It’s a useful lesson to look at tennis history, at least, the last 40-50 years, to see how tennis has changed, because it’s easy to fall into the trap of describing today’s tennis by remembering tennis from 10 years ago.  Many men, for example, can’t stand women’s tennis (just like many men can’t stand women’s basketball) and so their memories of the women’s game are informed by the days of Chris Evert and they think women still play long rallies waiting for the error, when the women’s game is at least as attack-oriented as the men.

But let’s back up some.  Back in the 1960s, men’s tennis was dominated by Australia and to a secondary degree, the United States.  The biggest reason for this was two-fold.  First, most big tennis tournaments were played on grass.  Excluding Roland Garros, the other 3 majors were (then) played on grass.  That meant, if you had a good grass game, you had plenty of surfaces to show your skill.

Contrast this with today.  Roger Federer’s best surface is grass.  This is the surface he does the best against the most opponents.  Yet, there are maybe half a dozen of fewer grass tournaments played all year.  Indeed, Roger is likely to play only two grass court tournaments all year (as are most players): Halle and Wimbledon.  Roger might have been an even more dominant player if he had played on grass (although Nadal certainly as an affinity for the surface, oddly enough).

Imagine if the dominant surface was clay.  Players like Rod Laver or John Newcombe might have been minor figures, their style of play not well suited to the slow surface.   To be fair, Laver won the French at least twice (in each of his Slam years).

The other factor was Aussie training.  The Australians trained as a group.  This is very similar to the Spaniards who had each other to push further.  Indeed, despite the lack of great American players today, Sam Querrey and John Isner train together, and the Americans have realized if they train with one another, they can all get better.  It takes an unusual talent like Roger Federer who basically doesn’t train with anyone outside the top 50 with any regularity (at least, no one anyone knows about).

The Aussies made each other better, so if you were the best Aussie, you were likely the best in the world.  Indeed, this is one reason why Laver’s double Grand Slam was not nearly as huge an achievement as it could be.  Suppose Roger Federer had won one Grand Slam.  The Swiss lack a good group of players and Roger had to be the first really good player (there was Marc Rosset, who was decently good) and he lacked other strong players to compete against.

The Aussies (and others) realized the one truism of grass: it has bad bounces.  If a ball land on a bad patch, you could lose the point quickly.  They mastered a style of play that had them charging the net at all times.  Now consider that you serve with a Continental grip and you volley with a Continental grip.  It doesn’t take much to conclude that if you charge to net the entire time, to use the Continental grip for everything.  It makes a decent enough backhand grip for slicing.  It’s main limitations are the forehand, and many lived with that limitation.

Serve and volley became the dominant strategy of the 1960s and players often had few answers to this strategy.  In older video, you find the proper response to a slice approach was a lob.  What about the topspin pass?  As much as topspin is used today, the primary users of topspin were the clay courters, and given their lack of real success on grass, there was some thought that topspin was an inferior way to play, perhaps too complex.  The common wisdom was that topspin made for a poor approach shot because the ball sat up too high.  No one thought you could belt the ball for a winner.

And that’s key.  Hitting winners from the baseline was almost unheard of.  If you wanted to win a point, you had two ways to do it.  Play long rallies until one player missed or come to net to end the point.  Borg became the first really good player to employ the strategy of playing long rallies.  He relied on his movement and his topspin to play long, long rallies.  Connors took the game in a different direction.  He hit harder than most players off the ground and yet was consistent enough to play 10-15 sometimes 20 shots with a style that had little margin for error.

This new style was something completely new and was partly attributed to the T2000, a steel racquet invented by tennis legend, Rene Lacoste.  Connors would meet Rosewall, then 39, in two Slam finals in 1974, and decimate him both times.  To be fair, Rosewall was 39, but his style of play wasn’t built on power, and so even if he had been 25, Connors would likely have won just as easily.

Connors and Borg not only reinvigorated baseline play, albeit in different ways, they also popularized the two-handed backhand.   In the days of slice backhands, few could hit their backhands with the authority of their forehands.  Connors is one of those rare players whose backhand was truly better than his forehand.  Connors tended to slice/sidespin his forehand, and couldn’t attack nearly as easily off that wing.  He was more solid on the backhand than the forehand.

This was to change with Ivan Lendl.  Lendl ushered in a new era in so many ways.  He was a clay courter with a huge serve and a huge forehand.  He was the first guy to try to hit winners from the baseline on a regular basis.  To be fair, by today’s standards, he hit far fewer winners than Nadal or Federer, and he was generally as content to play long rallies.  Even so, it didn’t take long for players to keep upping the level of the big forehand and this would reach an early peak with Andre Agassi.

