My last tipping was fairly average to say the least but picked Fed and Dimitrov in 4 sets. Surprised about Monfils over Gasquet but Gael is tougher to pick than a broken nose, sometimes he's on , sometimes he's off.
Thiem is a player on the rise, a straight sets win over the in form Lopez was a big win but Gabashvili was disappointing against Berdych as he was playing well. Buatista Agut is a man to be respected currently and he will test the Fed in Round 4. Simon is always hard to tip but Ferrer on a hard court isn't the same player as he is on clay, still the win by Giles was sensational.
So to Round 4 and as i tipped last chapter I am sticking with Tsonga over Murray
Novak in a test against Kohlschreiber
Nishikori over Raonic
Can't find a winner between Wawrinka and Robredo, a 5 set flip of the coin
Fed in 4 maybe 5 over Bautista Agut
Dimitrov in 4 over Monfils
Thiem in an upset over Berdych
Cilic in 5 over Simon
Sunday 31 August 2014
'MEN'S FOURTH ROUND'
Just thought I would put a few tips up for the US Open Round 4;
Kohlschreiber may grab a set from Novak but shouldn't bother him too much
Tsonga should beat Murray in 4 or 5
Wawrinka and Robredo, toss a coin, 5 sets , can't pick it
Nishikori if returning well should beat Raonic
There are still a few matches in Round 3 left;
Granollers should test Federer but 4 sets to the Fed
Gabashvili in an upset over Berdych
Lopez in 4 over Thiem
Cilic and Anderson , can't pick it , 5 sets toss a coin
Ferrer in 4 over Simon
Dimitrov in 4 over Goffin
Gasquet too steady for the flashy Monfils in 5 sets
Bautista Aqut in 5 over Mannarino
Kohlschreiber may grab a set from Novak but shouldn't bother him too much
Tsonga should beat Murray in 4 or 5
Wawrinka and Robredo, toss a coin, 5 sets , can't pick it
Nishikori if returning well should beat Raonic
There are still a few matches in Round 3 left;
Granollers should test Federer but 4 sets to the Fed
Gabashvili in an upset over Berdych
Lopez in 4 over Thiem
Cilic and Anderson , can't pick it , 5 sets toss a coin
Ferrer in 4 over Simon
Dimitrov in 4 over Goffin
Gasquet too steady for the flashy Monfils in 5 sets
Bautista Aqut in 5 over Mannarino
Thursday 28 August 2014
'DOMINATING'
At the US Open this year two Countries stand out as the front runners in the Men's Singles as far as numbers are concerned, Spain and France. Between them they make up just over 28 per cent of the 128 player field or in simple terms they have 22 players , 13 for Spain and 9 for France. That's outrageous when you consider just how many Men's Tennis Professionals there are currently playing the game.
These figures do not count the qualifying event where another dozen or so tried their luck. So if two Countries are dominating World Tennis to such an extent that they make up over a quarter of the field in a Grand Slam what is it that they are doing so well ?
We could play guessing games all night but the obvious reasoning behind it all would have to be good Management from both the Spanish and French Tennis Federations. That's where things start and that's where the decision making commences and it's rather obvious that their ideas are working. I would put a huge emphasis on the training surface also which no doubt is clay as their ground strokes are technically brilliant . Their conditioning is also something that should be noted as you can't play the way they do without being superbly fit. Clay court training and conditioning go hand in hand.
I remember back in the 70's and 80's when three of the four Grand Slams were played on grass, the Australian, US Open and Wimbledon with the French being the only exception to turf. That sort of tennis, while it can be exciting was never going to hold up against the way the game is now played and in particular on what surface it is now played. Grass court tennis is not a surface that anyone trains on anymore because it is not a surface that you can develop any real strengths as the ball does not have a consistent bounce.
That's why clay court training is the best, it's a slower surface, the slowest in the World and it gives players time to prepare. It allows players to groove their shots , grass or a fast indoor hard surface will not allow this luxury. How do you become consistent if the style of game is a rushed one ?
As the Grand Slams , apart from Wimbledon gradually moved away from grass so did the serve and volley style that is now only employed as a surprise tactic. Nine out of ten players are now predominantly baseliners so why do you think nations such as Spain and France are so good ? What they practice on each day is what most Americans and Australian players don't train on , hence the difference in success. Hard court tennis seems to be the choice of most other countries, less maintenance, cost effective.
What Spain and France are doing however is now the benchmark of World Tennis and with success comes more success, it becomes infectious. Young players look up to their Nation's best players, they want to be like them and they are not a rarity in the big tournaments like they are in some Nations. Kids can sit down and watch not just one or two players but up to a dozen perform on the World tennis stage, inspiring. It also helps the players if there are many from one particular Country as the pressure of performance is shared, not just on one or two broad shoulders.
Whatever the reason for the success of these two Countries I believe the rest of the World needs to take notice or they will fall further behind. It may just lay in what surface everyone is currently training on, that would be a good place to start......
These figures do not count the qualifying event where another dozen or so tried their luck. So if two Countries are dominating World Tennis to such an extent that they make up over a quarter of the field in a Grand Slam what is it that they are doing so well ?
