'THE FUN METER'

One day I would love to see some type of device fitted to either the headband or cap of a tennis professional with some way of finding out from that player just how much they are in fact enjoying their tennis match.
Let's call it 'the fun meter'.
Many other sports including cricket have players wired up as commentators fire off questions in between overs or balls, so to speak, as they fish for information that they can elaborate on. Personally I think it's a great concept in sport. The public love to hear what is going on from someone in the heat of battle as it brings them closer to their heroes and gives them an insight into tactics etc.
So what of my idea of the 'fun meter' ?
Simple, I would love to hear from a professional tennis player who has been out on court after say three hours in 35 degrees with scores locked at 4 games all in the fifth set. I would love to get an insight into just how much 'fun' a wired up player is having in that situation.
Tennis is one of those sports where you don't get a lot of laughs from a player particularly when the scores are close though you may see a smile or two from a player who comfortably leads a match and that of course may just be stating the obvious.
So how much fun is tennis ?
Roger Federer would be having a ball, literally, because he is way too old to still be winning Grand Slams, yet he still wins them. So what of the rest ?
Let's look at the Gael Monfils/ Novak Djokovic match, sorry, farce I should say in Round 2 of the Aussie Open this year. Now by all reports the temperature on Rod Laver Arena reached 69 degrees due to 'radiated heat from the stands' as one report stated.
How much fun do you reckon those two had ? 
Bucket loads ??
Would love to have seen a 'fun meter' dialogue from Monfils that day, he had a fat time, just look at the highlights from that match, sorry the lowlights from that farce.
So why did the roof close for the final ?
Anyone who plays tennis knows that indoor conditions are a whole lot different from outdoor conditions. Cilic could be seen warming up getting used to the conditions outside as he thought the match would be played outside. Let's face it the match started at 7.30 pm. 
Why would you close the roof at that hour ? 
And the roof couldn't be closed for the Monfils/Djokovic match in the heat of the day which happened to be a whole lot hotter than the conditions for the final at night ??
Work that one out.
Cilic played ALL of his matches outdoors prior to the final which then turned into a completely different playing environment for him.
I believe it took a set for him to adjust, hence the one sided opening set score. 
Anyhow back to the 'fun meter'. Roger is having the time of his life. Night matches, cool of the evening, 6 out of 7 matches this year in Melbourne. Does he deserve it ? Absolutely, though read the following from Tennis Australia in regards to the Monfils/ Djokovic match;

The Australian Open’s official Twitter account said the match was not halted because play “needed to be consistent with the outside courts so some don’t get an unfair advantage”.
( Courtesy of News.com.au )

UNFAIR ADVANTAGE ???? DID TENNIS AUSTRALIA REALLY SAY THAT ??????

Hmmmm so Roger Federer did not get looked after more than any other player at this year's Australian Open and received no 'unfair advantages' including the final which turned into an indoor final for heat issues that apparently have never been seen before in Grand Slam history for a night match ??
The 'Fun Meter' is alive and well, Roger Federer owns it.........

' ONLY A NUMBER'

