 |
October 1998 Article Wild Cards Archives:
Tennis Server
Top Pros (Women)
|
|
  |
|
by Ken Haruta
Just the other day I watched a sports wrap-up program on TV, and one
commentator claimed that tennis has become boring. He
started rattling off the usual glib remarks like power
games, etc., but when the second commentator challenged him
to explain in detail, all he could say was, "Ahhh, ummm,
...", with no substances to back up his comments.
This appears to be a typical example. It seems fashionable
these days to say, "Tennis is boring," particularly among
non-tennis sports writers and commentators.
These individuals think tennis in its
current form needs "improvement," and one immediately becomes suspect if they enjoy tennis in its
pure, unadulterated form.
I can think of several tacks taken by the tennis-is-boring-and-
needs-improvement claimers.
I don't know whoever thought tennis was sissy. Even my
grandmother, who knew very little about tennis, surprised me
by saying that it's a strenuous sport; you play for hours
continuously with short breaks on the changeover, whereas in
baseball, for example, almost half of the time you are
standing and waiting unless you are the pitcher or the
catcher, and most of the other half you are sitting in the
shaded dugout.
Can you think of any reason why basketball players should be
shooting a puck instead of a ball into the hoop? These
claimers insist that tennis needs something else... music on the changeover, for example. Perhaps these are the
same people who take a radio to a camp site and drown out
the songs of birds and the rustling of leaves. I happen to
like Wagner and Debussy, but on the court I prefer no music,
period. Each sport has its own charm. I rarely watch
football games on TV, but that's my preference, and I'd
never suggest that football could be "improved" by changing
the shape of the ball or abolishing the field goal.
Rule Revisers never die; and they don't fade away either.
Somehow they think tinkering with the rules will improve
tennis. The usual items on the list are playing the net-
cord serve, one serve instead of two, using small-head
racquets, etc., It has also been suggested that
instead of 15-30-40-game, use 1-2-3-4. This last one is
just a technicality which would add nothing of substance.
As for the net-cord serve, does anyone seriously believe
that playing it rather than calling it let would somehow
improve tennis? The one-vs-two serves proposal does involve
a strategy question. Two serves allow the player to have a
variety of options: go-for-broke on the first and slice the
second; twist on the first to catch the receiver off guard;
and many more. One serve just wouldn't leave much room for
interesting strategies. I'll take another look at the
Reviser's List when baseball is played with 11 players and
two strikes instead of three.
I must admit this claim has some validity. When the tennis
players were wielding 14-plus oz. natural wood racquet with
a head size resembling a badminton stick, probably it
required more skill to hit the ball correctly and hard.
Consequently, the players focused on placement, spin, and finesse rather than overpowering the opponent. But do these claimers
realize, for example, the different surfaces, such as those
of the Grand Slams, drastically influence the nature of the
game? The super-serve and power game may be suited for
Wimbledon, and has its own excitement and fascination.
Take, for example, the Sampras-Ivanisevic final this year.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was on the edge of my
chair watching the entire match on TV. I also watched the
Edberg-Krajicek match at the U. S. Open two years ago.
Stefan executed his signature serve-and-volley game in
perfection to beat Krajicek. I'm not going to elaborate on
how different the French Open is. Just remember why Sampras
has a problem winning there.
It sounds very strange to me to hear some people say that
Sampras has no personality. Do they watch a tennis match
to see the antics of immature brats, or see how well the
game is played? Do these people *really* watch the details
of how Sampras plays this game? His anticipation,
preparation, and perfect execution of strokes? His tactics
and strategies? As for his emotions, I've seen him happy,
dejected, playful, annoyed, even though his feelings are
always subdued. It's just that he doesn't make a fool of
himself like some of the so-called "colorful" players. Do
these detractors ever say that figure skating is boring
because the skaters don't jump up and down (well, maybe they
do that), and yell and make obscene gestures? It's just
satisfying and uplifting to watch a champion skater perform
a perfect routine. Have you ever sat at a deserted beach at
sunset, listening to the breaking of the waves, and thought
it was boring? Perhaps to some people it is. But to me it
is nature at its best. So is tennis when it is played to "perfection."
I just urge anyone to *really* watch Sampras, or any
excellent player, perform at their best form in a match. I
might even call it sheer "poetry in motion." It is years of
effort and preparation culminating in a beautiful artistic
performance. I don't know what else you can ask from any
sport.
Yes, some changes are inevitable. But I believe the changes
to tennis brought by the racquet evolution (not revolution)
have helped tennis a lot more than hurt it. Tennis in
the current form may not be perfect, but it's fine with me
and a lot of other tennis fans, who enjoy this great sport.
If you wish to provide a comment to the author of this Wild Cards column, please use this form. Tennis Server will forward the comment to the author.
1998 - 2003 | 2004 - 2012
This column is copyrighted by the author, all rights reserved.
|
|
