I used to play tennis. I think I was pretty competitive in the sport, though not enough to turn pro. In years past I would've stayed up all hours to watch Wimbledon, but for the beter part of the last 5-10 years I've been giving it a miss, more and more. Why? I think it's because of two reasons: modern racquets have ruined the game and the scoring system in tennis is stupid.
On the first point. It used to be really hard playing with heavy wooden racquets. You had to hit th ball cleanly in the sweetspot for it to travel any distance, and any mis-hit was rewarded with a jarring shudder up the elbow. Hitting the sort of topspins that Bjorn Borg used to unleash took a great deal of control, timing and eye-hand coordination. Hitting balls flat like Jimmy Connors took a lot of the same, and neither method had much that was transportable to the other. The margin of error on those racquets were small. It took real talent and skill to hit the ball the way those guys hit the ball. Then came the Prince racquet with the over-sized head, followed by composite material racquets, and the rest is history.
Recently I hit with a Wilson Hammer racquet of a very recent vintage. I could hit all osrts of crazy shots with it. I could whip a tonne of topspin or hit it dead flat without really altering m y swing greatly. The margin of error on the thing was so big, you couldn't begin to compare it to an old wooden racquet.
The point I'm making is that with the increased margins of error, the element of talent and skill has eked out of the game and now, you can train people with less talent to hit the ball harder and stay in the game. The end result is really pathetic to watch as a spectator sport. The power game is nice, but everybody playing a power game plays the same way, and everybody is choosing to play the power game. What's gone is the surprise that used to come in a good game of tennis. The sort of amazing rallies that took place between John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg, where unexpected angles and touch played such a role in a game, are long consigned to the dustbin of tennis history, thanks to the modern high-tech racquet. And the governing body of tennis won't do sweet F.A. It's so stupid.
The other issue is the scoring system in tennis.
There are so few leveraged points in a set of tennis.
The business of first to 6 games is just awful because a breakpoint doesn't becomes meangful until they've played 6 games to 3-3. Those moments when the set or game is on the line only seems to comein every 25 minutes to 30minutes. Everythingin between is an acumulation of points that are not going to greatly determine the outcome. The most boring moments of 5 set matches are found in the first 4 games of the 4th set, where palyers either dog it or just roll with the serve, hoping to find a way into the 5th set. It's the most excruciatingly boring set in all of tennis. And if there should be an early break in fabour of the guy who is 2-1 down, oh boy, the guy who's up 2-1 simply rides out the set conserving energy for the fifth. Frankly, I'd rather they played 7 sets of first to4 than 5 sets of first to 6.
Anyway, Roger Federer, a player of extraordinary talent and skill beat a player of exatraordinary determination today. Federer is as great a hitter of the tennis ball as I've ever seen, but I'd still not tay up to watch him thrash the Aussie B(r)attler, Lleyton Hewitt. You can blame that on the racquets and scoring system.
Billy Beane Interview
It must be the day for Borg-McEnroe comments. Here's GM of the Oakland A's, Billy Beane interviewed by Tyler Blezinski:
Beane: You know what it is. It's the old John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg personality. Is Bjorn Borg any less of a champion in tennis than John
McEnroe with a completely different personality? Bjorn Borg is one of the greatest tennis players of all time. He and McEnroe are, but totally different personalities. When McEnroe misses a shot and argues with an umpire, people felt better because they want to do that. But when Borg didn't, and I'm going back quite a few years for some people, does that mean he doesn't care as much? They're just different personalities.
Yeah.
Interestingly, Bjorn Borg quit at his peak because he couldn't handle facing what he saw as the decline-side of his career. So that lion bought a one-way ticket to Monte Carlo, instead of sticking around for the winter - much to the chagrin of many tennis fans as well as John McEnroe.
- Art Neuro
No comments:
Post a Comment