'PERSPECTIVE'

 Personally I despise face book , i joined it to interact with some friends but i now have 'acquaintances' of friends who want to be my 'friend', i find that just plain stupid. I saw on someone's site a rather funny line , it stated something like " I think you should do this even though i don't know you". What's wrong with this ??! Aren't you two friends ?? One guy has 400 plus friends , i find that funny, I think i have 3 but hey if i was looking for enemies , well that would be a real long list, nature of the game.
So to this site, I love it , my release, a site that has attracted way too much bad publicity but that's all part of having an opinion regarding a sport that i have played since i was a kid . The problem with tennis is that there are many perceptions as to how it should be played , taught, trained or written about. So who is correct ? The person who is teaching is always correct, in their own eyes, they are always right, the consumer will always accept the tuition content.
"My coach is the best , he taught me how to do this and that and he communicates really well, he charges me $80 an hour , he must be good, the proof is in the invoice". If a student is happy to pay that , walk away , feel good about themselves and their game , then that's all that matters. Who am I to say anything derogatory about the whole process ?! 
Just as one of my last chapters explored the scoring system of tennis, let's explore the billing process shall we? The perception of a tennis coach is that he delivers a 'professional service', well done Mr Tennis Coach, you are a credit to society. So what about the postman? The fireman? The lawn mowing man? Do they not offer a professional service? Get where i am coming from?
The problem with tennis is this, the perception is that when you are a kid you have the rarest of opportunities to make a living out of it, there lies the problem. So if a kid shows some potential , their parents see it , then the light globe goes off, the coach sees the light globe, the coach charges the $$$. Remember the return of a pro tennis player if he or she makes it inside the top 100 players in the World, a guaranteed 120 grand simply for turning up at all 4 Grand Slams and losing first round , easy money. 
The issue with tennis now days however is it's taught pretty much the same way, hit it hard , reduce the errors, remain fit, healthy, focused, motivated, train 5 days a week , pretty simple stuff. So what is going to separate your best from the rest? $$$$$ , that's the only thing that will take a kid from a good player to a really good player, let's look at this.
If a kid shows potential but his parents have no $$$$ then what happens ? They go play a team sport. Remember the coach will not do a lesson for free , he won't halve the cost, he may reduce it , but he won't do it under $50 an hour. A postie makes $24 an hour , before tax, i should know , i was one for around 20 years, i only coached full time for maybe 5 years. So the average wage will see perhaps 3 hours work after tax cover the cost of a tennis lesson that will teach the pupil to hit the ball , what's wrong with this? Much more to tennis than just hitting a ball. Ask the guy ranked 1000, he's a f..... good tennis player. He needs to employ a psychologist to get him inside the top 500.
Why is a tennis coach better than a postman, a fireman or a lawn mower man who deliver a professional service? Potential income, why else? If you get good at tennis you will earn a mil a year, a postie earns 50 grand with a fair chunk of overtime. 
Hang on, we are forgetting a couple of things ; A Tennis Coach has overheads , sure he does , Insurance costs around $350 a year, big bucks indeed. Don't forget court hire too, debilitating. So a lawn mower man doesn't have fuel and maintenance costs?
So here's the theory; If you could earn the big bucks from the above mentioned professions, tennis not included, the cost of learning the jobs would be astronomical, would they not? They are affordable to learn because the pay day is average. The potential pay day of a tennis player is rather glamorous , hence the invoice as mentioned and it's why coaches get narky over the whole industry, they believe what they are doing is world beating stuff.
 If someone has a shot at them then it's the end of their world as they know it and it's on many face book pages if you don't believe me. The underlying references to their own ego's are rife.
I hate face book but I tell you what , the free entertainment that you can get off some pages are priceless. So my point to this whole chapter?
As the great Andre Agassi once said regarding Yevgeny Kafelnikov's shot at his 'average pay days'......
Take your pay cheque and go buy some perspective, you can work that out.......

