Novak Djokovic can do whatever he likes, hire whoever he likes, he has an endless Bank account, he just looks for the 'little things' to give him an edge. Hiring Boris Becker was one thing but now hiring the great Andre Agassi is a totally different ball game but it gets the Tennis World talking if nothing else.
So why did he ask Andre to help him out ?
Plain and simple, it's an ego boost of epic proportions yet it gives opposition players something else to talk and think about because they all know that Andre was and probably still is one of the greatest ever 'thinkers' when it comes to tennis.
Andre Agassi will definitely give a whole new spin, so to speak, on the sport and it will quite possibly be completely different than Boris Becker who just got the flick from Novak's weekly wage budget.
Novak Djokovic has been suffering mentally since last Wimbledon where in his own mind he probably lost to a tennis 'nobody' in Sam Querrey, even though the American isn't in fact a bad tennis player but he's not really in Novak's league as far as tennis greats are concerned. Sam can hit a ball well but he doesn't really play tennis like the big boys on a consistent basis.
Novak reminds me of Tiger Woods when the great man lost his mojo as far as the game of golf is concerned, when he was 'found out' by not only his wife but the World to be more precise. He went from 'owning' the sport to being a mere 'player' who just made up the numbers all because of a moment or two in his life that if he had his time over, he may have done differently.
No one takes criticism well and it can lead to mental health issues among other things that have a sports person questioning their own immortality that used to be as strong as their game. When the World makes judgement on a sports star it can mean the difference between finding a winner at a crucial time or the timing to be completely thrown out the window due to 'self assessment' that the everyday hacker goes through on a regular basis.
Anybody who owns an ounce of sporting intelligence realises that the only difference between winning and losing from the last 8 or 16 onwards is the mind because if you reach that stage in an event you all know how to strike a ball no matter what the sport may be.
Only the strongest minds have ever prevailed from that moment on in a World class event.
So back to Novak Djokovic. What is his agenda with his current new coach ?
It's obvious he has lost his game, lost his confidence, lost his way in the sport in which he only lost 4 matches in one entire season a few years back. That's not bad when you look at it considering his main rivals.
If you look at the footage of Novak and Andre there actually isn't a great deal of coaching going on, it is more about Novak hitting a tennis ball with one of his biggest heroes within a few metres of him. How could it not inspire him ? Think about it. If we could all afford to place our biggest sporting idol on court next to us while we practiced wouldn't we go up a level or two ?
Around 4 years ago I was fortunate enough to play 12 games against a guy who beat Boris Becker in 1992, a guy who I idolised in Queensland at a training facility. Whilst this former pro was no where near his prime he still owned much of the class that he used to beat a former World number 1.
I was no where near his ability yet I 'scrounged' a few games in an 8-4 loss. Greatest 4 games of my life, no risk.
You only raise your level when you play or gain knowledge from better players or ones that have done it all before you, despite your current or previous ability or results.
Novak Djokovic is quite possibly paying Andre Agassi a fee that most people would be happy to earn in two years of working a 'normal' job but it's 'ash tray' change to Novak as he looks for the one thing to inspire him again.
He wants that domination that he owned in 2011 which was in line with what John McEnroe achieved in 1984 when he only lost 3 matches but Mac didn't have the luxury of a high profile coach, Mac WAS his own coach, a genius.
Novak isn't a genius but he is a bloody good tennis player yet he is lacking something and that appears to be someone like Andre Agassi who if you have taken the time to study his first few sessions with Novak, well he looks as though he is almost overawed himself as he simply looks on as Novak hits.
The 'real' coaching would be going on over dinner as Andre would be offering many thoughts and ideas that Novak has possibly heard all before but with a different type of angle on it, pardon the pun once again.
Yes it would be an ego trip to hire someone of Andre Agassi's stature but hey if you own the funds, the balls to ask and a mind that is in desperate need of something new then why not ?
Egotistical sport tennis, all about self importance.......
Monday, 29 May 2017
Sunday, 21 May 2017
'TRADITION' ( LET IT GO )
I read something just recently regarding the ATP's new rule changes to be used at the Next Gen ATP Finals this November, 2017. The same word keeps coming up, 'Tradition'.
A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past. ( Wikipedea )
There you have it, says it all doesn't it ? '....in the past'.
The ATP are endeavouring to make the sport more appealing to a wider audience and don't forget that they are also trying to hold on to a viewer's attention span that can wane after 3 or 4 hours of watching clay court tennis in particular.
I for one believe the idea will take off. Why ? Because it breaks from tradition and spices up something that is as stale as an old beer.
It dares to be different and it dares to challenge a system that has been around since the 12th Century when the palm of the hand was used to strike the ball before rackets were introduced in the 16th Century. Tennis goes back a long, long way and perhaps for that reason alone the ATP is in favour of trying something else. Traditions can get a little dull and uninteresting after a while.
My biggest argument against the current scoring system is that it favours the fitness Zen Masters who are too afraid to have a beer at night for fear they will lose half a step the next day when they play. The current scoring system does not reward bravery, it rewards players who have muscle tone in their eye brows.
The current system of tennis scoring is about as exciting as watching paint dry and grass grow. It does not dare to be imaginative, it asks a player to win by two, everything must be by two but life in general does not have to be won by two, you simply just have to get your nose over the line first to be successful in life.
If you look at a sport such as Golf you will see that there are around a dozen different ways to score including Four ball, Match play, Stroke play, Stableford and even Skins. Now the latter is a ripper though I have not seen a Skins Tennis Tournament for years.
I recall once Ivan Lendl won around $750,000 against Pat Cash in a winner take all Skins event where the losing Semi Finalists went home with around $250,000. I believe Ivan offered to buy Pat tea sometime which received a bit of a run in the Pat Cash book. Back to the main story.
In the 80's the sport of Squash received a much needed facelift which allowed either player to be awarded a point on the score board and not just by the player who served the ball as the original rules stipulated.
Either player was awarded the point whether they were serving or not which I suppose made a lot of sense as the original rule book was obviously written by someone who did not appreciate the receiver's efforts, it simply favoured the server.
Squash and Golf have evolved over time.
I have made mention in previous posts on this site that the new Doubles format for non Grand Slam events is rather entertaining in my eyes to say the least and it is almost an impossibility to 'own' the sport of doubles now as the Bryan Brothers have done in the past with over 100 tournament wins. It will never happen again.
Singles players can now beat Doubles players due to short deuces and third set super tie breakers which now reward cavalier type of play and it also does one very important thing, it actually brings singles players into the World of Doubles. Why ?
Time frame, matches are shorter, players participate now for some extra match play rather than do a boring hour in the gym. It's a win/ win situation now for all players on the tour.
To prove just how even the field is now in Mens Doubles on the ATP Tour you only have to look at this week's matches in Rome. Up to the Semi Final stage there were 22 matches played and no fewer than 11 went to a third set super tie breaker. The ATP would be rubbing their hands together with delight at this response to the new rule changes which I find to be nothing short of brilliant.
It has breathed some life back into a format that was becoming a burden to the smaller events rather than a spectacle.
For a player such as Nick Kyrgios to win a doubles match ( with Jack Sock ) against the Bryan Brothers proves the system is working beautifully. The playing field is now even, hallelujah.
So now for singles.
If the new system is introduced into the main ATP Tour we may never see a 'Big 4' again and we will never see someone like Rafa win 10 Barcelona titles, 10 Monte Carlo titles and 9 ( so far ) French Open titles because the sport will no longer favour the fitness fanatic. It will look after players such as Gael Monfils who lost the third set of Monte Carlo to Rafa two years ago 0-6 because he ran out of gas and let's face it, we all know Gael is good to watch for two sets until he gets tired.
Monfils is just one example, there are scores of shot makers out there who could give a top ten player a real fright on any given day with a 'tweak' in the rules, no risk at all. It will share the prize money around and the $350,000,000 or so that the Big 4 have won in Mens tennis will be a thing of the past as the top 400 players will all be able to afford a night on a bed rather than in the foyer of a Hotel.
