Lucas Pouille and Daniel Evans showed how attacking tennis can work in the baseline age

NEW YORK—The fourth-round match between Juan Martin del Potro and Dominic Thiem was Monday’s most-anticipated encounter at the U.S. Open. On one side of the net, you had a fan favorite and former Open champion. On the other, you had a rising star with a dynamic game. Plus, there was the novelty factor: The Argentine and the Austrian had played just once before, which meant that in the 48 hours before the match began, were were free to imagine how explosive their rallies might be.

Sadly, we didn’t get to see those rallies for long. Thiem, who has played as much or more tennis than anyone on tour this year, would retire in the second set with a knee injury. But even before he called it quits, the points that he and Del Potro played had been oddly underwhelming. Yes, they rocketed their shots back and forth; and yes, it was fun to see Delpo in his wily veteran phase, finding ways to hide his backhand and use his serve to compensate. But the two men had essentially stood at the baseline—in Thiem’s case, well behind the baseline—and pummeled balls at each other until someone missed.

Right now you might be thinking: What’s your point, exactly? That’s what tennis players do. The difference this time was that we had just spent two long afternoons of our Labor Day weekends watching tennis players not do this. On Saturday, 64th-ranked Daniel Evans of Great Britain had, with stealthy, speedy opportunism, nearly upset No. 3 Stan Wawrinka by barreling into the net 63 times over five sets. The following day, 25th-ranked Lucas Pouille had upset No. 4 Rafael Nadal by coming to net 61 times, also over five sets. These upstarts’ aggression forced their higher-ranked opponents to respond in kind or get run off the court. Wawrinka and Nadal, both of whom are born-and-bred baseliners, came in 50 and 48 times respectively, and each won close to 70 percent of those points.

This was hardly a return to the days of serve-and-volley yore, when the Aussie legends of the 1950s and ‘60s—and even a chip-and-charge specialist like Paul Annacone in the ‘80s—came in on everything. Against Wawrinka, Evans won 41 points at the net, but he won 129 points not at the net. The numbers were roughly the same for Pouille.

By looking to move forward, though, and by thinking of a different way to beat two opponents they were never going to beat from the baseline, the Brit and the Frenchman brought a new (or very old, depending on your age) energy to Flushing Meadows. Rather than rallies that ended with either an error or a blistering winner, there was a more satisfying sense of cause and effect. Much of modern tennis is about athleticism and ball-striking; if you can belt the ball past your opponent, you don’t need to get too complicated with your strategy. But the points that Evans and Pouille played involved plans, and there was satisfaction in seeing them come to fruition. One shot was connected to the next, and the court felt three-dimensional again.

There was also a sense that today’s tennis athleticism was being put to good use. While size has obviously become more important to the men’s game, speed is the true prerequisite to success in the baseline age. Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer: If their games have one thing in common, it’s quickness. With the exception of Federer, though, the Big 4 has mostly used that speed for defense; they run along the baseline, rather than perpendicular to it.

This weekend, Evans and Pouille were quick to move forward. By doing so, they showed how the physical tools that have evolved during the baseline era can be used to rush the net. Once upon a time, you got there by following a big serve. But with the advent of the bigger racquets and two-handed backhands, the return was strengthened, which made serving-and-volleying a losing proposition. As Evans and Pouille showed, though, net-rushing can work when you take the time to move your opponent around. There’s not much a big racquet or a two-handed backhand can do when they’re on the run and out of position.

Pouille’s net attack was mostly a result of (a) not wanting to hang around at the back of the court against Rafa; and (b) the force of his own power-baseline game. When he pushed Nadal back, there was really nowhere for him to go but forward. Even if the 22-year-old never rushes the net like that again (though hopefully he will), credit him for making it work against Rafa.

Evans’ aggression was more tactical and thought out. At 5’9’, with a one-handed backhand and a less-than-supersonic serve, he lacks the power to go toe-to-toe with a guy like Wawrinka. Instead, he used his one-handed backhand to slice the ball low and, ideally, force Wawrinka to hit up and leave the ball short. While Evans did his share of rallying, he was always hitting and bouncing forward, like a boxer who has landed a punch and is looking to land the knockout blow. From the spectator’s viewpoint, his points had a sense of anticipation, of something about to happen, that much of today’s tennis lacks.

There’s clearly a case for more of this type of measured but relentless aggression. It’s entertaining and effective. And even now, it’s not true that winning is simply a matter of grinding your opponent down from the baseline. As the New York Timesnoted on Tuesday, 69 percent of men’s points, and 64 percent of women’s points at the Open have ended within four shots.

Hopefully, over this long weekend, there were a few young players who watched Evans and Pouille in action, and learned from their success. If most points are going to be over after the fourth shot, why not make the winning one a volley?