Quality, not quantity

I was intrigued by Gandhi Sukardi's lament about the Wimbledon men's final in The Jakarta Post of July 10. He is, of course, entitled to criticize the shortage of rallies and the domination of the power serve but it brings up the old argument over quality versus quantity.

Although Pete Sampras' serve is among the best in the world, he wins matches on his entire range of skills -- a brilliant forehand, excellent sliced backhand (and equally formidable topspin shot off this wing) combined with superb volleying. Andre Agassi's showy backcourt game may win the applause, but it is Sampras, able to rally from the backcourt and put away the winner at the net, who probably ranks among the greatest in the game. Ever.

The entire debate about the "boring" men's game also is interesting. Few would probably relish the prospect of a match between Goran Ivanisevic and Greg Rusedski, but then who wants to watch two teen moppets slug it out from the baseline for three hours, sending up moonballs and sending the spectators to sleep?

There have been famous servers throughout the history of tennis, from Ellesworth Vines in the 1930s to Roscoe Tanner in the 1970s. The latter may have been derided as a one-shot wonder, but he ran Bjorn Borg close in a thrilling final in 1979, the year when his game, plus a perm, all came together.

As for Gandhi Sukardi's comment about the "poor" quality of the finals, it usually follows that the greatest tennis matches are played in the quarterfinals and semifinals. Nerves and the physical and mental slog of playing for two straight weeks often leaves the finalists spent. In that case, it really is the survival of the fittest.

B. EMOND

Jakarta