Sunday, 30 July 2017


Leonardo Mayer is age 30 from Argentina, ranked 138, he has been as high as World number 21. Leonardo lost in the second round of qualifying at the German Tennis Championships in Hamburg to a guy who was born in the year 2000. No that is not a misprint, Leonardo lost to Rudolph Molleker , a 16 year old kid from Germany. ( What were you doing when you were 16 ?? )
So at second round qualifying you are supposed to go home with $2480 Euros, which for a 16 year old kid who should still be at High School is a fair amount of cash, but Rudolph qualified, sending Leonardo home with a modest amount of Euros. That was until Klizan withdrew with a leg injury.
Enter Leonardo Mayer as a Lucky Loser into the main draw who was on his way home with just enough Euros to fly to Australia and back again, Economy Class.
Now Mayer is playing for a purse of around $330,000 Euros, at worst he will go home with just under $170,000 Euros after riding his good fortune all the way to the final which began in round one with a win over the number 1 seed Ramos- Vinolas, 7-6 in the third.
The story gets better. 
Florian Mayer of Germany is age 33, ranked 101, has been as high as World number 18 and he has also made it to the final in Germany, perhaps rather fortunate as Kohlschreiber retired at a set up but 2-3 down in the second set of their semi final. 
If you have nothing to do, check out just what Philipp K did when he actually decided that his injury was too debilitating for him to continue. As far as racket smashing goes, well this effort is right up there with the best of 'em, brilliant.
So two guys who are in their 30's and ranked outside the World top 100 are now both playing for a title and enough Euros to buy a Ferrari with. Outrageous isn't it ? 
Mens tennis is so unbelievably tough that anyone on any given day can craft out a win if they own a certain amount of self belief though the effort by the 16 year old kid Molleker defies logic, he's ranked 923. How did he beat a player of Leonardo Mayer's quality and experience ?
I believe that he was still counting the prize money in his head as he was playing his first round match which he lost in straight sets to Kachanov, though $11,000 Euros would ease the disappointment somewhat for a kid of his age.
Personally I hope Leonardo takes the title as it would be a ridiculously silly story if he actually won the event after not making it through the qualifying rounds initially plus he's only won $48,000 this year. His opponent has had a blinder with just under $370,000 in prize money already won this year.
There's always a story at every tennis tournament at every level.
I find this one rather unique though, good luck Leonardo..........

Monday, 24 July 2017


The following is part of Roger Federer's Press Conference after his Wimbledon win.

"Since my generation and Rafa's generation, the next one hasn't been strong enough to push all of us out really, so that has been helpful for us to stick around."
Federer has previously been critical of a perceived inability of the younger players on tour to come to the net, instead staying on the baseline and engaging in long rallies.
On Tuesday the Swiss great seemed rather unimpressed by the lack of variety in the modern game.
"They can choose not to play that way, too, if the coach has taught them to play differently," Federer said.
"I know you can easily get sucked into that mode when you don't want to attack, but if you can't volley you aren't going to go to the net."

Interesting views from the great man.
No matter what grade you watch you will always see a player go to the net to do the obligatory volley and smash routine just like the 'big boys' do, yet I wonder why this is so ?
If you are only going to the net to shake hands why would you bother to waste your time with a couple of minutes at the net in the warm up ?
Would you be deemed as a baseline 'robot' if you broke with tradition and bypassed the net in the warm up ? Even if you are a robot ??
Tennis has some interesting traditions, the all white at Wimbledon, the 'by the book' warm up routine, the silly high five hand shake at the end of a match, the raise of the hand to say 'sorry' if you hit a net cord winner.
I do believe that Australian legend tennis Professional John Alexander broke with tradition and in fact commenced his warm up at the net because that's the way he played his matches, at the net.
Today's players all do the same thing and there is no variety, they are a dime a dozen as that's the way they get taught. The net is out of bounds yet it is always a part of their routine before a match.
Federer won Wimbledon at age 35, nearly 36, by finishing points early on the grass just as he did on the hard courts at the Aussie Open in January. Roger has the most variety of any tennis professional currently and he is almost the oldest guy playing the game on tour.
Countries will continue to produce baseline robots because that's the way that the sport is being taught, just as Roger suggested, with no variety.
Roger no doubt owns a tennis education book that is written in his mind and when he plays at his best he resembles a Professor teaching his pupils from a text book.
In all reality, he could read the next page without opening it, he knows what is coming next.......