We could play guessing games all night but the obvious reasoning behind it all would have to be good Management from both the Spanish and French Tennis Federations. That's where things start and that's where the decision making commences and it's rather obvious that their ideas are working. I would put a huge emphasis on the training surface also which no doubt is clay as their ground strokes are technically brilliant . Their conditioning is also something that should be noted as you can't play the way they do without being superbly fit. Clay court training and conditioning go hand in hand.
I remember back in the 70's and 80's when three of the four Grand Slams were played on grass, the Australian, US Open and Wimbledon with the French being the only exception to turf. That sort of tennis, while it can be exciting was never going to hold up against the way the game is now played and in particular on what surface it is now played. Grass court tennis is not a surface that anyone trains on anymore because it is not a surface that you can develop any real strengths as the ball does not have a consistent bounce.
That's why clay court training is the best, it's a slower surface, the slowest in the World and it gives players time to prepare. It allows players to groove their shots , grass or a fast indoor hard surface will not allow this luxury. How do you become consistent if the style of game is a rushed one ?
As the Grand Slams , apart from Wimbledon gradually moved away from grass so did the serve and volley style that is now only employed as a surprise tactic. Nine out of ten players are now predominantly baseliners so why do you think nations such as Spain and France are so good ? What they practice on each day is what most Americans and Australian players don't train on , hence the difference in success. Hard court tennis seems to be the choice of most other countries, less maintenance, cost effective.
What Spain and France are doing however is now the benchmark of World Tennis and with success comes more success, it becomes infectious. Young players look up to their Nation's best players, they want to be like them and they are not a rarity in the big tournaments like they are in some Nations. Kids can sit down and watch not just one or two players but up to a dozen perform on the World tennis stage, inspiring. It also helps the players if there are many from one particular Country as the pressure of performance is shared, not just on one or two broad shoulders.
Whatever the reason for the success of these two Countries I believe the rest of the World needs to take notice or they will fall further behind. It may just lay in what surface everyone is currently training on, that would be a good place to start......
Wednesday 27 August 2014
'THE LUCKIEST TENNIS PLAYER' ( PART 1 )
Australian
Tennis Professional Marinko Matosevic will have to go down in history
as possibly the 'luckiest' player of his generation. Now
Marinko may not agree, in fact he may think that he has been dealt a
cruel blow in his professional career up to date but i see many
positives in his playing history.
The rather feisty Aussie , who makes the headlines on occasions for his rather over the top mannerisms finally broke through at the French Open this year for a first round Grand Slam win. It took him 13 attempts as he drew some rather 'handy' opposition up until then but let's put his losses into perspective.
How many tennis professionals can say that they played the best players on a regular basis and were made to play at their absolute full potential ? How many tennis players simply get beaten by fellow pro's who were ranked lower than them with rather 'average' profiles and few tournament victories to speak of ? In other words, how many tennis professionals look back on their career and ask questions such as "Why wasn't I one of the fortunate players who got to play the absolute benchmarks of my generation? Did my opposition really get the best out of me"?
I often wonder the wisdom of winning a tennis tournament at any age or standard with lop sided results. Where is the indicator as far as form is concerned ? If you lose in the semi's to an in form seeded player by a scoreline of 6-4, 7-5 then surely this is a true barometer as to how well you are playing. Is this a better form guide than winning a tournament by an average score of 6-1, 6-2 with minimal opposition ?
If you are a sprinter and you win a 200 meter race easily then are you being pushed ? Would losing to a State Champion sprinter by a whisker be more of an an indicator as to how fast you really are ?
If you are a 'big fish in a small pond' in your town and are not being pushed in your chosen sport then is it a good thing for you ? Will it simply give you a false sense of your real ability ?
Around 18 months ago I was lucky enough to have a hitting session with former Australian Tennis Professional Neil Borwick. Now Neil was no house hold name but he did beat the great Boris Becker in 1993, that's a pretty famous win in any man's language.
Neil also teamed up with Swedish legend Jonas Bjorkman and defeated legendary team Jacco Elting and Paul Haarhuis. These two in fact won every Grand Slam in doubles so to have that win next to your name is one of the highest accolades you will ever own. Neil was everyone's form barometer at the Coops training facility in Brisbane when we were teenagers in the 80's.
After an hour's practice we played points and I asked him to not go easy on me, I wanted that all important indicator, even at my age." Hey Champ , no favor's thanks, make me earn it", or words to that effect anyhow. Neil beat me 8 games to 4 but i walked off court a happy man, I won some games and respect from a man who had victories over the best. No matter how old you are in tennis, finding the form barometer is essential for future growth, mentally and physically.....
Part 2 to follow
The rather feisty Aussie , who makes the headlines on occasions for his rather over the top mannerisms finally broke through at the French Open this year for a first round Grand Slam win. It took him 13 attempts as he drew some rather 'handy' opposition up until then but let's put his losses into perspective.
How many tennis professionals can say that they played the best players on a regular basis and were made to play at their absolute full potential ? How many tennis players simply get beaten by fellow pro's who were ranked lower than them with rather 'average' profiles and few tournament victories to speak of ? In other words, how many tennis professionals look back on their career and ask questions such as "Why wasn't I one of the fortunate players who got to play the absolute benchmarks of my generation? Did my opposition really get the best out of me"?
