A girlie way to win

A girlie game cannot be a compliment, neither for a girl nor a boy. It indicates a certain lack of physical application, lack of power, and limited strategies and options.

When Gilles Simon had to do time on the Davis Cup team, he was effectively snubbed by the coach for being impossible to work with. Equally, the coach felt he didn't have the game to win matches which required five sets of gruelling slog. As far as I know, Simon has been given some Davis Cup rubbers, and hasn't done so well. Is this the coach's fault, or the player's?

Journeyman

The trouble is, is that Simon is a well established top twenty ATP player. You cannot argue with his record. He plays nearly all the tournaments he can, so he doesn't seem to have fitness or motivation problems. He seems to have been relatively injury free, so despite the battering he gets from the big hitters, he is able to look after himself. He isn't in the news a lot, no big break-ups with coaches or sponsors. He's clearly a fine pro.

It's just this label of having a girlie game. In Simon's case it hides the bringing of the "junior" game onto a senior court. That is, he largely, very largely, wins his points by waiting for mistakes from his opponent. Simon reads the game very well, and is light on his feet, so has no problem playing long rallies without feeling he has to hit the ball hard, or go to net, or play drop-shots, in fact, any of the extravagant stuff that'll otherwise win him points. Instead, Simon, as every good junior does, gets high percentages of first serves in. The statistics show that if you do that you'll generally win more matches. Likewise, the stats show you shouldn't make unforced errors, so he doesn't. It's so simple. Not to forget the ability to play long matches, to tire your opponent, frustrate him, and you may even get a reputation for being a long match specialist, in winning your fair share of five setters.

So, for the moment, Simon's game seems to be perfect, even though he has been derided by his own National Coach. It does seem that the National Coach is at least a little right. Simon hasn't done well in Davis Cup.

Against the odds

Davis Cup is a team event, and Simon, has this girlie, no let's call it, junior, game. Typically, in juniors, you learn to ignore the crowd, to do your own thing, and especially where you are clearly a very intellectual player such as Simon. He isn't there to have fun with his mates. He is there to take on David and Goliath battles, where he always gets to play David, and his slight build and pushy, ping pongy strokes just keep repeating all day, driving most opponent's nuts. This type is not always a team player, and the French Davis Cup team, always a very solid group, may not have warmed to Simon and his approach, and vice versa. He's not a shot-maker, nor a crowd pleaser. He's an under-the-radar player who needs no-one to get his job done. His game probably hasn't evolved much since he was twelve.

Can we learn anything from him?

For a start we can see that the junior game, a girlie, no power, no big shot, game can be successful. He earns good money from his skills, and why should he do it any differently?

He came off court victorious today against Berdych, a big power hitter. It was a match full of long rallies, of suspense, and the patience game. Who was going to go for the big shot first? It was mostly Berdych, and he made too many mistakes. Berdych will be galled back in the changing rooms - how did that guy beat me? How embarrassing, beaten by a girl?

Classic

Of course, this girlie tag is a bit unfair, exaggerated. Simon does have shots, does play the odd approach and volley, does hit a harder ball, but he'll only do it 5 or 6 times per set, which is nothing. The rest of the time, he sits on a rally, and waits, threatening to counter-punch, but in fact almost never doing so. The threat of counter-punch + absolute reliability on basic shots is enough to win tennis matches.

So why don't more girlie type players succeed - it should be so easy, just reproducing that game you played in junior tournaments when you were twelve?

I can think of two reasons. First, coaches insist on shot-making. The majority of players end up developing an important physical game, big shots, big spin, big movements. Coaches demand this - they want to see weapons. Clearly Simon has antagonised his coach by having none of this.

But there's a second reason. I'm not sure that it is totally in the male psyche to be good at this girlie game, however slight your build may be. You don't get those raptures of applause from the crowd, the sponsors lining up for your signature for big money, the kick of proving your masculinity, the power advantage you have over another male rival. It's simply not natural for a man to be a girlie.