Net Notes: American tennis style lacks the finesse of clay court specialists

At best tennis is a difficult game. To succeed at the highest levels of tennis in its modern form takes a full-time commitment from as early as age 5.

In Europe and the wealthy countries of South America tennis is considered an art form and is studied like a martial art.

Players emerging from that background gain a better understanding of the game. They learn how to play with finesse rather than having the big-shot mentality that appears in the American playing style.

Tennis has evolved from a fast-court game — prior to the open era, three of the four grand slams were played on grass courts — to a more slow-court game of wit and maneuvering.

On the surface today's game seems an exercise in power, but if you watch the really great ones engineer a point, you will see the tried and true "chess game" that the clay court specialists have been playing since long before I can remember.

American style is exemplified by Andy Roddick, who to my disappointment, has failed to evolve past booming serves and ripping forehands. He may have tried to adapt to a maneuver-and-outwit style of play but the die was cast in his formative days. He is condemned to a very narrow view of how to structure a point and in as much to the one big-shot school of play.

Much has been written about the downfall of Americans, but the only player responding to that outcry is James Blake. It appears he has chosen to adapt and modify his game to include the softer spins, angles and touch of the real masters and to use his huge forehand as needed rather than as his whole game plan.

Currently his nerves get the best of him at crucial moments late in matches, but as his grasp of the true percentages of the all-court game integrate themselves into his shot selection, we may see a real superstar emerge and revive the American game.