By next week it may feel like a distant memory, one more cloud of red dust blowing around in the backs of our minds, but Monday’s fourth-round match between Stan Wawrinka and Richard Gasquet shouldn’t be forgotten by fans of great tennis quite so quickly. In a tournament that has given us its share of epics, that one stands above, in terms of drama, quality, and, most of all, audacity.
In Gasquet, we had a home-country favorite trying to put his past failures on the same court behind him; it’s doubtful this reserved young man has ever let himself get so far out on the emotional edge before. In Wawrinka we had a defiant opponent who was living on the same edge, and occasionally tumbling over it; at one point, Stan came unglued, called in the supervisor, and demanded that a line judge be replaced. Watching the two of them go for each other’s throats for five sets, the only term I could think of to describe the style of play was “flat out.”
That’s partly because of what the two players shared: A one-handed backhand. As we know, it’s a rare shot that seems to get rarer with each passing season. But that wasn't the case at this French Open. Eight of the 16 men who reached the fourth round used one hand to get there. In case you're wondering, this is in all likelihood not the beginning of a renaissance for the stroke. A pair of Top Tenners with two-handers, Andy Murray and Juan Martin del Potro, didn’t play the tournament, and each reached the quarterfinals in Paris last year. By Wednesday evening, when the semifinals are set, there’s a good chance that none of the four men left will use a single-hander. That’s actually a worse ration than normal, and could be a truer sign of things to come once Roger Federer, the last man to win a Grand Slam with a one-handed backhand, retires.
Yet those of us who love the shot still have reason to be encouraged by this surprising show of strength. That’s because it was a show of strength, proof that, whatever the current trends may be, the one-hander can hold its own. Tommy Robredo used it to reach out and stab back Gael Monfils’ best shots in the crucial moments of their third-round match. His fellow Tommy, Haas, used his to get his returns and passing shots down at big man John Isner’s feet in his marathon win over the American. The one-hander can be more than just eye-candy for tennis aesthetes.
But as Wawrinka and Gasquet proved, it does a fine job in that regard. It wasn’t the elegance of their backhands that made this match so much fun to watch; it was the way they went after the ball from that side. Gasquet and Wawrinka can each hit bombs with their backhands—the Frenchman's power is easy, the Swiss' is heavy. The two collided for five sets; by the fourth, neither man could be bothered with a safe rally shot. They went for broke and traded winners; there was little of the defensive give-and-take that characterizes much of men’s tennis these days. As the fifth set began, it didn’t look like either player had any bullets left in his weapon, but they kept firing anyway.
Stan and Reeshard also exemplified another, more legitimate and long-term trend that has made itself apparent in Paris: The aging of the sport. Gasquet and Wawrinka, at 26 and 28, respectively, aren’t ancient, but what’s remarkable, and a little worrying, is that each was on the young side at this year’s French Open. The average age of the 16 men who made the fourth round was 28.3. Of the eight quarterfinalists, Djokovic, the world No. 1, was the youngest. You get the feeling that Djokovic, 26, Murray, 26, and Nadal, 27, could rule for many more years.
Is this a good thing for tennis? It’s certainly something different. The sport has always been the providence of youth. In the Open era, players’ primes traditionally came in their early to mid 20s, and when they hit 28 they were on the wrong side of the age divide. Now 28, as Wawrinka, David Ferrer, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and others are showing, can mark the beginning of a player’s peak years.
This tournament has been a good example of how that shift affects the way we watch men’s tennis. Instead of the brutality of youth, Paris has been the providence of the heartwarming comeback: Gael Monfils, Tommy Robredo, and Tommy Haas have taken their turns thrilling the crowds and stirring their memories. Meanwhile, the “next generation”—Grigor Dimitrov, Jerzy Janowicz, Milos Raonic, Bernard Tomic—failed to make much noise, or much headway. Dimitrov had his chance when he played Djokovic on Chatrier in the third round, but he went out quickly and quietly.
Is it a bad thing when the thrills at a Grand Slam are provided by a 35-year-old rather than a 21-year-old? No and yes—it’s a tradeoff. People feel good for Robredo and Haas; they may be able to identify with their struggles with age and injury, and their joy in overcoming them. We’re familiar with the old guys' ups and downs, their personalities and vulnerabilities; by now, we're on a first-name basis with them. That brings us a little closer to the players.
But the game also needs new blood, and a sense that there’s some kind of future forming. Robredo’s run was moving in part because we know it might never happen again. By contrast, if Dimitrov were to reach the semis of a major, it would be, presumably, a glimpse ahead. As of now, the progress of the next generation has been steady but slow—hopefully one of them will show us what he can do before he turns 28. There will be a future someday, but chances are it’s not going to announce itself with a blazing run to a Grand Slam title any time soon. Unfortunately, those blazing runs have always been the most exciting moments in tennis. Serena at the U.S. Open in 1999, Federer at Wimbledon in 2003, Maria at Wimbledon in 2004, Rafa at Roland Garros in 2005: We haven’t seen anything like that this decade.
For better and worse, the older tennis gets, the more heartwarming it becomes. The sport’s fans are notorious for disliking its upstart champions, only to embrace them years later as they become vulnerable veterans. We could use a few upstarts on the men’s side right now.