This week I'm discussing the 2006 season, and looking forward to 2007, with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and at Tennis World).
Steve,
Thanks for the intro and, of course, the space. Your first post provided a wealth of nuggets to chew on, here are some I found particularly irresistable.
Indian Wells. First, as for reports from the front lines of Maxply Jr's events I'm going to have to plead fatherhood, or take the "fifth," or something. Apart from the general unfairness of writing about someone before they can write for themselves, it seems to me that anything approaching the truth carries quite a bit of risk. Oh, I've got quite a few thoughts about some of the stuff I've seen so far in the junior game, but it occurs to me that if the tone or balance is off in the slightest way, someone's feelings might get hurt, and its tough enough to go out there and play tennis matches when you are 10 years old without the risk of your dad, (or, heaven forbid, your opponent's dad!) writing about it where someone might actually read it.
However, it is safe to say that my current obsession with the state of racquet technology and what effect it has on style of play is more than partially due to trying to figure out what the correct advice "is" in this game of ours in 2006.
But I will say this: there was one thing that struck me about Indian Wells -- folks, those courts are friggen SLOW! They pretty much resurface them every year, and this time . . . . well, let me give you an anecdote.
For those who have not been there, in addition to the stadium, many of the courts are set up (spaced and sunken) so that temporary grandstands can easily be erected. On these courts, the part of the surface which was resurfaced extended to not only the actual court, but to a series of about three levels of concrete "steps" which are really not steps but more accurately "seats" about two and a half feet high, running the length of the court. On change games, the players sit on the first row, and the spectators sit a row or two up.
One one change game, Maxply Jr. set his racquet down, tip on court, and leaned it against the edge of the "step." He was a bit off of vertical, and the handle of the racquet started to slide down the edge of the "step." There was so much sand in the resurface, that the sand caught the grip of the racket and held it at about a 45 degree angle.
Quite a bit more than " / " -- I'm telling you, the court is only about one or two grains of sand away from actually being velcro.
During the match, well-hit slice shots almost bounced "backwards" towards the net. Although there is no way to really get a good feel for courts (incluiding, say, Wimbledon's grass) without being there, if the rest of the tour is doing anything like this you can forget about academic discussions about the serve and volley game. If the courts are set up to basically prevent the attacking player from keeping the ball low, coming in and setting up to cover the passing shot is really not much of an option.
The WTA. When Maria Sharapova beat Serena Williams in the 2004 Wimbledon final I was pretty much ready to write off the entire WTA tour. Before anyone jumps in to accuse me of something, let me explain why. At that point, it appeared that sheer physicality was going to completely take over the women's game, and it struck me as unfair. For example, I would not, generally, think much of the junior boy's game if 6'1" 18-year olds routinely were able to pummel 5'2" 14-year-olds into submission. That's what quite a few WTA matches were starting to resemble, and frankly, it was a turn-off, and a turn-off which had nothing to do with the attractiveness of the players, either.
Fast forward to 2006, and what could be a better illustration of how risky predictions can be? We have Henin, Mauresmo, Hingis, and Schnyder in the top 10, with honorable "all court game" mention to Kuznetsova. Basically, could you ask for more shotmaking artistry than Henin and Mauresmo displayed in their matches this year?
The thing that's going to keep me on the edge of my seat in 2007 is whether Henin and Mauresmo can keep it up. There is, frankly, a lot at stake in terms of how the women's game would be perceived. The game evolves, and to my mind it is a great evolution for players who may not be 6' tall to feel that they have a chance on the WTA tour.
If a year from now the top 10 looks pretty much the same, I think a sigh of relief may be in order. If, on the other hand, the top ten is Sharapova, Serena Williams, Clijsters, Dementieva, Petrova, Venus Williams, Vaidasova, Safina, Davenport and Golovin, well, there may be no problem in the physical attractiveness department, but there may be a big problem in the "variety" department.
Just to show my curmudgeon-like nature on this issue has nothing to do with the gals in general, a couple of years ago I witnessed the Hewitt-Ferriera final in L.A., and, after dozing off several times, I thought I woke up to the scene of 10,000 people watching a couple of guys do a crosscourt forehand drill.
The ATP has escaped this fate. I think one story of 2007 will be whether the WTA escapes the same one.
The Rivals. You threw some real red meat to the crowd on the Federer-Sampras comparison, so I'll skip debating who had the better backhand. However, it is appropriate to mention that if you or I had been writing this a year ago, anyone predicting another 93-5 year for Federer would have been looked at somewhat suspiciously, I mean, come on, aren't we really expecting Federer to do a Sampras-like mutation into a guy who really "brings it" for the majors and relaxes a bit for the rest of the year?
Well, we may be expecting it, and frankly, given the ravages of time on everyone's game it is inevitable, but every month, and I mean every month, that Federer continues to pull off tournament win after tournament win by escaping some close match challenge is something that we should all watch -- because we won't see this again for a while.
I've seen the artistry before, but this level of sheer willingness to win over such a long period of time. Nope, haven't seen that in . . . well, I've never seen it.
Nadal has his own things to worry about, and they are not all named Roger. His run of results is only slightly less impressive than Federer's.
If either of both of them come down off of the incredible tears they have been on for about the last two years, expect plenty of words about the rest of the tour "catching up." I'll say right now that if it happens, I would not be so quick to ascribe it to anyone else's game improving. What Nadal and Federer have done is nothing short of remarkable -- look back to any rivalry in the men's game in the modern era and I don't think you will see two guys as consistent.
If it (and by "it" I mean their run of form) does not end this year (and think for a second as to what that would mean), tape every match, because we'll all be telling our grandkids about 2007.
I don't have the Tennis Channel. More on that later.
Hank