Thursday, 20 July 2017


The current tournament being played in Newport, RI, USA has thrown up some interesting dialogue for someone like myself who sees things in names and scores that may be taken for granted by 'normal' people.
Take for instance a Round of 16 Mens Doubles match where no less than 76 letters put together made up the names of two combinations.
Adrian Menendez- Maceiras and Miguel Angel Reyes-Varela defeated
Sanchai Ratiwatana and Sonchat Ratiwatana  4-6, 6-3, 10-7. ( The score is irrelevant when these guys play against each other surely. Just listening to the umpire would be worth the price of admission ).
Now the win by Maceiras and Reyes- Varela was all to no avail as they were soundly beaten in the next round by Aisam-Ul-Haq Quereshi and Rajeev Ram 6-1, 6-2.
How do you reckon the umpire went in those two matches ?
Here's some more useless information for you.
Ram and Quereshi in fact won their first match by the score of 6-0, 6-0 over Roberto Maytin and Victor Estrella Burgos though there seems to be a fair discrepancy in the rankings here.
Ram and Quereshi own a combined ranking of 44 whereas their opponents own something that resembles a combined Test Cricket score of around 1100. Perhaps 0 and 0 was a fair result.
Matt Reid and 'Smithy' ( John- Patrick Smith ) of Australia had a win over another two guys with easy names to remember, Cheng- Peng Hsieh and Hsien-Yin Peng but this time it wasn't so much the names that made you take notice. Check the score. 4-6, 6-4, 22-20.
You gotta love that. I have made no secret of my thoughts on the current scoring system in singles. Time to spice it up, as they have done in doubles, no one can dominate the two on two format anymore in the smaller events.
Even Roger would struggle to dominate a singles format that finished with a first to ten super tie breaker in the third. I will keep dreaming on that idea......
Back to 'Smithy'.
John Smith is one of those names in Australia that most blokes after a few beers on a late night out in town would give to a Policeman if asked, 'Gday mate you are drunk and disorderly, what's your name' ? 'John Smith'. 'Yeah right, what's your real name' ??
I do believe that 'Smithy' may have lengthened his name for that reason alone.
The Hall Of Fame Open of 2017 has seen some entries this year that have been a Linguist's delight, a plethora of silly names that if you at closely enough will make you smile at their complexity.
Yet they can all play tennis, some obviously better than others.
Gerardo Lopez Villasenor also had a run at Newport as did Jeevan Nedunchezhiyan but none of these guys with the complicated names really troubled the score board too much, they just filled up a lot of space on the Draw Sheet.
In tennis there is more to just who wins though, in fact there's much, much more to tennis, you just have to look at it a bit more closely to appreciate the intricacies of it all.
Plus it helps if you own a strange mind like mine........

Monday, 17 July 2017


My apologies but I just had to repost this. I realise it's the 'off season' in our part of the World however I wonder how the following 'Zen Master' of tennis is travelling now days with their recruiting over Winter ?

Possibly one of the funniest things I ever read on a Social Media page was the following information, yet it proved one thing; the sport of tennis really does breed egos, self importance and people who are full of sh..

