Sunday 19 March 2017

'THE THOUGHT PROCESS'

When you are a kid you don't think too much when you play tennis, you simply hit 'em as best you can, rely on what ability you own at the time and what your coach tells you to do. Whether or not you employ the tactics that your coach recommends to you is your choice.
I once read a transcript from a boxing coach who admitted after the fight that his pupil actually did nothing that he suggested to him before the fight ! Interesting isn't it ? Would it be that our brains are wired a certain way and we simply cannot rewire them when someone else suggests an idea that may in fact be a better idea ?
When it comes to sport, in particularly an individual sport I firmly believe that being a coach quite possibly is like being in a raffle. Your numbers may come up and if they do, well you can shout to the roof tops that you are a genius, it's a needle in a haystack as far as odds go but you may just find the gold at the end of the rainbow if all of your cards fall into place.
Magnus Norman openly lauded the former coaches of Stan Wawrinka when his 'student' won the French Open in 2015 against Novak because he knew he was not the person who taught Stan how to hit a tennis ball, he merely offered his thoughts on what Stan should do with the ball.
Let's face it, Stan knows how to hit a tennis ball 'reasonably' well, he simply required an opinion on what he should do with it.
The thought process in tennis is not one that can easily be refined, it's something that requires hours of sifting through ideas and implementing things that may help the game to be understood a little more clearly than when you first picked up a racket.
Thoughts go through the mind of a tennis player no matter what standard they are playing, if it didn't happen then I doubt they would be human. If you haven't read Andre Agassi's book then I suggest maybe you do, it places tennis at the highest standard into perspective.
Andre's thoughts during a match were refreshingly 'human' even though we all looked at him as someone who was 'out of this world' as far as tennis ability was concerned. Every tennis player has an ability to hit a ball however only a select few really know just how to play the game and it all comes down to how we think.
If there was a person out there who could teach every tennis player in the World how to think before they hit then that person would have a bank balance that would put an Arabian Oil Sheik to shame, no risk at all.
Is the thought process in tennis a gift that only a handful of players own or something that can perhaps be taught by someone who has a degree in 'genius' ?
You can quite possibly do the routine 'Ten Thousand Hours' of practice that many 'gurus' swear by and still end up a 'dummy' or you can take those hours of practice and turn them into something that gives you an edge.
Problem with tennis is simple, you are relying on an opponent to put the ball where you want it, where you have been trained to hit it but an opponent is not your ball feeder in practice, they aren't interested in your hitting zone.
A smart opponent will always take you out of your comfort zone as soon as the warm up is done and they have worked out what you like and what you dislike.
Do I have a theory on all of this ? Yeah sure I do, work on a plan B, C and D because the chances of your plan A working every time you step onto a tennis court is probably going to be as successful as your Lotto numbers coming up on a weekly basis.......
Silly game tennis........

Monday 13 March 2017

'PROOF IN THE PUDDING'

IF ever there was an argument for spicing up tennis scoring to gain some less than 'ho hum' results I suggest you take a look at the Mens Doubles draw at the Indian Wells Tournament currently being played in the US.
No less than 11 matches were decided in a third set super tiebreaker out of a total of 16 matches played. Now I know what you will say to that and sure many Mens singles matches go the decider as well but the difference with a super tiebreaker is simple, every point counts.
You can't afford to lose too many points in a row in a super tie breaker however you could lose three love games in a third set singles match yet still win the set. The reason why there are so many matches in Mens doubles now decided in a super tie breaker is simple, when it gets to deuce, next point wins.
Scores such as 3-6, 6-4, 11-9 are now as common as the Big 4 winning Slams but the difference between singles and doubles is now obvious, singles players are now winning at doubles because SHOT MAKERS are now being rewarded for gutsy play. Grinding players into the ground in long singles matches reward the fitness fanatics and the guys who have the stamina to stay out there all day but personally I do like watching players such as Monfils who are entertainers more than grinders.
So as per usual I will give my take on what could be an alternative to three set singles matches with long deuces.
Make singles matches best of 5 sets, short deuce, returner chooses the side to receive at sudden death and at 2 sets all play a super tie breaker to finish, first to 10 points by a margin of 2 points. Basically it's the longer version of what is now happening in Mens doubles.
If the ATP is going to tinker around with the doubles then why not do the same in the singles ? Have you seen the prize money up for grabs now days in Mens dubs ??
It's obviously a lucrative form of the sport so it's obviously being taken seriously by all players which was proven this week at Indian Wells with seven of the top ten singles players entered in the doubles also. Why would they play ? Shortened format so court time is now around 90 minutes on average, many matches though just last an hour, great practice for returning and working on various strategies plus the money is great.
For Kyrgios and Zimonjic to beat the Bryans is rather obscene though Zimonjic could win with my Dad and he's 80 but it proves the format is opening up the play and allowing for upsets.
If the ATP is serious on making tennis exciting for the public with sudden death points and super breakers which reward go for broke type of tactics then why not do it in the singles also ?
Tennis has to evolve just as other sports are prepared to try new systems so I believe it's time that singles follows doubles and gives the players and the public something different.
Just a thought.......