Betting agencies across the World must love it when someone walks into one of their stores with a handful of cold hard cash and an idea on who will win a Mens Grand Slam Doubles title. 
The proof is in the pudding, it's a chook raffle, an event that makes the 'form guide' look silly on most occasions due to the outrageous talent that the two on two format owns World wide.
Any Sports Betting Agencies who put out short odds of top seeded teams winning major titles are simply doing so because of a Stock Market terminology known as 'Market Sentiment' which refers to the feeling or general tone of the current trading climate.
Anyone who knows anything about tennis however will go through the 'stock list' and find a team who does not 'trade' regularly on the market so to speak and invest their money in what is commonly referred to as a 'high risk' return.
Sorry about the technical terminologies. I left school at the start of Year 12 to try my luck at tennis, silly idea looking back however I developed a mind from the whole experience that I will simply refer to as 'complex'. 
Tennis made me think quite possibly more than school education ever did so I suppose that is why if ever I sent my current 'homework' to my past teachers they may in fact read it with a smile and say ' Geez, maybe Glenn was listening after all'.
Either that or they may think that I hit one tennis ball too many and my brain is completely fried. Quite possibly that may be more to the point. Back to the headline.
I wasted many dollars and had many sleepless nights as I used to try to pick the winners of tennis events due to my apparent knowledge of the sport that possessed my mind from a very young age. 
Maybe it was the ego that goes hand in hand with cashing in a winning ticket that would initially send me into a frenzy of pre tournament form searching as I wrote out tickets that I believed would net me a week's wages or enough to buy a small Island in the Pacific.
Either way I loved trying to find a winner in my chosen sport so rather than just watch the event I felt compelled to put my money where my mouth was.
Dumb idea GT.
Here's the proof for you that tennis 'form' is about as consistent as rocking horse shit.
Now I am not prepared to go back too far so I am just going to give some statistics on the Grand Slams of 2017. It's fascinating.
Australian Open 2017 - Mens Doubles won by Peers and Kontinen, seeded 4. The number 1 seeded pair of Mahut and Herbert went out in the quarter finals and the number 2 seeded pair of Murray and Soares did not trouble the scoreboard, they lost first round.
Wimbledon 2017- Mens Doubles won by Kubot and Melo, seeded 4 over the 16th seeded team of Marach and Pavic. The number 1 seeds who were in fact the team who won the Australian Open, ( Peers and Kontinen ) lost in the semis and the number 2 seeds Herbert and Mahut lost in round 2.
French Open 2017 - Mens Doubles won by Harrison and Venus over Gonzalez any Young. NEITHER TEAM OWNED A SEEDING. 
Kontinen and Peers were again seeded 1 and Mahut and Herbert were seeded 2. Neither team troubled the score board. Neither team won a match.
US OPEN 2017 - Mens Doubles won by Rojer and Tecau, seeded 12 over the number 11 seeds Lopez and Lopez. The number 1 seeds Kontinen and peers lost in the semi finals and the Wimbledon Champions Kubot and Melo lost in the second round.

In conclusion I think it's fair to say that owning the Number 1 seeding in Mens Doubles in a Grand Slam is about as tasty as a fish milkshake. It is not worth the paper it is printed on and holds about as much esteem as a one armed bricklayer does in Baagdad.
Being seeded one, two or even three in a Grand Slam in Mens Doubles is dangerous territory as the free wheeling teams who seem to sneak under the radar a little more are seemingly the teams who come away with the chocolates more often than not.
Bet at your own peril.........

'MR IMPORTANCE'

At last 'Mr Importance' himself Lleyton Hewitt has gone from the Mens Doubles draw at the Aussie Open, another comeback smashed at the hands of more qualified opposition.
Not much left now.
Just the following.
New Idea
Woman's Day
( Both magazines will probably tell you that Bec and Lleyton have split again, but hey, apparently it sells magazines )
Davis Cup Captaincy
Commentating for Aussie Open
Apparently a clothing line ???
So what's left ? Well personally I feel that Lleyton is struggling a little now days with 'retirement' so he is trying his best to relive glory days. Good on ya Ley Ley. Sooner or later reality will catch up with ya Champ.
The following is from a little while ago but it still is relevant as far as I am concerned in relation to 'Mr Importance'.

1. Home
 
2.  Sport

JULY 13 2010

SAVE

PRINT

Come on Lleyton, you cannot be serious

• Wayne Heming

Show comments

• FACEBOOK SHARE
 
• TWITTER TWEET
 
• EMAIL
 
 
 

Josh Shiels could have been forgiven for thinking it was game, set and match in his on-going battle with Australian tennis star Lleyton Hewitt after a court ruled the Irish-born sportsfan owned the rights to the "come on" catch cry.

Shiels claimed a hard fought victory over the world No.31 in Canberra last week when an IP (Intellectual Property) Australia officer ruled against Lleyton Hewitt Marketing's challenge that he was attempting to misappropriate or trade off Hewitt's reputation.

Hewitt's lawyers argued Shiel's actions fell well short of the ordinary standards of acceptable commercial behaviour.

However hearing officer Claudia Murray tossed out the application to strip Shiels of the rights to the "come on" trademark, saying he'd clearly demonstrated "genuine commercial use" as he'd set out to do in 2004.

She ordered LHM to pay Shiels' court costs.

