Saturday 30 September 2017

Slice Backhand Tutorial Uncovered 2017




This is for all of those self confessed 'Guru' Tennis Coaches out there.
Take a listen to the opening spiel and the word that is used when speaking about the slice backhand.
I believe the word is 'ESSENTIAL', however it is interesting to note just how many baseline robots at a young age do not in fact hit this shot due to lack of knowledge on it.
So is it being taught ?
I believe this short video is one of the most educational ones you will ever see due to the fact that it actually explains that the slice backhand can be used in more ways than one......

Tuesday 26 September 2017

'A POINT OF VIEW' ( PART 3 )

In five years of writing on this Blog I have come to the conclusion that I do it for two reasons, frustration and to let the build up thoughts of a life time of tennis out into the open. I don't really care if no one reads this site. Sometimes I write, I read it, I feel better, I sleep better.
Not sure how or why but some people have found this site and they regularly read it. Someone told me once that certain 'people' are just waiting for an opportunity to sue me as I have apparently pissed 'em off with the content over the years.
Good luck, I don't own any assets, 'bout $25 in my bank account and an old car that still goes, just. Speaking of which, did anyone read my posts on my old coach 'Holmsey' ( Pete ) who I wrote in detail about quite some time ago ? Now there was a man who typified what I wrote just the other day in regards to simply being a good tennis coach and probably an even better tennis player.
Holmsey drove an old Ford that didn't own a working fuel gauge or speedometer, he simply guessed, classic stuff. That's who I learned from. No glossy stuff, Facebook of course was not even thought of back then but Pete's ability to sneak around town in a vehicle that looked like a farm yard knock around wagon yet bring nothing but brilliance to a tennis coaching program was nothing short of humbling.
Was it a deliberate ploy ? I doubt it, it was just who Pete was, he would rock up to the local tennis club in the old beast, start talking tennis and you would be mesmerised by his knowledge.
It wasn't just confined to how to hit a ball but he owned a tactical mind which he was happy to share and he always had a word or two to say about the World game.
Most of the time he would say something that you would digest for a moment then think to yourself, 'This guy really is a genius'.
That's who I learned from, a guy who no one could beat locally, he was simply unbeatable. I didn't beat him in a local competition until I was 28, Pete was 40, let's be realistic here.
I didn't beat him once in doubles. He was a tactician in the two on two, he could win with my Dad and Dad never played tennis.
( Funny story, Dad was a golfer, the town's best, off a 2 handicap. Pete and Dad once won a local Golf Championship together. Pete could win doubles at any sport ).
So I suppose it's fair to say that we learn from the people who teach us things in life, not just how to play a sport but how to act. If Pete was a Facebook Tennis Coach I honestly don't think he would have gained the respect that he commanded.
That's the difference in generations in this sport. As I have explained in great detail in Part 1 of this chapter, the coaches from days gone by could actually play tennis, they weren't scared to lose, they were more frightened of what their students would think if they went missing on game day.
If you coached, you played, simple. That's what I learned from Pete.
I am not sure how many posts that I have published on this site over the last five years however I think it's around 1000, give or take 50 or so. I have many more posts that I have written but put them through as a draft rather than publish them as that Lawyer may just have found a reason to try to take my car off me plus my $25 in loose change.
So has the Blog helped me at all ? A little, though I still find things to write about because tennis keeps dishing up new stories every day and Facebook Tennis Coaches keep offering me entertaining dialogue on a daily and weekly basis that I feel compelled to write about.
Do I consider myself 'normal' ? Well it depends on how you look at it. I have always stated to the ones closest to me that even from a young age I felt I was 'a little different'. Not sure if I was ever dropped on my head as a child but it may explain a lot if I was. 
The thing is this, if I hadn't chosen tennis as a kid it would not have shaped me into the person I am today which I can't really describe precisely but tennis gave me a view on life that at one stage I despised, but then I embraced it. Why ? Because tennis is like surfing, a way of life, a search for THAT wave, it's a mind set, a way of looking at life through a sport.
If I became a Real Estate Agent I may not have developed my strange mind. Selling houses to me does not offer much in the way of brain stimulation. That's the thing with tennis, it stimulates the brain because it makes you think.
You can't play or teach tennis without your mind ticking over a hundred miles per hour as to what you can do to fix a problem.
Locally quite a few people don't appreciate either what I do, what I say or the fact that I even breathe, once again, tell someone who gives a shit. I am who I am because tennis made me that way. I am argumentative. Is that not what tennis is ? Always. It has always been an argument, one that will only be resolved with the best answers.
When I write on this site I look for answers, to my past, my present, my future. I still play, I still coach, I will continue to write, I will keep on searching for that 'perfect wave'........