Saturday 11 March 2017

'A FEW OTHER REASONS'

Some people believe I may be a little tough on one of Australia's most decorated tennis champions, Lleyton Hewitt, I beg to differ. Lleyton Hewitt as far as I am concerned is and was his own worst enemy on a tennis court and it seems many agree with me and perhaps many don't.
Let's go through a few 'incidents' and see whether you agree with me or not.
Obviously the 'Hewitt hand salute' which wasn't really Lleyton's after all is just another example of the arrogance and lack of respect he has for the sport itself. To steal something from another player as he did from Kroon and make it into your trademark is something that the tennis purists of the World frown upon, but that's just Lleyton for you, 'Mr Self Importance'.
The first round match at the 2016 Australian Open which pitted Hewitt against an Aussie battler by the name of James Duckworth was one of those matches that Hewitt was always going to win, it was just a case of by what score. What disappointed me the most about that match was match point where Lleyton felt it necessary to fall on his back and carry on like a pork chop as his topspin lob cleared Duckworth's head and racket to take him in to round 2. Why would you do that ??
It was a match he would still win today if they played again even though Hewitt has retired so wouldn't a fist to the air and a wink to his opponent have been sufficient enough to take the accolades that night ? Nope, Lleyton has never done things modestly, just the sort of person he is.
When you beat a battler, you don't carry on, you simply do what you have to do and you go sign an autograph or two before you leave.
The Round 2 match in 2001 at the US Open between Hewitt and James Blake will go down in history as one of those 'Hewitt moments' where Australia should have asked for him to be deported, to anywhere really, anywhere but Australia.
To say to the umpire "Look at him and tell me what the similarity is" ( referring to both Blake and the linesman who are of the same coloured skin ) was one of those remarks that probably should have been taken a little more seriously than it was but when Wally Masur ( the then Davis Cup Coach ) had his say, well he came up with this : " How much can the Media flog this thing ? The proof of the pudding was that the two players shook hands and Lleyton told him ( Blake) what a good game he had played ".
Hello Wally are you missing the point ? It's all very well to shake hands and say well played but if you carry on like a complete f... wit during the match, well that side of things quite possibly needs a tweak. Forget the fact that he was Australia's best chance back then of winning a singles match in Davis Cup Wally, he really needed to be educated on how to behave on a tennis court for the simple fact that he was showing the rest of Australia's up and coming juniors how NOT to behave yet that didn't seem to matter.
In fact the same umpire who sat in the chair at that US Open match was the same umpire who sat in the chair at the French Open, the same year and had to endure Hewitt calling him a 'spastic', yep a spastic, interesting choice of words Lleyton.
The 2005 Australian Open was a ripper as Lleyton took on Argentina, first Chela ( who spat at Hewitt in retaliation to Hewitt openly celebrating his errors ) and then Nalbandian who he exchanged a shoulder bump with at the change of ends. Who was at fault ? You know my answer, David is a nice guy.....
All very well to be a hero at home but remember you have to play away from home too, a lesson for all those young players out there, treat the visiting players with respect, you never know when you may need some help when playing abroad.
So now Lleyton is our Davis Cup Captain, was always going to happen, Rafter made way for him, well done Pat, you get a few dollars slipped your way ?? ( I like Pat, he was the worst player at the tennis centre in Brisbane where I used to play in the 80's, he won the most cash in the end ). Something fishy was going on when Pat retired as Davis Cup head honcho to pave the way for Lleyton but only Tennis Australia know the answers to that one.
Some say I am too hard on Lleyton, I say go through the history books and see what a complete pain in the arse he was when he first started playing right through to his first round match with Duckworth at the Oz Open in 2016 where he finally had the chance to win with some humility yet instead chose to do the 'pork chop routine'.
I reckon my view of him may just be shared by more than just a few.......

Tuesday 7 March 2017

'TIME TO SPICE IT UP' ?