The new rule change by the ATP for the up coming November event has more up side than down and who knows, it may even win over the 'traditionalists' of the sport......
A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past. ( Wikipedea )
There you have it, says it all doesn't it ? '....in the past'.
The ATP are endeavouring to make the sport more appealing to a wider audience and don't forget that they are also trying to hold on to a viewer's attention span that can wane after 3 or 4 hours of watching clay court tennis in particular.
I for one believe the idea will take off. Why ? Because it breaks from tradition and spices up something that is as stale as an old beer.
It dares to be different and it dares to challenge a system that has been around since the 12th Century when the palm of the hand was used to strike the ball before rackets were introduced in the 16th Century. Tennis goes back a long, long way and perhaps for that reason alone the ATP is in favour of trying something else. Traditions can get a little dull and uninteresting after a while.
My biggest argument against the current scoring system is that it favours the fitness Zen Masters who are too afraid to have a beer at night for fear they will lose half a step the next day when they play. The current scoring system does not reward bravery, it rewards players who have muscle tone in their eye brows.
The current system of tennis scoring is about as exciting as watching paint dry and grass grow. It does not dare to be imaginative, it asks a player to win by two, everything must be by two but life in general does not have to be won by two, you simply just have to get your nose over the line first to be successful in life.
If you look at a sport such as Golf you will see that there are around a dozen different ways to score including Four ball, Match play, Stroke play, Stableford and even Skins. Now the latter is a ripper though I have not seen a Skins Tennis Tournament for years.
I recall once Ivan Lendl won around $750,000 against Pat Cash in a winner take all Skins event where the losing Semi Finalists went home with around $250,000. I believe Ivan offered to buy Pat tea sometime which received a bit of a run in the Pat Cash book. Back to the main story.
In the 80's the sport of Squash received a much needed facelift which allowed either player to be awarded a point on the score board and not just by the player who served the ball as the original rules stipulated.
Either player was awarded the point whether they were serving or not which I suppose made a lot of sense as the original rule book was obviously written by someone who did not appreciate the receiver's efforts, it simply favoured the server.
Squash and Golf have evolved over time.
I have made mention in previous posts on this site that the new Doubles format for non Grand Slam events is rather entertaining in my eyes to say the least and it is almost an impossibility to 'own' the sport of doubles now as the Bryan Brothers have done in the past with over 100 tournament wins. It will never happen again.
Singles players can now beat Doubles players due to short deuces and third set super tie breakers which now reward cavalier type of play and it also does one very important thing, it actually brings singles players into the World of Doubles. Why ?
Time frame, matches are shorter, players participate now for some extra match play rather than do a boring hour in the gym. It's a win/ win situation now for all players on the tour.
To prove just how even the field is now in Mens Doubles on the ATP Tour you only have to look at this week's matches in Rome. Up to the Semi Final stage there were 22 matches played and no fewer than 11 went to a third set super tie breaker. The ATP would be rubbing their hands together with delight at this response to the new rule changes which I find to be nothing short of brilliant.
It has breathed some life back into a format that was becoming a burden to the smaller events rather than a spectacle.
For a player such as Nick Kyrgios to win a doubles match ( with Jack Sock ) against the Bryan Brothers proves the system is working beautifully. The playing field is now even, hallelujah.
So now for singles.
If the new system is introduced into the main ATP Tour we may never see a 'Big 4' again and we will never see someone like Rafa win 10 Barcelona titles, 10 Monte Carlo titles and 9 ( so far ) French Open titles because the sport will no longer favour the fitness fanatic. It will look after players such as Gael Monfils who lost the third set of Monte Carlo to Rafa two years ago 0-6 because he ran out of gas and let's face it, we all know Gael is good to watch for two sets until he gets tired.
Monfils is just one example, there are scores of shot makers out there who could give a top ten player a real fright on any given day with a 'tweak' in the rules, no risk at all. It will share the prize money around and the $350,000,000 or so that the Big 4 have won in Mens tennis will be a thing of the past as the top 400 players will all be able to afford a night on a bed rather than in the foyer of a Hotel.
The new rule change by the ATP for the up coming November event has more up side than down and who knows, it may even win over the 'traditionalists' of the sport......
Wednesday, 17 May 2017
'RULE CHANGE AT LAST'
The following is part of an article posted on the ATP site and personally, I think it's a ripper.
I wrote a Post just recently titled 'Time to Spice it Up' on this site as I believe that tennis rewards fitness robots and not shot makers, the latter draws crowds in. Fitness robots tend to put the crowd to sleep after 4 or 5 hours of rallying.
Guys like Rafa 'own' clay court events due to their ability to 'stay out there all day'. Watching paint dry can be more entertaining. It's why Rafa has won on that surface an 'obscene' amount of times.
Introduce the new rule and you will see as much variation in singles winners as there has been lately in doubles.
Check the recent events if you don't believe me, no team dominates doubles anymore due to the spice up in the rules.
If it's good enough for doubles then it's good enough for singles, there should be no discrimination between the formats.
ATP Announces Trial Of Rule Changes & Innovation For Next Gen ATP Finals In Milan
'The ATP has announced a series of rule changes and innovations set to be trialled at the Next Gen ATP Finals in Milan this November. The season-ending tournament will see the world’s top 21-and-Under players of the season competing for total prize money of US$ 1.275 million from 7-11 November.
The rule changes, aimed at creating a high-tempo, cutting-edge, and TV-friendly product, are geared towards attracting new and younger fans into the sport, while at the same time retaining the sport’s traditional fan-base. The following rule changes will be applied in Milan:
Get Tickets Now
- Shorter Format: First to Four games sets (Tie-Break at 3-All), Best-of-Five sets, with No-Ad scoring
I wrote a Post just recently titled 'Time to Spice it Up' on this site as I believe that tennis rewards fitness robots and not shot makers, the latter draws crowds in. Fitness robots tend to put the crowd to sleep after 4 or 5 hours of rallying.
Guys like Rafa 'own' clay court events due to their ability to 'stay out there all day'. Watching paint dry can be more entertaining. It's why Rafa has won on that surface an 'obscene' amount of times.
Introduce the new rule and you will see as much variation in singles winners as there has been lately in doubles.
Check the recent events if you don't believe me, no team dominates doubles anymore due to the spice up in the rules.
If it's good enough for doubles then it's good enough for singles, there should be no discrimination between the formats.
ATP Announces Trial Of Rule Changes & Innovation For Next Gen ATP Finals In Milan
'The ATP has announced a series of rule changes and innovations set to be trialled at the Next Gen ATP Finals in Milan this November. The season-ending tournament will see the world’s top 21-and-Under players of the season competing for total prize money of US$ 1.275 million from 7-11 November.
The rule changes, aimed at creating a high-tempo, cutting-edge, and TV-friendly product, are geared towards attracting new and younger fans into the sport, while at the same time retaining the sport’s traditional fan-base. The following rule changes will be applied in Milan:
Get Tickets Now
- Shorter Format: First to Four games sets (Tie-Break at 3-All), Best-of-Five sets, with No-Ad scoring
• Shorter set format designed to increase number of pivotal moments in a match, while the best-of-five set format does not alter the number of games required to win a match (12) from the traditional scoring format. No-Ad scoring will be played (receiver’s choice).
- Shorter Warm-Up
• Matches will begin precisely 5 minutes from the second player walk-on, leading to a reduction in down time before the beginning of matches.'
So there you go, just part of an article recently written on the ATP site.
In all other sports you don't have to win by TWO. In tennis, well for some reason you have to win by TWO.
Golf ? One shot is plenty. Soccer ? A goal will do. AFL ? A point will be plenty to claim the match.
You see the pattern ?
