Point Construction - The Myth

Quite often I hear the expression by many posters, viewers and commentators and ex-pro's is "That is a well constructed point"

Really?

Is it real? I ask purely because most players now are labelled in such a way that 'point construction' has become cliched. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are just the 'Passive' cautious cats who rely on errors from their opponents. Tsonga, Del Potro, Berdych are mindless ball bashers. Federer, Dolgo, Gasquet are talented muskateers whch fight in the face of adversity in a time when conditions no longer favour the talented ones. Is it even tennis anymore if such plays and strategies are so easily dismissed and pigeon holed?

See I look at Federer. Many say it is impossible for him to remain competitive and yet he was returning 130mph+ serves yesterday. He has done it in the past against Roddick, but you have to say that string technology has come a long way.

Back to the point. Yesterday in the Djokovic and Del Potro match we saw Djokovic grind Del Potro down physically. He may not have gone for winners off the wings, but isn't the strategy more deserving of praise as point construction because Djokovic isn't going for 4-5 shot rallies, but 12-15 shot rallies to win the point and wear down his opponent.

Murray against Federer we saw Andy jet out of the blocks and tire himself out in exacting such high standards. Rusedski and Becker marvelled in Andy not being passive, but yet I can't help but think if he had done, maybe he would've had something left in the tank in the 2nd set. Andy became the victim of a strategy he has implored over the years. Andy playing the way his opponents have against him over the years. Take the first set. Roger was going aggressive and yet missed some FH's he would normally make. Yet he would gain praise should he not be able to execute his plans in the past and is praised for losing in an incosistent manner because other guys leave the ball in play in the court.

Take Nadal v Ferrer at the FO this year. Ferrer retrieved and retrieved and yet Nadal was hitting all kinds of angles. Yet this warrants no praise. It just encourages oh it's legs, legs and more legs and some lungs. When I look the shots Nadal makes and players retrieve them and yet it is seen that other players can play the shots Nadal can, yet it is difficult to see someone hit exact replicas.

Going back to the days when Borg and Mac would literally go cat and mouse and this by some was what point construction was all about. Remaining in the point and the moment and then taking the chance when it comes. Often in point construction, the best shot isn't the winning shot, but the shot 2-3 shots earlier that created the point to be won.

Going back yesterday to Fed/Murray. There was a point in the Murray service game in the first set where he was 15-30 down and he hit 2 BH's down the line forcing Federer off balance and yet a FH and volley later he won the point. Whilst the commentators purred over the volley, the BH's made that point and were more deserving in praise.

It is a case of pick your poison to the brand of tennis you enjoy. With longer rallies, isn't point construction much more prominant now than it has ever been? Take the days of Sampras. The 2 shot rallies. The hard accurate serve followed up by a put away volley because the returner cannot find a deep return. What we have on the baseline is being able to find the shot the un-locks the point. Even the most talented players find it difficult to really go aggressive from the off. I think what a Federer has shown that point construction isn't important, but set construction is. He is willing to sacrifice points in service games in which the server is red hot. Like yesterday in the first 8 games Andy's second serves were in the low 90's. It was difficult for Federer to impose, but in the last few games of the set, Andy's 2nd serve fell below the 90's and Federer was getting a read and more involved in the Murray service game.

For me isn't that tactics and intelligence. Your not exerting un-necessary energy on lost points, but capitalising on the rare opportunities that turn sets and matches. I think point construction is something all players are guilty of. Whether it be a flurry of attacking 'winning' points or labourous rallies in a bid to tire the opponent or just biding your time for those opportunities of weakness that lesser players show. I just wonder whether point construction has now moved over to set/match construction given the available tactics and strategies.

Fantastic article Legendkiller

It Must Be Love wrote:Fantastic article Legendkiller

+1

If commentators could take up this way of thinking then it would certainly add a whole new dimension to their commentary as there would be many more interesting things to be said about any given passage of play and much more room for debate than how good the winning shot was.

With regards to you mentioning Federer, yes that is how I think he approaches matches. What's more it allows him to play his game within the rules. I've never really understood this whole play every point like it's match point mentality. In terms of maintaining a high level of concentration akin to match point I can understand but by definition, match point is different from any other point and should be played as such i.e. not chasing down lost causes on every non match/important point just to put "pressure" on your opponent and therefore needing to slow the game down to half it's speed.

very well written article and completely agree. I think Federer is at his complete best when he isn't even thinking, when he is playing all on instinct. I think all the great shots that are hit are not thought about just before connection, they just happen, and I think its hard to construct a point because your opponent has a great say in whats going on as well, you can't think 3 or 4 shots ahead because the player on the other side may be thinking he is going to pull the trigger on the next shot