Back in the days of 'real' tennis there was no such thing as a 'serve bot', you know, the tennis player who failed to grasp the finer details of the sport so they decided to become a server instead of a tennis player.
Reminds me of a Bon Jovi video where the band members joked about what they would become if they didn't make it as a musician.
The answer ?
A drummer.
This week in Miami the 'serve bots' are in full swing, flaunting the rules of tennis that give a player a free swing at the first ball in play.
Isner and Ranoic come to mind, two tennis professionals who would require a second job if only one serve was allowed in a sport that prides itself on technical brilliance.
( Someone forgot to tell the rules guy )
So two serves it is in tennis, funny stuff, like a golfer allowed two swings off the tee.
'There you go Tiger, go hard on the first swing, if you hit it into the water it's ok, you got another shot anyhow'.
Fair dinkum who made the rules of tennis up ??
Thank goodness Juan Martin beat Raonic, the only surprise was that it didn't go three breakers with the returning skills of Raonic. Forget Juan Martin, he just closed his eyes and tried to guess the correct way.
5-7, 7-6, 7-6 for the record.
Boring tennis ?
Not many breaks.
You could go to the bar for a few beers and get back to watch the end of each set, not a lot happens up until then.
So back to Miami.
Carreno Busta plays another serve bot in Anderson, a player I refer to as a 'one break tennis player', break him once and providing you can serve over 150 the set is yours.
The best quarter final is between two tennis players, yep TWO TENNIS PLAYERS who serve well but who do not rely on the delivery to win a tennis match, they actually went to the 'real school' of tennis when they were kids, Coric and Zverev.
So Juan Martin Delpo has to go up against another 'bot' in Isner, hopefully for the sake of tennis the returning skills of the Argentinian are enough.
I am old, 49, grew up watching Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Geruilaitis, guys who could put on a show, non robotic type players who owned every shot in the book, guys who put the serve in to simply start the point, perhaps with Mac being the exception, his serve was something special.
New rackets, greater technology, sillier ideas that complicate a once non complicated sport.
Nice guy John Isner, don't mind him.
Boring as watching paint dry.
Go the returner.......
Thursday 29 March 2018
Tuesday 27 March 2018
'YES HE DID REALLY SAY THAT'
"I didn't put a lot of scoreboard pressure on him, but when I'm playing on my terms I don't feel there are too many people that can go with me".
Thanassi Kokkinakis after defeating World number 1 Roger Federer in Miami this week.
Tennis is a funny sport, played by all sorts of personalities and sometimes things are said in the heat of the moment when the blood is pumping through the veins, even after a match has finished.
Take for instance the above comment made by World number 175 Thanasi Kokkinakis after a monumental upset in Miami over the King, Mr Fed. Now for the record the Aussie has been as high as World number 69 in 2015 before injuries took him out of the sport for most of 2016.
It's fair to say that Thanasi was rather pumped after his win as anyone would be over the 'GOAT' but what he said after the match I find rather astounding. Let's look at it again;
"when I am playing on my terms I don't feel there are too many people that can go with me".
Well Fernando Verdasco 'went with' Thanasi in the very next round and took the Aussie out in three sets, just for the record.
World Tennis is full of unbelievable talent. In fact for every player ranked in the top 100 I would suggest that any of them could be beaten by each other on any given day as very little separates them technically, more so mentally. If a player is slightly 'off' in the mind then they are susceptible to a loss, no risk at all.
The top 100 are ridiculously good at playing tennis though the top 20 own a mind that should one day be donated to a laboratory for a Professor to dissect to see just what on earth gave them that mental edge.
I for one would buy a ticket to see the results first hand.
So back to Thanasi.
The young Aussie has a long way to go before he is mentioned in the same breath as some of the greats of the sport and he has a long way to go before his game really is the type that other players will struggle to 'go with'.
The win was a great win though he lost his next match to a 34 year old ranked 39 with just under 500 career singles wins to his name. I am sure the Spaniard thinks just the same as Thanasi, that his best is hard to beat.
Nothing wrong with confidence however I believe that a player needs a few more wins under their belt before they start making big time statements about their ability.
Thanasi Kokkinakis, let's watch this space for the rest of the year.
I for one hope he does well, I also hope he chooses his words a little more wisely in the future......
Thanassi Kokkinakis after defeating World number 1 Roger Federer in Miami this week.
Tennis is a funny sport, played by all sorts of personalities and sometimes things are said in the heat of the moment when the blood is pumping through the veins, even after a match has finished.
Take for instance the above comment made by World number 175 Thanasi Kokkinakis after a monumental upset in Miami over the King, Mr Fed. Now for the record the Aussie has been as high as World number 69 in 2015 before injuries took him out of the sport for most of 2016.
It's fair to say that Thanasi was rather pumped after his win as anyone would be over the 'GOAT' but what he said after the match I find rather astounding. Let's look at it again;
"when I am playing on my terms I don't feel there are too many people that can go with me".
Well Fernando Verdasco 'went with' Thanasi in the very next round and took the Aussie out in three sets, just for the record.
World Tennis is full of unbelievable talent. In fact for every player ranked in the top 100 I would suggest that any of them could be beaten by each other on any given day as very little separates them technically, more so mentally. If a player is slightly 'off' in the mind then they are susceptible to a loss, no risk at all.
The top 100 are ridiculously good at playing tennis though the top 20 own a mind that should one day be donated to a laboratory for a Professor to dissect to see just what on earth gave them that mental edge.
I for one would buy a ticket to see the results first hand.
So back to Thanasi.
The young Aussie has a long way to go before he is mentioned in the same breath as some of the greats of the sport and he has a long way to go before his game really is the type that other players will struggle to 'go with'.
The win was a great win though he lost his next match to a 34 year old ranked 39 with just under 500 career singles wins to his name. I am sure the Spaniard thinks just the same as Thanasi, that his best is hard to beat.
Nothing wrong with confidence however I believe that a player needs a few more wins under their belt before they start making big time statements about their ability.
