Wednesday, 30 August 2017


I wrote this almost exactly three years ago about the person in question on my last post . Dmitry Tursunov is not a tennis player who deserves a 'PROTECTED RANKING' and the following story proves why many people, including myself, have no time for him.
How do you lose by this score to a guy ranked over 200 places below you ?
The fact is this, at the Portugal Open in 2014, Tursunov was seeded 5, ranked 34 in the World. He lost First Round to Rui Machado of Portugal, who at the time was ranked World number 243. 
For the record Machado def Tursunov, 6-0, 6-0.
Is the Russian a little bit dodgy do you think ? Read on.......


Here's a funny story for you , it's amazing what is written on social media pages, which unfortunately at times gives just a little too much away, entertaining though. 
A little while ago , at the commencement of the clay court season I wrote a brief chapter regarding the effort of a professional who obviously 'tanked' a match. Dmitry Tursunov from Russia lost a match to a player ranked somewhere around the 243 mark without winning one game. Yep 6-0, 6-0. Tursunov is ranked in the top 35. I thought it was worth a chapter as I find that result just a little too strange to leave it alone.
A coach has written on a site that someone in this country (no it's not my chapter) had written something nasty regarding his player, looked it up, found it, it's brilliant. So the coach , who spends time with the Russian in question was not happy with what was written about his player. Why do you think this is?
Surely the public deserve better from a pro for putting in a performance that can only be described as 'weak as piss' and what about the paying public? How would you be paying your hard earned $$ to watch that ? If Tursunov was so 'out of sorts' with his life then surely a faked injury may have been a better option and an early finish to the match. Back to the coach.....
Why is he upset with the social media comment? Why would he bother commenting on it? Did he not read the paper the next day that no doubt would have slammed Tursunov's effort? Perhaps he needs a hanky , I may send him one through the 'La Poste'.
Tough game tennis , not for the faint hearted , if you are not up to scratch in the head well your shots will account for nothing. 
You can spend your whole life looking at social media and other sites that may upset you but reality is , it will still be written. If you don't like it , don't read it, sound familiar?
Sometimes my life seems to be riddled with "deja vu".........

Tuesday, 29 August 2017


Interesting system the ATP has and how it keeps rewarding players who used to be good at the sport. Russian Dmitry Tursunov has won just two ATP matches in the last two years yet his bank account before tax looks something like this.
$323,626. Yes that's correct. For a 'tourist', well, I suppose that's not bad money when you look at it.
Dmitry Tursunov is ranked 645 currently. Let's look at how he continues to manipulate an already 'busted arsed system' that rewards the 'has beens' .
Nordics Natural Challenger, USA , 7/08/ 2017, First Round Qualifying against John Lamble ranked 880. ( I think I may have once been ranked that number ).
WALK OVER, yep Dmitry won by not even hitting a ball, about the only way this 'superstar' will get on the score board.
Second Round- Austin Krajicek defeated Mr Tursunov 6-3, 6-2. 
Any prize money ? NONE
Citi Open, Washington, 31/07/2017 - Round of 64, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 over Mitchell Krueger.
Round of 32 - Gilles Muller def Tursunov- 6-1, 6-2. Tursunov picks up $12,000.
German Tennis Championships 24/07/ 2017 Benoit Paire def Tursunov 6-3, 6-2 , ( $13,000 )
( Bet these guys can't believe their luck when the name TURSUNOV is placed next to theirs on the draw sheet )
Wimbledon 2017- Fabio Fognini def Tursunov 6-1, 6-3, 6-3 ( approximately $41,000 )
Australian Open 2017- Radek Stepanek def Tursunov  6-2, 7-6, 6-3 ( approximately $41,000 ) 
Ok to 2016, let's forget the statistics and scores, but Dmitry Tursunov won around $154,000 US Dollars for winning ONE MATCH on the ATP Tour. He lost First round at Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open.
So how can Tursunov do all of this ? Well according to the rules he has a PR ( Protected Ranking ) due to injury.
Apparently this has now been going on for around a year and a half. I wonder how many struggling tennis pros have been following the Dmitry Tursunov story and thinking ' geez, what I would give to be allowed through to the main draw to be cannon fodder'.
The system is beyond a mess. The Russian is non competitive as showed by his 6-7, 1-6, FORFEIT to a guy ranked outside the top 200 in the US Open today. Anyone can play for a set, Dmitry knew he would be gone inside two sets yet he still took a spot in the draw that could have seen a career beginning for someone. 
Selfish money hungry prick.
$41,000 US Dollars as the Russian continues his protected ranking money grabbing World Tour.
So how much did Tursunov make against 'Real Tennis Players' on the Challenger Circuit in the last year or so ?
About $3,000. And that's about all he should be making, he's not good enough to do anything else.
Spare a thought for the real players trying to make a living out of tennis having to put up with 'tourists' making cameo appearances particularly at Gram Slams.
Fair Dinkum joke..........

