I wrote the following post Xmas eve afternoon after I heard a news report regarding the Davis Cup tie in Australia next year. I had a few beers in the late afternoon and I was told to never post a chapter after a drink, just in case it makes no sense.
Makes sense, though a lot of what I write could be likened to someone is constantly drunk. So the following chapter is one of those things that I find rather amusing about tennis in this country and when I find something amusing well quite simply I write about it.....
I always do a Christmas message on my site and this year is no different yet perhaps the content of this one may not be the regular 'To all out there who read my site.......etc, etc. Nope this one is dedicated to Tennis Australia who have given me a countless amount of things to write about over the past year or two, or is that three ? Time flies when you are having fun...
Many people call me cynical, many call me an idiot, it's all part of the fun of having an opinion on tennis. I wish more people would call me a genius so I could give up my day job however that may just be asking for a little too much.
All I will say is that as far as light entertainment is concerned well I love writing and I can usually knock up a chapter now days within half an hour as my typing has improved over the years. My mind does not need a first copy like we used to do before the real thing so I just go in the direction that my silly mind takes me. It's not easy being me.
So to my Christmas message and it was magnificent timing to say the least when I hopped into my car and headed to work at an ungodly hour this morning, call it 'sparrow's fart'. The news just came on and when I heard the sports report well it was like an early Xmas present, an unwrapping of a 'gift' a day before the main event. I went to work with a smile on my face, my workmates wondered what I had been doing. So this is it.
Tennis Australia will play the USA in a Davis Cup tie in March 2016 at the KOOYONG TENNIS CENTRE in Melbourne on a GRASS court. Yes that appears to be a fact and Lleyton Hewitt will make the decisions as far as the team line up is concerned as he has officially been announced as the Australian Davis Cup Captain. Goodo. So what's wrong with this and why am I cynical ?
Well it's all about Tennis Australia and what they have in fact done over the last 27 years that contradicts what it set out to do.
The Kooyong Tennis Centre was ageing and on it's last legs admittedly by the time it had staged it's final Australian Open on grass in 1987, the year Edberg beat Cash in five sets in the final. I remember that match as though it was yesterday where Cash took a while to get going yet lead 5-1 in the fourth set after losing the first two.
The biggest factor in that particular match was that Pat did not secure that set easily as he should have and it gave the Swede Edberg plenty of ideas going into the last set despite dropping the fourth 5-7. He broke Cash twice from 1-5 in the fourth and that has to give a player some food for thought. Pat Cash at 5-1 in the fourth had a hand on the trophy, such is life. Back to the facts and figures.
Kooyong was closed and the Australian Open moved away from the 'traditional' grass courts of the early tennis days in this country which saw the likes of Laver, Emerson, Hoad, Newcombe, Roach etc rule the turf not only in Australia but at Wimbledon.
The Aussies it is fair to say knew how to play on grass tennis courts because they could volley, a necessity to the craft of winning on a slick surface.
So once again let's look at the news headline, I do tend to get side tracked with stats. There was a reason apparently that Tennis Australia changed their national Grand Slam from grass to hard yet this is still not totally cut and dried. Was it a cost issue of maintaining the grass or was it because grass is not a surface that can possibly be expected to help a young player develop into an all round player ? Was it both of the above ?
I would say both personally but lean toward the latter as a hard court is an 'equalizer' in tennis. If you can develop a game on hard court then you are well on your way as that requires an almost 'complete' game to be successful on.
So if the grass court tradition was perhaps put aside in favour of a surface that would help Australia's up and comer's become competitive against the baseline robots of Europe why is it that Tennis Australia keep reverting back to grass ?
If a player works on his game in Australia throughout the year then he works on two surfaces, hard and clay, that's it but then he is made to play on grass if he gets selected for Davis Cup. Confusion ??
Surely with Kooyong being put to rest it was making a statement, this country was moving ahead in a different direction in regards to player development and style. The Pat Cash style of serve and volley was no longer the way of the future. Tough to win on hard and clay courts with serve and volley yet is a proven style on grass but how many grass court events are there now days ?
So here we are in 2015, nearly 2016 and even Lleyton Hewitt surely can see that Australia's Davis Cup players are more at home on a hard court than grass due mainly to the hours put in on a hard surface. Or has Lleyton been told by the hierarchy at TA that there is no choice but to play on grass for one reason or another ?
Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall when these guys get together ? I would love to know the theory behind the one track mind as far as the Davis Cup playing surface in this country is concerned.
Sure there is an argument that a week's training on a surface will get a player grooved enough to be ready for battle but in the heat of a match where will a player's thought process be ? Doesn't a professional tennis player go to the 'well' where all of their training has been over many years when looking for an answer to the many questions an opponent asks.
What if they are looking for that crucial answer at that crucial time in a match yet the surface does not permit that type of play through lack of training on it ?
We could come up with a dozen or so examples but I am already writing a book, this site is just a brief 'point of view'.
No matter how you look at it all Tennis Australia are confused because they are trying to hold onto something from the past but at the same time trying to move ahead.
I guarantee you that the grass court idea for Davis Cup has nothing to do with the players, it is not their choice, it is handed to them by Tennis Australia and they are still obsessed with an old tradition.
Grass court tennis is a once a year event at the hallowed grounds of Wimbledon and the smaller lead up tournaments to it. Apart from that how many players would use that surface to develop their game ? Do you think any ???
Merry Xmas to all, thanks for reading my site and to Tennis Australia thank you for handing me so much dialogue over the years.......
Regards Glenn
Thursday 24 December 2015
Monday 7 December 2015
'A MONUMENTAL BLUNDER'
Here's an interesting piece of information for you regarding the Davis Cup final of 2001 played at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne, Australia, 30th November- Dec 2, between Australia and France. Now you all know my views on Tennis Australia and their lack of faith in their players to win on anything but a grass court but this little chestnut is rather staggering.
It all began at Wimbledon in the same year.
A Frenchman by the name of Nicolas Escude was seeded 24 and took on Lleyton Hewitt of Australia, seeded 5 in the fourth round. Most would have tipped Hewitt to win that particular match but Escude had a rather unique style which was not unlike that of Swede Mats Wilander particularly his backhand which was a magnificently fluent shot.
Escude managed to beat Hewitt in five sets which on paper looked like an upset but anyone who knew just how talented the Frenchman was knew that this win was within his capabilities. The Frenchman went through to the quarters and won the first set off Agassi before losing in four. Let's now fast forward to the US Open of that same year.
Lleyton Hewitt survived a tough five set test in round two against James Blake before going on to beat Roddick in the quarters, again in five, then Kafelnikov in straight and then belted Sampras in straight sets also for the title. Hewitt had hard court form without a doubt. Now let's fast forward to the Davis Cup final of 2001.
The team in Australia comprised of Hewitt, Rafter, Woodbridge and Arthurs. Todd Woodbridge had won his 18th Grand Slam Doubles title with Bjorkman at the Australian Open on hard court in 2001. Todd also had hard court form. Wayne Arthurs made it to the semi finals of the 2001 Australian Open Mens doubles with Zimonjic. So it would be fair to say that Arthurs also didn't mind playing on hard courts.
Pat Rafter had already won the US Open Mens Singles title twice, in '97 and '98. His form on hard court could not be questioned. Rafter in fact won ten doubles tournaments over the course of his career though four of those were with possibly one of the greatest doubles players of all time, Swede Jonas Bjorkman. ( I reckon I may have had a chance to win at doubles with Bjorkman on my side of the net ). Jonas was a doubles genius and he did not require a fellow doubles expert on his side as he proved in a tournament win with John McEnroe in 2006 when Mac was 47.
I believe only one player in the World could have taken McEnroe out of retirement and won a doubles tournament, that was Jonas. Yes Mac was a doubles expert but he had been in retirement for around 12 years apart from the Seniors tour and that is a huge difference from the ATP Tour.
Sorry I have got off track again, as I usually do.
So the Australian Tennis 'brains trust' decided to lay a grass court over the hard court at the home of the Australian Open for reasons unbeknown to anyone but themselves. The above statistics all pointed to a hard court show down against France in that 2001 Davis Cup final. Yet it did not happen and it backfired big time. There was however another monumental blunder in that particular final that didn't get enough air play at the time yet it was the most relevant issue in the final.
Why did Rafter play doubles with Hewitt when these two were not a proven team and they had never won a title together ? Why also did the issue of Rafter's injured arm not get taken more seriously and why was he not just used as a singles player ? Were the Aussies trying to lose this final ??! Why was Woodbridge overlooked for the doubles when he had been Australia's most successful doubles player in the last 40 or so years and one of the World's all time great exponents of the two on two format ?
Wayne Arthurs was no World beater yet he was more than a handy partner for Woody and surely his semi final showing in January at the Aussie Open was more than enough to put these two together for the pivotal doubles. Apparently not.
So to the final; Escude beat Hewitt again in five sets which proved his Wimbledon win against him was no fluke.
Rafter held his end of the bargain up with a win against Grosjean in straight sets. The little 'Maestro' as he was known Fabrice Santoro, the French doubles genius teamed with Pioline who really had no doubles form to speak of yet it was not a necessity either. Anyone could have won with Fabrice, he was as clever as Jonas on a doubles court, a genius in fact. He was the one player in that doubles match that made the difference.
The Aussies did not do their homework on this final and the amount of blunders in it were nothing short of almost comical. Hewitt did end up taking the tie to the final match with a straight sets win over Grosjean in the first reverse singles yet Rafter could not play the final match due to how bad his arm was after the doubles so Arthurs played it. Escude won that in four sets as everyone expected him to, he was a class above Arthurs who was not a proven singles player.
The whole set of circumstances did not make sense.
Surely if Rafter had issues with his arm then he shouldn't have played the doubles but John Fitgerald as the Captain should not even have looked at him for doubles as Woody was the only man who could match Santoro's genius in doubles.
It actually would have made for a great match, Woody/ Arthurs vs Pioline/ Santoro. For history's sake the French won that match in four sets, 6-1 in the fourth, totally outplaying a team in the end who were dubbed 'the Dream Team' at the start of the match. They were anything but.
This Davis Cup final will go down as one of the biggest 'cock ups' in Australian tennis history for all of the above reasons. Someone should have sent Tennis Australia a 'please explain letter' back then and asked for some answers.
Pity I didn't know how to type back then..........
It all began at Wimbledon in the same year.
A Frenchman by the name of Nicolas Escude was seeded 24 and took on Lleyton Hewitt of Australia, seeded 5 in the fourth round. Most would have tipped Hewitt to win that particular match but Escude had a rather unique style which was not unlike that of Swede Mats Wilander particularly his backhand which was a magnificently fluent shot.
Escude managed to beat Hewitt in five sets which on paper looked like an upset but anyone who knew just how talented the Frenchman was knew that this win was within his capabilities. The Frenchman went through to the quarters and won the first set off Agassi before losing in four. Let's now fast forward to the US Open of that same year.
Lleyton Hewitt survived a tough five set test in round two against James Blake before going on to beat Roddick in the quarters, again in five, then Kafelnikov in straight and then belted Sampras in straight sets also for the title. Hewitt had hard court form without a doubt. Now let's fast forward to the Davis Cup final of 2001.
