Thursday, 20 July 2017


The current tournament being played in Newport, RI, USA has thrown up some interesting dialogue for someone like myself who sees things in names and scores that may be taken for granted by 'normal' people.
Take for instance a Round of 16 Mens Doubles match where no less than 76 letters put together made up the names of two combinations.
Adrian Menendez- Maceiras and Miguel Angel Reyes-Varela defeated
Sanchai Ratiwatana and Sonchat Ratiwatana  4-6, 6-3, 10-7. ( The score is irrelevant when these guys play against each other surely. Just listening to the umpire would be worth the price of admission ).
Now the win by Maceiras and Reyes- Varela was all to no avail as they were soundly beaten in the next round by Aisam-Ul-Haq Quereshi and Rajeev Ram 6-1, 6-2.
How do you reckon the umpire went in those two matches ?
Here's some more useless information for you.
Ram and Quereshi in fact won their first match by the score of 6-0, 6-0 over Roberto Maytin and Victor Estrella Burgos though there seems to be a fair discrepancy in the rankings here.
Ram and Quereshi own a combined ranking of 44 whereas their opponents own something that resembles a combined Test Cricket score of around 1100. Perhaps 0 and 0 was a fair result.
Matt Reid and 'Smithy' ( John- Patrick Smith ) of Australia had a win over another two guys with easy names to remember, Cheng- Peng Hsieh and Hsien-Yin Peng but this time it wasn't so much the names that made you take notice. Check the score. 4-6, 6-4, 22-20.
You gotta love that. I have made no secret of my thoughts on the current scoring system in singles. Time to spice it up, as they have done in doubles, no one can dominate the two on two format anymore in the smaller events.
Even Roger would struggle to dominate a singles format that finished with a first to ten super tie breaker in the third. I will keep dreaming on that idea......
Back to 'Smithy'.
John Smith is one of those names in Australia that most blokes after a few beers on a late night out in town would give to a Policeman if asked, 'Gday mate you are drunk and disorderly, what's your name' ? 'John Smith'. 'Yeah right, what's your real name' ??
I do believe that 'Smithy' may have lengthened his name for that reason alone.
The Hall Of Fame Open of 2017 has seen some entries this year that have been a Linguist's delight, a plethora of silly names that if you at closely enough will make you smile at their complexity.
Yet they can all play tennis, some obviously better than others.
Gerardo Lopez Villasenor also had a run at Newport as did Jeevan Nedunchezhiyan but none of these guys with the complicated names really troubled the score board too much, they just filled up a lot of space on the Draw Sheet.
In tennis there is more to just who wins though, in fact there's much, much more to tennis, you just have to look at it a bit more closely to appreciate the intricacies of it all.
Plus it helps if you own a strange mind like mine........