However LHM, which own the Hewitt brand, have refused to accept the umpire's decision leaving Shiels, who has lost thousands of dollars in legal expenses, gutted and facing a re-match with the Australian tennis star.

"Our advice is that they (LHM) could keep this dragging on in court longer than the John Isner-Nicolas Mahut marathon at Wimbledon," said Shiels after meeting with his legal team in Brisbane today.

"My family have been dragged through the court system for a few years now. It's draining mentally and financially, especially when you're trying to juggle a small business."

Shiels' dream, with the help of daughters Aisling and Aoife, is to establish a uniquely Australian sporting brand to go up against international giants Nike and Adidas.

But it's turned into something of a nightmare.

Together they designed a stylised logo wrapped around the words "come on" - a generic catchphrase shouted by Australian sporting fans as far back as the "C'mon Aussie C'mon" World Series cricket in 1978.

After securing the international rights to "come on", Shiels' family designed a range of t-shirts in various state and national team colours.

They opened a stall at Brisbane's popular South Bank markets, launching a family venture with the goal of creating a brand for all Australians to be proud of.

Months later, they flew to Melbourne, selling and giving away shirts, caps and other items during the Australian Open in a bid to further promote their new brand.

Shiels, who has trademarked "come on" in Australia, Japan, the USA and 26 countries throughout Europe, received support for his idea from Sweden's seven-time grand slam winner Mats Wilander.

Wilander used the 'vicht' or reverse duck bill salute, which was to be later used by Hewitt and other sportspeople.

While Wilander and fellow Swede Niclas Kroon took out the rights to the 'vicht salute' in 1988, no-one had trademarked the words "come on" until Shiels came up with his idea in 2004.

AAP

COMMENT - TENNIS STAR OR WANNABBEE BUSINESSMAN ????? Lleyton Hewitt stole the 'Vicht' sign from Sweden, that's a fact. Tennis Australia and Lleyton Hewitt please deny or confirm it .????

Regards GT

'RAFA VERY CORRECT'

Courtesy of Jai Bednall of News.com.au 

The following is part of a report by Jai Bednall which highlights the issues that World Tennis faces currently. As someone suggested, Roger Federer can pick and choose what he plays now days whereas others have to keep playing busy schedules to be able to afford to live.

Perhaps Grand Slam matches until the Round of 16 could go back to best of three which would in fact keep players fresher until the business end of the tournament. It used to be like that in the good old days.

Best of 5 on a hard court is career shortening though the ATP really couldn't give a shit as it's all about prime time viewing slots and sponsorship dollars that the format generates.

“Somebody who is running the tour should think little bit about what’s going on,” Nadal said.

“Too many people getting injured. I don’t know if they have to think a little bit about the health of the players. Not for now that we are playing, but there is life after tennis.

“I don’t know if we keep playing in this very, very hard surfaces what’s going to happen in the future with our lives.”

Nadal didn’t directly refer to the jam-packed tennis schedule but others were happy to continue the conversation.

There’s little doubt Federer, the 19-time grand slam winner, is benefiting from the reduced schedule he adopted when injuries were threatening to end his time as a legitimate major contender in 2016.

Other players don’t enjoy the luxury of being able to pick and choose which tournaments they play in, because they need the points and the prizemoney on offer.

So is it time for change?

There’s been a push in some sections of the tennis media to reduce men’s singles matches at grand slams from five sets to three.

Interesting debate this one however I believe the best of three idea at Slams should seriously be looked at as the obvious question is this;

Women get paid the same as Men to play Grand Slam matches so way too much focus has been on the Women to play best of 5 sets to 'earn' their dollars as much as the Men.

So let's go the other way.

Reduce the Men to best of 3 until the Quarters. It won't just then be Roger Federer who benefits from not playing much in the lead up to most big events now days. All Men will then be fresher for the initial rounds and rather than just reward the 'grinders', it will also reward the 'shot makers' and entertainers like Monfils.

World Tennis needs to look outside the square and look after the players more.......

'INDEED A SUBTLE DIG'

 COURTESY OF THE NEWDAILY 

Nadal’s subtle Federer dig

Spain’s Rafael Nadal gave a nod to Roger Federer’s star treatment at the Australian Open, cheekily hinting that the Swiss player had the upper hand because he had only been playing at night.