Monday 25 September 2017

'A POINT OF VIEW' ( PART 2 )

I will continue to dissect every part of tennis as best I can and in particular the coaching side of the game because I am continually handed 'free' dialogue by the Industry itself.
The reason why I have always had a dig at the Industry we call 'tennis coaching' is because I don't believe it is run by our Governing Body Tennis Australia with any real thought. TA make bucket loads of money each year yet the way in which they choose to spend it leaves a lot to be desired.
The funding issue is beyond comical because it keeps topping up the bank accounts of current and ex players who really don't require it or more to the point, don't deserve it.
Former Aussie Tennis Pro Richard Fromberg just recently had a bit to say on his site in regards to Tennis Australia.
"In my opinion, tennis in Australia is in desperate need of some major structural changes. The sport is far too expensive for most families".........
That was just part of a recent post from Frommie.
He's very correct.
One thing I have always stated on this site of mine is the fact that tennis coaching is a 'free for all' of epic proportions where nothing is regulated and nothing is sacred, nothing is off limits.
I believe TA are responsible for this.
Recommended private lesson fees.
Tennis Australia recommends that Tennis Australia coach members charge between $60-$80 per hour (inc GST) for a one hour private lesson. The experience and qualification of the coach will impact on the hourly rate charged. This price range is a recommendation only. The individual coach member is free to determine what hourly rate to charge for private lessons.
TENNIS AUSTRALIA

So why is this TA ? Who came up with the price for a one on one hour session and why is it that an individual can charge what he or she likes ?
Frommie is correct, the sport is too expensive for most families so what do they do ? They steer their child to AFL or Basketball. It's why the success rate of tennis is minimal because of the minimal numbers playing due to the cost, pretty simple really.
I have stated in the past on this site that tennis coaching needs to strictly be held at tennis clubs and not schools because of the fact that tennis clubs need to be THE place to play tennis at. The reason for this is also simple.
If tennis coaches take their programs to schools it will strip the tennis club of future members because if a kid gets enrolled to play at a tennis club right from day one it will become a venue for the future for that particular child.
A school tennis court holds no esteem or future for a budding player. A tennis club requires members to survive. By taking a program to a school just down the road from a tennis club it is taking potential members away from that club all for the sake of 'convenience' though I suppose it's the way of the World now days.
So why does TA allow school programs to take place just down the road from a tennis club ? Not sure, you will have to ask TA that one but as I have stated on more than one occasion, if every local tennis coach took their program to a school instead of the local clubs then how will that build or maintain a tennis club ?
Not once did I ever ask a local school if I could coach on their grounds, though others did, less than ONE KILOMETRE from our tennis club. Did our numbers drop ? Significantly. Do I blame the peanut who asked the school if they could commence before and after school coaching on their courts ? No.
I blame TENNIS AUSTRALIA for allowing it to happen.
Just like TA says things like ''The individual coach member is free to determine what hourly rate to charge for private lessons', it is also fairly obvious that Australia's governing body of tennis is allowing the sport to be run by individuals with no thought for the future of the game, just their pockets.
Nothing is sacred, nothing off limits, as long as TA receive their $200 plus per year from their thousands of 'qualified' tennis coaches then each one is free to do whatever they wish to do to run their programs wherever they choose and however they choose.
I explained on this site that a while back each local tennis club in this area received a letter from TA in regards to their competition, the ATPCA ( Australian Tennis Professional Coaches Association ). The letter expressed concern that a competitor had come in to the Industry and was training budding tennis coaches to become future coaches of the sport here in Australia.
So where is the problem TA ?
If your system ruled the courts of this Country then surely you would be churning out champions on a much bigger scale than you currently are. Do I have a point ?
Here's the twist in this rather comical saga.
Certain TA coaches who swore by TA and their programs and who wrote in various newspapers around the State of WA ( which I have read and which I have kept clippings of ) are now paid up members of the ATPCA as well as Tennis Australia.
Interesting isn't it ?
Hypocritical ? Maybe just a little.
I love dissecting this sport. I feel like a Professor at a University cutting open a rat so everyone can see what's inside......
PART 3 TO FOLLOW