Thanasi Kokkinakis, let's watch this space for the rest of the year.
I for one hope he does well, I also hope he chooses his words a little more wisely in the future......
Sunday 25 March 2018
'EGOTISTICAL TENNIS BEHAVIOUR'
I have played tennis since I was 12 years of age, I am now 49. I still remember my very first City tennis tournament at the Blue Gum Park Tennis Club in Perth where I lost a tight one, 5-7, 6-7 in the first round, I never forget a score.
During that match my eye caught a really good older player on the court behind us, probably one of the higher seeded players in the 18's.
His play was rather outstanding as I watched him hit a few shots though what he said to his opponent at one stage in that match has stuck with me to this day.
'You're weak mate'.
I thought I was hearing things.
'YOU'RE WEAK MATE'.
Yep that's what he said to his 'weaker' opponent.
That was my very first introduction to tennis 'sledging' which I was somewhat surprised about but I took that away with me and put it in the book of tennis knowledge in my mind to sift through at a later date.
I wondered why that hot shot player had said those words to a lesser credentialed player however as I have aged I have seen it more and more and seen it spill into coaching, nature of the sport I call it.
When I trained in Queensland in the late 80's I recall four players in particular who were complete arseholes and another four players who were rather unassuming with their everyday business on and off court.
Here's what transpired.
The four arseholes never made a dollar from the sport, a real shame as they paraded around that tennis facility as though it was their own back yard. Their behaviour included regular peanut gallery comments while some of us were trying to concentrate on our training or our challenge matches.
The four unassuming players ?
Well here's their names for you.
Neil Borwick ( World number 104 singles 1993 , World number 60 doubles, 1992 )
Andrew Kratzmann ( World number 13 doubles 2000 )
Peter Trammachi ( World number 45 doubles 1999, World number 127 singles 1998 )
Pat Rafter ( World number 1 singles 1999 )
For the record, I never hit with Rafter or Borwick as Neil was in the top squad and Pat was in the fourth squad. I used to hit daily with Trammachi and Kratzmann in squad number 2.
There were a lot more guys trying to make a dollar from the game at the Coops tennis training facility back then but those eight players in particular left a lasting impression on me with their attitude at the time and where they in fact ended up with their tennis.
The four who I speak of in somewhat derogatory terms reminded me of that hot shot who I so vividly remember at my first City tournament.
I wonder where he ended up with his tennis ?
The egos of the four loud mouths at Coops were out of control yet they believed in their own minds that tennis owed them a living and they would simply walk onto the Pro Tour due to their high opinion of themselves.
Good luck with that attitude.
Names ?
Well I can't print their names for legal purposes obviously however one day I would like to send them all a Xmas card and suggest to them that with a slight tweak in attitude they may just have added their names to the list of Borwick, Trammachi, Kratzmann and Rafter as successful tennis professionals.
Such is life.
The egotistical side of tennis coaching is rather comical to say the least and I could write pages and pages on some of the things I have both seen and read over the years.
I wrote rather fondly some time ago about the coach who challenged me to a match because he didn't like what I wrote on this site. Well he's not actually a bad bloke, just rather passionate about tennis, as I am so I didn't really take too much offence to his comments, I simply offered him a rather lengthy reply as to why I write what I write.
Last tennis season I read something that I still can't quite fathom, a coach was boasting that they had a 'waiting list' for private lessons. Seriously ?? Never heard of it.
At $60 to $80 per hour this coach apparently was so good at their craft that students were banging the door down to get a lesson.
By all reports this particular program is now struggling for numbers, interesting.
Was it all in the mind do you think ?
Well that's tennis in a nutshell isn't it ?
Ego at it's absolute best.
Some will write things on their site that aren't actually true but it makes them sound like they are gods gift to the sport all to justify that rather tasty hourly price tag that has self importance written all over it.
Tennis players and coaches alike will always own an ego because it's an individual sport, it's the nature of tennis, it's like boxing, a one on one combat sport where a knock out punch is required for a victory.
When the victory eventuates it's up to the individual how to handle the success, some do it better than others, nature of the sport......
During that match my eye caught a really good older player on the court behind us, probably one of the higher seeded players in the 18's.
His play was rather outstanding as I watched him hit a few shots though what he said to his opponent at one stage in that match has stuck with me to this day.
'You're weak mate'.
I thought I was hearing things.
'YOU'RE WEAK MATE'.
Yep that's what he said to his 'weaker' opponent.
That was my very first introduction to tennis 'sledging' which I was somewhat surprised about but I took that away with me and put it in the book of tennis knowledge in my mind to sift through at a later date.
I wondered why that hot shot player had said those words to a lesser credentialed player however as I have aged I have seen it more and more and seen it spill into coaching, nature of the sport I call it.
When I trained in Queensland in the late 80's I recall four players in particular who were complete arseholes and another four players who were rather unassuming with their everyday business on and off court.
Here's what transpired.
The four arseholes never made a dollar from the sport, a real shame as they paraded around that tennis facility as though it was their own back yard. Their behaviour included regular peanut gallery comments while some of us were trying to concentrate on our training or our challenge matches.
The four unassuming players ?
Well here's their names for you.
Neil Borwick ( World number 104 singles 1993 , World number 60 doubles, 1992 )
Andrew Kratzmann ( World number 13 doubles 2000 )
Peter Trammachi ( World number 45 doubles 1999, World number 127 singles 1998 )
Pat Rafter ( World number 1 singles 1999 )
For the record, I never hit with Rafter or Borwick as Neil was in the top squad and Pat was in the fourth squad. I used to hit daily with Trammachi and Kratzmann in squad number 2.
There were a lot more guys trying to make a dollar from the game at the Coops tennis training facility back then but those eight players in particular left a lasting impression on me with their attitude at the time and where they in fact ended up with their tennis.
The four who I speak of in somewhat derogatory terms reminded me of that hot shot who I so vividly remember at my first City tournament.
I wonder where he ended up with his tennis ?