Tuesday, 27 January 2015


Just to prove what I have been saying for a long, long time in regards to certain individuals and certain organizations.
I received an email from a buddy, it was one of those 'Hey Thommo you have got to have a look at this' sort of emails. You see I am not the only one who can smell 'hype' when it rears it's ugly head.
A regular 'guru' to hype and all things nice has posted this little chestnut that had me smiling. This is not word for word however you will get the idea of the story.
This particular 'guru' recently posted on a social media page that they have 'coached' around ten thousand students in just over ten years. I dispute this figure, I find that impossible.
If a coach of tennis has a base club where they coach a group of say 150 kids regularly and these 150 kids turn up for two terms of the year then this is surely 150 kids only, correct ? Ok so let's find the other 850 kids. We will need many assistants and many venues.
How about another 20 smaller venues for arguments sake hey ? Righto let's find another ten assistants at least to service 20 more venues at different times. That will give this 'guru' say another 400 kids over the course of two school terms of the year so that now takes the figure to around 600 kids. There's a very big shortfall here though to the 1000 kids required to prove the story correct. 
What also needs to be mentioned is that the 'coach' is not actually 'coaching' them, the assistants are, minor detail though hey?  What about adults ? 
Sure let's throw another 200 adults in over various programs over the course of say two or even three terms where they may do either tennis coaching or even the rather amusing 'cardio tennis' program. That now takes the figure to 800 students, a combined figure comprising adults and kids. This program is huge now hey ??
Now the reason I am saying two school terms is because I am aware of the impact or lack of impact that tennis has in the cooler months of the year. Two school terms is the main tennis playing time of the year from say October through to say April.
If the program was to go for three school terms then the figure may just be able to be bumped up to around the magical figure of 1000 but boy this figure is huge. Now let's fast forward to the next year.
How many of these students will go again ? If the coach is really good they may be able to keep around 75 per cent of these students but at least 25 per cent will move on, it's the nature of the sport. So we now have to find another 250 to 500 students to take the figure back to 1000 so that this 'guru can say that they have that amount in their program.
Are we forgetting something ? You can't recount what you have already counted so if you have around 500 regulars you can't keep putting that figure down, get my drift ? You can only count the new students, not the old regular ones. 
So if you have 500 regular students over 10 years you have 500 students but anyone who knows anything about a sport such as tennis knows that you cannot keep that figure over ten years. In fact you would be lucky to keep them over 5 years as kids get older and try other sports.
I am sure if you have half an ounce of brain matter you will see where I am going with this whole thing. It is AN IMPOSSIBILITY to coach a figure of around ten thousand students in say ten years because of the above examples. The only possible way you could get to that figure is to have all of your students drop out at the end of each year and then find another 1000 to start again.
Nope the whole story is a pile of garbage and just goes to show that the whole industry is full of these so called 'gurus' who write fictional stuff on their sites to make them sound like they are god's gift to the game.
If the 'guru' stumbles across this site then pay attention 'champ' , I am onto you and anyone who has a few clues on the industry will be also.
You are officially full of s...
Regards GT


On the 13/11/2013 I wrote the following post. Sorry but I have not had time to write lately if you have been waiting for some new material on this silly site of mine.
I will endeavour to find some time soon. Meanwhile this was one of the first posts I ever wrote.