I often wonder the wisdom of winning a tennis tournament at any age or standard with lop sided results. Where is the indicator as far as form is concerned ? If you lose in the semi's to an in form seeded player by a scoreline of 6-4, 7-5 then surely this is a true barometer as to how well you are playing. Is this a better form guide than winning a tournament by an average score of 6-1, 6-2 with minimal opposition ?
If you are a sprinter and you win a 200 meter race easily then are you being pushed ? Would losing to a State Champion sprinter by a whisker be more of an an indicator as to how fast you really are ?
If you are a 'big fish in a small pond' in your town and are not being pushed in your chosen sport then is it a good thing for you ? Will it simply give you a false sense of your real ability ?
Around 18 months ago I was lucky enough to have a hitting session with former Australian Tennis Professional Neil Borwick. Now Neil was no house hold name but he did beat the great Boris Becker in 1993, that's a pretty famous win in any man's language.
Neil also teamed up with Swedish legend Jonas Bjorkman and defeated legendary team Jacco Elting and Paul Haarhuis. These two in fact won every Grand Slam in doubles so to have that win next to your name is one of the highest accolades you will ever own. Neil was everyone's form barometer at the Coops training facility in Brisbane when we were teenagers in the 80's.
After an hour's practice we played points and I asked him to not go easy on me, I wanted that all important indicator, even at my age." Hey Champ , no favor's thanks, make me earn it", or words to that effect anyhow. Neil beat me 8 games to 4 but i walked off court a happy man, I won some games and respect from a man who had victories over the best. No matter how old you are in tennis, finding the form barometer is essential for future growth, mentally and physically.....
Part 2 to follow
'THE LUCKIEST TENNIS PLAYER' (Part 2 )
Marinko Matosevic has a playing profile akin to a heavy weight boxer, a list of matches against the absolute best that the game has to offer, not just a few times but many. He has gone many rounds with some heavy weight's and it's beginning to pay dividends . Matosevic has been made to play at a level that perhaps many fellow pro's around his ranking haven't and it's why his prize money has gone from $122,000 in 2011 to nearly $1.7 million in 2014. He has been forced to make a choice, sink or swim and the Aussie is now swimming like all time great Michael Phelps.
Marinko's 'good fortune' in Grand Slam matches began in 2011 when he qualified for Wimbledon and drew World number 20 , Argentinian Davis Cup star Juan Ignacia Chela. He lost in 4 close sets but picked up a much needed $20,000 to help pay for the expenses of a struggling player ranked 150. What's the chances of drawing the same player at the next Slam in the first round ? The US Open of 2011 handed him just that but Marinko was injured after just 4 games against Chela and retired.
The Australian Open to kick the 2012 season off had the Aussie up against World number 15 Gael Monfils and he went down rather easily but another $20,000 softened the blow. Delray Beach however in February of 2012 was his break through tournament and he made it all the way through to the final losing to Kevin Anderson. A pay day of $39,000 plus 162 ranking points saw his bank account and ranking head further in the right direction as he went from 173 to 129.
Marinko did not qualify for Paris then lost in the first round of Wimbledon to former top 20 player Xavier Malisse in straight sets. He drew World number 13 Maran Cilic in the first round at the US Open and remarkably won the first two sets before losing in 5. His game however was improving with a ranking of 47 and the reputation of a player to be respected.
What's the chances of meeting the player he lost to at the last Slam of 2012 in the first round of the very next Slam of the following year ? He drew Cilic at the Australian Open of 2013, this time losing in straight sets. Many players would have asked for divine intervention , not Marinko, he simply 'asked' for more of the same. He qualified for Paris but drew World number 5 David Ferrer , losing in straight sets before finally gaining a kind draw at Wimbledon. He drew World number 85 Guillaume Rufin of France, surely this was Marinko's big chance ? No, he wasn't used to playing 'average' players in Grand Slams, he lost in 4 sets.
The US Open of 2013 saw him play World number 22 Tommy Robredo, more Marinko's 'style' of opponent , he lost in 4 but pushed the Spaniard all the way. A first round loser's prize of $32,000 would no doubt have made him feel a little better .
So finally to 2014, surely this year would be the year Marinko would win a match in a Grand Slam tournament, surely he had paid his dues. Oh yeah , you betcha, Marinko was battle hardened by now, it was merely a formality......
With just a slight hiccup at the Australian Open where he drew World number 17 Kei Nishikori and lost in 5 sets the 'heavy weight' from Down Under finally had a win in a Slam. It came in the form of a 4 set victory over Dustin Brown and he celebrated in style. The 'rolly polly' type of celebration made headlines around the World , some said it was over the top, others knew the story behind it and paid Marinko the respect he deserved. He lost in round two but went on to beat Verdasco in his first match at Wimbledon before losing a tight 5 setter in the second round.
So to this year's US Open and only Marinko Matosevic can draw the big guns like no other and they don't come much bigger than Roger. Was the Aussie overawed ? You tell me if a 3-6, 4-6, 6-7 loss to arguably the greatest of all time was an opponent that he felt intimidated by......
