won the BNP Paribas WTA Championships for the first time, and in emphatic style winning all of her matches. The championships took place in Istanbul for the first of a 3 year contract and the atmosphere was great with record breaking attendences, which really inspired the players to put on a good show for the crowds.

A week later we had the Federation cup shootout between Russia and the Czech Republic in Moscow. The Czechs edged out the Russians 3:2 to win the cup for the first time as an independent nation. One of the matches of the year took place in the 3rd rubber between Svetlana Kuznetsova and Petra Kvitova. The match kept everyone on the edge of their seats with 3 sets of high quality intense tennis with both players hitting an incredible number of winners under pressure. It was a great advert for womens Tennis.

With Ana Ivanovic winning the tour of champions in Bali for a second time, there is now a nice two month break until end December when the merry go round of the tour recommences in Australasia. The players have an opportunity to have 3 to 4 weeks off to relax and recharge their batteries before commencing pre season preparations. However, it’s not only an opportunity for the players to decompress; the fans can also recharge and really get excited about the upcoming 2012 season.

While the WTA tour has shut down for another year, the ATP continues to roll. During the week of the WTA championships, there were indoor tournaments in Stockholm and Vienna. Then last week there were tournaments in Valencia and Basel. The Paris Masters has just taken place and then from November 20th through 27th the ATP World Tour finals at the 02 arena in London. And if that wasn’t enough, the Davis cup final between Spain and Argentina takes place a week later in early December.

It’s been difficult to keep up with who’s winning what and where. Not only that, but a bit of mental fatigue has crept in, I kind of want the season to be over already.

I’ve been following the ATP tour closely since 1993 and for as long as I can remember the complaints have been the same, the season is too long. It seems less like a season and more like a circus, a never ending commitment to play tournaments all around the world for pretty much 12 months a year. Like cricket, mens tennis has suffered from a scenario of nonstop touring. That is set to change from 2012.

There have been many vague changes to the tour designed to reduce the workload of the players. One change included making all ATP finals best of 3 sets including the ATP World Tour final (a mistake in my view which reduces the prestige of the tournament). There have also been changes to the rankings system which gives out points almost like confetti for winning major championships. Players are encouraged via complicity to take breaks during the course of the season, somewhere between the end of the grass court season and the beginning of the hard court season. Also between the end of the US Open and the Asian swing in late summer.

However, what will really make the difference for players and fans is to have a proper off season, like the WTA tour has managed. This year there is a huge difference where the WTA has a break of 8 weeks and the ATP a break of just over 4 weeks. We’ve heard the complaints from the likes of Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray but we are still in the same scenario as previous years.

Finally, after years of lack of will and vested interests by tournament directors, it seems as though the ATP has listened and shortened the calendar for 2012, which will see the World Tour finals finishing on November 11th, with the Davis cup final presumably taking place a week later. This is a welcome change of thinking and overdue, the tennis tour is quite a grind of nonstop travelling and as a consequence top players retire fairly young compared to many other professional sports. Players of the calibre of Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Patrick Rafter among others have all retired before reaching their 32nd birthday. Tennis fans have been deprived of these great players playing into their mid 30s.

At the same time, the ATP needs to work harder to find a way of shortening the season still further for the top players. One way to do that would be to match the WTA and end the season at the end of October and not towards mid November. Shortening the season further will not only reduce the mental and physical fatigue of players, but also give players a longer off season to recharge their batteries and make proper preparations for the next season.

For once, the sometimes maligned WTA tour has taken the lead on improving the lot of their players. The ATP have now followed the lead for the 2012 season, let’s hope this is the start of a new trend of having at least an off season where players and fans can take stock and look forward to the next season with fresh minds and spirits.

Petra Kvitova - An In Depth Look at Her Game

2011-10-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

Petra Kvitova has made a real impression on the WTA tour in 2011. Kvitova is very much a throwback to bygone eras in pro tennis. Her game and attitude is very much modelled on what can be described as the big game, and what makes Kvitova so interesting is that she plays the big game in the purest sense. We hear that players hit the ball harder than ever and yet most of the top players on the tour are grinders. Kvitova is the opposite, matches are determined on how she’s playing and feeling, it’s on her racquet.

The way Kvitova won Wimbledon is reflective of this, she only dropped two sets whilst hitting over 200 winners in 7 matches, on average 30 winners per match, that’s a lot of winners! Kvitova has won 5 tournaments so far this year including Brisbane, Paris Indoor, Madrid and Linz, she’s won tournaments on all surfaces. Kvitova has a very bright future, so its a good opportunity to take an in depth look at her game and potential.

Petra’s Serve

Kvitova has one of the best serves on the WTA tour. Her serve is up there with Serena Williams and Sam Stosur as the most technically proficient. It’s not the fastest (usually top speed of 115mph) but it’s very big with a lot of spin and variation. Kvitova has an added factor, time on her side to improve her serve and make it more of a weapon than it already is, which is a scary thought for her opponents.

With Kvitova being left handed, she has an immediate advantage on the ad court (the decision court) which she uses to great effect with the swing serve to the backhand. Kvitova uses an incredible variety of serves and takes more chances on her serve than any female player. On both courts, Kvitova uses the sliding serve into the body to jam her opponents and get a short reply. By using the serve into the body as a tactic, it sets up a wide serve either side of her opponent.

Kvitova is also a great proponent of the slice serve on the deuce court, she bends it beautifully away from her opponents backhand. Kvitova can hit all four targets of the service box and therefore has the ability to hit many aces. The Wimbledon final against Maria Sharapova is a perfect example of Kvitova’s tactical brain, throughout the match Kvitova served into Sharapova’s body or wide to her backhand, then on matchpoint, straight down the middle, ace with Sharapova guessing the wrong way, great thinking in a pressure moment.

What really makes Kvitova’s serve stand out is the 2nd serve, Kvitova really takes chances on it, often going for lines, or into the body and very deep in the box. The sort of courage we haven’t seen from servers since the likes of Sampras was at the top of tennis. That sort of courage and tactical play will ensure Kvitova wins a lot more matches than loses over the next few years.

Petra’s Return of Serve

This is another aspect of the game that really reminds me of past greats. Kvitova is reviving an art that has been lost for some time, which is hitting clean winners off return of serve. Again, players go after their opponents’ 2nd serve, but Kvitova can turn good serves into return winners,

Kvitova has great hand eye co-ordination and a long wing span. This allows her to really have a go at the return of serve. And so often with players who have big serves or expect to hold serve, they can really put pressure on their opponents serve, not giving them much time to breathe. On deuce and ad courts, Kvitova has the ability to really step in and punish any short serves for winners.

Kvitova can also get the ball deep with tremendous pace, putting the server under constant pressure. Kvitova also has an interesting mentality, which is she’s not afraid to miss, if she misses the return or makes a mistake, she’s still coming after you when the next opportunity arises. That’s a gift to have that sort of self belief and confidence in your own ability.

Petra’s Forehand

Kvitova’s forehand is very much a classic shot, a shot designed to deliver as much damage as possible in the rallies. Kvitova said in an interview during Wimbledon that she watched Agassi Sampras matches on television, her forehand is very much in the tradition of those two players. Her forehand doesn’t have a lot of topspin, but is driven with force to all targets of the court.

Kvitova can make a lot of errors with her forehand but when she’s in a groove it can be a fantastic shot, especially when she’s off balance or out of position and goes for the spectacular.

Commentator and ex champion, Tracy Austin said during Wimbledon that Kvitova’s forehand can be a little too flat at times, I would agree with that assessment. Agassi and Sampras added topspin to their forehand drives to make it a formidable shot and increase their margin for error, Kvitova has the ability to do the same and come up with similar results, which would make her forehand one of the best in the womens game alongside Sam Stosur.

Petra’s Backhand

Kvitova has a great two hand backhand, especially off return of serve. Again, like her forehand, she can really use it to drive through the ball and hit winners at will, from all angles of the court. Kvitova also has an added advantage, the ability to take one hand off and play great slice shots, especially on grass where the ball stays low.

With the slice backhand, Kvitova can use it to change the pace of the rallies, or take a short ball and use the slice to attack the net. It was a shot that certainly gave her an added dimension during Wimbledon.

