The promoters of the Australian Open should be awfully pleased. Often—too often—the women's final in a major is a dud. Usually the semis are better matches, and one player freezes up to play a bad match in the final. But even though the 2012 women's final was a 6-3, 6-0 rout, a new Number One was crowned, and the match wasn't completely awful. Maria Sharapova wasn't dumping serves into the net, was returning well, and hit a few winners—she was simply led into a boatload of errors. The NY Times' Straight Sets blog offered the theory that Victoria Azarenka won mostly because she hit with more topspin than Sharapova. Even though she obviously does hit with topspin, Sharapova is considered a flat hitter in the modern game. My feeling was that Azarenka covered the court a lot better than Sharapova, while hitting the ball just as powerfully (and shrieking just as loudly).

The men's semifinals were excellent, and the final may be one for the ages. The Atlantic speculates that this final may portend the new look of men's tennis: as an endurance sport. Even given that both Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal took a lot of time between points, the match took almost six hours, and many of the points involved over twenty shots, even thirty shots. A popular tennis coach once noted that, statistically speaking, for the average player the point will end on the next shot. For these guys, it seems that no matter how well they hit the ball, the point will go on at least another six shots. Part of that is because the tennis authorities have slowed down the courts, and part of that is because these guys are very fast and very fit, and part is because they are hitting with extremely exaggerated topspin.

Topspin is not even close to being new. One of the first tennis books I read was Don Budge's Tennis Memoir, in which he extolled the virtues of hitting with topspin instead of slicing with backspin. His idol, Ellsworth Vines, had hit with topspin. Bill Tilden hit with all sorts of spins. Rod Laver hit his backhand with pronounced topspin while Ken Rosewall hit his with pronounced slice, but both men had their share of success.

When I first started playing, we were supposed to emulate the clean strokes of Stan Smith, who hit with moderate topspin off of both sides. What we saw on TV, though, was that Jimmy Connors was known for hitting flat while Bjorn Borg hit with heavy topspin. Connors didn't put much spin on the ball; he didn't seem to lift up the racquet as he struck the ball. Borg whipped the racquet from low to high like a hockey stick and his high arcing balls seemed to be pulled down inbounds at the last minute by an unseen force. Which they were. And Borg soon owned Connors. And then we saw that Ivan Lendl dominated McEnroe once Lendl replaced his slice backhand with a dipping topspin shot. In other words, topspin ruled, and the more the better. But how to get it?

In 1987, Howard Brody, author of Tennis Science for Tennis Players, considered 1000 rpm (16 rps, actually) to be moderate topspin—and I'd guess that Budge and Smith were moderate—and 2,000 rpm to be extreme topspin—and I'd guess that Borg and Lendl were extreme. I am guessing because I don't know whether accurate measurements of tennis ball rpm were widely taken back then. One tennis article I found on paper at a club listed these measurements of more recent players:

3331 rpm Sergi Bruguera
2882 rpm Tomas Muster      
2647 rpm Marcelos Rios     
2527 rpm Jim Courier       
2334 rpm Michael Chang     
1842 rpm Pete Sampras      
1718 rpm Andre Agassi      
1659 rpm Todd Martin       

2154 rpm Venus Williams    
1941 rpm Mary Pierce       
1916 rpm Arantxa Sanchez   
1713 rpm Anna Kournikova   
1673 rpm Jana Novotna      
1346 rpm Lindsay Davenport
1215 rpm Monica Seles      
1147 rpm Martina Hingis    

A more recent list shows that current players' topspin has become more than extreme:
2,500 - 2700 rpm Roger Federer
3,200 - 5000 rpm Rafael Nadal  

There have always been spin artists, but spin alone means nothing. Anyone can spin the ball a lot with a whippy forehand, but the ball might not go past the net. Sergi Bruguera is cited as generating 3,331 rpm—but Sergi's shots weren't hit all that fast and he was most successful on slow clay. Fed and Rafa hit with spin and pace and usually good depth. The increase in rpm from Sampras and Agassi to Federer and Nadal may have to do with polymer string technology, or a combination/evolution of those strings, racquets and court speed.

Agassi used kevlar strings, and most of today's professionals use polymer. Both kevlar and polymer feel deadened, and are often called dead strings. Newer polymer strings are also very slippery, behaving a bit like the spaghetti stringing patterns that were banned in 1978, and like spaghetti stringing, that slipperiness increases spin on the ball—by ten or twenty percent. (But those dead strings are also very hard on your arms and shoulders. Djokovic's shoulder problems at the end of last season may well be due to his strings.)

When a sliced ball bounces, it catches on the court and then spins forward with very moderate topspin. After a ball of moderate topspin bounces, it spins with more topspin. After balls with extreme or more than extreme topspin bounce, they seem to leap forward and down. You can't simply block such a ball back. You have to stroke it with authority or it will fly off your racquet. I found that out playing the Borg wannabes in tennis leagues.

When you strike a heavily spun ball, you have to use part of your contact time—a split second—to stop that spin, then you can impart the spin you want. If you are late to the ball, you may not have time to impose your spin on the ball. As a result, much of what really happens in these long rallies is invisible unless you can read how fast the ball is spinning.

Say Sharapova hits with 1000 rpm, which bounces at 2000 rpm. Azarenka runs to the ball, sets up, and hits with enough spin-effort to reverse that spin to 2000 rpm and places it far from Sharapova. The ball bounces and spins up to 2500 rpm. Sharapova gets to the ball, but can only manage an abbreviated swing, and imparts less spin or pace or both than she needs to trouble Azarenka. Azarenka sees an almost flat ball or a very short ball coming back and creams it. You can see when Sharapova hits short, but it is a lot harder to tell when she hits a deep, low-spin ball that is easier for her opponent to handle.

Simply hitting deep used to be a safe play, but now you also need spin, pace or perfect placement to avoid a crushing reply. And if your opponent is fast, you need to hit three crushing replies to finish the point.

So in the modern baseline game, strategy is not just about attacking your opponent's weakness, but about maneuvering your opponent into eventually playing into your strengths—then still being strong enough to take advantage. Straight Sets also theorizes that Federer stubbornly repeats a key tactical error by hitting into the open court against Nadal. Nadal, you see, is protecting his backhand, so hitting into the "open" court means that you are giving Rafa the chance and the angle to unload with his forehand—if he can cover the open court—which he often can. Djokovic, though, seems to take a longer term strategy against Rafa, hitting early and stealing time on every shot, and waiting patiently until Rafa (finally) gives him an attackable ball. He can do that because he hits with as much topspin as Nadal, while standing in closer.
 

And don't even start talking about sidespin.