The Only Difference
is the Clothes

Ed Atkinson

Tennis has never been more popular worldwide. But by the same token I've never seen tennis so dominated by women's tennis as it is today. By "women's tennis" I'm talking about the type of tennis that the women play, and the type of tennis that most of the men play as well.

What is the difference between men's tennis and women's tennis? The answer is, unfortunately, only the clothes, because both take place predominantly in the backcourt. .

Basically 95 percent of your men are playing women's tennis, namely baseline tennis. Actually that's not quite true, because the men play a rather poor version of women's tennis. The men aren't as strategically sophisticated as the women.

In the men's game serve and volley tennis is a thing of the past. What we see instead is the players attempting to dominate from the backcourt, going for no-brainer winners and racking up as many unforced errors as winners. Then you hear some TV commentator say "that's a pretty good day." Sometimes I find it almost impossible to watch.

Women's Matches are More Entertaining.

The women lack the ability to cover the court the way the men can, so their strategy is more sophisticated. You'll note the best women players come to net on the correct occasions, in a propitious manner, and finish the points at the net. When she gets a short ball Martina Hingis attacks and comes in. Davenport comes in on a short ball. The Williams sisters do. As does Capriati.

Andre Agassi may be the best player from the backcourt but the dimensions of the court dictate that points are
finished at the net.

The men, on the other hand, are looking for every excuse not to come in. They get a ball near their service line, and run back to the baseline. When I see this I immediately transfer to the shopping channel hoping I can find a sale of ladies skirts so I can mail them to some of these players.

In men's tennis, when you get a short ball and don't come in, it's just unforgivable.

It's absolutely in direct contradiction to everything you should do.

The dimensions of the court dictate that points are finished at the net. You must force. As soon as that ball is short the whole idea should be to hit a ball deep down the line safely. Clear the net by three or four feet. So you can have a slice forehand too. Once you have a short ball, the percentage of you winning the point, if you play it correctly, is about 90 percent in your favor. So you should never miss that approach shot.

Once you have a short ball you are now in a position to win the point nine out of ten times. And how you do it is you hit an approach shot down the line, then your opponent has to hit a miracle shot to win the point because any volley you get from there should be a winner.

If your shot goes down the line, your body is also positioned to cover the down the line, so all that's available to your opponent is a miracle cross-court. And if every time you have a short ball to the backhand you you relentlessly slice it deep, clear the net by three feet, and position yourself at the net correctly, that nine-out-of-ten ratio will be absolutely in etched in cement.

It's impossible to have any kind of a percentage by hitting winners from the backcourt against anyone who can play, and that is why you'll see modern backcourt players make as many unforced errors as winners. That's a horrible statistic.

You should have a ratio of about 20 to 1, winners to unforced errors, and the only way you do that is by being closer to the net. But somehow the 50/50 ratio has become excusable or even perhaps laudatory. You only need 24 points to win a set, so if you make 25 errors it's like giving your opponent a set without forcing them to hit one winner.

I find it all tragic, but it's also understandable when we look at how the players are hitting the ball today, with western grips and two-handed backhands. With a western forehand, it is very difficult to hit a low forehand volley, and with a two-handed backhand you can't hit a backhand volley. So when they get to the net they feel terribly insecure and rightly so because the technique is just deplorable. And therefore the volley's gone out of men's tennis.

It's no coincidence that the Wimbledon Championships have been dominated for the last 15 or 20 years by players with one-handed backhands: Becker, Sampras, McEnroe, Edberg. One would think that this is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it isn't, because with the one-handed backhand the players are able to hit the slice approach shots which are essential to winning on any fast service particularly grass.

Now, historically, the only person to win Wimbledon with a two-handed backhand in recent memory was Agassi, and that's kind of an aberration. I don't believe that he'll ever win it again, although, of course, that's possible.

Borg had an enormous success at Wimbledon and he had a two-handed backhand. But what you must remember is that in the 128 draws that Borg faced in his Wimbledon championships, there were perhaps two people out of the 128 that served and volleyed. He was just playing poor imitations of himself.

He was playing other baseliners, and if you're going to get into a baseline dual with someone who is faster, more talented, more determined, and in better shape than you, you're dead. And that's all he ever had to face.

Mac's artistically simple yet elegant serve and volley game is rarely seen in men's tennis today.

And if you'll recall, the only tough scrape he had was against Roscoe Tanner. Tanner was really quite a mediocre serve and volleyer. He didn't move very well, and he certainly was not the most agile player ever to play the game, but still he took Borg to five sets in a Wimbledon final. The only reason for that was his tactic; he served and volleyed and came in and came in.

So Borg never had to face a talented serve and volleyer until McEnroe showed up. Then Borg got through one match very, very tightly, and won his last Wimbledon, but after that he knew the writing was on the wall. I mean he just knew that there was no way that he would ever be able to dominate the game again and that McEnroe had an incredible edge, and he quit.

Now that is the power of having a talented net rusher, and that means coming in on your serve and coming in on every opportunity during the rally. The pressure put on the person on the baseline is just too much to overcome. No one plays that way anymore.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was to tell me that we have a player on the horizon that is really a marvelous talent, I couldn't get there fast enough because I love the game. But all I see is very, very talented men's players, who have the speed, have the reflexes, have the agility. I mean players like Rios, like Hewitt, who are so handicapped by the horrible technique that they've been taught, that they are reduced to playing women's tennis. What we really have is the equivalent of more powerful women, namely men, playing a woman's game. To anyone who's seen the history of game, it makes tennis an extremely depressing situation to watch.