Lendl realized his forehand was such a big weapon that instead of letting players pick on his backhand, which was pretty good as well, he’d move to his left, and hit big inside-out forehands, pressuring his opponents backhands.  Lendl never quite caught on to using the inside-in forehand, at least, with any regularity.  But his influence is felt even today as the big forehand is not only the staple of every male pro, but every female pro too.

Lendl and Borg were also responsible for another big change in the game.  Since the Aussies and Americans played serve and volley, indeed, quite a bit of doubles too, players returned serve from right around the baseline.  The big advantage of playing this close was attacking the return, or at least, chipping and charging.  If you stood further back, this strategy would be useless.  It simply didn’t occur to the serve-and-volleyers of the day that someone would want to stay at the baseline.

Players began returning serve 10 feet or more behind the baseline, to give them more time to see the ball.  Connors and McEnroe grew up playing in the 1970s where the idea of returning that far back was unthinkable.  A player like Lendl could pass you standing 10 feet behind the baseline, and with the advent of power tennis, players hit much harder from much further back.

The 1980s were a turbulent period.  Serve and volley was becoming less popular because grass was becoming less common.  Hard courts provided a way for both baseliners and serve and volleyers to have a surface both could feel good on.  Indeed, when players like Borg, Lendl, and Wilander showed they could play on more than just clay, it pushed Europe into the spotlight.  The Aussies must have been caught completely by surprise.  Their game had always been based on serve and volley and to suddenly see the transformation to a power baseline game must have been offputting.

Indeed, by the mid 1970s, there were almost no great Aussie players anymore.  Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe.  All these guys were getting on in years.  By then, you had players like Mark Edmondson, names that weren’t threatening to win any Slams except possibly the Australian Open.  The last great serve-and-volleyer to come out of Australia was Pat Cash.

The 1980s began the transition from serve and volley play to baseline play, from the one-handed backhand to the two-handed backhand, from flat shots to topspin shots, from chip-n-charge to big forehand/big serve.  There were players caught in the transition that excelled in the older style.  Connors and McEnroe were really products of the 1970s who managed to play well through the 1980s.  Stefan Edberg was a throwback player, pushing serve-and-volley to dizzying heights.  Several players continued to play that style: Boris Becker, Pat Cash, Tim Mayotte.

Although graphite racquets had been around since the early 1980s, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the power game we see today started to take bloom.  What a difference ten years make.  Watch the 1982 Wimbledon final between John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors and compare that to the 1992 final between Andre Agassi and Goran Ivanisevic.  The two finals couldn’t be more dissimilar.  Agassi and Ivanisevic trade huge groundstrokes.

Indeed, it’s instructive to look at Ivanisevic.  He becomes the first of the huge servers (along with Sampras).  He played serve and volley, but by the 1990s, if you couldn’t keep up from the baseline, you were in trouble.  A player like Agassi could start to pick you apart at net.  You had to be able to play from the baseline and trade shots with a hitter like Agassi, otherwise, you’d come to the net on a wing and a prayer.  Agassi made Edberg’s life very problematic.

Compare Edberg to Ivanisevic.  Edberg was, by far, the better volleyer.  Although once noted for his big first and second serves, Edberg’s serve did not increase in pace as he got older, and players like Ivanisevic and Sampras redefined serve and volley as serve, and then maybe volley.  Indeed, both men feasted on the number of aces or near-aces they would make.  Poor Stefan Edberg had to actually volley practically every serve he got in.  Perhaps only Patrick Rafter would win playing serve and volley without a particularly humongous serve.

By the time Sampras leaves the scene in the early 2000, the game is ready to change again.  Already, there are fewer and fewer one-handed players.  Roger Federer, who started life as a serve and volleyer, is starting to remake himself into a top-notch baseliner.  He raises the inside-in forehand to an art form.  Players began playing great defense.  It became so problematic that you could hit a near winner coming into net and still get passed easily.  In the old days, these approach shots would have been winners.  There would have been no reply.  Or the reply would be a poor passing shot.

With such good passes, even off very defensive positions, players began banging from the baseline.  Then came a player like Nadal, who spun the ball with such ferocity and such accuracy, that players had a difficult time playing him from the baseline.  Nadal could not only hit great topspin, but he moved very quick and could hit tremendous angles.  If tennis ever got rid of the serve, Nadal would win all the time because his groundstrokes are a half-level better than most players.  He’s one of the few players that hold serve as often as the best servers in the game, but he does it with his groundstrokes.  In a way, he is this generation’s Jimmy Connors.

With players like Nadal, players needed other weapons.  Two strategies have come into play.  The first is the drop shot, which is used most commonly on clay.  If players are hitting well from way behind the baseline, they are vulnerable to the drop shot.  The second is the approach shot to the net.  Once upon a time, the approach shot was the way to take a neutral situation (baseline rally) and give the advantage to the net rusher.

