I read somewhere recently that just 336 Men and 253 Women Tennis Professionals made more money than they spent playing tennis last year, interesting statistic. How many Tennis Professionals does this mean didn't make enough to survive without financial assistance from family and friends ?
And it's important to not that just because a tennis professional made more than he or she spent it still doesn't mean they made a 'living' out of the game.
I have written numerous articles on what I believe is wrong with tennis and I don't just mean the coaching side of things, that's just one issue. I have often written of tennis being a 'needle in a haystack' type of sport as the chances of 'success' are like searching for that needle. So what is 'success' ? Is it the dollar value at the end of a season for a player or is it tournament wins ?
Filip Krajinovic of Serbia will finish 2014 as the player ranked 100 and his singles prize money for the year was just under $170,000, not a bad effort. However if you take away expenses plus what the Tax Man requires then the figure is probably what a Council Worker earned. Novak Djokovic earned over 14 million this year, big difference from his lowly ranked countryman who is ranked 99 places behind him.
So where's the problem ? Easy one to answer, Sponsorship dollars. The big companies want their name and money put toward the big tournaments and they want the winner to receive something most people would not even win from a Lottery. Big egotistical stuff. The issue with this however is that the next Novak Djokovic is probably running around on court in an obscure clay court event somewhere with perhaps a few hundred dollars to his name.
So how does the sport expect him to keep going ? It doesn't. Tennis simply wants the natural 'pecking order' to do it's natural thing, weed out the good from the rest, nature will take care of itself. But what about the players who bloom late ? What about players such as Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic who just became competitive at age 34 ?? Now here is a player who no doubt would had to have received financial backup from somewhere other than tennis as he has been playing for 15 years and earned just over $600,000. Do the sums on that, how's that Council Worker's wage looking now over the same time frame, not too shabby ?
Big companies aren't interested in keeping guys like Victor in a 'job' in obscure little tournaments that are in fact the breeding ground of the next generation of players. But these players may just prove to be the World's best in the years to come.
So does tennis need players like Victor at age 34 playing the game ? You betcha, just look at the interest every time Tommy Haas takes the court, especially against the young players. Youth vs Experience is possibly one of the greatest contests in World Sport. So if guys like Victor have been knocking around in obscure events for the past 15 years because their ranking has been too low to make it into the tournaments that pay the big dollars then how do they survive ? Just.
Does a player who wins a Grand Slam really require a bank deposit of over two million dollars ? If a player is good enough to win a major then surely his endorsements will make up the 'shortfall' ? If a tournament such as the Australian Open cut just $200,000 from it's $30,000,000 of sponsorship and used it to pay the lesser credentialed players more it may just be the difference in them being able to afford to fly to the next tournament.
Grand Slam events can afford to offer players a prize that can almost guarantee them a few months' travel expenses especially at the qualifier level.
If a player wins four Main Draw matches he takes home $250,000, I think that's outrageous. Shave it to $150,000 and even out the rest of the prize money dispersion, it's still big dollars. Reward a Qualifier a handsome sum because he is good enough to be a professional and he may just be the player along with Estrella Burgos who may just hang around the game long enough to become a quality player.
Tennis is no longer a young man's game, at last count there were only two players under 23 years of age in the Top 100 Men's Rankings. The average age of the top ten is 28, give or take a year, hence my example of Estrella Burgos. So it is the obligation of the sport to keep players in it for as long as it is necessary for them to realize their potential.
Let's face it, if a player remains fit he or she will only get better and in particular, smarter, Tommy Haas is testimony to that. At age 35 Haas beat Djokovic in Miami in straight sets in 2013 and at age 36 he beat Wawrinka in three sets in Rome in 2014. Experience? You can't beat it.
So as much as tennis rewards the top 50 players in the World it really does nothing for the rest, how's the lyrics from the Midnight Oil song ? 'The rich get richer, the poor get the picture'.
Tennis players are maturing later so the older players still have much to offer and they may not do anything in the game other than survive until they are over age 30.
Yes I realize that Tommy Haas was a former top ten player however my point is he is basically getting better as he gets older, it's that sort of sport. Others can follow his lead, they simply need enough dollars to stay in the game.
It's a tough one, no real answers but handing out $2.5 Million to the players who defied the needle in the haystack odds may not be the best thing for the game. Cap the prize money and spread it more evenly, surely this makes more sense ?
So what of the smaller events ? That's even tougher as sponsorship is minimal but rather than the Governing Bodies boasting about their ever increasing bank accounts how about they release some funds and support the smaller events more ? And how do they get it back ? Simple, get the players to give back to the sport.
Once their prize money hits a certain figure then surely these players can afford to reimburse the game that made them rich. University students do it don't they ? How about sportsmen do the same ?
That next ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Event may not necessarily be won by a 25 year old. It may in fact be won by a 33 year old who has stopped worrying about where his next meal will come from and concentrated more on his experienced game........
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
Tuesday, 30 December 2014
'A FEW BUCKS'
The Australian Open of 2005 was a tournament I remember vividly as it was a tournament where I was perhaps one of only a few who weren't barracking for Lleyton Hewitt. This was a tournament also remembered for the arrogance shown from Hewitt towards fellow players, in particular the Argentinians.
Juan Ignecio Chela was so upset with Hewitt that he in fact spat in his direction but naturally the Argentinian was labelled the villain especially with the biased journalism in this country.
Perhaps there needed to be a 'neutral' newspaper reporting on the match as the provocative style of 'in your face' antics from Hewitt caused not just Chela to become infuriated. Hewitt's second round match against James Blake of the US was noted for the American mimicking the arrogant Aussie with a hand signal that unfortunately the Aussie is now famous for. We must not forget however that the 'vicht' hand signal from Hewitt was in fact 'stolen' from the Swedes.
Niclas Kroon invented it, Mats Wilander used it, Lleyton Hewitt then put a patent on it to make money. Smart business sense ? Perhaps, but he did nothing to endear himself to Sweden's vast number of pro tennis players who surely were entitled to have a say in it. It would be like Sweden putting a patent on 'C'MON'! That wouldn't be too well received in Australia now would it ?
Blake and Hewitt in fact were involved in a rather controversial match at the US Open in 2001 where Hewitt was accused of being racist. The incident in question was one where Hewitt was foot faulted by a line judge of the same skin color of Blake so Hewitt came out with "Look at him ( the linesman) and tell me what the similarity is" ( he motioned toward Blake ). Interesting comment Lleyton.
The match between Blake and Hewitt four years later in Australia was perhaps a bit of payback by Blake who went within a whisker of a two sets to love lead. I remember the mock from Blake, a minor incident compared to Hewitt's of 2001 yet Blake was booed by some of the uneducated Australian crowd. Do your sums before you make assumptions.
The quarter final of the 2005 Australian Open was also testosterone-fueled as Hewitt took on Chela's Argentine buddy David Nalbandian. The match was best remembered for a shoulder 'rub' between the two at a change of ends. For some reason the Aussie felt it necessary to be that close to his opponent as they walked to their chairs. Now have a look at the incident then look at Nalbandian's reaction and do the non biased Australian thing and work out who was to blame.
Lleyton Hewitt in Australia was a 'super hero' ( just ask him), what he was forgetting though was that he actually had to step outside of his home country to play many more tennis tournaments. Making enemies of fellow pro's was not the smartest thing he ever did. American Professional Michael Russell still calls Hewitt a racist to this day.
Now the Australian Open of 2005 was also where Hewitt's Coach Roger Rasheed openly criticized the court surface as did Hewitt, not sure why. The tournament had started, all players were in the same boat so to speak, did Hewitt and Rasheed expect the courts to be resurfaced overnight just because they weren't happy with it ? Fair dinkum.
You know what I did ? Now this is fair dinkum also. I wrote a letter to the Sunday Times giving Rasheed and Hewitt a blast on their 'weak as piss' attitude toward the tournament surface and suggested they concentrate on the task at hand.
A great letter if I do say so myself, it was published. It did however put some pressure on me as I suggested Hewitt was no chance to win the tournament as his mind was elsewhere.
AUSTRALIAN OPEN FINAL 2005. This is what I did. I went to my local punting shop and placed a $200 bet on Marat Safin to win then I visited my local liquor store, bought a carton of beer. I sat and watched the final and I got very, very vocal. I didn't panic after the first set win to Hewitt, I knew the Russian's game was far superior, it was just a matter of time.
Thank goodness the volatile Safin gathered his thoughts and sent Hewitt packing in 4, my letter did have some merit after all, but it nearly didn't go my way. I don't remember how many beers I had or how much I won but it was 'a few bucks', much more a moral victory however.
I don't like Hewitt, never have, never will. Thanks Marat for a great final and good luck to Roger Rasheed with his new coaching job. Don't blame the court, blame the opponent for simply being better than you on the day.
No player is bigger than the game and no player or coach should be suggesting court surface changes just because it does not suit their style of play. Find a 'real' coach to do some adjustments to the technique, that may just work, fair dinkum.......
Juan Ignecio Chela was so upset with Hewitt that he in fact spat in his direction but naturally the Argentinian was labelled the villain especially with the biased journalism in this country.
Perhaps there needed to be a 'neutral' newspaper reporting on the match as the provocative style of 'in your face' antics from Hewitt caused not just Chela to become infuriated. Hewitt's second round match against James Blake of the US was noted for the American mimicking the arrogant Aussie with a hand signal that unfortunately the Aussie is now famous for. We must not forget however that the 'vicht' hand signal from Hewitt was in fact 'stolen' from the Swedes.
Niclas Kroon invented it, Mats Wilander used it, Lleyton Hewitt then put a patent on it to make money. Smart business sense ? Perhaps, but he did nothing to endear himself to Sweden's vast number of pro tennis players who surely were entitled to have a say in it. It would be like Sweden putting a patent on 'C'MON'! That wouldn't be too well received in Australia now would it ?
Blake and Hewitt in fact were involved in a rather controversial match at the US Open in 2001 where Hewitt was accused of being racist. The incident in question was one where Hewitt was foot faulted by a line judge of the same skin color of Blake so Hewitt came out with "Look at him ( the linesman) and tell me what the similarity is" ( he motioned toward Blake ). Interesting comment Lleyton.
The match between Blake and Hewitt four years later in Australia was perhaps a bit of payback by Blake who went within a whisker of a two sets to love lead. I remember the mock from Blake, a minor incident compared to Hewitt's of 2001 yet Blake was booed by some of the uneducated Australian crowd. Do your sums before you make assumptions.
The quarter final of the 2005 Australian Open was also testosterone-fueled as Hewitt took on Chela's Argentine buddy David Nalbandian. The match was best remembered for a shoulder 'rub' between the two at a change of ends. For some reason the Aussie felt it necessary to be that close to his opponent as they walked to their chairs. Now have a look at the incident then look at Nalbandian's reaction and do the non biased Australian thing and work out who was to blame.
Lleyton Hewitt in Australia was a 'super hero' ( just ask him), what he was forgetting though was that he actually had to step outside of his home country to play many more tennis tournaments. Making enemies of fellow pro's was not the smartest thing he ever did. American Professional Michael Russell still calls Hewitt a racist to this day.
Now the Australian Open of 2005 was also where Hewitt's Coach Roger Rasheed openly criticized the court surface as did Hewitt, not sure why. The tournament had started, all players were in the same boat so to speak, did Hewitt and Rasheed expect the courts to be resurfaced overnight just because they weren't happy with it ? Fair dinkum.
You know what I did ? Now this is fair dinkum also. I wrote a letter to the Sunday Times giving Rasheed and Hewitt a blast on their 'weak as piss' attitude toward the tournament surface and suggested they concentrate on the task at hand.
A great letter if I do say so myself, it was published. It did however put some pressure on me as I suggested Hewitt was no chance to win the tournament as his mind was elsewhere.
AUSTRALIAN OPEN FINAL 2005. This is what I did. I went to my local punting shop and placed a $200 bet on Marat Safin to win then I visited my local liquor store, bought a carton of beer. I sat and watched the final and I got very, very vocal. I didn't panic after the first set win to Hewitt, I knew the Russian's game was far superior, it was just a matter of time.
Thank goodness the volatile Safin gathered his thoughts and sent Hewitt packing in 4, my letter did have some merit after all, but it nearly didn't go my way. I don't remember how many beers I had or how much I won but it was 'a few bucks', much more a moral victory however.
I don't like Hewitt, never have, never will. Thanks Marat for a great final and good luck to Roger Rasheed with his new coaching job. Don't blame the court, blame the opponent for simply being better than you on the day.
No player is bigger than the game and no player or coach should be suggesting court surface changes just because it does not suit their style of play. Find a 'real' coach to do some adjustments to the technique, that may just work, fair dinkum.......