'THE SCORING SYSTEM'

I once designed a tennis tournament at my local club that rewarded each point won, it was well received , this is why I did it;
I have often felt that the scoring system in tennis rewarded the 'stayers' and not the playmakers, the one's who had the guts to go for their shots as opposed to the players that sat back. The tournament idea that we put into play quite some time ago was a format that gave you a point for each game won in an abbreviated doubles set plus the same in singles.
The singles was simply a super- tie breaker first to ten points and the doubles was first to 7 games , short deuce. If a team won the doubles 7-6 they received the 7 points for the set with a slight bonus, 2 points for winning the set. Pretty simple, a 6-4 set win was worth 8 points or a tie break set win was worth 9, simply add 2 if you won it. Easy to follow?
In the singles if you won say 10-7 you not  only received 10 points but you added on 2 bonus points for winning, hence 12 points for a singles win. What this did was separate a close match of 10-9 in singles or 7-6 in doubles, it rewarded a win. So what if you lost a match?
Pretty simple again, you received the points that you won . If you lost a set 6-7 or a singles 9-10 you still received those points and that I believe is the problem with tennis , especially in juniors. A kid can get to deuce every game and still lose 0 and 0, a flawed system that can shatter a kid's confidence who was competitive but just couldn't quite finish the games.
I believe the tournaments we played under this system had merit, it kept players in it all day, in fact we had teams that lost 3 rubbers who still made the final such was the nature of the points system, it rewarded shot making. So why the strange scoring system of tennis today?
In the early days of tennis in France sets were played to 4 games where the scoring seems to have something to do with astronomy. The sextant is 60 degrees or one sixth of a circle. Because 60 degrees made a full circle when multiplied by 6 it is believed that matches were 6 sets of 4 games each. Each point won was worth 15 degrees, or points so the game concluded when one player completed the full circle of 360 degrees, pretty simple stuff hey?
45 however was abbreviated to 40 which when you think about it is rather funny. Irish comedian Jimeoin was asked by a  bloke " can I call you Jimmy for short"? Jimeoin's answer was "Sure you can but you aint going to save a lot of time".
So 45 was shortened as perhaps is the way we now say 5 instead of 15, ie 5-30. 'Love believe it or not was taken from a French meaning of 'egg', work that one out and 'deuce' comes from 'deux' or 'two' points required to win a game. So there you go , that's where tennis scoring originated from. Before you go looking for the site to which information I received this from here it is ; It's from The Post Game , an American sports site , fantastic read and a great sports information site. (Just in case someone else wants to sue me)
Personally I like the scoring system that I made up in my head one night when thinking of a way to keep kids in matches and tournaments for as long as possible. The round robin format with that system seemed to work yet it's probably not going to happen nationally , but it's an idea.
Tennis I find currently to be rather 'ho hum' with the way tournaments are run and the way it is taught, not many think outside the square through fear of failure. Despite the amount of people I seem to upset with things I come up with at least my way of thinking is 'unique' at times. You won't have much success in playing or coaching unless your thinking is 'outside the square'.......

'NEED A HANKY'?

Here's a funny story for you , it's amazing what is written on social media pages, which unfortunately at times gives just a little too much away, entertaining though. 
A little while ago , at the commencement of the clay court season I wrote a brief chapter regarding the effort of a professional who obviously 'tanked' a match. Dmitry Tursunov from Russia lost a match to a player ranked somewhere around the 243 mark without winning one game. Yep 6-0, 6-0. Tursunov is ranked in the top 30. I thought it was worth a chapter as I find that result just a little too strange to leave it alone.
A coach has written on a site that someone in this country (no it's not my chapter) had written something nasty regarding his player, looked it up, found it, it's brilliant. So the coach , who spends time with the Russian in question was not happy with what was written about his player. Why do you think this is?
Surely the public deserve better from a pro for putting in a performance that can only be described as 'weak as piss' and what about the paying public? How would you be paying your hard earned $$ to watch that ? If Tursunov was so 'out of sorts' with his life then surely a faked injury may have been a better option and an early finish to the match. Back to the coach.....
Why is he upset with the social media comment? Why would he bother commenting on it? Did he not read the paper the next day that no doubt would have slammed Tursunov's effort? Perhaps he needs a hanky , I may send him one through the 'La Poste'.
Tough game tennis , not for the faint hearted , if you are not up to scratch in the head well your shots will account for nothing. 
You can spend your whole life looking at social media and other sites that may upset you but reality is , it will still be written. If you don't like it , don't read it, sound familiar?
Sometimes my life seems to be riddled with "deja vu".........

