Petra Kvitova - An In Depth Look at Her Game

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

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

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

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

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. 

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.