Tennis is above all other sports with it's ridiculous scoring system, a system that is in desperate need of change to move with the times, to keep the public interested. Forget the 'traditionalists' of the game, most are no longer with us, time to move on.
At the end of this post I will repost part of an article I published last year .
GT has been on to this idea for a while now.
Seems the ATP is also starting to realise that the sport needs a facelift for the good of the game.
Black and white television is a thing of the past, so is the current tennis scoring system. Do I practice what I preach ?
Ten years ago I 'invented' a new tournament to the local tennis calendar here in 'Sleepy Hollow', went down a treat.
Different scoring, no lets on serve, etc, etc, all the bells and whistles, was easy to see way back then that tennis scoring needed a tweak.
Different scoring, no lets on serve, etc, etc, all the bells and whistles, was easy to see way back then that tennis scoring needed a tweak.
All of a sudden Tennis Australia introduced 'Fast 4' and the ATP introduce this 'new' idea.
'Blind Freddy' could see years ago that this 'new' scoring system was in desperate need of being introduced, finally others have.
Changing my name to 'Fred', I saw it...........
'28/8/2016'
I wrote this last year, part of a post that had a 'shot' at the current tennis scoring system.....
'Personally I love the format of Mens doubles in World tennis as it takes away the 'ho hum' type of feeling to matches that can drag on to say 15-13 in the fifth set and leave a player as cannon fodder for their next opponent.
Isner and Mahut proved the theory wrong that 'a match has to end sometime'. Their match took three days at Wimbledon to complete which not only stuffs a tournament around but also stuffs a player out.
Tennis needs a bit of a tweak just as they have done in doubles, it requires a spice up, a change of format just as twenty, twenty cricket has revived the sport in general. Tennis rewards the guys prepared to stay out there all day, not necessarily the shot makers who are the more entertaining ones to watch most of the time.
Two sets all in singles, bring in the Super tie breaker, add some life to a sport that needs to move ahead just as other sports have done by tweaking the format.
Remember the crowd also has to go home at a respectable hour.......
Monday, 15 May 2017
'TENNIS INSIDERS.COM, 2014'
Found this a few years back, worth another post, it's nothing short of brilliant and puts the sport of tennis into perspective.
Word for word from 'tennis insiders.com';
'Right now there are about 14 US players on the ATP and WTA tours who are earning a net profit. They span about 17.5 years of playing on tour. That means that the US as a Country produces about 8 1/10's of one paying job per year as a pro tennis player. If you are pushing your child for that 8 1/10's of one job then you need to have your head examined.
The pro tennis system is broken beyond belief. It is nothing short of a flat out Business catastrophe perpetrated against our sport .... but it is still our catastrophe. So unless you are going to start a new pro tour ..... you are looking at 80 percent of one paying job per year.
It cracks me up that the 100's of 1000's of dollars that people spend on their kid's tennis, berating them after their losses, devoting their entire family's live's to the cause ..... only to find out that the average professional tennis player loses money as opposed to makes it.
People look at Anna Dok and Maria as the norm when they should be going to Number 759 on the rankings to give that guy a call. His life is slightly different than limousine's and cheering crowds.'
INTERESTING STATISTICS TO SAY THE LEAST. A sport not for the faint hearted or those who don't own a large Bank account.....
Sunday, 14 May 2017
'THE STRANGEST TENNIS MATCH'
This is part of an article that could be described as one of Tennis's greatest ever conspiracies.....
Tom Perrotta (@TomPerrotta) is a Wall Street Journal correspondent and editor-at-large for Tennis Magazine. His work has also appeared in The Atlantic and Men’s Journal.
What Went Wrong at the Strangest Tennis Match You Never Knew Occurred?
Davis Cup. Pakistan versus New Zealand. In Myanmar. Where a referee’s decision to call off the competition cost Pakistan a likely win, inspired charges of racial prejudice, and caused bewildered Kiwis to fear for their lives.
Friday, 12 May 2017
'YOU DO THE SUMS'
I have always been fascinated by things in tennis that I suppose 'normal' people would simply take for granted. My silly mind dissects certain score lines and circumstances like a Professor might dissect a frog in a Science lesson.
It's something that I have owned since I was a kid though at times I wish I hadn't delved into the nuts and bolts of it all so much particularly when I was playing tournaments. Sometimes the wavering mind can be your own worst enemy on a tennis court.
Now days I look at Pro Tournaments and wonder how on earth did certain things happen the way they did yet I always come back with the same answer most times, ' It's simply the nature of tennis, tough sport'.
The current tournament in Madrid has thrown me a ridiculous amount of dialogue for my strange mind to digest, dissect and spit out, so to speak. There have been story lines aplenty and score lines that defy logic.
At times it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but when it comes to tennis I will ask you the obvious question 'What does make sense' ?
Gael Monfils was seeded 15 and received possibly one of the toughest first round assignments, in more ways than one. Gilles Simon is one of his Davis Cup team mates and is ranked 32. Between them they have won just over 24 Million Dollars in their rather illustrious careers with Monfils a lazy one mil in front of his Countryman but who's counting by this stage ?
Now at a first set score line of 6-0 to Monfils you would have to question whether Simon was simply going through the motions due to the difficulty of playing a good friend in a major championship. Circumstances like this can play on anyone's mind.
At the completion of set number 2 the score card read as follows; 0-6, 6-0. Yep Simon returned the bagel that was dished out to him by his buddy in the first, anything you can do.........
Third set, all the way to a tie breaker, makes sense hey ??! One more twist in this rather strange match, the tie breaker score. You guessed it, bagel to Simon, 7-0. Remember, tennis isn't supposed to make sense.
Borna Coric of Croatia is a bloody good tennis player, in fact he just won an event in Morocco, he is ranked 59. Coric however was not 'good enough' to make it into the main draw in Madrid so he was forced to play the qualifying event where he lost to Kukushkin who is ranked 21 places lower than him. Yes I told you it all makes sense.
Borna Coric though is literally a lucky young man and received a ticket through to the main draw despite his loss to Kukushkin as two players pulled out through injury. Coric initially made just under $4,500 Euros in losing early in the qualifying but hey, what not ride your good fortune while you can and take out World Number 1 Andy Murray while you are at it ?
You see that's tennis for you, it defies logic, guys who are playing qualifying events still own all the shots that a walk up main draw player does, they simply do not own the grey matter to do it consistently until the brain eventually gains the understanding required at that level.
The straight sets 6-3, 6-3 win by Coric over Murray in the Round of 16 was in a way outrageous in it's simplicity but if you own any title on the ATP Tour you own what the game asks of you to be successful. It just goes to show that the gap between 1 and 50 is minimal.
Coric went home with just over $130,000 Euros, not a bad increase from his qualifying loss pay cheque.
Jared Donaldson of the US can also lay claim to being a lucky type of guy as he claimed the other 'Lucky Loser's' position in the main draw after getting beaten at the same stage in qualifying as Coric.
Donaldson is only 20 years of age, born the same year as Coric and is steadily improving his ranking which now sits at 78 and his second round prize of just under $36,000 Euros will go a long way to helping fund the rest of his season.
Two players, same age, similar rankings, similar standard, both were on a plane flight out of Madrid after qualifying losses, instead they both had success in the main draw and picked up a tidy sum of Euros after some luck and some great play all rolled into one.
The good players know how to make the most of their chances in this sport.
For the record Gilles Simon lost his next match, again it went to a third set tie breaker but this time he was not so dominant and Lopez took the points 7-3. In fact if you follow Gilles at all on the tour you would be on the edge of your seat in many of his matches as he usually finds a way to keep you entertained.
His first round doubles in Madrid finished with another nail biting loss, 5-7, 7-6, 10-8 to Baker and Monroe.
Do you need nerves of steel to play Pro Tennis ? You do the sums..........
It's something that I have owned since I was a kid though at times I wish I hadn't delved into the nuts and bolts of it all so much particularly when I was playing tournaments. Sometimes the wavering mind can be your own worst enemy on a tennis court.
