But that’s not the point here. I’m using my first blog post to complain about something that’s been on my mind for years — the insufficiently short grasscourt season. Truthfully, you can’t even call it a “season.” It lasts five weeks; after the French Open ends in early June, there are two weeks of Wimbledon tuneups, and most top players compete in only one of those weeks. Then there’s Wimbledon, followed by the low-level tournament in Newport, R.I., an event whose biggest name is always among the Hall of Fame inductees, not the players.
It used to be that you had to be able to win on grass to be a top men’s player, but that’s simply no longer the case. Most players will play two grasscourt tournaments in the whole year. If Novak Djokovic loses in the fourth round of Wimbledon every year, he’ll still be in the top three. He merely has to hold his own that week because of the big chunk of ranking points available. But if he struggles through the entire European claycourt season? His ranking would plummet.
On the other hand, if a player plays well only on clay, he can make quite a career for himself. Case in point: Nicolas Almagro. The Spaniard remarkably is ranked No. 15 in the world. Why? Clay. Despite his impressive win over John Isner yesterday at Wimbledon, Almagro owes most of his 2011 success to his claycourt prowess: a title at Nice, round of 16 in Rome, semifinal in Barcelona, round of 16 in Monte Carlo. Where it becomes unfair is that he won two titles and reached a third final in the weeks following the Australian Open, which is not really even claycourt season. The ATP just makes so many claycourt tournaments available (including some after Wimbledon) that dirtball specialists only venture off of clay when they absolutely have to, usually to unimpressive results.
I’m not a huge Andy Roddick fan by any means, but imagine how his career might look if there were several months of grasscourt events that he could play. And aside from big servers like Roddick, grass rewards artistry more than other surfaces. For every Roddick, Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisevic — guys whose serves were the primary reasons for their grasscourt success — there’s a John McEnroe, Patrick Rafter and Tim Henman. Henman was good on grass because of his serve-and-volley style and his touch around the net. Same with Rafter, who was a brilliant volleyer and great athlete. McEnroe’s genius around the net is indisputable.
I understand that many players who succeed on grass are just as successful on fast hardcourts or indoor courts, but there are certain skills needed to thrive on grass. The ball doesn’t bounce very high. Soft volleys die on the grass. Various spins can be effective. And while the condition of the courts has improved dramatically over the years, making baseline exchanges more possible, players still engage in them at their own peril. Aggressiveness and variety are rewarded on grass.
My suggestion would be to simply add two weeks to the period between the French Open and Wimbledon. I realize it’s not that simple, and will probably never happen, but it would improve the game and allow it to visit its grasscourt roots more frequently. After the French Open, there would be four weeks of grasscourt tournaments before Wimbledon, mostly played in western/northern Europe and, possibly, the U.S. east coast (move Newport to the week after the French Open, so there’s a chance some prominent players would compete).
To do this, you can trim a week each off the spring claycourt and summer hardcourt seasons. Each has plenty of events, and players get ample opportunity to play on both of those surfaces all throughout the year. Players would be more prepared for Wimbledon, and perhaps fewer of them would consider grass little more than a brief interruption, a necessary evil.
That being said, I have some more tennis to watch. Grasscourt tennis. Wimbledon tennis.
No comments:
Post a Comment