Monday, 29 December 2014
'ANOTHER CHAMPION'
As a kid I was inspired by Borg and Wilander, their styles were appealing to both watch and to copy as they were styles that were not risky, they were safe ways of playing tennis. I probably did not appreciate other ways of playing the game yet these 'other' ways were possibly more exciting to watch. However when both of these ways of playing the game came up against each other, now that was entertaining.
Stefan Edberg was another Swedish Champion, a player who went against the grain of all past Swedish player's styles, he developed a technically brilliant serve and volley game. Edberg in fact ended up marrying Mats Wilander's ex fiance, a rather attractive blonde who was the daughter of the Swedish Davis Cup Captain.
Now without sounding too sexist I can see why the Swedish team of the early 80's were so inspired. There was obviously an ego war of sorts between the players as to who would in fact would win the heart of young Annette Olson. Mats initially, followed by Stefan. Team practice sessions with Annette looking on were no doubt full of entertaining shot making and testosterone filled banter.
Now initially Edberg was overshadowed by Wilander in particular until the Davis Cup Final held in Sweden in 1984. After all Mats had won the French Open Mens Singles title two years earlier plus the Australian Open titles of '83 and '84, Edberg was primarily just out of junior ranks. Edberg though was picked to play the doubles with Anders Jarryd who went on to become the World's best doubles player in 1985.
Edberg and Jarryd took on McEnroe and Fleming who had not been beaten in 15 Davis Cup matches but this match was on clay and held no fears for either Sweden or a very young Stefan Edberg. A 7-5, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5 victory to Sweden handed the home team the title after wins to Wilander and Sundstrom in the singles over Connors and McEnroe. The win signaled the emergence of Edberg as a player of the future, his days of being the World's best junior were a thing of the past.
Rather than go through the year by year exploits of Stefan Edberg I believe that fast forwarding to the US Open of 1992 gives a more accurate description of just how good he was. It's rather easy to see why Federer has chosen Edberg as not only his favorite player but why he has also chosen him as his current coach.
US OPEN 1992;
Now after three initial straight sets wins Edberg came up against Richard Krajicek of the Netherlands, a man who played much the same as he did. Krajicek would go on to win Wimbledon 4 years later but in this particular match Edberg scraped through 6-4 in the fifth set.
The Quarter final between Edberg and Lendl was a match that Edberg lead two sets to love before Lendl came back and took it to a fifth set. The Swede would eventually take the match 7-3 in the ensuing tie breaker which took him to a semi final against Michael Chang.
Now as far as classic matches are concerned this is right up there with the best ever played in New York, an epic five and a half hour battle that saw Edberg prevail 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4. The difference in styles made for a classic highlight reel of amazing shots as one player pushed for an advantage at the net, the other worked the angles from the baseline. Edberg was never really known as an 'Ironman' of sorts like Thomas Muster or Jim Courier but his ability to grind out win after win in 1992 was extraordinary to say the least.
When you consider his athleticism and fitness level to be able to keep attacking the net after so many hours on court over consecutive days this tournament may just put him up with the all time greats.
The final against Pete Sampras was almost an anti climax, a 'short' 4 setter which Edberg won after a pivotal third set tie breaker win, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2. This was a match that Sampras said 'defined' his career, a match he said he did not 'fully commit' to and one in which he learned to ask more of himself in the future. He perhaps though could have been excused for being almost mesmerized by his opponent's exploits of the previous few days . Why he was still receiving a battle from a man who should have been on a drip from exhaustion and not one who was still pushing for the title may just have confused him just a little.
The US Open of 1992 may just go down in history as one of the greatest physical and mental performances from an athlete of any sport in general of all time. It may just be the reason why Federer employed Edberg as the man to see out his own career.
I would suspect Roger watched along with many other budding young tennis players in awe of the Champion from Sweden and how he simply refused to lose that tournament. The will to win and a refusal to lose, that's tough to teach........
Stefan Edberg was another Swedish Champion, a player who went against the grain of all past Swedish player's styles, he developed a technically brilliant serve and volley game. Edberg in fact ended up marrying Mats Wilander's ex fiance, a rather attractive blonde who was the daughter of the Swedish Davis Cup Captain.
Now without sounding too sexist I can see why the Swedish team of the early 80's were so inspired. There was obviously an ego war of sorts between the players as to who would in fact would win the heart of young Annette Olson. Mats initially, followed by Stefan. Team practice sessions with Annette looking on were no doubt full of entertaining shot making and testosterone filled banter.
Now initially Edberg was overshadowed by Wilander in particular until the Davis Cup Final held in Sweden in 1984. After all Mats had won the French Open Mens Singles title two years earlier plus the Australian Open titles of '83 and '84, Edberg was primarily just out of junior ranks. Edberg though was picked to play the doubles with Anders Jarryd who went on to become the World's best doubles player in 1985.
Edberg and Jarryd took on McEnroe and Fleming who had not been beaten in 15 Davis Cup matches but this match was on clay and held no fears for either Sweden or a very young Stefan Edberg. A 7-5, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5 victory to Sweden handed the home team the title after wins to Wilander and Sundstrom in the singles over Connors and McEnroe. The win signaled the emergence of Edberg as a player of the future, his days of being the World's best junior were a thing of the past.
Rather than go through the year by year exploits of Stefan Edberg I believe that fast forwarding to the US Open of 1992 gives a more accurate description of just how good he was. It's rather easy to see why Federer has chosen Edberg as not only his favorite player but why he has also chosen him as his current coach.
US OPEN 1992;
Now after three initial straight sets wins Edberg came up against Richard Krajicek of the Netherlands, a man who played much the same as he did. Krajicek would go on to win Wimbledon 4 years later but in this particular match Edberg scraped through 6-4 in the fifth set.
The Quarter final between Edberg and Lendl was a match that Edberg lead two sets to love before Lendl came back and took it to a fifth set. The Swede would eventually take the match 7-3 in the ensuing tie breaker which took him to a semi final against Michael Chang.
Now as far as classic matches are concerned this is right up there with the best ever played in New York, an epic five and a half hour battle that saw Edberg prevail 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4. The difference in styles made for a classic highlight reel of amazing shots as one player pushed for an advantage at the net, the other worked the angles from the baseline. Edberg was never really known as an 'Ironman' of sorts like Thomas Muster or Jim Courier but his ability to grind out win after win in 1992 was extraordinary to say the least.
When you consider his athleticism and fitness level to be able to keep attacking the net after so many hours on court over consecutive days this tournament may just put him up with the all time greats.
The final against Pete Sampras was almost an anti climax, a 'short' 4 setter which Edberg won after a pivotal third set tie breaker win, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2. This was a match that Sampras said 'defined' his career, a match he said he did not 'fully commit' to and one in which he learned to ask more of himself in the future. He perhaps though could have been excused for being almost mesmerized by his opponent's exploits of the previous few days . Why he was still receiving a battle from a man who should have been on a drip from exhaustion and not one who was still pushing for the title may just have confused him just a little.
The US Open of 1992 may just go down in history as one of the greatest physical and mental performances from an athlete of any sport in general of all time. It may just be the reason why Federer employed Edberg as the man to see out his own career.
I would suspect Roger watched along with many other budding young tennis players in awe of the Champion from Sweden and how he simply refused to lose that tournament. The will to win and a refusal to lose, that's tough to teach........
Sunday, 21 December 2014
'IF EVER'
If ever you were wondering just how tough it is to gain entry into a Grand Slam Championship then maybe you should look up a young fellow who shares my surname. A man by the name of Jordan. Now this young Aussie tennis player can play the game, he just lacks that big shot to take him to the next level but he has the heart of a lion.
Last year in the Australian Open Wild Card play off he won in 5 sets against Ben Mitchell, an epic match to decide who would play in the Australian Open.
The Wild Card play off is ridiculously tough, it's over 5 sets and it's usually in hot conditions this time of year in Melbourne. If a young kid or his coach is under any illusions regarding just what is required for the opportunity to play in a Grand Slam then perhaps this tournament is worth a tune in.
Now all of these players are bloody good tennis players, their rankings suggest just that but for Jordan Thompson to prevail in this year's event was nothing short of sensational. Thompson is ranked 274 and the range of rankings in this event were from 164 to 1426.
Now what happens when a player ranked 164 comes up against another ranked 485 ? You would expect a whitewash but a 7-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4 win to top seeded Luke Saville over Chris O'Connell was anything but one sided. Rather than bore you with a smorgasbord of scores I will simply pick out a few that are worth noting.
A player ranked 1046 Mark Polmans had a win over Alex Bolt who is ranked 202 in a match only worth describing as 'tight', 7-6, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6. That win defies logic. How does a player of that ranking defeat someone who is knocking on the door of Grand Slam entry ? A guy ranked 574, Blake Mott had a win over Maverick Banes who is ranked 348 in 4 sets, another tough win. The number 2 seed John Patrick- Smith, ranked 200 had a tough first round win over Jacob Grills ranked 773, 6-4, 7-6, 6-1. The first two sets defied the difference in rankings.
So to the final. Jordan Thompson knew how to tough out a match as he did in last year's play off final and he almost did it in the first round at the Aussie Open against top 20 player Jerzy Janowicz, narrowly losing in 5.
Thompson took the first two easily before Smith came back to force it to a decider where Thompson some how clawed his way back from 1-3, 15-40 to win 9-7. The win came at a cost, a physical and mental one where Thompson at one stage couldn't remember the score due to the physical nature of the match. He just knew he was in front and had to stay there.
So Jordan Thompson gains immediate entry to the Australian Open where he will be hoping for a 'kind' draw but let's face it, even if he takes on a guy ranked 110 he will be in for a battle. There is not much in the game of tennis that separates guys ranked 100 to 1000, it may just be a slight flaw in technique or a stronger will to win.
I wish 'Thommo' luck, it would be nice to see that name through to the second round at least of the first Slam of the year in 2015. The young fellow from New South Wales has some ability and he definitely has a big heart.
He epitomizes what is required to win in the sport of tennis especially in his home country where pressure can at times seem overwhelming. Look at Sam Stosur, a serve like that and no show in the second week regularly of a major ? That's not her game, that's her head.
Good luck 'Thommo', with you all the way Champ........
Last year in the Australian Open Wild Card play off he won in 5 sets against Ben Mitchell, an epic match to decide who would play in the Australian Open.
The Wild Card play off is ridiculously tough, it's over 5 sets and it's usually in hot conditions this time of year in Melbourne. If a young kid or his coach is under any illusions regarding just what is required for the opportunity to play in a Grand Slam then perhaps this tournament is worth a tune in.
Now all of these players are bloody good tennis players, their rankings suggest just that but for Jordan Thompson to prevail in this year's event was nothing short of sensational. Thompson is ranked 274 and the range of rankings in this event were from 164 to 1426.
Now what happens when a player ranked 164 comes up against another ranked 485 ? You would expect a whitewash but a 7-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4 win to top seeded Luke Saville over Chris O'Connell was anything but one sided. Rather than bore you with a smorgasbord of scores I will simply pick out a few that are worth noting.
A player ranked 1046 Mark Polmans had a win over Alex Bolt who is ranked 202 in a match only worth describing as 'tight', 7-6, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6. That win defies logic. How does a player of that ranking defeat someone who is knocking on the door of Grand Slam entry ? A guy ranked 574, Blake Mott had a win over Maverick Banes who is ranked 348 in 4 sets, another tough win. The number 2 seed John Patrick- Smith, ranked 200 had a tough first round win over Jacob Grills ranked 773, 6-4, 7-6, 6-1. The first two sets defied the difference in rankings.
So to the final. Jordan Thompson knew how to tough out a match as he did in last year's play off final and he almost did it in the first round at the Aussie Open against top 20 player Jerzy Janowicz, narrowly losing in 5.
Thompson took the first two easily before Smith came back to force it to a decider where Thompson some how clawed his way back from 1-3, 15-40 to win 9-7. The win came at a cost, a physical and mental one where Thompson at one stage couldn't remember the score due to the physical nature of the match. He just knew he was in front and had to stay there.
So Jordan Thompson gains immediate entry to the Australian Open where he will be hoping for a 'kind' draw but let's face it, even if he takes on a guy ranked 110 he will be in for a battle. There is not much in the game of tennis that separates guys ranked 100 to 1000, it may just be a slight flaw in technique or a stronger will to win.
I wish 'Thommo' luck, it would be nice to see that name through to the second round at least of the first Slam of the year in 2015. The young fellow from New South Wales has some ability and he definitely has a big heart.
He epitomizes what is required to win in the sport of tennis especially in his home country where pressure can at times seem overwhelming. Look at Sam Stosur, a serve like that and no show in the second week regularly of a major ? That's not her game, that's her head.
