desmo
Rookie
Firstly if you haven't watched it, please do. The commentary is in Italian but is pretty generic and uninsightful so you aren't missing much if you don't understand Italian--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeZJGGTUXc
His serve isn't really that great. It's very fast because he hits it flat, but that also means there is little margin for error. The best thing about his serve is his second serve that he can get in pretty reliably at about 20 km/h shy of his first serve and more so that he isn't particularly concerned about double faulting which to me is something a good server should hardly worry about at all when even great servers struggle to win half the second serve points they hit in the box. And he attacks relentlessly--he ain't getting into baseline rallies that favor the conventional players and let them find a rhythm, that's what they want and that's what he refuses to give them. I'd actually say he is not only not reckless or thoughtless player, he is potentially the smartest tactician on a grass court today, which is not to say his execution couldn't improve (that goes for anyone of course). In fact I'd say he's the only player who has a grasp of grass court tennis on the men's tour. Statisticians have more or less proven that a good server should essentially go for it on their second serve and not worry about the inevitable double faults and this guy is the only guy on the tour smart enough and courageous enough to do exactly that. He also returns serve like a guy who either wants to take over the point or lose it on his first touch, which against Nadal (and I'd argue most other players too, at least on grass) is absolutely the smart play if you have the talent to make it work--which he obviously does. Federer or any of the other men could learn a lot about winning tactics watching this guy, he's miles ahead of them in the tactical department.
No one has won with that sort of attacking style I'd reckon not because it's "too risky"--and against Nadal on grass, I'd venture it's likely to actually be the least risky approach, in fact Brown could never have won that match-up playing any other way-- but because that attacking style simply isn't practiced. If you have a highly heterodox style of play that only a few people have ever tried, of course it won't have a good track record--it cannot. We're getting into chicken and egg now, a tactical style that's really never been tried at the top level has had no record of success because A- it's a bad plan or B- because it's never been tried or the person or few people who tried simply lacked the talent or determination to make it work. There's no actual dataset to make an informed call, it's simply weak anecdotal guessing.
Juniors cannot be schooled in a hyperagressive style because their pre-adolescent and adolescent bodies simply cannot carry out that plan. Only a grown man (and possibly a grown woman) can play in this manner. In fact, the stylistic and tactical possibilities of tennis play are in my opinion hugely and artificially constrained by the fact that all players are taught as children and largely operate the rest of their lives within the psychological constraints of the game they were taught as children. If you want to see an entire system fallen victim to the "start 'em young" junior tennis trap look at the players the USTA development program turns out and the subsequent disastrous results obtained. All the American men play as if they are oversized (too oversized frequently) juniors, they start them so young they have to use a two handed backhand because they aren't strong enough to swing one handed, they all play baseline because their junior bodies aren't explosive enough to execute an all court attacking game or to end points with winners off the ground and they are as adults trapped within these limitations because that is how they learned to play. All the American men basically look the same--are the same--because they basically play the game as the USTA teaches it to 10-11 year olds, and I see the same thing from players from Australia and the UK and all over the world.
As for Browns unorthodox volleying/half volleying, yes I cringed at his technique a few times but he was in fact getting consistently good results from it, which is really all that matters and I didn't see an inordinate number of errors resulting from either that or his flamboyant net play. And as for the hair, pffffft doesn't mean sweet f all one way or the other, look at all the different hair you see in other top level men's sports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeZJGGTUXc
His serve isn't really that great. It's very fast because he hits it flat, but that also means there is little margin for error. The best thing about his serve is his second serve that he can get in pretty reliably at about 20 km/h shy of his first serve and more so that he isn't particularly concerned about double faulting which to me is something a good server should hardly worry about at all when even great servers struggle to win half the second serve points they hit in the box. And he attacks relentlessly--he ain't getting into baseline rallies that favor the conventional players and let them find a rhythm, that's what they want and that's what he refuses to give them. I'd actually say he is not only not reckless or thoughtless player, he is potentially the smartest tactician on a grass court today, which is not to say his execution couldn't improve (that goes for anyone of course). In fact I'd say he's the only player who has a grasp of grass court tennis on the men's tour. Statisticians have more or less proven that a good server should essentially go for it on their second serve and not worry about the inevitable double faults and this guy is the only guy on the tour smart enough and courageous enough to do exactly that. He also returns serve like a guy who either wants to take over the point or lose it on his first touch, which against Nadal (and I'd argue most other players too, at least on grass) is absolutely the smart play if you have the talent to make it work--which he obviously does. Federer or any of the other men could learn a lot about winning tactics watching this guy, he's miles ahead of them in the tactical department.
No one has won with that sort of attacking style I'd reckon not because it's "too risky"--and against Nadal on grass, I'd venture it's likely to actually be the least risky approach, in fact Brown could never have won that match-up playing any other way-- but because that attacking style simply isn't practiced. If you have a highly heterodox style of play that only a few people have ever tried, of course it won't have a good track record--it cannot. We're getting into chicken and egg now, a tactical style that's really never been tried at the top level has had no record of success because A- it's a bad plan or B- because it's never been tried or the person or few people who tried simply lacked the talent or determination to make it work. There's no actual dataset to make an informed call, it's simply weak anecdotal guessing.
Juniors cannot be schooled in a hyperagressive style because their pre-adolescent and adolescent bodies simply cannot carry out that plan. Only a grown man (and possibly a grown woman) can play in this manner. In fact, the stylistic and tactical possibilities of tennis play are in my opinion hugely and artificially constrained by the fact that all players are taught as children and largely operate the rest of their lives within the psychological constraints of the game they were taught as children. If you want to see an entire system fallen victim to the "start 'em young" junior tennis trap look at the players the USTA development program turns out and the subsequent disastrous results obtained. All the American men play as if they are oversized (too oversized frequently) juniors, they start them so young they have to use a two handed backhand because they aren't strong enough to swing one handed, they all play baseline because their junior bodies aren't explosive enough to execute an all court attacking game or to end points with winners off the ground and they are as adults trapped within these limitations because that is how they learned to play. All the American men basically look the same--are the same--because they basically play the game as the USTA teaches it to 10-11 year olds, and I see the same thing from players from Australia and the UK and all over the world.
As for Browns unorthodox volleying/half volleying, yes I cringed at his technique a few times but he was in fact getting consistently good results from it, which is really all that matters and I didn't see an inordinate number of errors resulting from either that or his flamboyant net play. And as for the hair, pffffft doesn't mean sweet f all one way or the other, look at all the different hair you see in other top level men's sports.