The team in Australia comprised of Hewitt, Rafter, Woodbridge and Arthurs. Todd Woodbridge had won his 18th Grand Slam Doubles title with Bjorkman at the Australian Open on hard court in 2001. Todd also had hard court form. Wayne Arthurs made it to the semi finals of the 2001 Australian Open Mens doubles with Zimonjic. So it would be fair to say that Arthurs also didn't mind playing on hard courts.
Pat Rafter had already won the US Open Mens Singles title twice, in '97 and '98. His form on hard court could not be questioned. Rafter in fact won ten doubles tournaments over the course of his career though four of those were with possibly one of the greatest doubles players of all time, Swede Jonas Bjorkman. ( I reckon I may have had a chance to win at doubles with Bjorkman on my side of the net ). Jonas was a doubles genius and he did not require a fellow doubles expert on his side as he proved in a tournament win with John McEnroe in 2006 when Mac was 47.
I believe only one player in the World could have taken McEnroe out of retirement and won a doubles tournament, that was Jonas. Yes Mac was a doubles expert but he had been in retirement for around 12 years apart from the Seniors tour and that is a huge difference from the ATP Tour.
Sorry I have got off track again, as I usually do.
So the Australian Tennis 'brains trust' decided to lay a grass court over the hard court at the home of the Australian Open for reasons unbeknown to anyone but themselves. The above statistics all pointed to a hard court show down against France in that 2001 Davis Cup final. Yet it did not happen and it backfired big time. There was however another monumental blunder in that particular final that didn't get enough air play at the time yet it was the most relevant issue in the final.
Why did Rafter play doubles with Hewitt when these two were not a proven team and they had never won a title together ? Why also did the issue of Rafter's injured arm not get taken more seriously and why was he not just used as a singles player ? Were the Aussies trying to lose this final ??! Why was Woodbridge overlooked for the doubles when he had been Australia's most successful doubles player in the last 40 or so years and one of the World's all time great exponents of the two on two format ?
Wayne Arthurs was no World beater yet he was more than a handy partner for Woody and surely his semi final showing in January at the Aussie Open was more than enough to put these two together for the pivotal doubles. Apparently not.
So to the final; Escude beat Hewitt again in five sets which proved his Wimbledon win against him was no fluke.
Rafter held his end of the bargain up with a win against Grosjean in straight sets. The little 'Maestro' as he was known Fabrice Santoro, the French doubles genius teamed with Pioline who really had no doubles form to speak of yet it was not a necessity either. Anyone could have won with Fabrice, he was as clever as Jonas on a doubles court, a genius in fact. He was the one player in that doubles match that made the difference.
The Aussies did not do their homework on this final and the amount of blunders in it were nothing short of almost comical. Hewitt did end up taking the tie to the final match with a straight sets win over Grosjean in the first reverse singles yet Rafter could not play the final match due to how bad his arm was after the doubles so Arthurs played it. Escude won that in four sets as everyone expected him to, he was a class above Arthurs who was not a proven singles player.
The whole set of circumstances did not make sense.
Surely if Rafter had issues with his arm then he shouldn't have played the doubles but John Fitgerald as the Captain should not even have looked at him for doubles as Woody was the only man who could match Santoro's genius in doubles.
It actually would have made for a great match, Woody/ Arthurs vs Pioline/ Santoro. For history's sake the French won that match in four sets, 6-1 in the fourth, totally outplaying a team in the end who were dubbed 'the Dream Team' at the start of the match. They were anything but.
This Davis Cup final will go down as one of the biggest 'cock ups' in Australian tennis history for all of the above reasons. Someone should have sent Tennis Australia a 'please explain letter' back then and asked for some answers.
Pity I didn't know how to type back then..........
Saturday 5 December 2015
'BRILLIANT'
The win by Andy Murray in the Davis Cup final against Goffin was one of those victories for the smart players of World tennis. Just a week earlier Andy had played and lost a tight two set match to Wawrinka at the World Tour finals in London but did Andy really play to his full potential ? Let's look at it in all seriousness.
The match against Stan was one to put either player into the semi finals against a red hot Federer who is still that hungry for success that it is outrageously silly given his age and record that has ticked all boxes on more than one occasion. Could Andy have beaten Federer ? Perhaps, but could he have beaten Novak ? You do the sums on that one, no one on the planet can beat Novak at the moment in a big final that means dollars and ranking points as well as prestige.
So to the match between Andy and Stan. Yes it was tight however did Andy really need to win it ? If he had won he would have earned the right to play Federer and the Fed just loves playing baseliners at the moment. His penchant for upsetting the robotic style from the baseline is becoming more and more famous by the weeks, months and years.
My theory on the match between Andy and Stan is simple. Andy didn't really care too much about it as he had bigger fish to fry in Belgium a week later. You can't tell me that Murray didn't know he was a red hot chance to win both singles matches and that all he had to do was combine with his little bother Jamie to win the doubles and the title was going back to the Brits for the first time in 79 years.
If Andy had beaten Stan he had a minimal chance of beating Roger and he had no chance of beating Novak though he is no Robinson Crusoe there. So is there an issue here ? Let's do the sums ( once again ).
Apparently the ITF ( International Tennis Federation) run the Davis Cup and the ATP ( Association of Tennis Professionals) run most other tournaments so there are two governing bodies at war here on dates for tournaments including the Davis Cup. So why was the Davis Cup final scheduled just a week after the Tour Finals ? Incompetence may be the word we are looking for here.
Why these two can't work together is beyond me but I find it laughable that the winner of the Tour Finals may have less than a week to recover physically from playing the Top 10 in the World. They then have around five days to practice on a totally different surface in preparation for the Davis Cup final. Correct me if I am wrong.
In this instance however I am sure that 'common sense' took place and that Andy Murray did the sums on it all and his training plus 'foresight' all played a role. If Andy had made the semi finals in London I believe he was in all sorts of physical danger of not being labelled a National hero once again for putting his country back on the map with a Davis Cup victory.
Andy is a genius in my eyes as he did what he could in London then gave himself enough time to get ready in Belgium. If you know anything about tennis you may just agree with me. If you don't well you may just find me a little bit cynical. Either way I am sticking with my story and I am sure that Andy is sticking with his........
The match against Stan was one to put either player into the semi finals against a red hot Federer who is still that hungry for success that it is outrageously silly given his age and record that has ticked all boxes on more than one occasion. Could Andy have beaten Federer ? Perhaps, but could he have beaten Novak ? You do the sums on that one, no one on the planet can beat Novak at the moment in a big final that means dollars and ranking points as well as prestige.
So to the match between Andy and Stan. Yes it was tight however did Andy really need to win it ? If he had won he would have earned the right to play Federer and the Fed just loves playing baseliners at the moment. His penchant for upsetting the robotic style from the baseline is becoming more and more famous by the weeks, months and years.
My theory on the match between Andy and Stan is simple. Andy didn't really care too much about it as he had bigger fish to fry in Belgium a week later. You can't tell me that Murray didn't know he was a red hot chance to win both singles matches and that all he had to do was combine with his little bother Jamie to win the doubles and the title was going back to the Brits for the first time in 79 years.
If Andy had beaten Stan he had a minimal chance of beating Roger and he had no chance of beating Novak though he is no Robinson Crusoe there. So is there an issue here ? Let's do the sums ( once again ).
Apparently the ITF ( International Tennis Federation) run the Davis Cup and the ATP ( Association of Tennis Professionals) run most other tournaments so there are two governing bodies at war here on dates for tournaments including the Davis Cup. So why was the Davis Cup final scheduled just a week after the Tour Finals ? Incompetence may be the word we are looking for here.
Why these two can't work together is beyond me but I find it laughable that the winner of the Tour Finals may have less than a week to recover physically from playing the Top 10 in the World. They then have around five days to practice on a totally different surface in preparation for the Davis Cup final. Correct me if I am wrong.
In this instance however I am sure that 'common sense' took place and that Andy Murray did the sums on it all and his training plus 'foresight' all played a role. If Andy had made the semi finals in London I believe he was in all sorts of physical danger of not being labelled a National hero once again for putting his country back on the map with a Davis Cup victory.
Andy is a genius in my eyes as he did what he could in London then gave himself enough time to get ready in Belgium. If you know anything about tennis you may just agree with me. If you don't well you may just find me a little bit cynical. Either way I am sticking with my story and I am sure that Andy is sticking with his........
Friday 4 December 2015
'INSPIRING'
Watching my favourite rock band of all time Def Leppard perform in Perth recently gives people like myself an inspiration in life to soldier on despite the grey hair, the slower walk and other factors that are associated with 45 plus syndrome.
What I do take from a concert like that however is a sense of inspiration that I liken to my junior days on court locally when I should have been at school. I have mentioned in an earlier chapter that I used to 'convince' another local player from my school that we were wasting our time at school and that we should focus on tennis (brilliant idea Thommo).
So off we went at lunchtime and played tennis for three hours until the school bell rang. I would then ride the ten kilometres back to my house.
'How was your day '? Yeah great thanks Mum, was a tough day but I learned a lot, that was the main thing. Lying little prick. I learned a lot from a few tennis drills, that was about it.
My main inspiration back then to hit a ball was the music on the side of the court from my 'ghetto blaster'. Def Leppard 'Hysteria' was possibly one of the most remarkable changes in music from an already established rock band in the history of music. They have always inspired me because they have embraced the times, the environment and have made the changes to accommodate the climate.
Def Leppard could in fact be likened to a baseliner embracing a net game as the years became more challenging and the industry started asking more questions of the player.
I have often written about my love of Glam Rock and how it has motivated me to keep playing, keep fit, keep soldiering on in life despite numerous setbacks and new challenges that at times seem a little hard to overcome. My favourite bands are Def Leppard, Cheap Trick and Bryan Adams among others and the thing you will notice about these bands are that they are still going. Call it longevity.
So why are they still going ? Because they have something of substance to offer.
I have previously written about days gone by and the odd win here and there however anyone who knows a sport like tennis will realise this. If you are still going into your late 40's then perhaps you may just own a desire to keep bettering yourself as opposed to continually looking back on what you did in the game. 'Could I have done it better' ??
I am not sure if it is an original comment or not however I was sent a message from a buddy a while back that said ' Thommo remember buddy it aint how good you were, it's how good you can still become. If you are still fit, still able to hit a ball and still have the desire then what is to stop you from continually improving at a sport that many give up on way too early' ?
Remember only a pinch of salt reaches their potential at a young age and unfortunately if that potential is not reached by the time it is 'expected' then tennis is given up for good. That's a shame as there are many other options in the sport of tennis once the elite level is not reached.
I am someone who is still inspired by old rock bands who still have the desire to get up in the morning and believe in what they do, what they write or how they perform. The old rockers of the World inspire me to keep on keeping on.
As far as this blog site is concerned, well I am still doing it though I am working on something else on another site currently that I believe in and that I hope will be something positive.
I am still playing tennis, I am still fit , I am still coaching and I am still an argumentative bastard who believes in what he does despite numerous comments I receive on this site that beg to differ.
I am happy to be an individual in life and in a sport such as tennis that is stereotyped in more ways than one. I like the idea of not playing follow the leader and having my own views. I enjoy teaching my way on a private tennis court and charging an hourly rate that does not have head up one's own arse syndrome and self importance written all over the invoice.