The egos of the four loud mouths at Coops were out of control yet they believed in their own minds that tennis owed them a living and they would simply walk onto the Pro Tour due to their high opinion of themselves.
Good luck with that attitude.
Names ?
Well I can't print their names for legal purposes obviously however one day I would like to send them all a Xmas card and suggest to them that with a slight tweak in attitude they may just have added their names to the list of Borwick, Trammachi, Kratzmann and Rafter as successful tennis professionals.
Such is life.
The egotistical side of tennis coaching is rather comical to say the least and I could write pages and pages on some of the things I have both seen and read over the years.
I wrote rather fondly some time ago about the coach who challenged me to a match because he didn't like what I wrote on this site. Well he's not actually a bad bloke, just rather passionate about tennis, as I am so I didn't really take too much offence to his comments, I simply offered him a rather lengthy reply as to why I write what I write.
Last tennis season I read something that I still can't quite fathom, a coach was boasting that they had a 'waiting list' for private lessons. Seriously ?? Never heard of it.
At $60 to $80 per hour this coach apparently was so good at their craft that students were banging the door down to get a lesson.
By all reports this particular program is now struggling for numbers, interesting.
Was it all in the mind do you think ?
Well that's tennis in a nutshell isn't it ?
Ego at it's absolute best.
Some will write things on their site that aren't actually true but it makes them sound like they are gods gift to the sport all to justify that rather tasty hourly price tag that has self importance written all over it.
Tennis players and coaches alike will always own an ego because it's an individual sport, it's the nature of tennis, it's like boxing, a one on one combat sport where a knock out punch is required for a victory.
When the victory eventuates it's up to the individual how to handle the success, some do it better than others, nature of the sport......
'COURTESY OF FOX SPORTS'
I find the following story somewhat disappointing but there's always a f...wit or two in every crowd. A tennis professional is expected to do a lot to win at that level however they should not be subjected to this sort of behaviour from brain dead spectators. Whether you like a player or not, they are there for your entertainment, not to abuse....
REIGNING Australian Open champion Caroline Wozniacki says she and her family were targets of verbal abuse and threats from the crowd during her Miami Open loss to Monica Puig.
In a statement on Saturday posted on Twitter, Wozniacki said the tournament did nothing to prevent the abuse.
Tournament director James Blake responded that while the crowd was “loud and passionate,” Miami Open staff, WTA Tour officials and courtside security were unaware during the match of any threats made.
Saturday 24 March 2018
'THE SPRINT'
A sprint is not really a mind game but more of an act of strength and speed as you will no doubt have watched the great Usain Bolt deliver some amazing performances over the years.
The interesting thing to note about Usain however is that he does not often win the start, he very rarely loses the race though. That's unique in itself when you consider that in a 100 metre sprint there is not much margin for error.
Less than 10 seconds is not a time frame that you would like to work with on a regular basis and hope to come out on top more often than not. I wonder if the great man has worked on his starts or whether he simply accepts the fact that it is part of his 'game' that is not really an issue.
He seems to reel in his opponents like a professional fisherman toying with something at the end of his line.
When you look at a sport as complex as tennis you will notice that it is a series of sprints in many different directions however unlike Mr Bolt who acknowledges the crowd at the end of his race there is a split decision to be made at the end of a tennis sprint.
Have you ever taken a moment to really look at just how hard tennis really is ? It's outrageous.
Most people who know anything about the sport of tennis will tell you that the mind is the one thing that separates a very good tennis player from an average one. Most good tennis coaches will also be well aware that simply teaching a student how to hit a tennis ball is only one part of a rather complicated sport that at times resembles a jigsaw puzzle.
Putting the pieces together can be difficult.
History will tell you that only the smartest tennis players have been successful in tennis, not necessarily the players who have owned the greatest looking shots.
How tough is tennis ?
Well you can train all you like and become as fast as Usain Bolt but the sprint in tennis is just part of the jigsaw. Once you get to the end of the sprint you have to be smart enough to choose correctly what should be done with the ball and a successful tennis player has to do this regularly, not just spasmodically.
The 'flash' tennis player can do it to the point that he or she will look great to the naked eye yet will probably lose to the 'hacker' who is a little less flash but a whole lot smarter.
Being technically correct is a huge part of tennis yet I have seen many students train for many years and the same flaws remain. Some students are happy to just hit the ball in training and not tinker around with some technique experimentation because they are in a comfort zone despite their lack of improvement.
Each to their own I suppose.
Tennis, an individual sport where every student owns their own perception of what is right and what is wrong.
Same as coaching.
Every tennis coach on the planet owns a theory on tennis yet implementing those theories is like training a dog to catch a Frisbee on a full sprint.
Not easy......
The interesting thing to note about Usain however is that he does not often win the start, he very rarely loses the race though. That's unique in itself when you consider that in a 100 metre sprint there is not much margin for error.
Less than 10 seconds is not a time frame that you would like to work with on a regular basis and hope to come out on top more often than not. I wonder if the great man has worked on his starts or whether he simply accepts the fact that it is part of his 'game' that is not really an issue.
He seems to reel in his opponents like a professional fisherman toying with something at the end of his line.
When you look at a sport as complex as tennis you will notice that it is a series of sprints in many different directions however unlike Mr Bolt who acknowledges the crowd at the end of his race there is a split decision to be made at the end of a tennis sprint.
Have you ever taken a moment to really look at just how hard tennis really is ? It's outrageous.
Most people who know anything about the sport of tennis will tell you that the mind is the one thing that separates a very good tennis player from an average one. Most good tennis coaches will also be well aware that simply teaching a student how to hit a tennis ball is only one part of a rather complicated sport that at times resembles a jigsaw puzzle.
Putting the pieces together can be difficult.
History will tell you that only the smartest tennis players have been successful in tennis, not necessarily the players who have owned the greatest looking shots.
How tough is tennis ?
Well you can train all you like and become as fast as Usain Bolt but the sprint in tennis is just part of the jigsaw. Once you get to the end of the sprint you have to be smart enough to choose correctly what should be done with the ball and a successful tennis player has to do this regularly, not just spasmodically.