 A couple of years ago I wrote of the lack of variety when it comes to presenting the sport of tennis, it's all pretty much the same though I love the new doubles format.
To bring in short deuces and third set super tie breakers was a master stroke because it puts more emphasis on thinking and split second cut throat decision making as opposed to long drawn out matches that sometimes finish at 70-68 in the decider.
I don't really like cricket but I believe the way that they now tinker with the format is brilliant and the public has embraced the changes.
 TENNIS IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF BEING SPICED UP.
2015
I don't begrudge anyone who has a personal dig at tennis because even though it has been my main sport for over 30 years I see flaws in the way it is presented. For a sport that is so well known for it's technical expertise there is an obvious flaw in the book of rules that I would love to see changed, if not just for a novelty tournament. 
Roger Federer is possibly the greatest technically correct player there has ever been, he is quite frankly a genius, he has even proven it OFF court.
There is a rather well played video of him serving a ball at an empty can of coke that was sitting on someone's head in a studio, it was a dare more than anything, Roger obliged, the can was sent flying. I don't care who you are and how close you are to someone set up like the 'William Tell' famous bow and arrow effort, the precision it took to knock that can off that person's head was nothing short of brilliant.
So why is it that tennis is a sport that requires two serves to start a point if everyone at the professional level is so technically sound ? What if golf followed the same lead as tennis ? Damn I hit it crooked, oh well I have another shot at it, grab me another ball thanks Mr Caddy, that first shot was a 'free swing' anyhow. Can you imagine it ? Every golfer would go for broke on the first shot, what would they have to lose except a ball that would be replaced within the allotted time between shots ?
So what is it with tennis that allows a player two chances to put the ball into play ? I am no expert at sports such as Table Tennis, Badminton or Squash but I have had a crack at all of them and from memory I only received one first serve, correct me if I am wrong.
As good as a server perhaps is at those above mentioned sports I doubt very much whether a match would be dominated by a good server due largely to pace or perhaps lack of it.
I have documented on more than one occasion my favourite tennis player Mats Wilander from Sweden and his rather incredible 97 per cent first service effort against Henri Leconte in the final of the French Open in 1988. In more simple terms Mats hit 73 of 75 first serves in, he basically started each of his serves with a delivery that wouldn't wake up a radar gun. He opted for a slow spinning serve that cleared the net with plenty of margin. For the record Mats won the match with ease.
So what of this tactic ? Well the Swede did his homework and realized that he was not going to win too many free points on his serve so he decided to conserve the energy for the rest of his game, a great tactic it turned out to be. The thing I liked so much about this particular match was that the return came back 99 per cent of the time, it was a spectacle, it came down to tactics, not brute strength.
If we fast forward to today's tennis it seems that serves are getting bigger as equipment becomes more advanced but how does a player keep up with this technology as far as their eyes are concerned ?
Your guess is as good as mine but returning a serve of Ivo Karlovic's surely will become even harder in the future as equipment becomes more advanced. How does a player see a serve of say 240 kms per hour let alone play it back into court ? It becomes almost a guessing game as to where it is going.
So what if guys like Karlovic and John Isner, another prolific server were told that they no longer had the luxury of two serves and were asked to develop a game more like the great Swede Mats Wilander ? Would that be more of a spectacle to a crowd of avid tennis fans wanting to witness a rally or two rather than them having to give the obligatory hand clap after another unplayable bomb that can send even the most seasoned spectator off to sleep ?
My answer is obvious and I believe that a tournament should be on the professional calendar that asks the ultimate question of each player 'are you only as good as your second serve'?
How good would it be to see a lack of aces hit, just about every return put back into court and the game of tennis being transformed back to a spectacle that saw a first serve as a 50/50 ball and not a raffle ticket ?
Now there is a game of tennis I would love to witness, a match that was full of rallies, a match that we could enjoy as a thought fest as opposed to a slug fest and one that would ask Ivo and Jonny to bring with them a plan B and C rather than just their usual plan A.
Could the powers of modern day tennis break from tradition and do what Jimmy Connors was asked to do in his Battle of The Sexes match with Martina Navratilova in 1992 and that was serve just ONE BALL ? It was brilliant. What made it even more interesting was the admission that Jimmy had a million dollars riding on not only the result but the score as well, fascinating.
I am all for tennis changing it's current format and I don't believe 'Fast 4' tennis even gets close to spicing the game up as 20/20 cricket does with it's new innovative format. I find today's format a little on the 'ho hum' side, it's a flawed scoring system that can at times award victory to a player who wins less points than their opponent. 
I reckon it's time for a change, just a thought.......