We are all inspired in life by different people and different things. Call me old fashioned with my sliced backhand, loopy forehand and love of Glam Rock however it is a mix I am happy with.
Bring back the 80's.........
What I do take from a concert like that however is a sense of inspiration that I liken to my junior days on court locally when I should have been at school. I have mentioned in an earlier chapter that I used to 'convince' another local player from my school that we were wasting our time at school and that we should focus on tennis (brilliant idea Thommo).
So off we went at lunchtime and played tennis for three hours until the school bell rang. I would then ride the ten kilometres back to my house.
'How was your day '? Yeah great thanks Mum, was a tough day but I learned a lot, that was the main thing. Lying little prick. I learned a lot from a few tennis drills, that was about it.
My main inspiration back then to hit a ball was the music on the side of the court from my 'ghetto blaster'. Def Leppard 'Hysteria' was possibly one of the most remarkable changes in music from an already established rock band in the history of music. They have always inspired me because they have embraced the times, the environment and have made the changes to accommodate the climate.
Def Leppard could in fact be likened to a baseliner embracing a net game as the years became more challenging and the industry started asking more questions of the player.
I have often written about my love of Glam Rock and how it has motivated me to keep playing, keep fit, keep soldiering on in life despite numerous setbacks and new challenges that at times seem a little hard to overcome. My favourite bands are Def Leppard, Cheap Trick and Bryan Adams among others and the thing you will notice about these bands are that they are still going. Call it longevity.
So why are they still going ? Because they have something of substance to offer.
I have previously written about days gone by and the odd win here and there however anyone who knows a sport like tennis will realise this. If you are still going into your late 40's then perhaps you may just own a desire to keep bettering yourself as opposed to continually looking back on what you did in the game. 'Could I have done it better' ??
I am not sure if it is an original comment or not however I was sent a message from a buddy a while back that said ' Thommo remember buddy it aint how good you were, it's how good you can still become. If you are still fit, still able to hit a ball and still have the desire then what is to stop you from continually improving at a sport that many give up on way too early' ?
Remember only a pinch of salt reaches their potential at a young age and unfortunately if that potential is not reached by the time it is 'expected' then tennis is given up for good. That's a shame as there are many other options in the sport of tennis once the elite level is not reached.
I am someone who is still inspired by old rock bands who still have the desire to get up in the morning and believe in what they do, what they write or how they perform. The old rockers of the World inspire me to keep on keeping on.
As far as this blog site is concerned, well I am still doing it though I am working on something else on another site currently that I believe in and that I hope will be something positive.
I am still playing tennis, I am still fit , I am still coaching and I am still an argumentative bastard who believes in what he does despite numerous comments I receive on this site that beg to differ.
I am happy to be an individual in life and in a sport such as tennis that is stereotyped in more ways than one. I like the idea of not playing follow the leader and having my own views. I enjoy teaching my way on a private tennis court and charging an hourly rate that does not have head up one's own arse syndrome and self importance written all over the invoice.
We are all inspired in life by different people and different things. Call me old fashioned with my sliced backhand, loopy forehand and love of Glam Rock however it is a mix I am happy with.
Bring back the 80's.........
Wednesday 2 December 2015
Tuesday 1 December 2015
'WORTH ANOTHER READ (IT'S FASCINATING )
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE FOLLOWING STORY IS TYPICAL OF TENNIS TODAY< NOT ONLY IN THE US BUT ELSEWHERE ALSO< A GREAT READ......
Wayne Bryan (center) with sons Bob and MikeThe USTA Florida Game Changer series examines the leading tennis industry products, tips and industry insights. USTA Florida members get first access to the information, and can share using the hashtag #GameChanger. Share your insight in the comment section below.
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:
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.
Wayne Bryan (center) with sons Bob and MikeThe USTA Florida Game Changer series examines the leading tennis industry products, tips and industry insights. USTA Florida members get first access to the information, and can share using the hashtag #GameChanger. Share your insight in the comment section below.
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.
Wednesday 18 November 2015
'DON'T BLAME YOURSELF'
I have seen the highlights of the Novak/ Roger Tour Finals match which saw the great man from Switzerland halt Novak's unbeaten run of twenty something matches. It came as no surprise that Novak said he had an off day, Novak does that many times when he loses. But here's the thing.
Novak did not play another baseline 'robot' who keeps putting the ball right back into the slot for him so he can get himself into a rhythm. He actually played someone who is smart enough to mix up the play so he is always guessing as to what is coming next.
I have always stated that most coaches know how to volley yet they don't teach it to pupils for one reason or another as they simply teach the robotic style of play that sends boredom to a whole new level. No guts, no glory.
Novak blamed his own game for the loss to Roger yet he should be the first to admit that he hates playing someone who does not play a conventional style of game. I believe Roger has beaten Novak three times this year in a best of three sets match as it suits Rog to play over three as opposed to five. Novak wears all of his opponents out over five with few exceptions.
A fair player will admit defeat and admit to being out thought when he gets beaten by a better player on the day and I also believe guys like Novak should set an example to others. If you read the transcript of the press conference it hints of arrogance and little else. These two champions would not go to dinner together.
It is such a shame Roger is as old as he is, he can't play forever, he's almost 35, tough sport to keep getting up for physically at that age yet he aint leaving quietly. I love it when Roger beats Novak with artistry, like a chess player who has all the right moves at all the right times. Rushing a baseliner has merit and history will show that it pays dividends.
Learn a slice, learn a volley, learn a chip return, learn to be a little different. Mixing play up can beat the best baseliners. The robots of the game can be confused, it just takes someone who is willing to take the game on and not sit back and wait for something to happen........
Novak did not play another baseline 'robot' who keeps putting the ball right back into the slot for him so he can get himself into a rhythm. He actually played someone who is smart enough to mix up the play so he is always guessing as to what is coming next.
I have always stated that most coaches know how to volley yet they don't teach it to pupils for one reason or another as they simply teach the robotic style of play that sends boredom to a whole new level. No guts, no glory.
Novak blamed his own game for the loss to Roger yet he should be the first to admit that he hates playing someone who does not play a conventional style of game. I believe Roger has beaten Novak three times this year in a best of three sets match as it suits Rog to play over three as opposed to five. Novak wears all of his opponents out over five with few exceptions.
A fair player will admit defeat and admit to being out thought when he gets beaten by a better player on the day and I also believe guys like Novak should set an example to others. If you read the transcript of the press conference it hints of arrogance and little else. These two champions would not go to dinner together.
It is such a shame Roger is as old as he is, he can't play forever, he's almost 35, tough sport to keep getting up for physically at that age yet he aint leaving quietly. I love it when Roger beats Novak with artistry, like a chess player who has all the right moves at all the right times. Rushing a baseliner has merit and history will show that it pays dividends.
Learn a slice, learn a volley, learn a chip return, learn to be a little different. Mixing play up can beat the best baseliners. The robots of the game can be confused, it just takes someone who is willing to take the game on and not sit back and wait for something to happen........
Sunday 1 November 2015
'GOOD BLOKE'
The following is a story from 'TENNIS WORLD USA' and is a remarkable show of sportsmanship from a veteran of the sport of tennis. Paul -Henri Mathieu is no real house hold name yet he is a man of substance. The tennis world needs more guys like him on tour looking after the future of the game....
Strange choice for Paul-Henri Mathieu. The Frenchman has decided to play the qualifications at the Masters 1000 Paris Bercy so that the organizers could give the wild-card for the main draw to Pierre-Hugues Herbert. Today Mathieu faces Albert Ramos Vinolas. Had he decided to play in the main draw, he would have gained 12.125 euros and would have earned 10 points. If he loses against Ramos, he will gain 1.370 and zero ATP Points.
He has won four singles titles; reached the semi finals of the 2005 Montreal Masters and achieved a career-high singles ranking of World No. 12 in April 2008. In 2005, he achieved his best result in an ATP Masters Series event, knocking out Andy Roddick on his way to the semi finals at Montreal.
2006 saw him reaching his best result at a Grand Slam tournament with the fourth round at the Australian Open. In May he peaked a career best ranking of no. 32. In the third round of the French Open, he lost to eventual champion Rafael Nadal in a gruelling encounter which lasted 4 hours and 53 minutes, but amazingly only saw 42 games played (Nadal won the match 5–7, 6–4, 6–4, 6–4, with the first set lasting 93 minutes and each of the following sets longer than an hour).
Paul Henri has won around $5.5 million US dollars in his time on the pro circuit and he is 33 years old, in the twilight of his career. He can see that it is not a necessity for him to play now days especially when a younger player can earn some much needed dollars and ranking points.
Stories like this are not mentioned enough in tennis as it's usually about Novak or Rodger winning a million here and there and living in a palace. It's not how most players live and not what most players earn yet the life of a tennis professional is glamourized to the extremes most of the time.
The Frenchman shows the tennis world that the human spirit is still alive and well, after all what's another $12,000 Euros when you are a millionaire five times over ey ?? Well done Champ......
Strange choice for Paul-Henri Mathieu. The Frenchman has decided to play the qualifications at the Masters 1000 Paris Bercy so that the organizers could give the wild-card for the main draw to Pierre-Hugues Herbert. Today Mathieu faces Albert Ramos Vinolas. Had he decided to play in the main draw, he would have gained 12.125 euros and would have earned 10 points. If he loses against Ramos, he will gain 1.370 and zero ATP Points.
He has won four singles titles; reached the semi finals of the 2005 Montreal Masters and achieved a career-high singles ranking of World No. 12 in April 2008. In 2005, he achieved his best result in an ATP Masters Series event, knocking out Andy Roddick on his way to the semi finals at Montreal.
2006 saw him reaching his best result at a Grand Slam tournament with the fourth round at the Australian Open. In May he peaked a career best ranking of no. 32. In the third round of the French Open, he lost to eventual champion Rafael Nadal in a gruelling encounter which lasted 4 hours and 53 minutes, but amazingly only saw 42 games played (Nadal won the match 5–7, 6–4, 6–4, 6–4, with the first set lasting 93 minutes and each of the following sets longer than an hour).
Paul Henri has won around $5.5 million US dollars in his time on the pro circuit and he is 33 years old, in the twilight of his career. He can see that it is not a necessity for him to play now days especially when a younger player can earn some much needed dollars and ranking points.
Stories like this are not mentioned enough in tennis as it's usually about Novak or Rodger winning a million here and there and living in a palace. It's not how most players live and not what most players earn yet the life of a tennis professional is glamourized to the extremes most of the time.
The Frenchman shows the tennis world that the human spirit is still alive and well, after all what's another $12,000 Euros when you are a millionaire five times over ey ?? Well done Champ......
Sunday 25 October 2015
'THE COMEBACK'
I have written more than one chapter regarding my European tour of 1991 with my buddies from Perth, Brett and Pete and the quite remarkable timing of the comeback of my hero Bjorn Borg. That particular initial match by Borg was played at the Monte Carlo Country Club, a place of such magnificence that the setting really does defy logic.
We all watched on from the sporting club in Bordeaux, France where we were playing an insignificant little tournament that would never even register on anyone's 'important' tennis calendar. Every player who was playing that tournament knew of Borg and it showed as the club was full by the time the match commenced. Unfortunately Borg's return to the game after 10 years of absence did not give the sentimental tennis purest the fairy-tale result.