Good luck 'Thommo', with you all the way Champ........
Saturday, 20 December 2014
'WHO' ?
Switching focus from playing to teaching tennis was a natural progression however I am not sure it was a smart one because the two are chalk and cheese. The problem with coaching is fairly easy for me to explain, the game has too many perceptions.
When you are playing the game it is simple to work out, you just have to win more points than the opponent. When you teach the game though you are analysing it to a point where it actually becomes uncomfortable. What I mean by this is that as a coach of tennis you are not accepting mediocrity so you are constantly dissecting each shot with the precision of a surgeon.
Can you imagine if you took that way of thinking into a tennis match ? There is simply no possible way during a match that you can rewind and look at why you missed that rather simple forehand approach. You have 20 seconds to get that out of your head or your next three shots may suffer the same fate. Coaching in a way affords us the luxury of almost making time stand still on a tennis court.
Dissecting a shot into three or four parts is what we all wish we could do when we play the game and if we had that much time to play each shot then I am sure we would all hit the ball with perfection. I think that's why an ex player will naturally move into coaching, a way perhaps to finally see how the game should be played, in slow motion.
The game at full speed can at times make no sense, a blur of movement and a split second to make a decision. This decision making process over a two hour match can quite often turn a sane person into one who resembles a person after too many beers. Talking to yourself and at times laughing at your own incompetence is not too dissimilar to an intoxicated person at the end of a night out.
I often wonder why my mind studies the game so intently, I think it is because I never mastered it, not many people do though let's face it. I wonder what Tiger Woods used to think when he dominated World Golf and whether he simply switched off when he got home or did he dissect his win ? If he shot 18 under par was he disappointed that he didn't shoot 20 under or was he content ? I believe that most past good players would make a good coach, it's entrenched in the thought process.
Could we liken golf to tennis ? Possibly. In golf if you leave it short you pay for it, same as tennis, In golf if you don't hit straight you pay for it, same as tennis. In golf you can win without being glamorous, you just need to limit the mistakes, same as tennis.
They are both mind sports with very little separating the best from the rest, the stronger mind prevails, not necessarily the most technically gifted. Many similarities. Wouldn't you love to go to dinner with Fed and Tiger ? The intelligence would be outrageous.
I have often admitted to being a 'nobody' of tennis and I am comfortable with this status but I am a tennis 'nobody' who has at least been out of my back yard. If I never left my hometown here in Albany Western Australia and travelled to Europe and to the other side of Australia to play I would not have learned the game.
If I had never met guys like Peter Holmes and Rob Casey who put tennis into perspective with their ability to teach it then I perhaps would just have taken the sport for granted. The level of intelligence required to both play and teach the game is one that I will put up there with gaining a degree.
I often get 'Who are you'? It's simple. I am a nobody who studies the game more now than when I played as a kid. I am a nobody who plays better at age 45 than I did at age 21. I am a nobody with a Level 2 Tennis Coaching 'Degree'. I am a nobody who is finally beginning to understand the game after 32 years of playing it.
That's who I am.........
Regards Glenn
When you are playing the game it is simple to work out, you just have to win more points than the opponent. When you teach the game though you are analysing it to a point where it actually becomes uncomfortable. What I mean by this is that as a coach of tennis you are not accepting mediocrity so you are constantly dissecting each shot with the precision of a surgeon.
Can you imagine if you took that way of thinking into a tennis match ? There is simply no possible way during a match that you can rewind and look at why you missed that rather simple forehand approach. You have 20 seconds to get that out of your head or your next three shots may suffer the same fate. Coaching in a way affords us the luxury of almost making time stand still on a tennis court.
Dissecting a shot into three or four parts is what we all wish we could do when we play the game and if we had that much time to play each shot then I am sure we would all hit the ball with perfection. I think that's why an ex player will naturally move into coaching, a way perhaps to finally see how the game should be played, in slow motion.
The game at full speed can at times make no sense, a blur of movement and a split second to make a decision. This decision making process over a two hour match can quite often turn a sane person into one who resembles a person after too many beers. Talking to yourself and at times laughing at your own incompetence is not too dissimilar to an intoxicated person at the end of a night out.
I often wonder why my mind studies the game so intently, I think it is because I never mastered it, not many people do though let's face it. I wonder what Tiger Woods used to think when he dominated World Golf and whether he simply switched off when he got home or did he dissect his win ? If he shot 18 under par was he disappointed that he didn't shoot 20 under or was he content ? I believe that most past good players would make a good coach, it's entrenched in the thought process.
Could we liken golf to tennis ? Possibly. In golf if you leave it short you pay for it, same as tennis, In golf if you don't hit straight you pay for it, same as tennis. In golf you can win without being glamorous, you just need to limit the mistakes, same as tennis.
They are both mind sports with very little separating the best from the rest, the stronger mind prevails, not necessarily the most technically gifted. Many similarities. Wouldn't you love to go to dinner with Fed and Tiger ? The intelligence would be outrageous.
I have often admitted to being a 'nobody' of tennis and I am comfortable with this status but I am a tennis 'nobody' who has at least been out of my back yard. If I never left my hometown here in Albany Western Australia and travelled to Europe and to the other side of Australia to play I would not have learned the game.
If I had never met guys like Peter Holmes and Rob Casey who put tennis into perspective with their ability to teach it then I perhaps would just have taken the sport for granted. The level of intelligence required to both play and teach the game is one that I will put up there with gaining a degree.
I often get 'Who are you'? It's simple. I am a nobody who studies the game more now than when I played as a kid. I am a nobody who plays better at age 45 than I did at age 21. I am a nobody with a Level 2 Tennis Coaching 'Degree'. I am a nobody who is finally beginning to understand the game after 32 years of playing it.
That's who I am.........
Regards Glenn
Wednesday, 17 December 2014
'BE ORIGINAL'
I will never forget when a parent once told me that she took her children from a tennis coaching program due to the lack of thought that went into the lessons. Now I cannot tell you where this was, in fact I am not sure myself, it was a while ago.
What I do remember however was the frustration in their description of it all, but it got me thinking about how a tennis lesson should be delivered. In fact she had two frustrations, as follows;
"I asked the coach why THEY weren't doing the lesson, they had their name on the flyer, all we got was a young kid who looked like they were following a piece of paper with instructions on it. The coach said "Well that's how the program is done, would you like your money back " ?
This is the situation that got me thinking, is this the way the game is supposedly taught ? Is it meant to be done all the same way without so much as an 'ad- lib' by either a qualified coach or an inexperienced assistant ? Is tennis a game that should be played and taught one way ?
Wayne Bryan's article which I shared on this site is brilliant as it spells it out in simple terms, the game needs originality.
Bjorn Borg's backhand would never have been as effective and unique as it was if he had listened to people who said it wasn't the 'right' way to hit it. It was a freakish type of shot and one that I have not seen replicated in the last 35 years. John McEnroe's serve was the same, it was simply unbelievably brilliant, and unique, all in one.
So why don't these freakish and unique type of shots exist now and why do most kids play the same ? Because THEY ARE TAUGHT THE SAME, with no originality. I remember once sending away for a video, yes a video, not a DVD, it was a while ago, on tennis drills. I figured that perhaps my own drills were not enough to keep an advanced squad in particular happy for a complete season. I watched the video, 250 drills, I used parts, yes PARTS of just five of them, the rest were complete garbage with no replication of actual match simulation.
I will not say where the video originated from but it was one that was done with many recommendations from it's governing body. So is this what the above mentioned coach meant when they said "Well that's how the program is done" ? Do coaches actually rely on a certain way to teach the game because they have no idea on how to think for themselves ?
When I first started to teach the game I was 18, I had been to Queensland and learned many, many drills so I 'tweaked' them from beginners to advanced. Many of my drills were the same drills for all ages but I simply changed the intensity and toughness of them to suit each group.
Some drills were a flop and with these I was brutally honest "Ok sorry guys, that was garbage, it's not working, let's just try something a little different ", words to that effect anyhow. I didn't play out the term with it, I flagged it after three minutes.
I did not do much by the book, I did it from memory, my days playing as a kid, what worked and what didn't ? What did I like about training as a kid and what did I hate ? Some days I would get a kid to feed a drill, "Come on Champ you have seen me hit a thousand balls to you, now it's your turn". So I would be a student, I would do my best to set the example, walk the walk, as they say.
One day I played a game with my advanced students called 'Beat the Coach', first to 100 points, it took maybe 20 minutes to complete, I was sweating like a pig by the end of it. I won by three points against some pretty handy kids, I never forget a score.
Now I know every coach has a game like that but I never saw it anywhere else, I improvised, experimented and 'tweaked' it until I made a game that simulated point play. All for just a can of soft drink, but the game wasn't about the drink. Some days I swear we saw some shots that if we had a Go Pro on them we may just have won 'shot of the year'.
The walk to the fridge by the 100 point winner at the end of the session was a walk of pride, a walk of fame, a walk of a kid who had won a game that commanded some ability to prevail. The day I won , well I gave the can of soft drink to the kid on 97 points, naturally, but I was chuffed, not just because I won but for my thinking outside the square.
I have seen that parent since, the one who took her children out of the program, her kids do not play tennis now days, a shame, she wanted them to learn the game. Originality in tennis ceased when big organizations took over and instructed new coaches to teach a certain way and follow certain programs, the ones that sound good and look busy. Most of these aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
One day I would love to see another Borg backhand and a Jonny Mac serve hit by a kid with a sense of thought for the game that typifies this chapter's heading. If you found a kid like that then they would be worth offering cut price lessons to. Do the sums, all of the best players of any decade owned something unique.
Chances are they also were nursed along by a 'Zen Master' with some original ideas.........
What I do remember however was the frustration in their description of it all, but it got me thinking about how a tennis lesson should be delivered. In fact she had two frustrations, as follows;
"I asked the coach why THEY weren't doing the lesson, they had their name on the flyer, all we got was a young kid who looked like they were following a piece of paper with instructions on it. The coach said "Well that's how the program is done, would you like your money back " ?
This is the situation that got me thinking, is this the way the game is supposedly taught ? Is it meant to be done all the same way without so much as an 'ad- lib' by either a qualified coach or an inexperienced assistant ? Is tennis a game that should be played and taught one way ?
Wayne Bryan's article which I shared on this site is brilliant as it spells it out in simple terms, the game needs originality.
Bjorn Borg's backhand would never have been as effective and unique as it was if he had listened to people who said it wasn't the 'right' way to hit it. It was a freakish type of shot and one that I have not seen replicated in the last 35 years. John McEnroe's serve was the same, it was simply unbelievably brilliant, and unique, all in one.
So why don't these freakish and unique type of shots exist now and why do most kids play the same ? Because THEY ARE TAUGHT THE SAME, with no originality. I remember once sending away for a video, yes a video, not a DVD, it was a while ago, on tennis drills. I figured that perhaps my own drills were not enough to keep an advanced squad in particular happy for a complete season. I watched the video, 250 drills, I used parts, yes PARTS of just five of them, the rest were complete garbage with no replication of actual match simulation.
I will not say where the video originated from but it was one that was done with many recommendations from it's governing body. So is this what the above mentioned coach meant when they said "Well that's how the program is done" ? Do coaches actually rely on a certain way to teach the game because they have no idea on how to think for themselves ?
When I first started to teach the game I was 18, I had been to Queensland and learned many, many drills so I 'tweaked' them from beginners to advanced. Many of my drills were the same drills for all ages but I simply changed the intensity and toughness of them to suit each group.
Some drills were a flop and with these I was brutally honest "Ok sorry guys, that was garbage, it's not working, let's just try something a little different ", words to that effect anyhow. I didn't play out the term with it, I flagged it after three minutes.
I did not do much by the book, I did it from memory, my days playing as a kid, what worked and what didn't ? What did I like about training as a kid and what did I hate ? Some days I would get a kid to feed a drill, "Come on Champ you have seen me hit a thousand balls to you, now it's your turn". So I would be a student, I would do my best to set the example, walk the walk, as they say.
One day I played a game with my advanced students called 'Beat the Coach', first to 100 points, it took maybe 20 minutes to complete, I was sweating like a pig by the end of it. I won by three points against some pretty handy kids, I never forget a score.
Now I know every coach has a game like that but I never saw it anywhere else, I improvised, experimented and 'tweaked' it until I made a game that simulated point play. All for just a can of soft drink, but the game wasn't about the drink. Some days I swear we saw some shots that if we had a Go Pro on them we may just have won 'shot of the year'.
The walk to the fridge by the 100 point winner at the end of the session was a walk of pride, a walk of fame, a walk of a kid who had won a game that commanded some ability to prevail. The day I won , well I gave the can of soft drink to the kid on 97 points, naturally, but I was chuffed, not just because I won but for my thinking outside the square.
