Is baseline tennis really that boring?

Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the site.

It has been almost a week now since Andy Murray triumphed at the Sony Open, capturing only his second title of the year. Yet the brutality and intensity that were on display during the course of the final simply refuse to vacate my memory. This baseline slugfest was not something new or unique. For more than a decade or so, since the exit of the great Pete Sampras, baseline camping has been a part and parcel of the game.

In another ten years, the game of tennis is sure to be deprived of two types of artistries – the one-handed backhand and the serve and volley game. As such, even now we hardly find any serve-and-volleyers in men’s tennis. In the women’s game though, this art perished long ago, after Jana Novotna left the scene. Though there are a few players, like Michael Llodra and Mardy Fish (to an extent), still banking on the ‘net approach game’ to survive in tennis, it is going out of fashion, thanks to the numerous baseliners thronging the game. So, tennis fans should expect to watch 20-plus-shots rallies, henceforth. The spectators on the tennis courts are sure to suffer from neck problems.

There is a prevailing thought among certain sections of tennis fans that long rallies are boring to watch. According to them, numerous exchanges from the baseline cannot be termed ‘good tennis’. I have listened to many Federer fans criticizing the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for their involvment in countless rallies, thereby prolonging the points. Frankly speaking, the players of the current era are helpless. It is difficult for them to do away with the baseline game. For, even a gifted player like Roger Federer, with all the shots in his repertoire, is forced to resort to the baseline game most of the times. So, it needs to be understood that the problem does not lie entirely with the tennis professionals. The core problem, if it has to be termed so, lies with the athletic ability and agility of the young tennis professionals. What can one do when the person at the other end of the court is so good at fetching and keeping the balls in play? No matter how skillful you are at finding angles from anywhere on the baseline, your opponent may still put the ball back in to your court, making you start the rally all over again.

Even if you try going up to the net to finish off the points, the players of the current era are fully equipped to score winners via effective forehand or backhand passes. We all have seen how Pete Sampras, who is regarded as one of the best serve-and-volleyers the game has seen, was tamed repeatedly by Roger Federer who counter-punched the former’s net approach game by some astonishing passing shots, played off both his forehand and backhand, during their epic fourth round encounter in Wimbledon 2001. Even in the recent Miami final, which I was referring to at the beginning of this article, as much as Ferrer was working with the intention of proceeding to the net after cornering the Brit with his inside out forehands, he had to withdraw mid-way all the time because the fleet-footed Murray was equal to the task, as he fetched the balls earlier than expected.

That’s where Roger Federer, despite possessing one of the beautiful net approach games, too is made to struggle nowadays from the baseline when he is pitted against the other members of top 10. The nature of the game has changed as the players are prepared to run themselves ragged. The stats reflected this, when the distances run by Ferrer and Murray were displayed on the TV screens, in the best of three sets Miami final. As time goes by, it is quite natural for any sport to attain its own shape based on the requirements of the generation. The current generation believes in doing things which were otherwise dismissed as impossible in the past.

What we see from the current bunch of players is the compulsive defensive game. They have no intention of indulging in meaningless exchanges, but the fact is that they are forced to. As the adage goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, they have no other choice but to churn out points from the baseline. This is the modern game and they have to live with it. They are not going to see the likes of McEnroes, Edbergs and Sampras’ any more. Such players, even if they do pop up, they too have to either resort to the baseline game or be content with leaving the tournaments without a trophy.

So, it is better for tennis fans to love what they see rather than aspiring for something which is not feasible. And really, is baseline tennis that boring? If it really led to boredom, then the game would have become unpopular by now. On the contrary, it is this era that has successfully generated a plethora of fans. In fact, the “Fedal” rivaly of this era is considered as the mother of all rivalries. The fans enjoy watching them play and yet it is puzzling to hear from them that they abhor slugfests. Is it not true that we get goose bumps upon witnessing a tennis marathon, with neither player prepared to concede points easily? We would be lying if we say we do not.

What is the fun in watching a game which showcases no resistance and fightbacks? It is the unyielding passion of the players which makes tennis a very fascinating sport to view. So, rather than harping about the age old traditions, we should now look forward to embracing the game as it is happening right now. The way I see it, baseline slugfests have become the saveur du jour of the tennis world already. The fact of the matter is that the baseline game is not at all boring and in many ways, is much better than the serve and volley routines of yesteryear.