In terms of the two hander, Kvitova has the advantage of being 6 ft tall (1 metre 83), this often allows her to really lean on the ball and take a lot of her shots on top of the bounce, taking time away from her opponent with fairly flat drives. Like her forehand, Kvitova is especially dangerous when out of position and goes for winners down the line or crosscourt.

Petra’s Movement

This is a part of her game where the critics love to have a field day. I can see the comparisons with Lindsay Davenport in terms of Kvitova’s height and playing first strike tennis. Kvitova’s movement is not the best on the tour, but it’s not bad, and it’s an area she is looking to improve all the time.

Her movement into the forecourt is very good, she’s not afraid to hit approach shots and attack the net and take the initiative, always the sign of a very good player. Kvitova’s movement from side to side across the baseline can be improved but I also think her movement is deceptive and she has a long wing span.

And that’s an area I feel she has an advantage over a past player like Lindsay Davenport. When Kvitova is drawn out of position, she can come up with amazing shots, so her movement has to be good enough to get her into positions to hit those shots.

Petra’s Volleys and Overheads

This is another facet of the game Kvitova can excel in, she showed this right through her Wimbledon run this year. Kvitova has excellent volley skills and court positioning at net and is able to hit all sorts of conventional and drive volleys. Kvitova is also capable of hitting great stop volleys and improvised volleys.

Kvitova is not as athletic as Amelie Mauresmo or Justine Henin but she does have a long wing span, and cuts off passing shots well. Kvitova hasn’t had to play too many overheads, as players don’t go for lobs as much but she’s a capable smasher. And with improved movement and fitness, her volleys and overheads will improve further in the coming years.

Looking at Petra Kvitova’s game in detail, her strengths far outweigh her weaknesses. As long as Kvitova keeps improving, and improves her fitness and mental game, she has the game to become a multiple slam winner and great player in years to come.

Speeding Up Courts Could Help Bring Variety to Tennis

2011-09-11T15:34:00.000-07:00

The pace of courts in professional tennis has become the big topic over the last few years on various internet forums printed media. Players have made comments from time to time, especially concerning Wimbledon, but for the first time the issue has come up at the US Open. Roger Federer’s comments after his first round match forced the United States Tennis Association to put out a written statement. Poor weather conditions since the annual resurfacing of the courts meant the courts had been used and power washed less often

The USTA said "Both of these factors have resulted in the courts playing a little slower than usual. We expect the court surface to speed up as the courts get more play throughout the tournament as they traditionally have."

The fact that the USTA felt compelled to make a statement proves there is one thing that is universally agreed on in tennis, the courts have slowed down considerably over the last 10 years. The reasons why have been well documented; but what hasn’t been documented is the impact the slowing of courts has had on both the WTA and ATP tours.

The primary reason for the slowing of courts revolves around the Wimbledon Championships. During the 1990s complaints were that rallies were too short and the game had become too serve dominated. This was before the explosion of the internet and digital television, so most casual tennis fans would watch Wimbledon as it was one of the few tournaments that would be shown on terrestrial television around the world. Also, many clay court specialists would just not play Wimbledon.

The situation came to a head in 2001 when some of the Spanish players including French Open finalist Alex Corretja boycotted the tournament complaining that the Wimbledon Committee were basing seeds not on world ranking but on past pedigree on grass. Many clay court players had no pedigree so they were given a lower ranking. They argued that this was unjustified as they worked all year round to build up a ranking. The situation was further exacerbated by then World Number One and French Open champion Gustavo Kuerten skipping the tournament to take a holiday.

The Wimbledon Committee decided to change the seeding system from 16 to 32, a system the other three major tournaments adopted. However, that’s not the only major change Wimbledon made over the years. From 1995 through 2001 Wimbledon have also changed the composition of the seeds on the famous lawns to slow down the grass and the impact of big serving. Those changes really manifested itself in 2002 when Lleyton Hewitt went on to win Wimbledon. Hewitt’s win coincided with the demise of Pete Sampras as a force on grass, Pat Rafter’s time out from the game to contemplate his future, Roger Federer’s first round defeat and Goran Ivanisevic’s inability to defend to his title due to shoulder trouble. Richard Krajicek got to the quarterfinal but had a surprising 5 set loss to Xavier Malisse.

It became apparent in 2002 that attacking serve and volley tennis was no longer a viable proposition at the top level. This was mainly due to the fact that junior players coming through were no longer attacking the net, whilst future World Number One Roger Federer would change his game on grass from an attacking one to a baseline game to adapt to the changing times. Another significant change Wimbledon made was to go to a heavy duty ball to lessen the impact of big serving. Serving speeds were the same but the returner had a little more time to react as the ball slows relatively after bouncing.

It used to be that each major tournament had unique characteristics. The Australian Open was played on rebound ace between 1988 and 2007 (a rubberised hardcourt which was slow and high bouncing). In 2008 the Australian Open laid a more conventional hardcourt called plexicushion which is decidedly medium pace. The Australian also went from Slazenger balls to Wilson balls, Wilson balls are lighter and quicker but that hasn’t made any real impact on the pace of the courts. Rebound ace favoured both attacking players and aggressive baseliners as players like Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Lendl, Courier, Kafelnikov won the tournament with different styles of play.

Another significant change in the last 10 years has been the decline of indoor carpet courts on both the WTA and ATP tours. The indoor season was an important part of the calendar with tournaments in Europe and the United States culminating in the end of year Championships. For many years the womens final was played in Madison Square Garden in New York and Los Angeles. The mens tournament was played in Madison Square Garden, Frankfurt and then Hanover in Germany.

Indoor carpet as a surface favoured attacking players but baseliners could also excel on the surface. Players of the calibre of Ivan Lendl, Martina Hingis, Monica Seles had excellent records on the surface. Modern players like David Nalbandian have also done extremely well on indoor carpet. However, most of the indoor tournaments have replaced carpet with hard courts including Paris Bercy and Rotterdam. Tournaments such as Philadelphia and Stuttgart have been taken off the calendar in recent times. In 2005 Jim Courier was interviewed on BBC radio during Wimbledon and stated that the demise of attacking tennis was due to the decline of carpet tournaments and the ATP should address the issue.

The fact that hardcourt tennis is played all year round both indoors and outdoors doesn’t help with player injuries as hardcourts are so punishing on the body.

Medium pace courts allow players more time to set up their shots, there is less need to develop a large skills set to earn a good living from tennis. This is especially true in the womens game at present. There are currently a large proportion of players who play a similar game based on the Nick Bollietieri blueprint. That blueprint is to try to control the middle of the court with fierce groundstrokes and have a big return game. However, many players are not developing their serves as a reliable weapon, do not develop any volley or overhead skills and hardly ever apply slice on the backhand side to change the pace and tempo of rallies.

Caroline Wozniacki has been World Number One for twelve months and yet has a great amount of technical flaws in her game including a weak 2nd serve and poor volleys and a general passiveness in her game. We are unlikely to see players of the technique, variety and strategy of an Amelie Mauresmo or Justine Henin anytime in the near future. Wimbledon champion Petra Kvitova is one of the few players today who has the potential to add a lot of variety to her game, especially on grass.

The mens game is also suffering as the general public do not know who the players are outside of the top four. And with the new ranking system that gives points like confetti, David Ferrer who’s currently ranked 5 in the world is almost 10,000 points behind number 1 Novak Djokovic. The mens game also has a problem where 90 % of the players play a similar game where the slice backhand and net play are very much exceptions to the rule.

Medium paced courts are presently masking any flaws in technique players may have. With current racquet and string technology, players have much more time to set up their shots to keep the rallies extended, and it has become more difficult for shotmakers to hit through players or make telling volleys consistently. It has become much more difficult to rush opponents into errors plus the return of serve has probably become more vital than the serve.

Medium paced courts have discouraged players with natural attacking ability to adopt that strategy as it doesn’t pay in todays game. At Wimbledon it will become increasingly difficult for an attacking player to win the tournament. Joe Wilfred Tsonga got to the semifinal this year playing great tennis but ran into Novak Djokovic in the semifinal, who probably has the best defence in the world. Players like Tsonga would thrive on indoor carpet courts if they still existed.

An interesting phenomenon we’ve seen in the last 10 years are tall players who play as counterpunchers. That would have been inconceivable twenty years ago. Andy Murray and Gael Monfils are blessed with athletic ability and a big serve and could have played much more aggressive tennis. It can be argued that both players haven’t maximised their potential due to their style of play, again exacerbated by slow and medium paced courts on all surfaces.

