Ye Gads! Tennis Making More Sense Than Golf??

[Mark_F]

A report in today's Sunday Age newspaper, via England's Guardian newspaper, stated that a number of tennis luminaries, amongst them Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, Guilermo Vilas and respected commentator John Barrett, are to put a proposal to the ITF at Wimbledon to reduce the size of the racquet head.

"The future of the game is at stake", said Navratilova.  "Interest in the game is waning.  We need more surprises, more variety.  Anything which makes it a better spectator sport would be a good thing."

The idea is to bring back the subtlety that the game possessed 25 years ago.   It would mean that the vast majority of players would have to rely less on hitting from deep and more on classical strokes and variation.  

"With smaller-headed racquets... you won't be able to play 15 feet behind the baseline and it will recquire more skill", said Navratilova.

They want the frame size reduced from 12.5 inches to nine.  Perhaps crucially, they don't believe the high-tech materials used in racquet construction need to be changed, merely the size.  

Who in golf could mount a similar campaign?

And what's the adress of the USGA and R&A so that i can send them a copy?  

After all, we can't have professional tennis players more enlightened that golfers, can we.  Even if the pro golfers do mangle the English language more.

[Mark_Huxford]

Mark,
I'm very critical of the methods many tennis coaches teach to younger children these days; particularly the "pots & pans" face down grip. It's all in the name of topsin and being able to counter the topspin game being played against you.

I believe a major reason for the game's decline all over the world is the fact most children find this grip very unnatural, their range of strokes extremely limited, and have usually given up trying long before the upward brush stroke required to play with this grip is mastered. The only reason this method is taught at all is the 12½" racquet. That shows you how ingrained equipment is in the sport.

Navratilova and McEnroe's idea is a comet aimed at large reptiles with the hope of replacing them with small mammals. I hope they succeed!

[ForkaB]

Those on this DG who seem to believe that the "problem" with tennis (This means you,TE Paul, et. al.) is the ascendancy of the serve and volley game, you are wrong!.  In fact, as Martina says rightly (and Mark H confirms) the "problem" is the power hitting from 15 yards behind the baseline by youngsters with one dimensional games and mutant grips.  Today's "men's" tennis is increasingly Chrissie Evert on steroids (viz. Lleyton Hewitt).

There was a great interview with Pete Sampras this weekend where he essentially said that technology and training methods had effectively taken the exciting and most athletically demanding bit (serve and volley) out of the game.

To me the analogy in golf is that the combination of increased distance and the inflexibility of existing courses to effectively deal with that distance (viz. Olympia Fields) is that you get "baseliners" like Furyk and Weir winning majors and NOT the most well-rounded and athletic players (e.g. Woods, Singh, Els, Love).  As much as I love the underdog, I am not at all sure that this is good for our game.

[Chris Kane]

Rich,
Agreed: serve and volley is the most exciting form of tennis.  The game will never be the same now that the last great proponent of the serve-volley game, Pat Rafter, has retired.

It's become a backcourt slug which is boring to watch, particularly as more power comes into it.  

[ForkaB]

Chris

Agree with you fully, except......

...even the most rabid Ozomaniac must concede that Pete Sampras (who also just retired) was THE serve and volleyer of the past 10-15 years, if not of all time.

[Dan Kelly]

Most of the times I watched Sampras play, it was not serve-and-volley, but serve-and-watch-the-other-fool-flail-at-thin-air. Not too exciting, if you ask me. (I know; you didn't.)

Now Rod Laver -- THERE was a serve-and-volleyer!

[ForkaB]

Dan

To each his own!

I personally think that both Hoad and Gonzales were beter than the Rocket in his era, in terms of serve/volley (and all-around tennis--Laver would not have won his 1st Grand Slam if Pancho had been allowed to play in those "shamateur" days).

Sampras was by no means the best server (Ivanesivic) nor  volleyer (Henman) of his time, but he had the whole package, including a great return of serve.  That's why he (and Laver and Hoad and Gonzles) were the paradigm's of their ages--well roundedness, not one or even two dimensions--just like bunkers............

[Steve Lang]

Furyk and Weir Baselners, really come on now!!  They played to positions and wins with precision and the necessary power not over-whelming power..  baseliners never shoot at net cords or edge lines, its 5-8 feet over the net, no severe angles please..

Pancho G was my hero and his forte of serving his second serve faster than his first even in trouble situations, that's power in the face of stress and sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't.  

So where's Arnie and Jack and Tom and Lee?  Basically out hawking 20 more yards with the latest Max driver or ball..  the tennis types can do it, the golf types can ... sorry, seems like the truth hurts.

p.s. did laver's popeye arm ever return to normal size?

[John Foley]

Before any of you get over the edge the best server of our time is far and away Mr. Sampras (it's not all speed, but placement & mix) and the best voleyer (is that a word?) of ALLTIME  is Mr. McEnroe. Think of him what you will, put his skills at the net outclass Mr. Laver.

[bakerg]

Aren't we forgetting a certain player from Sweden by the name of Edberg?  Definately not the biggest server, but probably the best vollyier (not sure on that word) of the last fifty years.  He would come in behind the heaviest kick serve in the game and close in on the net as tight as possible.  McEnroe was great, Laver was great, Sampras was decent, but none of them held a candle to Edberg on the serve and volley.  He had no real power and he was still able to beat them with his one-two puch.  

[Chris Kane]

Rich,
Agreed: but I don't put Sampras in the serve-volley only category because he tended to mix things up more than a true serve-volley player would.  Rafter would rush to the net after every serve, whereas Sampras wasn't so one-dimensional.

It was always great watching guys like Rafter play, partly because there was some tactics involved: there was a guessing game involved on the part of both server and reciever.  It's why Agassi v Sampras were always the best matches to watch: the best serve against the best return; serve-volley against a baseliner.

[Mark_F]

Rich Goodale:

Patrick Mucci may scoff, but TEPaul has always struck me as a cerebral and erudite individual in his postings.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY HE CAN BELIEVE THAT THE SERVE AND VOLLEY GAME IS IN THE ASCENDANCY!

Not even Stevie Wonder could believe that.

[ForkaB]

Mark_F

You are generally right about Tom Paul'sadmirable qualities.  Unfortunately, due to a freak racket-stringing accident in his youth, he now reacts to the word "tennis" in roughly the same way that Pat Mucci responds to "bias" or Tommy Naccarato to "Rees" or Hilary Clinton to "Monica"..........