Federer has had three consecutive night matches during a week in which temperatures during the day regularly soared over 40 degrees.

Speaking to Fox Sports, Nadal suggested that players with more media pull got to play at night, meaning they could avoid battling the heat.

“There is television, there is tickets to sell, there is players that achieve more than others,” Nadal said.

“That’s why some players play in prime time and other ones don’t play in prime time.”

Retired star Andy Roddick defended Federer on Twitter, pointing out Grand Slams were “a business” in need of eyeballs for ads and sponsors.

Indeed Rafa Nadal is very correct in his statement, Roger does in fact get favoured. Let's face it, a 4 hour match in 40 degrees during the day is a little different than a 4 hour match at night in the cool of the evening.

Roger says he is more than happy to play during the day however television sponsors don't want that, obviously.

Tennis is indeed a 'business' first now days, as a sport it is second......

'CONFUSING' ?

" Of course my game plan was fatally flawed from the start. Pathetic, really. 
It couldn't work, no matter how long the match, because you can't win the final of a slam by playing not to lose, or waiting for your opponent to lose".
Andre Agassi
( PAGE 152 'OPEN'. )

" What'd you do that for ? I know it's a killer shot, but every shot doesn't have to be killer. Sometimes the best shot is a holding shot, an OK shot, a shot that gives the other guy a chance to miss. Let the other guy play".
Brad Gilbert
( PAGE 189 'OPEN' )

The 1990 French Open Mens Singles Final between Andre Agassi and Andres Gomez was a disaster as far as the Las Vegan showman was concerned because Andre Agassi looked every bit the winner from the start of the event. 
His form was particularly impressive on court as he only dropped 4 sets on the way to the final and he wore a rather loud pink and black outfit complete with hot pink lycra leggings underneath acid- washed shorts.
Agassi was larger than life at the 1990 French Open, the talk of the tournament, a Rock Star of sorts who loved centre stage complete with the long flowing locks which were synonymous of that era's Glam Rock Bands.
The problem wasn't the length of his hair in that tournament, it was the hair piece that held it together as it is now no secret that Agassi wore a wig to hide his balding head and as he has suggested in his book 'Open' he was more concerned about the wig falling off than winning the French Open final.
Anyhow the hair piece is not what I wanted to really talk about, I simply get side tracked easily.
Page 152 of 'Open' states that Andre Agassi had a flawed game plan, a plan that had him waiting for his opponent to lose. Agassi believes that this was all wrong.
Fast forward to page 189 of the same book. 
Andre Agassi states that he liked Gilbert's philosophy of 'letting the other guy play' or 'giving the other guy a chance to miss'.
I find it all very confusing.
Personally I am locally known as a 'hack', a player who simply gets the ball back over the net with either slice on my backhand or topspin from my forehand. I just kick my serve in. I own a two handed backhand though it's pretty average so I only really hit it as a passing shot. In a rally I simply slice it.
No doubt about it, I am a hack tennis player, first to admit it.
In 1988 Mats Wilander made just 37 unforced errors against Ivan Lendl in the final of the US Open, a match that the Swede won in a tick under 5 hours in 5 long sets. I learned to play from watching Mats because I felt that the style he used owned merit. 
After all how many players are good enough to keep hitting winners at any level if their opponent keeps asking them the question with rally balls or 'holding shots' as Brad Gilbert calls them ?
My theory is simple, same as Wilander's was, same as Gilbert's, make the opposition beat you but don't lose, above all DON'T LOSE. Too many matches are lost, not enough are won.
So is it a contradiction from Andre Agassi in his book just 37 pages apart ?
Personally I always find tennis theories the most fascinating part of the sport because every coach owns an idea or two that will quite possibly own merit however it will only ever be used to perfection by a student if that student is technically and mentally gifted.
You can't expect an 'average' club player to implement the Brad Gilbert/Mats Wilander theory of simply waiting for the opposition to lose if that club player does not own the set of shots required to make it work. 
That's stating the obvious.
So in 1990 Andre Agassi played a 'flawed' tennis match against Gomez however was it really as flawed as he suggests ? Almost 4 years later Brad Gilbert told him to basically play the same way as he perhaps did in that French Open final yet this time Agassi embraced the idea.
Interesting.
If I am teaching a junior to play tennis I will simply teach them to keep the ball in play as that surely will be good enough in most instances to at least be competitive and most juniors say under 12 years of age will struggle with an opponent who does not miss much. 
As a player grows technically, physically and mentally he or she will grow in confidence and will naturally develop bigger shots to finish points a little earlier than that of the regular 'hack' player.
So to my point, I believe that tennis has way too many perceptions to ever really be mastered by any particular player, coach or organization and it's why regular success at any level is rare. 
So if someone reads a book by an ex pro who won every Grand Slam available and that ex pro states on one page that he can't expect to win playing a certain style yet within 40 pages states that the style they believe was initially flawed is now not flawed then how do us 'hacks' simply take it all in and say ' Yep that makes sense' ??!!
Confusing ?
That's tennis...........

