Ille Nastase versus Arthur Ashe...1972 U. S. Open Finals

[don_budge]

Let the game come to you...

...a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

Origin 1970's. The title of a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), in which the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.

The Catch-22. Look at it again...here is a highlight video.

Read the comments below the video...consider this one. I thought about this before I read it...because I know European tennis. Nastase considered himself to be more of a clay court player. Here he is...painting a masterpiece on the lawn of the Westside Tennis Club in Forest Hills in Queens, New York. It's really a beautiful thing...if you stop and think about it. The feathery touch...the sudden power. Everything in between.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf4wrrpzdYc

Breath deep...let it just sink in. Tennis...let the game come to you.

[don_budge]

Catch-22

...a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

Origin 1970's. The title of a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), in which the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.

[don_budge]

Therein lies the problem...of modern tennis. Do the math...stupid! The Catch-22.

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

strong approach shots is key. And by strong, I don't mean overwhelming powerful, just smart. An effective, biting, skidding slice out of opponents strike zone or a ball that is thumped but bounces up into a player's hitting pocket? Serves are great and volleys are sufficient, but the proper decision making in between these two shots are where bad things can happen. No doubt the heaviness of the ball with the rpms are tough to handle, but so is a tactically effective set up and an opponent that actually knows how to volley and embraces the net.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's become a catch 22 situation in a way.

Therein lies the problem with the modern game...betwixt and between these two comments. There is a lack of balance. It's a catch-22 as Stotty suggests. The overemphasis on speed that goes with the bigger equipment and the slower courts has more or less rendered the approach to the net extinct...a low percentage play. There is no adjustment to be made for the lack of touch and feel when you tip the scale so radically in the direction of speed and brute force.

Just as there was the problem when the bigger equipment was introduced and the courts remained the same...the backcourt game was nullified on the faster surfaces. The engineered equation did not take in the necessary consideration for the variables in the game. Is this satisfactory? Is there any viable solution? Or is this another case where in modern existence...the problems are too big to have any viable solution? Thus the metaphorical nature of tennis.

You won't like the answer either...it wasn't broken. Why did "they" try to fix it? Take this match for instance between the "mercurial" Nastase and the "stoic" Ashe...there certainly is a balance to it...isn't there? That's a rhetorical question by the way. On grass it was all serve and volley...as it was here. But the game as it was played dictated that players were playing a game that could be altered or adapted to be played on any surface. Grass, clay or hard court. All the surfaces were inherently different and unique as well. Not the generic and modified surfaces of today that insure that one size fits all.

[bobbyswift]

Absolutely agree with everything said. However if you have to deal with low and intricate volleys over and over in todays game something is wrong in transition. Not the goal of any players tactics.

[stotty]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

This has been a great thread;controversial and full of opinion. I feel we've got somewhere with it...one way or another.

A few players may hit 4800 rpms but not many. And most players are nowhere that on the backhand. Many two-handed players don't hit that much topspin at all. Dolgopolov for example hits virtually dead flat on his backhand. So spin needn't be the excuse for players not to come in...but, yes, pace is.

I was at Wimbledon this year and the main problem wasn't spin. It was because most players strike the ball so hard off the ground the volleyer cannot get from A to B quick enough to get in position. Even the best volleyers of the past needed to be composed, something often denied these days by the sheer velocity of the incoming ball.

A yes the volleyer must ensure he is an overwhelmingly dominant position so as to be assured an easy put away.

But it's also because players aren't skilled enough these days to deal with low and more intricate volleys. It's become a catch 22 situation in a way. You cannot see it changing because it's doubtful players will be taught the net skills required. It will take a brave coach and player to have a go changing the trend.

I don't know if you saw Federer play Murray in the Aussie Open earlier this year, but that was one match which restored my faith that an all out net attack is still feasible...at least for spells.

[klacr]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

strong approach shots is key. And by strong, I don't mean overwhelming powerful, just smart. An effective, biting, skidding slice out of opponents strike zone or a ball that is thumped but bounces up into a player's hitting pocket? Serves are great and volleys are sufficient, but the proper decision making in between these two shots are where bad things can happen. No doubt the heaviness of the ball with the rpms are tough to handle, but so is a tactically effective set up and an opponent that actually knows how to volley and embraces the net.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bobbyswift]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

[10splayer]

And that's the point. It's important to respect previous eras and what they gave to the game.