Now days I look at Pro Tournaments and wonder how on earth did certain things happen the way they did yet I always come back with the same answer most times, ' It's simply the nature of tennis, tough sport'.
The current tournament in Madrid has thrown me a ridiculous amount of dialogue for my strange mind to digest, dissect and spit out, so to speak. There have been story lines aplenty and score lines that defy logic.
At times it doesn't make a whole lot of sense but when it comes to tennis I will ask you the obvious question 'What does make sense' ?
Gael Monfils was seeded 15 and received possibly one of the toughest first round assignments, in more ways than one. Gilles Simon is one of his Davis Cup team mates and is ranked 32. Between them they have won just over 24 Million Dollars in their rather illustrious careers with Monfils a lazy one mil in front of his Countryman but who's counting by this stage ?
Now at a first set score line of 6-0 to Monfils you would have to question whether Simon was simply going through the motions due to the difficulty of playing a good friend in a major championship. Circumstances like this can play on anyone's mind.
At the completion of set number 2 the score card read as follows; 0-6, 6-0. Yep Simon returned the bagel that was dished out to him by his buddy in the first, anything you can do.........
Third set, all the way to a tie breaker, makes sense hey ??! One more twist in this rather strange match, the tie breaker score. You guessed it, bagel to Simon, 7-0. Remember, tennis isn't supposed to make sense.
Borna Coric of Croatia is a bloody good tennis player, in fact he just won an event in Morocco, he is ranked 59. Coric however was not 'good enough' to make it into the main draw in Madrid so he was forced to play the qualifying event where he lost to Kukushkin who is ranked 21 places lower than him. Yes I told you it all makes sense.
Borna Coric though is literally a lucky young man and received a ticket through to the main draw despite his loss to Kukushkin as two players pulled out through injury. Coric initially made just under $4,500 Euros in losing early in the qualifying but hey, what not ride your good fortune while you can and take out World Number 1 Andy Murray while you are at it ?
You see that's tennis for you, it defies logic, guys who are playing qualifying events still own all the shots that a walk up main draw player does, they simply do not own the grey matter to do it consistently until the brain eventually gains the understanding required at that level.
The straight sets 6-3, 6-3 win by Coric over Murray in the Round of 16 was in a way outrageous in it's simplicity but if you own any title on the ATP Tour you own what the game asks of you to be successful. It just goes to show that the gap between 1 and 50 is minimal.
Coric went home with just over $130,000 Euros, not a bad increase from his qualifying loss pay cheque.
Jared Donaldson of the US can also lay claim to being a lucky type of guy as he claimed the other 'Lucky Loser's' position in the main draw after getting beaten at the same stage in qualifying as Coric.
Donaldson is only 20 years of age, born the same year as Coric and is steadily improving his ranking which now sits at 78 and his second round prize of just under $36,000 Euros will go a long way to helping fund the rest of his season.
Two players, same age, similar rankings, similar standard, both were on a plane flight out of Madrid after qualifying losses, instead they both had success in the main draw and picked up a tidy sum of Euros after some luck and some great play all rolled into one.
The good players know how to make the most of their chances in this sport.
For the record Gilles Simon lost his next match, again it went to a third set tie breaker but this time he was not so dominant and Lopez took the points 7-3. In fact if you follow Gilles at all on the tour you would be on the edge of your seat in many of his matches as he usually finds a way to keep you entertained.
His first round doubles in Madrid finished with another nail biting loss, 5-7, 7-6, 10-8 to Baker and Monroe.
Do you need nerves of steel to play Pro Tennis ? You do the sums..........
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
'VITAS'
I wrote this a while back. Vitas Gerulaitis played in an era where I learned the game by hitting against a brick wall. He was Borg's best mate and Borg was my hero. Any friend of Borg's was a friend of mine.....
As a kid who was starting to gain a liking for the game of tennis I vividly remember 4 players , Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and another American Vitas Gerulaitis. I always used to get Vitas mixed up with Vilas (Guillermo), easy thing to do when you are just learning the game and the names.
Vitas was not unlike Andre Agassi with the long blonde locks , the rock star appeal and a personality to match, as they say , a marketer's dream. Vitas also had a flair about his game that fitted his looks and personality, a serve and volley as well as a regular net approach off anything that resembled a short ball.
Vitas was in a word 'gutsy'. Fiery too. I once watched him leave the court in a tournament in Australia, possibly Sydney, without even finishing the match, technically anyhow.
This particular match he was playing Ivan Lendl and Vitas was leading Lendl by a set, 7-6, and had match point in the second set tie breaker, from memory perhaps several match points. Problem was there was a linesman who refused to give Gerulaitis the match, he kept calling his shots wide.
It was a long , long time ago but if I remember rightly the shot by Vitas on maybe his third match point was in, but called out, so by this stage Vitas had had enough. Vitas walked ! Yep he strolled over to Lendl , shook his hand and left the court !
The match was not OFFICIALLY over but it was in Vitas's eyes , he had won it not only on that last shot but perhaps the shot before which was also called wide.
The most humorous part about it all was that I am 99 per cent sure it was an exhibition event, though Vitas did not treat it like one.
I once saw him throw his racket into the crowd at Wimbledon after losing his match to Australian Mark Edmondson. It wasn't a violent throw, he simply walked to the back of the court and asked a spectator if he wanted his racket then gently tossed it up to them.
At the time Vitas probably thought he wouldn't be needing it for a while , partying maybe appealed to him more and from many accounts it appeared that Vitas did a lot of it.
In the Bjorn Borg biography Bjorn spoke highly of his best mate Vitas and even mentioned that on some nights out Vitas would pay for everything that was served up, food , drinks and anything else, a generous man he was.
Gerulaitis also had some funny habits, like not stepping on court lines as he walked to his chair at the change over, a superstitious habit that looked rather funny if you ever had a chance to see it. I also watched him in one tournament change his wrap around grip at every single change over, perhaps more a habit than a necessity.
That was back in the days when advertising was not as obsessive as it is now and you were allowed to gain an insight into the way a player spent his 90 seconds in between games, I found it educational.
Vitas died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty pool heater as he rested before a Senior's Tour match in the US in 1994, he was only 40. He won the Australian Open singles in 1977 and the Wimbledon Men's doubles with Sandy Mayer in 1975.
A real character of World Tennis in the late 70's and through the 80's.
Vitas Gerulaitis was one of those larger than life personalities in World sport, they don't make 'em like that anymore......
Monday, 8 May 2017
'THE FUNDING ISSUE'
The Issue of funding Australian Tennis Professionals seems to have gone quiet lately, pity, it was a topic that I believe should have got more air play and for a longer period of time. Let's face it, the whole subject is a comedy routine.
Pat Rafter came up with a few ideas regarding the issue of financial support for players who didn't really need it and Pat was dead right in his assessment of it all.
As the former 'Head Of Performance' for Tennis Australia, Rafter made some tough decisions regarding who would and who wouldn't receive financial backing;
“At some stage a guy just can’t keep on getting funding and, with funding, you become a bit soft as well, if everything is paid for all of the time,” Rafter said.
“There’s gonna be a few guys next year who are gonna have a rude awakening.
“They can’t coast any more. So they’ve either got to give it a real crack or give the game away.
“So, yeah, we do play God a little bit, but I think that’s the way it’s got to be done.
“It is a bit dictatorial, however it’s done within a team environment and I believe in it.
“I might be way off the mark and I’ll know in a couple of years, probably three or four years. It might be a disaster when I’m done.
“But I think it’s our role to help a player get to the level that they can and then they’re sort of on their own.
“If we keep funding these top guys that can afford to fund themselves, that stops our ability to fund the lower ones.”
Of course Rafter stepped down from that position with Tennis Australia in February this year which mirrored his decision to step down as Davis Cup Captain in 2015, a shame, Pat tells it how it needs to be told.