I have seen that parent since, the one who took her children out of the program, her kids do not play tennis now days, a shame, she wanted them to learn the game. Originality in tennis ceased when big organizations took over and instructed new coaches to teach a certain way and follow certain programs, the ones that sound good and look busy. Most of these aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
One day I would love to see another Borg backhand and a Jonny Mac serve hit by a kid with a sense of thought for the game that typifies this chapter's heading. If you found a kid like that then they would be worth offering cut price lessons to. Do the sums, all of the best players of any decade owned something unique.
Chances are they also were nursed along by a 'Zen Master' with some original ideas.........
Sunday, 14 December 2014
'WORTH A READ' ( Tennis Australia and the USTA have much in common )
Tennis Game Changer Blog: Wayne Bryan on UST
Professional Development
Wayne Bryan (center) with sons Bob and Mike
In the spirit of dissenting opinion and the departure of former USTA head of professional development Patrick McEnroe, USTA Florida asked Wayne Bryan to share his vision on what direction USTA professional development should take.
By Wayne Bryan
What should be done with USTA Professional Development? If it was my say, it would be time for USTA PD to go.
They have overstayed their welcome. No results. No accountability. Bad feelings everywhere. Time to try something new. Let the private sector have a chance without USTA meddling and top-down authoritarianism.
This is America for crying out loud. Bottom up, not top down. I like and respect the grossly-overpaid people on the USTA PD staff, I am just against this system that has never worked and never will work. They have spent well north of $300 million. Where’s the results? Try that in the private sector and see what happens.
If USTA PD is to go on? The philosophy needs to change.
History has shown that champions come from the ground up and not the top down. Our greatest basketball players don’t come from a National Basketball Governing Body, they come from the streets — they play and learn at their local asphalt court.
The Beatles came from Liverpool, playing in their own garage and out on the street corner, not from being taught by the National Music Academy of England. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart became perhaps the greatest pianist and composer in history because he learned from his dad, who made the piano and music fun for him from age 3, and he was touring Europe playing concerts to packed royal halls at the tender age of 6. Note that he was not brought along by the National Music Governing Body of Austria. If he had been, the world would have never enjoyed the beautiful music of Mozart. No doubt.
Brian Wilson the famed musical writing and arranging genius of the Beach Boys came from my Hawthorne High School. Our musical director gave him an “F” for writing “Surfin’,” a song that the Beach Boys later recorded and it went on to sell millions of copies and led to their long and great and still-continuing musical legacy.
We cannot dictate greatness from on high. Greatness is passionate. It is creative. It is enthusiastic. It comes early. And it is relentlessly dedicated to playing and practicing each and every day and playing tournaments every weekend and team matches every week. Greatness learns from the past, but often does things in a new way. Greatness does things that have never been done before.
Jimmy did not play like Stan. John did not play like Jimmy. Pete did not play like John. Andre did not play like Pete. Andy did not play like Andre. Chrissie did not play like BJK. Tracy did play like Chrissie. Jennie Cap did not play like Tracy. Martina did not play like Chrissie. Lindsay did not play like Martina. Venus did not play like Lindsay. Serena did not play like Venus. McEnroe ‘n Fleming did not play like Smith ‘n Lutz. The Woodies did not play like Mc-Fleming. The Bryans did not play like the Woodies.
Greatness is not cookie cutter. It comes from Main Street, USA, not White Plains, NY.
I laugh to recall how five suits from USTA PD came out to Ventura County a while back and hosted a lunch meeting at a beautiful Westlake Village Hotel. The speakers from New York gave us a splendiferous Powerpoint presentation with lots of graphs and pie charts about the brilliance of their new U10 Program that featured a bewildering amount of colored soft balls that would soon have hundreds of thousands — even millions — of youngsters flocking to the game. There would be so many new juniors we were going to have to build more courts.
They told us how us hicks in SoCal had to coach and how we had to send our top players over to Carson when they became good. They would take them from there. White Plains was where the Wizard of Oz lived. They knew everything. We knew nothing.
When they wrapped up, they asked for questions from the audience. There were some very unhappy local coaches in the audience who had some very pointed questions.
At the very end, the coaches sorta looked over at me. I had promised myself I would keep my mouth shut. I couldn’t. I had to bestir myself and I rose to my feet and thanked the suits — most of them friends of mine — for their dedication to tennis and for their mind-boggling presentation.
Then I said that 3/4ths of the United States Davis Cup Team grew up playing within 12 miles of this hotel. “How many players on the US Davis Cup Team come from your White Plains area? The next time you come out here, maybe you want to study what we are doing out here with our juniors and not tell us how we have to do it. Not mandate to us. Learn about the Junior Team Tennis program that originated here; learn about our Ventura County Junior Tennis Association which hosts some 35 incubator junior tournaments within a 50 mile radius and that said ‘Hell no’ to your Green Ball Mandate and we continue to offer regulation yellow ball tournaments to our U10s; our USTA SoCal series of tournaments and other solid junior programming; and the junior programs these hard working and dedicated and excellent coaches have at their clubs and parks and schools.”
Despite the millions upon millions the USTA spent on 10 and Under Tennis, we have fewer kids playing in the 10s than ever. It has chilled U10 tennis in SoCal and across the country. Would Andy Roddick have wanted to play with soft green balls? The Bryan Brothers? The Williams Sisters?
Parents ask me everywhere I go in my travels across the country, “Coach Bryan, my child is fired up about tennis and has been playing with yellow balls since they were six and now that they want to play tournaments as an 8 or 9 year old, should I have them go back to playing with soft Green Balls or play up in the 12s and get kicked by the bigger and older and more experienced kids?”
That is where the rubber meets the road and after all my years in junior tennis, college tennis and pro tennis, I have no answer to that Hobbesian Choice.
We have the Alice in Wonderland situation out here in SoCal now where lots of 10s are playing up in the 12s and the 12s don’t want to play the 10s so they play up in the 14s.
We have the situation where young players play with regulation balls all week in their workouts and practice matches and then when they go to their U10 Tournament on the weekend, they are forced to play with soft Green Balls.
More and more I am hearing of parents simply taking regular balls and asking the opponent if they would rather play with them.
Is this any way to run a railroad?
We have fewer men and women in the Top 100 in the world than ever. We have fewer America kids playing college tennis than any time in our history. USTA PD, despite huge salaries for our execs and coaches, despite millions of dollars being spent, has been spectacularly unsuccessful.
If we’re going to move forward with USTA PD we need to:
- Get rid of the top-down management style. The arrogance. The “we know better than you.”
- We need to value and appreciate coaches all over the country. We need to empower them. Thank them. Encourage them. Same with parents. Rather than getting rid of the influence of local parents and coaches, we need to appreciate them. Every great player in American history came from a great local coach or parent or mentor or all three. The great players we have had all came from a good home-tennis situation.
- We gotta have more fun and more team tennis. Less top-down and heavy-handed coaching and more programming and exciting events. More Jr. Team Tennis, more Zonals team play, more Intersectionals team play. More doubles.
- More socialization. More social events during the tournament, BBQs, trips to amusement parks, miniature golf, bowling, movies, dances, talent shows, inner-tube rides down rivers. More t-shirts, more bells and whistles. More fun.
- Fix the broken USTA national tournament schedule. USTA PD cut down all our great and long-standing “Redwood Tournaments” — the Fiesta Bowl, Copper Bowl, the Westerns, the Southerns, the Texas Open. The 12s Nationals in San Diego was a wonderful tournament with all kinds of bells and whistles. They ripped it out by the roots never to return. What a massive loss to Amercan junior tennis.
- Fix the broken rankings system. It is no longer accurate. No longer fair. We need less points per round and more Star Computer System with required minimums that rewards the quality of the win or loss.
- We need a much, much better USTA web site at both the sectionals and national level. It has got to sing. It has got to have bells and whistles. Lots of names and pictures and immediate results. Immediate and accurate rankings. Look at the ATP web site.
- We need to give more love and support to high school and middle school tennis. We need a High School National Championship held during the second week of the US Open. The top team from each state. Have some regionals and the top four teams come to the US Open. Akin to the Little League playoffs system. Playoffs drive all major sports. Creates massive enthusiasm!
- Stop messing with the college format, and return it to AMERICAN college tennis. College tennis needs more love, more local kids taken on trips to see college matches, to get inspired. And we have to address the elephant in the room, the fact that more international students play U.S. college tennis than Americans now. We have lost some 400 programs over the past few decades because when athletic directors look to eliminate programs, they see tennis programs that are mostly international players. U.S. college tennis should be for U.S. kids — why are American tax payers footing the bill for $60+ million in foreign player scholarships?
- Spread out the courts. The USTA is building a 100-court complex in Orlando? Huh? “Hey Joey — you go out to court #93 and practice.” Ugggh. We need 10 courts built in 10 key communities. Or five courts built in 20 key communities. Tennis needs way more warm incubators, not some big ol’ sterile concrete laboratory.
- More doubles tournaments for juniors. Adults love doubles. Juniors love doubles. Some kids just love the team thing, and it gives them a second chance at tournaments. There are more smiles on the doubles court. It rounds out skills. It teaches additional life lessons. We need to run the doubles rankings up the flag pole and promote them on a much improved national WEB Site. More mixed doubles for juniors too! Mixed is a wonderful part of our sport and tennis is one of the few sports that has an important coed part to it. We need to cherish that and use it!! Kids love it and it teaches a whole ‘nother set of life lessons.
- No USTA national coaches, but more coaches conferences where regional and local coaches come together to share ideas, drills, insights. Not to be pontificated to by national coaches. Leave coaching to the private sector. It has always worked in the past and will work again.
- The head of USTA PD should not be paid $1.2 million, and they should not use it as a part-time job or have other jobs at the same time, and he or she should go around the country and learn from good programs and good coaches.
- Less mandates. If someone uses red balls or green balls or purple balls or polka dot balls that is fine. If someone wants to bring kids along with yellow balls, that should be fine too. If one Section wants to have U10 Green Ball Tournaments and U10 Yellow Ball Tournaments side by side that is just fine.
In the end, I say get rid of USTA PD altogether. After spending over $300 million on USTA PD with one regime after another and mandate after mandate and minefield after minefield with nothing to show for it, it is time to go in a completely new direction. Like John Lennon sang, “All we are saying, is give peace a chance.” All I am saying is, give the private sector a chance.
Saturday, 13 December 2014
'UNUSUAL'
In 2013 Lleyton Hewitt won the John Newcombe Medal for 'best performed Australian tennis player' yet he did nothing, won nothing, in fact I won more than Lleyton in 2013. Nick Kyrgios rose around 500 places from memory in the same year and Barty and Dellacqua made three of four Grand Slam Doubles finals. Their efforts were overlooked.
This year Kyrgios won the medal though if you look carefully at Dellacqua's year it may just have been on a par with Kyrgios's. So what does it all mean ?
Tennis Australia are a year behind with their assessment.
Next year Dellacqua will claim the medal as it's all about playing catch up with an organization such as Tennis Australia. Never mind what's happening at the moment, it's irrelevant.
Never mind Casey, have 2015 off, the medal is coming your way regardless........
Fair dinkum........
The year in review by GT, another funny year in this Country in the sport that we call tennis......
This year Kyrgios won the medal though if you look carefully at Dellacqua's year it may just have been on a par with Kyrgios's. So what does it all mean ?
Tennis Australia are a year behind with their assessment.
Next year Dellacqua will claim the medal as it's all about playing catch up with an organization such as Tennis Australia. Never mind what's happening at the moment, it's irrelevant.
Never mind Casey, have 2015 off, the medal is coming your way regardless........
Fair dinkum........
The year in review by GT, another funny year in this Country in the sport that we call tennis......
Thursday, 11 December 2014
'TENNIS, A CHANGING GAME'
Bob Dylan in 1964 released the song 'The Times They Are A- changing', an all time classic with some educational lyrics. There is a verse with the words 'Come mothers and fathers throughout the land, don't criticize what you can't understand'.
I liken the song and that verse in particular to a sport that I at times shake my head in disbelief at the way in which it is now played, coached and officiated.
When Bob Dylan released that classic hit in 1964 the great Australian Roy Emerson won three of the four Grand Slams of the year. Only Manuel Santana of Spain prevented Emerson from taking out all four majors with a win in Paris while the Australian was knocked out in the quarter finals. Unlike the above lyrics I will in fact criticize several things that I can't understand as I see the sport turning into some sort of circus, plenty of clowns.
I will start with the towel, yes the towel was introduced to the game by someone who obviously thought about the rules in detail and how to exploit them. With 25 seconds between points up for offer there is time to 'go the towel' and sure after a 40 shot rally it perhaps is warranted.
