Every sport (in fact, every facet of life) goes through cycles. These cycles are there because they serve the evolution of a particular life form. If you look at tennis as a particular form of eco-system, then you can see that it too goes through it's particular cycles.
Remember back in the McEnroe, then Edberg/Becker eras? These players were the superstars, the artistic geniuses. Why did they come about? Because that style of serve-volley tennis could win games! Evolution is a survival-of-the-fittest. Birds evolved from reptiles so that they could survive and compete. Tennis is the same way.
There was a period of time when the serve-volleyers dominated; then the big-hitters came along; belting the ball flat from the back of the line. These players proved that you did not need artistry or finesse or much of an imagination. You just needed to hit the ball hard.
Courier was one of these players. Agassi was another. These players inspired a certain generation of players. They were thought to be the next generation of superstars. It never really happened.
Young tennis players were perhaps afraid to adopt the serve-volley style against this sort of aggressive baselining. I think they looked at the speed of the balls and thought, why bother trying?
Therefore, this necessitated a certain kind of evolution. It created the archetype of Federer who perhaps became the first true all-rounder: the player who is truly able to combine the best of all styles to create a unique and complete style.
From this archetype, there now exists many other players beginning to form; some are already starting to take shape. Djokovic, Murray and Gasquet are all players with Federer-like qualities; able to strike the ball with so much spin that it creates a volley type of effect. Why volley when you can stretch your opponent out with just the power of your spin and flicks?
Federer has already proved that players that are strictly base-liners, i.e., Andy Roddick will probably never outplay. If you're gifted, strong and fast enough like Nadal, you could definitely outgut him, defensively corner him.
However, in terms of the all-round player, this new generation has yet to match Federer in both experience and skill development. Players who sometimes play more defensively are able to beat Federer.
So, as you can see, there really is no such thing as a weak era in tennis, no matter what era we're talking about. Players evolve so they can beat the players in front of them. Whether we consider them boring or one-dimensional is our business. They're out there to win games.
3 comments Last one added 9 months ago — Leave a Comment
Long John Silver 9 months ago
Interesting
first of all - i disagree that Rafa plays defensive when he plays Rodge, he pulls the trigger beautifully on anything other than clay
You just needed to hit the ball hard.
Courier was one of these players. Agassi was another. These players inspired a certain generation of players. They were thought to be the next generation of superstars. It never really happened.
- come on, are you serious
Andre constructs the point beautifully - LOVE the cpoint construction, Jim's off forehand is powerful yes, but you dont win slams with hitting the bard hard alone
they had way more than what you claim them to be -
i am confused on what you wanted to say, you said all this - and ended up saying there is no weak era (which is a counter point)
me confused
cheers
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 9 months ago
hmm...what i tried to say was that every era really only happens to supersede the next era; the players try to beat the era that comes before and therefore evolve that way
Edit Comment Cancel
Yahya Risas 9 months ago
good piece. and ur absolutely right about the evolvement in sport.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.