It’s time that the powers of tennis look to find ways of bringing back variety to the game. The mens game will face a similar scenario to the womens game once Roger Federer hangs up his racquet. The womens game has really suffered since the departures of players like Martina Hingis, Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin because so many of their matches and rivals offered a great contrast in styles which the public always love to see. When Wimbledon rushed to slow down the grass courts, they overlooked the great matches played over the years between the attacker and the baseliner such as Rafter v Agassi or Navratilova v Graf.

The International Tennis Federation, The ATP and WTA would do well to listen to the fans and lay the groundwork of reintroducing variety into the game of Tennis, by speeding up many courts. This would encourage coaches around the world to teach more variety to their pupils and not the one dimensional baseline game we now see so often.

Greatest Women Hard Court Players of the Open Era

2011-08-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

Last week we took a look at the best male players. Now let’s take a look at the best female players since Hard Courts became an important feature of Professional Tennis.

All of the players here are current or former world number 1 champions. Showing once again that to be the very best, you have to excel on hard courts because it’s played so often throughout the Tennis season, both indoor and outdoor.

Kim Clijsters

Whenever I think of Kim Clijsters I think of Andre Agassi. Kim hasn’t achieved anything near as much as Agassi, but she certainly shares one thing in common which is her love of hard courts.

Clijsters has won 41 titles and 29 have come on hard court. So like Agassi, three quarters of Clijsters’ titles have come on hard courts.

Putting aside the statistics, what reminds me of Agassi is the way Kim approaches hard court matches. Clijsters seems to have faith in the bounce where she knows there will not be any bad or strange bounces that you would get on clay and grass, consequently Clijsters feels very comfortable and can go for her shots very freely indeed.

Clijsters had a great year in 2005 when she did the Indian Wells / Miami double, and won nearly all of the summer hard court tournaments she entered which culminated with her first title at the US Open.

Since Clijsters returned from her retirement in 2009, she has won only hard court events including winning the US Open in 2009 and 2010, the end of year WTA Championships in 2010 and the Australian Open in 2011. Clijsters also won Miami and Cincinnati in 2010 but unfortunately has suffered a lot of injuries since winning the Australian Open in January.

Clijsters’ strengths on hard courts are undoubtedly her movement—she is a great athlete who can get to any ball at any time when stretched, and is one of the best players at employing the wide to wide tactic, especially when serving. It’s in the genes as Clijsters’ father was a professional footballer for Belgium, and her mother was a gymnast.

Surprisingly, Clijsters’ weakness is that she doesn’t like high balls to her backhand, especially on return of serve. Not many players are able to exploit that—mainly because women players just don’t play a varied game.

Amelie Mauresmo however, consistently exploited that with high topspin backhands to Kim’s backhand and then low slices making Kim hit up a lot, that put Clisjters’ off her rhythm often. But only the best and tactical players are able to exploit that weakness.

Monica Seles

Monica Seles is without doubt another legend of this type of surface. Out of Seles’ 53 titles, 28 of them were on hard court. Like most American based players, Seles grew up on the hard courts of Florida at the Nick Bollettieri Academy.

Seles was also a mean clay court player as well having won the French Open three times in a row.

Seles won the US Open in 1991 and 1992 and got to the finals in 1995 and 1996. Seles also won the Australian Open 4 times from 1991 to 1993, and 1996. She also won the Canadian Open four times in a row between 1995 and 1998, and quite rightly is a legend in Canada.

Seles’ approach to tennis was the successful Bolliettieri blueprint—which was to control the middle of the court and move the opponent side to side wearing them out with punishing groundstrokes. She didn’t go to the net often, something she attempted to do more later in her career to shorten the points. Seles also developed a stronger serve later in her career.

Like Agassi, Seles used the serve more as a tool to get the point started and to take the offensive, as opposed to looking to hit aces or end the point with unreturnable serves too often. However, the lefty serve gave Seles a big advantage, especially on the ad court (the decision court).

Seles wasn’t the most athletic player though (this is a trait I find with many players who excelled at the Bolliettieri Academy, hence the focus on dictating play by controlling the middle of the court)

Therefore, latter players like Venus Williams was able to give Seles a lot of trouble. So did Steffi Graf with constant slices to Seles’ backhand—keeping the ball low making Monica have to hit up often.

Seles’ main strengths were her return of serve, which she used to punish opponents, especially off the 2nd serve. Seles was also double handed off both sides so had great control, even if it limited her on wide balls, although she was happy to take one hand off the racquet to get the reach.

Monica was also legendary for being a cool customer under pressure and had nerves of steel in the big moments, playing more aggressive when backed into a corner score wise.

Lindsay Davenport

Whilst you can associate Monica Seles’ game with the Nick Bollettieri formula in Florida, Lindsay Davenport’s game can definitely be associated to what is referred as the California Big Game—Big serve and big groundstrokes. Davenport was among the best in both departments. Naturally that type of game lends itself to the hard courts which she grew up on.

Most of Davenport’s titles have come on hard court. Out of the 55 titles Davenport has won, 34 have come on hard court. Davenport won the US Open in 1998 and the Australian Open in 2000, each time defeating Martina Hingis.

Davenport also appeared in the 2000 US Open final losing to Venus Williams and the 2005 Australian Open final, losing to Serena Williams. On each occasion Davenport seemed set to win, but was not able to see it through to victory.

Davenport has also won Indian Wells in 1997 and 2000 plus Olympic Gold in Atlanta in 1996. Davenport was also an excellent doubles player, winning 38 doubles titles including 24 on hard court. Davenport also won 3 Grand Slam doubles titles: French Open in 1996 with Mary Joe Fernandez, US Open in 1997 with Jana Novotna and Wimbledon in 1999 with Corina Morariu.

Her best weapon was her serve. As I mentioned before, Davenport embodied the big game, which always starts with the serve. She had a stint under Robert Landsdorp who also coached Pete Sampras and Tracy Austin. And like Sampras, Davenport placed her serve beautifully into the corners with a lot of spin. It wasn’t the fastest, but it was certainly a heavy serve and her 2nd serve was very good indeed.

Davenport also had an excellent forehand which she really drove through the ball, it was very penetrating and perfect for hard courts, Davenport was also good with crosscourt shots, making her opponent move, where she could control the point or attack the net. She also had a very good double handed backhand, therefore in her ground game, was a very secure player and often put her opponents into difficult situations.

Davenport’s biggest weakness was her movement. She was very tall and had difficulty getting around the court, and must be given credit for recognizing the problem early in her career and working on it.

By the time she won the US Open in 1998 as a 22 year old, she had shed 30 pounds in weight from the previous 24 months. That ensured Davenport could compete consistently at the highest level.

And that consistently ensured that not too many players could get the better of Davenport as Davenport often sought to get the first strike in. Only Venus and Serena Williams due to their superior athleticism were able to give Davenport problems and win big matches they looked like they might lose to her. She had the upper hand often on the rest of the field.

Venus Williams

Venus Williams is definitely another product of The Californian Big Game. Starting with her serve, Venus holds the world record with, plus speed records at Wimbledon and many other tournaments around the world.

Venus is also one of the most athletic female players ever to play tennis, and some people may argue the most athletic.

Venus has won 43 titles so far in her career, 26 coming on hard court. Venus won the US open in 2000 and 2001; plus Olympic Gold in Sydney in 2000 in both singles and doubles. She has also won Miami in 1998, 1999, 2001, and the year end Sony Ericson Championships in 2008 in Qatar.

Surprisingly Venus has never won the Australian Open on rebound ace or conventional hard court. Venus’ most incredible statistic is she has won 5 grass court titles, all at Wimbledon.

Venus’ strengths are her serve and athleticism. Venus has the fastest serve in the womens game. Her world record stands at 130mph. She can also be described as an all court player who uses her groundstrokes to put her opponent into a defensive position to finish the points off at net. Venus is very athletic and balletic around the net , and due to her height and spring is difficult to lob.

Her weakness is probably her forehand which can be shaky when under pressure. Also, despite having a great 1st serve, Venus often has quite a shaky 2nd serve which can break down under pressure due to having problems with the ball toss.

