In boxing it is said that “styles fight”. The best fights involve opponents with conflicting skills and abilities. Classic rivalries such as Muhammad Ali against Joe Frazier and, more recently, Tyson Fury against Deontay Wilder have pitted “boxers” (technicians who rely on boxing) against “punches” (street fighters who rely on the power of punching) .
What’s true in the ring is also true on the tennis court: many of the biggest tennis rivalries also have players of markedly different styles. Björn Borg against John McEnroe, Chris Evert against Martina Navratilova and Pete Sampras against Andre Agassi have all combined a volleyball service against a baseliner. These rivalries were deeper than the closeness of their competitions. They showcased two fundamentally different tennis philosophies.
A golden age?
We are told that this is a golden age for tennis. In many ways, this is immediately evident. Tennis athletes have never been in better shape, rivalries have never been more intense and four players of this era – Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Serena Williams – have a legitimate claim to be the “greatest of all times”. This was truly a golden generation of tennis players. But it wasn’t a golden age for tennis.
Rebecca Naden / PA
The ethics of how sport is allowed to develop and what should be considered “progress” are central concerns of my academic research in the philosophy of sport. A golden age for a sport should show the full range of skills and abilities – of excellence – that sport makes possible.
On the contrary, in this age of tennis, the spectrum has shrunk so that all playable styles of play are basically anchored to the baseline. Volleyball and volleyball tennis has disappeared and all realistic contenders for the Grand Slam title are basic players of one kind or another. Sport is more uniform in the way it is played than anywhere else in the professional era.
This narrowing of excellence is a problem because it limits the way a player can express himself. Sports present obstacles that players can overcome using their skill, cunning, tenacity and physical ability. The constraints created by the rules and your opponent pose obstacles in how to score a goal, throw a basket or hit an ace.
The end of field tennis and volleyball in the past two decades has led tennis players to choose from a small group of game styles and has effectively excluded those whose skill set does not fall into the smallest group of excellences that remain relevant in the lo sport. By reducing the range of practicable strategies, sport is reduced, not only as a way to test and showcase a variety of different excellences, but also as a way for self-expression.
Serve and volleyball
Volleyball tennis is intrinsically conflicting. It narrows the physical space between opponents as you approach the net, accelerates the exchange of shots and represents a challenge to “hit beyond me or through me”. The best minions and volleyball players are relentless: they return to the point after point, again posing the same challenge.
The beauty of this style lies in its lack of surprise. It was entirely foreseeable that Pete Sampras or Martina Navratilova would attack the net after their service. Everyone, especially their opponents, knew it. And they knew their opponent knew it. But they did it anyway. As a soccer goalkeeper, they challenged their opponent to challenge the odds and find that little point beyond their reach – point by point.
POPE
However, online gaming is now a dying art. No servant and volleyball, male or female, has won a grand slam since Sampras’ last US Open victory in 2002. Lighter, more powerful racquets, polyester ropes and the introduction of slower field surfaces and balls have shifted the odds in favor of the baseliner and against the net rusher.
Polyester strings in particular made it easier than ever for players to generate huge spins. This turn in turn allows the baseliner both to abruptly dip the ball over the net at the foot of the volleyball and to find previously impossible angled shots. The sight of Djokovic or Williams straining every tendon to reach the ball and then, all the way, hitting a sharp corner shot for a clean winner is perhaps the image that defines modern tennis.
Laurence Griffiths / PA
Achieving a balance of excellence
Every complex sport must allow different styles of play to thrive. Within the possible provisions of the rules, there is an ideal balance – a balance – which allows a variety of styles to have a realistic prospect of success. When a sport achieves such a “balance of excellence”, a style is not favored to the extent that others are rendered superfluous.
However, the tennis authorities have allowed the development of equipment to anticipate the reflection on their effects, so that one of the fundamental playing styles of the sport has become a historical curiosity, not the foundation of a serious game plan. Approaching the network is now used little more than an occasional surprise game. The sport administrators have not managed to manage its evolution in order to preserve all the excellences that define the game.
Volleyball and volleyball tennis was not a feature of this sport since its inception, and became famous only in the 1950s. However, it presented a truly innovative way of exploring the geometry of the field. Such innovation should not be delivered to the scrapheap.
This is a golden generation of tennis greats who have brought the basic game to a point of perfection, but this era boasts a surprisingly small diversity in playing styles. Maybe we went too far for a recalibration, but swimming has banned 100% polyurethane suits on the whole body, and golf has prohibited the technique of putting anchored, so because tennis cannot reconsider rackets, ropes, fields and balls so that the rushes of net return to run do you have a chance to fight?