Marinko Matosevic's heart is as big as his ever growing bank balance and one day he will share his stories of playing the World's best tennis players with his own kids i am certain. He may not consider his regular tough draws as 'lucky' at the moment, but one day I guarantee you.......
he will.......
Sunday 24 August 2014
'IMPROVING'
Tatsuma Ito from Japan was the player I was referring to in my last chapter who made 46 unforced errors in his first round qualifying match at the US Open yet still won. How do you think his opponent in that match now feels ? If I was him I would be furious with myself for not capitalizing on the many, many chances that Ito presented. Ito has gone on to qualify for the Open with a rather remarkable turn around in form.
After handing his opponent nearly 12 games in errors in round 1 he tidied things up in round 2 with just 16 unforced errors but his stats in round 3 were unbelievable. Ito made just 2 unforced errors in his final qualifying match to gain a spot in the 128 man field in New York. Making just two mistakes in a match is ridiculous but his winner count was also hard to comprehend. The Japanese player hit just 5 clean winners to go with his two 'silly' mistakes, so what sort of player is he ?
In round one he was obviously just playing 'hit up' tennis or in other words a game that had no structure or tactical side to it. His second round match was obviously one that had the mouse running around on the treadmill at last and his third was almost perfect.
Tatsuma Ito is ranked 127 in the World, a fantastic tennis player who was rather unlucky to not receive direct entry into the open at Flushing Meadow due to the Wild Card system. Justice prevailed however as he will now pick up at least $30,000 US for a first round appearance.
The Tennis World is full of players such as Ito who are technically brilliant but lack the tactical mind to take their games to another level. It does however give budding young players the reality check that is required to become not only a shot maker but one who can also think their way to victory.
The US Open is a tournament that is played on a surface that is considered 'neutral' with no advantage to any style in particular so the thinking becomes even more important. The Europeans who dominate the clay court season will struggle to make an impression in New York as their style requires the ball to come at a slower pace. The hard courts will not give them this luxury .
There is one particular section of this year's draw that I find rather intriguing beginning with the Berdych- Hewitt match. Whilst I don't believe the Aussie can win I still think that's a tough opener for the Czech. Don't be surprised to see the veteran Baghdadis push Cilic the number 14 seed in their opening match and Dustin Brown may just sneak past Tomic. So what about the above mentioned Tatsuma Ito ?
He plays American Steve Johnson, a steady player but one who Ito will fancy his chances against. If he keeps improving on his unforced error count then he may just double that $30,000 he is guaranteed of already.
So who am I tipping ? Can't go past a man who is possibly the smartest player of his time, or any time for that matter and a man who's all round game and mental strength is second to none. I am picking the man who's practice shirt rather confidently says in bright letters 'BETTERER'. You can't beat the great man from Switzerland when it comes to self belief......
After handing his opponent nearly 12 games in errors in round 1 he tidied things up in round 2 with just 16 unforced errors but his stats in round 3 were unbelievable. Ito made just 2 unforced errors in his final qualifying match to gain a spot in the 128 man field in New York. Making just two mistakes in a match is ridiculous but his winner count was also hard to comprehend. The Japanese player hit just 5 clean winners to go with his two 'silly' mistakes, so what sort of player is he ?
In round one he was obviously just playing 'hit up' tennis or in other words a game that had no structure or tactical side to it. His second round match was obviously one that had the mouse running around on the treadmill at last and his third was almost perfect.
Tatsuma Ito is ranked 127 in the World, a fantastic tennis player who was rather unlucky to not receive direct entry into the open at Flushing Meadow due to the Wild Card system. Justice prevailed however as he will now pick up at least $30,000 US for a first round appearance.
The Tennis World is full of players such as Ito who are technically brilliant but lack the tactical mind to take their games to another level. It does however give budding young players the reality check that is required to become not only a shot maker but one who can also think their way to victory.
The US Open is a tournament that is played on a surface that is considered 'neutral' with no advantage to any style in particular so the thinking becomes even more important. The Europeans who dominate the clay court season will struggle to make an impression in New York as their style requires the ball to come at a slower pace. The hard courts will not give them this luxury .
There is one particular section of this year's draw that I find rather intriguing beginning with the Berdych- Hewitt match. Whilst I don't believe the Aussie can win I still think that's a tough opener for the Czech. Don't be surprised to see the veteran Baghdadis push Cilic the number 14 seed in their opening match and Dustin Brown may just sneak past Tomic. So what about the above mentioned Tatsuma Ito ?
He plays American Steve Johnson, a steady player but one who Ito will fancy his chances against. If he keeps improving on his unforced error count then he may just double that $30,000 he is guaranteed of already.
So who am I tipping ? Can't go past a man who is possibly the smartest player of his time, or any time for that matter and a man who's all round game and mental strength is second to none. I am picking the man who's practice shirt rather confidently says in bright letters 'BETTERER'. You can't beat the great man from Switzerland when it comes to self belief......