The 'flash' tennis player can do it to the point that he or she will look great to the naked eye yet will probably lose to the 'hacker' who is a little less flash but a whole lot smarter.
Being technically correct is a huge part of tennis yet I have seen many students train for many years and the same flaws remain. Some students are happy to just hit the ball in training and not tinker around with some technique experimentation because they are in a comfort zone despite their lack of improvement.
Each to their own I suppose.
Tennis, an individual sport where every student owns their own perception of what is right and what is wrong.
Same as coaching.
Every tennis coach on the planet owns a theory on tennis yet implementing those theories is like training a dog to catch a Frisbee on a full sprint.
Not easy......
Thursday 15 March 2018
'KEN FLACH' ( MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH )
I wrote this in 2014
In memory of Ken Flach who sadly passed away recently.
This one's for you Kenny......
'MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH'
Written June 2014 by GT
Remember the 'Get Smart' series ? Outstanding humor, Maxwell was famous for many quotes but one in particular 'missed it by that much' is rather apt for this chapter.
The 1985 US Open Men's Doubles Final saw American pair Ken Flach and Robert Seguso up against French stars Yannick Noah and Henri Leconte, best of 5 sets, as it was back then. This match was between two teams who had rather different results in major tournaments , Noah and Leconte were the 1984 French Open Doubles winners, Flach and Seguso did not own a major. This title match would cement the French as one the best teams in the world for a second year in a row or give the American's their first major.
Flach had a hairstyle not unlike the lead singer of Def Leppard, my favorite rock band of the 80's, this hairstyle would become 'infamous' by the end of the match. I remember watching Flach play in Queensland in a Challenger Tournament , he had an unusual style, very abbreviated ground strokes which he followed to the net, effective. Seguso had a huge serve, these guys were a very talented team.
Noah and Leconte had a lot of flair about the way they played , proven singles players but an accomplished doubles pairing also that sent their home crowd delirious a year earlier with a win in Paris. Huge serves , flashy ground strokes and both could volley well, the sort of team you would pick to play for you on a Nintendo computer game.
The issue with 4 big servers is the lack of rallying, a big serve and solid volley will take many sets to a tie breaker and ask for a slice of luck, as was the case in this final. The Frenchmen took the first in a breaker 7 points to 5, the Americans took the second in a breaker 7 points to 1, an unusual blow out in a set decider, the third set went to another tie break.
Now anyone who knows anything about tennis will realize that a two sets to one lead is crucial, momentum in tennis is everything, spirits can lift with a lead , fighting back can take it's toll both physically and mentally. This third set tie breaker will go down in history for all the wrong reasons.....
At 6-4 to the Frenchmen , with 2 set points up for grabs Leconte played with his usual flair and went for a forehand drive volley, no holding back, he struck it beautifully. He unfortunately clipped the top of the net but he had a 'lifeline' as it's path was straight at the shoulder of Flach who instinctively turned to get out of the way of the ball.
Now according to the Frenchmen the ball either hit Flach on the shoulder or brushed his flowing locks, either way they claimed the point and the set plus a two sets to one lead. Why didn't the umpire see it? Noah and Leconte accused Flach of cheating, not owning up to the 'contact' , if there was any at all, the Americans denied any wrong doing. The French put all their toys back in the toy box and went home, mentally, they lost the fourth set 0-6 without even trying.
Flach and Seguso were booed at the trophy presentation , at their first Grand Slam title that happened to be on home soil, such was the public affection for Noah and Leconte , two very World wide popular professionals. Flach and Seguso went on to win Wimbledon twice and one more US Open title, the Frenchmen didn't win another.
The Davis Cup final of 1991 was perhaps their belated revenge.
The final held in Lyon , France saw a retired Yannick Noah as the French Davis Cup Captain with Leconte pairing up with Guy Forget, another talented left handed Frenchman. The two beat Flach and Seguso in the crucial doubles match and they went on to claim the Cup three matches to one.
Only Flach knows to this day whether or not the ball actually touched him, shoulder or hair, he will take that secret with him when he goes, one of the game's all time greatest speculations...........
In memory of Ken Flach who sadly passed away recently.
This one's for you Kenny......
'MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH'
Written June 2014 by GT
Remember the 'Get Smart' series ? Outstanding humor, Maxwell was famous for many quotes but one in particular 'missed it by that much' is rather apt for this chapter.
The 1985 US Open Men's Doubles Final saw American pair Ken Flach and Robert Seguso up against French stars Yannick Noah and Henri Leconte, best of 5 sets, as it was back then. This match was between two teams who had rather different results in major tournaments , Noah and Leconte were the 1984 French Open Doubles winners, Flach and Seguso did not own a major. This title match would cement the French as one the best teams in the world for a second year in a row or give the American's their first major.
Flach had a hairstyle not unlike the lead singer of Def Leppard, my favorite rock band of the 80's, this hairstyle would become 'infamous' by the end of the match. I remember watching Flach play in Queensland in a Challenger Tournament , he had an unusual style, very abbreviated ground strokes which he followed to the net, effective. Seguso had a huge serve, these guys were a very talented team.
Noah and Leconte had a lot of flair about the way they played , proven singles players but an accomplished doubles pairing also that sent their home crowd delirious a year earlier with a win in Paris. Huge serves , flashy ground strokes and both could volley well, the sort of team you would pick to play for you on a Nintendo computer game.
The issue with 4 big servers is the lack of rallying, a big serve and solid volley will take many sets to a tie breaker and ask for a slice of luck, as was the case in this final. The Frenchmen took the first in a breaker 7 points to 5, the Americans took the second in a breaker 7 points to 1, an unusual blow out in a set decider, the third set went to another tie break.
Now anyone who knows anything about tennis will realize that a two sets to one lead is crucial, momentum in tennis is everything, spirits can lift with a lead , fighting back can take it's toll both physically and mentally. This third set tie breaker will go down in history for all the wrong reasons.....