'THE RAF'

When I made the bold prediction two weeks ago that Noavak Djokovic would finally claim the one major that he was missing from his trophy cabinet I went on form and destiny. Remember the giant Croatian Goran Ivanisavic ? He lost in three Wimbledon finals before finally claiming the title with his fourth final showdown. Novak I felt had paid his dues and was in good form going into the French this year having defeated Rafa in Rome, good signs yet it didn't go according to form.
The thing is with Rafa , no matter what sort of form he is in going into the French Open he will always find that little bit extra, it's his home away from home. In tipping Novak to win it I am far from disappointed that Raf won it , again , he really is a remarkable tennis player both physically, technically and mentally , he deserves to be number 1.
The Raf is an enigma, how he can win a major tournament 9 times is truly the most remarkable statistic in modern day tennis, he 'owns' the French Open. If they renamed centre court it would no doubt be called something such as 'Stade Rafa Central' or words to that effect anyhow. As far as Novak is concerned well I feel for him , he is a champion and probably deserves to own all 4 majors , yet Borg lost 4 US Open finals.
There seems to be one major that a champion simply cannot win no matter what they try each year but I have no doubt that just like Federer did in 2009 the French title will one day be his, he just needs an ounce of luck. 
Longevity rewards players of all sports, I hope it is kind to Novak.......

'PAIN IN THE ARSE'

No , no this chapter isn't about you, this one is about the screaming Russian, Sharapova. I never write about women's tennis because quite frankly I don't like it however in saying that , well the French Open Women's final was an epic. Just a tick over three hours for a women's match is quite remarkable and in the final of a Grand Slam makes it even better.
They actually earned  their $$$ this time !!! I read an article by West Australian sports writer Karl Langdon and I in fact sent him a reply, most unlike me to offer an opinion. Karl believes that women should play best of 5 sets to earn their prize money , Karl has a point , but could you imagine it ?
The thought of sitting through 5 sets of a women's match at a Grand Slam event makes me feel sleepy already , especially if it was between two lowly ranked players.
My reply to Karl was simple , I told him he had a valid point but I offered another idea. I felt that a quarter final match could maybe be where the women could start to play 5 set matches , but not before, due to time restraints. Karl replied to my email and he is sticking to his original idea, can't see it happening somehow.
What he is saying however is correct and that is that women should play just as much tennis as the men if they want to claim the same prize money. The way to implement though is an issue as stated before , where would you fit the matches in ? I am sticking to my idea, the big money starts at the quarter finals so let the women start the long matches then. Back to the head line....
Maria Sharapova looks great , she plays great , she also talks well and is the glamour girl of women's tennis, the sort of player , if you were female that you would aspire to be like. But what's with the scream on every shot? Her opponent Simona  Halep didn't make a noise and hits the ball just as hard as Sharapova, so is it bad teaching? Quite possibly . If you were a coach of a kid who made that much noise from an early age wouldn't you teach them to breath out as you hit as opposed to scream? Look at Fed , he never makes a noise, he had a brilliant teacher from the start in Australian Peter Carter. Rafa makes some noise for sure but Murray is like Fed , he just hits the ball with seemingly lack of effort, good teaching.
Whatever the reason Maria makes that amount of noise though is not only off putting for opponents but it is a pain in the arse to watch , personally I turn the sound down to watch her. I don't mind a good women's tennis match between two women who hit the ball well and are good to watch in more ways than one. Maria Sharapova is a pain in the arse, but she's also the 2014 French Open Women's Champion, that's to be respected.......

'MORE REALITY'