Sunday 17 August 2014
'A PROFESSOR'S DEGREE'
I recently viewed some statistics from the US Open Men's Qualifying Event, one in particular I can't quite work out. There was a result where the winner of the match actually made 46 unforced errors, and won. So why is this unusual ?
What on earth was going through his opponent's mind in a best of three set match where nearly 12 games worth of points were handed to him ?
If someone is making that many errors then surely the style that should be played against them is simply a steady brand of tennis with the emphasis on making the opponent play . If unforced errors are being made at a steady rate then it's rather obvious what is happening, they don't like playing you. If someone doesn't miss against you then your style obviously is one that is comfortable to play against, and that's a problem.
I have made mention on many occasions the match to decide the 1988 US Open Men's Single's Championship between Wilander and Lendl. The reason Mats won this match was due to the lack of unforced errors that came off his racket, 37, whereas Lendl's count was double that. Bare in mind that this match was 5 sets, nearly 5 hours and featured remarkably long rallies so even Lendl's amount of errors equated to just 15 per set, each hour.
Wilander's lack of errors were so remarkable that he averaged just over seven unforced errors per set, each hour. This however was from the same man who missed just two first serves in the 1988 French Open Men's singles final which he won easily.
Try playing tennis for an hour and count how many times you make a stupid mistake, including double faults, what would be your average?
So the Qualifier who won his match with 46 unforced errors was basically handed the match as his opponent did not do the sums on what was happening. A smarter player would have sized up the situation and capitalized on it. If this player in question is to go ahead and qualify for this year's US Open his error count will need to halve.
Only 7 per cent of the World's top 100 juniors go on to become Tennis Professionals and just one per cent will become a top 20 player. The game of tennis is not one that requires the greatest looking shots , it is one however that requires a Professor's thinking .
What was the combined age of the two recent finalists in Cincinnati ? About 64. That's a lot of years of tennis thinking but puts it all into perspective.
Remember that kid you always hear at a junior tennis tournament? " I can't believe I just missed that " !!
Get used to it buddy, you will miss many more until you gain that Professor's Degree.......
What on earth was going through his opponent's mind in a best of three set match where nearly 12 games worth of points were handed to him ?
If someone is making that many errors then surely the style that should be played against them is simply a steady brand of tennis with the emphasis on making the opponent play . If unforced errors are being made at a steady rate then it's rather obvious what is happening, they don't like playing you. If someone doesn't miss against you then your style obviously is one that is comfortable to play against, and that's a problem.
I have made mention on many occasions the match to decide the 1988 US Open Men's Single's Championship between Wilander and Lendl. The reason Mats won this match was due to the lack of unforced errors that came off his racket, 37, whereas Lendl's count was double that. Bare in mind that this match was 5 sets, nearly 5 hours and featured remarkably long rallies so even Lendl's amount of errors equated to just 15 per set, each hour.
Wilander's lack of errors were so remarkable that he averaged just over seven unforced errors per set, each hour. This however was from the same man who missed just two first serves in the 1988 French Open Men's singles final which he won easily.
Try playing tennis for an hour and count how many times you make a stupid mistake, including double faults, what would be your average?
So the Qualifier who won his match with 46 unforced errors was basically handed the match as his opponent did not do the sums on what was happening. A smarter player would have sized up the situation and capitalized on it. If this player in question is to go ahead and qualify for this year's US Open his error count will need to halve.
Only 7 per cent of the World's top 100 juniors go on to become Tennis Professionals and just one per cent will become a top 20 player. The game of tennis is not one that requires the greatest looking shots , it is one however that requires a Professor's thinking .
What was the combined age of the two recent finalists in Cincinnati ? About 64. That's a lot of years of tennis thinking but puts it all into perspective.
Remember that kid you always hear at a junior tennis tournament? " I can't believe I just missed that " !!
Get used to it buddy, you will miss many more until you gain that Professor's Degree.......
Saturday 16 August 2014
'THE RALLY BALL'
In 1995 at The US Open Men's Final between Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras a ten shot exchange was timed at 10.5 seconds. Shall we put this into perspective ? That sort of hitting is basically 'ping pong' or table tennis hitting yet these two made it look easy. The entire rally lasted 20 shots but the 10 shots that were timed at that mentioned speed were possibly some of the hardest hitting you will ever witness.
So why doesn't this sort of hitting happen more regularly ? It does, in junior tennis, not in the big league. The best players in the World are the best because they know their limitations, most kids do not own that sort of thinking. So what about the rally between the two Americans in 1995 ?
The rally was actually at set point for Sampras , in the first set, so what did Agassi have to lose ? He basically just said " Ok Pete I am going to keep belting this thing , if you are better at it then you have the set" Unfortunately for Andre that was the case, Sampras was just that , too good, he won the rally, the set , the title match in 4 sets.
I am not knocking kids , it is a game that requires a huge learning curve and one that requires experimentation so trying to out hit an opponent at age 13 or 14 is common. The problem is this; Unless the ball is hit with a huge amount of spin then the hard hitting will account for nothing, a kid will miss more than he or she gets in. Why is this ?
Tennis is taught predominantly the same way , hit hard , reasonably flat and from close to the baseline, all pretty much 'ho hum tennis'. It's all about taking time away from the opponent.