Her best groundstroke is her two handed backhand which she can hit down the line or crosscourt with angle.

Another strength Venus has is her speed around the baseline which means she defends fantastically well and stays in points other players wouldn’t be able to, and hits brilliantly on the run.

Venus’ defensive skills, and her athleticism to go with her aggressive play make her one hell of a player on hard courts.

Justine Henin

Justine Henin is the most petite of the ladies here in this company. The fact that Henin is able to compete so well at the top level is a credit to her. Henin has made the maximum of her abilities as a Tennis player.

There are a few players you see for the first time, who you know is going to be a good player. I saw Henin the first time in 2000 at the Canadian Open, and I instantly knew she would be top class, her backhand was incredible.

It was nice to see a new player coming through with a single handed backhand at the time. The other player who came through around the same time with a single handed backhand was Amelie Mauresmo.

As time went on, Henin improved her forehand to make it a weapon. Henin has been forced to remodel her serve on a few occasions, and although not a major weapon, she makes the most of it, able to serve up to 110 mph at times and uses an intelligent 2nd serve.

Whereas a lot of female players use topspin 2nd serves, Henin used a slice 2nd serve which often skids at the opponent, often into the body, and making returning difficult.

Henin won 43 titles, of which 25 came on hard court. Henin won the US Open in 2003 and 2007, plus the Australian Open in 2004 on rebound ace.

Henin also won Olympic Gold in Athens in 2004, and the WTA Championships in Madrid in 2006 and 2007 on indoor hard court.

Her strengths were her backhand which she used to slice, hit with topspin, and hit flat for winners down the line and crosscourt. Henin often hit winners when leaning back, as opposed to weight transfer forward, making her backhand winners look even more spectacular.

Justine also can be described as an all court player, she was equally at home at the net, able to pull off stunning volleys. Even though Henin is 5 ft 6 in height, she was difficult to lob due to her athleticism and quickness.

Henin’s only issue is the fact that she had to put so much into her game to get results, she was often prone to injury and illness. An arm injury sustained at 2010 Wimbledon put paid to a substantial comeback . However, Henin never looked the same player on her comeback and retired for a 2nd time in December 2010.

Serena Williams

Serena Williams is one of the all time greats at Grand Slam level along with Seles, Graf, Navratilova and Evert in modern times.

Serena has the best serve in the game, probably the best serve in the history of womens Tennis. Again, it can be traced to the Californian game of the big serve and big ground strokes.

Like Davenport, Serena is able to mix up her serve with tremendous placement and different spins, with slice and topspin. Serena’s deliveries are therefore not only fast, but full with spin which makes her serve very heavy and difficult to return. Serena also has the best 2nd serve delivery in the womens game at present which has depth, and placement.

Serena has has won 39 titles so far with 28 coming on hard court. Serena won her first US Open title in 1999 as a 17 year old and has won 3 US Opens overall. Serena also lost the 2001 US Open final to Venus Williams.

Serena has also won the Australian Open 5 times in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010. Williams has won the tournament on both rebound ace, and plexicushion hard court.

Serena has also won 12 Grand Slam doubles titles with her sister Venus, and two mixed doubles titles at the 1998 Wimbledon and US Open events, with Max Myrni. She's won Miami 5 times (tied with Steffi Graf), Canadian Open in 2001 and 2011 plus Indian Wells in 1999 and 2001. Serena also won Olympic doubles with her sister Venus at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and the 2009 WTA Championships in Doha.

Besides her serve, Serena’s strengths are also her athleticism, movement and will to win, which in the present era is probably matched only by Justine Henin.

Serena has a great two handed backhand and probably the best return of serve in the business, taking over from Monica Seles and Lindsay Davenport. Especially when it comes to standing inside the baseline and punishing fairly weak 2nd serves.

Like her sister Venus, Serena is great at defence and retrieving lost causes and turning them into winning situations in rallies, which make her very dangerous.

Serena’s forehand can be technically shaky at times but that’s about it as far as weaknesses go. Her only real issue is been injury prone, which is preventing her from winning even more titles more often as she gets older.

Steffi Graf

Steffi Graf is the most successful Grand Slam champion in the Open era. Steffi Graf won an incredible 22 Grand Slam titles and lost 9 finals, she played in 31 finals overall.

Steffi Graf won 107 titles overall, and a large proportion of those coming on hard court. Graf has won the US Open 5 times and the Australian Open 4 times, all on rebound ace. She has also won Miami 5 times in 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995 and 1996. Graf won Olympic Gold in 1988 in Seoul as part of her golden slam.

Steffi Graf is one of the most athletic and graceful female players of all time. She had tremendous footwork, often dancing into her shots. Of course, Graf was known primarily for her tremendous forehand and slice backhand.

Along with Ivan Lendl, Graf took the forehand shot to a new level from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s. She loved to run around her backhand to hit the big forehand inside out or down the line.

Like many of the male players mentioned in my previous article, Graf liked to camp on the backhand side, always looking to get the forehand into play whenever possible.

Graf also had tremendous speed and athleticism which was put to good use on all surfaces. In Graf’s case, it’s actually difficult to argue what was her best surface because she seemed equally at home on all of them.

Her slice was designed to stay low, always making her opponents constantly hit up, a great weapon against the many two handers she was facing at the time. Graf didn’t hit too many topspin backhands in her career, but was capable of hitting backhand passing shots against players like Navratilova.

Graf was a good volleyer although she didn’t use her athleticism too often to take her to net, Graf preferred to play most of her Tennis from the baseline.

In Graf’s case, it’s fair to say that despite the fact she didn’t like to hit too many topspin backhands, she had no weakness in her game.

Martina Navratilova

Martina is probably the last great female serve and volleyer to play Tennis. There have been players since her who have succeeded at that tactic, but only on grass. Jana Novotna won Wimbledon in 1998 with that tactic, and Amelie Mauresmo won Wimbledon in 2006.

However, both players were more likely to stay back on their serve on other surfaces, and serve and volley as a surprise tactic. Martina served and volleyed all of the time on every surface she played on, making her a master of that art.

Navratilova won a whopping 167 titles and an even more whopping 223 doubles titles. Navratilova won 18 Grand Slam titles and played in 32 finals.

On hard court, she won the US Open 4 times in 1983, 1984, 1986 and 1987. She also won her 3 Australian Open titles back when they played tennis on grass. Navratilova also won the US doubles titles on 9 occasions, 8 of them coming on hard court.

Navratilova had the huge advantage of been left handed and therefore had the advantage of using the lefty swing serve on the ad court (the decision court).

She was the female Lendl of her time, taking fitness training to new levels, to ensure she kept winning at the highest level. That allowed her to go on long winning streaks, and a career grand slam between 1983 and 1984 winning four slams in a row.

Navratilova’s strengths were undoubtedly her athleticism and fitness and speed at net. Navratilova had great reflexes to pull off great volleys off passing shots.
Martina was always willing to use the chip and charge tactic, and used a sliced backhand to attack the net off any relatively short balls. When receiving serve, she would always be looking to get to net.

Navratilova would rally with a purpose, she wouldn’t hit too many baseline winners from the back court too often. Martina was also difficult to lob as she was athletic, and able to track lobs and smash them away for winners.

Navratilova didn’t have any weaknesses once she figured out how to get to the top and stay there. But she was eventually challenged by the younger generation of Steffi Graf and Monica Seles.

The fact that Navratilova was around long enough to compete with those two players, shows why Navratilova is such a legend in womens Tennis.

Chris Evert

Chris Evert is up there with Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf as the most prolific Grand Slam champions in the Open era. Like Navratilova, Evert had a very long and distinguished career and was virtually at the top throughout the whole of her career.

Chris Evert won 18 Grand Slam titles, and played in 34 finals. Evert holds the record of US Open titles with 6 victories with three of those victories coming on hard court. Evert also holds the record of French Open titles with 7. Her Australian Open titles came on grass in the early 1980s before the rebound ace era. Evert also won an incredible 157 singles titles. Along with Navratilova, its unlikely any female player will get near that amount of title wins in future.

Evert’s nickname was the Ice Maiden. Her style of play was extremely consistent and steady, she didn’t make too many mistakes in the course of rallies. However, Evert was definitely capable of cranking up the pace on her shots when required and was helped by the change from wooden rackets to graphite rackets. Evert switched to the famous Wilson Pro Staff original 85 in the early 1980s.