Men's Tennis has seen some incredible comebacks over the years , especially in Davis Cup and Grand Slam singles matches. A few have stuck in my mind , here's some stat's;
In The US Open in 1989 Boris Becker played an American by the name of Derrick Rostagno who reached a career high of 13 in 1991.
Rostagno lead 2 sets to love and held 2 match points in the fourth set tie breaker 6-4 . Becker saved the first when Rostagno missed a volley on his own serve then was a little lucky on his own serve at 5-6 when Rostagno chipped and charged his second serve . Becker hit a cross court forehand that his opponent was all over like a rash but it hit the top of the net and landed in , Boris won in 5 sets.
Becker won the Championship that year , Rostagno did recover from the loss though and went on to record victories over Sampras and Connors at Wimbledon in the following years . He retired in 1996 after making close to 2 million dollars, but probably wonders what could've been if he had converted either of his two match points against Becker. Rostagno is now a Lawyer in the US.
In 1996 the Davis Cup Final was held in Malmo Sweden and unfortunately for Stefan Edberg who was playing his final year on the tour , he was injured in the first match against France's Cedric Pioline , he lost easily . Doubles expert Niklas Kulti was put in as a replacement and was asked to play the final and deciding match against France's Arnaud Boetsch with the Tie locked at 2-2 .
Kulti lead 7-6 and 0-40 on the Frenchman's serve , 3 match points for the title , he lost the game and the match , 8-10 in the 5th set , but Kulti recovered . In 1997 and 1998 he played in Sweden's winning Davis Cup sides against the USA and Italy , he partnered Jonas Bjorkman to win the pivotal Doubles matches , erasing his heartbreaking loss in 1996. He retired in 2000 with over $3 million in earnings and runs a Tennis Academy in Sweden.
Perhaps one of the all time greatest 'chokes' came in 2004 at the French Open where the then World number 3 Argentinian Guillermo Coria took on countryman Gaston Gaudio , ranked 44 , in the final . Coria won the first 8 games of the match , lead 2 sets to love then 40-0 on his own serve to go up 5-4 in the third set .
He fell apart and lost the third and fourth sets but lead 5-3 in the fifth and held two Championship points , he lost them both and the title to Gaudio 6-8 in the fifth .
Coria appeared to never fully recover from the loss , his ranking slipped and he won only one more title . In 2005 memories of the French Final came back to haunt him in the Rome Masters final against Rafael Nadal when he lead 3-0 in the fifth and final set and held a point for a 4-0 lead before losing. Coria struggled to close out the big matches . He retired in 2009 with nearly $6 million in earnings and apparently coaches his younger brother now days.  
Tough sport is tennis , can make or break you , sometimes only a point separates the household names from the battlers......

Friday, 14 July 2017


You seriously need to bounce the ball that many times Marin ?
Watched the first set, Querrey and Cilic, never seen a ball bounced that many times. At 5 games all Cilic bounced the ball 11 times, missed the first serve, bounced the ball a further 19 times before hitting his second.
At 6-6 in the tie breaker Cilic bounced the ball 21 times before serving.
Seriously ? This is allowed ?
Unfortunately within 25 seconds between serves apparently you can do as you wish.
Sam bounces the ball twice before serving.
I believe it should be against the rules what Cilic does as his opponent isn't actually certain when the delivery is going to start. Twenty one bounces is gamesmanship.
Will get some shut eye before the Fed match, this guy is fair dinkum putting me to sleep.......

***** Seems it's not just me who is rather disappointed in Marin Cilic's antics. I just found the following on the net this morning. Jonas , fix it, tell your 'student' that this crap has to be corrected before the final against Roger.
Marin, you are a dead set pain in the arse.......******


It seems I am not the only one who is growing rather tired of Marin Cilic's ball bouncing antics. Take a read of the following comments, courtesy of the 'EXPRESS'.

Wimbledon 2017: Fans furious with Marin Cilic for semi-final antics

WIMBLEDON fans turned on Marin Cilic during his semi-final against Sam Querrey today.

Cilic repeatedly bounced the ball on the baseline before every service game and in the first set tie-break.
The slow play left supporters furious and he was barracked for the antics on Twitter.
One upset fan wrote: "Watching Cilic bounce the ball 30 times before every serve is excruciating...It's messing with ME mentally, can't imagine being Sam Querrey!"
Another wrote: "Cilic is p***in me off no need to bounce the ball 7362715 times before every serve."

A fellow supporter begged the Croat to stop and said: "Can't stop counting how many times Cilic bounces the ball before serving ... pls stop it #Wimbledon2017."
Another fan fumed: "Is cilic  playing basketball or tennis bouncing the ball 13 times before he serves is a joke. Get on with it!!#Wimbledon2017."