At 6-4 to the Frenchmen , with 2 set points up for grabs Leconte played with his usual flair and went for a forehand drive volley, no holding back, he struck it beautifully. He unfortunately clipped the top of the net but he had a 'lifeline' as it's path was straight at the shoulder of Flach who instinctively turned to get out of the way of the ball.
Now according to the Frenchmen the ball either hit Flach on the shoulder or brushed his flowing locks, either way they claimed the point and the set plus a two sets to one lead. Why didn't the umpire see it? Noah and Leconte accused Flach of cheating, not owning up to the 'contact' , if there was any at all, the Americans denied any wrong doing. The French put all their toys back in the toy box and went home, mentally, they lost the fourth set 0-6 without even trying.
Flach and Seguso were booed at the trophy presentation , at their first Grand Slam title that happened to be on home soil, such was the public affection for Noah and Leconte , two very World wide popular professionals. Flach and Seguso went on to win Wimbledon twice and one more US Open title, the Frenchmen didn't win another.
The Davis Cup final of 1991 was perhaps their belated revenge.
The final held in Lyon , France saw a retired Yannick Noah as the French Davis Cup Captain with Leconte pairing up with Guy Forget, another talented left handed Frenchman. The two beat Flach and Seguso in the crucial doubles match and they went on to claim the Cup three matches to one.
Only Flach knows to this day whether or not the ball actually touched him, shoulder or hair, he will take that secret with him when he goes, one of the game's all time greatest speculations...........
Monday 12 March 2018
'WORLD'S WORST TENNIS PLAYER'
This story is a classic. I recently posted an article that suggested losing in the qualifying rounds of an ATP event is not the end of the dream so to speak as 'Lucky losers' have been known to walk away with thousands.
This story beats any other story you will ever read regarding a 'battling tennis player'.
'World's worst' tennis player loses again
When Robert Dee was described as the worst professional tennis player in the world, he didn't take it lying down.
Instead the young Briton resolved to take legal action against dozens of newspapers and websites to defend his name and reputation.
With a tenacity that has kept him going on the court - through a record-breaking run of 54 straight-set losses on the international professional circuit - he sent out a string of legal letters demanding apologies and damages.
More than 30 news outlets capitulated.
Dee duly trumpeted his successby posting their cheques for thousands of pounds of damages on his personal website.
However, he had not reckoned on The Daily Telegraph refusing to back down - despite a risk that a libel trial could cost the paper £500,000 in costs alone, at the very least.
As a result, the case went before a High Court judge who has now confirmed that the evidence supplied by the newspaper was sufficient to justify the description "world's worst".
The paper printed a short front-page story on Dee on 23 April 2008 in conjunction with a fuller article in the Sport section the same day.
The front-page, 82-word piece, began: "A Briton ranked as the worst professional tennis player in the world after 54 defeats in a row has won his first match."
It went on: "Robert Dee, 21, of Bexley, Kent, did not win a single match during his first three years on the circuit, touring at an estimated cost of £200,000.
"But his dismal run ended at the Reus tournament near Barcelona as he beat an unranked 17-year-old, Arzhang Derakshani, 6-4, 6-3. Dee lost in the second round."
Dee sued for defamation, arguing the piece exposed him to ridicule and could damage his ability to work in the tennis world in the future.
His barrister pointed out that Dee had won professional games on a Spanish domestic circuit during his 54-match losing streak on the international circuit.
But The Daily Telegraph maintained it was justified in publishing the story because the articles were not defamatory and true.
David Price, for the Telegraph, argued that just as it could not be defamatory to report that a player had lost one match, so it could not be defamatory to report accurately that he had lost a large number on the trot.
Mrs Justice Sharp ruled: "The incontestably true facts are that the Claimant [Robert Dee] did lose 54 matches in a row in straight sets in his first three years on the world ranking ITF / ATP tournaments on the international professional tennis circuit, and that this was the worst ever run."
She continued that there was "no additional obligation" on the paper to prove that Dee "is objectively the worst professional tennis player in the world, in terms of his playing skills".
That characterisation was "simply a consequence of his unprecedented record of defeats", she stated.
His wins on the Spanish national circuit did "not detract from the fact that he holds the longest record for consecutive defeats based on the offical world ranking system," she added.
She concluded that there could be "no rational conclusion" other than for the paper's case to succeed on the basis of justification - that the facts were true.
While weightier libel cases have made the news in recent months, the legal battle demonstrates how newspapers can be held to ransom by litigants spurred on by lawyers promising to work on a "no win, no fee" basis. They are known in the trade as conditional fee arrangements.
Keith Mathieson, a solicitor who was acting for Reuters when it was threatened by Dee's solicitors, told the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2008 that the news agency felt "it had really no option but to settle because it was faced with potential costs of trial for this comparatively unimportant libel case of £1.2 million."
Reuters was asked to pay Dee's costs of £250,000, compared with its own legal costs of £31,000.
In a later memorandum from Dee's father to the Select Committe, Alan Dee pointed out that their legal action was "only partially funded with a 50 per cent conditional fee agreement".
#####################################################
So there you go, sometimes it pays to be a 'loser'...........
#####################################################
So there you go, sometimes it pays to be a 'loser'...........
Sunday 11 March 2018
'AND THE WINNER IS' ( SERVE AND RETURN )
"Hit a kick serve, high percentage, limits the pressure of hitting a second serve. Don't hit a serve you don't own.
Don't tee off on the return, that's dumb arse tennis, make the return, take the point back to the start.
Play tennis like you live life.
Realistically."
GT
SERVE AND RETURN ( Written March 11, 2018 )
Two shots that are never practiced as much as the ground strokes, the serve and return, yet that's where most matches are won and lost, so why is it not being taught and practiced more ?
Lack of answers, FACT.
Most tennis coaches on the planet goes for the easy fix, the groundies, what's hard about teaching that ?
Most tennis coaches in this Country and every other country teach a player how to hit a forehand and a backhand but when it comes to teaching a player how to return a serve or even serve for that matter, well we tend to go back to the basics, the forehand and backhand.