There is no argument the game has moved forward in many ways. But I still find it irresistible to ponder whether any of the current crop, using a wooden racket, would beat McEnroe at his zenith on a fast grass court? You just have to wonder about that one.

The players (and coaches) of this generation have worked out the best way to win under the current circumstances. You have to think they must be right. You would have to think also those outside the top ten would have figured out another way if there was one. As a result, love or hate it, players have become awfully good at doing what they do.

But while the standard of play in some aspects of the game is the highest ever, other parts of the game, from a skill standpoint, have suffered, even regressed. Players were more skilled at the net in the wooden era, especially when you consider the inferior equipment they were using. Much of the art of volleying has been eroded and lost and that's a great shame.

I don't see things changing because no one seems to want it. I do see an almighty slump once the top three exit the game, which may prompt some tweaking.

I try to encourage people to look at "wood versus modern" as two different games...because they are. The vast difference in equipment alone makes it so. To truly appreciate someone like Nastase you have to view it that way. I watched him first hand. He was out of this world as a talent. Most clips out there aren't of a quality to do him justice.

Would I teach a junior with good potential to play like Nastase or Ashe?...doubtful...but I appreciate their era a great deal because I witnessed it first hand. I have seen both skill sets; those of today and yesterday. There's great merit in both but I miss the quality volleying and net play of the past. I really do.

What a terrific post.

[stotty]

Agree...And just to clarify. I enjoy these old videos and respect both the talent and what theyve done for the game. (I've not been the one who has trashed ANY era of players) Ashe? Reverent comes to mind. A truly remarkable man in every sense of the word. McEnroe? An absolute genius with a racquet.. But would I teach a person there way of tennis? No.

And that's the point. It's important to respect previous eras and what they gave to the game.

There is no argument the game has moved forward in many ways. But I still find it irresistible to ponder whether any of the current crop, using a wooden racket, would beat McEnroe at his zenith on a fast grass court? You just have to wonder about that one.

The players (and coaches) of this generation have worked out the best way to win under the current circumstances. You have to think they must be right. You would have to think also those outside the top ten would have figured out another way if there was one. As a result, love or hate it, players have become awfully good at doing what they do.

But while the standard of play in some aspects of the game is the highest ever, other parts of the game, from a skill standpoint, have suffered, even regressed. Players were more skilled at the net in the wooden era, especially when you consider the inferior equipment they were using. Much of the art of volleying has been eroded and lost and that's a great shame.

I don't see things changing because no one seems to want it. I do see an almighty slump once the top three exit the game, which may prompt some tweaking.

I try to encourage people to look at "wood versus modern" as two different games...because they are. The vast difference in equipment alone makes it so. To truly appreciate someone like Nastase you have to view it that way. I watched him first hand. He was out of this world as a talent. Most clips out there aren't of a quality to do him justice.

Would I teach a junior with good potential to play like Nastase or Ashe?...doubtful...but I appreciate their era a great deal because I witnessed it first hand. I have seen both skill sets; those of today and yesterday. There's great merit in both but I miss the quality volleying and net play of the past. I really do.

[hockeyscout]

A revolution is just now starting in my opinion. Everyone always claims in any industry this is the best it will get, and then someone or something comes along and blows it right out of the water. The innovation has only started. In ten years athletes will be bigger, stronger, faster, more equipped, better fed, more rested, able to rejuvenate faster, be able to access better data and understand have more qualified sports science teams around them to make them more efficient.

John Yandell had an interesting article:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/the_myth/the_myth_of_the_tennis_tip_images/the_myth_of_the_tennis_tip.html

[10splayer]

I agree with 10splayer. These old videos are fun to watch to see how the game has changed, but the game has evolved and moved on. Equipment, courts, balls. Note that it has been a progressive change. It was not overnight. Today's style of play is better suited to today's courts, equipment, balls, and vice versa. Think it is comparing apples to oranges.

There were great players in the past, as there are today. The Ashe - Nastase match is a great match, but it is as lopsided technically, as today's matches are. In the Ashe - Nastase match you see no baseline exchanges, in many matches today you see practically no serve and volley. I find them both enjoyable to watch, but today's matches need much more stamina than those played in these old videos. In the old serve and volley videos, it seems that more emphasis is fast reflexes, in today's matches, speed of foot, power and stamina.