While one blasted: "Cilic playing outstanding but painful to watch bouncing the ball so many times before each serve #Wimbledon2017."
Cilic and Querrey are on their best runs at Wimbledon in their careers.
The winner of today's clash will take on Roger Federer or Tomas Berdych in the final on Sunday.

**** Comment; It's gamesmanship, nothing more, nothing less. No opponent is sure when the ball will be served so how can it be in the spirit of the game ? Hope Fed belts him.......

Wednesday, 12 July 2017


At times I find Novak Djokovic to be a pain in the arse, other times I find him to be rather arrogant, very few times have I ever found him to be very correct, until now. The Serb delivered a classic to the Wimbledon Officials after his match with Mannarino which was actually supposed to be played a day earlier.
The question is this from Novak, why not introduce a fifth set tie breaker at Wimbledon ?
Well Novak I am with you all the way on this one and I   wrote a post in 2014 on this subject and it all came out of the mentality of tennis officialdom that figures, 'a tennis match has to finish eventually'.
Mahut and Isner did their very best to dispute that theory with a three day match that ended at 70-68 in the fifth. Let's be honest here, it dragged on, both players own a serve, it's fairly obvious neither owned a return, that day in particular.
The following is a ripper and I think Novak is on to it.
Courtesy of ''.
“Because John Isner and Nicolas Mahut made a history with an 11-hour match once. Is that a reason why we’re keeping it?,” asked Djokovic of the famous 2010 match at Wimbledon.
“It is great drama but that player has to go out tomorrow. It is for the spectator? For a player to play a five-, six-hour match, then come back the next day or within two days and perform, it’s not really what your body’s looking for, to be honest.
“If you are already getting to the six-all fifth set, you might as well just decide it in a tiebreak.”

The following post from yours truly backs up Novak's idea. Am I ahead of time ???


I often thought that the Americans had it right as far as the fifth set of a Men's Singles match was concerned, they played a tiebreaker. What this did was rather obvious, it gave players a chance to conserve their energy for another match even if it did go the distance.
June 22-24, 2010 at Wimbledon gave an argument that the tiebreak system was in fact a good idea as American John Isner and Frenchman Nicolas Mahut played possibly the most ridiculous match of all time. This match was no classic, it was one that simply dragged on, it actually dragged on over 3 days with the final set lasting over 8 hours, the match just over 11 hours. Tough to schedule matches when this happens.
The match between these two was intriguing but not one that will go down as a shot maker's dream, it was simply a match that gave an argument to a rather old saying in tennis " It has to end sometime ".
The US Open can schedule matches far better than any other Grand Slam Tournament as the tiebreaker in the deciding set will end a match possibly up to an hour or even longer than an advantage set will. Surely this is enough to sway the other big three to change their rules, doesn't seem to be the case though.
Let's look at it another way, what does a match like the above mentioned do to players ? Easy to answer. Isner got belted in his next match 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 by Thiemmo de Bakker of The Netherlands, a player ranked 30 places behind him. So is it fair on players to make them play this long ? Well in a match such as this one it is an extraordinarily long match and one that totally put the scheduling behind and one that defied logic. Glad it happened though personally, it got people talking as to whether the rules needed to change.
I think 5 sets of tennis can be a little 'ho hum' at times especially with big servers, not much gets sent to the highlight package man and as far as a spectator friendly match is concerned it lacks entertainment value. Mac and Borg, well now that was entertainment, Rafa and Roger, brilliant, some matches just can't go long enough and the highlight reel is never ending.
Isner didn't play again after his second round loss at Wimbledon until the 19th of the following month, you do the sums on why. Was he a little body and mind weary ? I do believe that even the great John McEnroe stated something along the lines of 'A match like this could take months off a player's career '.
Mac would know.
As far as playing both singles and doubles is concerned, more fire to the tie break argument.
Isner was seeded 12 with partner Sam Querrey, two huge servers, tough to return against on grass, they were a big chance. This pairing didn't even get on court, Isner withdrew due to fatigue.
Personally I believe the Americans have it right, the tie breaker in the fifth is a fantastic way to finish a match, it's cut throat yet it's exciting, every point counts.
I am a big fan of the US Open , I remember the match between Connors and Krickstein in '91, absolute classic , not just the match either but the way it unfolded in the end, theater at it's best. Agassi and Blake played another classic in the Quarter Finals of the 2005 US Open, Andre eventually won the breaker 8-6 in the fifth. That's an exciting way to finish a tennis match, not one that drags on.
Keep the game fresh, 5 sets with a breaker to finish is still a lot of tennis either for spectators or a television audience and most importantly the players may just have enough energy left to perform in the next round.
Tennis doesn't need to be over cooked, well done both sides served with something light is plenty, sorry Mr Isner........