Monday 18 September 2017

'MORE OF THE SAME'

If you have followed this silly site of mine you will know by now that I have no time for Lleyton Hewitt, can't stand him, Australia's most arrogant ever tennis professional, no risk at all.
Anyhow enough of the compliments. 
There are some striking similarities to what happened way back in 2001 in Melbourne which I wrote about in 2015 and which I am reposting after this little spiel, and what just happened in Belgium.
So what happened in Belgium ? 
Wrong decision, worst decision I have seen in years but it's all 'hush, hush' at the moment as I haven't seen anything written about the selection 'stuff up'. I have only read that Nick complimented Goffin on his play and that 'Thommo' was outclassed by Darcis.
Forget the formalities, let's get to the nuts and bolts of it all, Lleyton Hewitt picked the wrong player to contest the final match in the semi final in Belgium and he should be made accountable.
Jordan Thompson is unproven on clay though I suppose John Millman is also but did you watch Jonny play Goffin in the first match ?? John Millman is in all sorts of form, career best form I would say, following up from his third round effort at this year's US Open where he steam rolled Kyrgios in the first round.
What has Thompson done lately ? He beat Jack Sock in the US Open, a great win, then he lost in the second round to the 82nd ranked Thomas Fabbiano.
His effort a week before however should have been looked at more closely. In Vancouver, Canada, Thommo lost the final of the $100,000 Odlum Brown Vanopen Championship to Cedrik- Marcel Stebe, ranked 128 by the score of 6-0-6-1. 
Effort meter ? Zero.
Thommo is not the real deal, Jonny Millman is, he's a guy who never loses easily, you have to beat him , he will not lose a tennis match, fact.
I have since read that Millman may have been fatigued after his match with Goffin, so what ? Goffin played just as long as Millman, he got up two days later and beat Nick. Jonny would have maybe taken a set to get loosened up but he would have been up for the challenge against Darcis, he would have beaten Darcis.
Jordan Thompson would never have beaten Steve Darcis because he is not in his league on the dirt. Darcis played 5 sets against Kyrgios, he was no doubt tired, Millman would have kept him out there a lot longer than Thompson ever would have.
Millman would have worn Darcis out.
The selection is mind boggling, just as it was in 2001 when the 'Dream Team' of Hewitt and Rafter were put together and they failed miserably in their loss to France, a decision that cost Australia the Davis Cup.
Lleyton Hewitt should not have played the doubles in 2001 and he should have learned by past selection mistakes that you go with form, not your heart. 
Todd Woodbridge needed to play the dubs in 2001, wouldn't have mattered who with, yet he was overlooked by the then Davis Cup Captain of Australia, John Fitzgerald. Nice work Fitzy, what were you thinking ?
Jonny Millman needed to play the final match in Belgium this year yet Lleyton Hewitt thought Thompson was a better choice.
It's about time that the Aussie Tennis hierarchy started making the right decisions........



'A Monumental Blunder' ( written 2015 )

