<% ns_puts [mkm_getnavbar] %>

The Classic Style in the Modern Era

by AJ Chabria

The debate rages on about the relative benefits of classical versus heavy topspin style, stimulated by Robert Lansdorp's recent article. Having exchanged thoughts and emails with a few TennisONE visitors and our other writers, here are some personal thoughts to add to the discussion. And let us you know what you think by writing us at TennisONE.

If we are talking strictly about the effect of grips, strokes and styles for the tour stars, I think it is important to note that in men's tennis, the days of winning slams on all surfaces are basically over. It's quite a feat that Perry, Budge and Laver won all of the slams, and it's downright amazing that Agassi has done it in the more specialized modern era with racquets and athletes who have pushed attacking and defending to new dimensions. 

Today, there are just too many players who can pass the attackers at will, and too many attackers who can overpower the baseliners on the quicker courts. In the three decades before the nineties, Santana, Rosewall, Nastase, Borg, Connors and Wilander won slams on grass as well as clay, but Agassi is probably the only one versatile enough to pull that off these days. His versatility stems from his fitness, patience and his remarkable returns and passes on clay, grass and anything else.

Though, I suppose one could argue that his '92 Wimbledon title was an aberration since he has improved immensely and has not yet repeated the feat. More classic stylists like Sampras, Martin, Becker and Rafter (and even Doug Flach) have something to do with that statistic. In fairness to Andre, it may also have been an aberration that he lost two French finals early in his career while heavily favored to win.

I agree that Agassi and company handle high balls better than Pete, and they choose to use more topspin than he does, but I don't think they are capable of anything he is not. He can win on clay, and he has proven that at the Italian Open. The baseliners have developed better defensive games because they don't have his offensive capabilities.

Their defensive skills are a major component to his lack of a Roland Garros title because they pressure him to make the best serves and approach only on the very best shots -- for seven 3 out of 5 set matches. 

Sure, if Pete had a western grip he'd play with more patience and do better at the French Open, but how many Wimbledons would he have won? I think anyone would agree that he made the right decision to go the classic route in his teens. In recent memory, Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Petr Korda and Pat Rafter have all been to the semis or finals of Roland Garros, and they all play an attacking brand of tennis that has helped them on all surfaces. 

You could even include local heroes Henri Leconte and Yannick Noah on that list. Relatively speaking, they are all attacking players without western grips. A couple of them actually use a forehand grip that's closer to a continental than a semi-western. 

With the exception of Noah's emotionally charged win over Wilander in the '83 final, nobody from that group ever won at Roland Garros, probably for a number of reasons. Roland Garros is the toughest test for any attacking player, just as Wimbledon's lawns have pecked holes in the resumes of great baseliners on all surfaces like Lendl, Wilander and Courier and obviously a longer list of clay court specialists.

Though the professional tour has a significant number of clay court events and all four slams hold great honor, the consensus among tennis players and fans alike is that the two that pack the most prestige are Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Add in the Masters Cup and the Australian Open and you have four of the five biggest individual prizes in tennis played on surfaces other than clay. 

Thomas Muster, Sergi Bruguera and a few other clay court giants added a lot of hard work to their incredible talents and were able to achieve success on hard courts as well as clay, but Wimbledon was always out of their reach.

I think a player's personality has a lot to do with the way he/she will play. Some people's bodies and minds just aren't cut out for a specific way of approaching a tennis ball. It would be tough to get a guy like McEnroe or Becker to commit to a purely defensive style. Similarly, how can you tell Michael Chang that he must blanket the net like Pat Rafter or Stefan Edberg? 

The new breed of tennis player (Safin, Agassi, Kuerten, Norman, Hewitt) can blend attack and defense well and win on just about any surface. But grass and fast indoor carpet will pose problems for them as long as there are guys like Krajicek, Henman, Rafter, Sampras in the draw -- and to some degree -- Siemerink, Bjorkman, Federer and Rusedski.

It would be something to see Pete devote the gargantuan effort to Roland Garros that Lendl did to Wimbledon. He could skip a few hard court events, set up camp in Spain, France or Italy (could be worse), train and play lots of practice matches with some born and bred claycourters in addition to his regular practice partners. That level of commitment almost worked for Lendl, if not for Becker and Cash in the '86 and '87 finals. A Roland Garros title is definitely not out of the question for Pete, but even if it were, I'd take Pete's game (and results) any day.

Now if we are talking about the classic style as it relates to the recreational player, I think the choice is a lot more simple. Seven 3 out of 5 set singles matches on clay aside, the classic style is the best foundation for just about anyone in the long run. It lends itself to an all-court game with explosive power and lots of variety -- all with minimal risk of injury. 

Outside the college and professional ranks, few players have the defensive skills to thwart a good attacker in singles or in doubles, especially at an advanced age. I see lots of players who play advanced-level singles and doubles with a classic style well into their golden years. They actually prefer clay because it is easier on their joints, but they still win, despite the slower surface because they have more ways to win than the defense oriented players. They also do not have to do quite as much ball chasing from behind the baseline. Even the staunchest proponents of the baseline style will admit that injury-free longevity is simply not as common among baseliners using western grips.

I guess it all depends how you grew up and how versatile you are prepared to be. Can you imagine a player who can combine the competitive mind of Connors, the rock-solid ground game of Lendl or Borg with the variety of McEnroe and the power of Becker? That player could win any tournament anywhere, even a fantasy tennis league. Sampras is the closest thing to it in the open era...so far.

Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you think about by AJ Chabria's opinion by emailing us here at TennisONE.