There is a picture of Nadal , a birds eye shot of the great man receiving serve from around 10 foot behind the baseline. So why isn't this position taught more by the modern tennis coach?
This position allows time to think, it gives a player time to swing, it creates a 50/50 play where the serve is not a hit/ miss type of situation. Borg was the master at this and Rafa is the modern day master, they will both go down in history as two of the greatest ever returners the game has ever seen. Agassi was altogether different as sometimes he would be two feet inside the baseline to receive a serve from possibly one of the greatest servers of all time Pete Sampras.
It is not essential to stand up to receive serve now days as there are very few serve volleyer's , so why rush the return ? In doubles sure stand up if the guys are rushing in but in singles why not stay back and give yourself some time ?
As you get older in tennis you will develop better timing, until then give yourself some time to hit each shot, especially the return, it's possibly the most important shot in the game apart from the rally ball. If you get the serve back regularly then you will naturally be able to start a rally , missing returns will put you in trouble right from the outset.
Imagine if a game was started with an underarm serve, each return would come back 99 per cent of the time, so why not treat a serve just like that ? If you get it back then it comes down to who is the better rally ball player, not the best returner.
Give yourself time in tennis, standing up on the base line is an ego thing , not a smart thing, have a look at the Spaniard who 'owns' the French Open and look where he stands, not only to receive but to rally. Take note also of how high he hits his ball over the net, it gives him time to make position.
Tennis doesn't need to follow a trend , it needs to be thought out realistically.......
So why doesn't this sort of hitting happen more regularly ? It does, in junior tennis, not in the big league. The best players in the World are the best because they know their limitations, most kids do not own that sort of thinking. So what about the rally between the two Americans in 1995 ?
The rally was actually at set point for Sampras , in the first set, so what did Agassi have to lose ? He basically just said " Ok Pete I am going to keep belting this thing , if you are better at it then you have the set" Unfortunately for Andre that was the case, Sampras was just that , too good, he won the rally, the set , the title match in 4 sets.
I am not knocking kids , it is a game that requires a huge learning curve and one that requires experimentation so trying to out hit an opponent at age 13 or 14 is common. The problem is this; Unless the ball is hit with a huge amount of spin then the hard hitting will account for nothing, a kid will miss more than he or she gets in. Why is this ?
Tennis is taught predominantly the same way , hit hard , reasonably flat and from close to the baseline, all pretty much 'ho hum tennis'. It's all about taking time away from the opponent.
There is a picture of Nadal , a birds eye shot of the great man receiving serve from around 10 foot behind the baseline. So why isn't this position taught more by the modern tennis coach?
This position allows time to think, it gives a player time to swing, it creates a 50/50 play where the serve is not a hit/ miss type of situation. Borg was the master at this and Rafa is the modern day master, they will both go down in history as two of the greatest ever returners the game has ever seen. Agassi was altogether different as sometimes he would be two feet inside the baseline to receive a serve from possibly one of the greatest servers of all time Pete Sampras.
It is not essential to stand up to receive serve now days as there are very few serve volleyer's , so why rush the return ? In doubles sure stand up if the guys are rushing in but in singles why not stay back and give yourself some time ?
As you get older in tennis you will develop better timing, until then give yourself some time to hit each shot, especially the return, it's possibly the most important shot in the game apart from the rally ball. If you get the serve back regularly then you will naturally be able to start a rally , missing returns will put you in trouble right from the outset.
Imagine if a game was started with an underarm serve, each return would come back 99 per cent of the time, so why not treat a serve just like that ? If you get it back then it comes down to who is the better rally ball player, not the best returner.
Give yourself time in tennis, standing up on the base line is an ego thing , not a smart thing, have a look at the Spaniard who 'owns' the French Open and look where he stands, not only to receive but to rally. Take note also of how high he hits his ball over the net, it gives him time to make position.
Tennis doesn't need to follow a trend , it needs to be thought out realistically.......
Wednesday 13 August 2014
'THANKS BUDDY'
Good point Champ but remember , a high bouncing ball off either side is more difficult to get back than a hard drive that is right in the slot. A regular rally ball with a high bounce would be a shot that most players of any standard would struggle with.
That's why Rafa's regular 'holding shot' can still win him free points or set him up for the big one.
A weapon is essential however until you receive a short ball you need to have the ability to still trouble your opponent. The high ball does just that.
Thanks for your input Champ , you are thinking like a tennis player......
That's why Rafa's regular 'holding shot' can still win him free points or set him up for the big one.
A weapon is essential however until you receive a short ball you need to have the ability to still trouble your opponent. The high ball does just that.
Thanks for your input Champ , you are thinking like a tennis player......
Sunday 10 August 2014
'THE NEW BREED'
Firstly I must send an apology out there for doing something I do from time to time, have a look at other tennis sites on the net, I apologize for being inquisitive. I tell you what though I do find it amusing as the new breed of 'Tennis Coach' strives for that all important 'ego boost' that will make them sleep well at night and make them walk a foot taller the next day.
On reading some comments you get a realization that tennis has definitely changed some what over the years, read on...
