Melanie Oudin, just another "unarmed" winner

Melanie Oudin has no weapons. That's what Jelena Jankovic said when Oudin removed her from the third round of Wimbledon, and that is even what some tennis writers said yesterday when Oudin tossed Elena Dementieva out of the second round of the U.S. Open.

This preoccupation with "weapons" says more about tennis fans and sports writers than it does about the players. And while it is very handy to have a Graf-like forehand or a Davenport-like serve, those attributes are only parts of what tennis talent is about. This obsession with "weapons" is a reflection of the current power trend in tennis, but it does not reflect the spirit of tennis, and it is also somewhat arbitrary in definition.

Many things matter in tennis--serve, volley, groundstrokes, forehand, backhand, footwork, touch, speed, strategy, mental strength. In her time, Chris Evert was thought to hit the ball very hard, but it was her mentality and the accuracy of her strokes that her opponents most feared. Martina Navratilova was physically stronger than her opponents, and that helped her a lot, but it is her volleying for which she will be most remembered.

Certainly, pro players should work to hit the ball as hard as they can (but not all the time!) and to serve as well as they can, but even serving well does not necessarly mean serving with great speed. And shot variety--though it is not considered a "weapon"--is actually one of the biggest so-called weapons of all. Players like Amelie Mauresmo, who can put a lot of topspin on the ball, can throw opponents off in a big way. Mauresmo's deadly slice took her to a Wimbledon championship. Martina Hingis's uncanny anticipation frustrated many a great player. Jelena Jankovic's ability to quickly change both the direction of the ball and the momentum of the point has won her several titles. And then there is the legacy of Justine Henin, which speaks for itself.

But in the current tennis lexicon, a great slice, heavy topspin, superb footwork, and clever strategy are not "weapons." Only those actions related to hard hitting and ball speed are weapons. My take on this arbitrary distinction is that too many tennis fans and members of the tennis media are desperate to prove that tennis is a "real" (meaning, testosterone-loaded) sport. Readers of this blog know how irritated I get when commentators use other sports as metaphors for tennis because such language diminishes tennis (and it is also extremely poor use of metaphor). Baseball isn't comparing itself with tennis, and football writers aren't yelling "Wow--he really hit that one over the net!" Tennis needs to be content with being itself, and that self--though definitely athletic--is also graceful and cerebral.

As for Melanie Oudin, she possesses what may actually be Serena Williams' greatest "weapon": She believes she can win. Without that, all other strengths and skills are meaningless.