'POOR PLAYER MANAGEMENT'

When it comes to poor player management, poor decision making and anything else that resembles those two things then I think it's safe to place Alex De Minaur into those categories.
Back in September 2017 when the last Slam of the year was completed at the US Open the focus quickly turned to the Aussie Summer of Tennis, a time when all Aussie tennis players get a chance to strut their stuff in front of their home crowd.
A time to be cherished by every Aussie tennis player.
The Wild Card Playoff in December is a tournament that awards the winner a free pass, or rather a well earned pass into the first round of the Australian Open and the winner of the Mens event was of course Alex De Minaur. 
He did it rather convincingly as he only dropped two sets in four best of five sets matches and in doing so secured himself around $60,000, guaranteed, win or lose, not a bad pay day for a teenager.
Alex was by far the stand out player in the Wild Card playoff , head and shoulders above the rest. Some will argue that his training in Spain toughened him up for the long hard slog, others will tell you he's a home grown product. Each to their own.
Now here's the thing. Alex entered the Brisbane International on New Years Eve 2017 and made it all the way through to the semis and along the way he blitzed former Wimbledon finalist Milos Raonic in straight sets. Fair to say Alex was in form.
The young Aussie/ Spaniard quite possibly should have made it through to the final against Kyrgios as he lead by a set and 5-3 in the second set tiebreaker before finding a way to lose to American Ryan Harrison 6-4 in the third. 
All in all a great event for the young fellow and the Media in Oz went berserk.
'The new Lleyton Hewitt' some said as Alex played with a rather similar style to the arrogant Aussie himself, complete with the obligatory 'C'MON'. Wonder who taught him that......
Anyhow Brisbane was kind to Alex, kind to tennis fans in Oz as they now had a new tennis hero and kind to Lleyton Hewitt as he was gaining some long lost attention from the camera man once again. 
All in all it was a win all around for tennis Down Under, everyone was as happy as Larry, who is always happy.
Now my question is this;
Why did Alex play in Sydney the following week ???????????????????????????????????????????
Alex is young, 18, slightly built, doesn't own a big game, just a big heart and a never say die attitude. So why did he have to contest another tournament that finished just two days before the first Grand Slam of 2018 commenced particularly when his form was exceptional and perhaps a chance to go deep into the draw ?
Were they expecting him to lose early ?
Looking back, that may have been the preferred option.
Your guess is as good as mine but I will tell you also what I believe it was all about.
MISMANAGEMENT, POOR DECISION MAKING AND A LACK OF INTELLIGENCE .
Suggestion ?
Alex, enjoy your new found stardom, a few days off from your four matches in sunny Brisbane, relax, then start training for the Aussie Open. Apparently Lleyton is your new hitting partner ? Play some sets with him but above all, STAY FRESH FOR THE AUSSIE OPEN.
Here was the problem, Alex made it through to the final in Sydney and lost an epic to Medvedev 7-5 in the third. It looked gruelling.
Alex De Minaur was over played in the lead up to the Aussie Open 2018, no risk whatsoever and his effort against Berdych proved it, he was rooted after two sets. Thomas won 12 of the last 13 games as Alex served at just 150 km. Why do you think he was doing that ?????
A bit tired perhaps ??????
Anyone who knows anything about tennis will tell you that the body must mature before taking on the sort of workload that Alex consumed in the two weeks prior to the first Slam of the year. 
What he was expected to do was perhaps only something that Rafa could achieve at the same age but at 18 Rafa had won a Slam, Alex is a long way off that standard, technically and more so physically.
Lleyton Hewitt is the Australian Davis Cup Captain though not the coach of Alex De Minaur, a guy with a fancy Spanish name owns that title, so between both camps surely some intelligent decisions should have been made regarding young Alex's welfare.
Doesn't seem the case though does it ?
Ash Barty quit tennis for 18 months around the same age as Alex De Minaur is now, all due to poor management of her requirements as a young tennis professional, thank goodness she came back.
Message to 'Aussie' Alex;
'Please Alex don't go and play cricket like Ash did for a year and a half. I will manage you for a quart of what these 'Zen Masters' are currently doing. 
Blind Freddy can see that no one is really interested in how you are going, it's more about the money you are earning others and the egos you are fuelling with your talent as many are quick to 'claim' your success as their hard work.
Fair dinkum disgrace and a comedy routine all rolled into one big f... up'.
Regards Glenn