Indeed, the net is to the players of the past what the power groundstroke is to today.  It cuts off time from the opponent.  Even Nadal is seeing the virtue of coming to net.  With his opponents backed up so much, he can come to net and take an easy volley.  Nadal also takes weak replies from his opponents and drop shots off his backhand.

Today’s play has also forced players to move a lot better.  When going for a winner from the baseline is something no one much thought about, then the safe play is to hit crosscourt and not go for crazy shots.  This meant a lot of clay court play was mostly hitting to where your opponent was, and players rarely had to run very hard.  Take a few steps this way or that, and you were at the ball.

These days, with the possibility of hitting winners at any time, or at least, very hard shots, players must run quite a bit.  They must anticipate, change directions, all within fractions of a second.  Furthermore, players have learned to hit angled forehand and backhands that draw players significantly off the court.  In the old days, players were rarely sent wide of the doubles alley.  These days, players might be sent 10-15 feet or more, wide of the singles sideline.

Today’s players continue to come up with different solutions to today’s game.  Against a player like Nadal, who plays like no other player today, the key is to take the offense to him.  There are several ways to do this.  One way is the Davydenko way.  Davydenko is a consistent hard-hitting player that likes to hug the baseline.  He is also capable of creating tremendous angles.  By playing near the baseline, and creating large angles, he forces Nadal out wide.  Nadal’s tendency is to hit a great shot back, but not a winner, and if he leaves a shot too much in the middle, Davydenko’s positioning allows him to hit to the other corner.  Against other players who play further back, that shot would allow Nadal time to reach the ball.

Another way is to simply hit bigger.  del Potro showed that for as much power as Federer and Nadal have, he had the single biggest forehand in the game.  His ability to belt a forehand is a game-changer that allowed him to crush Nadal in the US Open semifinals and ultimately to win the US Open in 2009.

No player has chosen to play like Nadal (is it even possible?).  It’s too hard to beat Nadal by playing steady tennis because Nadal plays semi-offensive tennis.  He doesn’t try for winners (as much as he could).  He tries for a body blow.  A groundstroke so difficult, you cough up a weak reply.  Nadal doesn’t care that you get to his shots.  He just cares that you are unable to hit that shot well.  Federer, on the other hand, wants to go for the outright winner.

Another change is not exactly a change.  It used to be the best players in the world had some of the best serves.  McEnroe and Lendl had huge serves.  Borg’s serve was pretty good.  Even Steve Denton, who hit big serves, was in the top 20.  Kevin Curren was in the top 10.  Who are the best servers today?  Many are Americans: Andy Roddick, John Isner, and Sam Querrey.  Ivo Karlovic has the biggest serve in the game, but he’s nowhere near the top 10.  Federer’s serve is good, but it’s not nearly the weapon it was for Pete Sampras.  If Sampras had Agassi’s serve, he’d probably be barely in the top 10.

Where the game has changed is the top players are often great returners.  Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, and somewhat Federer, all return quite well.  Ivo Karlovic can befuddle a returner like Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, but Roger sees his serve well enough to engineer breaks here and there.

Another change has been the increasing height of players.  Again, let’s look at Isner and Querrey.  Isner reached the finals of the NCAA men’s tournament where he lost to Somdev Devvarman.  Both have turned pro.  Yet, who is the player making more noise?  It’s Isner.  He has a huge serve, and now he’s built a big forehand.  Querrey played in the finals of 2005 USTA Boy’s 18 Championships and lost to Donald Young.  Querrey is 6’6″.  Young is 6’0″.  Again, who has had more success?

Here are a list of tall players in the top 40.  Juan Martin del Potro (6’6″),  Robin Soderling (6’4″), Marin Cilic (6’6″), Tomas Berdych (6’5″), Gael Monfils (6’4″), John Isner (6’9″), Sam Querrey (6’6″), Ivo Karlovic (6’10”), Victor Hanescu (6’6″).  That’s 9 players at 6’4″ and above, or nearly 25% of players.  Meanwhile, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall were closer to 5’7″.  Height seems to lead to easier power and potentially bigger serves.

In the past, players this tall were slow and lumbering and doomed to play serve-and-volley.  Todd Martin was probably the first big man to play good baseline play, although he, too, served and volleyed.

So compared to even 10 years ago, players move better, pass much better, have learned to use the net more, return better than their counterparts.  The big serve while still important isn’t as important as it was to Ivanisevic.  Even Roddick has dialed down the number of aces he hits.   Remember when the best servers hit aces on critical points: Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Boris Becker.  Break points down?  Ace, ace, ace.  You don’t see that anymore.  Players are forced to play out points and don’t seem to hit the clutch ace when needed.

So this is how the game has changed, and as players come up with new answers to new questions, the game is likely to change more in the future.