I wrote a chapter some time ago regarding the nature of tennis and just how hard the sport is to actually make any money out of. The statistics for tennis in the US were quite astounding as the overall amount of money that was earned in the game by pro's in that country in particular amounted to basically nothing.
The reality of a pro tennis player's lifestyle is that at least two thousand dollars would have to be made each week to just cover expenses, that's a lot of money. Currently ranked 100 in the World on the ATP tour is a man by the name of Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic and currently in the form of his life, he is 33 years old. Earlier this year Victor played a tournament in Columbia and picked up $415 , that's US dollars , not quite the required two grand to cover costs.
At the end of last year he played a tournament in Brazil and lost in the first round to a guy ranked 331 , he picked up $1300 US for that effort.
In another tournament in Columbia this year in April Victor lost to a fellow by the name of Gonzalo Lama from Chile who at the time was ranked 315. Lama , rather aptly named being from South America went on to win the tournament and picked up just under six thousand US dollars. Now I hadn't heard much of either of these two players up until recently so I decided to check out their form on you tube, glad I did.
If ever a player or coach is under any illusions of just how tough the game is then I recommend that you watch these two guys play , they are quite remarkable. They have shots that the top 20 players in the World own , their thinking of course is not quite as sharp, hence their rankings and of course weekly earnings.
Tennis can of course be almost a raffle , take this year's French Open Championships for example. How did a pairing of Australian Sam Groth , currently ranked 138 and his Russian partner Andrey Golubev ranked 53 make it to the semi finals of the doubles ? They defeated World Doubles Champions of 2013 Marrero and Verdasco in round 2 and Australian Open Champs Linstedt and Kubot in the quarters, both in straight sets. Both of those results make about as much sense as Borg making a come back in 1991.
So does luck play a role in the life of a pro tennis player ? Absolutely. Look at Matosevic from Australia who just won his first Grand Slam singles match in 13 attempts. His past draws have been tough, but this year's French Open was his big chance. Look at who he drew first round, Dustin Brown another battler who is just inside the top 100 players in the World. If ever there was a chance for both of these guys to get past the first round in a Slam well this was it, the finish to the match underlined this fact.
Brown lead 5-1 in the fourth , almost a certainty to take it to a fifth set and with perhaps a 6-1 or 6-2 win in the fourth the momentum was potentially all going his way, yet he found a way to lose the match. The prize money difference was also significant. Brown picked up around $25,000 US while Matosevic received around $40,000 for getting belted by Murray in the next round.
I believe that before a family invests their life earnings into their child's tennis career they should do the following; Seek out Lama and Burgos at a clay court Challenger event in Columbia and just see how good these guys are , then look up their rankings, it may put things into perspective.
The reality of tennis is that it is a sport that does require money to learn but more importantly it requires a special kind of person to be successful at it. That old saying 'one in a million' I believe is a generous figure when finding a player who can master the intricacies of the game of tennis......

'REALITY'

I played an over 40's State Championship in Perth on the weekend and this is what happened;
I won two matches in my age group and lost the third to a good mate of mine  by the name of Brett Patten , former World number 1 for age 40. Now this match was one of those matches that I will look back on as an 'education', Brett belted me. The score does not reflect his domination as it was like me playing one of my students , he was simply in another category of tennis ability. 
The score of 6-0 , 7-5 does not tell you that I lost the first 8 games and was staring down the barrel of a defeat that would shatter a kid yet put my current ability into reality. However a few 'tips' from Brett came in handy and i started to loosen up and swing  a little easier. A good second set but Brett knew he could go up a level when required , he simply prolonged the match by rallying rather than serve and volleying.
The two matches I won were possibly two of the best matches i have played for a while as I beat a guy ranked 35 in Australia for my age group 6-1, 6-1 , and a South African 6-2, 6-2. 
Now here's a funny story. My two wins gave me enough points to be crowned the State 45's winner and overall runner up in the 40-50's age bracket , a long way behind Brett. This actually gives me enough points to now own both an Australian and World 45's ranking, what's the chances ??
Ok , here's my take on the whole thing;
This tournament was not a big tournament yet it provided me with points to gain a ranking . The tournament was on grass, I hate grass , it was like playing on my back yard, not a true indication to anyone's real form as some bounces were non existent. My point?
I am a realist, even though I now have a title for my age bracket. Whether i finished runner up to Brett overall is irrelevant because his standard is what's required to be the best not only in that age group but also to still be beating the younger players in the State. Fitness is also a major issue and to still be in peak physical  condition at 42 as Brett is , well that's inspiring. 
Someone asked me if I would like to put the article in the local paper, I laughed at that one because this is the way i see it. The tournament , whilst having a player of Brett's caliber in it , did not have depth in the draw that you would see at a State Open age championship, so the results are a little deceiving.
I have always stated that local papers print 'Mickey Mouse' stories that are designed to give 'coaches' and players a 'status' that is blown out of proportion, it's small town ego boosting at it's best. So no, I will not be offering a story on this one.
I will however take my 'Title' , as you get older you win less, a natural stage of age and sport, it'll only get worse. I will take those games and a hand full of winners that i took off Brett and put them in the memory bank to be taken out over a beer or two one day when we hit again. The forehand winner down the line on match point against Classen , the South African , well that's a shot I could hang the racket up on. 
You read some funny things about this sport , you see even funnier things at tournaments but playing against the older guys gives you an indication as to where you are because you actually have to win it, they miss very few shots. A young player will miss as many as he gets in as his quest to hit winners is high on the agenda, that is the difference, a young player will hand you victory , an experienced player will make you earn it.....

The Match - the Apprentice

.....& the Master

1991 European Touring Buddies