'A NEVER ENDING EGO'

"Whatever I tell him to do he does, I enjoy going out there training with him". ( Lleyton Hewitt )
That comment was printed in today's West Australian Newspaper as the hysteria around young Aussie/Spaniard Alex De Minaur grows to fever pitch.
At last, Australian tennis fans have someone to cheer on who is not a big mouth, who gives his all and who speaks well. All in all Alex De Minaur is a nice young man, however let's reiterate something that I wrote just a short time ago.
Alex De Minaur is coached by a Spanish tennis coach and trains on clay in Spain.
OK now that we have established that fact once again let's look to that statement by Lleyton Hewitt who can't quite believe his luck at present because let's face it, Lleyton is once again firmly in the spotlight. Why ?
Well it's simple really, Alex De Minaur has Lleyton sitting in the stands at most of his matches and whenever Alex does something special the camera drifts towards Lleyton and then the commentators go weak at the knees as they speak of 'similarities' and 'mentoring'.
It's one of those sporting stories that has Journalists salivating about because they are probably tired of the last few years where Tomic and Kyrgios have hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. This story is a bit more positive though I can't help think that Lleyton Hewitt is trying to claim some of the accolades for Alex and that to me is uncool.
It's one thing to hit with a player, it's another to have brought them up from knee high to a grasshopper into a technically and mentally gifted player. Tennis however is full of stories like that as some coaches go to extraordinary lengths to 'claim' players as basically their own product.
" Whatever I tell him to do he does ".
A never ending ego will come out with that type of statement every day of the week as it puts the focus right on you as THE ONE who is teaching the student how to play the game. Bad choice of words ? 
Well personally I would have said something like this, 'Whatever I SUGGEST to young Alex he appears to be able to implement into our strategy sessions'.
But that's just me.
Tennis coaching at any level is full of people who go 'pupil hunting' and any tennis coach who has ever run a program will talk about past players who have been poached by coaches who liked what they saw so in a nutshell this is what happened;
The 'poach coach' spoke to the student, they spoke to the student's parents and they offered something else, something that quite possibly sounded fantastic in regards to some sort of enticement. Maybe discounted racket restringing, clothes, shoes and lessons, the whole package so to speak. 
Many in fact take up the new offer, good luck to 'em, each to their own way of trying to make their way up the ladder of tennis success. 
I would like to see one thing from someone like Hewitt who has been lucky enough to be handed a player for training purposes, set an example.
'Alex is certainly heading in the right direction with his tennis and his coach Adolfo Gutierrez has done wonders with him in Spain, we are simply reaping the rewards of that hard work'. ( That would be my personal line )
Once, JUST ONCE I would like to read about credit where credit is due and Lleyton Hewitt needs to extract his head out of his own bum for 2 minutes and accept the fact that his current hitting sessions with Alex have been made possible by COACH ADOLFO GUTIERREZ. 
I suppose though if he did that it would direct the spotlight away from him and as we all know in tennis, the spotlight is everything.
Perhaps Tennis Australia could also acknowledge the fact that Alex De Minaur is not a product of their system nor a product of Lleyton Hewitt's 'expertise' but correct me if I am wrong, that would also take the spotlight away from their apparent 'success' with the new 'Aussie' Tennis Hero.
Tennis is a unique sport because it takes egotistical behaviour to dizzy heights but the problem I believe may just lay with hierarchy first and foremost. Magnus Norman got it right with his take on tennis after Wawrinka won the French a couple of years back as he knew he wasn't the one who taught Stan how to play, he was just lucky to work with him at the time.
At least he was big enough to admit it.
Takes a big person to admit that they aren't responsible for a student's success in sport, but people who own a never ending ego will continue to claim accolades that are not deserved. 
Nature of the sport of tennis.........