A rumour was floated some time ago regarding Lleyton Hewitt and his full time practice partner, former Aussie Tennis Pro Peter Luczak. According to some sources Luczak was paid by Tennis Australia to travel with Hewitt and keep him sharply drilled. Would that be a surprise ?
A grass court was always laid out for Hewitt in a home Davis Cup tie in Australia which has now been changed finally to a hard court surface to suit the big hitting style of Kyrgios who excels on a neutral surface, as does Jordan Thompson for that matter. Hopefully grass court ties here in Australia are gone for good, a thing of the past, like black and white television.
TA seemed to do whatever Hewitt wished and I would say most definitely that Peter Luczak was paid to be Hewitt's practice partner in 2013. Who's pocket did the expenses for Luczak come out of ? Well I have my theories but as per usual it's one of those 'hush, hush' topics that will never really be discussed in length but if a millionaire several times over doesn't pay out of their own pocket for a travelling ball hitter, well that shows lack of morality.
Apparently last year alone TA spent over 15 Million dollars on funding over 100 pro tennis players from the land of Oz. I find that figure laughable. Surely that amount of money could have been significantly reduced if the 'already millionaires' were dropped from the list, or don't TA discriminate ? According to Pat Rafter TA do need to do just that, discriminate.
Bernard Tomic apparently has had over 4 million dollars invested in him. If you ask Bernie he will tell you that it has been spent wisely just as he suggested in an interview last season. Bernie believes that he has 'returned' on TA's investment. Not quite sure how he can justify that statement, he's won 3 ATP titles sure, but he hasn't made it past the fourth round of a Slam since 2011 where he made it to the last 8 at Wimbledon as an 18 year old.
I don't mind Bernie but there is no way he has 'returned' on a 4 million dollar investment, no way in the World. He may prove a lot of his current critics wrong but his current form suggests he is more of a 'Tourist' than tennis pro as he jet sets around the World losing early in most events and not repaying TA by removing himself from the Davis Cup.
Interesting subject is BT.
There is no doubt in my mind that Pat Rafter is absolutely 100 per cent correct in his assessment that too many tennis pros are being thrown money when it is either not required or as harsh as it sounds, not deserved.
Just as my last post on this site suggests, let's see a pay back system from these players who have received monumental amounts of cash to fund their quest for stardom who live in million dollar apartments who never really seem to care about who got them there in the first place.
As soon as a player hits half a mil in prize money let's see some funds deposited back into the sport in Australia to help fund the next generation of tennis professionals, pretty simple really........
Pat Rafter came up with a few ideas regarding the issue of financial support for players who didn't really need it and Pat was dead right in his assessment of it all.
As the former 'Head Of Performance' for Tennis Australia, Rafter made some tough decisions regarding who would and who wouldn't receive financial backing;
“At some stage a guy just can’t keep on getting funding and, with funding, you become a bit soft as well, if everything is paid for all of the time,” Rafter said.
“There’s gonna be a few guys next year who are gonna have a rude awakening.
“They can’t coast any more. So they’ve either got to give it a real crack or give the game away.
“So, yeah, we do play God a little bit, but I think that’s the way it’s got to be done.
“It is a bit dictatorial, however it’s done within a team environment and I believe in it.
“I might be way off the mark and I’ll know in a couple of years, probably three or four years. It might be a disaster when I’m done.
“But I think it’s our role to help a player get to the level that they can and then they’re sort of on their own.
“If we keep funding these top guys that can afford to fund themselves, that stops our ability to fund the lower ones.”
Of course Rafter stepped down from that position with Tennis Australia in February this year which mirrored his decision to step down as Davis Cup Captain in 2015, a shame, Pat tells it how it needs to be told.
A rumour was floated some time ago regarding Lleyton Hewitt and his full time practice partner, former Aussie Tennis Pro Peter Luczak. According to some sources Luczak was paid by Tennis Australia to travel with Hewitt and keep him sharply drilled. Would that be a surprise ?
A grass court was always laid out for Hewitt in a home Davis Cup tie in Australia which has now been changed finally to a hard court surface to suit the big hitting style of Kyrgios who excels on a neutral surface, as does Jordan Thompson for that matter. Hopefully grass court ties here in Australia are gone for good, a thing of the past, like black and white television.
TA seemed to do whatever Hewitt wished and I would say most definitely that Peter Luczak was paid to be Hewitt's practice partner in 2013. Who's pocket did the expenses for Luczak come out of ? Well I have my theories but as per usual it's one of those 'hush, hush' topics that will never really be discussed in length but if a millionaire several times over doesn't pay out of their own pocket for a travelling ball hitter, well that shows lack of morality.
Apparently last year alone TA spent over 15 Million dollars on funding over 100 pro tennis players from the land of Oz. I find that figure laughable. Surely that amount of money could have been significantly reduced if the 'already millionaires' were dropped from the list, or don't TA discriminate ? According to Pat Rafter TA do need to do just that, discriminate.
Bernard Tomic apparently has had over 4 million dollars invested in him. If you ask Bernie he will tell you that it has been spent wisely just as he suggested in an interview last season. Bernie believes that he has 'returned' on TA's investment. Not quite sure how he can justify that statement, he's won 3 ATP titles sure, but he hasn't made it past the fourth round of a Slam since 2011 where he made it to the last 8 at Wimbledon as an 18 year old.
I don't mind Bernie but there is no way he has 'returned' on a 4 million dollar investment, no way in the World. He may prove a lot of his current critics wrong but his current form suggests he is more of a 'Tourist' than tennis pro as he jet sets around the World losing early in most events and not repaying TA by removing himself from the Davis Cup.
Interesting subject is BT.
There is no doubt in my mind that Pat Rafter is absolutely 100 per cent correct in his assessment that too many tennis pros are being thrown money when it is either not required or as harsh as it sounds, not deserved.
Just as my last post on this site suggests, let's see a pay back system from these players who have received monumental amounts of cash to fund their quest for stardom who live in million dollar apartments who never really seem to care about who got them there in the first place.
As soon as a player hits half a mil in prize money let's see some funds deposited back into the sport in Australia to help fund the next generation of tennis professionals, pretty simple really........
Sunday, 7 May 2017
' THE PAY BACK'
I wrote this New Years Eve 2014 ( Yes I have no life ).
I have often wondered why Pro Tennis players never have to pay back what Governing Bodies 'loan' them to become rich, well not all of them, they don't all become wealthy but you know what I mean don't you ?
The following post from a few years back touches on that subject, plus a few other things that disturb me about the sport of tennis.....
I read somewhere recently that just 336 Men and 253 Women Tennis Professionals made more money than they spent playing tennis last year, interesting statistic. How many Tennis Professionals does this mean didn't make enough to survive without financial assistance from family and friends ?
However it's important to note that just because a Pro Tennis player made more than he or she spent it still doesn't mean that they made a 'living' out of it.
I have written numerous articles on what I believe is wrong with tennis and I don't just mean the coaching side of things, that's just one issue. I have often written of tennis being a 'needle in a haystack' type of sport as the chances of 'success' are like searching for that needle.
So what is 'success' ? Is it the dollar value at the end of a season for a player or is it tournament wins ?
Filip Krajinovic of Serbia will finish 2014 as the player ranked 100 and his singles prize money for the year was just under $170,000, not a bad effort. However if you take away expenses plus what the Tax Man requires then the figure is probably what a Council Worker earned. Novak Djokovic earned over 14 million this year, big difference from his lowly ranked countryman who is ranked 99 places behind him.
So where's the problem ? Easy one to answer, Sponsorship dollars. The big companies want their name and money put toward the big tournaments and they want the winner to receive something most people would not even win from a Lottery. Big egotistical stuff. The issue with this however is that the next Novak Djokovic is probably running around on court in an obscure clay court event somewhere with perhaps a few hundred dollars to his name.