Saturday, 8 July 2017


Ernests Gulbis of Latvia got it right several years ago when he said, “I think everybody is trying to be too nice. I understand, but somebody has to do something about it.”
That was in regards to the usual Press Conference jargon that is the same old, same old line, time and time again.
'He played very well but I was not at my best'. ( Would it be that the opponent would not let the opposition play at their best ?? )
'I had an off day'. ( My opponent was way too good )
'I had my chances but just couldn't take them. ' ( My opponent was way too good )
'I was not mentally at my best today. ( My opponent was way too good )
It's all pretty much the same but only the smartest tennis professionals give credit to their opponents, the rest make up stories about their own game and how they were not playing well, etc, etc. When you really think about it, a tennis player at any level is at the mercy of their opponent despite rankings, form or anything else that has relevance to the sport. 
To say that you were 'not at your best' is not giving credit to the opponent who did not allow you to play at your best.
Bernard Tomic this week at Wimbledon got himself into all sorts of strife with his Press Conference comments. Renae Stubbs even called him a 'disgrace'. Interesting assumption Renae.
Here's the problem. Bernie has a reasonably high ranking. Since February Bernie has amassed around $200,000 by playing regularly and winning a few rounds here and there. Sorry Renae but rankings don't lie, they give a tennis professional an awful lot of money to lose early.
In fact if you are inside the top 100 or rather the top 60 as Bernie is, well it's like this Renae, you don't have to do much to make money, you simply have to turn up. It is irrelevant as to whether you win or not, you will still take home a ridiculous amount of cash.
So what do you think Bernie should do Renae ? Until the ATP start to 'unreward' tennis professionals for just turning up then players will just go through the motions. You don't have to win tennis tournaments now days to become rich, you just have to own a ranking, maintain it, sort of anyhow, and keep doing it, that's what Bernard Tomic does, he ticks the boxes to be a millionaire most years he plays tennis.
Ok so his Press Conference wasn't really well thought through and he probably shouldn't have admitted to asking for a trainer to help him with an injury that didn't exist but let's be realistic here, he wasn't playing a mug player. Mischa Zverev is the Number 27 seed at Wimbledon in the Mens Singles draw, he can play the game and has been in all sorts of form lately. It wasn't as though Bernie was playing 'Joe Nobody'. He was outclassed, simple.
The thing with Bernie is this, he has lost interest in the game but he is still getting paid big bucks to be disinterested, why would he take a break ? Fair dinkum if someone was paying me that amount of money to be disinterested well I would keep turning up, I may just 'tweak' my comments a little.
Bernie you need someone to get in your ear about your honesty, Renae doesn't appreciate it.
John McEnroe quit the sport for six months after a loss to a guy who he believed didn't deserve to be on the same court as he was, (Brad Gilbert beat Mac at the Masters in '86 and Mac was rather embarrassed about it ).
Bjorn Borg quit tennis altogether at age 26 through boredom. Bjorn didn't get called a disgrace, in fact many appreciated his honesty. Renae get hold of Bjorn and tell him what you think of tennis players being bored.
Fair dinkum Stubbsy you, along with Bernie need to change your way of explaining certain situations in life but I am certain Bernie won't opt for a commentary job as many ex players do ( Renae) who have nothing better to do with their lives than criticize today's players and the way they act on and off court.
Mats Wilander got it right , he sympathises with Bernie and that's why Mats is one of the most respected tennis commentators around the World, he doesn't go for the jugular, he analyses the situation first, then adds his spiel on it all.
What about Andre Agassi ? Even better.
"You have got to identify a problem before you can solve it. If he has identified that he is not liking the game then my suggestion would be go about finding your solution".
Well said Andre, please educate Renae.
Tennis professionals are supposed to be robots, say the same thing, do the same thing, smile, give that ridiculous 'high five' hand shake that supposedly shows unity between players even if they hate each other and show no emotion, above all, SHOW NO EMOTION.
Imagine the World of tennis in the 70's and 80's if McEnroe, Connors and Nastase were not permitted to say and be who they were ? Tennis would have ceased being a spectacle. Those guys made the sport interesting, even in the press conferences, they owned a personality.
Bernie is a personality, he is honest, he just needs to find a different way to express himself, at least to stop people such as ex players calling him a disgrace for explaining the way he really feels...... 