Saturday, 26 August 2017


Alexandr Dolgopolov has recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons though it may have more to do with the way he plays more than anything else. Sometimes he 'turns up', other times he goes missing, mentally that is, yet there seems to be a bit more to the latest story on the enigma from the Ukraine.
Here's the facts.
Whether you take any notice of Betting agency odds is entirely up to you however it seems that Dolgopolov was a 'shoe in' to beat Thiago Monteiro of Brazil at the Winston- Salem Open in the US just recently. 
One particular agency had the number 63 ranked Ukraine at $1.33 to win as opposed to the number 114 ranked Brazilian's rather lofty odds which hit as high as $4.50 prior to the match. By all reports, just before the match commenced the odds for Dolgopolov drifted way out as money poured in for an upset to occur.
So this is what happened.
Dolgopolov reached deuce just ONCE on Monteiro's serve which is a reasonable delivery but nowhere near the class of Querrey or Karlovic who Dolgopolov has beaten on more than one occasion. On the other side of the coin Monteiro had three chances to break the serve of the Ukraine's and he had a 100 per cent success rate in doing so, three out of three, too easy.
Alexandr Dolgopolov won just 12 receiving points from 49 attempts and lost in under an hour, 55 minutes to be exact. 6-3, 6-3.
The highlights are few and far between, very few rallies and many, many errors from the racket of Dolgopolov. It would be fair to say that his effort against a player ranked some 51 places below him was far from competitive.
So to their previous match.
Four weeks earlier in Gstaad these two players fought hard for three sets though the result was the same, Monteiro won 7-6, 3-6, 6-3 but the statistics show that Dolgopolov doesn't really fear the Monteiro serve. Thirty eight per cent of return points were won by Dolgopolov in this particular match though it was on clay so perhaps the ball travelled slightly slower than it would on a hard court.
Surely though going into their latest match the homework had already been done by the enigma from Ukraine.
Fair to say again, Dolgopolov knew what to expect from Monteiro's delivery.
Maybe it's all a bit of a coincidence and just like the Davydenko scandal which I wrote about on this site not long ago, perhaps there is nothing in it except big punters looking at players who are susceptible to a loss at any time due to their mental inconsistencies.
Maybe, but take a look at the following efforts from Dolgopolov, he's definitely a player who likes a quick dollar, no risk.
US Open - First Round, 2016, retired at 5-6 to Ferrer. $43,000 for that effort.
Cincinnati - First Round, 2016, retired at 5-7 to Anderson. $15,480 pay day.
Rio De Janeiro - Quarter Final, 2016 ( against Nadal ) withdrew before match. $41,000
Wimbledon - First Round , 2017, retired at 3-6, 0-3 to Federer. $41,000
Ricoh Open, Netherlands, 2017, Round of 16, retired at 6-7, 2-4 to Pospisil. $12,000
Miami, 2017, First Round, retired at 6-7 to Jaziri. $16,000 
Indian Wells, 2017, Second Round, retired at 7-6, 1-1 to Kohlschreiber. $22,325
Rio Open, 2017, Quarter Final, retired at 6-7, 7-6, 0-1 to Carreno- Busta. $39,500
So in the last two seasons Alexandr Dolgopolov has picked up around $230,000 US Dollars for NOT finishing eight matches or not even turning up at all as was the case in Rio last year.
Did I mention he was an enigma ?
This year at the Argentina Open in February he did not lose a set all tournament which even culminated in a straight sets win over then World Number 5 Kei Nishikori where he picked up a further $97,000.
So what do all the facts and figures mean ?
Unless the authorities can find phone records of illegal activity to dodgy Bookmakers from both Dolgopolov and Monteiro at the Winston- Salem Open this year I would be putting it all in the too hard basket and filing it somewhere safe.
Unless there is proof it will simply be referred to as 'suspicious activity' by a professional sports person.
I will leave you with a ten minute video of the match in question. If you have time, take a look, it's almost comical at some stages, including match point where I believe a 12 year old kid could have perhaps put in more of an effort.
What do I think ?
I think Alexander Dolgopolov is his own worst enemy and many have already made up their mind about the match in question. 
I believe it is definitely a below par effort from a player who needs to improve his image........