When I say 'we', well I am included.
I have coached tennis for around 30 years and played for 37 years yet the two shots I have always had trouble with both playing and teaching are the two shots that can both start a point, AND START A POINT.
Let's look at it.
A serve starts a point, so does a return.
If a player can serve well, limit their double faults and weak deliveries then on top of that can also return consistently it leaves the part in the middle, you know, THAT PART.
It's the part every tennis coach on the planet teaches more than anything else, the ground stroke drill.
Ho Hum.
I watched a student play their first tennis tournament today, proud as punch, runner up, doubles comp, top partner, that always helps, but I did what most tennis coaches do, I analysed it, every point, every game, added it up, crunched the data, came up with some answers.
The serve and return are not practiced anywhere near enough as much as any other shot and today I looked upon the whole day as a learning experience because after 30 years of coaching I do not have my head stuck up my arse like some, I am prepared to learn.
This time last year I won that event with a partner 24 years my junior, we got a bit lucky, yet we won it though I remember how we won it, tactically, as technically we were no better than any other team we played.
It wasn't pretty, we lobbed,( even off the return ) limited the first serve misses, made the returns, no matter how lame BUT WE MADE THE RETURNS, we made the server think about the NEXT shot because we refused to let them get too many ego boosts from the delivery.
If you let a server get too many free points then the rest of their game raises to another level. A big server can even win from the ground if their delivery is not returned regularly.
But we all know that don't we ?
So how do we serve and how do we return ?
We do it with a minimum of fuss.
No one says you have to stand on the baseline to return a serve and no one says that you have to serve a bomb as a first serve yet if you do both consistently then surely it takes the point back to a 50/50 and that's what tennis is all about, getting to a 50/50.
I can't help still using Nadal and Borg as the best examples of both the serve and return.
Nothing big on the serve and a consistent return from well behind the baseline which gives the returner TIME. With 27 Grand Slams between them I believe the tactic has merit.
Serve and return, that's what would have helped me as a junior, as a young adult, as an 'older' tennis player in local events.
When I was 22, a year after I returned from Europe I was not good enough to play WA State Grade, the pinnacle of WA Tennis, I only ever made it to Division 1, a grade down. My first match I still remember the score, I lost 6-4, 3-6 7-6 and I had two match points.
Here's the thing, I broke serve SIX TIMES, fact, I should of won in straight, instead I lost.
I always practiced the groundies, never the serve, it cost me a few sleepless nights and many matches, that's tennis, we all lack something at any level.
Tennis coaching is a tough gig but I honestly believe that as a coach we need to look at the start of a point because tennis now days is all to do with that word 'ho hum'.
You know the drill.
Serve, step in, hit the forehand, set up the point, the 'one, two punch' as they say.
Yet we don't teach it enough, we develop the groundies, spend a third as much time on the serve, forget the volley, and the return ??
Isn't that something that you get from winning a tennis match ???
Hit a kick serve, high percentage, limits the pressure of hitting a second serve. Don't hit a serve you don't own.
Don't tee off on the return, that's dumb arse tennis, make the return, take the point back to the start.
Play tennis like you live life.
Realistically........
Don't tee off on the return, that's dumb arse tennis, make the return, take the point back to the start.
Play tennis like you live life.
Realistically."
GT
SERVE AND RETURN ( Written March 11, 2018 )
Two shots that are never practiced as much as the ground strokes, the serve and return, yet that's where most matches are won and lost, so why is it not being taught and practiced more ?
Lack of answers, FACT.
Most tennis coaches on the planet goes for the easy fix, the groundies, what's hard about teaching that ?
Most tennis coaches in this Country and every other country teach a player how to hit a forehand and a backhand but when it comes to teaching a player how to return a serve or even serve for that matter, well we tend to go back to the basics, the forehand and backhand.
When I say 'we', well I am included.
I have coached tennis for around 30 years and played for 37 years yet the two shots I have always had trouble with both playing and teaching are the two shots that can both start a point, AND START A POINT.
Let's look at it.
A serve starts a point, so does a return.
If a player can serve well, limit their double faults and weak deliveries then on top of that can also return consistently it leaves the part in the middle, you know, THAT PART.
It's the part every tennis coach on the planet teaches more than anything else, the ground stroke drill.
Ho Hum.
I watched a student play their first tennis tournament today, proud as punch, runner up, doubles comp, top partner, that always helps, but I did what most tennis coaches do, I analysed it, every point, every game, added it up, crunched the data, came up with some answers.
The serve and return are not practiced anywhere near enough as much as any other shot and today I looked upon the whole day as a learning experience because after 30 years of coaching I do not have my head stuck up my arse like some, I am prepared to learn.
This time last year I won that event with a partner 24 years my junior, we got a bit lucky, yet we won it though I remember how we won it, tactically, as technically we were no better than any other team we played.
It wasn't pretty, we lobbed,( even off the return ) limited the first serve misses, made the returns, no matter how lame BUT WE MADE THE RETURNS, we made the server think about the NEXT shot because we refused to let them get too many ego boosts from the delivery.
If you let a server get too many free points then the rest of their game raises to another level. A big server can even win from the ground if their delivery is not returned regularly.
But we all know that don't we ?
So how do we serve and how do we return ?
We do it with a minimum of fuss.
No one says you have to stand on the baseline to return a serve and no one says that you have to serve a bomb as a first serve yet if you do both consistently then surely it takes the point back to a 50/50 and that's what tennis is all about, getting to a 50/50.
I can't help still using Nadal and Borg as the best examples of both the serve and return.
Nothing big on the serve and a consistent return from well behind the baseline which gives the returner TIME. With 27 Grand Slams between them I believe the tactic has merit.
Serve and return, that's what would have helped me as a junior, as a young adult, as an 'older' tennis player in local events.
When I was 22, a year after I returned from Europe I was not good enough to play WA State Grade, the pinnacle of WA Tennis, I only ever made it to Division 1, a grade down. My first match I still remember the score, I lost 6-4, 3-6 7-6 and I had two match points.