Evert is unique in that respect as the conventional wisdom in Tennis has always been to dictate play by taking the game to the opponent to be very successful.

She was a counterpuncher extraordinaire with great powers of patience and concentration. Tracey Austin and Andrea Jaegger were probably pretenders to the throne, but due to injuries and burn out never managed to usurp Evert from that position.

Evert’s greatest rivalry was of course with Martina Navratilova which was the classic match up of attacker vs baseliner. Navratilova had the edge 43- 37 in their rivalry.

Martina Hingis

Martina Hingis won 43 titles in her career and 18 of those titles came on hard court. Hingis was also an excellent indoor player, winning 16 events on carpet as well.

Martina is definitely one of the most naturally talented and instinctive players of the last 30 years. Hingis is the youngest ever number 1 player, a record she took from Monica Seles.

Hingis won 5 Grand Slam titles and played in 12 finals overall, losing 7 finals. Her best results came at the Australian open on rebound ace where she played in 6 consecutive finals from 1997 to 2002.

She won the first three finals defeating Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez and Amelie Mauresmo. Martina then lost the next three finals to Lindsay Davenport, and twice to Jennifer Capriati.

Hingis also won the US Open in 1997 defeating Venus Williams, but lost the 1998 final to Lindsay Davenport and the 1999 final to Serena Williams. She also won Miami in 1997 and 2000 plus the Canadian Open in 1999 and 2000.

Martina was also an excellent doubles player who won 9 Grand Slam doubles titles, and won at all of the major tournaments.

Hingis’ greatest strengths were her wit and court craft. She always seemed to know what shot to hit and when to bamboozle her opponents and had great hands at net. Those qualities would be successful on any surface although Hingis never managed to win the French Open, playing two finals in 1997 and 1999 losing to Iva Majoli and Steffi Graf.

Hingis was able to dominate many bigger and stronger players ranging from Mary Pierce to Monica Seles. Hingis’ main weakness was her serve and ultimate lack of power as womens Tennis transferred to the power game in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The media constantly predicted that Hingis would struggle once Venus and Serena Williams, and Lindsay Davenport matured into champions. That proved to be the case. Jennifer Capriati also proved to be quite a rival for Hingis at the Australian open.

It was the 2nd serve that really proved to be Hingis’ downfall as it was near impossible to win a high percentage against the top players as they were sitting on any weak deliveries, waiting to punish them.

Hingis was also not blessed with speed and athleticism and, retired in 2002 with chronic heel trouble. Martina did however, make a comeback in 2006 but after initial good showings including an Italian open victory in 2006, the game had passed Hingis by and she wasn’t the same force she had been in the late 1990s.

That shouldn’t detract from the fact Hingis was one of the very best women players in the Open era.

The Greatest Hard Court Players of the Open Era

2011-08-03T15:05:00.000-07:00

As we are presently in the heart of the North American hard court season, it's time to take a look at some of the greatest hard court players of the Open Era.

I will take a look at the greatest male champions first, analyzing their achievements, games, and what made them great on the surface. In the next article I will focus on the great women hard court players of the Open Era.

There have been some dominant players on the surface in the Open Era, especially since the late 1970s to mid 1980s, when most grass tournaments were pulled up and replaced with low-maintenance hard courts. The rise of hard court tennis coincided with the introduction of graphite rackets and the transition to the modern power game.

The Australian Open is the most high-profile example of this. They switched from grass to rubber hard courts called rebound ace in 1987 and then switched to a medium-paced plexicushion hard court in 2007.

Ivan Lendl

Ivan Lendl is a player that has consistently been presented as the “Father of Modern Tennis” throughout the media in recent times. I can say for sure that the way hard court tennis is played today can certainly be traced back to Lendl.

Lendl won over 20 hard court titles in his career. He’s up there with the very best hard court players of the Open Era. Ivan got to eight consecutive US Open finals between 1982 and 1989, winning three straight between 1985 and 1987, defeating John McEnroe, Miroslav Mecir, and Mats Wilander.

It's also fair to say that Lendl’s losses in US Open finals were to some of the best players of the Open Era in Jimmy Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, and Boris Becker.

Lendl also won two Australian Opens on rebound ace and was a regular winner on the American hard court circuit.

Most important of all is Lendl’s influence on the way tennis is played both tactically and technically, particularly on hard courts. Lendl had a very strong and big first serve that he used to set up his points very well by getting a short reply, which he could use to dominate the rally or end the point with a short ball he could attack. Lendl also scored many aces with that serve.

Lendl also changed his game significantly early on in the pro tour. When Lendl came on the circuit, he was initially known for a very good slice backhand—similar to many players from the 1970s who used wood racquets.

However, Lendl soon developed a superb topspin backhand, which he used to stay in rallies and to hit as passing winners when attacked by the many attacking players of that era.

With that topspin backhand, Lendl was able to cover mainly the backhand side of the court because Lendl possessed great athleticism and had the best running forehand during the 1980s and early 1990s, which he used to go down the line or crosscourt.

It’s the forehand that Lendl was most famous for, as it’s considered one of the best strokes in history. With the tactic of covering the backhand side of the court, Lendl could run around it and hit punishing inside-out forehands crosscourt or forehands down the line.

Basically a good length ball could become a fairly short ball in those circumstances, and it’s that level of tactics which made Lendl stand out as a superior tennis player. It’s also a tactic that was adopted by many great players after Lendl. However, the key to that strategy was his athleticism to quickly cover the right side of the court should the opponent go down the line to his forehand.

Lendl was also credited for taking fitness and training methods to a new level in tennis and was one of the first players to get a freshly strung racquet every time new balls were called by the umpire to take advantage of fresh strings.

Andre Agassi

Andre Agassi holds the record of the most hard court titles won with 46. Agassi won 60 titles, so three-quarters of his titles were on hard court! That ensures Agassi is one of the very best in the business.

In 1995, Andre won seven titles, all on hard court (including rebound ace).

Agassi won the Australian Open four times on rebound ace. In 1995 he won it in his debut there, defeating Pete Sampras in the final (who was defending champion). Agassi also won the title in 2000, 2001, and 2003.

Agassi also played in six US Open finals, winning in 1994 and 1999 and getting to the final in 2005 as a 35-year-old, losing to Roger Federer. Agassi also holds the record of winning Miami six times.

Agassi’s philosophy and style of play were somewhat different from Lendl’s, due to the fact Agassi is considered to have the gift of great hand-eye coordination and lightning-quick reflexes. Agassi wasn’t as athletic as Lendl, so he preferred to take the ball right on the baseline as opposed to well behind the baseline. Agassi did that to take time away from his opponent and dictate play.

Agassi also mainly took the position down the middle of the court so he could move his opponent around and wear them out punishing them with deep ground strokes. It’s often cited that Agassi’s father Mike, who was an Iranian boxer, instilled this style and ethic in him.

Agassi was most famous for his return of serve. Due to his superior hand-eye coordination, he had the ability to take the serve and nail it often straight back at the opponent either very hard or to his feet, setting him up for a passing shot off either wing.

In fact, Agassi had a winning record against every serve volleyer / attacking player on the tour bar one player—which is one hell of a feat! Michael Stich never beat him in five matches, and the guys with the closest records were Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisevic. Agassi had comprehensive records against Boris Becker and Patrick Rafter.

Agassi was not only known for his hand-eye coordination and great forehand, but also a great double-handed inside-out backhand. Agassi really developed his serve to get a lot of kick because in his early years, his serve was seen as a liability, but he developed a great serve by the time of his retirement.

Roger Federer

Roger Federer has been by far the best hard court player of the Noughties (2000s). Federer won the US Open five straight times—something that may not happen again.Federer also won the Indian Wells / Miami double twice and was a multiple winner at both Cincinnati and the Canadian Open (Rogers Cup). And of course he's a 4 time Australian Open champion, winning in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2010.

For quite a long period Federer was unbeatable on hard courts, and it's only recently that he has been challenged — for instance, by Novak Djokovic at the US Open and Australian Open in 2010 and 2011. Juan Martin Del Potro also defeated Federer in the 2009 US Open final).

