The Groundstroke Crank

On the way to work today, I decided to stop at the shoemaker guy just around the corner, where they still have a full, four-seat, shoe-shine stand. I Had to get all spiffed up for tonight, right? So here's a tip, probably just as much for you ladies as men. At $3 bucks a shoeshine is a great deal, and it will make the rattiest of boots or shoes (mine were merely dusty and untended for weeks) look like new.

I sat in the throne-like shoeshine chair and watched as the guy went through a dozen steps to get my black brogues into presentable shape, using wax, liquid wax, water, buffing cloths, and various brushes. This is the first time I had someone else shine my shoes in, oh, 20 years. I'll have to do it again after another two decades pass. Warning, I wouldn't recommend this procedure if your favorite summer footwear is flip-flops.

Now, on to the business of the day.It seems that the Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal rivalry is just as capable of inciting opinion and commentary as ever, and at some level the debate centers around the playing properties of not just the players, but red clay. We're allowed to disagree on these issues of course, but I was surprised to see the amount of discussion devoted to "movement", and some of the assertions made in the conversation. While there are certainly are special movement issues on clay - sliding, of course, is the chief one - they are minor ones. It's fun to discuss them, but at the end of the day I believe they have zero relevance to the much bigger issues that determine success or failure on clay.

Or, let me put it this way: there are players who slide on clay with the gusto of ice-skaters, yet they are not more lethal contenders on clay than those who don't. Sliding is a trick, easily learned (most of you 4.0-plus players get the hang of it in nothing flat, which should tell you how easy it is for a world-class pro - if he or she has his heart set on it). It's also a habit easily abandoned, as TMF or Jet Boy can attest, even though Champagne Kimmy Clijsters hasn't been able (or is it willing?) to un-learn it.

One of the great sliders on clay was Tomas Muster, who had a Nadal-esque run on European clay in 1995, culminating with his win at Roland Garros. I don't know who well you remember him, but I would never have called Muster a master of movement. Ditto for some other recent French Open champs, including two-time winners Jim Courier and Sergi Bruguera, Ivan Lendl, Andres Gomez, and Carlos Moya. Former champs who did have great movement include Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Gustavo Kuerten.

Good movement may be the outstanding, shared quality of great players - they are, almost by definition, great movers. But their ability to move well is not necessarily enhanced - or diminished - by surface. Borg is the towering example of this theory: He won Wimbledon and Roland Garros back-to-back an astonishing three successive times.  Good movement was the most critical asset in his record at Wimbledon; in Paris, it was the added bonus that enabled him to not merely outlast opponents, but grind them into dust. Grinder? The guy crushed people, love-two-and-one. There was lot more going on than turning the handle on the groundstroke crank.

This brings us back to some of the common misconceptions surrounding the clay game. The "slowness" of clay is an equalizer that levels the playing field for the grinders - rather than being a surface that is  somehow conducive to the grinder's style of play. Hard and grass courts are just as conducive to hitting endless groundstrokes (observe women's tennis), it's just that they're too fast to allow players beyond a certain level to get away with lobbing groundies at each other. There is a subtle distinction in there.

Clay enables grinders to overcome what limitations they have in the movement department, because they can get to so many more balls - either to keep a point going, or to get properly prepared to hit a good shot. Great players tend to play well on anything, but great clay-court players often don't play well enough on fast surfaces because. . . they don't move well enough. There are, of course, other factors: Kuerten struggled on faster surfaces because he used such a long, elaborate take-back. It especially hurt him as a returner on fast surfaces. But by and large, clay is friendly to grinders without having properties that give them a technical advantage over non-griding but proficient clay-court performers like Roger Federer,or even Nadal, who would have a right to feel insulted if he were termed a grinder.

Once again I get back to my previously stated theory: Success on clay courts is a matter of style and preference, sometimes even choice. Federer grew up on clay, yet he is no grinder and he is no Nadal. He's a guy whose style and innate approach to the game are better served on faster courts, because on them his movement, quickness and reflexes are more obviously rewarded. Or put it this way: on fast courts, Federer's superiority as a mover are not hampered by a playing surface that allows less gifted players to stay in points. Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg, who both were weaned on clay, are even better and more dramatic examples of how you can grow up on clay, but have talent that enables you to transcend your background far more successfully than can, say, a Guillermo Vilas or Albert Costa.

It's an error to dismiss what I semi-seriously dubbed The Dreaded Clay-Court Demon. Given the proliferation of tournaments and the fact that only one major is on clay,it should be easy to see why some players simply decide it isn't worth putting in the effort to get comfortable and confident on clay. Pete Sampras's early record on clay was promising (it included an Italian Open title), but as he emerged as the dominant player fast courts, he neglected to put a special priority on winning at Roland Garros (or on clay in general). If your heart's not into playing on clay, you're a perfect mark for a grinder. And if you  are repeatedly frustrated on clay (or any other surface), you tend to lose interest in being good on it - look at Keurten's non-record at Wimbledon.

The other dimension at play in this process is the lack of confidence bred by failure, and this is where the demon comes in. Because if you're a Sampras or even a Federer, people have high expectations. This creates pressure and unease. Does anyone doubt that the issue in TMF's career has become: Can he win the French? Doesn't this - by definition - take him out of the comfort zone he inhabits at the other three majors? Roland Garros may not haunt players, but the inability to win there can become a monkey on any player's back, and undermine his confidence. And top players don't need to dwell on what they can't do, or haven't done. They need to be optimistic and confident, focusing on their strengths. So the French can easily become a perpetual bit of unfinished business better left unadressed; and an asterisk on the resume. Yes, he's great, but can he win the French?

There's this, too: Clay is the easiest of surfaces to ignore if you're an American or Australian. It's startling, the degree to which the current generation of U.S. players treats the European clay-court circuit as an inconvenience. Europeans and South Americans put special emphasis on owning the bragging rights to clay: it is, in some ways, the "alternative" surface in a world that has always been dominated by Anglo priorities, Anglo events, Anglo players. Clay is where players from what might be called the emerging nations (although most of them are emerged, with a vengeance) tend to get their payback. And now, you can add a familiar name to list of contenders: Felix Mantilla.

Mantilla is the proto-typical grinder. Among all the players, he is the most like Guillermo Canas: very solid off both sides, and perhaps even more wedded to the baseline than Willy. Mantilla had a good run in the late 1990s; he was ranked as high as No. 10, he won the Italian Open, and reached the semifinals of Roland Garros in 1988. His game began to decline, somewhat inexplicably as far as I remember, before he was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2005. A former winner at Barcelona (where the SEAT Open is currently underway), he won his first round match there yesterday and is attempting a comeback.

That puts one more grinder for the Federers and Djokovics and Murrays to worry about in the coming weeks.