Tuesday, 18 July 2017


The way I see it is this, tennis is like life in general. When your head is clear, the sky is the limit, when you are not travelling so well it's an uphill battle.
I am certain that I will one day change this site to something along the lines of 'Tennis and Golf Philosophies' .
I have often talked about Tiger and his ability to play golf yet his inability to handle public scrutiny, and play golf. When the World talks about you it does not sit well with your thought process. I believe Novak Djokovic is right where Tiger was when the 'shit hit the fan', so to speak.
No one can explain why Novak can't win regularly at the moment however it seems that all of the scrutiny regarding his private life may just be playing a huge part in why he is injured both physically and mentally. He has no fight.
Roger Federer seems ridiculously content with life, not just with tennis and it shows with his play. He hits the ball with such freedom that it is almost embarrassing for the rest of the tennis fraternity who seem to struggle with their own mortality.
Do some players own a fear of winning ? Do some players own a fear of losing ?
Roger Federer owns neither, he simply plays with no fear of consequence of his actions, he plays like he lives. Married, four kids, go to work, pick up the pay cheque, no issues, enjoy the weekend.
Roger's weekends however usually involve the court, as Tiger's used to involve the course as on many occasions the weekends involved the pointy end of a tournament where the titles and big dollars were and still are on offer.
Tiger is injured, probably more mentally than anything else as is Novak. If he had won that first set against Berdych this year at Wimbledon do you think he would have retired ? He is shot, it's not even worth an argument, his mind is done, like a snag on a barbie.
Roger goes about his business with a minimum of fuss, no stress, no marriage issues ( none public anyhow ) and he simply enjoys being Roger whereas others aren't coping too well with other issues in life that will play on people's minds when they attempt to play sport.
Being free in your mind allows you to play free in your game. If you wake up in the middle of the night for a pee what do you do ? You go for the light switch, you don't even have to think about it, you know where it is, you can do it with your eyes closed.
That's sport, the elite can almost do it with their eyes closed, that's how finely tuned they are but the rest may fiddle around for a while until they find the switch. When Tiger and Novak were unbeatable there for quite some time I am certain that their light switches were almost turned on before they even got there, now they have to think about where it even is.
Sport is about the mind. It doesn't matter how well you can kick it, hit it or place it, sport requires the mind to be free of all the other shit that gets in the way of you being able to play your chosen profession to it's absolute maximum.
Roger Federer quite possibly is the most stress free sports person on the planet, he has to be. How else do you explain the titles he has won this year with the most time off last year ?
Happy off court, happier on court.
Sport is played between the ears, life begins when you wake up in the morning, get that bit right and you may just get the rest of it right........

Monday, 17 July 2017


My apologies but I just had to repost this. I realise it's the 'off season' in our part of the World however I wonder how the following 'Zen Master' of tennis is travelling now days with their recruiting over Winter ?

Possibly one of the funniest things I ever read on a Social Media page was the following information, yet it proved one thing; the sport of tennis really does breed egos, self importance and people who are full of sh..

Tuesday, 27 January 2015


Just to prove what I have been saying for a long, long time in regards to certain individuals and certain organizations.
I received an email from a buddy, it was one of those 'Hey Thommo you have got to have a look at this' sort of emails. You see I am not the only one who can smell 'hype' when it rears it's ugly head.
A regular 'guru' to hype and all things nice has posted this little chestnut that had me smiling. This is not word for word however you will get the idea of the story.
This particular 'guru' recently posted on a social media page that they have 'coached' around ten thousand students in just over ten years. I dispute this figure, I find that impossible.
If a coach of tennis has a base club where they coach a group of say 150 kids regularly and these 150 kids turn up for two terms of the year then this is surely 150 kids only, correct ? Ok so let's find the other 850 kids. We will need many assistants and many venues.
How about another 20 smaller venues for arguments sake hey ? Righto let's find another ten assistants at least to service 20 more venues at different times. That will give this 'guru' say another 400 kids over the course of two school terms of the year so that now takes the figure to around 600 kids. There's a very big shortfall here though to the 1000 kids required to prove the story correct. 
What also needs to be mentioned is that the 'coach' is not actually 'coaching' them, the assistants are, minor detail though hey?  What about adults ? 
Sure let's throw another 200 adults in over various programs over the course of say two or even three terms where they may do either tennis coaching or even the rather amusing 'cardio tennis' program. That now takes the figure to 800 students, a combined figure comprising adults and kids. This program is huge now hey ??
Now the reason I am saying two school terms is because I am aware of the impact or lack of impact that tennis has in the cooler months of the year. Two school terms is the main tennis playing time of the year from say October through to say April.
If the program was to go for three school terms then the figure may just be able to be bumped up to around the magical figure of 1000 but boy this figure is huge. Now let's fast forward to the next year.
How many of these students will go again ? If the coach is really good they may be able to keep around 75 per cent of these students but at least 25 per cent will move on, it's the nature of the sport. So we now have to find another 250 to 500 students to take the figure back to 1000 so that this 'guru can say that they have that amount in their program.
Are we forgetting something ? You can't recount what you have already counted so if you have around 500 regulars you can't keep putting that figure down, get my drift ? You can only count the new students, not the old regular ones. 
So if you have 500 regular students over 10 years you have 500 students but anyone who knows anything about a sport such as tennis knows that you cannot keep that figure over ten years. In fact you would be lucky to keep them over 5 years as kids get older and try other sports.
I am sure if you have half an ounce of brain matter you will see where I am going with this whole thing. It is AN IMPOSSIBILITY to coach a figure of around ten thousand students in say ten years because of the above examples. The only possible way you could get to that figure is to have all of your students drop out at the end of each year and then find another 1000 to start again.
Nope the whole story is a pile of garbage and just goes to show that the whole industry is full of these so called 'gurus' who write fictional stuff on their sites to make them sound like they are god's gift to the game.
If the 'guru' stumbles across this site then pay attention 'champ' , I am onto you and anyone who has a few clues on the industry will be also.
You are officially full of s...
Regards GT