Here's an interesting piece of information for you regarding the Davis Cup final of 2001 played at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne, Australia, 30th November- Dec 2, between Australia and France. Now you all know my views on Tennis Australia and their lack of faith in their players to win on anything but a grass court but this little chestnut is rather staggering.
It all began at Wimbledon in the same year.
A Frenchman by the name of Nicolas Escude was seeded 24 and took on Lleyton Hewitt of Australia, seeded 5 in the fourth round. Most would have tipped Hewitt to win that particular match but Escude had a rather unique style which was not unlike that of Swede Mats Wilander particularly his backhand which was a magnificently fluent shot.
Escude managed to beat Hewitt in five sets which on paper looked like an upset but anyone who knew just how talented the Frenchman was knew that this win was within his capabilities. The Frenchman went through to the quarters and won the first set off Agassi before losing in four. Let's now fast forward to the US Open of that same year.
Lleyton Hewitt survived a tough five set test in round two against James Blake before going on to beat Roddick in the quarters, again in five, then Kafelnikov in straight and then belted Sampras in straight sets also for the title. Hewitt had hard court form without a doubt. Now let's fast forward to the Davis Cup final of 2001.
The team in Australia comprised of Hewitt, Rafter, Woodbridge and Arthurs. Todd Woodbridge had won his 18th Grand Slam Doubles title with Bjorkman at the Australian Open on hard court in 2001. Todd also had hard court form. Wayne Arthurs made it to the semi finals of the 2001 Australian Open Mens doubles with Zimonjic. So it would be fair to say that Arthurs also didn't mind playing on hard courts.
Pat Rafter had already won the US Open Mens Singles title twice, in '97 and '98. His form on hard court could not be questioned. Rafter in fact won ten doubles tournaments over the course of his career though four of those were with possibly one of the greatest doubles players of all time, Swede Jonas Bjorkman. ( I reckon I may have had a chance to win at doubles with Bjorkman on my side of the net ). Jonas was a doubles genius and he did not require a fellow doubles expert on his side as he proved in a tournament win with John McEnroe in 2006 when Mac was 47.
I believe only one player in the World could have taken McEnroe out of retirement and won a doubles tournament, that was Jonas. Yes Mac was a doubles expert but he had been in retirement for around 12 years apart from the Seniors tour and that is a huge difference from the ATP Tour.
Sorry I have got off track again, as I usually do.
So the Australian Tennis 'brains trust' decided to lay a grass court over the hard court at the home of the Australian Open for reasons unbeknown to anyone but themselves. The above statistics all pointed to a hard court show down against France in that 2001 Davis Cup final. Yet it did not happen and it backfired big time. There was however another monumental blunder in that particular final that didn't get enough air play at the time yet it was the most relevant issue in the final.
Why did Rafter play doubles with Hewitt when these two were not a proven team and they had never won a title together ? Why also did the issue of Rafter's injured arm not get taken more seriously and why was he not just used as a singles player ? Were the Aussies trying to lose this final ??! Why was Woodbridge overlooked for the doubles when he had been Australia's most successful doubles player in the last 40 or so years and one of the World's all time great exponents of the two on two format ?
Wayne Arthurs was no World beater yet he was more than a handy partner for Woody and surely his semi final showing in January at the Aussie Open was more than enough to put these two together for the pivotal doubles. Apparently not.
So to the final; Escude beat Hewitt again in five sets which proved his Wimbledon win against him was no fluke. 
Rafter held his end of the bargain up with a win against Grosjean in straight sets. The little 'Maestro' as he was known Fabrice Santoro, the French doubles genius teamed with Pioline who really had no doubles form to speak of yet it was not a necessity either. Anyone could have won with Fabrice, he was as clever as Jonas on a doubles court, a genius in fact. He was the one player in that doubles match that made the difference.
The Aussies did not do their homework on this final and the amount of blunders in it were nothing short of almost comical. Hewitt did end up taking the tie to the final match with a straight sets win over Grosjean in the first reverse singles yet Rafter could not play the final match due to how bad his arm was after the doubles so Arthurs played it. Escude won that in four sets as everyone expected him to, he was a class above Arthurs who was not a proven singles player.
The whole set of circumstances did not make sense.
Surely if Rafter had issues with his arm then he shouldn't have played the doubles but John Fitgerald as the Captain should not even have looked at him for doubles as Woody was the only man who could match Santoro's genius in doubles.
It actually would have made for a great match, Woody/ Arthurs vs Pioline/ Santoro. For history's sake the French won that match in four sets, 6-1 in the fourth, totally outplaying a team in the end who were dubbed 'the Dream Team' at the start of the match. They were anything but.
This Davis Cup final will go down as one of the biggest 'cock ups' in Australian tennis history for all of the above reasons. Someone should have sent Tennis Australia a 'please explain letter' back then and asked for some answers.
Pity I didn't know how to type back then..........