I do not quite remember my reaction to the loss but it was probably not as devastating as it first was when Borg retired at age 26 when I was a lad of 13 or 14 who relied on my hero for inspiration. Looking back I suppose the loss to Arrese in Monte Carlo was to be expected yet when it comes to a legend you tend to expect a miracle even if it wasn't realistic. James Bond could get himself out of any situation, Borg to me was 007, he had that sort of appeal, he just couldn't find a way out of that impossible situation.
In 1992 Borg again contested Monte Carlo and lost to Wayne Ferreira of South Africa by the score of 7-6, 6-2. Putting that performance into perspective Borg was 36, Ferreira 21 and the South African had made the semi finals of the Australian Open that year defeating John McEnroe in straight sets in the quarter finals.
So was Borg's comeback really a failure or was he just a whisker away from being competitive once again despite his age and his ten years of retirement ? The following result I believe says it all.
The Kremlin Cup of 1993 saw Borg granted a wildcard into the main draw where unfortunately he drew the number 2 seed Alexander Volkov. As one of my previous chapters stated Volkov almost changed tennis history when he lead the eventual Wimbledon champion of 1991 Michael Stich 5-3, 30-15 in the fifth set, unlucky to lose with a net cord shot against him.
The tournament in Moscow was the third year of Borg's comeback though he did not play many tournaments, he simply picked a few that appealed to him and did his best to prepare against guys almost half his age. Volkov at the time was ranked World number 14, his highest ever ranking and was age 26. Surely Volkov would beat Borg with ease and put and end to any doubts about a 37 year old matching it with the World's best tennis players after a decade out of the game.
For history's sake Alexander Volkov defeated Bjorn Borg 4-6, 6-3, 7-6 and the final set tie break score was 9-7. You tell me whether Borg still had ability at age 37 and with ten years out of the sport. The interesting fact about this result was that Volkov did not in fact play his next match, he withdrew without a ball being hit and it proved to be Borg's final comeback attempt. Did the 'old' guy wear the young guy out ?
Volkov won this tournament the very next year.
Personally I believe that Bjorn Borg was three to five years late on his comeback attempt though the highlights that you can see on Youtube in Monte Carlo against Ferreira show a remarkably fit looking Borg at age 36. Not many players can maintain that sort of fitness and perform that well in singles at that age, if any. Connors was possibly the only exception in the past 25 years with his semi final performance at the US Open in 1991.
Borg's comeback had no real heroics involved however if nothing else he proved that he could still play at a remarkably high level against the World's top players.
I am probably one of many who just wished that he had done it a lot sooner........
We all watched on from the sporting club in Bordeaux, France where we were playing an insignificant little tournament that would never even register on anyone's 'important' tennis calendar. Every player who was playing that tournament knew of Borg and it showed as the club was full by the time the match commenced. Unfortunately Borg's return to the game after 10 years of absence did not give the sentimental tennis purest the fairy-tale result.
I do not quite remember my reaction to the loss but it was probably not as devastating as it first was when Borg retired at age 26 when I was a lad of 13 or 14 who relied on my hero for inspiration. Looking back I suppose the loss to Arrese in Monte Carlo was to be expected yet when it comes to a legend you tend to expect a miracle even if it wasn't realistic. James Bond could get himself out of any situation, Borg to me was 007, he had that sort of appeal, he just couldn't find a way out of that impossible situation.
In 1992 Borg again contested Monte Carlo and lost to Wayne Ferreira of South Africa by the score of 7-6, 6-2. Putting that performance into perspective Borg was 36, Ferreira 21 and the South African had made the semi finals of the Australian Open that year defeating John McEnroe in straight sets in the quarter finals.
So was Borg's comeback really a failure or was he just a whisker away from being competitive once again despite his age and his ten years of retirement ? The following result I believe says it all.
The Kremlin Cup of 1993 saw Borg granted a wildcard into the main draw where unfortunately he drew the number 2 seed Alexander Volkov. As one of my previous chapters stated Volkov almost changed tennis history when he lead the eventual Wimbledon champion of 1991 Michael Stich 5-3, 30-15 in the fifth set, unlucky to lose with a net cord shot against him.
The tournament in Moscow was the third year of Borg's comeback though he did not play many tournaments, he simply picked a few that appealed to him and did his best to prepare against guys almost half his age. Volkov at the time was ranked World number 14, his highest ever ranking and was age 26. Surely Volkov would beat Borg with ease and put and end to any doubts about a 37 year old matching it with the World's best tennis players after a decade out of the game.
For history's sake Alexander Volkov defeated Bjorn Borg 4-6, 6-3, 7-6 and the final set tie break score was 9-7. You tell me whether Borg still had ability at age 37 and with ten years out of the sport. The interesting fact about this result was that Volkov did not in fact play his next match, he withdrew without a ball being hit and it proved to be Borg's final comeback attempt. Did the 'old' guy wear the young guy out ?
Volkov won this tournament the very next year.
Personally I believe that Bjorn Borg was three to five years late on his comeback attempt though the highlights that you can see on Youtube in Monte Carlo against Ferreira show a remarkably fit looking Borg at age 36. Not many players can maintain that sort of fitness and perform that well in singles at that age, if any. Connors was possibly the only exception in the past 25 years with his semi final performance at the US Open in 1991.
Borg's comeback had no real heroics involved however if nothing else he proved that he could still play at a remarkably high level against the World's top players.
I am probably one of many who just wished that he had done it a lot sooner........
Tuesday 20 October 2015
'THOMAS'
Without a doubt one of the most unusual defaults from a World Tennis tournament final would have to have been at the Lipton Championships in Florida, 1989. Thomas Muster was ranked number 7 and he had been in red hot form all tournament particularly in his semi final against number 12 seed Yannick Noah of France.
Back then the Lipton Championships were considered the 'fifth Grand Slam' and every player who was fit and healthy would turn up. The other thing that made it so unique was the fact that it was also a best of five sets format, the ultimate test of mind and body.
World number 1 Ivan Lendl had cruised through his half of the draw with the loss of just 44 games in his six matches which broken down is an average score of 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, roughly anyhow. Muster had lost just two sets before his epic semi final against Noah the 1983 French Open champion where he came back from two sets down to win in five, 5-7, 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2. The final was sure to be a contest of epic proportions.
There are conflicting reports on when the accident occurred however from what I recall Thomas stopped on the side of the road to grab some food from the boot of his car when he was struck from behind by a drunk driver. The accident put an end to his quest of a potential classic match with Lendl and it put the Austrian star out of the game for around six months.
If ever there was a picture that could inspire a generation of tennis players it would have to be the one of Muster practicing with the aid of a chair designed to take his weight and allow him to still hit balls while sitting down. It was one of the most fascinating things I have ever witnessed in tennis and gave 'heart' a whole new meaning. Nothing was going to stop Thomas from achieving what he wanted to achieve in World Tennis.
Seven years later Muster would become the best tennis player in the World and won a dozen tournaments to back up that ranking. He also claimed one of the best ever winning streaks on the European clay by winning 40 straight matches.
The Austrian was a man to be reckoned with despite his near career ending accident in Florida but just like the American Derrick Rostagno who was lucky enough to change his flight just before it crashed killing everyone on board he was afforded a second chance in life.
Sometimes a near miss can change one's perception of life in general and I believe that Thomas Muster practiced even harder once his leg healed from that potentially fatal accident.
Some cruise through and accept what is given to them but not Thomas Muster. He was a man who made up for lost time, like no other I have ever seen in World tennis......
Back then the Lipton Championships were considered the 'fifth Grand Slam' and every player who was fit and healthy would turn up. The other thing that made it so unique was the fact that it was also a best of five sets format, the ultimate test of mind and body.
World number 1 Ivan Lendl had cruised through his half of the draw with the loss of just 44 games in his six matches which broken down is an average score of 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, roughly anyhow. Muster had lost just two sets before his epic semi final against Noah the 1983 French Open champion where he came back from two sets down to win in five, 5-7, 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2. The final was sure to be a contest of epic proportions.
There are conflicting reports on when the accident occurred however from what I recall Thomas stopped on the side of the road to grab some food from the boot of his car when he was struck from behind by a drunk driver. The accident put an end to his quest of a potential classic match with Lendl and it put the Austrian star out of the game for around six months.
If ever there was a picture that could inspire a generation of tennis players it would have to be the one of Muster practicing with the aid of a chair designed to take his weight and allow him to still hit balls while sitting down. It was one of the most fascinating things I have ever witnessed in tennis and gave 'heart' a whole new meaning. Nothing was going to stop Thomas from achieving what he wanted to achieve in World Tennis.
Seven years later Muster would become the best tennis player in the World and won a dozen tournaments to back up that ranking. He also claimed one of the best ever winning streaks on the European clay by winning 40 straight matches.
The Austrian was a man to be reckoned with despite his near career ending accident in Florida but just like the American Derrick Rostagno who was lucky enough to change his flight just before it crashed killing everyone on board he was afforded a second chance in life.
Sometimes a near miss can change one's perception of life in general and I believe that Thomas Muster practiced even harder once his leg healed from that potentially fatal accident.
Some cruise through and accept what is given to them but not Thomas Muster. He was a man who made up for lost time, like no other I have ever seen in World tennis......
Monday 19 October 2015
'SHOWING FAITH'
The Kremlin Cup tournament currently under way in Moscow has shown the tennis World an incredible show of faith by a tennis federation towards its players. The mens qualifying event produced no less than 21 budding Russian professionals all trying to make their mark on the big stage. All of these players compete on the Challenger Circuit.
There was even a seasoned veteran also playing in Dimitry Tursinov.
Out of all of those Russian hopefuls just one however made it through to the main draw, brutal fact of life in the World of tennis, there's not much room to squeeze through anywhere.
Tursinov lost second round to the number 1 seed Lajovic from Serbia and the only player to make it through from Russia was a guy by the name of Aslan Karatsev who currently has a ranking of 207. He also has made a grand total of $55,000 this year, about as much as the local postie makes but the postman doesn't have to travel too far to work, these guys do. That sum of 55 grand would not go too far after travel expenses for a tennis pro.
For his efforts in qualifying for the local tournament Karatsev has earned the right to take on another local hero in Mikhail Youzhny, former World number 8 who has now dropped to number 150. Youzhny has won a lazy 400 grand already this year and 12 million in his career who probably now just plays for fun as opposed to his first round opponent who is playing for his life.
That's another brutal fact of tennis, some are in it for the money and a career whereas some are already rich and just spend their last couple of years topping up their superannuation. These are just two mind sets of tennis that must be tough on the newcomer. One will probably play tight tennis, the other a free wheeling style afraid of nothing, least of all losing.
Jimmy Connors once said "I hate to lose more than I like to win" yet someone in their twilight years will simply take each win as another bonus day left in a tournament and a loss as a fact of life as a veteran sportsman. In this case Youzhny is the veteran at just 33 years of age, Karatsev 11 years younger at age 22.
Personally I would love to see the young fellow make it through the first round yet tennis is not a sentimental sport. I would suspect the 'old bloke' to win comfortably and add to his already bulging super account.
Tough sport tennis.........
There was even a seasoned veteran also playing in Dimitry Tursinov.
Out of all of those Russian hopefuls just one however made it through to the main draw, brutal fact of life in the World of tennis, there's not much room to squeeze through anywhere.