In my opinion Federer took the Ivan Lendl style of play to a new level. Federer dominated points and matches with his forehand like no other player, he’s able to hit winners anywhere on the court, and he covers the left side of the court relying on his athleticism and running forehand—just like Ivan Lendl.

Federer is able to dominate with his forehand by taking advantage of the technology that’s available to the modern player. But Federer is also of his time. By that I mean that Lendl was happy to rally all day at times when he could have pulled the trigger. But with the modern tennis strings now, the philosophy is to just pull the trigger anyway! From that viewpoint, Federer employed this philosophy better than anyone.

At the same time, Federer was more than capable of staying in any extended rally with his superb topspin backhand and slice, and when attacked, Federer came up with great passing shots off both wings. But again, due to the era we are now in, Federer didn’t face too many players who went after him, so he didn’t get opportunities to showcase his passing skills as often.

Federer doesn't go to the net as much to finish off points, especially in the last three years or so, but with a forehand like that, there probably isn't any need! Federer is also a beautifully balanced player, and it seems that his game was made for hard courts.

John McEnroe

John McEnroe has something that can also be said of Andre Agassi. His unorthodox approach was unique to him, and consequently he was seen as a very gifted player.

McEnroe won the US Open four times between 1979 and 1984, defeating Bjorn Borg twice, Vitas Gerulaitis, and Ivan Lendl. In fact, McEnroe won the tournament three times in a row from 1979 to 1981.

Whilst Andre Agassi took the ball very early, many times on the half volley, McEnroe took many shots on the rise. It looked a bit different but it was very effective, and McEnroe was able to generate more power from his strokes than he is probably given credit for by today’s fans and pundits.

McEnroe had a great lefty serve and was also a change-up server, meaning that he used his serve either way for deception, always looking to score aces. He also had the best volleys along with Stefan Edberg; he was able to knock away volleys for fun. When McEnroe rallied, he often did so with a purpose, always looking to get to the net to finish off points. McEnroe wouldn’t hit baseline winners too often in comparison to some of his contemporaries.

McEnroe was the ultimate chip and charge merchant when it came to returning serve. He really relied on his quickness and athleticism to cut off passing shots with stop volleys and overheads. He was an awesome sight when on top of his game (and not arguing with someone!).

One interesting thing about McEnroe’s style of play is that when he chipped and charged, because he took the ball on the rise well inside the baseline, he sort of bunted the ball and followed it to the net. It looked unusual but nice in its own way, and also effective, taking time away from his opponent.

Jimmy Connors

Jimmy Connors is tied with Roger Federer and Pete Sampras with the most US Open titles won. However, unlike the other players mentioned, Connors won one US Open on grass and green clay. Therefore Connors is in a class of his own. Connors also appeared in 12 consecutive US Open semifinals, which is a record.

Connors also won an astonishing number of tournaments, which is a testament to his durability. He won 109 official tournaments and countless tournaments not sanctioned by the ATP. That record is unlikely to be broken because top players retire on average at a much earlier age than in the past.

Connors' style of play was interesting because he had no big weapons, his serve was adequate, and his forehand was considered a weakness because he used a continental grip. What was in Connors’ favour was his great return of serve which was considered the best in the business. Connors also had the advantage of being left handed which gave him an edge when serving to the on the ad court (the decision court).

But what really made Connors stand out was his competitive spirit. Connors was the baseliner who was never afraid to attack the net—he hit flat drives down the lines and was always looking to get to net to finish off points. Ion Tiriac once said of Jimmy Connors, “He’s the biggest fighter I’ve ever seen in professional sports.”

Connors was also the player who would use any means to win a match. Whether by getting the crowd on his side or undermining the umpire, he did it all.

Connors was also known for his signature shot, the sky hook, a hooked overhead shot taken after it was christened for the basketball player Kareem Abdul Jabaar, who did a similar shot when he played for the Los Angeles Lakers during that era.

Pete Sampras

Pete Sampras is up there in the all-time list of hard court titles won with Andre Agassi and Roger Federer with 36 titles. Therefore in the era of Sampras and Agassi, they won 82 hard court titles between them.

Many people have said grass was Sampras’ best surface because he won Wimbledon so often. But Sampras had always said that hard court was his favourite surface. He won the US Open five times and played in eight finals. He also won the Australian Open twice, did the Indian Wells / Miami double in 1994, and won Cincinnati and Miami three times each.

Sampras came to everyone’s attention in 1990 when he won the US Open having barely turned 19. From the fourth round onwards he beat Thomas Muster, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi back-to-back. In the final, he beat Agassi in 90 minutes of power tennis, breaking Agassi five times in the match but never broken himself.

In the semis, it was probably the most passing shots McEnroe had seen whistle past him in one match. McEnroe sums up Sampras as a hard court player in 1993 whilst commentating at the US Open when he said it was rare to see a serve and volley player with such an all-around game.

That’s what made Sampras the ultimate hard court player. On that surface he played from the net and from the baseline in equal measure, often going toe to toe with the top baseliners of the day in Agassi and Jim Courier. He had the big first serve and second serve, athleticism, and smoothness.

He could pull off incredible half volleys and turn them into outright winners into the corners. He also enjoyed hitting stop volleys off hard-hit and dipping shots. Sampras also took on the Lendl philosophy of covering the backhand side of the court (the left side) where he would rally, but any sniff of a relatively short ball and he would run around it and hit an inside-out forehand crosscourt or forehand down the line.

Sampras developed the best running forehand in history, which he could hit down the line or crosscourt, flat or loaded with topspin if he was attacked. Unlike many players today, Sampras would hit punishing inside-out forehands to take the net to finish off points—sneaking in, as Pat Cash would call it. Because he played in an era of many attacking players, Sampras often demonstrated great passing shots off both wings against players like Pat Rafter and Boris Becker.

In the last two years of his career, Pete’s style of play mirrored his grass play. He no longer stayed back on his second serve to rally and chipped and charged on return of serve, something he hardly ever did previously. Most people put that down to the influence of his latter coach Paul Annacone, who favoured aggressive play.

Sampras’ signature shots were his swing serve down the middle on the ad court, second serve aces, slam dunk, and running forehand.

Petra Kvitova's Wimbledon triumph - Start of a New Era

2011-07-02T17:10:00.001-07:00

Today we witnessed a start of a new era with Petra Kvitova defeating Maria Sharapova 6-3 6-4 in the Wimbledon final. It was a sensational performance for a first time finalist. Maria Sharapova was outplayed in the 1st set and even though Sharapova fought hard in the 2nd set and got a couple of breaks, Kvitova broke back each time and held her composure well. Kvitova fought off the nerves to serve out the match to love, even serving her first ace on match point.

I saw Kvitova for the first time two weeks ago. I travelled to Eastbourne to watch the Aegon International final between Kvitova and Marion Bartoli of France. That final lasted 2hrs and 30 minutes and was an interesting match just before Wimbledon. Kvitova lost the match in 3 sets but I was very impressed with her game and attitude.

The first set went by like a flash as Kvitova lost the 1st set 6-1 in 29 minutes. Kvitova was hitting shots all over the place and couldn’t get the ball in court for more than three shots at any one time. It was surprising as she’d played her semi final just two hours earlier due to rain the day before. So you would have expected her to be in good form from the off.

Kvitova started the 2nd set much the same way going a break down early with Bartoli hitting her trademark groundstrokes. Then, all of a sudden, literally, Kvitova started making her serves and hitting winners, and the whole match turned around with Kvitova breaking back and winning the 2nd set 6-4. The 3rd set was also tight but in the end Bartoli’s desire and greater experience came through to take the title.

Even though Kvitova lost the match, a few things were quite impressive about her performance. Despite losing the 1st set so convincingly, Kvitova was willing to go for her shots and once her shots went in, she was very dangerous. Kvitova also has a great lefty serve which she uses to advantage on both deuce and ad courts. She also likes the one two punch combination of getting a quick serve and hitting a winner on the next shot.

Kvitova has definitely grown since losing the 2010 Wimbledon semi final to Serena Willians, she’s now 6 feet tall. That affected her on low balls as she was reluctant to really get down low to shots. However, she has a great slice and has very good volleying skills and always prepared to slice the short ball and attack the net. I found myself really enjoying watching Kvitova when she gets it right. She’d already won a couple of tournaments this year including Brisbane on hard courts, Paris indoors and Madrid on clay.