Sunday 17 September 2017

'I REITERATE'

For anyone who has just tuned, it's like this, sometimes I get a bee in my bonnet regarding certain issues in tennis and in particular tennis coaching. I believe I may be stating the obvious however it appears to be a business now way more than anything else as coaching programs all over the Country look at more ways to make $$ with less time given on court.
The two posts that I have recently written are in regards to the time, or rather lack of time that is offered to students of the game as 40-45 minute sessions are now the norm yet the cost for these sessions has not dropped, they have in fact increased.
Sort of like how Beer Companies now usually fill a 330 mil bottle with amber fluid instead of the old traditional 355 mil bottles. ( I strictly only drink Corona now days out of principal ). Yet Beer has increased in price despite the reduced amount, interesting isn't it ?
The old way of coaching was always an hour per session, it's how the World operates, people get paid by the hour, not so with tennis coaches, they now offer less court time than ever, not sure why, maybe some parents should ask the question.
Would I ever offer a 40-45 minute session ? Yes I would if the kids were very raw and very young however I would not have more than four students in the group as that amount of court time is not long enough to really get into the nuts and bolts of a tennis shot unless the numbers on court were minimal.
My argument is this, many coaches will have as many as 10 kids in a class, I have even counted up to 15, how is that value and how does a kid learn with that many in the class ? The answer is this, they don't learn and all that the parents are doing is filling the pockets of a coach with cash, money for jam. 
Ten kids, $15 to $20 each, $150 to $200 for 40-45 minutes. Bit silly ? Weak as piss.
The recent posts on this site 'The Times' and 'Comedy Routine' take a swipe at the modern day tennis coach who makes good money yet offers very little in the way of court time.
It's almost tennis season in the land of Oz, time for the fun and games to begin..........

Saturday 16 September 2017

'THE TIMES'.......

When you learn a sport as a child you have to look at the factors that are going to gain improvement and they of course are, 'court time', 'field time', 'group size', 'coaching methods', to name a few.
If a kid is 'dinkum' about a sport then he or she will find ways to improve without it costing their parents an arm or a leg in fees.
When I was a kid I hit a tennis ball on a wall, some days up to four hours, it didn't make me a star however it taught me the basics of hand- eye coordination and it saved my parents money in coaching fees. Not that it was my soul concern at age 11 or 12 however if I wanted to hit a tennis ball I didn't have far to go to the garage wall.
The local tennis club where most of the coaching took place was around ten kilometres away so if I wanted to play tennis it wasn't as though I could be on a court within a couple of minutes, so I improvised. I drew a chalk line on the garage wall and I imagined I was hitting the ball into a tennis court every time I cleared the chalk line, pretty simple stuff.
Not everyone owns a wall to hit a tennis ball against unfortunately however 'totem tennis' ( a ball on a string ) exists as do drive ways where a ball can be thrown to a child to swing at with a racket. There is more than one way to skin a cat or in sporting terms, there is more than one way to develop ability, no matter what age the child may be.
It's all about 'court time' and what you do in that time that creates an ability to strike a ball with consistency.
In one of my last posts on this site I wrote about court time or rather lack of it and how it can be a total waste of time as far as learning is concerned. Of course tennis coaching lessons aren't all about just getting better at tennis as the social interaction amongst kids is priceless for their future growth as human beings.
It all depends however what you want from a tennis coaching session.
Last season I saw some reasonably comical attempts to 'coach' kids at tennis, I won't say where but there were several programs at various locations that failed miserably to give anything back to the consumer, the people who were paying the fees, the kids who were involved.