Monday, 3 July 2017


The following post was written exactly one year ago as I was rather frustrated at the commentating at Wimbledon by none other than 'Mr One Eyed' himself, John Newcombe.
I was hoping that he may have retired and I felt rather deflated when I tuned in on the first night of this year's Wimbledon coverage to see Newk at it again.
Fair dinkum, they retired Stolle and Trabert, how about they do the same with Newk ? His views are ridiculously biased and he is out of touch with today's game.
I am going to bed early......
Written 01/07/2016
'This could be a 'dodgy' second serve'. Yes folks that's what Australia's very own 'experienced' Tennis commentator John Newcombe came out with whilst 'commentating' on the Kyrgios/ Stepanek match at Wimbledon this week. So is that commentating or offering an opinion ?
I have been looking up Tennis' worst commentators on the net and surprisingly 'Newk' does not get a mention, not sure why, he is absolutely one eyed when it comes to commentary regarding Australian Tennis Pros versus the rest.
I always thought that commentary was supposed to be non- biased however when it comes to Wimbledon, well it's all about Newk and who he likes as opposed to what really is happening on court.
I have written in length regarding Jim Courier's views on David Goffin and his supposed 'inflated' tennis ranking which Jim made public at this year's Australian Open. Not sure how you can say that a player has an inflated ranking when he is knocking on the door of the World's Top 10. So to the headline, what on earth is that all about Newk ?
'This could be a dodgy second serve'. Hmmmm I wonder who is monitoring this sort of 'commentary' and do they condone it or are they not actually aware that it is in fact going on at all ?
Personally I find it rather embarrassing that a man of Newk's knowledge and experience would resort to that type of biased view when he is paid to be impartial when it comes to match reporting. Or isn't he ? Would it be that he is paid to comment the way that he believes most Aussies think rather than treat each player fairly with equal praise ?
I did write a post around this time last year as Newk did it once again, or is that many times again ? 
His commentating last year was ridiculously one sided and he even resorted to tearing apart a serve of a player who is now ranked World number 1 in Mens Doubles just because it wasn't a Federer or Novak clone. C'mon John you of all people should know that a shot does not have to look 'text book' to be effective, particularly the serve. It's the most individual tennis shot in the book.
It's only taken one match for me this year to turn the sound down and do my own commentary at this year's Wimbledon as nothing has improved from last year or the many years before that to be precise. Tennis is called by ex players with a biased view and personal agendas on certain players which is rather obvious if you listen carefully but to the naked ear it is nothing but light banter that you would hear in a pub on a Friday night after a few beers.
I wonder if Jim Courier has forgotten his take on Goffin and I wonder if Newk has chosen to forget his comments regarding Herbert's less than technically correct service motion that now has him making a million plus each year in the two on two format ? The above mentioned are paid to comment on tennis matches, not give their one eyed views that lack tennis education.
Dodgy second serves happen all the time, nature of the sport but is it up to an impartial Sports Commentator to pre-empt it before it actually happens ??
What ever happened to allowing the sport to take place first and then offer an opinion or is it more about the ego of the ex superstar behind the microphone trying to predict what will happen before it actually does ?
Like I say a lot on this site, you do the sums........