Tursinov lost second round to the number 1 seed Lajovic from Serbia and the only player to make it through from Russia was a guy by the name of Aslan Karatsev who currently has a ranking of 207. He also has made a grand total of $55,000 this year, about as much as the local postie makes but the postman doesn't have to travel too far to work, these guys do. That sum of 55 grand would not go too far after travel expenses for a tennis pro.
For his efforts in qualifying for the local tournament Karatsev has earned the right to take on another local hero in Mikhail Youzhny, former World number 8 who has now dropped to number 150. Youzhny has won a lazy 400 grand already this year and 12 million in his career who probably now just plays for fun as opposed to his first round opponent who is playing for his life.
That's another brutal fact of tennis, some are in it for the money and a career whereas some are already rich and just spend their last couple of years topping up their superannuation. These are just two mind sets of tennis that must be tough on the newcomer. One will probably play tight tennis, the other a free wheeling style afraid of nothing, least of all losing.
Jimmy Connors once said "I hate to lose more than I like to win" yet someone in their twilight years will simply take each win as another bonus day left in a tournament and a loss as a fact of life as a veteran sportsman. In this case Youzhny is the veteran at just 33 years of age, Karatsev 11 years younger at age 22.
Personally I would love to see the young fellow make it through the first round yet tennis is not a sentimental sport. I would suspect the 'old bloke' to win comfortably and add to his already bulging super account.
Tough sport tennis.........
Saturday 17 October 2015
'DOUBLES OR SINGLES' ?
The World of doubles tennis is in a word 'tough' as there are so many high quality combinations out there just looking for a slice of luck to beat high quality opponents. Take for example the recent Shanghai Masters tournament where the Bryan brothers lost in the round of 16 by the rather heart breaking score of 6-7, 7-6, 10-7 to Cabal and Farah, another handy team. The second set tie breaker score was 9-7. In a nutshell there was nothing in this match, I am stating the obvious.
Matkowski and Zimonjic, the number 3 seeded team just squeaked by the Aussie team of Kyrgios and Tomic 6-7, 6-4, 10-8 in the same round. When's the last time you heard of the Aussie boys playing doubles together ? This form of the game is almost a raffle if a scratch pairing like that can almost topple a team of that calibre. In the same round again the Wimbledon Champions Tecau and Rojer lost by the score of 7-5, 7-5 to Lopez and Mirnyi, the latter a doubles genius. Once again, nothing in it.
The quarter finals of this event were surprisingly one sided, three straight sets results and one walk over, most unusual though I like to look more into some scores than probably most do. A 6-3, 6-4 score line is basically just a break each set as is 6-4, 7-5 which were two of the results so that's tight tennis where one team senses a chance at a pivotal time, the other not so up to the challenge.
Klaasen and Melo seeded 6 took on the number 8 seeded pair of Bopanna and Kubot in the semi finals and the score of 6-3, 6-7, 10-7 says it all. One team found a way to edge ahead in a third set super tie breaker that shows what you require to be successful at a sport such as tennis. There is no place in tennis for nerves when it gets tight.
Boleli and Fognini as we all know are a remarkable doubles team and their style is typical of today's way of playing with plenty of baseline hitting as opposed to the standard serve and volley of say the Bryan brothers. As the number 5 seeded team they earned the right to play the number 7 seeded team of Nestor and Roger- Vasselin in the other semi. That in itself typifies today's doubles in World tennis. The number 5, 6, 7 and 8 teams played off in the semi finals rather than the usual top 4 playing off in singles.
Boleli and Fognini, the 2015 Australian Open champions just got over the line 5-7, 7-6, 10-3 and there is another score that tells you this match was almost over in two straight sets.
The second set tie breaker was won by the Italians 7-5, a two point buffer that could quite easily have gone the other way with just a little bit of luck or a slight change in a tactical play. I am certain the final will be a classic.
Playing doubles for a living is tough because there are so many great combinations and unless it is a Grand Slam event the matches are all decided with a third set super tie breaker. Every point then is gold.
A player of Fognini's ability can play both forms of the game at an amazingly high level and not all professional players can do that. John McEnroe did both to perfection and made an awful lot of money in the process. Some do it just for fun as Jack Sock has often said. Half of the winning 2014 Wimbledon Mens Doubles combination has not hidden his desire to want to become known as a singles player yet he seems to have more success in doubles.
The main thing about doubles however is that it's easier on the body hence guys such as Paes, Nestor and Mirnyi still find great success into their late 30's and early 40's. A lot more money is available for doubles experts now so these guys don't have to bother with the physical demands of singles.
And rightly so, nothing better than watching an entertaining match of doubles that involve some chip, charge, slice and dice type of points that finish more often than not at the net.
Personally I like the challenge of singles but my ageing legs appreciate how doubles looks after the body a little better. Tennis, it's often about the type of game you own and what your body can handle when it comes to making up your mind as to what form of it you should play.
Most of the time it's how you wake up the next day, that should help you make up your mind.....
Matkowski and Zimonjic, the number 3 seeded team just squeaked by the Aussie team of Kyrgios and Tomic 6-7, 6-4, 10-8 in the same round. When's the last time you heard of the Aussie boys playing doubles together ? This form of the game is almost a raffle if a scratch pairing like that can almost topple a team of that calibre. In the same round again the Wimbledon Champions Tecau and Rojer lost by the score of 7-5, 7-5 to Lopez and Mirnyi, the latter a doubles genius. Once again, nothing in it.
The quarter finals of this event were surprisingly one sided, three straight sets results and one walk over, most unusual though I like to look more into some scores than probably most do. A 6-3, 6-4 score line is basically just a break each set as is 6-4, 7-5 which were two of the results so that's tight tennis where one team senses a chance at a pivotal time, the other not so up to the challenge.
Klaasen and Melo seeded 6 took on the number 8 seeded pair of Bopanna and Kubot in the semi finals and the score of 6-3, 6-7, 10-7 says it all. One team found a way to edge ahead in a third set super tie breaker that shows what you require to be successful at a sport such as tennis. There is no place in tennis for nerves when it gets tight.
Boleli and Fognini as we all know are a remarkable doubles team and their style is typical of today's way of playing with plenty of baseline hitting as opposed to the standard serve and volley of say the Bryan brothers. As the number 5 seeded team they earned the right to play the number 7 seeded team of Nestor and Roger- Vasselin in the other semi. That in itself typifies today's doubles in World tennis. The number 5, 6, 7 and 8 teams played off in the semi finals rather than the usual top 4 playing off in singles.
Boleli and Fognini, the 2015 Australian Open champions just got over the line 5-7, 7-6, 10-3 and there is another score that tells you this match was almost over in two straight sets.
The second set tie breaker was won by the Italians 7-5, a two point buffer that could quite easily have gone the other way with just a little bit of luck or a slight change in a tactical play. I am certain the final will be a classic.
Playing doubles for a living is tough because there are so many great combinations and unless it is a Grand Slam event the matches are all decided with a third set super tie breaker. Every point then is gold.
A player of Fognini's ability can play both forms of the game at an amazingly high level and not all professional players can do that. John McEnroe did both to perfection and made an awful lot of money in the process. Some do it just for fun as Jack Sock has often said. Half of the winning 2014 Wimbledon Mens Doubles combination has not hidden his desire to want to become known as a singles player yet he seems to have more success in doubles.
The main thing about doubles however is that it's easier on the body hence guys such as Paes, Nestor and Mirnyi still find great success into their late 30's and early 40's. A lot more money is available for doubles experts now so these guys don't have to bother with the physical demands of singles.
And rightly so, nothing better than watching an entertaining match of doubles that involve some chip, charge, slice and dice type of points that finish more often than not at the net.
Personally I like the challenge of singles but my ageing legs appreciate how doubles looks after the body a little better. Tennis, it's often about the type of game you own and what your body can handle when it comes to making up your mind as to what form of it you should play.
Most of the time it's how you wake up the next day, that should help you make up your mind.....
Thursday 15 October 2015
' NICK vs TEX '
Not quite sure about the latest tit for tat between sports stars but what I do know is that guys like Tex Walker know nothing about tennis. For those of you who don't know who Tex Walker is, he's an AFL player who kicks goals for the Adelaide Crows Football team. Nick Kyrgios claimed that he didn't know who he was after receiving a 'tweet' from him on social media. I thought that was a good comeback but then it turned a bit nasty and it even included Tex sending Nick a highlight package of his AFL exploits !
C'mon boys this is all getting a little bit out of hand, this is how it all started. Nick was playing Nishikori at the Shanghai Masters and Nick hit a fault, the ball was returned and Nick laid into a forehand straight down the middle of the court, nice shot too by the way, a practice shot. Problem was this, Nick is a marked man and anything he does is now being scrutinized with every umpire doing his best to be the one to send Nick to the 'sin bin' for a month of suspension. He has no more warnings left.
Every player has done it, I have done it, you have done it, it's a release of energy while you are playing. Stefan Edberg used to do it on his volleying when he missed a serve simply to complete a routine. Serve missed, he's still running in, he hits a volley, no big deal. So Nick is Robinson Crusoe ?? Fair dinkum I have never seen anything so beefed up in years on a tennis court that turned out to be nothing as it did not hit any linesmen or ball boys.
Tex Walker asks for Nick to be suspended for it. Why is that Tex ? Because you don't like Nick ? If Tex knew anything about tennis he should have known that what Nick did was not worthy of a suspension and subsequently Nick Kyrgios was let off by the authorities, good decision. It was perhaps like an AFL umpire making the wrong decision in an AFL match regarding a player's involvement in a 'rough' passage of play.
Does Nick Kyrgios send a tweet to an AFL player asking for the guy to be suspended and in the process adding that he thinks the guy is a 'flog' ?? No I believe Nick may just have more brains than people give him credit for. But it gets better. Patrick Dangerfield ( another AFL player) chimes in and defends Tex and has a shot at Nick saying how generous Tex is regarding his foundation that he supports.
So now it's all about personal values in life rather than what happened on the field!! Fair dinkum I have often said that I thought AFL players weren't bright but this has just confirmed it.
Nick Kyrgios knows tennis, Tex Walker and 'Paddy' Dangerfield know Footy. Please guys do the rest of us a favour and don't embarrass yourselves any further and by that I mean that despite Paddy and Tex not liking Nick they really need to let the tribunal do their job.
Nick was found NOT GUILTY fellas, get over it, move on, build a bridge.........
C'mon boys this is all getting a little bit out of hand, this is how it all started. Nick was playing Nishikori at the Shanghai Masters and Nick hit a fault, the ball was returned and Nick laid into a forehand straight down the middle of the court, nice shot too by the way, a practice shot. Problem was this, Nick is a marked man and anything he does is now being scrutinized with every umpire doing his best to be the one to send Nick to the 'sin bin' for a month of suspension. He has no more warnings left.
Every player has done it, I have done it, you have done it, it's a release of energy while you are playing. Stefan Edberg used to do it on his volleying when he missed a serve simply to complete a routine. Serve missed, he's still running in, he hits a volley, no big deal. So Nick is Robinson Crusoe ?? Fair dinkum I have never seen anything so beefed up in years on a tennis court that turned out to be nothing as it did not hit any linesmen or ball boys.
