| I read
with interest the two articles in the May issue of PTM, one
by Charles Vasol expressing the point of view that platform
tennis lacks spectator appeal because the points and therefore
the matches are too long and an opposing point of view written
by Wayne Dollard. While I can document the evidence Chuck
Vasol uses to support his position that matches are lengthy,
I don’t think his solutions are necessary. Yes, in National
ranking tournaments, men and women, matches average 1 ¼
hours per set from the round of 16 on. This is why the Nationals,
when you have a draw of 128 teams and you run it in two days,
Saturday is an endurance contest. However, I disagree with
Wayne Dollard’s point: “The bottom line here is
that platform tennis, like other sports will not grow from
spectator excitement”.
Platform tennis
points could be shorter and more exciting for spectators.
It is just that not enough players have spent enough time
developing “kill shots” to terminate points. Why
has it not happened? It has to a limited extent. However,
I feel most players are, for the most part, constrained by
the paradigms of tennis strokes and habit and don’t
spend the time and energy to develop and practice “kill
shots”, shots that will end points. As evidence, a few
of us had the pleasure to watch Brian Uihlein’s overhead
attack against Mansager and Goodspeed, arguably as good a
team from the backcourt as there is in the game, at the Sound
Shore tournament in January of 2003. Brian repeatedly used
an exciting variety of high risk, athletic overheads which
produced spins and placements resulting in a number of outright
winners. This is an example of a player who has thought, as
Chuck Vasol suggests, “out of the box” and has
developed some unique skills and is experiencing great success.
In addition, there are now a few players who can hit overheads
and serves so hard that the ball will cross back over the
net. Further, I submit that I and any number of PPTA certified
professionals could work with a reasonably skilled tournament
player and in two weeks of daily skill development, practice
and drills could make that player able to hit stop volleys
that come back into the net on the opponents side, on demand
and with confidence against any but the strongest drives.
These are but a few of the skills which will produce “winning”
shots, thereby terminating points, making points and matches
shorter and, incidentally, more exciting from a spectators
standpoint. There are many more which creative minds and willing,
risk taking, players could develop.
The top players
are so good today that length of matches is definitely a problem.
I recall listening to a conversation among several top tournament
players who agreed that one could tell with reasonable certainty
who would win the quarterfinal matches by looking at the draw
for the first two rounds. If a top team had a draw in which
they were going to have to play a tough match in either the
first or second round, or both, their chances in the quarters
would be severely affected. So the length of matches and the
resulting drain on energy is an important and possibly deciding
factor. I think players and teaching professionals should
therefore do more thinking “outside the box” and
become more creative in their approach to the game. This will
entail accepting greater risk and test a player’s confidence.
However, the benefit will be shorter, less energy stripping,
matches. To me, this is the direction the game should be taking
rather than changing the rules or accepting the fact that
platform tennis is not an exciting sport to watch.
|