The Djokovic - Federer Wimbledon final is just as fascinating as the Ashe - Nastase match.

Agree...And just to clarify. I enjoy these old videos and respect both the talent and what theyve done for the game. (I've not been the one who has trashed ANY era of players) Ashe? Reverent comes to mind. A truly remarkable man in every sense of the word. McEnroe? An absolute genius with a racquet.. But would I teach a person there way of tennis? No.

[stroke]

10splayer has stated before(I believe it was in regard to Dimitrov stroke discussion) that's men's tennis strokes have evolved and are as about as technically sound as they can get. I agree with this and I do not think we will be seeing a breakthrough change in the men's game in the next 15 years. As for the women, as 10splayer has said, that is where the big jumps will come. I think their serves and forehands will move more toward what the men are doing.

[gzhpcu]

I agree with 10splayer. These old videos are fun to watch to see how the game has changed, but the game has evolved and moved on. Equipment, courts, balls. Note that it has been a progressive change. It was not overnight. Today's style of play is better suited to today's courts, equipment, balls, and vice versa. Think it is comparing apples to oranges.

There were great players in the past, as there are today. The Ashe - Nastase match is a great match, but it is as lopsided technically, as today's matches are. In the Ashe - Nastase match you see no baseline exchanges, in many matches today you see practically no serve and volley. I find them both enjoyable to watch, but today's matches need much more stamina than those played in these old videos. In the old serve and volley videos, it seems that more emphasis is fast reflexes, in today's matches, speed of foot, power and stamina.

The Djokovic - Federer Wimbledon final is just as fascinating as the Ashe - Nastase match.

[hockeyscout]

And final thoughts!

A few brilliant things I liked for don_budge's latest book on the TennisPlayer.net forum:

At the speed at which it was meant to be played ...

Tennis should be played at a lot of different paces and rhythms. In the woman's game it isn't. That's what we work on.

You probably still dream

Yes.

The racquets were works of craftsmanship.

I like the word he uses, craftsmanship. That's a word we'll use more often.

Great player - great work crafting themselves into that!

To where we are today. A Wimbledon Championship that is captured by a tennis player that does not know his way to the net.

The magic of what don_budge and the old timers preach, is crafting a complete game. We call it slice, dice, mix, puree, do everything, serve, volley, half volley, drop shot, spin, flat, hard, off speed, drive volley, slice (forehand and backhand), practice every grip, strings, tensions, rackets, WD 40 spray, leather grips, thin handles, whatever, experiment more than the next guy. That is a valuable lesson that should not be ignored in the developmental model.

[hockeyscout]

I want to discuss 10splayer's comments of:

"Yes, and the answer is, to teach a student the game which is played now..anything else is doing them a disservice. Continental forehands, slice backhands (as the staple) etc. is only going to inhibit them. Period. My problem with you, is that you seem unable to separate your bias's (old school, outdated methods) from what needs to be taught to players which will allow them to compete in TODAYS game. Talking about sheep to slaughter. You can post another 100 of these old videos, continue to trash current players, (which illustrates how much you actually know) but the game is not going backwards...and IF YOU ACTUALLY teach the game, then perhaps you should use the resources of the site and equip your students with a game that can survive in todays game."

Right now my daughter is eight, and if she played today's style ten years from now if she makes it to the pro level, I am sorry, she will get killed.

So, I really don't buy the model of teach a student the game which is played now.

The problem that I have in general with tennis is that is a stand-alone sport, and the athletes exposure usually stands out to much, is to obvious and open to continual negative observations which aren't helpful or positive.

I decided we'd have a program, create a team and bring in people to observe and engage in dialogue (not coach) and create a system like hockey where my young one could find a way on her own to better educate herself, and learn what an athlete needs to learn on their own to get good.

Slotty's comments of the Slavic coaches and parents giving signs all the time at the Wimbledon Championships (and Bouchard having a fight with her coach where she stated she was entitled to her own opinion) was an eye opener for us on this end, and it made us think it might be best for us to ensure our athlete felt independent so they can improvise and adapt on their own without worry, rejection, second guessing or interference coming from outside sources in a match play scenario.

Now to what don_budge had to say:

Yes, I agree, we need to respect the old timers as they survived in a time where they actually had to be brilliant and resourceful. Remember, more innovations happened during the wars than any period of time.