One of my favourite's was "we are leading the way in tennis coaching". Fair dinkum you guys if you were 'leading the way' then your players would be cleaning up at every tournament available, I don't believe this is the case, correct me if I am wrong.
How about this one " we will break you then rebuild you"!!! Yep this was right up there with the best of the comments I have seen . Maybe this idiot should take on a sport such as AFL or Rugby where that sort of dialogue is more appropriate. 'Breaking' kids in a sport such as tennis isn't what I would call a 'positive' message.
And then of course there is the 'Facebook Tennis Coach', you know the one who has more hits on the site than their pupils have accurate ones on court. The one's that crave the attention and brag about just how many people look at their pages of 'wisdom' are by far the most amusing. These 'coaches' remind me of the kid who never received much attention as a youngster, but now it's their time , albeit on a computer counter. "Billy Blogs 'LIKES' this" , you attention seekers thrive off the 'LIKES' don't you ?
I love reading these 'guru's' students' results especially the 'consolation' victories, come on you guys , I think you are just trying to fill up a bit of space with 'practice match' results. Sounds good though to people reading the article who are none the wiser. "Hey did you see where Jonny Smith made it to the semi's at the State Champs in the consolation ? Not sure what this consolation thing is but this kid must have a good coach "!!
You guys need to extract your heads from you know where and just do your 'jobs' without the 'Mickey Mouse' stuff that seems to be a bigger part of the sport now. Forget 'breaking' kids, just teach them the game without the gimmicks. Site and face book 'hits' aint going to make your pupils better players , why not concentrate on the on court hitting instead ??
'Exaggerated' newspaper articles will not do you any favours either because there is always someone who will read it who will see straight through it for what it really is.
The new breed of player needs the new breed of coach to teach them how to play the game of tennis , forget the garbage, it's important to you, no one else. People will eventually talk about you if your students start winning consistently, then everyone will 'LIKE' you. The New Breed, fair dinkum.......
On reading some comments you get a realization that tennis has definitely changed some what over the years, read on...
One of my favourite's was "we are leading the way in tennis coaching". Fair dinkum you guys if you were 'leading the way' then your players would be cleaning up at every tournament available, I don't believe this is the case, correct me if I am wrong.
How about this one " we will break you then rebuild you"!!! Yep this was right up there with the best of the comments I have seen . Maybe this idiot should take on a sport such as AFL or Rugby where that sort of dialogue is more appropriate. 'Breaking' kids in a sport such as tennis isn't what I would call a 'positive' message.
And then of course there is the 'Facebook Tennis Coach', you know the one who has more hits on the site than their pupils have accurate ones on court. The one's that crave the attention and brag about just how many people look at their pages of 'wisdom' are by far the most amusing. These 'coaches' remind me of the kid who never received much attention as a youngster, but now it's their time , albeit on a computer counter. "Billy Blogs 'LIKES' this" , you attention seekers thrive off the 'LIKES' don't you ?
I love reading these 'guru's' students' results especially the 'consolation' victories, come on you guys , I think you are just trying to fill up a bit of space with 'practice match' results. Sounds good though to people reading the article who are none the wiser. "Hey did you see where Jonny Smith made it to the semi's at the State Champs in the consolation ? Not sure what this consolation thing is but this kid must have a good coach "!!
You guys need to extract your heads from you know where and just do your 'jobs' without the 'Mickey Mouse' stuff that seems to be a bigger part of the sport now. Forget 'breaking' kids, just teach them the game without the gimmicks. Site and face book 'hits' aint going to make your pupils better players , why not concentrate on the on court hitting instead ??
'Exaggerated' newspaper articles will not do you any favours either because there is always someone who will read it who will see straight through it for what it really is.
The new breed of player needs the new breed of coach to teach them how to play the game of tennis , forget the garbage, it's important to you, no one else. People will eventually talk about you if your students start winning consistently, then everyone will 'LIKE' you. The New Breed, fair dinkum.......
Saturday 9 August 2014
'THE SWEDES IN PARIS'
When Borg retired he actually did what not too many players have ever done, left the game as a defending Grand Slam Champion, as he did in 1981. Mats Wilander kept the French Open Men's Single's Title in Swedish hands with an amazing run as a 17 year old in '82 that gave Sweden the title for five years running. Wilander won it on two more occasions following in Borg's footsteps who won it six times giving Sweden a total of nine French Open Singles titles between 1974 and 1988.
The Swedes could have had an even more dominant hold on the title in Paris but had to be content with three runner up performances. Wilander lost in the final in '83 and '87 and Stefan Edberg could've completed a career Grand Slam had he converted break points in '89. Edberg lead two sets to one against 17 year old Michael Chang and at 4 games all in the fourth had break point opportunities. He lost the fourth 4-6 but broke Chang in the opening game of the fifth yet he only won one more game.
In 1986 little known Swede Mikael Pernfors made it all the way through to the Men's Singles Final unseeded where he lost in straight sets to Ivan Lendl.
In Men's Doubles the Swede's were also prominent in the 80's and 90's which all started in 1983 with a young pair by the name of Anders Jarryd and Hans Simonsson. These two surprised the tennis world as an unseeded pair and even won the final in straight sets against the Australian / American pairing of Edmondson and Stewart.