So how does the sport expect him to keep going ? It doesn't. Tennis simply wants the natural 'pecking order' to do it's natural thing, weed out the good from the rest, nature will take care of itself. But what about the players who bloom late ?
What about players such as Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic who just became competitive at age 34 ?? Now here is a player who no doubt would had to have received financial backup from somewhere other than tennis as he has been playing for 15 years and earned just over $600,000. Do the sums on that, how's that Council Worker's wage looking now over the same time frame, not too shabby ?
Big companies aren't interested in keeping guys like Victor in a 'job' in obscure little tournaments that are in fact the breeding ground of the next generation of players. But these players may just prove to be the World's best in the years to come.
So does tennis need players like Victor at age 34 playing the game ? You betcha, just look at the interest every time Tommy Haas takes the court, especially against the young players. Youth vs Experience is possibly one of the greatest contests in World Sport. So if guys like Victor have been knocking around in obscure events for the past 15 years because their ranking has been too low to make it into the tournaments that pay the big dollars then how do they survive ? Just.
Does a player who wins a Grand Slam really require a bank deposit of over two million dollars ? If a player is good enough to win a major then surely his endorsements will make up the 'shortfall' ? If a tournament such as the Australian Open cut just $200,000 from it's $30,000,000 of sponsorship and used it to pay the lesser credentialed players more it may just be the difference in them being able to afford to fly to the next tournament.
Grand Slam events can afford to offer players a prize that can almost guarantee them a few months' travel expenses especially at the qualifier level.
If a player wins four Main Draw matches he takes home $250,000, I think that's outrageous. Shave it to $150,000 and even out the rest of the prize money dispersion, it's still big dollars. Reward a Qualifier a handsome sum because he is good enough to be a professional and he may just be the player along with Estrella Burgos who may just hang around the game long enough to become a quality player.
Tennis is no longer a young man's game, at last count there were only two players under 23 years of age in the Top 100 Men's Rankings. The average age of the top ten is 28, give or take a year, hence my example of Estrella Burgos. So it is the obligation of the sport to keep players in it for as long as it is necessary for them to realize their potential.
Let's face it, if a player remains fit he or she will only get better and in particular, smarter, Tommy Haas is testimony to that. At age 35 Haas beat Djokovic in Miami in straight sets in 2013 and at age 36 he beat Wawrinka in three sets in Rome in 2014. Experience? You can't beat it.
So as much as tennis rewards the top 50 players in the World it really does nothing for the rest, how's the lyrics from the Midnight Oil song ? 'The rich get richer, the poor get the picture'.
Tennis players are maturing later so the older players still have much to offer and they may not do anything in the game other than survive until they are over age 30.
Yes I realize that Tommy Haas was a former top ten player however my point is he is basically getting better as he gets older, it's that sort of sport. Others can follow his lead, they simply need enough dollars to stay in the game.
It's a tough one, no real answers but handing out $2.5 Million to the players who defied the needle in the haystack odds may not be the best thing for the game. Cap the prize money and spread it more evenly, surely this makes more sense ?
So what of the smaller events ? That's even tougher as sponsorship is minimal but rather than the Governing Bodies boasting about their ever increasing bank accounts how about they release some funds and support the smaller events more ? And how do they get it back ? Simple, get the players to give back to the sport.
Once their prize money hits a certain figure then surely these players can afford to reimburse the game that made them rich. University students do it don't they ? How about sportsmen do the same ?
That next ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Event may not necessarily be won by a 25 year old. It may in fact be won by a 33 year old who has stopped worrying about where his next meal will come from and concentrated more on his experienced game........
******** FOOTNOTE*********
Since I wrote this in 2014 I see that the prize money for Grand Slams has in fact increased even more and I believe that $400,000 is now the prize for a spot in the last 16, crazy stuff aint it ? The winner now takes home around $3.5 Million.
The prize money needs to be dispersed a whole lot smarter. The players ranked outside the Main Draw cut off need it a whole lot more than the winners do and the smaller events need a cut from the larger events.
Pro Tennis requires a new Treasurer.........
I have often wondered why Pro Tennis players never have to pay back what Governing Bodies 'loan' them to become rich, well not all of them, they don't all become wealthy but you know what I mean don't you ?
The following post from a few years back touches on that subject, plus a few other things that disturb me about the sport of tennis.....
I read somewhere recently that just 336 Men and 253 Women Tennis Professionals made more money than they spent playing tennis last year, interesting statistic. How many Tennis Professionals does this mean didn't make enough to survive without financial assistance from family and friends ?
However it's important to note that just because a Pro Tennis player made more than he or she spent it still doesn't mean that they made a 'living' out of it.
I have written numerous articles on what I believe is wrong with tennis and I don't just mean the coaching side of things, that's just one issue. I have often written of tennis being a 'needle in a haystack' type of sport as the chances of 'success' are like searching for that needle.
So what is 'success' ? Is it the dollar value at the end of a season for a player or is it tournament wins ?
Filip Krajinovic of Serbia will finish 2014 as the player ranked 100 and his singles prize money for the year was just under $170,000, not a bad effort. However if you take away expenses plus what the Tax Man requires then the figure is probably what a Council Worker earned. Novak Djokovic earned over 14 million this year, big difference from his lowly ranked countryman who is ranked 99 places behind him.
So where's the problem ? Easy one to answer, Sponsorship dollars. The big companies want their name and money put toward the big tournaments and they want the winner to receive something most people would not even win from a Lottery. Big egotistical stuff. The issue with this however is that the next Novak Djokovic is probably running around on court in an obscure clay court event somewhere with perhaps a few hundred dollars to his name.
So how does the sport expect him to keep going ? It doesn't. Tennis simply wants the natural 'pecking order' to do it's natural thing, weed out the good from the rest, nature will take care of itself. But what about the players who bloom late ?
What about players such as Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic who just became competitive at age 34 ?? Now here is a player who no doubt would had to have received financial backup from somewhere other than tennis as he has been playing for 15 years and earned just over $600,000. Do the sums on that, how's that Council Worker's wage looking now over the same time frame, not too shabby ?
Big companies aren't interested in keeping guys like Victor in a 'job' in obscure little tournaments that are in fact the breeding ground of the next generation of players. But these players may just prove to be the World's best in the years to come.
So does tennis need players like Victor at age 34 playing the game ? You betcha, just look at the interest every time Tommy Haas takes the court, especially against the young players. Youth vs Experience is possibly one of the greatest contests in World Sport. So if guys like Victor have been knocking around in obscure events for the past 15 years because their ranking has been too low to make it into the tournaments that pay the big dollars then how do they survive ? Just.
Does a player who wins a Grand Slam really require a bank deposit of over two million dollars ? If a player is good enough to win a major then surely his endorsements will make up the 'shortfall' ? If a tournament such as the Australian Open cut just $200,000 from it's $30,000,000 of sponsorship and used it to pay the lesser credentialed players more it may just be the difference in them being able to afford to fly to the next tournament.
Grand Slam events can afford to offer players a prize that can almost guarantee them a few months' travel expenses especially at the qualifier level.
If a player wins four Main Draw matches he takes home $250,000, I think that's outrageous. Shave it to $150,000 and even out the rest of the prize money dispersion, it's still big dollars. Reward a Qualifier a handsome sum because he is good enough to be a professional and he may just be the player along with Estrella Burgos who may just hang around the game long enough to become a quality player.
Tennis is no longer a young man's game, at last count there were only two players under 23 years of age in the Top 100 Men's Rankings. The average age of the top ten is 28, give or take a year, hence my example of Estrella Burgos. So it is the obligation of the sport to keep players in it for as long as it is necessary for them to realize their potential.
Let's face it, if a player remains fit he or she will only get better and in particular, smarter, Tommy Haas is testimony to that. At age 35 Haas beat Djokovic in Miami in straight sets in 2013 and at age 36 he beat Wawrinka in three sets in Rome in 2014. Experience? You can't beat it.
