How come no one at Wimbledon is playing grass court tennis? According to The New York Times , that's the question that was put to Pete Sampras earlier this week during a WTA conference call. The answer was considerably more forceful than most people expected. Sampras, normally very genial, said the state of the men's game at Wimbledon was "sad" and that players are afraid of risk. He went on to say that he liked his chances in this year's men's draw. Most people assumed he meant against everyone but Roger Federer, four-time defending champion. Sampras clarified: "If there is anything Roger doesn't like to see, it is someone coming in and serving and volleying, someone putting pressure on him. I think my game matched up reasonably well against his."

What's got Pistol Pete so hopping mad? Was it the coverage? Fowler's pithy remarks? All the rain? Or was it just that Sampras is really sick of responding to the hypothesis that Federer is the best player in history?

I don't blame him for that. Federer is the best now. A lot of people have been the best now. And when you look back across history to determine who was the greatest player ever, you have to consider three elements: major championships, career winning percentage, and, more subjective, the competition a player faced. Federer is in company with Sampras, Laver, and Borg on the first two counts but it would be hard to argue he is in their company on the third issue.

And Pete is probably sitting at home watching Andy Roddick walk through this draw and thinking my serve was better than his. My forehand was better. My backhand was better. My volleys were better. Correction. They ARE better!

Roddick was asked about Sampras' comments, and he essentially stuck up for his contemporaries by saying that no one could argue with Pete's record at Wimbledon , but that coming forward is not necessarily the best way for everyone to play.

Sampras dominated Wimbledon by coming in behind both serves. His second serve was the best in history. He put so much pressure on opposing players because he rarely played without a two-point advantage on his serve games. And then he played loose on his opponents' serves, looking to open up the points right off the return. Roddick doesn't realize how strange things look to people like me, who remember when nearly the entire draw came in behind both serves.

I just watched the third set tiebreak of the Roddick/Gasquet match. Gasquet showed up for this match late but he has outplayed Roddick in the third set and Roddick will be in trouble if the match goes to five. A Rod has played the match perfectly by coming forward more than he has in the last few matches. The pressure has been too much for Gasquet, who is a shot-maker and has to have a comfort zone, a feeling of touch and control, to be successful. But the wind is dying with the onset of evening and Roddick will have to continue to come forward to put this match away.

The wind has been terrible all day. Wind and grass are a nasty combination. It's hard to hit the ball cleanly when the ball stays low and bounces inconsistently, as it does on grass. And then you add wind and now the ball's irregular flight means you can feel like you are playing tennis on ice skates swinging at a whiffle ball. Berdych cried like a baby after Nadal dismantled him early in the day. No tears from me. The Czech only came in ten times.

When conditions are bad it pays to press the play. As Sampras implied, coming to net is all about risk management. Players nowadays don't like to come in, because you can lose the point outright on a passing shot. When you move from the baseline to the net, you attempt to capitalize on a slight advantage in court position by transitioning from the backcourt to the net. Once you are at the net, you have, on grass, a 75% chance on the point at least. During the transition, though, you have even odds. And that's the risk that today's players are afraid of.

If you get extremely good at that transition, like Edberg and McEnroe did, then you have much better than even odds. In adverse conditions on grass, you have the best chance you will ever have without having already won the point, because your opponent is target shooting.

Sampras is seeing a lack of technical proficiency in the transition game. He is also witnessing a psychological trend in tennis. Players do not want to convert an advantage in positioning into a net approach, because they don't want to risk even odds on the approach/first volley exchange.

Anyone who has watched Wimbledon, knows that the odds I am describing are guesses and they match up better with hard courts. The grass rewards net position in every way. Mis-hits and drop shots die. Well struck volleys glide through. You can't hit a bad volley on grass.

The men this year only need to look across the draw, at Venus Williams, to see what I'm talking about. Venus came to net 23 times in her semifinal against Ivanovic and won 18 of those points.

The great net rushers of our time-McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras-often wore their opponents out, winning going away, because they didn't have to worry about their opponents shots. They controlled every point, pressing forward and making their opponent hit targets to win. The minute the other person starts to question their ability to make passing shots, the net player stops having to hit volleys and is just winning points on tactics. No one comes in enough anymore to enjoy that psychological advantage.

The question remains: why not? The most obvious answer is that there isn't much incentive for players to learn how to play on grass because there are only two tournaments per year on it. The choreography of moving from baseline to service line is difficult-a flurry of rapid steps and then a low solid split step taken much earlier than on other surfaces.

Both Borg, Connors, and Agassi won at Wimbledon without being net rushers. But they were the best target-shooters the game has ever seen. Federer can come to net and will, when the point is already under control, but he is not a net rusher. He doesn't use risk to pay out. He just finishes off points he has already won from the back of the court in the front.

Pete Sampras is just saying that no one is making Roger hit passing shots. And Roger isn't making his opponents do it either.

Gasquet and Roddick are in the fifth set now. Gasquet has found the range. Roddick is crumbling. What would have happened had he kept the pressure on?

The other great match today was Djokovic and Baghdatis. Djokovic won the first two sets, controlling the play, and then tired out. Baghdatis is a great shotmaker and I thought he would win the fifth set. Djokovic is much tougher than I thought. The men are playing four days in a row and that is Djokovic's second four hour match in a row. It will be very hard for him to beat Nadal after expending that kind of energy the past two days.

Venus will play Marion Bartoli-who hit through a Justine Henin that seemed lost in the wind-in the ladies' final tomorrow. If Venus hits 60% of her first serves in, she'll win comfortably.

I think Federer and Nadal will meet in the final again. Federer will win.

 

Read the next installment...