Jarryd went on to win the Men's Doubles title in Paris on two more occasions, in '87 with American Rob Seguso and in '91 with Australian John Fitzgerald. From memory I believe that Jarryd and Fitgerald were in fact the first Men's Doubles team to win a million dollars in prize money in one year.
The Swedes love affair with Paris from the first title won by Borg in 1974 to the victory by Jarryd in '91 with 'Fitzy' netted them nine singles titles, three doubles crowns, four singles runner ups plus three doubles finals appearances. Putting it into perspective, this means that Sweden produced a Men's Singles finalist fifty percent of the time over a period of 18 years, that is quite remarkable. In Men's Doubles over the same time span the Swedes averaged at least one player in the final every three years.
So why the success at The French Open for the Swedes? Bjorn Borg inspired a new generation of players from Scandinavia and he taught them a way of playing that was simple yet effective. Not one of the above mentioned players had a real weapon, except maybe for Edberg who's serve and volley was exceptional. So what made their games so effective? They didn't miss .
They developed their ground strokes on the same surface as the French Open which was like playing in their own back yards . Their shots weren't overwhelming but they hit so few errors that playing against them was like hitting against a wall. This way of playing was proven to be a winning style as Borg's game was a model of consistency, a proven way of winning. Borg would not hit a winner unless he was pressured by a net rusher, he was simply content to out rally his opponents , that takes a strong mind and body.
The Swedes in Paris were inspiring in a golden era for their country and they were as much a part of the tournament back then as Paris in the Spring is part of folklore.....
Tuesday 5 August 2014
'FOUND THIS'
'LEGEND'( I thought this chapter was worth a 'RE POST') My apologies to all who enjoy reading this site however I have been too busy to write lately, will attempt to update soon, regards GT)
Stefan Koubek is no house hold name, he never was, he was a tennis professional from Austria and in 2000 he reached a career high of World number 20 in singles. He made over 3 million dollars in prize money. Stefan Koubek was an 'enigma'. Here's some random stories regarding the life and 'infamous' times of the Austrian who a movie should be made about, here's why;In 2002 Koubek played a Frenchman by the name of Cyril Saulnier of France in the first round of the Australian Open. What the hell was Koubec doing while trailing 0-6, 1-6, 1-4, 15-40 ? Was he on the phone to his bookie to raise the odds at the change of ends ?? The Austrian put his opponent to sleep for nearly the entire first three sets then while the Frenchman was tucked up in bed with his victory speech already in his dreams, the scoreline in the paper the next day read Koubek def Saulnier 0-6, 1-6, 7-6, 6-4, 8-6, work that one out......
Next round he played American James Blake , (within 4 years Blake would become World number 4) Blake won the first two sets while Koubek was still eating his breakfast, 6-4, 6-2. Koubek wins the next three sets 6-4, 6-1, 6-2, does this make any sense?
In his last seven matches of 2002 Koubek lost in the first round, interesting to say the least.....
In 2004 Koubek tested positive to drug use at the French Open. He claimed it was for an 'injury' to his wrist, it was inconclusive......
Koubek had a couple of 'off years' , he played mainly Challenger Events before 'getting it together' in 2007.
The Australian Open of that year saw the Austrian up against Aussie Wayne Arthurs, playing his last Australian Open , Koubek had him on toast, two sets to love, he lost in 5, hmmmm....
In Sopot , Poland in 2007 Koubek played Augustine Calleri of Argentina, this match was ridiculous. In Koubek's previous tournament he lost 4-6, 0-6 so his very next match was the one against Calleri. Shall we put it into perspective?
Koubek lost his last tournament 0-6 in the second set , then trailed 0-6, 0-4 in his next outing, what was this guy doing??
At 6-0, 4-0 did the Argentinian get a call from Cyril Saulnier ?? What ever happened will go down in tennis history as possibly the most ridiculous match ever played.
Koubek def Calliri 0-6, 7-6, 7-5, saving 5 match points, is there a pattern here ??
In Metz , France , Koubek took on Sebastien Grosjean, he lead 5-7, 7-6, 4-2, in the driver's seat, received a bad call , went nuts, was disqualified, is there a pattern here ??
In 2010 a 'friendly' league match between two Austrians, Koubek and Daniel Kollerer got way out of hand as Koubek took offence to his opponent's language so he did what anyone else would do, he choked him. Yep he put his hand around his opponent's neck and tried to kill him , plenty of us have wanted to do the same to our opposition, however it's probably not in the book of 'tennis etiquette'. Kollerer however was no angel, he had a string of offences in World Tennis including racism taunts towards opponents, he was banned for life in 2011 for match fixing.
So what about our Austrian live wire Stefan Koubek? He retired in 2011 with just over three million earned. Take off tax and expenses, add on endorsements, he probably finished with around two mil in the bank. Enough to buy a villa in the Austrian alps and teach the next generation how to play, perhaps with not as much 'exuberance' as he did though.
Funny game tennis, Stefan Koubek of Austria is living proof, legend......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)