Thiago Monteiro vs Alexandr Dolgopolov WINSTON SALEM 2017 Highlights

Tuesday, 22 August 2017


Comment: Nick Kyrgios continues to be hated many Australians, but he has never behaved as badly as some footballers . 

Flog. This is the word that comes up most often in the comments for articles about Nick Kyrgios. It doesn't matter if it's a story about him winning a tennis match, losing a tennis match, saying something ridiculous or saying something nice. 
It has become an office joke here at the ABC that anything we publish about the 22-year-old tennis player will be met with that same response on Twitter and in the Facebook comments.
It can only be in a similar spirit that announced the news of the Canberran's loss in the final of the Cincinnati Masters event to Grigor Dimitrov on Monday: "Nick Kyrgios flops in historic title bid".
It is a headline dripping with schadenfreude.
Here is a young player who has put together just about the best week of tennis we've seen from an Australian male in years.
In a Masters event, just one notch below a slam, he beat the veteran Ivo Karlovic, ranked 34 in the world. He beat the wily David Ferrer, ranked number 25 and one of the toughest guys to get through in any tournament. He beat Alexandr Dolgopolov and world number 13 David Goffin. He blitzed world number one Rafael Nadal.
Kyrgios played twinkling tennis. When at his best he solicits more 'oohs' and 'aahs' from tennis crowds than anyone on the circuit, barring perhaps Roger Federer. He had Cincinnati in the palm of his hand.
But he fell short in the final against Dimitrov, the 26-year-old, 2-metre Bulgarian world number eight, playing at the height of his game. Throughout the tournament, aside from being brilliant, Kyrgios was well-behaved and gracious. He had kind words for Dimitrov and charmed the crowd by praising their city and inviting them all out to ice cream next time he's in town.
And yet some in the Australian media took the opportunity to stick the boot in over the loss by calling it a "flop", knowing full well it would appeal to a certain segment of their audience — the flog mob.
"Haha typical Australian media," was Kyrgios's reaction on Twitter. And he's right to be bemused by the headline. You can almost see the satisfied smirk on the face of the sub who wrote it.
Kyrgios is a flawed athlete. He has made mistakes. The worst thing he has done in the public eye was to make a gross and nasty comment about Stan Wawrinka's girlfriend. On the court, his biggest weakness is his lack of drive, which sometimes sees him practically quit mid-match.
A big mouth with no filter and a tendency to tank are problems for a professional athlete. But why does Kyrgios continue to attract such pearl-clutching contempt when other sportsmen, especially those in our football codes, do and say much worse all the time?
For an NRL player, a big performance in a State of Origin game seems to erase months or years of nefarious behaviour, as far as public perception is concerned.
An AFL footballer on a bender is just that — a young bloke cutting loose with his mates — whereas Kyrgios on a night out is a cue for handwringing and moral outrage, as we saw recently.
As far as we know, Kyrgios has never hit a girlfriend, manhandled a random woman at a bar, punched anyone at a nightclub, dry-humped a family pet or relieved himself in a hotel corridor while black-out drunk.
But many Australians can't let go of the fact he once took on-court heckling way too far or sometimes appears not to care.
It's funny, because the rest of the world finds him fascinating. The New Yorker and the New York Times have both done major profiles of the Australian in the past year, while the British press loves to splash attention on him ahead of every Wimbledon.
Yes, they come down hard on him when he stuffs up, as witnessed in the Wawrinka episode or the tanking cases, but nowhere do they hold on to their Kyrgios grudges as grimly as in Australia.
Americans especially love a precocious talent with a chip on his shoulder. They called John McEnroe a brat, which is practically a compliment in the US. They could have called him much worse, his behaviour was atrocious. And we call Kyrgios a flog.
Will Kyrgios ever be fully appreciated in this country for his talents?
Perhaps if he goes on to become world number one and stays there for a while, the majority of Australians will jump on the bandwagon and decide they really kinda like him now, as they did with Lleyton Hewitt, who once had a rocky relationship with the public.
Until then, having a top-20 ranked tennis player should be something Australian sport fans are more appreciative of, especially one who is fascinating to watch and has the skill set to become the best in the world.
It's time to get behind Kyrgios. Stop being flogs about it.