So as much as tennis rewards the top 50 players in the World it really does nothing for the rest, how's the lyrics from the Midnight Oil song ? 'The rich get richer, the poor get the picture'.
Tennis players are maturing later so the older players still have much to offer and they may not do anything in the game other than survive until they are over age 30.
Yes I realize that Tommy Haas was a former top ten player however my point is he is basically getting better as he gets older, it's that sort of sport. Others can follow his lead, they simply need enough dollars to stay in the game.
It's a tough one, no real answers but handing out $2.5 Million to the players who defied the needle in the haystack odds may not be the best thing for the game. Cap the prize money and spread it more evenly, surely this makes more sense ?
So what of the smaller events ? That's even tougher as sponsorship is minimal but rather than the Governing Bodies boasting about their ever increasing bank accounts how about they release some funds and support the smaller events more ? And how do they get it back ? Simple, get the players to give back to the sport.
Once their prize money hits a certain figure then surely these players can afford to reimburse the game that made them rich. University students do it don't they ? How about sportsmen do the same ?
That next ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Event may not necessarily be won by a 25 year old. It may in fact be won by a 33 year old who has stopped worrying about where his next meal will come from and concentrated more on his experienced game........
******** FOOTNOTE*********
Since I wrote this in 2014 I see that the prize money for Grand Slams has in fact increased even more and I believe that $400,000 is now the prize for a spot in the last 16, crazy stuff aint it ? The winner now takes home around $3.5 Million.
The prize money needs to be dispersed a whole lot smarter. The players ranked outside the Main Draw cut off need it a whole lot more than the winners do and the smaller events need a cut from the larger events.
Pro Tennis requires a new Treasurer.........
Thursday, 4 May 2017
'NOT SO GLAMOROUS'
The previous post on this site titled 'The Genius of Doubles' was not so much referring to the great John McEnroe, it was more a play on words. I was in fact referring to just how much of a genius you have to be to become a successful doubles player now days because of the outrageous ability a player must own to consistently win at the two on two format.
It seems that rankings are not adhered to by opposing teams. Let's look at the current two tournaments being played in both Portugal and Munich and see how the seeded teams are going.
The number 1 seeded team of Linstedt and Groth own a combined ranking of just under under 100, to be exact it is 96 and in the round of 16 they took on Harrison and Venus who's combined ranking is just under 300. Now to put this into perspective, it's actually a FIRST ROUND MATCH, only 16 teams are put into the main draw of smaller events.
Now in singles I suppose someone ranked 245 would be of no match for someone inside the top 50 yet in doubles it really doesn't seem to make a difference and it appears that the new cut throat type of format is now making doubles a ridiculously even playing field.
Harrison and Venus took the match in a third set super tie breaker.
Koolhof and Middlekoop, seeded 2, own a combined ranking of 104 in Mens Doubles and took on Jaziri and Muller who's ranking put together is 364. A ranking that low should in all seriousness not bother a team who have enjoyed some success together with three titles to their names. Jaziri and Muller have never won a doubles event yet took out the second seeds in another third set super tie breaker. Is there a pattern here ?
The number 3 seeds, Daniell and Demoiliner had on paper a first round match that could have gone either way as their combined ranking of 102 was not too much different than that of their opponents, Raja and Sharan ( 120 ). Does a first up match get any tougher than that ?
Well how about this score line, the un seeded team of Raja and Sharan took the first set 6-0, yep the bagel, work that one out, they then scraped through in a tie breaker in the second.
So there's the story line at Portugal, the top 3 teams all beaten first round, or technically, the Round of 16, same thing of course. And their prize ? $2,490 Euros between them, hardly an amount worth writing home about but maybe enough for a train ticket to the next tournament.
So to Munich, let's see if the top seeded doubles teams faired any better than those in Portugal.
Marach and Pavic were seeded 1, their combined ranking is 66 and drew possibly the toughest un seeded team imaginable as Baker and Mektic were coming off a huge win in Barcelona where they took the title as the number 4 seeds.
For some reason they didn't quite sneak into the seedings in Munich though it didn't really matter as they took the match 3 and 4, no worries. This match was in fact a SECOND ROUND MATCH, or technically, a quarter final so at least a top seeded team won a round, at last.
The number 2 seeded team in Munich was Mirnyi and Huey who together own a ranking of 71. Their first match was against Kretschmer and Satschko ( no I have never heard of them either ) and their combined ranking is a Test Cricket score, 383 to be exact. Easy first win for the second seeds ? Try again. The two local Wild Cards thrilled the home crowd with a straight sets victory, 6 and 1. Tough to get a read on all of this aint it ??
So in summary, in two events just a solitary match was in fact won by a top seeded doubles team, ONE MATCH. In Portugal the top three seeded teams did not trouble the score board and took home around $7,500 Euros in total.
In Munich the number 1 and 2 seeded teams are out by the quarters, prize money much the same though the number 1 seeds shared $ 4,260 Euros. Not big dollars though is it ?
Pro Tennis at times seems glamorous and sure at the big events it is but once again I urge you to spare a thought for the players who are simply looking for that one big break, an event where they can perhaps win enough Euros to not only take them to the next tournament but perhaps several more without taking out a Bank loan.
Tough sport tennis, not for the faint hearted and not for those who don't own a reasonable sized bank account to start with.......
It seems that rankings are not adhered to by opposing teams. Let's look at the current two tournaments being played in both Portugal and Munich and see how the seeded teams are going.
The number 1 seeded team of Linstedt and Groth own a combined ranking of just under under 100, to be exact it is 96 and in the round of 16 they took on Harrison and Venus who's combined ranking is just under 300. Now to put this into perspective, it's actually a FIRST ROUND MATCH, only 16 teams are put into the main draw of smaller events.
Now in singles I suppose someone ranked 245 would be of no match for someone inside the top 50 yet in doubles it really doesn't seem to make a difference and it appears that the new cut throat type of format is now making doubles a ridiculously even playing field.
Harrison and Venus took the match in a third set super tie breaker.
Koolhof and Middlekoop, seeded 2, own a combined ranking of 104 in Mens Doubles and took on Jaziri and Muller who's ranking put together is 364. A ranking that low should in all seriousness not bother a team who have enjoyed some success together with three titles to their names. Jaziri and Muller have never won a doubles event yet took out the second seeds in another third set super tie breaker. Is there a pattern here ?
The number 3 seeds, Daniell and Demoiliner had on paper a first round match that could have gone either way as their combined ranking of 102 was not too much different than that of their opponents, Raja and Sharan ( 120 ). Does a first up match get any tougher than that ?
Well how about this score line, the un seeded team of Raja and Sharan took the first set 6-0, yep the bagel, work that one out, they then scraped through in a tie breaker in the second.
So there's the story line at Portugal, the top 3 teams all beaten first round, or technically, the Round of 16, same thing of course. And their prize ? $2,490 Euros between them, hardly an amount worth writing home about but maybe enough for a train ticket to the next tournament.
So to Munich, let's see if the top seeded doubles teams faired any better than those in Portugal.
Marach and Pavic were seeded 1, their combined ranking is 66 and drew possibly the toughest un seeded team imaginable as Baker and Mektic were coming off a huge win in Barcelona where they took the title as the number 4 seeds.
For some reason they didn't quite sneak into the seedings in Munich though it didn't really matter as they took the match 3 and 4, no worries. This match was in fact a SECOND ROUND MATCH, or technically, a quarter final so at least a top seeded team won a round, at last.
The number 2 seeded team in Munich was Mirnyi and Huey who together own a ranking of 71. Their first match was against Kretschmer and Satschko ( no I have never heard of them either ) and their combined ranking is a Test Cricket score, 383 to be exact. Easy first win for the second seeds ? Try again. The two local Wild Cards thrilled the home crowd with a straight sets victory, 6 and 1. Tough to get a read on all of this aint it ??