Tex Walker asks for Nick to be suspended for it. Why is that Tex ? Because you don't like Nick ? If Tex knew anything about tennis he should have known that what Nick did was not worthy of a suspension and subsequently Nick Kyrgios was let off by the authorities, good decision. It was perhaps like an AFL umpire making the wrong decision in an AFL match regarding a player's involvement in a 'rough' passage of play.
Does Nick Kyrgios send a tweet to an AFL player asking for the guy to be suspended and in the process adding that he thinks the guy is a 'flog' ?? No I believe Nick may just have more brains than people give him credit for. But it gets better. Patrick Dangerfield ( another AFL player) chimes in and defends Tex and has a shot at Nick saying how generous Tex is regarding his foundation that he supports.
So now it's all about personal values in life rather than what happened on the field!! Fair dinkum I have often said that I thought AFL players weren't bright but this has just confirmed it.
Nick Kyrgios knows tennis, Tex Walker and 'Paddy' Dangerfield know Footy. Please guys do the rest of us a favour and don't embarrass yourselves any further and by that I mean that despite Paddy and Tex not liking Nick they really need to let the tribunal do their job.
Nick was found NOT GUILTY fellas, get over it, move on, build a bridge.........
Tuesday 13 October 2015
'THE HACKER' ( AND PROUD OF IT)
I vividly recall several years ago I played a local club vs club competition and I had to beat a kid 24 years younger than I was. Nowhere to hide. If I had lost then it was going to be one of those local tennis articles written in the paper that I personally may not have bothered reading. When you are fighting for your reputation it is a matter of asking for your inner self to produce something that has substance.
I often wondered what the great Andre Agassi thought of his loss to Lleyton Hewitt in a lead up tournament to the Australian Open in 1998 at Memorial Drive, South Australia. Andre was 27, Hewitt a 16 year old upstart who held no fear of playing a living legend. The 7-6, 7-6 win by Hewitt had Andre saying in the post match press conference " I was just hoping he would go away, but he didn't".
I wonder if ego came into it for Agassi and did he call on everything that he knew about the game or did he continue to simply try to outhit a skinny kid who just kept getting the ball back into play ? I still find that match hard to comprehend because Agassi should have belted Hewitt, it didn't make a whole lot of sense really.
Once again I am sorry for comparing one of my small town matches to a living legends' but it's all relevant, trust me. We are all doing our best to work within the confines of a tennis court that at times feels like working on a postage stamp which is in fact around 23 x 8 metres. If you look at that area there is only so much you can do with the shots that you are best at. It's almost like a stunt bike rider who has to take off and land in an area that we as spectators look at in awe and shake our heads in disbelief at the skill involved in the whole process.
When I warmed up against that kid I saw that he wanted everything right in his slot, his hitting zone, but when I went with the slice or the high loop he quite simply hated it. That gave me an idea right from the start. I thought, let's take this kid away from what he likes and see how effective his rather glamorous shots will be then.
Rather than bore you with the whole match I will simply give you the run down on some stats that make the most sense. Because he never followed a serve into the net I floated many returns six feet or higher over the net that gave me a sense of a 50/50 situation that most returners can only dream of.
There was no point in hitting a great return, no point at all, just a high ball with depth was required that 'restarted' the point. At times during a rally I would put in a series of short sliced backhands that begged him to come to the net. When he did I just made sure that I gave him a ball to volley, nothing special, just a ball to hit at the net yet he missed every single volley I gave him. He obviously spent way too much time on his groundies but never practiced finishing a point at close quarters. Typical of the young kids playing the game now days.
So to the result and a rather funny assumption by a 'guru' of the sport;
A couple of my juniors were in earshot of someone who should have known better when it came to a match roundup which was relayed to the rest of the younger brigade of hopefuls. "Thommo won 10-5 in a third set tie breaker by hacking". Yep that was the 'guru's' way of putting it. Personally I felt it was a great tactic. All I did was loop the sh.. out of my forehand and slice the sh.. out of my backhand and made very few errors. I won possibly the equivalent of three games by drawing the 'robot' into the net and giving him garbage which he failed to clean up.
It was like a robot who is made to clean up a house with no dust pan and shovel.
"I keep setting it all up but I can't seem to find a place to put it".
So did the 'guru' really do the match justice when talking about the tactics involved from the guy who beat the hard hitter with patience and a better way of thinking through the tight spots ? Well unfortunately the 'guru' did not really know a whole lot about the sport otherwise there may have been something said in a more positive light.
I do believe that Brad Gilbert did in fact say "It's better to win ugly than to lose pretty". I am sure it's in that book somewhere which I will one day read and gain some more ideas that will help me through my old age in tennis.
When you play kids who can run all day and love a ball in the comfort zone I do believe that it is a necessity to bring out all the tricks you have learned over the years.
Why try to outhit someone when you can outthink them instead ?
Tennis, a thinking person's sport.........
** Just for the record, I played this same kid two years later and won in three sets playing exactly the same way. I was 42, he was 18. I didn't walk too well for the next week but it was a proud limp.....
I often wondered what the great Andre Agassi thought of his loss to Lleyton Hewitt in a lead up tournament to the Australian Open in 1998 at Memorial Drive, South Australia. Andre was 27, Hewitt a 16 year old upstart who held no fear of playing a living legend. The 7-6, 7-6 win by Hewitt had Andre saying in the post match press conference " I was just hoping he would go away, but he didn't".
I wonder if ego came into it for Agassi and did he call on everything that he knew about the game or did he continue to simply try to outhit a skinny kid who just kept getting the ball back into play ? I still find that match hard to comprehend because Agassi should have belted Hewitt, it didn't make a whole lot of sense really.
Once again I am sorry for comparing one of my small town matches to a living legends' but it's all relevant, trust me. We are all doing our best to work within the confines of a tennis court that at times feels like working on a postage stamp which is in fact around 23 x 8 metres. If you look at that area there is only so much you can do with the shots that you are best at. It's almost like a stunt bike rider who has to take off and land in an area that we as spectators look at in awe and shake our heads in disbelief at the skill involved in the whole process.
When I warmed up against that kid I saw that he wanted everything right in his slot, his hitting zone, but when I went with the slice or the high loop he quite simply hated it. That gave me an idea right from the start. I thought, let's take this kid away from what he likes and see how effective his rather glamorous shots will be then.
Rather than bore you with the whole match I will simply give you the run down on some stats that make the most sense. Because he never followed a serve into the net I floated many returns six feet or higher over the net that gave me a sense of a 50/50 situation that most returners can only dream of.
There was no point in hitting a great return, no point at all, just a high ball with depth was required that 'restarted' the point. At times during a rally I would put in a series of short sliced backhands that begged him to come to the net. When he did I just made sure that I gave him a ball to volley, nothing special, just a ball to hit at the net yet he missed every single volley I gave him. He obviously spent way too much time on his groundies but never practiced finishing a point at close quarters. Typical of the young kids playing the game now days.
So to the result and a rather funny assumption by a 'guru' of the sport;
A couple of my juniors were in earshot of someone who should have known better when it came to a match roundup which was relayed to the rest of the younger brigade of hopefuls. "Thommo won 10-5 in a third set tie breaker by hacking". Yep that was the 'guru's' way of putting it. Personally I felt it was a great tactic. All I did was loop the sh.. out of my forehand and slice the sh.. out of my backhand and made very few errors. I won possibly the equivalent of three games by drawing the 'robot' into the net and giving him garbage which he failed to clean up.
It was like a robot who is made to clean up a house with no dust pan and shovel.
"I keep setting it all up but I can't seem to find a place to put it".
So did the 'guru' really do the match justice when talking about the tactics involved from the guy who beat the hard hitter with patience and a better way of thinking through the tight spots ? Well unfortunately the 'guru' did not really know a whole lot about the sport otherwise there may have been something said in a more positive light.
I do believe that Brad Gilbert did in fact say "It's better to win ugly than to lose pretty". I am sure it's in that book somewhere which I will one day read and gain some more ideas that will help me through my old age in tennis.
When you play kids who can run all day and love a ball in the comfort zone I do believe that it is a necessity to bring out all the tricks you have learned over the years.
Why try to outhit someone when you can outthink them instead ?
Tennis, a thinking person's sport.........
** Just for the record, I played this same kid two years later and won in three sets playing exactly the same way. I was 42, he was 18. I didn't walk too well for the next week but it was a proud limp.....
Wednesday 7 October 2015
'HOW GOOD WAS HE' ?
I can always remember the first time I saw Andre Agassi play tennis, he was just 16 years of age and I watched him hit a few balls on a brief sports report. I was rather taken by his ability to hit a forehand as he did when he was so slightly built and I wondered where that sort of power could come from. It wasn't long after that clip that I watched highlights of Agassi and Lendl at Stratton Mountain, the tournament which put Andre on the tennis radar. That was impressive hitting to say the least.
Andre Agassi came along at a time that America needed a tennis idol to look up to because back when Andre first started playing the circuit the two biggest players from the US, McEnroe and Connors were in the twilight of their careers. Neither Mac or Jimbo won a Grand Slam singles title after 1984 but Mac was still a very successful doubles player who won the US Open title with Woodforde in '89 and Wimbledon in '92 with Stich. Andre was a 'required' singles player no doubt about it.
The Las Vegas flash went from a skinny kid with rather loud denim shorts and Def Leppard style hair cut who didn't win much to possibly the most respected and recognizable tennis player on the planet especially after winning Wimbledon in 1992. Every kid wanted to be like Andre due not only to how he played but how he dressed and grew his hair. He was in a word, different. I for one was a fan from the first time I saw him hit those few shots in practice, he owned an aura about him right from the start.
Despite not winning as many Slams as his biggest rival Pete Sampras I always found Agassi's style to be a whole lot more interesting than watching Pistol play because Pete's style was one that I liken to a school yard bully. Big hitting and ugly.
There were many great matches between these two and Andre lost in the final of the US Open on no fewer than three occasions to Pete. The last shattered Andre beyond comprehension as he explained in his book with great detail. Agassi thought he was almost a shoe in for that title as he went in with around 26 straight wins before that title match but Pete always played his best against Andre.
There was however one particular match between these two that for some reason stood out more than the rest to me due mainly to a statistic that can only be described as remarkable.
Now anyone who saw Pete Sampras play will be well aware of his ability to not only close into the net and put away a volley but his serving was the best of his era, it was ridiculous. Pistol owned a bomb that more often than not was unplayable even for a man of Andre Agassi's returning prowess despite Andre's ability to pick the direction better than most.
So to the Lipton Championships in Florida, 1995, two months after Andre had defeated Pete in the final of the Australian Open, his only Grand Slam final win against Pete. At a set up and 2 games all Pistol Pete had 40-0 on Andre's serve, three break points to take a strangle hold on the match and with the way that he had been serving it would have almost been all over had he broken. Agassi though held on by winning five straight points. 3-2 Agassi.
The next service game by Sampras was perhaps one of those mind games that had even the great man himself thinking "If only I had converted one of those break points". Tennis, so easy yet so frustrating in hind sight as the mind goes about tearing strips off one's decision making at crucial times in a match. No points won on serve for Pistol, 4-2 Agassi. NINE straight points.