How can 10 to 15 kids on a tennis court really be coached with any type of structure that will benefit them as far as their ability to learn the game and the finer points that go with it ? Would a 15 minute hit on a garage wall be of more benefit do you think ?
As I say often, 'you do the sums' on how many balls a kid will hit in a 40-45 minute session in a large group as opposed to a 15 minute session on a wall or even a parent throwing a few buckets of tennis balls to a kid in a park to improve their hand-eye.
To reiterate on one of my last posts 'where is the value' ?
To say that many 'tennis coaches' are greedy and full of their own self importance is stating the obvious and I always place inverted commas either side of 'tennis coach' as many are in fact not what they state they actually are.
They are simply 'ball hitters', people who run kids around with gimmicks and games designed to make their programs look busy. They rake in a lot of cash per session but fail to develop a kid's ability due to their own inability to offer value and a structured lesson that actually works.
Let's look at the obvious here. A parent who goes to work at a 9-5 will probably earn $22 on an average, per hour, maybe $18 after Tax, it's not big dollars, it's hard earned dollars.
A 'tennis coach' who has never actually done a 9-5 will charge perhaps $15 - $20 for a 40-45 minute session of mayhem that will see a kid hit maybe three or four tennis balls then run around and pick those balls up, grab a sip of water, join the line, go again.
How many balls will be struck in a session that has 10 kids on a court ? Would it be 100 do you think ? Would it be that many ? How many kids do you really think can be coached properly in a session that lasts just over half an hour after warm ups, drink breaks, ball retrieving and a final game ? 
If you took a bucket of 25 balls to a park and got a kid to hit four buckets worth would the child be better off ? Easy to answer, if a kid hits 25 balls in a row it will develop way more than what it would in a messy group session that has to have high turn over as far as kids hitting and moving in a short time frame.
Doing the sums on what a 'tennis coach' will make in that 40-45 minute time frame is rather embarrassing when you break it all down but as I have often stated, it has a lot to do with self importance and what this person believes they are worth per hour, or is that per 40-45 minutes ?
If you are going to charge per session what some hard working parents take a complete hour to earn then perhaps groups should be capped at 4-6 players only then I suppose the 'tennis coach' will only make the equivalent of say $150 per hour over the course of an afternoon's coaching as opposed to anything up to $250 per hour which is all too common now days.
If 4-6 kids were placed on a tennis court for 40-45 minutes then I believe there would be a hint of value in the session as there would be time to go through the intricacies of the swing and even have time to look in depth at how to actually hold a tennis racket.
Many moons ago in the age of the 'Dinosaurs' I recall a local tennis coach who's shortest session was in fact 75 minutes and that was for the youngest kids. Was it too long do you think ? Well I suppose it's how you look at it.
Yes there was a warm up game, yes there were drink breaks and yes there was a game to finish that possibly lasted around ten minutes however in between there was almost an hour of coaching.
From memory that particular 'Dinosaur Coach' charged around $8 to $10 per session, 6 students per coach.
That was the Beginners.
Intermediates played for 90 minutes ( from memory once again ) and the Advanced played for two hours.
Now pardon me for stating the obvious but that may just have been some good old fashioned value, in the good old days.
Those were the days before Facebook gave out high profiles to 'ball hitters' and asked parents to work an hour in a real job to pay for a social outing for their child who would have got more value going to the local park with Mum or Dad with a bucket of balls.
Bob Dylan once sang 'The Times, They Are A Changing'.
Oh yeah Bob, you got it..........