So in summary, in two events just a solitary match was in fact won by a top seeded doubles team, ONE MATCH. In Portugal the top three seeded teams did not trouble the score board and took home around $7,500 Euros in total.
In Munich the number 1 and 2 seeded teams are out by the quarters, prize money much the same though the number 1 seeds shared $ 4,260 Euros. Not big dollars though is it ?
Pro Tennis at times seems glamorous and sure at the big events it is but once again I urge you to spare a thought for the players who are simply looking for that one big break, an event where they can perhaps win enough Euros to not only take them to the next tournament but perhaps several more without taking out a Bank loan.
Tough sport tennis, not for the faint hearted and not for those who don't own a reasonable sized bank account to start with.......
Monday, 1 May 2017
' THE GENIUS OF DOUBLES '
Spare a thought for those Tennis Professionals out there who are trying to make a living out of playing the two on two format. Singles is beyond a lot of those players though some try their luck in the qualifying events and may win a round or two but most doubles experts don't trouble the score board too much in singles.
Gone are the days when guys like John McEnroe entered both singles and doubles in Grand Slam events and actually came away with both trophies as Mac did at both the US Open and Wimbledon. In fact JM won the Wimbledon Mens Doubles AND Singles in '81, '83 and '84 as well as the US Open Mens Singles and Doubles in '79 and '81.
His partner for those doubles titles Peter Fleming once said that Mac could win a title with anyone as he was under no illusions as to how good a player he was himself. Fleming was no star, just a steady player who's partner was possibly the greatest doubles player of all time.
So to the current playing climate, it will never happen again, if it does it would be a miracle but the chances of a player winning the singles and doubles in a Mens Grand Slam Championship would be about as rare as rocking horse sh.. .
Why ? It's simply too tough on the body plus the guys who are playing doubles now days are nothing short of brilliant at their trade and are way too smart for singles players who play doubles for a bit of fun plus some extra pocket money. Even players who return as well as Djokovic and Nadal are no match for the players who know how to finish a point in doubles.
The amazing run of Arneodo and Nys which I wrote so fondly of on this site just recently typified how guys who know the art of the two on two format can out smart even the best doubles combinations in the World on any given day and those two owned a combined doubles ranking of over 1000. Singles players may trouble a great doubles combination but will not consistently win, it's almost impossible due to the way the brain is programmed as far as a tennis professional is concerned.
John McEnroe was such a genius that he used the same tactics in both singles and doubles and it worked but no one plays like that anymore so being a baseliner in singles will only get you so far in doubles. Being a serve and volley exponent will only get you so far in singles but it will quite possibly get you a long way in doubles. Sorry I am stating the obvious here.
Examples ? Monte Carlo; Bopanna and Cuevas won the event. Bopanna is a doubles guru, age 37 and just knows the intricacies of two on two, he is in a word, brilliant. Cuevas is a singles player proven by his dismissal of Wawrinka in the third round at Monte Carlo in two sets but he can play doubles, that's an understatement as he is ranked 25 in the World for Mens Doubles.
Next tournament, Bopanna and Cuevas get beaten first round by Peers and Kontinen and everyone knows just how good those two are at doubles but it typifies my point, it is an impossibility to consistently win at doubles.
You may have a great run and win a few titles but with the variation of combinations now days it is too hard to get a read on a pair, it's more like a raffle as to how you will go particularly with the short deuce and third set super tie breaker format in the smaller events.
Doubles also seems now to be an 'old man's' event with the combined age of 69 winning in Barcelona just recently ( Querishi and Mergea ) and a combined age of 60 winning in Hungary ( Baker and Mektic ). The older generation know their limitations so are basically just drilling in practice for doubles situations.
There is no point in them even trying to qualify for singles events, they would be classed as 'cannon fodder' yet they can still beat players ranked in the top ten for singles more often than not in doubles.
Doubles is an art form with so many angles created by an ability to take the ball early and to see things unfolding at the blink of an eye whereas singles is a grind more often than not where the fittest player wins.
Not enough emphasis is put on the genius of a World class doubles player, their matches are simply treated as a curtain raiser for a singles match but if you take the time to watch a doubles match between two teams who know their stuff it is a sight to behold.
We may never see another Jonny Mac play as long as the sport exists which is a shame because Mac was a freak show as far as talent was concerned, a genius who won 77 singles titles and 78 doubles titles.
He had that success because of his style, a style that will never be replicated to that point of perfection ever again due to the current game that nine times out of ten rewards the players who only go to the net to shake hands.
The evolution of tennis............
Gone are the days when guys like John McEnroe entered both singles and doubles in Grand Slam events and actually came away with both trophies as Mac did at both the US Open and Wimbledon. In fact JM won the Wimbledon Mens Doubles AND Singles in '81, '83 and '84 as well as the US Open Mens Singles and Doubles in '79 and '81.
His partner for those doubles titles Peter Fleming once said that Mac could win a title with anyone as he was under no illusions as to how good a player he was himself. Fleming was no star, just a steady player who's partner was possibly the greatest doubles player of all time.
So to the current playing climate, it will never happen again, if it does it would be a miracle but the chances of a player winning the singles and doubles in a Mens Grand Slam Championship would be about as rare as rocking horse sh.. .
Why ? It's simply too tough on the body plus the guys who are playing doubles now days are nothing short of brilliant at their trade and are way too smart for singles players who play doubles for a bit of fun plus some extra pocket money. Even players who return as well as Djokovic and Nadal are no match for the players who know how to finish a point in doubles.
The amazing run of Arneodo and Nys which I wrote so fondly of on this site just recently typified how guys who know the art of the two on two format can out smart even the best doubles combinations in the World on any given day and those two owned a combined doubles ranking of over 1000. Singles players may trouble a great doubles combination but will not consistently win, it's almost impossible due to the way the brain is programmed as far as a tennis professional is concerned.
John McEnroe was such a genius that he used the same tactics in both singles and doubles and it worked but no one plays like that anymore so being a baseliner in singles will only get you so far in doubles. Being a serve and volley exponent will only get you so far in singles but it will quite possibly get you a long way in doubles. Sorry I am stating the obvious here.
Examples ? Monte Carlo; Bopanna and Cuevas won the event. Bopanna is a doubles guru, age 37 and just knows the intricacies of two on two, he is in a word, brilliant. Cuevas is a singles player proven by his dismissal of Wawrinka in the third round at Monte Carlo in two sets but he can play doubles, that's an understatement as he is ranked 25 in the World for Mens Doubles.
Next tournament, Bopanna and Cuevas get beaten first round by Peers and Kontinen and everyone knows just how good those two are at doubles but it typifies my point, it is an impossibility to consistently win at doubles.
You may have a great run and win a few titles but with the variation of combinations now days it is too hard to get a read on a pair, it's more like a raffle as to how you will go particularly with the short deuce and third set super tie breaker format in the smaller events.
Doubles also seems now to be an 'old man's' event with the combined age of 69 winning in Barcelona just recently ( Querishi and Mergea ) and a combined age of 60 winning in Hungary ( Baker and Mektic ). The older generation know their limitations so are basically just drilling in practice for doubles situations.
There is no point in them even trying to qualify for singles events, they would be classed as 'cannon fodder' yet they can still beat players ranked in the top ten for singles more often than not in doubles.
Doubles is an art form with so many angles created by an ability to take the ball early and to see things unfolding at the blink of an eye whereas singles is a grind more often than not where the fittest player wins.
Not enough emphasis is put on the genius of a World class doubles player, their matches are simply treated as a curtain raiser for a singles match but if you take the time to watch a doubles match between two teams who know their stuff it is a sight to behold.
We may never see another Jonny Mac play as long as the sport exists which is a shame because Mac was a freak show as far as talent was concerned, a genius who won 77 singles titles and 78 doubles titles.
He had that success because of his style, a style that will never be replicated to that point of perfection ever again due to the current game that nine times out of ten rewards the players who only go to the net to shake hands.
The evolution of tennis............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)