Same story next game, Andre on a roll, total control of the mind and body, tennis is now real easy, the boxer has his opponent on the ropes, 5-2. THIRTEEN straight points. Andre's Father no doubt proud, a former boxer. What can Pistol do ? He is now getting hammered by a man who senses a knockout punch. Does he offer some resistance or save himself for the third ?
You guessed it, another break to love, 6-2 Agassi, SEVENTEEN straight points. Outrageous. Andre won the next two points before Pete finally broke the drought that had Andre Agassi take NINETEEN straight points in a row to come back from the jaws of defeat.
For history's sake Andre Agassi took the match in a third set tie breaker seven points to three, perhaps justice for a remarkable run of points that may never be repeated at a standard so remarkably high. Even the best players in the World can be 'zoned' out by another but it is a rarity if a player even loses two love games in a row such is the standard of the elite of World tennis.
This match was a ripper, worth a look. It shows what confidence and a change of mind set can do for a player especially when they are perhaps within a point or two of defeat. After almost losing, think about it, what have you really got to lose ?
Tennis, it's all in the head..........
Andre Agassi came along at a time that America needed a tennis idol to look up to because back when Andre first started playing the circuit the two biggest players from the US, McEnroe and Connors were in the twilight of their careers. Neither Mac or Jimbo won a Grand Slam singles title after 1984 but Mac was still a very successful doubles player who won the US Open title with Woodforde in '89 and Wimbledon in '92 with Stich. Andre was a 'required' singles player no doubt about it.
The Las Vegas flash went from a skinny kid with rather loud denim shorts and Def Leppard style hair cut who didn't win much to possibly the most respected and recognizable tennis player on the planet especially after winning Wimbledon in 1992. Every kid wanted to be like Andre due not only to how he played but how he dressed and grew his hair. He was in a word, different. I for one was a fan from the first time I saw him hit those few shots in practice, he owned an aura about him right from the start.
Despite not winning as many Slams as his biggest rival Pete Sampras I always found Agassi's style to be a whole lot more interesting than watching Pistol play because Pete's style was one that I liken to a school yard bully. Big hitting and ugly.
There were many great matches between these two and Andre lost in the final of the US Open on no fewer than three occasions to Pete. The last shattered Andre beyond comprehension as he explained in his book with great detail. Agassi thought he was almost a shoe in for that title as he went in with around 26 straight wins before that title match but Pete always played his best against Andre.
There was however one particular match between these two that for some reason stood out more than the rest to me due mainly to a statistic that can only be described as remarkable.
Now anyone who saw Pete Sampras play will be well aware of his ability to not only close into the net and put away a volley but his serving was the best of his era, it was ridiculous. Pistol owned a bomb that more often than not was unplayable even for a man of Andre Agassi's returning prowess despite Andre's ability to pick the direction better than most.
So to the Lipton Championships in Florida, 1995, two months after Andre had defeated Pete in the final of the Australian Open, his only Grand Slam final win against Pete. At a set up and 2 games all Pistol Pete had 40-0 on Andre's serve, three break points to take a strangle hold on the match and with the way that he had been serving it would have almost been all over had he broken. Agassi though held on by winning five straight points. 3-2 Agassi.
The next service game by Sampras was perhaps one of those mind games that had even the great man himself thinking "If only I had converted one of those break points". Tennis, so easy yet so frustrating in hind sight as the mind goes about tearing strips off one's decision making at crucial times in a match. No points won on serve for Pistol, 4-2 Agassi. NINE straight points.
Same story next game, Andre on a roll, total control of the mind and body, tennis is now real easy, the boxer has his opponent on the ropes, 5-2. THIRTEEN straight points. Andre's Father no doubt proud, a former boxer. What can Pistol do ? He is now getting hammered by a man who senses a knockout punch. Does he offer some resistance or save himself for the third ?
You guessed it, another break to love, 6-2 Agassi, SEVENTEEN straight points. Outrageous. Andre won the next two points before Pete finally broke the drought that had Andre Agassi take NINETEEN straight points in a row to come back from the jaws of defeat.
For history's sake Andre Agassi took the match in a third set tie breaker seven points to three, perhaps justice for a remarkable run of points that may never be repeated at a standard so remarkably high. Even the best players in the World can be 'zoned' out by another but it is a rarity if a player even loses two love games in a row such is the standard of the elite of World tennis.
This match was a ripper, worth a look. It shows what confidence and a change of mind set can do for a player especially when they are perhaps within a point or two of defeat. After almost losing, think about it, what have you really got to lose ?
Tennis, it's all in the head..........
Friday 2 October 2015
'MORE FROM THE VAULT'
Sometimes when I write it jolts the memory and my mind flicks through some pages from the vault, many times the subject will be in regards to my tennis heroes of years gone by. I mentioned a score line in my last chapter that reminded me of a match at the US Open in 1982 between Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl.
This particular match was the first played between the two on a hard court remembering of course that just a few months earlier Mats had beaten Lendl at the French Open in a monumental fourth round upset. The five set win on the clay in Paris was en route to Wilander's first Grand Slam title and he did it as a 17 year old who had no fear of his more credentialed rivals, yet plenty of respect.
I will touch on that statement in detail a little later which I believe is worth mentioning.
When the two played at the US Open in 1982 I for one was rather shocked at the ease at which Lendl won the match due to their marathon match at the French Open yet that was on the dirt which gives a player much more time to play their shots. The hard courts of Flushing Meadows suited Lendl and his hard hitting style that brought dozens of winners each match and gave his serve an edge that the clay did not.
Mats Wilander, despite matching not only Lendl but top ten players Vitas Gerulaitis, Jose Luis- Clerc and Guillermo Vilas in the penultimate match in Paris was still a player learning the art of the game. Hard court tennis was back then and still is a totally different ball game where the big hitters and servers usually dominate the clay court players who like to hit the ball with a little more spin and height over the net which ultimately gives them more time between each shot.
The 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 win by Lendl over Wilander that year in New York was a belting that gave the reigning French Open champion some food for thought when assessing his own ability and how to eventually out play or out think Lendl on hard court. Their next meeting at the US Open came a year later and it wasn't the much improved 6-4, 6-4, 7-6 loss by Wilander that had players talking but the rather honest take on his own chances of winning the tournament.
John McEnroe was the main voice when he criticized Wilander for playing down his own chances of winning in New York in 1983. Mac believed that every player should have owned his cut throat mental approach to big tournaments but Mats was not anything like Mac. The Swede respected his opponents far too much, a trait that gained more respect than criticism.
Wilander had just stepped into the big time as a 17 year old quite by accident just one year after winning the French Open junior championship. He now was forced to ignore the aura surrounding the legends which he watched countryman Bjorn Borg take on in some of the biggest matches of the 1970's. When you really think about it, that's a tough thing to do. Borna Coric was without a doubt the best junior in the World but when he took on Roger Federer this year he spoke of just how difficult it was to play someone of Federer's status.
It takes a remarkable mind set to do that.
In my last chapter I mentioned the need to learn from a loss or to simply gain as many games as possible even if a win is beyond reach as it can help with future matches. The 1987 US Open final was a match where I am not sure who was more disappointed at the result, Mats Wilander or myself, it was shattering. I trained with guys in Queensland who loved Lendl and his big hitting style however I was in awe of the 'lightweight' type of player in Mats who relied on not missing and a tactical mind. It was the style that I adopted myself as a kid.
The four set loss by Wilander to the Czech was even more disappointing considering the two set points Lendl saved in the pivotal third set however they were on Lendl's serve and he simply banged in two huge bombs to get out of trouble. The final score was 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4 and I didn't look that up, I just remember it. The match went for over four and a half hours.
To the following year and this is where I look at that first hammering by Lendl in 1982 of Wilander and tennis finally started to make sense. It really was a sport where a player learned from a loss and gathered information to eventually use against an opponent for an eventual victory. Mats did not play the same in 1988 as he did in 1982 or '83 but he simply tweaked or fine tuned what he did in the 1987 final. He put away a shot and developed another.
The slice backhand was a shot that Wilander hit to absolute perfection that year and it was a shot that not only conserved energy but it won him many points by coming into the net behind it. Baseliners love a topspin ball to strike a pass off but are nowhere near as comfortable off a low skidding ball which makes a player at times search for a nine iron to scrape underneath it. At times Mats would come in off a shorter hit sliced ball that had Lendl reaching forward on to try to hit a winner, that's tough for even the best players to deal with.
The 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4 win by Mats in just a tick under five hours will go down as a tactical victory of the biggest kind against one of the biggest hitters of all time. It proved that a change in tactic can win the day or in this case the title and the number one ranking. What was the point in Mats hitting that double handed backhand of his that was never really going to bother Lendl who lived off those sort of shots from his opponents ? Mats may have played down his chances in 1983 however was he simply storing information for a future crack at the title ?
Tennis has numerous stories of players who were beaten up on by others for years before finally a change in tactic or mind set eventually reversed the result. Roger used to 'own' Novak, how the times have changed.
These last two chapters I wrote go hand in hand because they show a pattern in the sport that I suppose is common, we simply don't really give it too much thought though. Grab a few games here and there even if a loss is inevitable, give the mind some future matter to digest. Reprogram and don't be content with just an A game plan, work on B and C.
I am sure the great Mats Wilander will agree........
This particular match was the first played between the two on a hard court remembering of course that just a few months earlier Mats had beaten Lendl at the French Open in a monumental fourth round upset. The five set win on the clay in Paris was en route to Wilander's first Grand Slam title and he did it as a 17 year old who had no fear of his more credentialed rivals, yet plenty of respect.
I will touch on that statement in detail a little later which I believe is worth mentioning.
When the two played at the US Open in 1982 I for one was rather shocked at the ease at which Lendl won the match due to their marathon match at the French Open yet that was on the dirt which gives a player much more time to play their shots. The hard courts of Flushing Meadows suited Lendl and his hard hitting style that brought dozens of winners each match and gave his serve an edge that the clay did not.
Mats Wilander, despite matching not only Lendl but top ten players Vitas Gerulaitis, Jose Luis- Clerc and Guillermo Vilas in the penultimate match in Paris was still a player learning the art of the game. Hard court tennis was back then and still is a totally different ball game where the big hitters and servers usually dominate the clay court players who like to hit the ball with a little more spin and height over the net which ultimately gives them more time between each shot.
The 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 win by Lendl over Wilander that year in New York was a belting that gave the reigning French Open champion some food for thought when assessing his own ability and how to eventually out play or out think Lendl on hard court. Their next meeting at the US Open came a year later and it wasn't the much improved 6-4, 6-4, 7-6 loss by Wilander that had players talking but the rather honest take on his own chances of winning the tournament.
John McEnroe was the main voice when he criticized Wilander for playing down his own chances of winning in New York in 1983. Mac believed that every player should have owned his cut throat mental approach to big tournaments but Mats was not anything like Mac. The Swede respected his opponents far too much, a trait that gained more respect than criticism.
Wilander had just stepped into the big time as a 17 year old quite by accident just one year after winning the French Open junior championship. He now was forced to ignore the aura surrounding the legends which he watched countryman Bjorn Borg take on in some of the biggest matches of the 1970's. When you really think about it, that's a tough thing to do. Borna Coric was without a doubt the best junior in the World but when he took on Roger Federer this year he spoke of just how difficult it was to play someone of Federer's status.
It takes a remarkable mind set to do that.