So what about an ace ? Why do players go the towel after being aced ? Is that a chance to do the sums and try to work out where it's going next or is it just habit ? What's wrong with a sweat band ? Surely Roy Emerson in '64 was happy to 'go the sleeve' or use the sweatband after a long rally. I wonder what the great man thinks when he watches the game now days.
I find it interesting that the ball kids are now part of the whole routine, their job now is not just confined to chasing tennis balls, on the contrary. They must keep their eyes on the player just as much as the ball, their jobs are a little more complicated now. When the player issues that arrogant finger and points at the towel, well the player must be obeyed. So do I have a suggestion ? Make the player fetch his own towel.
I am a little uncertain of 'injury' time outs as 'injuries' often disappear throughout the course of a tennis match after a quick rub down with some glossy fluid and a firm hand. I think though that we all know if an injury is 'legitimate' then a quick rub really won't do much but Victoria Azarenka took the whole process to new dizzy heights.
Yes in 2013 at the Aussie Open the screamer from Belarus took 'injury' time out to a new level of incompetence. She did so with around 10 minutes of 'regrouping' apparently under the watchful eyes of Tennis Australia Officialdom.
What many would still like to know however is why wasn't she disqualified for her time wasting ? As Azarenka herself admitted "I almost did the choke of the year". Now the reason I question Tennis Oz is this, THREE minutes are allowed for an 'injury' time out.
Apparently Azarenka had two injuries so that should add up to SIX minutes of treatment, not TEN. Why was she allowed a further 4 minutes ? And I apologize for my continual inverted comma's (' .....') however I am 45, never been injured and never used one as an excuse either as a loss, for poor form or to not turn up at all. ( Many do )
Now to my favorite part of the game, 'coaching' and as you can see I also use the inverted comma's due largely to the fact that 'coaching' now days has many perceptions. It doesn't matter what skills you have, it doesn't matter if you can even play or explain the game, what matters is how you present yourself.
If you are 'LOUD' ( with your clothing, gimmicks and magnetic car signs plus your many 'likes' on your Face book pages ) then it's a done deal, you must be 'respected' and dollars thrown at you. A Zen Master you must be.
Here's an example for you that I find rather interesting to say the least.
I read somewhere that a tennis coach once went to the extraordinary lengths of painting his house the colors of his least favorite football team. This apparently came about due to a 'bet' between himself and a student. I believe that this was in fact referred to by this coach as 'walking the walk'. Personally I disagree.
If you 'walk the walk' in tennis you simply show your 'expertise' by playing the game, nothing more nothing less.
You can come out with as many gimmicks as you like in the sport of tennis but please don't resort to publicity stunts to gain popularity. Results in the end will speak volumes, gimmicks are a dime a dozen and as a great man once said: 'Arrogance needs advertising, confidence speaks for itself '.
A strange game now days is tennis, I am sure Roy Emerson would be happy to offer some advice on just where tennis needs a 'tweak'.
Get rid of the towel and the 'injury' time outs, play the game without the gamesmanship and teach the game without the gimmicks. Make officialdom accountable for players' actions and be brave enough to make a decision regardless of who the player is.
Roy Emerson and Bob Dylan 'talked the talk' and 'walked the walk' in 1964 with their own unique styles that required nothing but a racket, a guitar and some talent. The times, well they are a-changing but we don't all have to play 'follow the leader'.......
I liken the song and that verse in particular to a sport that I at times shake my head in disbelief at the way in which it is now played, coached and officiated.
When Bob Dylan released that classic hit in 1964 the great Australian Roy Emerson won three of the four Grand Slams of the year. Only Manuel Santana of Spain prevented Emerson from taking out all four majors with a win in Paris while the Australian was knocked out in the quarter finals. Unlike the above lyrics I will in fact criticize several things that I can't understand as I see the sport turning into some sort of circus, plenty of clowns.
I will start with the towel, yes the towel was introduced to the game by someone who obviously thought about the rules in detail and how to exploit them. With 25 seconds between points up for offer there is time to 'go the towel' and sure after a 40 shot rally it perhaps is warranted.
So what about an ace ? Why do players go the towel after being aced ? Is that a chance to do the sums and try to work out where it's going next or is it just habit ? What's wrong with a sweat band ? Surely Roy Emerson in '64 was happy to 'go the sleeve' or use the sweatband after a long rally. I wonder what the great man thinks when he watches the game now days.
I find it interesting that the ball kids are now part of the whole routine, their job now is not just confined to chasing tennis balls, on the contrary. They must keep their eyes on the player just as much as the ball, their jobs are a little more complicated now. When the player issues that arrogant finger and points at the towel, well the player must be obeyed. So do I have a suggestion ? Make the player fetch his own towel.
I am a little uncertain of 'injury' time outs as 'injuries' often disappear throughout the course of a tennis match after a quick rub down with some glossy fluid and a firm hand. I think though that we all know if an injury is 'legitimate' then a quick rub really won't do much but Victoria Azarenka took the whole process to new dizzy heights.
Yes in 2013 at the Aussie Open the screamer from Belarus took 'injury' time out to a new level of incompetence. She did so with around 10 minutes of 'regrouping' apparently under the watchful eyes of Tennis Australia Officialdom.
What many would still like to know however is why wasn't she disqualified for her time wasting ? As Azarenka herself admitted "I almost did the choke of the year". Now the reason I question Tennis Oz is this, THREE minutes are allowed for an 'injury' time out.
Apparently Azarenka had two injuries so that should add up to SIX minutes of treatment, not TEN. Why was she allowed a further 4 minutes ? And I apologize for my continual inverted comma's (' .....') however I am 45, never been injured and never used one as an excuse either as a loss, for poor form or to not turn up at all. ( Many do )
Now to my favorite part of the game, 'coaching' and as you can see I also use the inverted comma's due largely to the fact that 'coaching' now days has many perceptions. It doesn't matter what skills you have, it doesn't matter if you can even play or explain the game, what matters is how you present yourself.
If you are 'LOUD' ( with your clothing, gimmicks and magnetic car signs plus your many 'likes' on your Face book pages ) then it's a done deal, you must be 'respected' and dollars thrown at you. A Zen Master you must be.
Here's an example for you that I find rather interesting to say the least.
I read somewhere that a tennis coach once went to the extraordinary lengths of painting his house the colors of his least favorite football team. This apparently came about due to a 'bet' between himself and a student. I believe that this was in fact referred to by this coach as 'walking the walk'. Personally I disagree.
If you 'walk the walk' in tennis you simply show your 'expertise' by playing the game, nothing more nothing less.
You can come out with as many gimmicks as you like in the sport of tennis but please don't resort to publicity stunts to gain popularity. Results in the end will speak volumes, gimmicks are a dime a dozen and as a great man once said: 'Arrogance needs advertising, confidence speaks for itself '.
A strange game now days is tennis, I am sure Roy Emerson would be happy to offer some advice on just where tennis needs a 'tweak'.
Get rid of the towel and the 'injury' time outs, play the game without the gamesmanship and teach the game without the gimmicks. Make officialdom accountable for players' actions and be brave enough to make a decision regardless of who the player is.
Roy Emerson and Bob Dylan 'talked the talk' and 'walked the walk' in 1964 with their own unique styles that required nothing but a racket, a guitar and some talent. The times, well they are a-changing but we don't all have to play 'follow the leader'.......
Monday, 8 December 2014
'TENNIS IQ' ( Intelligence Quotient )
The intelligence of Professional Tennis Players has always been thrown up as far as questions go in relation to how they go about their day to day business on court. A player of Roger Federer's intelligence has never been questioned because quite frankly he is a genius.
This isn't just confined to a tennis court, he speaks no fewer than five languages.
His post match interviews are also legendary, some are hilarious. I recall a Journalist once asking him was he excited about a certain situation that unfortunately eludes me at the moment, but I remember the answer. "I am so excited I have trouble living with myself". The thing with Roger is that he says things with a straight face a lot of the time, he is sharp witted and never stuck for an answer.
My earliest memories of watching tennis were guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors and Geruilatis but post match interviews were not often seen, no You Tube back then. So you had to just work out what sort of human beings they were through their play and mannerisms.
Trying to work out Borg wasn't easy as he had the same look on his face at one all in the first as he did at four all in the fifth. And what about when the Swedish Champion missed a shot ? Where was the frustration? Was this guy actually human after all ? In reference to that a fellow Pro did actually once say "They should send Borg to another planet. We play tennis, he plays something else".
Unfortunately we never really saw Borg much when he retired as unlike many he did not feel the urge to become a tennis commentator or analyst. A shame, he would perhaps have been brilliant as his play was so clever.
Mac was pretty easy to work out on court, a man striving for perfection on every shot, every point and when he didn't receive the desired result well Jonny misbehaved badly. His abuse of officials also was legendary, so much so that I once saw on You Tube 'Mac's Top Ten Arguments', worth a look and a few laughs.
The difference back then however to now with Mac is that there is an intelligence from him when commentating matches that is nothing short of brilliant. His brother is the same, well spoken and quick to offer analysis on what is happening in a match. I remember John once saying that a certain type of passing shot was 'the shot of the 90's'. From memory it was a Michael Chang high looping ball that made the opposition not only stretch wide but at an uncomfortable height also.
Many commentators would simply accept it as a 'great shot' but Mac saw the difference in styles over the years transforming in front of him and pointed it out. I love listening to Mac, tennis genius.
I have never heard Connors commentate but I have seen some funny things from him, an entertainer and one of the most fierce competitors ever to play tennis. His book is a great read, he is intelligent enough to be a great commentator I have no doubt.
I was fortunate enough to see Gerulaitis do some interviewing and commentary after he retired, an intelligent man with a good working relationship with the new generation. In fact I once saw him interview an 18 year old Andre Agassi, entertaining, one of his last before his passing.
My favourite player Mats Wilander is not only a brilliant tennis commentator and analyst of the game but a very clever tennis coach. He has not only spent time with players such as Marat Safin but now takes his coaching to tennis resorts around the US. I have seen many of the sessions he does as they are uploaded on You Tube regularly and his take on the game is brilliant.
If you look however at all of the above mentioned players they are all so different in their personalities, on and off court as were their styles. Mac had possibly the greatest net game of all time, Borg just came in to shake hands whereas Wilander had a mix of base line play as well as a regular net advance behind good approaches. And Federer, well the Fed's game as we all know is so complete it is almost ridiculously perfect.
Off court though they all are so outrageously clever in their assessment of tennis that it is a joy to hear them talk about it. Sometimes, whether it be a past or present champion you just wonder where on earth their intelligence for the game comes from. Were they born with it or did they study it ?
I don't believe there are many 'dumb' tennis players, not back then, not now, it is too complex a sport to harbor 'imbeciles'. That now is confined to the teaching of the sport. It doesn't matter what level of play it is, 'coaches' of tennis are simply 'cannon fodder' for intelligent tennis players. To simplify that statement, a good player will see through a not so intelligent 'coach'.
"Hey Coach I am moving on, things aren't really working out ". A polite way of saying "You are an imbecile who knows very little".
The IQ of a Professional Tennis Player should never be questioned but some simply have a higher one than others. That's why some, such as the Swiss genius can afford to build mansions overlooking the lake that take a 'poultry' $6.5 Mil out of the never ending bank account. If you are clever enough to be his coach like Mr Edberg well you may receive a tidy cut from the earnings.
And speaking of Stefan Edberg, now there's a man who knows how to make $$$. A brilliant tennis player turned Businessman who owns a Stockbroking Firm in Sweden who now helps out the greatest player there perhaps has ever been. Some are blessed with intelligence in Tennis and life........
This isn't just confined to a tennis court, he speaks no fewer than five languages.
His post match interviews are also legendary, some are hilarious. I recall a Journalist once asking him was he excited about a certain situation that unfortunately eludes me at the moment, but I remember the answer. "I am so excited I have trouble living with myself". The thing with Roger is that he says things with a straight face a lot of the time, he is sharp witted and never stuck for an answer.
My earliest memories of watching tennis were guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors and Geruilatis but post match interviews were not often seen, no You Tube back then. So you had to just work out what sort of human beings they were through their play and mannerisms.
Trying to work out Borg wasn't easy as he had the same look on his face at one all in the first as he did at four all in the fifth. And what about when the Swedish Champion missed a shot ? Where was the frustration? Was this guy actually human after all ? In reference to that a fellow Pro did actually once say "They should send Borg to another planet. We play tennis, he plays something else".
Unfortunately we never really saw Borg much when he retired as unlike many he did not feel the urge to become a tennis commentator or analyst. A shame, he would perhaps have been brilliant as his play was so clever.
