TTMR
Hall of Fame
There are many different varieties of tennis out there: Real tennis, lawn tennis, table tennis, platform tennis. They are all forms of tennis yet respectable in their own right. They have their own leagues and their own specialists who excel within that particular tennis framework. A real tennis player is not asked to play lawn tennis, a table tennis player is not mandated to play platform tennis, and so on.
Yet, for some reason, tennis played on mud, which once again is a vastly different game requiring a completely unique skill set, is imposed on lawn tennis players trained and specialized in genuine lawn tennis. Lawn tennis, the same tennis played on hard courts, promotes a player born with or adapted to certain proclivities: a powerful serve, a big, dominating forehand, a one-handed backhand, a slice or chip return, crisp, clean volleys, flat, penetrating groundstrokes and early ball-striking. This kind of tennis is known for its artistry and all-court players. Its short, exciting points enthrall the crowd and attract viewers.
Meanwhile, clay court tennis promotes a different kind of player, a kind of player unable to succeed playing the above kind of tennis: a weak serve, slow, loopy groundstrokes, an effective return, a two-handed backhand, no net game and an allergy to advancing to the fore of the baseline. This kind of tennis produces singular and one dimensional players, known for brutish physiques and predictable game patterns. Its long, repetitive points attract marathon viewers and Tour de France fanatics, but bore the general public and conventional sports fans at large.
For a long time, clay court players skipped much of the remaining tennis season. They couldn't handle it because they play a different, lesser breed of tennis. Even the most successful of clay court players, like Nadal, only obtain the most minuscule of accomplishments off their favoured surface. There is little diversity among clay courters such that clay courters are essentially a minor league with one great player who dominates from year to year there. A monotonous tedium that knows no bounds.
Why then are we lawn tennis fans subjected to this entirely different game for three months of the year? We pay to see aces and winners, not point construction and unforced errors. The Nadals, the Almagros and the Chelas don't want to play our game, as evidenced by their schedules, and we don't want to see theirs. So, why do we?
End the forced homogenization of tennis. It's time for independence, for clay court tennis to sink or swim on its own and its champions not to be placed on the same pedestal with the legends of the turf.
Thoughts?
Yet, for some reason, tennis played on mud, which once again is a vastly different game requiring a completely unique skill set, is imposed on lawn tennis players trained and specialized in genuine lawn tennis. Lawn tennis, the same tennis played on hard courts, promotes a player born with or adapted to certain proclivities: a powerful serve, a big, dominating forehand, a one-handed backhand, a slice or chip return, crisp, clean volleys, flat, penetrating groundstrokes and early ball-striking. This kind of tennis is known for its artistry and all-court players. Its short, exciting points enthrall the crowd and attract viewers.
Meanwhile, clay court tennis promotes a different kind of player, a kind of player unable to succeed playing the above kind of tennis: a weak serve, slow, loopy groundstrokes, an effective return, a two-handed backhand, no net game and an allergy to advancing to the fore of the baseline. This kind of tennis produces singular and one dimensional players, known for brutish physiques and predictable game patterns. Its long, repetitive points attract marathon viewers and Tour de France fanatics, but bore the general public and conventional sports fans at large.
For a long time, clay court players skipped much of the remaining tennis season. They couldn't handle it because they play a different, lesser breed of tennis. Even the most successful of clay court players, like Nadal, only obtain the most minuscule of accomplishments off their favoured surface. There is little diversity among clay courters such that clay courters are essentially a minor league with one great player who dominates from year to year there. A monotonous tedium that knows no bounds.
Why then are we lawn tennis fans subjected to this entirely different game for three months of the year? We pay to see aces and winners, not point construction and unforced errors. The Nadals, the Almagros and the Chelas don't want to play our game, as evidenced by their schedules, and we don't want to see theirs. So, why do we?
End the forced homogenization of tennis. It's time for independence, for clay court tennis to sink or swim on its own and its champions not to be placed on the same pedestal with the legends of the turf.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