On the 13/11/2013 I wrote the following post. Sorry but I have not had time to write lately if you have been waiting for some new material on this silly site of mine.
I will endeavour to find some time soon. Meanwhile this was one of the first posts I ever wrote.

Men's Tennis has seen some incredible comebacks over the years , especially in Davis Cup and Grand Slam singles matches. A few have stuck in my mind , here's some stat's;
In The US Open in 1989 Boris Becker played an American by the name of Derrick Rostagno who reached a career high of 13 in 1991.
Rostagno lead 2 sets to love and held 2 match points in the fourth set tie breaker 6-4 . Becker saved the first when Rostagno missed a volley on his own serve then was a little lucky on his own serve at 5-6 when Rostagno chipped and charged his second serve . Becker hit a cross court forehand that his opponent was all over like a rash but it hit the top of the net and landed in , Boris won in 5 sets.
Becker won the Championship that year , Rostagno did recover from the loss though and went on to record victories over Sampras and Connors at Wimbledon in the following years . He retired in 1996 after making close to 2 million dollars, but probably wonders what could've been if he had converted either of his two match points against Becker. Rostagno is now a Lawyer in the US.
In 1996 the Davis Cup Final was held in Malmo Sweden and unfortunately for Stefan Edberg who was playing his final year on the tour , he was injured in the first match against France's Cedric Pioline , he lost easily . Doubles expert Niklas Kulti was put in as a replacement and was asked to play the final and deciding match against France's Arnaud Boetsch with the Tie locked at 2-2 .
Kulti lead 7-6 and 0-40 on the Frenchman's serve , 3 match points for the title , he lost the game and the match , 8-10 in the 5th set , but Kulti recovered . In 1997 and 1998 he played in Sweden's winning Davis Cup sides against the USA and Italy , he partnered Jonas Bjorkman to win the pivotal Doubles matches , erasing his heartbreaking loss in 1996. He retired in 2000 with over $3 million in earnings and runs a Tennis Academy in Sweden.
Perhaps one of the all time greatest 'chokes' came in 2004 at the French Open where the then World number 3 Argentinian Guillermo Coria took on countryman Gaston Gaudio , ranked 44 , in the final . Coria won the first 8 games of the match , lead 2 sets to love then 40-0 on his own serve to go up 5-4 in the third set .
He fell apart and lost the third and fourth sets but lead 5-3 in the fifth and held two Championship points , he lost them both and the title to Gaudio 6-8 in the fifth .
Coria appeared to never fully recover from the loss , his ranking slipped and he won only one more title . In 2005 memories of the French Final came back to haunt him in the Rome Masters final against Rafael Nadal when he lead 3-0 in the fifth and final set and held a point for a 4-0 lead before losing. Coria struggled to close out the big matches . He retired in 2009 with nearly $6 million in earnings and apparently coaches his younger brother now days.  
Tough sport is tennis , can make or break you , sometimes only a point separates the household names from the battlers......