Monday, 7 August 2017


Here in sleepy hollow, Albany, Western Australia we are a long way from anywhere yet we have made the headlines in the State Newspaper, possibly for all the wrong reasons, not for tennis but for our most popular sport behind soccer, AFL.
The reason why we have made the headlines is because in our junior AFL competition there were some rather lopsided results, which as you know can work in two ways. It destroys one team's self confidence plus it gives the winning team a false sense of who they are.
It has happened since the beginning of time, particularly in junior sport because certain teams will be put together with no thought of how advanced some players are and how much they may in fact dominate a competition.
Grading systems perhaps should be upgraded when placing 100 plus kids into teams of 20 to compete against each other in a ridiculously physical game, particularly before a kid even turns 15.
So this is what the junior AFL Association did, they stripped the points from the winning teams and gave them to the losing teams. It has pissed a lot of people off though I do see some merit in the idea as keeping sport competitive particularly at a young age will give a child a sense of belonging whereas one sided games will make a kid question their ability, mentally and physically.
Keeping a kid in a sport is perhaps the most challenging thing for a coach, a parent, an association, but one thing is for certain, it is a necessity to get the mix right.
So as far as tennis is concerned, how do you keep a kid enthused when he or she continually gets beaten ?
Tough one.
I once read a result in a State event where a coach had destroyed one of their students 6-0, 6-1 and I thought that it had ego written all over it, 'I am your Coach, I am your Master, I own you'. Was that result supposed to toughen the kid up ??
I believe it was a case of the 'coach' having their head so completely stuck up their own bum that they failed to look at the situation as perhaps an opportunity to give a kid some confidence.
I vividly recall playing a 15 year old kid several years ago in an Open event in a country championship. I battled to even lose a point and had to hit a few shots long and wide to give him 2 games each set. Was I doing that kid a disservice by giving him those games ? I believe I was helping HIM to believe in his very young ability.
If I had taken those 4 games would it have helped the kid to grow as a player or would it have deflated them to a point of looking at another sport to play ? Was it simply a case of an old man having some sympathy for a young kid ?
For the record I got beaten by the same score in the next round by a guy who made the semis, he smashed me but I was not upset by the result, it gave me heart. If I had lost 0 and 0 then I would have questioned my ability as a player, a coach, a human being. 
So do we need to 'manufacture' sporting results to keep the youth interested in sport ? Well I think it doesn't hurt when all is said and done because a kid will learn from a loss more than a win and if a kid loses 2 and 2 as opposed to 0 and 0 they may just find those 4 games a tonic for the future.
A double bagel may turn their attention to another sport as not winning a game may be too big a hurdle to clear for future matches.
I believe our local AFL association got the penalty correct for opposition coaches going for glory with percentage boosting wins over opposition that was lacking physically, mentally and technically as after all, a kid playing our national sport does not own the luxury of choosing which side he or she plays in. 
Some kids get picked in a 'Super Team', others get chosen to play in teams that battle to win a match all the while as they struggle to develop their skills to further their development.
We had two results locally that caused a stir, a 95 point win where a coach maintained that he tried 'everything' to nullify his own team's scoring ability and another 70 plus win that had the winning coach maintaining that he also did what he could to 'help the opposition'.
I know for a fact that both of those winning teams had access to some very talented youngsters and the losing teams were not so fortunate to be laden with talented players.
Fact of life, however the losing teams should not be forced to question their own ability due to their association's inability to even out the talent available at selection time.
So to tennis. It's a sport that only the strong survive, we all know that but if we can keep a kid interested long enough it may just mean the difference between a player persevering with it or throwing the racket in the cupboard and taking up AFL.......
The irony of it all.........