He was this big guy, with a big life and yet he played the most subtle and hard-working game. And ironically, it was that understated style that made him successful and yet prevented him from being better. For example, the simplicity of his backhand allowed him to be as quick as he was; add any more elements ( an extra knee bend into a bigger shoulder turn to result in a more topspin potent drive ) and Vitas might lose the one weapon he had - his speed. The added complexities could make him a step slower and his game just couldn’t have that. He was a big guy who could move and that was the scary thing. His weapons weren’t a stroke, his weapons were his physical constitution.
Vitas was also played smart. He was also always in position and very difficult to wrong-foot, not something tall players always claim. And he was loathed to making dumb errors, something the tour’s current big-guys-who-can-move like Marat Safin/Tsonga could learn from. This is probably why he had such success with lower ranked players - he didn’t lose because of himself, he lost because the other players were better.
He also had heart and was a great competitor. He wasn’t afraid to attack on a 60 mile second serve because he challenged his opponent, and it would work because it was intimidating - he had great reach and he was stupidly fast. Opponents would try to get the ball by him but the math was firmly in his favor. His favorite play was to attack the net up the middle - something you never see today - and cut off the limited angles with this height. I would go so far as to say he was one of the best of not the best at moving up the center. Imagine a good, low and slow moving ball the forces you on your back foot falling away from the baseline and before you is a big guy we could in one balanced step reach to either side and easier cut off whatever passing shot you tried. Another favorite play: running his opponents side to side, making them go from the right court and to the left court to chase down a low, slow moving backhand slice. Then they had to get there and generate the pace to make the shot only to see it go to the forehand corner again and then then have to go back to chase the same backhand. Vitas could literally do that all day. Does either play constitute big hitting, no. Are they effective, very much so.
Other things of note: I would agree that Vitas was one of the better returners. He seemed to get more balls back into play than any except maybe Connors. His return wasn’t aggressive but they weren’t cream-puffs either; he made his opponents play. His mechanics were almost like a volley from the baseline, a good firm wrist with a shoulder turn and the racket head tall. And whether he played Lendl ( who he did quite well against ), McEnroe or Tanner - the biggest servers back then - they all knew the same thing: the ball was coming back.
Other thoughts: Nastase wrote that Vitas consistently had problems with his ball toss and that's why his serve wasn’t as good as it should have been ( which was odd because the Romanian had a lousy record against him ). Also, his wrist on his backhand could have been a little looser for drives. And sometimes he was was prone to making life more difficult than it should've been which apparently was very Vitas. There were many times Vitas could simply put the ball away but somehow didn’t, giving his opponent second chances they didn’t deserve.
Ultimately he was a balanced, flowing player whose had a great foundation to his game. If players moved their feet more, made the players beat themselves if they were prone to and knew how to be opportunistic it they would probably lift their NTPR an entire point. At the very least they would lose to people they shouldn’t be losing to, and that would be tennis player bliss.