'C'MON'

Today's match between Ryan Harrison and 'Spanish/ Aussie' Alex De Minaur in Brisbane was a ripper though two moments defined that match as far as I was concerned, others may disagree.
There was a rather loud 'C'MON' from Alex in the second set which was not appreciated by Harrison so he returned the favour on the very next ball with a backhand winner and an even louder 'C'MON'. 
I thought that was priceless.
If someone is getting in your face on a tennis court then return the favour. 
Nothing worse than getting pushed around. It's like being at a pub on a weekend and some knob gets into your face, 'You wanna go mate" ??!
Bang, you started it.
Tennis is very much like that though it's not as prevalent as it used to be when guys like Nastase, Connors and McEnroe would do it on a regular basis. Gone are the days, a shame, it was rather entertaining.
Tennis is always an argument, it's just a case of whether it gets personal or not.
So back to the C'MON'S. Personally I am not a fan of it, makes a player look like a knob, self absorption at it's best with no thought of the repercussions. Let's face it, tennis is the type of sport where guys and girls regularly play the same tournaments together so a certain amount of etiquette must be adhered to.
It's simple really, if a regular work place was full of employees running around doing 'C'MON'S and getting in each other's faces all because of a great moment or two of productivity it would be the stuff that fisticuffs are made of. 
In tennis, well it's accepted, particularly by the public though many past pros will tell you that the 'C'MON' was simply not cool. Ask David Nalbandian who had some rather serious things to say about Australia's very own C'MON' King, Lleyton Hewitt.
" Nobody is a friend of him". ( David Nalbandian )
So back to the Harrison/ De Minaur match. It changed dramatically after the C'MON exchange as I honestly believe the young Aussie/Spaniard knew he had upset his more experienced rival, a guy who is the reigning French Open Mens Doubles Champion ( with Venus ).
There were no more C'MON'S until 2-5 in the third set when Alex broke back. So what happened ?
Ryan Harrison is a rather fiery customer and let fly at the umpire to explain why he had words with De Minaur at one stage. 
He even called it 'uncool' as he referred to the young fella moving while he was about to serve.
I have no doubt that young Alex heard the conversation between Ryan and the ump'. 
I found the whole thing rather entertaining.
I love watching young tennis players trying to emulate Hewitt, it's hilarious. It will only put them offside with an opponent, nothing more, nothing less. The whole C'MON thing is a contrived act of self importance that does nothing to endear a player to anyone and it can really piss an opponent off, just ask Nalbandian who has spoken of Hewitt doing it from the age of 13/14. 
Professional tennis players need to understand that they can in fact gain respect, even in a foreign Country if they act like fair dinkum citizens and not pork chops. You never know when you may just need some support.
So to the C'MON.
If you just say C'MON then that's all it is, a loud way of pumping yourself up, though if you put the Swedish hand signal into the equation, ( the 'Vicht' ) then it gives it a whole new meaning.
As previously stated, it is the Swedish hand signal meaning 'For Sure', nothing more, nothing less. A self absorbed Aussie claimed it as his very own, Swedish Tennis aren't too happy with the outcome. Such is life.
C'MON is here to stay, apparently, it's now an Aussie 'trademark' sign.
I just wish the great Jimmy Connors was still playing the game. He would not have accepted the 'C'MON. 
"I enjoy playing guys who could be my children. Maybe he's one of them. I spent a lot of time in Vegas". Jimmy Connors after losing to Andre Agassi in the 1988 US Open quarter finals. 
The reason for that statement ?
Andre predicting he would win easily before the match started. 
Can't imagine how Jimmy would have reacted to 'C'MON'.......