In the Wimbledon semi final against Victoria Azarenka, Kvitova played some of the best Tennis not seen for years in the womens game. Kvitova won the 1st set 6-1 and Azarenka had no chance. In fact, Azarenka played reasonably well with not too many errors but was blown away by a serving exhibition and the ability to hit winners anywhere on the court in an absolutely effortless manner, always the sign of a naturally talented player.

Kvitova tightened up in the 2nd set, allowing Azarenka to get back in the match. However, Kvitova got her mind back together in the 3rd set and once again her shotmaking proved too much for Azarenka.

One of the reasons for that is that Kvitova possesses that rare gift which we haven’t seen in the womens game for some time, the match is often on her racquet. If Kvitova plays well, she will win more often than not because her opponent will be overwhelmed. That hasn’t really happened since the likes of Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin came through as teenagers ten years ago. In the last few years we’ve had a succession of players who don’t really have extra skill or an x factor. Some may point to Ana Ivanovic but Ivanovic doesn’t possess the serving ability of Kvitova which is one of the reasons her game has fallen away so dramatically.

Kvitova certainly has the opportunity to become the best player in the world as long as she has the desire to keep improving and become more consistent on all surfaces, whilst keeping the spontaneity in her game which the crowd loves to see in naturally talented players. Now with a Wimbledon triumph under her belt, this really is the start of a new era.

Joe Wilfred Tsonga can help to revive Attacking Tennis

2011-06-30T16:01:00.000-07:00

As you know by now, Joe Wilfred Tsonga made a great comeback in the Wimbledon quarterfinal against Roger Federer. Tsonga lost the first two sets 6-4 and 7-6 but fought back to win the next three sets 6-4 6-4 6-4.

It was the manner of Tsonga’s comeback which was really impressive. Federer played a good match and his level didn’t actually drop much, but Tsonga stuck to his principles and style of play and got his reward as a result. Meanwhile Federer probably played too passive which he is prone to do often.

The style of play which could be described as attacking tennis, is a rare sight in the mens game today. We hear the phrase “aggressive Tennis” a lot but certainly not attacking Tennis. Aggressive tennis can be described as taking the game to your opponent, that usually means big groundstrokes off both wings and a big first serve.

The majority of players have adopted this strategy over the last 10 years. Examples of this style of play would include James Blake, Andy Roddick, Thomas Berdych, Robin Soderling, Juan Martin Del Potro among others..

I would describe an attacking player as someone who’s not afraid to go for the big second serve, comes to the net regularly either off the serve or on a set up shot. A player who can perform all types of volleys including stop volleys and someone who would take a mid court ball, slice it and attack the net.

This type of play can be described as high risk – part of the risk and reward strategy. This player will also have big return games because they are confident of holding serve regularly. They can all stay in rallies and hit winners or wait for the short ball to attack. Tsonga is a player who ticks all the boxes of an attacking player.

Many factors have led to the demise of the attacking player over the last 10 years. These factors have been discussed many times in print but essentially they include the slowing of grass at Wimbledon, hard courts becoming more medium paced, string technology, heavier balls used more regularly and coaches training youngsters to play in a certain way. That means the players who want to attack, improvise at the net and play off the cuff has been discouraged in recent times.

In decades gone by naturally talented players would gravitate to attacking tennis. However, in the 2000s, attacking tennis became the domain of the journeyman who didn’t have much of a baseline game and couldn’t return serve adequately.

Tsonga recently spilt with his long term coach Eric Winogradsky. The speculation being that Tsonga wants to play Tennis a certain way, and his coach wanted him to more typical, primarily from the baseline. It’s brave of Tsonga to be his own man and decide he wants to play the game a certain way and have the courage of his convictions to follow that up. A final appearance at Queens club and a semfinal appearance at Wimbledon shows that Tsonga is going in the right direction.

Tsonga is also a crowd pleaser who’s Tennis really gets people excited. Even though he’s two handed off the backhand side, his big game and athleticism is reminiscent of Boris Becker. Tsonga is also not afraid to hit one hand backhand winners when rushed.

In Rafael Nadal’s press conference, he said he felt sorry for Federer because Tsonga gave him no rhythm and was holding serve fairly comfortably and because he was holding serve so well, one break could decide the set. That’s the essence of attacking tennis, especially on grass, matches are tight, opportunities rare and you have to be ready to take them.

The game that’s currently played on grass more resembles clay as there are opportunities for break of serves much more often than you would expect, that’s the type of game Nadal is comfortable with and likes, where his opponent gives him rhythm.

Tsonga is not the only player who prefers attacking tennis. Milos Raonic of Canada is another up and coming player who prefers attacking Tennis as his stable strategy. Raonic is a raw talent who’s very tall and has a great serve and likes to attack the net. Raonic needs to work on his return of serve and movement but he definitely has potential as a slam contender in future.

If Tsonga remains inspired and beats Novak Djokovic and gets to the Wimbledon final, then it could really revive attacking Tennis as a legitimate strategy. And in turn this could inspire the more talented youngsters to look at this as a viable style of play in future.

Rafael Nadal's comments re previous Tennis eras questionable

2011-06-25T16:33:00.000-07:00

I recently read a very interesting comment on ATP website attributed to Rafael Nadal about the difference in Tennis today and Tennis in the 1990s. Nadal is quoted as saying “Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable. It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet. It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."

That’s a very interesting comment from a current number 1 player in the world. It is also a comment either by design or not, which denigrates a whole era of Tennis. Not only that, but for the younger generation, it would paint the impression that every player from that time period were just good at serving and nothing else.

Now for slightly older Tennis fans who have been watching Tennis for more than ten years, Tennis was a much more diverse sport than it is today. The irony here is that Nadal is very much a product of the modern game and has been able to take advantage of the changes that administrators made to Tennis in the early 2000s.

First of all let’s mention some of the famous names who won Grand Slam titles in the 1980s and 1990s. How about Ivan Lendl, Pat Cash, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Mats Wilander, Pete Sampras, Pat Rafter, Gustavo Kuerten, Sergei Brugera, Michael Chang, Richard Krajicek. Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Carlos Moya. The first thing that comes to mind is the very diverse styles of all of these players. You have pure serve and volleyers in Pat Cash, Stefan Edberg, Pat Rafter and Richard Krajicek. Then you have aggressive baseliners in Ivan Lendl, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi. Claycourt specialists such as Kuerten, Moya and Brugera although both Kuerten and Moya were very good on hard courts. Mats Wilander and Michael Chang were very good counter punchers. Sampras and Becker were very good all court players.

That is quite a big difference to today where most players play the same way and there is not much variety at the top of mens Tennis. Roger Federer is a product of the previous era but most players today grind their way to victory, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are two examples of that. Rafael Nadal has greatly benefited from a few factors that changed Tennis.

First, there has been the continual slowing down of the Wimbledon surface that started in 1995 with the change of seed in the grass. The courts became harder and higher bouncing as result. Then there was the systematic decline of indoor carpet tournaments on the ATP tour. Tournaments such as Philadelphia and Stuttgart were taken off the calendar, whilst the year end ATP finals and Paris Bercy were changed from an indoor carpet court to an indoor hard court which usually plays slower and higher bouncing. The Australian Open changed their surface from rebound ace which had its own unique characteristics to a conventional medium paced hard court which means players don’t have to worry about adapting to a different surface from other conventional hard courts as in the past.

Not only have we seen a change to surfaces over the last 10 years, there has also been a change to the composition of the balls in many tournaments including Wimbledon, organisers are opting for bigger and heavier Tennis balls which aid return of serve and rallies more than the servers. This change was brought about by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) in 2001. This metamorphosis can be seen in Roger Federer’s game over the years, Federer changed from an attacking volley player to attacking baseliner to stay ahead in the game. Tennis racquets and strings advancement have been discussed a lot in recent times but the changes to balls and surfaces have been in many ways more important as many players still use natural gut and many players used synthetic strings and more flexible racquets 10 years ago.

It has been bemoaned many times by Tennis fans on forums and ex players that today’s top professionals are not able to volley with any real consistency or panache, and that there are no contrast of styles at the top of the game. It’s interesting that Nadal mentioned Sampras v Ivanisevic as a match up because Sampras said in his book “A Champions Mind” that his rivalry with Ivanisevic was a bad matchup. Nadal could have chosen many other match ups from that era which produced stunning Tennis which is still talked about today. There’s the premium rivalry between Agassi and Sampras. Sampras and Courier at the Australian and French Opens. Edberg v Becker at Wimbledon and Lendl v Becker. The five set battles between Agassi and Rafter at Wimbledon and Australian Open is also one for the ages.

