Michael Porter's Tennis

Michael Porter is a Harvard Business School economist whose theories on competitive advantage in business suggested that, at its core, every business must identify one of only two generic strategies to compete in their industry, and align all of their skills and operations with that generic strategy. Those two generic strategies are either to compete on cost leadership or differentiation, and while the entire skill set of a business pursuing one strategy may (out of necessity) overlap with those of a business pursuing the other strategy, at its core the business must choose.

I've often wondered if this can be applied to any form of competition, including sports, and what then would be the application of these theories to a particular sport like tennis. Within this framework, I think there are two generic strategies in tennis, and they stem essentially from the two basic ways to win a point: you either (1) apply pressure or (2) absorb pressure. The player who applies pressure is more apt to win points through winners and forced errors, while the player who absorbs pressure is more like to win points through unforced errors of their opponents.

However, it should not be interpreted that a player who gears his game around one generic strategy or the other cannot develop the skills and employ the tactics of the other - indeed it could be argued that the player who best mixes the two skill sets will be most successful. It should not either be assumed that one strategy is superior to another - just as in business where the ultimate objective is total profits, which can be pursued either through a cost leadership strategy (like Walmart) or a differentiation strategy (like Apple), the same could be argued in tennis. There are examples of great players who have chosen either strategy, even through the use of a different set of tactics (and associated skills). But at their core, the best players in the history of the game have had the most success when their games are aligned with the generic strategy they choose to pursue.

So pick a player, any player, in the history of the game, and give us your best assessment of their generic strategic objectives, the tactics they employ to pursue it, and the skills they've developed to execute those tactics.

In tennis, in general I think you have those who are primarily (1)'s and those who are primarily (2)'s.
However, the very best players at the top are less easy to define either way because they are able to interchange strategies better than other players.

I think what you're saying is that players have to stick to their strengths...defending or attacking. But I often struggle with this notion - for example, is Nadal primarily a defender (2) or an attacker (1)? People will tend to say, oh he's definitely (2)...but I'm not so sure. What he does is bide his time to attack, not counterpunch like Ferrer but actually pull the trigger. If he waits 10 shots to do this rather than Federer's 3 does this make him less of a (1) type player? If we look outside the top 4 I bet the strategies are easier to define...e.g. Simon (2), Raonic (1), Delpo (1), Monfils (2), Isner (1), Ferrer (2), etc...

This is an interesting conundrum but I think it is flawed in one key way - the distinction between ability and strategy.

If we take the example of David Ferrer. On face value, he's a player whose strategy is to absorb pressure.

But if you see him against weaker opponents, he doesn't grind away, he often seizes the initiative in a rally. He wins these matches by applying pressure.

It's only against stronger opponents that he really becomes the archetypal grinder. I think it is not that he doesn't want to apply pressure, it just that he doesn't have weapons to do it against the better players.

In his recent maulings by Novak and Rafa for example, I can't believe that his plan was to wait for unforced errors from them, he must have known that would never work. He'd have wanted to apply the pressure on them - he was just (utterly) incapable of doing so.

So he was rendered by his opponent as a player that absorbs pressure. But I'd hesitate to say that this was the strategy he was trying for.

Nice points HMM, I was thinking along some similar lines.

Some have main strategy (1) --> win point (their winner)
Some have main strategy (2) --> win point (opponents UE)
Some (1) --> (2) --> (1) --> win point (winner)
Some (1) --> (2) --> win point (UE)

However, execution is driven by opportunity.
Some simply cant do that consistently due to meeting a better player...i.e.
(2) --> lose point (their UE or others winner)
(1) --> lose point (their UE or others winner)
Because they're simply not good enough.

I agree its too complex to compartmentalise easily. The very best players can shift strategies, hang in, then go on the attack. They're much more flexible. Also, what defines an attacking strategy is up for discussion. Peppering away at Federer's BH might be seen as a negative, but in Nadal's mind he's attacking that wing to extract the error/soft shot.

There are other strategies to also consider...crosscourt groundstrokes vs DTL's...use of inside-out shots as primary attacking weapon, and mix of short angles vs depth. When you consider all the options and game plans, tennis is very complex at the highest level - too complex to be defined in this OP way.

Lydian, yes, and I think the easy trap to fall into is to think an opponents great strength is also their strategy.

