Jo Wilfried Tsonga can help to revive Attacking Tennis

As you know by now, Jo Wilfried 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

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

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).