Here's the thing, I broke serve SIX TIMES, fact, I should of won in straight, instead I lost.
I always practiced the groundies, never the serve, it cost me a few sleepless nights and many matches, that's tennis, we all lack something at any level.
Tennis coaching is a tough gig but I honestly believe that as a coach we need to look at the start of a point because tennis now days is all to do with that word 'ho hum'.
You know the drill.
Serve, step in, hit the forehand, set up the point, the 'one, two punch' as they say.
Yet we don't teach it enough, we develop the groundies, spend a third as much time on the serve, forget the volley, and the return ??
Isn't that something that you get from winning a tennis match ???
Hit a kick serve, high percentage, limits the pressure of hitting a second serve. Don't hit a serve you don't own.
Don't tee off on the return, that's dumb arse tennis, make the return, take the point back to the start.
Play tennis like you live life.
Realistically........
Friday 9 March 2018
'THE THOUGHT PROCESS'
Wrote this a while back, three people read it, however that's pretty typical of this site of mine as I simply write, think, think and write about tennis. Few read it, it's just a way that I get things off my chest and out of my head.
I was speaking to a buddy of mine just recently and the topic was 'The thought process of tennis'. We talked a long time, came up with the usual blanks. Tennis is like that, you can talk til you are blue in the face, you simply have to experiment with tennis, think like a Professor, work on the deficiencies, strengthen the strengths, pretty simple......
'The thought process'
( Written a year ago )
When you are a kid you don't think too much when you play tennis, you simply hit 'em as best you can, rely on what ability you own at the time and what your coach tells you to do. Whether or not you employ the tactics that your coach recommends to you is your choice.
I once read a transcript from a boxing coach who admitted after the fight that his pupil actually did nothing that he suggested to him before the fight ! Interesting isn't it ? Would it be that our brains are wired a certain way and we simply cannot rewire them when someone else suggests an idea that may in fact be a better idea ?
When it comes to sport, in particularly an individual sport I firmly believe that being a coach quite possibly is like being in a raffle. Your numbers may come up and if they do, well you can shout to the roof tops that you are a genius, it's a needle in a haystack as far as odds go but you may just find the gold at the end of the rainbow if all of your cards fall into place.
Magnus Norman openly lauded the former coaches of Stan Wawrinka when his 'student' won the French Open in 2015 against Novak because he knew he was not the person who taught Stan how to hit a tennis ball, he merely offered his thoughts on what Stan should do with the ball.
Let's face it, Stan knows how to hit a tennis ball 'reasonably' well, he simply required an opinion on what he should do with it.
The thought process in tennis is not one that can easily be refined, it's something that requires hours of sifting through ideas and implementing things that may help the game to be understood a little more clearly than when you first picked up a racket.
Thoughts go through the mind of a tennis player no matter what standard they are playing, if it didn't happen then I doubt they would be human. If you haven't read Andre Agassi's book then I suggest maybe you do, it places tennis at the highest standard into perspective.
Andre's thoughts during a match were refreshingly 'human' even though we all looked at him as someone who was 'out of this world' as far as tennis ability was concerned. Every tennis player has an ability to hit a ball however only a select few really know just how to play the game and it all comes down to how we think.
If there was a person out there who could teach every tennis player in the World how to think before they hit then that person would have a bank balance that would put an Arabian Oil Sheik to shame, no risk at all.
Is the thought process in tennis a gift that only a handful of players own or something that can perhaps be taught by someone who has a degree in 'genius' ?
You can quite possibly do the routine 'Ten Thousand Hours' of practice that many 'gurus' swear by and still end up a 'dummy' or you can take those hours of practice and turn them into something that gives you an edge.
Problem with tennis is simple, you are relying on an opponent to put the ball where you want it, where you have been trained to hit it but an opponent is not your ball feeder in practice, they aren't interested in your hitting zone.
A smart opponent will always take you out of your comfort zone as soon as the warm up is done and they have worked out what you like and what you dislike.
Do I have a theory on all of this ? Yeah sure I do, work on a plan B, C and D because the chances of your plan A working every time you step onto a tennis court is probably going to be as successful as your Lotto numbers coming up on a weekly basis.......
Silly game tennis........
I was speaking to a buddy of mine just recently and the topic was 'The thought process of tennis'. We talked a long time, came up with the usual blanks. Tennis is like that, you can talk til you are blue in the face, you simply have to experiment with tennis, think like a Professor, work on the deficiencies, strengthen the strengths, pretty simple......
'The thought process'
( Written a year ago )
When you are a kid you don't think too much when you play tennis, you simply hit 'em as best you can, rely on what ability you own at the time and what your coach tells you to do. Whether or not you employ the tactics that your coach recommends to you is your choice.
I once read a transcript from a boxing coach who admitted after the fight that his pupil actually did nothing that he suggested to him before the fight ! Interesting isn't it ? Would it be that our brains are wired a certain way and we simply cannot rewire them when someone else suggests an idea that may in fact be a better idea ?
When it comes to sport, in particularly an individual sport I firmly believe that being a coach quite possibly is like being in a raffle. Your numbers may come up and if they do, well you can shout to the roof tops that you are a genius, it's a needle in a haystack as far as odds go but you may just find the gold at the end of the rainbow if all of your cards fall into place.
Magnus Norman openly lauded the former coaches of Stan Wawrinka when his 'student' won the French Open in 2015 against Novak because he knew he was not the person who taught Stan how to hit a tennis ball, he merely offered his thoughts on what Stan should do with the ball.
Let's face it, Stan knows how to hit a tennis ball 'reasonably' well, he simply required an opinion on what he should do with it.
The thought process in tennis is not one that can easily be refined, it's something that requires hours of sifting through ideas and implementing things that may help the game to be understood a little more clearly than when you first picked up a racket.
Thoughts go through the mind of a tennis player no matter what standard they are playing, if it didn't happen then I doubt they would be human. If you haven't read Andre Agassi's book then I suggest maybe you do, it places tennis at the highest standard into perspective.