Mac was pretty easy to work out on court, a man striving for perfection on every shot, every point and when he didn't receive the desired result well Jonny misbehaved badly. His abuse of officials also was legendary, so much so that I once saw on You Tube 'Mac's Top Ten Arguments', worth a look and a few laughs.
The difference back then however to now with Mac is that there is an intelligence from him when commentating matches that is nothing short of brilliant. His brother is the same, well spoken and quick to offer analysis on what is happening in a match. I remember John once saying that a certain type of passing shot was 'the shot of the 90's'. From memory it was a Michael Chang high looping ball that made the opposition not only stretch wide but at an uncomfortable height also.
Many commentators would simply accept it as a 'great shot' but Mac saw the difference in styles over the years transforming in front of him and pointed it out. I love listening to Mac, tennis genius.
I have never heard Connors commentate but I have seen some funny things from him, an entertainer and one of the most fierce competitors ever to play tennis. His book is a great read, he is intelligent enough to be a great commentator I have no doubt.
I was fortunate enough to see Gerulaitis do some interviewing and commentary after he retired, an intelligent man with a good working relationship with the new generation. In fact I once saw him interview an 18 year old Andre Agassi, entertaining, one of his last before his passing.
My favourite player Mats Wilander is not only a brilliant tennis commentator and analyst of the game but a very clever tennis coach. He has not only spent time with players such as Marat Safin but now takes his coaching to tennis resorts around the US. I have seen many of the sessions he does as they are uploaded on You Tube regularly and his take on the game is brilliant.
If you look however at all of the above mentioned players they are all so different in their personalities, on and off court as were their styles. Mac had possibly the greatest net game of all time, Borg just came in to shake hands whereas Wilander had a mix of base line play as well as a regular net advance behind good approaches. And Federer, well the Fed's game as we all know is so complete it is almost ridiculously perfect.
Off court though they all are so outrageously clever in their assessment of tennis that it is a joy to hear them talk about it. Sometimes, whether it be a past or present champion you just wonder where on earth their intelligence for the game comes from. Were they born with it or did they study it ?
I don't believe there are many 'dumb' tennis players, not back then, not now, it is too complex a sport to harbor 'imbeciles'. That now is confined to the teaching of the sport. It doesn't matter what level of play it is, 'coaches' of tennis are simply 'cannon fodder' for intelligent tennis players. To simplify that statement, a good player will see through a not so intelligent 'coach'.
"Hey Coach I am moving on, things aren't really working out ". A polite way of saying "You are an imbecile who knows very little".
The IQ of a Professional Tennis Player should never be questioned but some simply have a higher one than others. That's why some, such as the Swiss genius can afford to build mansions overlooking the lake that take a 'poultry' $6.5 Mil out of the never ending bank account. If you are clever enough to be his coach like Mr Edberg well you may receive a tidy cut from the earnings.
And speaking of Stefan Edberg, now there's a man who knows how to make $$$. A brilliant tennis player turned Businessman who owns a Stockbroking Firm in Sweden who now helps out the greatest player there perhaps has ever been. Some are blessed with intelligence in Tennis and life........
Saturday, 6 December 2014
'INTERNATIONAL PREMIER TENNIS LEAGUE'
A great concept is the IPTL as it spices tennis up, long overdue. Tennis can get a little dreary especially at the Grand Slams due to the repetitive nature of the scoring system. The thing I have always disliked about tennis is the lack of reward for great shots.
A player can come up with a 'tweener' screamer or a volley hit from around his back for a winner that surely deserves a bit more than a scratch on the score card. If the above mentioned happens in tennis it can go unnoticed unless it's perhaps on game point for the player who is clever enough to hit it.
I designed my own tournament in my home town of Albany Western Australia around ten years ago that had a unique system of scoring. I felt it was about time it received a 'tweak' for the better. The format was not unlike the Hopman Cup that is played in our capital City each year, teams of two, one doubles match and two singles.
My idea however was to play the doubles match first, one set of short deuce games, first to seven. If it got to six all then the tie breaker was a race, first to 7 points only. This was then followed by two mini singles matches.
These were first to 10 points, if it reached 9-9 the next point won the match. These matches were a short taste of singles, a ten minute match, just enough to wet the appetite of a singles enthusiast without the usual physical demands of singles.
If your team won the doubles with a score of seven games to five well quite simply your team received seven points, the opposition five. If you won your mini singles match 10-7 then you received those points as did the opposition and so on with the other singles match. A typical score card would read; 7-4 (doubles), 10-6 (first singles), 5-10 (second singles). That gave a score of 22 for Team A and 20 for Team B, a two point ball game where every point and every game counted.
From memory we added two bonus points for a match win, a small reward for getting over the line that may have made the difference at the end of the day. We had plenty of juniors playing in Division B and C and the points format kept them in the contest until the final match. Each division had eight teams, so each team played seven matches. There was no packing the bags after a first round loss.
The top two teams in each Division then played off in a final of the same format and it made for some remarkably close matches. One from memory came down to the final point of the second singles match, entertaining to say the least. That was simply a way of tweaking the local tennis scene's way of presenting the usual 'ho hum' type of tournament with a 'ho hum' way of scoring. I call it 'thinking outside the square'.
I believe that the IPTL is thinking outside the square at last in a sport that has needed a boost in the way in which it delivered it's format.
Watching Grand Slam matches where some games went to deuce seven times can quite often become the cause of channel switching. This is especially the case for those viewers keen on a result as opposed to the die hard tennis fan.
If I had a choice on watching 50 over cricket matches or the 20/20 I would watch the latter any day of the week.
And what of those advantage sets at Wimbledon, the Australian Open and in Paris where some matches reach 14-14 in the fifth ? Zzzzzzzzzzz.
I believe that the ITPL has the game right where it should be, a spectacle, one that is a shortened format where going to sleep or channel switching is not an option. It should have happened a long time ago, the game has long been in need of a different scoring structure.
So that's my take on the new tournament at the time where most players would be taking a break from the game so what does it tell you of their mind set ? At last, something fresh, a way to enjoy the game without the intensity and physical demands of the usual structure that at times can be likened to watching marathon runners do 40 kilometers. Zzzzzzzzzz again.......
So to my Tournament ? Haven't played it in years. The local Association is more interested in 'ho hum' tournaments and Committee Members apparently know best. I did in fact try to get it up and running again a year ago and I didn't think I was asking for too much.
I put the idea to four hugely successful local Businesses for just $150 sponsorship each and a chance to be involved in something new but it was just way too hard for all of them. Life's like that......
A name ? I called it 'The Super Tie Breaker Tournament', I felt it had a good sound to it. A mate of mine actually referred to it as 'The Thompson Cup', that was flattering. It may never happen again but I am glad it was once played and I am also glad it was something designed to give the game a face lift.
If nothing else I would like to think that as a coach, player and tennis fan I do actually think outside the square, just as the brains trust behind the IPTL have done. Thank goodness for originality.........
A player can come up with a 'tweener' screamer or a volley hit from around his back for a winner that surely deserves a bit more than a scratch on the score card. If the above mentioned happens in tennis it can go unnoticed unless it's perhaps on game point for the player who is clever enough to hit it.
I designed my own tournament in my home town of Albany Western Australia around ten years ago that had a unique system of scoring. I felt it was about time it received a 'tweak' for the better. The format was not unlike the Hopman Cup that is played in our capital City each year, teams of two, one doubles match and two singles.
My idea however was to play the doubles match first, one set of short deuce games, first to seven. If it got to six all then the tie breaker was a race, first to 7 points only. This was then followed by two mini singles matches.
These were first to 10 points, if it reached 9-9 the next point won the match. These matches were a short taste of singles, a ten minute match, just enough to wet the appetite of a singles enthusiast without the usual physical demands of singles.
If your team won the doubles with a score of seven games to five well quite simply your team received seven points, the opposition five. If you won your mini singles match 10-7 then you received those points as did the opposition and so on with the other singles match. A typical score card would read; 7-4 (doubles), 10-6 (first singles), 5-10 (second singles). That gave a score of 22 for Team A and 20 for Team B, a two point ball game where every point and every game counted.
From memory we added two bonus points for a match win, a small reward for getting over the line that may have made the difference at the end of the day. We had plenty of juniors playing in Division B and C and the points format kept them in the contest until the final match. Each division had eight teams, so each team played seven matches. There was no packing the bags after a first round loss.
The top two teams in each Division then played off in a final of the same format and it made for some remarkably close matches. One from memory came down to the final point of the second singles match, entertaining to say the least. That was simply a way of tweaking the local tennis scene's way of presenting the usual 'ho hum' type of tournament with a 'ho hum' way of scoring. I call it 'thinking outside the square'.
I believe that the IPTL is thinking outside the square at last in a sport that has needed a boost in the way in which it delivered it's format.
Watching Grand Slam matches where some games went to deuce seven times can quite often become the cause of channel switching. This is especially the case for those viewers keen on a result as opposed to the die hard tennis fan.
If I had a choice on watching 50 over cricket matches or the 20/20 I would watch the latter any day of the week.
And what of those advantage sets at Wimbledon, the Australian Open and in Paris where some matches reach 14-14 in the fifth ? Zzzzzzzzzzz.
I believe that the ITPL has the game right where it should be, a spectacle, one that is a shortened format where going to sleep or channel switching is not an option. It should have happened a long time ago, the game has long been in need of a different scoring structure.
So that's my take on the new tournament at the time where most players would be taking a break from the game so what does it tell you of their mind set ? At last, something fresh, a way to enjoy the game without the intensity and physical demands of the usual structure that at times can be likened to watching marathon runners do 40 kilometers. Zzzzzzzzzz again.......
So to my Tournament ? Haven't played it in years. The local Association is more interested in 'ho hum' tournaments and Committee Members apparently know best. I did in fact try to get it up and running again a year ago and I didn't think I was asking for too much.
I put the idea to four hugely successful local Businesses for just $150 sponsorship each and a chance to be involved in something new but it was just way too hard for all of them. Life's like that......
A name ? I called it 'The Super Tie Breaker Tournament', I felt it had a good sound to it. A mate of mine actually referred to it as 'The Thompson Cup', that was flattering. It may never happen again but I am glad it was once played and I am also glad it was something designed to give the game a face lift.
If nothing else I would like to think that as a coach, player and tennis fan I do actually think outside the square, just as the brains trust behind the IPTL have done. Thank goodness for originality.........
Friday, 5 December 2014
'THE WALL AND THE COURT' Part 13
I saw another kid play in Perth in 1985 who was also a remarkably gifted tennis player, Jamie Holmes. From Victoria I believe, Holmes partnered Kilderry in doubles in another junior championship. Now from memory in this particular tournament Holmes beat Kilderry easily in the final of the boys 14's, 6-2, 6-2, almost certain of the score.
What was so bizarre about this win was that Holmes was also only 12 years old at the time. Most 14 year old's struggled to beat Kilderry, even some 16 year old's so for a 12 year old to do so and with such ease was rather outrageous.
Kilderry and Holmes won the doubles so easily it was ridiculous. Watching kids play with that sort of ability was entertaining and these two always played up at least one age group, sometimes two. They were simply way too good in their actual age group. Their shot selection at age 12 was remarkable to say the least.
These two along with Sterzl who I was lucky enough to play were amongst the best kids in Australia for their age, all from different States. Kilderry was from Perth, Sterzl from Adelaide and I believe Holmes was from Victoria, no relation to my coach Peter Holmes.
My last tournament in Western Australia before I headed to Queensland was a junior tournament at the Reabold Tennis Club in Floreat, Perth. I made the last 16 of the boys 16 age group and the last 8 of the Boys 18's.
I remember my win over Marcus Keizer in the round of 16, my Fremantle conqueror. I won 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 but I would have given that back to have the Fremantle Championship, such is life.
I lost in the quarter's against a giant by the name of Eugene Simkovic who owned a missile for a serve. He beat me comfortably 4 and 1, tough to get enough serves back to beat guys like Eugene.
Back in the 80's we had State rankings that were pretty easy to look up, now days it seems there are just Australian Rankings, a bit harder to work out. With points accumulated in the boys 16's age group I left Western Australia with a ranking of 7.
I am uncertain of the boys 18's age group but I had made a semi plus a quarter in the space of a few months so I suppose I had a ranking of something. I wasn't that obsessed with a ranking as some were and are now but it gave an indication that you were matching it with some good players.
My Parents thought perhaps full time tennis training in Queensland would get my tennis obsession fulfilled one way or the other. That's where I headed as a 16 year old, Brisbane, the Sunshine Capital of Australia to hit tennis balls up to 6 hours a day.
No point in being at school any longer if I left most lunch times to go play tennis.......
Chapter 14, Brisbane, on it's way....