In my last chapter I mentioned the need to learn from a loss or to simply gain as many games as possible even if a win is beyond reach as it can help with future matches. The 1987 US Open final was a match where I am not sure who was more disappointed at the result, Mats Wilander or myself, it was shattering. I trained with guys in Queensland who loved Lendl and his big hitting style however I was in awe of the 'lightweight' type of player in Mats who relied on not missing and a tactical mind. It was the style that I adopted myself as a kid.
The four set loss by Wilander to the Czech was even more disappointing considering the two set points Lendl saved in the pivotal third set however they were on Lendl's serve and he simply banged in two huge bombs to get out of trouble. The final score was 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4 and I didn't look that up, I just remember it. The match went for over four and a half hours.
To the following year and this is where I look at that first hammering by Lendl in 1982 of Wilander and tennis finally started to make sense. It really was a sport where a player learned from a loss and gathered information to eventually use against an opponent for an eventual victory. Mats did not play the same in 1988 as he did in 1982 or '83 but he simply tweaked or fine tuned what he did in the 1987 final. He put away a shot and developed another.
The slice backhand was a shot that Wilander hit to absolute perfection that year and it was a shot that not only conserved energy but it won him many points by coming into the net behind it. Baseliners love a topspin ball to strike a pass off but are nowhere near as comfortable off a low skidding ball which makes a player at times search for a nine iron to scrape underneath it. At times Mats would come in off a shorter hit sliced ball that had Lendl reaching forward on to try to hit a winner, that's tough for even the best players to deal with.
The 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-4 win by Mats in just a tick under five hours will go down as a tactical victory of the biggest kind against one of the biggest hitters of all time. It proved that a change in tactic can win the day or in this case the title and the number one ranking. What was the point in Mats hitting that double handed backhand of his that was never really going to bother Lendl who lived off those sort of shots from his opponents ? Mats may have played down his chances in 1983 however was he simply storing information for a future crack at the title ?
Tennis has numerous stories of players who were beaten up on by others for years before finally a change in tactic or mind set eventually reversed the result. Roger used to 'own' Novak, how the times have changed.
These last two chapters I wrote go hand in hand because they show a pattern in the sport that I suppose is common, we simply don't really give it too much thought though. Grab a few games here and there even if a loss is inevitable, give the mind some future matter to digest. Reprogram and don't be content with just an A game plan, work on B and C.
I am sure the great Mats Wilander will agree........
Tuesday 29 September 2015
'TOUR FINALS VS DAVIS CUP'
History will tell you that last year Roger Federer did not in fact play the final of the World Tour Finals due to an injury he received in his semi final match against Stan Wawrinka. The final was scheduled for November 16.
History will also tell you that seven days later Roger Federer won the fourth match of the Davis Cup final against Richard Gasquet and he won it rather easily, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2. Did Roger do the sums on tennis history and wonder whether a struggle against Novak in the final of the year ending championships was really worth jeopardizing what he actually hadn't won to that stage of his career ? Roger apparently had a back complaint, very similar to what Andy Murray currently has.
So all of the talk recently has been about whether or not Andy Murray should play the tour finals in London or whether he should skip it and prepare for the Davis Cup final. Remember these two tournaments are huge but no one will beat Novak in London the way he is playing so why wouldn't Andy look at the Davis Cup for something that would give his country a Holy Grail of sorts ?
If Andy plays the Tour Finals with a sore back then he will be struggling to get ready for Davis Cup duties which look like being on a clay court in Belgium. That will take time to prepare for.
Andy will put bums on seats in London for the World Tour Finals however he will be considered a national hero if he wins the Davis Cup for the Brits a week later.
He aint Superman, he needs to choose one or the other and the ATP isn't being realistic when looking at the schedule ahead of Andy.
Tough one but I think Andy may just save his best til last, do the sums on that.........
History will also tell you that seven days later Roger Federer won the fourth match of the Davis Cup final against Richard Gasquet and he won it rather easily, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2. Did Roger do the sums on tennis history and wonder whether a struggle against Novak in the final of the year ending championships was really worth jeopardizing what he actually hadn't won to that stage of his career ? Roger apparently had a back complaint, very similar to what Andy Murray currently has.
So all of the talk recently has been about whether or not Andy Murray should play the tour finals in London or whether he should skip it and prepare for the Davis Cup final. Remember these two tournaments are huge but no one will beat Novak in London the way he is playing so why wouldn't Andy look at the Davis Cup for something that would give his country a Holy Grail of sorts ?
If Andy plays the Tour Finals with a sore back then he will be struggling to get ready for Davis Cup duties which look like being on a clay court in Belgium. That will take time to prepare for.
Andy will put bums on seats in London for the World Tour Finals however he will be considered a national hero if he wins the Davis Cup for the Brits a week later.
He aint Superman, he needs to choose one or the other and the ATP isn't being realistic when looking at the schedule ahead of Andy.
Tough one but I think Andy may just save his best til last, do the sums on that.........
Sunday 27 September 2015
'SOME MORE FRENCH STORIES'
Over the course of the past few months I have been doing some writing that put my memory into overdrive. Trying to recall some rather silly moments from nearly 25 years ago hasn't been easy yet it has been a challenge that I have enjoyed.
I have always vowed to one day write a book on tennis and the many days of travelling around Europe in a rather tiny car that we simply named 'Le Car'. So the following chapters are from a side project that has kept me amused to say the least.
For those who enjoy reading my site then I hope you appreciate just what it took to get the following information finally to see the light of day. For those of you who don't like me and simply read my chapters to find fault in things I write then can I suggest that you go and read something else ?
Regards GT
I have always vowed to one day write a book on tennis and the many days of travelling around Europe in a rather tiny car that we simply named 'Le Car'. So the following chapters are from a side project that has kept me amused to say the least.
For those who enjoy reading my site then I hope you appreciate just what it took to get the following information finally to see the light of day. For those of you who don't like me and simply read my chapters to find fault in things I write then can I suggest that you go and read something else ?
Regards GT
'SMELLY SOCKS'
'HYGIENE'
When it comes down to it, three Aussie touring tennis 'junkies'
driving from one tournament to the other around Europe had all the
hall marks of disaster in more ways than one. Friendships were tested in a car
not big enough to swing a cat in and on more than one occasion it seemed a
good idea to keep driving once one of us had gone to a public toilet at a
roadside truck stop or diner. After all it would have been so much more
comfortable with just two in 'Le Car' as opposed to three. Sanity prevailed
however and we battled through.
We witnessed many things on some fairly treacherous roads including a car that was in fact stuck in the side of a truck, not sure how that happened but it was a poor bit of driving to say the least. We were possibly the smallest car on the highway and on more than one occasion we had some interesting situations and close calls. Not coming home though was not on the agenda.
As far as hygiene was concerned in a very small French automobile there was nothing worse than smelly clothes or socks to be more precise. I am sure Brett Patten will not be at all argumentative when I say that his socks and feet were without a doubt the smelliest of all three of us, for good reason.
Sometimes Brett would wear the same pair of socks for an entire tournament before washing them at a Laundromat, a pretty ordinary habit he got himself into. Now socks after a game of tennis tend to be fairly wet and if it was a clay court event they would also be rather dirty, a fact totally oblivious to 'Patsy'. It wasn't that Brett was superstitious because his brand of tennis on this particular tour was remarkably high, he needed no help from a higher being, he was simply comfortable in his socks.
The thing about worn socks after a while however is the stench factor and Brett's feet were in a word, repulsive. If we had been afforded a little more room as far as cars were concerned we may have escaped the smell but being in a car big enough to put back into a toy box after a run in the sandpit, well..... Pete and I were subjected to some fairly average odours, no escape.
Tennis is one of those sports where you have to be comfortable with your equipment, just look at Rafa, a man who takes superstition to another level. Every drink bottle has to be lined up a certain way and every strand of hair has to be pushed around his ears with precision before he sends down a serve. Brett's effort with his dirty socks may well have been a personal superstition of his but he wasn't letting on that it was part of his routine for winning games of tennis. Pete and I just felt that he was too lazy to wash them.
Personally I used to rinse my dirty socks out in the shower along with my sweaty jocks that I did not like to keep wrapped up in my tennis bag for too long for fear of them disintegrating through sweat and stench. Placing them on the back shelf of 'Le Car' to dry whilst we 'enjoyed' hundreds of kilometres between tennis tournaments was how I had them dry out before my next hit. It may have been the three or so years I had on my touring buddies but I did own some experience in certain fields of life. Sock and jock washing and drying was high on my list of priorities.
European travelling was a ridiculously enjoyable experience but what made it even more so was the personal quirks that each of us owned, we were all as silly as one another in our own silly ways. I will never forget that stench of tournament worn socks but to me it always proved one fact, Patsy was winning a lot more matches than anyone else.......
We witnessed many things on some fairly treacherous roads including a car that was in fact stuck in the side of a truck, not sure how that happened but it was a poor bit of driving to say the least. We were possibly the smallest car on the highway and on more than one occasion we had some interesting situations and close calls. Not coming home though was not on the agenda.
As far as hygiene was concerned in a very small French automobile there was nothing worse than smelly clothes or socks to be more precise. I am sure Brett Patten will not be at all argumentative when I say that his socks and feet were without a doubt the smelliest of all three of us, for good reason.
Sometimes Brett would wear the same pair of socks for an entire tournament before washing them at a Laundromat, a pretty ordinary habit he got himself into. Now socks after a game of tennis tend to be fairly wet and if it was a clay court event they would also be rather dirty, a fact totally oblivious to 'Patsy'. It wasn't that Brett was superstitious because his brand of tennis on this particular tour was remarkably high, he needed no help from a higher being, he was simply comfortable in his socks.
The thing about worn socks after a while however is the stench factor and Brett's feet were in a word, repulsive. If we had been afforded a little more room as far as cars were concerned we may have escaped the smell but being in a car big enough to put back into a toy box after a run in the sandpit, well..... Pete and I were subjected to some fairly average odours, no escape.
Tennis is one of those sports where you have to be comfortable with your equipment, just look at Rafa, a man who takes superstition to another level. Every drink bottle has to be lined up a certain way and every strand of hair has to be pushed around his ears with precision before he sends down a serve. Brett's effort with his dirty socks may well have been a personal superstition of his but he wasn't letting on that it was part of his routine for winning games of tennis. Pete and I just felt that he was too lazy to wash them.
Personally I used to rinse my dirty socks out in the shower along with my sweaty jocks that I did not like to keep wrapped up in my tennis bag for too long for fear of them disintegrating through sweat and stench. Placing them on the back shelf of 'Le Car' to dry whilst we 'enjoyed' hundreds of kilometres between tennis tournaments was how I had them dry out before my next hit. It may have been the three or so years I had on my touring buddies but I did own some experience in certain fields of life. Sock and jock washing and drying was high on my list of priorities.
European travelling was a ridiculously enjoyable experience but what made it even more so was the personal quirks that each of us owned, we were all as silly as one another in our own silly ways. I will never forget that stench of tournament worn socks but to me it always proved one fact, Patsy was winning a lot more matches than anyone else.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Thanks for comment 'baatman74'. I believe Mr Bryan has hit the nail on the head. I posted this a while back but re read it the other day and it deserved another mention. The information you sent is fascinating regarding umpiring. Thankyou very much for tuning in......
regards GT