September 02, 2008
Tennis Is Not Boxing, Just Tennis
By Tim Joyce"Tennis is more than just a sport. It's an art, like the ballet." - Bill Tilden
But it is still tennis.
One of the most frequently employed devices by a commentator during a tennis match - or for that matter almost any sport - is the use of sports analogies to reinforce a point. While such analogies can occasionally illuminate, I believe the over-use of this practice is a lazy alternative to incisive analysis and, more importantly, insults tennis. Let me explain.
Without question, boxing is the sport that announcers connect to tennis the most. Often times during the past year, I heard John McEnroe or Dick Enberg or any number of esteemed broadcasters state that "Federer and Nadal are like two heavyweights out there, battling it out until the final bell." OK, these are two combatants who are slugging it out but why the need to invoke boxing? Why not say it's just like the great battles that Borg/Connors or Edberg/Becker waged? There are numerous intense rivalries in the recent history of tennis that fans can and will relate to. And furthermore, has one ever heard a boxing commentator say that these boxers remind them of Sampras and Agassi battling it out?
The other sport which is "analogized" often with tennis is baseball. A couple of the most commonly heard utterances - "he's mixing up the speed and placement of his serves just like Greg Maddux with his pitches," or " he picked up that half-volley like Derek Jeter rushing in on a short-hop" - why not just say "his serve is like Sampras' in that it is difficult to read", or "his half-volleys bring to mind John McEnroe's wonderful touch." Again, I can't recall a time when a baseball announcer compared the on-field happenings of the national pastime to a tennis match.
This practice of "analogizing" reduces tennis, puts it usually in the role of the subservient, ancillary sport. Why not talk up tennis' great and varied history by referring to the sport's past when wanting to compare players and events?
I happen to agree with Tilden's quote above, that sport, at its finest, does rise to the level of art. And I think it's great to bolster the atmosphere of an event by bringing in historical references, quotes and allusions from outside of sports to add color and excitement to the proceedings. That's about as far as I want to go with comparisons though - when it comes to describing the actions on the square court of competition, tennis can stand on its own.
Tennis Can Use More Stats
In this information-saturated age we inhabit, the sports world is utterly enamored with statistics. And with the proliferation of fantasy leagues, the average sports fan is becoming increasingly obsessed and overwhelmed by the vast number of stats which populate print and broadcast coverage of sports.
There is of course only one statistic that truly has any meaning - wins and losses - and many fans would be better off by narrowing the scope of their forays into statistical analysis so as not to lose sight of the overall.
However, all this being said, there is actually space in tennis for more statistics - tennis is in fact "under-statted" and the sport would be well advised to address this shortage. Most sports have frequently updated their statistical foundation over the years, especially baseball - WHIP (number of walks and hits per innings pitched), OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) are just a couple of examples. Now it's tennis' turn - the sport needs a new statistical paradigm.
Though lacking, the ATP does have serving and return of serve statistics. They display the number of total aces and give the number of matches played. That is a start. But much more can be done to better gauge the effect - be it dominant or weak - of one's service game.
A match summary may state a player hit 15 aces during a match. How much can one deduce from that number? If it's a two-set match, that is an impressive figure. But if the encounter went five sets, than 25 aces is not such a feat. And furthermore, whether the sets were close or not - serving a high number of aces when all the sets are stretched to 7-6 is vastly different from 6-1 sets - will greatly affect the opportunity to hit aces or service winners.
New Stat: aces/service winners per service game or even more specific: aces/service winners per service point.
Winners and unforced errors: Another stat that begs for further augmentation. One will see a recounting of a set - or match - and invariably there will be a winners vs. unforced errors category. Let's say Roger Federer hit 24 winners with 12 unforced errors, an excellent ratio. But unless one viewed the match how could one get a sense of Roger's mastery of his opponent (which is usually the case)?
A more effective way to measure Roger's domination of a match would be how long into a point did he strike a winner - was it after an extended rally or did he take control immediately at the start of the point. The same case can be made for unforced errors as this new stat would more clearly illustrate a player's futility on a given day.
New Stat: winners/unforced errors per stroke, point or game.
Other ideas include how many strokes in an extended baseline rally - which would obviously be most useful during the clay court season - does a player break down and commit an unforced error? Also, so as not to neglect the volley, which unfortunately many do, a new stat for the net game would be to render how effectively their initial volley is - volley winners per number of volleys struck.
Sports statistics can become burdensome and unwieldy, detaching the viewer too far from the action. But when used effectively, stats can embolden the narrative of an event, informing and animating the action. And it's time for the tennis world to inaugurate new stats.