For instance, Rafa and Novak both have outstanding retrieval skills but I would consider both as players who look to hit at an attacking shot as early in the rally as possible.

The retrieval skills are called upon when demanded but I don't consider the strategy of either as defined by them.

Incidentally Lydian, how would you classify Granollers?

I think it's pretty clear that Djokovic is not a player who's game is designed to absorb pressure - he can do it, no doubt, and he can do better than most players on tour, but in my opinion that is not where his optimal generic strategy is. After all, look at the success he's had in the last 2 years and compare to where he was the two years before that.

What are the differences in his game? Specifically a more aggressive forehand (in his case hit with more topspin) a simpler and more aggressive serve and court positioning that rarely concedes the baseline. Translation - all characteristics of a player who's generic strategy is to apply pressure. Whilst maintaining all the characteristics of the great defense he had been known for in the past, but alone was insufficient for him to reach his full potential.

Basically the theory is that a player must align their tactics and skills with the generic strategy that will give them the most success - that doesn't necessarily mean that they always play that way (independent of the opponent), or that having one set of skills necessarily excludes the other. In fact, it can be argued that the best mix of the two skill sets produces the best results. The example of Ferrer is an excellent one.

It's true that he plays differently against the top players than against everyone else - and aren't his results reflective of that? Against the top players he grinds more than against the rest of the field. But perhaps what we're witnessing now is HIS maximum results. In other words he is limited in what he can do against the top players, but wherever he can (i.e. against all but the top players) he produces the optimal mix of his natural tendency to absorb pressure, and the combination of this and seeking opportunities to attack, which produces the best results he can hope for. And it has to be said that his results against everyone outside the top 4 are the best of his career, hence his results over the last two years.

This theory maximizes your results, it doesn't turn a stable mate into a thoroughbred. And I'm not actually saying one should stick to one's strengths - to the contrary I think most players on tour (including those who have not reached their full potential) are staying only within their comfort zone, and that isn't enough to maximize results. But the player who attempts to hit winners left right and center, when he lacks the requisite power and consistency to do so (like Tobias Kamke, for example) will not achieve maximum results. He would be better off finding a way to grind and attack when the opportunity presents itself, rather than forcing the issue of his own volition, which will always get him in trouble against good defenders, or players with more consistent power than he has.

Whereas a player like Grigor Dimitrov, who has the athleticism and natural power to apply pressure to his opponents, only achieves his best results when he does so, and not (as he does against the better players on tour) attempts to grind out points - essentially falling for the fool's gold of his own (very good, but insufficient) defensive skills. Recently Dimitrov has beefed up his serve and improved his net play, but where he needs to improve is his court positioning (like Djokovic used to do, he's too quick to concede the baseline) and he doesn't step into his backhand enough - he's still basically rolling over it, which allows better opponents to isolate it. Both of these will improve his forays to net, where ultimately his best results will come from. Not necessarily serving and volleying, but always moving forward and applying pressure, rather than absorbing it.

Well, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it...for now!

Just finished watching Melzer-Kamke. Kamke applied pressure and won the first set. Melzer applied pressure and Kamke could no longer absorb it. At 40-30 5-4, I though Kamke would repeat his first set heroics, but Melzer kept it on and won. The Kreegah Bundolo from Melzer after winning the set just showed the ability to use both strategies.

By very nature, Melzer is the pressure applier, but a greater pressure applier makes him the receiver of such pressure.

Businesses also use a mix of strategies as well to be successful.

Great thread and great analysis MMT1, Djokovic's aggressive court postioning and his porpensity to change direction off both wings shows his style is naturally aggressive. Yet, what makes him special in my belief is that much like both Federer and Nadal he can apply and absorb pressure. I feel that in today's game with the slower conditions and emphasis on speed and fitness that the truely great player's are generalists. They must be able to attack and defend with equal vigor. Federer is more naturally aggressive but even today he can defend with the best of them and use his slice backhand in particular to extract errors from his opponents. That is the allure of the modern game for me. Players that are purely defensive or purely aggressive can not in today's game get to the top. A player must be able to attack and defend, although his general instinct maybe to attack first or defend first. This is the allure of the modern power baseline game for me, that favors the generalist approach to tennis. And still the best players are the ones who can apply pressure mainly with the forehand, but if you lack the lungs, legs, and heart to fight it out it won't get you to the very top.