Saturday, 1 July 2017


NPR's Lulu Garcia- Navarro needs a new job. Her interview with the great John McEnroe has created a Media storm, through lack of education on tennis. Yet it's the way of the World now days, you don't have to know much on sport, you simply have to pass a course.
Same as tennis coaching now days, it's a circus.
"Some wouldn't qualify it, some would say she's the best player in the World. Why qualify it" ?
That was the question from Garcia- Navarro to McEnroe.
Like waving a red cape in front of a bull, well done Lulu.
"Oh, McEnroe replied. "Uh she's not, you mean, the best player in the World period' ?
"Yeah, the best player in the World". Garcia- Navarro said.  "You know, why say female player' ?
How's the bull looking now you reckon ?
So that was where the controversy started.
So why is Mac in trouble with everyone who knows nothing about tennis ? Obvious isn't it ?
State of the game, state of life we are in, guys like Mac are labelled as 'Dinosaurs' of tennis and 'way out of line' when not conforming to how things 'should be done'.
Personally I hope Jonny Mac keeps doing what he is doing because he is nothing short of brilliant as far as all aspects of the game are concerned. He is without a doubt, misunderstood.
Lulu Garcia- Navarro has been in the Media for over 17 years yet how on earth did she come out with that question to a guy like John McEnroe ?
In a nutshell these two should never have been paired up, sort of like a Mixed Doubles team that gets beaten in the first round of a Major, never, ever to team up again. Surely this was all just a publicity stunt for Mac's new book titled 'But Seriously' ?
It has to be doesn't it ?
John McEnroe is a man to be respected, a man who won 77 singles titles and 78 doubles. And he has to put up with  "Why qualify it" from Lulu ?? You fair dinkum cannot be serious.
Unfortunately however Serena has been brought into it all and now she has been 'forced' to put through her story, sort of like how tennis works, the backwards and forwards stuff, all part of the fun I suppose.
I can't help but think that all of this is to help John sell a book because no doubt he will have something in it in regards to the difference in ability between male and female pro tennis players.
But as Serena has already suggested, there is no argument, males dominate the ability to hit a tennis ball and Serena is not one to argue that fact.
Serena believes that Andy Murray would beat her in 10 minutes flat. I believe that is incorrect. Give him 30 minutes, two sets.
So if a reporter of around 17 years is asking John McEnroe to rate the current crop of tennis professionals and their ability to play the game, well perhaps it should have been asked a little more intelligently.
'John do you believe that Serena Williams is the greatest FEMALE tennis professional of all time ' ?
John's answer may have been something like this.
'Well technically Margaret Court still holds the record with 24 Grand Slams so Serena is in fact second in line as far as female tennis professional immortality is concerned, however currently, yes Serena is the best current female player with 23 Slams to her name'.
Was a simple 'rumour' of intelligence required here from Lulu ?
Nope, I still reckon it's nothing short of a chance for John to promote his new book, the man is a genius.
One more thing, should female tennis players rake in the same amount of prize money as the men ?
Here's some facts for you.

Wimbledon 2016 saw a semi final between Federer and Raonic last around 4 hours whereas the Serena Williams/ Elena Vesnina match took less than 50 minutes. I believe the pay day for both Elena and Roger to be in the vicinity of one million Australian dollars.
One match lasted 5 sets, the other just 2, surely Roger deserved a bigger pay day than Elena....

Jonny Mac may just have something to say about that........