As far as attacking players go, Nadal could have mentioned the great rivalries between Sampras and Becker and Sampras and Rafter. The 2000 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Rafter was a great match, with Rafter employing his deadly kick serve and volleying ability and Sampras hitting all of those incredible return winners and passing shots. Then you had the Sampras v Becker rivalry which always served up a combination of incredible rallies, athleticism and net play, especially the 5 set 1996 ATP (World Tour) final which lasted 4 hours, Tennis at its finest.

Nadal mentioned the number 1 player of the previous era, in 1998 Sampras played a tough 5 set final with Ivanisevic, then in 1999 played Andre Agassi and produced a totally different brand of Tennis of incredible skill from the baseline, considered one of the best ever individual performances in the history of the game. These things happen, in 2005 Federer produced an incredible display against Roddick in the Wimbledon final but in 2009 the final was a serve fest with 50 aces by Federer. That happened in the present era.

Many of the current players often site Sampras as one of their heroes. In an exhibition match between Sampras and Gael Monfils in San Jose in February, Monfils acted more like a fan than an opponent, even having his own photos taken with Sampras with his personal camera. Players like Tsonga and Djokovic have also sited Sampras as an inspiration. We all know by now that Federer looked up to Becker, Edberg and Sampras when he was growing up. Many of the current players would actually prefer to have the opportunity to play in faster conditions more often so they could produce an all court game and more net play, especially players like Tsonga.

Spain’s complaints to the ITF about the surface the United States plan to use in the Davis cup semi final in July shows that right now Tennis has gone too far the other way in accommodating baseline play which can be considered one dimensional. Rafael Nadal has been by far the biggest beneficiary of the slowing down of surfaces and balls in the last 10 years. This has allowed Nadal to make comments about previous eras which are wide of the mark. I certainly don’t agree with Nadal and I also think it’s time the authorities looked into reintroducing indoor carpet tournaments. They should also allow Wimbledon to play at a speed which will benefit attacking players like Tsonga, Milos Raonic and encourage a new generation of young players who can play at the net in future.

A look at The Best Players Never to win Wimbledon

2011-06-21T14:56:00.000-07:00

With Wimbledon upon us for another year, it would be interesting to take a look at some of the best players who excelled at Wimbledon but never managed to lift the trophy in the last 30 years.

Ivan Lendl

Ivan Lendl had a very good grass court record. He made it to two finals in 1986 and 1987, plus the semifinals in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1990.

You won’t get a much better record than that. Plus, there have been players who have won Wimbledon with nowhere near as good an overall record of wins. Lendl lost in straight sets to a brilliant Boris Becker in 1986 and Pat Cash in 1987.

Lendl had many attributes to win Wimbledon, including a big serve plus athleticism, but the criticism was that he changed his game for grass by serving and volleying when he should have played his natural game instead.

This critique is tough because back then everyone came to the net, and the grass courts weren’t as playable for baseline tennis as they are now.

Pat Rafter

Pat Rafter did not have his best results at Wimbledon until towards the end of his career.
A contemporary of Sampras and Ivanisevic, Rafter took to the grass courts from 1998 onwards. Up until that point, Rafter was a hard court specialist player due to his big kick serve and even bounce hard courts offered his game.

One can argue Rafter was unlucky; in 1999 he lost in the semifinal to an inspired Andre Agassi. In 2000, Rafter played the best match of his career beating Agassi in five sets in the semifinal but came up against Sampras in the final. Even though Rafter won the first set in a tiebreak, Sampras was always threatening to run away with the match by persistently returning well, and he eventually did after turning around the second set tiebreak.

In 2001, Rafter came from behind twice to defeat Agassi in a five-set thriller in the semifinal and then played one of the best matches of the Open era against Ivanisevic in an amazing five set final with both players desperate to win after Sampras’ demise.
Both players deserved to win, but Ivanisevic came through 9-7 in the fifth to avoid being included in this discussion.

Rafter had all the physical and mental attributes to win Wimbledon but maybe just didn’t have the little bit of luck needed at the highest level to pull it off.

Andy Roddick

Perhaps I’m too quick to include Andy Roddick here because he’s still on the Tour and not yet 30 years old.

But you wonder if his last chance has gone after blowing the second set tiebreak against Roger Federer in the 2009 final. Roddick has been to three finals, each time losing to Roger Federer, so one can argue that he has been slightly unlucky.

However, it can also be argued that out of players listed, Roddick is the least naturally talented and relies too much on his serve. He doesn’t possess the athleticism of the other players mentioned, and his return game is the least effective.

When it comes to Wimbledon, the serve is often focused as the most important shot, but if you cannot return serve well, winning Wimbledon is virtually impossible. Pete Sampras has often said that it’s the return of serve which wins Wimbledon, and Andy Roddick needs to improve this aspect of his game to have any chance of winning Wimbledon late on in his career.

Tim Henman

Tim Henman is an interesting choice because he never actually made a final. But he did make it to four semi finals between 1998 and 2002. Henman had a lot going for him, he was very athletic, he had fanatical home support, and had a very nice return game.

His best chance came in 2001 when he had Goran Ivanisevic on the rack in the third set, but the rain came and changed everything. He also gave Pete Sampras a good match in 1999, taking the first set, but Sampras’ experience proved too much in the end.

In my view the reason Henman never won Wimbledon was due to the fact he simply did not have the power to go with his athleticism. His serve wasn’t strong enough consistently, and he was never able to serve many aces or unreturnables, so he always had to work hard, and eventually that takes its toll against the best players. In other words, Henman wasn’t able to intimidate the opposition into mistakes.

Mark Phillippoussis

Mark Phillippoussis made it to the final in 2003, losing to Roger Federer, who won his first Wimbledon. Federer was the better player that day, and even though there were two tiebreaks, Federer’s return game made the difference.

Phillippoussis had many gifts, he was physically imposing and had one of the biggest and best serves in the game.

Unfortunately Phillippoussis had many injury issues, and the word is that he didn’t have the discipline to work hard enough on his game to get the best out of himself.
Therefore you can argue that Phillippoussis was a wasted talent—unfortunately for him.

Justine Henin

Justine Henin came out of retirement in 2010 with the main goal of winning Wimbledon. Unfortunately, Henin is back in retirement again after failing to recover adequately from an arm injury, ironically sustained at Wimbledon against Kim Clijsters in the 4th round. Henin has been to two finals, losing to Venus Williams in three sets in 2001 and Amelie Mauresmo in three sets in 2006.

Justine Henin had a beautiful game for grass, she’s athletic, not afraid to attack the net or serve and volley. Plus Henin used the slice to keep the ball low against the many two-handers out there on the backhand side and a beautiful one hand backhand to stretch opponents and hit outright winners from nowhere. Henin also improved her forehand over the years to make it a much better weapon.

What prevented Henin winning Wimbledon? Henin lacked that extra power that’s needed to conquer Wimbledon against power players of the calibre of Venus and Serena Williams. In the modern era, power and athleticism are just as important as technique and touch on grass.

Arantxa Sanchez Vicario

Arantxa Sanchez Vicario has a record similar to Ivan Lendl—finalist twice and semifinalist on a few occasions.

Sanchez Vicario faced Steffi Graf in the 1995 and 1996 finals. In 1995, Sanchez Vicario gave everything, but there was an incredible ninth game in the third set which lasted almost 25 minutes, and Graf was bale to eventually break and serve out for the title. In 1996 Graf was always in control.

Sanchez Vicario was a crafty and intelligent player who was tactically aware. She won the French Open three times and the US Open once, beating Graf in a great final in 1994.
But again, at Wimbledon, Sanchez Vicario just lacked the power and athleticism of her rivals, including Graf, Jana Novotna, and Martina Navratilova.

Honourable mentions to players who had the game to win Wimbledon and managed to win after coming so close on many occasions:

Honorable Mentions (winners)
Jana Novotna (1998), Goran Ivanesivic (2001) and Amelie Mauresmo (2006).