Thursday 7 September 2017

' PLEASE EXPLAIN ANDY '

Anyone seen Andy Murray ? 
The recent decision by the World number 2 to pull out of the US Open a day AFTER the Mens Singles Draw was made has a lot of people talking as many are asking the same question, 'Why did you enter Andy' ?
It is a fact that Murray is injured, he played with obvious discomfort at Wimbledon where he lost the final two sets of his quarter final to Sam Querrey, 1-6, 1-6.  So where has he been for the last two months ?
Andy Murray has not played a match since that loss, no warm up tournament for the US Open, he has been a ghost, yet his name came up at the bottom of the Mens Singles draw in New York .
In all seriousness that draw probably had him playing off in the final, such was the discrepancy in the bottom half to the talent laden top half.
It was a dream draw for the World number 2, no risk at all.
So what happened ?
"I certainly wouldn't have been hurting myself more by trying to play. It was more a question of whether it would settle down in time," Murray said. "Obviously I kind of ran out of time."
"Was actually practicing OK the last few days," he added, "but it's too sore for me to win the tournament. And ultimately, that's what I was here to try and do."
Andy Murray
So why did he leave it so long to withdraw ? Well tennis is one of those sports, many call it a selfish sport where it's simply you versus someone else, a sport that Andre Agassi describes as 'being on an island'.
Tennis promotes self importance, not only in play but in coaching, it's all about you. Agassi is very correct.
How else would you describe what Andy Murray did ? One of my recent posts on another selfish tennis player ( or rather, ex tennis player, now 'tourist', Dmitry Tursunov ) in fact has nothing on what Andy Murray just did. The Russian's latest effort pales in significance to what the two time Wimbledon Champion did in New York. 
Only Andy Murray knows why he left it so late to pull out of the year's final Grand Slam but one thing is for certain, he has lost a lot of fans over it. Why ? Well that's simple.
If Murray had withdrawn some 24 hours earlier ( which he obviously should have ) Roger Federer would have been promoted to the number 2 seeding thus saving the bottom half of the draw from being a total non event as far as stars were concerned.
As it now stands we have a player ranked 32 ( Anderson ) and a player ranked 19 ( Carreno Busta ) who will play off for a spot in the final to meet either Nadal or Del Potro.
Roger Federer, despite admitting to be not 100 per cent physically or mentally for this year's event would have had little trouble with either of the two players who will probably be cannon fodder for who ever they meet in the final.
Even a 'non perfect' Roger Federer would surely have made his way through that particular half of the draw.
So back to Andy Murray. For a player of his calibre and status in the World of tennis it was quite possibly the dumbest and strangest thing he has ever done. He had almost two whole months to work out whether or not he was going to actually play in New York and he made the decision to not play a day after the paper work had been done.
I find that to be nothing short of bemusing.
Surely with all of the rehabilitation he has done since Wimbledon plus the practice matches that he has obviously played recently he would have known whether or not he could have made it through seven best of five matches. Surely.
"I always thought that he was going to be playing if he was here practising," 
"It was a little bit strange that he retired just the morning after the draw was made. It was something that is a little bit strange and difficult to understand."
( Rafael Nadal )
Even Rafa thought the timing was a little odd.
So this is what Andy Murray is now going to do. He's going to take the rest of the season off, yep, no more tennis for Mr Murray, he's worked out that his hip injury is not worth trying to play through.
Many people are asking the same question however regarding the US Open hierarchy's decision to not promote Federer to the number 2 seeding. Instead they simply moved a few players around at the bottom half of the draw. Perhaps it was all too hard to rejig the entire draw ?
Either way I think the recent social media posts say it all in regards to what the tennis loving fans now think of a player who should perhaps have been holidaying on an 'island' rather than messing up a potentially brilliant last Slam of the year.
Thanks Andy Murray for your efforts in New York this year, outstanding performance.........

Tuesday 5 September 2017

'THE ZEN MASTER'

I thought I would repost this. Wrote it a while back. I don't write as much now days as the things that used to piss me off, well, for some reason they don't anymore. Mellowing ? Perhaps.
The sport of tennis will continue to be coached by 'Zen Masters' who swear by their tuition and pricing but fail to deliver the one thing that is most important...
You do the sums.......
Written 2015
The average of my posts per year over the last few years has been around 190 per year which works out at roughly half a post a day, roughly. Sometimes I wonder why I write at all because my audience is not huge and there are no financial rewards yet I find it strangely soothing to say the least.
Every tennis player or coach has an opinion on the game and I like mine to be posted onto a site for anyone to read at anytime. That's just me, I am happy for my ideas to be read, dissected and perhaps shared. That's tennis in a nutshell for me as there are a ridiculous amount of ways to teach the game. Some work, many don't, many have an opinion, many are wrong, not many are right.  
When you look at a sport as complex as tennis and the many, many, many ways of teaching the sport, plus the outrageous discrepancies of the cost of learning tennis it is no wonder that it is not a sport that is as smooth as say AFL Football.
You can only play 'footy' so many ways, tennis however is far different as you can have many perceptions, styles, tactics and beliefs of how it should be played but as the saying goes 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Tennis is a sport that many 'Zen Masters' teach however many do not even know how it works, they have simply seen it played. These 'Zen Masters' have gained a 'degree', commanded a fee and became wealthy over the whole process yet their 'pudding' was never really cooked in the first place.
I like the idea of an ageing surf guru who has the long straggly hair, the VW Wagon and a beach shack as a pad. That would be the guy I would look to as far as teaching my kids how to surf if they desired to. If I saw some knob in a BMW with fancy writing on his car or trailer which generally hides their inability to teach the fundamentals then I wouldn't even ask him for the price of a lesson.
He probably lives in a mansion unlike the surf Zen Master yet the latter probably sleeps better at night knowing that what he does will achieve a result worth writing about.
Call me old fashioned, call me old school, call me an idiot, water off a duck's back. 
If I was a surfing coach I would live on the beach in a shack as I did for nearly ten years as I believe it builds character and a down to earth look on life in general.
A surfing Zen Master is the type of person who should be involved in tennis.
No frills, no glossy stuff, just the old fashioned way of teaching.
That usually gains a result or two.......