Friday, 14 July 2017


You seriously need to bounce the ball that many times Marin ?
Watched the first set, Querrey and Cilic, never seen a ball bounced that many times. At 5 games all Cilic bounced the ball 11 times, missed the first serve, bounced the ball a further 19 times before hitting his second.
At 6-6 in the tie breaker Cilic bounced the ball 21 times before serving.
Seriously ? This is allowed ?
Unfortunately within 25 seconds between serves apparently you can do as you wish.
Sam bounces the ball twice before serving.
I believe it should be against the rules what Cilic does as his opponent isn't actually certain when the delivery is going to start. Twenty one bounces is gamesmanship.
Will get some shut eye before the Fed match, this guy is fair dinkum putting me to sleep.......

***** Seems it's not just me who is rather disappointed in Marin Cilic's antics. I just found the following on the net this morning. Jonas , fix it, tell your 'student' that this crap has to be corrected before the final against Roger.
Marin, you are a dead set pain in the arse.......******


It seems I am not the only one who is growing rather tired of Marin Cilic's ball bouncing antics. Take a read of the following comments, courtesy of the 'EXPRESS'.

Wimbledon 2017: Fans furious with Marin Cilic for semi-final antics

WIMBLEDON fans turned on Marin Cilic during his semi-final against Sam Querrey today.

Cilic repeatedly bounced the ball on the baseline before every service game and in the first set tie-break.
The slow play left supporters furious and he was barracked for the antics on Twitter.
One upset fan wrote: "Watching Cilic bounce the ball 30 times before every serve is excruciating...It's messing with ME mentally, can't imagine being Sam Querrey!"
Another wrote: "Cilic is p***in me off no need to bounce the ball 7362715 times before every serve."

A fellow supporter begged the Croat to stop and said: "Can't stop counting how many times Cilic bounces the ball before serving ... pls stop it #Wimbledon2017."
Another fan fumed: "Is cilic  playing basketball or tennis bouncing the ball 13 times before he serves is a joke. Get on with it!!#Wimbledon2017."

While one blasted: "Cilic playing outstanding but painful to watch bouncing the ball so many times before each serve #Wimbledon2017."
Cilic and Querrey are on their best runs at Wimbledon in their careers.
The winner of today's clash will take on Roger Federer or Tomas Berdych in the final on Sunday.

**** Comment; It's gamesmanship, nothing more, nothing less. No opponent is sure when the ball will be served so how can it be in the spirit of the game ? Hope Fed belts him.......

Wednesday, 12 July 2017


At times I find Novak Djokovic to be a pain in the arse, other times I find him to be rather arrogant, very few times have I ever found him to be very correct, until now. The Serb delivered a classic to the Wimbledon Officials after his match with Mannarino which was actually supposed to be played a day earlier.
The question is this from Novak, why not introduce a fifth set tie breaker at Wimbledon ?
Well Novak I am with you all the way on this one and I   wrote a post in 2014 on this subject and it all came out of the mentality of tennis officialdom that figures, 'a tennis match has to finish eventually'.
Mahut and Isner did their very best to dispute that theory with a three day match that ended at 70-68 in the fifth. Let's be honest here, it dragged on, both players own a serve, it's fairly obvious neither owned a return, that day in particular.
The following is a ripper and I think Novak is on to it.
Courtesy of ''.
“Because John Isner and Nicolas Mahut made a history with an 11-hour match once. Is that a reason why we’re keeping it?,” asked Djokovic of the famous 2010 match at Wimbledon.
“It is great drama but that player has to go out tomorrow. It is for the spectator? For a player to play a five-, six-hour match, then come back the next day or within two days and perform, it’s not really what your body’s looking for, to be honest.
“If you are already getting to the six-all fifth set, you might as well just decide it in a tiebreak.”

The following post from yours truly backs up Novak's idea. Am I ahead of time ???