Andre's thoughts during a match were refreshingly 'human' even though we all looked at him as someone who was 'out of this world' as far as tennis ability was concerned. Every tennis player has an ability to hit a ball however only a select few really know just how to play the game and it all comes down to how we think.
If there was a person out there who could teach every tennis player in the World how to think before they hit then that person would have a bank balance that would put an Arabian Oil Sheik to shame, no risk at all.
Is the thought process in tennis a gift that only a handful of players own or something that can perhaps be taught by someone who has a degree in 'genius' ?
You can quite possibly do the routine 'Ten Thousand Hours' of practice that many 'gurus' swear by and still end up a 'dummy' or you can take those hours of practice and turn them into something that gives you an edge.
Problem with tennis is simple, you are relying on an opponent to put the ball where you want it, where you have been trained to hit it but an opponent is not your ball feeder in practice, they aren't interested in your hitting zone.
A smart opponent will always take you out of your comfort zone as soon as the warm up is done and they have worked out what you like and what you dislike.
Do I have a theory on all of this ? Yeah sure I do, work on a plan B, C and D because the chances of your plan A working every time you step onto a tennis court is probably going to be as successful as your Lotto numbers coming up on a weekly basis.......
Silly game tennis........
Friday 2 March 2018
' PRO TENNIS PLAYERS DESERVE MORE, AS DO THE NEXT GENERATION'
Matthew Syed is 100 percent correct and this is a great article.
Tennis Australia Chief Executive Craig Tiley believes that the Australian Open prize money should rise from the current $55 Million to $100 Mil within the next five years.
Interesting Craig.
I wonder how much of that projected $100 mil is actually going to go into the pockets of the people who are putting on the show in relation to the 'people' who are benefiting from them ??
We trust you will do the right thing Craig, considering your 'extensive' tennis background.........
the times
Give tennis players a fairer share of riches
Novak Djokovic is right. Players deserve a bigger slice of the revenue of professional tennis. They should dissolve the ATP, create a new union and fight for themselves. If they fail to do so, they will only have themselves to blame for the fact that so few players make ends meet and most retire without enough money to retrain for a long retirement, let alone buy their own home.
Make no mistake: tennis is one of the toughest sports on the planet to make a decent living from. I remember going to the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy in Florida a decade ago and noting tennis courts stretching to the horizon, with passionate kids on each one and determined parents watching on. “It doesn’t get tougher than this,” Bollettieri told me. “Everyone has a dream.”
Across the United States and South America, that dream is alive in thousands of young minds. In Asia teenagers devote themselves to the ambition of becoming the next Serena or Roger. In Europe tennis remains a huge sport, not least in the east, where stars from Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Serbia inspire legions of young people to devote themselves to a game with an authentically global reach.
Those who make it to senior level may be described as the lucky few, but that is an overstatement. Unless you make the top 150 or so, you are on the cusp of a dream that may never be yours. Thirty-five weeks are spent living out of a suitcase, hustling for training partners and sleeping in low grade hotels . That’s 35 weeks of battling with one’s own sanity and the doubts of loved ones in the hope of making that final step into the grand-slam events, the game’s great amphitheatres.
Dan Lobb, a close friend, devoted his childhood, his adolescence and his twenties to the game, and earned virtually nothing. Tim Patience, a fine coach at a club near where I live, who had many of the weapons needed for the very top but lacked that final ingredient, earned precious little too. Dustin Brown, who dazzled the world with his victory over Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon in 2015, economised for his first three years on tour by travelling, sleeping and cooking in a camper van.
Much of the response to Djokovic’s intervention on Monday, where he called for players to fight for a larger share of revenues, has focused on his career earnings of £80 million. How could he be so greedy as to want more, many asked. But too little of the reaction has focused on the big fat zero that so many talented players earn as they surf the tantalising line between anonymity and stardom.
It is worth remembering that Djokovic has called for more money to flow down the pyramid, with more prize money for Challenger and Futures events, the factory floor for the next generation of stars. A more enlightened system would make more of these events. It would see them not as liabilities but as assets. It would create more powerful narratives to connect those battling for a shot at glory with the public, who will watch them if they ultimately break through.
But more should go to the top players too. At present, they receive between 15 and 28 per cent of the revenue from ATP events, which is too little. Too much is going to tournament organisers, with the ATP hopelessly conflicted. The so-called union represents the players and the organisers, trying to act as fair broker, but instead is pulling itself into all manner of unsustainable contortions. Djokovic is right to imply that the very body that is supposed to act as the voice of the players is institutionally hoarse. That is why it was rather brave of him to speak up.
As for the grand-slams, the situation is even more unbalanced. According to reports, the male players receive only 7 or 8 per cent of total revenues, despite recent increases, rising to 14 to 16 per cent when you include the female players. This highlights, perhaps more than any other stat, the way that players have been played like violins.
By way of comparison, players in the NBA receive around 50 per cent of revenues generated by their league. In the Premier League, according to Deloitte, it is a similar figure. Tennis players are near the bottom of the pile and are entitled to wonder why.
It is true, of course, that a proportion of the profits from grand-slams are funnelled into grassroots tennis, but that is a second-order issue. There would be nothing to prevent players from sanctioning a proportion of new funds going to the lower echelons of the game, another possibility that Djokovic has mooted.
Indeed, this may act as a much-needed wake-up call for the governing bodies, many of which (although not all) are inefficient monopoly providers that have grown fat on the ring-fenced proceeds of grand-slams, not to mention subsidies from national governments.
On a wider point, what is the moral problem with players, who have battled through a fiercely meritocratic system, seeking a larger share of the proceeds from commercial rights whose value would be utterly worthless without them?
The players are the stars of the show, the entrepreneurs who gamble thousands of hours in pursuit of stardom. They have frighteningly short and uncertain careers. So long as they pay their taxes, we should not begrudge them. Fighting for more from owners and organisers is something that they should have done long ago.
#####################################################
#####################################################
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)