One of the more frustrating aspects of reading about tennis in the mainstream media is the way most reporters either ignore or don't have the mental firepower to write well about the way strategy and/or technique affects the outcome of tennis matches.
Now that I think of it, television commentators deliver a lot more insight and useful, germane information on any given match or player than does the print. Now excuse me while I step outside my hut to be stoned by my fellow press pariahs.
It seems, sometimes, that the most you can expect from print reporters is some psychobabble on the “mental” aspects of the game (choking, feeling pressure, degree of confidence), although a lot of the time you don’t even get that. The monotonous fluff that now travels under the name Human Interest always take center stage.
Sometimes I want to scream; I have no interest in human interest. I’m an unconscious, insensitive, incorrigible, callous knuckle-dragger—just tell me why Maria couldn’t hit the backhand down the line when Venus’s forehand seemed so shaky!
My complaint also applies to Davis Cup, which incorporates a lot more strategy than you might realize, starting with the choice of surface and the team personnel, including the order in which they will play. We had a great example of a brilliant, original strategic move in last weekend’s Davis Cup relegation battle between Switzerland and Great Britain. I’m glad it received solid coverage by the astute British tennis press.
Here’s the deal going into the tie for Britain captain, Jeremy Bates: Roger Federer is playing for Switzerland. Thus, for all practical purposes, Bates must concede two singles matches from the get-go.
To some captains, this situation would be a license to just kick back and go through the motions. Hope for a miracle. Mutter platitudes about getting the first serve in while examining your fingernails during changeovers, knowing the not-entirely-awful upside. You're not going to be in any danger of doing something really stupid and blowing a match you might have won.
But our man Bates, one of the great contrarians, isn't having any of that. He decides to try this enormous gamble.
Money quote:
You need to understand the Davis Cup format to fully appreciate the beauty of this ploy. It was a bold move, and pulling it off would have made Bates a Davis Cup legend. And don't think for a moment that the ploy didn't throw the Swiss off balance—the bit about Stanislas Wawrinka having to run out after the press conference to find a right-handed sparring partner (he had anticipated playing Rusedski, a southpaw; Mackin is righty) is priceless.
The plan unfolded beautifully, too—Federer crushed British journeyman Alan Mackin 0, 0, and 2 in the first match of the tie. I can just hear Bates telling the boys in the locker room, We've got them just where we want them now, boys . . .
But in the next, critical, match, Wawrinka scored a surprisingly easy straight-sets win over Andrew Murray. Then the wheels fell off as the Mighty Fed and Yves Allegro (can that really be the guy’s name?) won the doubles. End of tie. End of Bates diabolical scheme.
Nice try, though, Jeremy. It’s better to crash and burn than go to slaughter like a compliant lamb.
P.S.—Great follow-up analysis by Ron Atkin here on the nuances of Bates' decision and its repercussions here.