What was so bizarre about this win was that Holmes was also only 12 years old at the time. Most 14 year old's struggled to beat Kilderry, even some 16 year old's so for a 12 year old to do so and with such ease was rather outrageous.
Kilderry and Holmes won the doubles so easily it was ridiculous. Watching kids play with that sort of ability was entertaining and these two always played up at least one age group, sometimes two. They were simply way too good in their actual age group. Their shot selection at age 12 was remarkable to say the least.
These two along with Sterzl who I was lucky enough to play were amongst the best kids in Australia for their age, all from different States. Kilderry was from Perth, Sterzl from Adelaide and I believe Holmes was from Victoria, no relation to my coach Peter Holmes.
My last tournament in Western Australia before I headed to Queensland was a junior tournament at the Reabold Tennis Club in Floreat, Perth. I made the last 16 of the boys 16 age group and the last 8 of the Boys 18's.
I remember my win over Marcus Keizer in the round of 16, my Fremantle conqueror. I won 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 but I would have given that back to have the Fremantle Championship, such is life.
I lost in the quarter's against a giant by the name of Eugene Simkovic who owned a missile for a serve. He beat me comfortably 4 and 1, tough to get enough serves back to beat guys like Eugene.
Back in the 80's we had State rankings that were pretty easy to look up, now days it seems there are just Australian Rankings, a bit harder to work out. With points accumulated in the boys 16's age group I left Western Australia with a ranking of 7.
I am uncertain of the boys 18's age group but I had made a semi plus a quarter in the space of a few months so I suppose I had a ranking of something. I wasn't that obsessed with a ranking as some were and are now but it gave an indication that you were matching it with some good players.
My Parents thought perhaps full time tennis training in Queensland would get my tennis obsession fulfilled one way or the other. That's where I headed as a 16 year old, Brisbane, the Sunshine Capital of Australia to hit tennis balls up to 6 hours a day.
No point in being at school any longer if I left most lunch times to go play tennis.......
Chapter 14, Brisbane, on it's way....
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
'THE WALL AND THE COURT' Part 11
The City of Fremantle Junior Championships in 1984 was a chance to right some wrongs, to try to put the finishing touches on a match. It had been something that I had difficulty doing against the State's best players.
Unbeknown to me I had gained some ranking points in enough tournaments and came into the Fremantle Championship with a seeding in the boys 16's. I finally felt as though I belonged on court with the City's best juniors, after all my ranking supposedly confirmed this.
I had gone to the board to check the draw after the long drive from Albany with Dad and much to my surprise I saw my name with a Number 7 next to it.
I did the sums; 'Ok i have a good draw, I can get to the last 8, that will look good on my resume'. I also entered the boys 18 and under for a bit of match practice, nothing more, nothing less. I would be cannon fodder, no risk.
The grass courts at the Fremantle Tennis Club were surprisingly hard however, I noticed the even bounce after a short hit with a mate. Perhaps it would be kind to my predominantly base line game, I could only hope. I do not remember who I beat in my first two matches of the 16's but I was in the Quarter's, the spot I had hoped I would make it to, I was to play Tim Scott.
Now I had met Tim at a Tennis Camp at a College in Perth where many of the State's junior players from both the country and city were invited to rub shoulders, great concept. I remember meeting Tim and his best buddy, doubles partner Andrew Sanders, great blokes. I got to know these two pretty well over the course of the five day live in camp at a Perth College. I hit with them each day and got to know their games'.
Both had a serve and volley game and were a good doubles unit, tough to pass once they got to the net. I remember they were seeded number 1 for doubles, Tim 5 for singles and Andrew 3, both on my side of the draw. I knew I would have to get past both if I wanted a crack at the title.
Now to cut a long story short, I trailed Tim 4-6, 4-5, 30-40, I wasn't playing bad, just getting outplayed by someone who was exploiting my base line game on a surface that suited a good volleyer. I saved the match point, won the second in a tie break and belted him 6-1 in the third. Good match and good come back.
My effort in the 18's singles was rather crazy though as I made it to the last 8 as an unseeded player, I was playing with a never before experienced confidence, I don't know why.
My Quarter Final against the number 3 seed Tim Burrows was a match I will remember for two things, my confidence and my reluctance to call a line. At 6-3, 5-1 and match point to me I received a shot from Tim that was a foot out, I didn't call it, I played it and lost the point. It rattled me and Tim came back to 4-5 but I managed to serve it out. I believe that to this day I wanted to win on match point, not call a ball out for the right to shake hands as the winner.
I respected Burrows and his high ranking, I almost felt embarrassed to be leading him so comfortably. After all I was just a country kid who probably was hitting against a wall while the city players were learning strategies against one another. Strange feeling. I earned the right to play the number 1 ranked player in Western Australia for 18's , Dean Danzi.
Now Dean could play, he in fact once beat Darren Cahill, Coach of Andre Agassi, our match would be a massacre of epic proportions, I just knew it.
I played my semi of the 16's first though and saved a set point against Sanders at 4-5 in the first before winning in straight sets 5 and 3. Confidence ? Oozing with it, coming out of my sweat glands. My next match against Danzi was one I will remember for two different reasons, my lack of confidence against a guy with a big reputation and my 'other self'.
At 0-6, 0-2 I asked myself the question " What is your problem Glenn? Are you playing the ball or are you playing a reputation" ? Three all. Dean served , 4-3 , he broke me then served it out. Happy with my second set, livid at my first. The mind was overawed by a reputation and ranking at the beginning of the match. Is this how the big name players of today put a set in their pocket during the hit up ? I imagine so.
I shook Dean's hand, "Well played" , he said the same, nice bloke. I would loved to have played that second set first though, hind sight is a wonderful thing in tennis.
I lost the final of the 16's to the number 1 seed Marcus Keizer who I went on to beat the following year in another State Championship. His 4 and 1 demolition of me at Fremantle however left me with more questions than answers. Was I an early round player ? Was I not capable of winning a Championship ? Was I overawed at playing guys with many more ranking points than me ?
I went home with a head full of thought plus a semi final performance in an age division that I simply entered for a bit of practice. I made a final in my age division plus a quarter final doubles showing with Jonesey. Many ranking points gained, many questions unanswered, was this a sport I actually loved playing ?
Perhaps this chapter typifies the reasons why when I spend time with my kids we go to the beach, ride our bikes and kick a football. Teaching them tennis would be silly.....
Chapter 12 to follow
Unbeknown to me I had gained some ranking points in enough tournaments and came into the Fremantle Championship with a seeding in the boys 16's. I finally felt as though I belonged on court with the City's best juniors, after all my ranking supposedly confirmed this.
I had gone to the board to check the draw after the long drive from Albany with Dad and much to my surprise I saw my name with a Number 7 next to it.
I did the sums; 'Ok i have a good draw, I can get to the last 8, that will look good on my resume'. I also entered the boys 18 and under for a bit of match practice, nothing more, nothing less. I would be cannon fodder, no risk.
The grass courts at the Fremantle Tennis Club were surprisingly hard however, I noticed the even bounce after a short hit with a mate. Perhaps it would be kind to my predominantly base line game, I could only hope. I do not remember who I beat in my first two matches of the 16's but I was in the Quarter's, the spot I had hoped I would make it to, I was to play Tim Scott.
Now I had met Tim at a Tennis Camp at a College in Perth where many of the State's junior players from both the country and city were invited to rub shoulders, great concept. I remember meeting Tim and his best buddy, doubles partner Andrew Sanders, great blokes. I got to know these two pretty well over the course of the five day live in camp at a Perth College. I hit with them each day and got to know their games'.
Both had a serve and volley game and were a good doubles unit, tough to pass once they got to the net. I remember they were seeded number 1 for doubles, Tim 5 for singles and Andrew 3, both on my side of the draw. I knew I would have to get past both if I wanted a crack at the title.
Now to cut a long story short, I trailed Tim 4-6, 4-5, 30-40, I wasn't playing bad, just getting outplayed by someone who was exploiting my base line game on a surface that suited a good volleyer. I saved the match point, won the second in a tie break and belted him 6-1 in the third. Good match and good come back.
My effort in the 18's singles was rather crazy though as I made it to the last 8 as an unseeded player, I was playing with a never before experienced confidence, I don't know why.
My Quarter Final against the number 3 seed Tim Burrows was a match I will remember for two things, my confidence and my reluctance to call a line. At 6-3, 5-1 and match point to me I received a shot from Tim that was a foot out, I didn't call it, I played it and lost the point. It rattled me and Tim came back to 4-5 but I managed to serve it out. I believe that to this day I wanted to win on match point, not call a ball out for the right to shake hands as the winner.
I respected Burrows and his high ranking, I almost felt embarrassed to be leading him so comfortably. After all I was just a country kid who probably was hitting against a wall while the city players were learning strategies against one another. Strange feeling. I earned the right to play the number 1 ranked player in Western Australia for 18's , Dean Danzi.
Now Dean could play, he in fact once beat Darren Cahill, Coach of Andre Agassi, our match would be a massacre of epic proportions, I just knew it.
I played my semi of the 16's first though and saved a set point against Sanders at 4-5 in the first before winning in straight sets 5 and 3. Confidence ? Oozing with it, coming out of my sweat glands. My next match against Danzi was one I will remember for two different reasons, my lack of confidence against a guy with a big reputation and my 'other self'.
At 0-6, 0-2 I asked myself the question " What is your problem Glenn? Are you playing the ball or are you playing a reputation" ? Three all. Dean served , 4-3 , he broke me then served it out. Happy with my second set, livid at my first. The mind was overawed by a reputation and ranking at the beginning of the match. Is this how the big name players of today put a set in their pocket during the hit up ? I imagine so.
I shook Dean's hand, "Well played" , he said the same, nice bloke. I would loved to have played that second set first though, hind sight is a wonderful thing in tennis.
I lost the final of the 16's to the number 1 seed Marcus Keizer who I went on to beat the following year in another State Championship. His 4 and 1 demolition of me at Fremantle however left me with more questions than answers. Was I an early round player ? Was I not capable of winning a Championship ? Was I overawed at playing guys with many more ranking points than me ?
I went home with a head full of thought plus a semi final performance in an age division that I simply entered for a bit of practice. I made a final in my age division plus a quarter final doubles showing with Jonesey. Many ranking points gained, many questions unanswered, was this a sport I actually loved playing ?
Perhaps this chapter typifies the reasons why when I spend time with my kids we go to the beach, ride our bikes and kick a football. Teaching them tennis would be silly.....
Chapter 12 to follow
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
'LOVE IT'
The thing I love about writing these chapters on my earliest memories of tennis is the fact that it is factual, it actually happened. I find the whole process of writing about tennis rather soothing as it has lead me to events and situations that I found to be educational and rewarding. I have only ever done two things in life reasonably well and that's tennis and writing.
I used to get top marks in my class from early on in Primary School for my creative writing, funny how you remember certain things. My memory for the game is still rather sharp and I am enjoying putting things on this site that remind me of the sport I both love and dislike in many ways.
I refuse to teach my kids tennis, I don't want them to be as uncomfortable as I was when I first played the Albany Junior Tournament. Don't get me wrong, they can all hit a ball but I will not be going into the finer points of the game with them. I would like them to keep following team sports as they do now. Share the work load, physically and mentally.
The 10 chapters I have already written have come with little effort, the memory is there, it's simply a case of putting it in writing.
I recommend to all sports lovers who have played sport at any level, document the experiences you have had, share your thoughts, good and bad ones.
Hopefully one day my kids will read my chapters and understand why I am such an argumentative bastard, not towards them but to certain organizations and individuals. By the time I finish my current project even I may understand me a little better.
Worth a try I reckon.......
I used to get top marks in my class from early on in Primary School for my creative writing, funny how you remember certain things. My memory for the game is still rather sharp and I am enjoying putting things on this site that remind me of the sport I both love and dislike in many ways.
I refuse to teach my kids tennis, I don't want them to be as uncomfortable as I was when I first played the Albany Junior Tournament. Don't get me wrong, they can all hit a ball but I will not be going into the finer points of the game with them. I would like them to keep following team sports as they do now. Share the work load, physically and mentally.
The 10 chapters I have already written have come with little effort, the memory is there, it's simply a case of putting it in writing.
I recommend to all sports lovers who have played sport at any level, document the experiences you have had, share your thoughts, good and bad ones.
Hopefully one day my kids will read my chapters and understand why I am such an argumentative bastard, not towards them but to certain organizations and individuals. By the time I finish my current project even I may understand me a little better.
Worth a try I reckon.......
'THE WALL AND THE COURT' Part 10
Training for a sport such as tennis when you are a kid with a natural fitness level can seem at times to be a total waste of time. After all I could run all day, I was a sprinter, I once won 5 races at my Inter school Sports carnival including the anchor spot in the relay, I could move.
It's one thing though to run 100 meters, it's another to do a series of short sprints that may total a couple of kilometers or more in a three set match.
So it was an idea of Pete's to train me with court sprints, up and down the lines, forward and backwards that gave my body a true reflection of what was required during a match. He also gave me a volley and smash routine that really had me working hard.
A short sprint from the service line to the net, a series of volleys then back for a smash, touch the net with my racket, run backwards to the service line, start again. After 15 or 20 repetitions of this drill you knew it was doing you good, the lack of breath gave it away.
The thing about training with Pete was the realistic type of drills that he presented each time. You just knew that it was preparing you for a situation in a match that would eventually become second nature. I likened it to switching the light on in the middle of the night when you woke up for a pee, you can do it with your eyes closed.
Pete was no 'ball hitter', he was a Tennis Coach who could get the best out of you. There was no such thing as a 'great shot' with Pete unless you hit it perfectly. He made you strive for that 'great shot' that I have seen many 'ball hitters' take to a new level of incompetence.
During my fifteenth year I was invited to train with the State Squad by one of Western Australia's most respected and experienced Tennis Coaches and players, Rob Casey. I considered it a privilege to be asked to do a session with the best 16 to 18 year old's in the State, another eye opener to the level required to be successful.
Rob's training methods mirrored those of Pete's, tough, uncompromising and realistic to match play situations. I was very fortunate to have both witnessed and been involved with that sort of training from two fantastic Coaches of tennis. It toughened me up and made me strive harder.
'Ball hitters' were around in tennis but the good players knew how to distinguish between them and real Coaches. Usually the ball hitters would not get a follow up request for a lesson. So how do you pick the difference ? Easy, just look for the one who keeps stopping play to explain to the student that what they did lacked substance or thought. Look for the one who is brutally honest with a student's current form and ability. The one who explains in detail as to what is in fact the weakness and how to fix it. Above all look for the one who has the ability to explain two scenarios; Why the shot went in and why the shot missed, there's an art to explaining both.
Rob and Pete never gave praise unless it was warranted and that's what I liked about both of them. My biggest hint as to whether I was going ok with my tennis was Rob asking me on the way from court after my loss to Hampo "You get a set Glenn ? Good effort, he's a good player". That made me feel good. Rob was the number one ranked player in the State at the time for men and he coached Hampo, he knew his ability. Perhaps in some small way he was acknowledging mine.
Great Tennis Coaches are hard to find, especially now days as no one is quite sure now what a 'coach' is capable of as the big advertising slogans often hide their inability to teach the game. Nature of the modern way of 'coaching' tennis.
I don't believe that either Rob or Pete used a gimmick once, their knowledge and ways of teaching spoke volumes as far as who they were to the game of tennis in Western Australia. I am glad I was raised in an environment that only rewarded success and hard work and didn't give false hope by rewarding mediocrity.
Some times when I teach the game now days I wonder whether I am too honest with my appraisals of students' ability. I never think about it too much though as I learned from two of the best.........
Chapter 11 to follow
It's one thing though to run 100 meters, it's another to do a series of short sprints that may total a couple of kilometers or more in a three set match.
So it was an idea of Pete's to train me with court sprints, up and down the lines, forward and backwards that gave my body a true reflection of what was required during a match. He also gave me a volley and smash routine that really had me working hard.
A short sprint from the service line to the net, a series of volleys then back for a smash, touch the net with my racket, run backwards to the service line, start again. After 15 or 20 repetitions of this drill you knew it was doing you good, the lack of breath gave it away.
The thing about training with Pete was the realistic type of drills that he presented each time. You just knew that it was preparing you for a situation in a match that would eventually become second nature. I likened it to switching the light on in the middle of the night when you woke up for a pee, you can do it with your eyes closed.
Pete was no 'ball hitter', he was a Tennis Coach who could get the best out of you. There was no such thing as a 'great shot' with Pete unless you hit it perfectly. He made you strive for that 'great shot' that I have seen many 'ball hitters' take to a new level of incompetence.
During my fifteenth year I was invited to train with the State Squad by one of Western Australia's most respected and experienced Tennis Coaches and players, Rob Casey. I considered it a privilege to be asked to do a session with the best 16 to 18 year old's in the State, another eye opener to the level required to be successful.
Rob's training methods mirrored those of Pete's, tough, uncompromising and realistic to match play situations. I was very fortunate to have both witnessed and been involved with that sort of training from two fantastic Coaches of tennis. It toughened me up and made me strive harder.
'Ball hitters' were around in tennis but the good players knew how to distinguish between them and real Coaches. Usually the ball hitters would not get a follow up request for a lesson. So how do you pick the difference ? Easy, just look for the one who keeps stopping play to explain to the student that what they did lacked substance or thought. Look for the one who is brutally honest with a student's current form and ability. The one who explains in detail as to what is in fact the weakness and how to fix it. Above all look for the one who has the ability to explain two scenarios; Why the shot went in and why the shot missed, there's an art to explaining both.
Rob and Pete never gave praise unless it was warranted and that's what I liked about both of them. My biggest hint as to whether I was going ok with my tennis was Rob asking me on the way from court after my loss to Hampo "You get a set Glenn ? Good effort, he's a good player". That made me feel good. Rob was the number one ranked player in the State at the time for men and he coached Hampo, he knew his ability. Perhaps in some small way he was acknowledging mine.
Great Tennis Coaches are hard to find, especially now days as no one is quite sure now what a 'coach' is capable of as the big advertising slogans often hide their inability to teach the game. Nature of the modern way of 'coaching' tennis.
I don't believe that either Rob or Pete used a gimmick once, their knowledge and ways of teaching spoke volumes as far as who they were to the game of tennis in Western Australia. I am glad I was raised in an environment that only rewarded success and hard work and didn't give false hope by rewarding mediocrity.
Some times when I teach the game now days I wonder whether I am too honest with my appraisals of students' ability. I never think about it too much though as I learned from two of the best.........
Chapter 11 to follow
Monday, 1 December 2014
'THE WALL AND THE COURT" Part 9
1983 was a year I will remember as one that I learned much from the game of tennis, from my opponents and Coach Peter Holmes. The hitting with young Mark Leuba was the perfect way to implement the tactical and technical input from Pete.
I began 1984 well, I won the 16 and under division at the Albany Junior Open 7-5, 7-5 in the final against good buddy Dale Jones. I also gained some revenge on John Knuimann in the final of the Lawley Park Club Championships 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. I never forget a score.
It was however my form against Mark that really gave me an indication I was heading in the right direction. I remember a match I played with Mark, we played best of 5 and I beat him 1,4 and 3. I believe that the day I turned 15 on January 25 1984 I gained confidence. I was no longer intimidated by Mark's Number 1 State Ranking , I played the ball, not his reputation.
We had such a strong group of players in Albany that a State Squad comprising a group of 13 to 16 year old's from Perth came to town to play our best players. I was fortunate enough to gain a spot, from memory eight players per team. I suppose that Holmsey's influence and our local talent offered a great weekend's competition for the squad from the City.
I played a kid by the name of Graham Watson first up and was getting smashed 5-1 in a first to nine games match.
I believe that's when I first started to think about tactics, what was working and what wasn't. I still remember reeling off 8 games straight beating Watson 9-5, a good win.
My next match was against Damian Hampson and 'Hampo' and I got along well, he was a funny guy and a great player.
I was getting beaten 6-2 but came back and had a point to level at 8 all but he saved it and won 9-7. Hampo was ranked 3 in the State for 16's.
I was disappointed in the loss to Hampo but I won a doubles match with Pete and Albany won the weekend easily, our country tennis players showed up the City's best juniors. I put that down to Pete's coaching and an endless amount of practice and match play opportunities for all of Albany's best players.
I knew all of the Perth juniors' rankings as I followed their profiles through tournament results. Part of me had a high respect for their tennis achievements, the other part of me felt like an equal.
I proved in '84 though that as a 15 year old I could match it against guys who were ranked way higher than me. In fact I didn't even have a ranking until I was nearly 16. If I did have one I didn't know the number, wasn't interested.
I played two State Championships and had two near misses. I in fact drew Mark in the first round of one tournament and lead by a set and 4-3. I won just one more game. I also lead Hampo in another by a set and a break, I won just three more games. The area that I was struggling in was the 'equal' self evaluation, part of me didn't believe I could beat these guys.
This was strange because my form against Mark was impressive in our many practice matches. I felt the issue was that I was in some sort of fish bowl at State Championships, big crowds, big reputations, ranking points up for grabs. A whole new 'uncomfortable' World for a kid from a small town. It may have had something to do with that first ever Albany tournament I played. There was much that I did not like about tournaments.
Putting my near misses into perspective, Mark lost in the final of the tournament that he struggled past me in the first match. Could I have made it to the final if I had beaten him ? I questioned myself for a long time after the loss.
The loss to Hampo was especially disappointing as he went on to win the title. Perhaps that title could have been mine but I will never know.
I still believe that playing seeded players in the first or second round can work to the challenger's advantage. Early on in tournaments is the time to play them, before they get grooved. I will never begrudge a tough first match, that's when all players are at their most vulnerable.
My one and only State Title came in the form of a Doubles win with my good mate 'Jonesey' which I documented in an earlier chapter. I enjoyed doubles but I yearned for recognition in singles, not just a reputation as a country kid who could push the City's best. I wanted a title. The work rate had to improve.......
Chapter 10 to come
I began 1984 well, I won the 16 and under division at the Albany Junior Open 7-5, 7-5 in the final against good buddy Dale Jones. I also gained some revenge on John Knuimann in the final of the Lawley Park Club Championships 7-5, 2-6, 6-4. I never forget a score.
It was however my form against Mark that really gave me an indication I was heading in the right direction. I remember a match I played with Mark, we played best of 5 and I beat him 1,4 and 3. I believe that the day I turned 15 on January 25 1984 I gained confidence. I was no longer intimidated by Mark's Number 1 State Ranking , I played the ball, not his reputation.
We had such a strong group of players in Albany that a State Squad comprising a group of 13 to 16 year old's from Perth came to town to play our best players. I was fortunate enough to gain a spot, from memory eight players per team. I suppose that Holmsey's influence and our local talent offered a great weekend's competition for the squad from the City.
I played a kid by the name of Graham Watson first up and was getting smashed 5-1 in a first to nine games match.
I believe that's when I first started to think about tactics, what was working and what wasn't. I still remember reeling off 8 games straight beating Watson 9-5, a good win.
My next match was against Damian Hampson and 'Hampo' and I got along well, he was a funny guy and a great player.
I was getting beaten 6-2 but came back and had a point to level at 8 all but he saved it and won 9-7. Hampo was ranked 3 in the State for 16's.
I was disappointed in the loss to Hampo but I won a doubles match with Pete and Albany won the weekend easily, our country tennis players showed up the City's best juniors. I put that down to Pete's coaching and an endless amount of practice and match play opportunities for all of Albany's best players.
I knew all of the Perth juniors' rankings as I followed their profiles through tournament results. Part of me had a high respect for their tennis achievements, the other part of me felt like an equal.
I proved in '84 though that as a 15 year old I could match it against guys who were ranked way higher than me. In fact I didn't even have a ranking until I was nearly 16. If I did have one I didn't know the number, wasn't interested.
I played two State Championships and had two near misses. I in fact drew Mark in the first round of one tournament and lead by a set and 4-3. I won just one more game. I also lead Hampo in another by a set and a break, I won just three more games. The area that I was struggling in was the 'equal' self evaluation, part of me didn't believe I could beat these guys.
This was strange because my form against Mark was impressive in our many practice matches. I felt the issue was that I was in some sort of fish bowl at State Championships, big crowds, big reputations, ranking points up for grabs. A whole new 'uncomfortable' World for a kid from a small town. It may have had something to do with that first ever Albany tournament I played. There was much that I did not like about tournaments.
Putting my near misses into perspective, Mark lost in the final of the tournament that he struggled past me in the first match. Could I have made it to the final if I had beaten him ? I questioned myself for a long time after the loss.
The loss to Hampo was especially disappointing as he went on to win the title. Perhaps that title could have been mine but I will never know.
I still believe that playing seeded players in the first or second round can work to the challenger's advantage. Early on in tournaments is the time to play them, before they get grooved. I will never begrudge a tough first match, that's when all players are at their most vulnerable.
My one and only State Title came in the form of a Doubles win with my good mate 'Jonesey' which I documented in an earlier chapter. I enjoyed doubles but I yearned for recognition in singles, not just a reputation as a country kid who could push the City's best. I wanted a title. The work rate had to improve.......
Chapter 10 to come
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)