Tatsuma Ito from Japan was the player I was referring to in my last chapter who made 46 unforced errors in his first round qualifying match at the US Open yet still won. How do you think his opponent in that match now feels ? If I was him I would be furious with myself for not capitalizing on the many, many chances that Ito presented. Ito has gone on to qualify for the Open with a rather remarkable turn around in form.
After handing his opponent nearly 12 games in errors in round 1 he tidied things up in round 2 with just 16 unforced errors but his stats in round 3 were unbelievable. Ito made just 2 unforced errors in his final qualifying match to gain a spot in the 128 man field in New York. Making just two mistakes in a match is ridiculous but his winner count was also hard to comprehend. The Japanese player hit just 5 clean winners to go with his two 'silly' mistakes, so what sort of player is he ?
In round one he was obviously just playing 'hit up' tennis or in other words a game that had no structure or tactical side to it. His second round match was obviously one that had the mouse running around on the treadmill at last and his third was almost perfect.
Tatsuma Ito is ranked 127 in the World, a fantastic tennis player who was rather unlucky to not receive direct entry into the open at Flushing Meadow due to the Wild Card system. Justice prevailed however as he will now pick up at least $30,000 US for a first round appearance.
The Tennis World is full of players such as Ito who are technically brilliant but lack the tactical mind to take their games to another level. It does however give budding young players the reality check that is required to become not only a shot maker but one who can also think their way to victory.
The US Open is a tournament that is played on a surface that is considered 'neutral' with no advantage to any style in particular so the thinking becomes even more important. The Europeans who dominate the clay court season will struggle to make an impression in New York as their style requires the ball to come at a slower pace. The hard courts will not give them this luxury .
There is one particular section of this year's draw that I find rather intriguing beginning with the Berdych- Hewitt match. Whilst I don't believe the Aussie can win I still think that's a tough opener for the Czech. Don't be surprised to see the veteran Baghdadis push Cilic the number 14 seed in their opening match and Dustin Brown may just sneak past Tomic. So what about the above mentioned Tatsuma Ito ?
He plays American Steve Johnson, a steady player but one who Ito will fancy his chances against. If he keeps improving on his unforced error count then he may just double that $30,000 he is guaranteed of already.
So who am I tipping ? Can't go past a man who is possibly the smartest player of his time, or any time for that matter and a man who's all round game and mental strength is second to none. I am picking the man who's practice shirt rather confidently says in bright letters 'BETTERER'. You can't beat the great man from Switzerland when it comes to self belief......
Sunday, 24 August 2014
Sunday, 17 August 2014
'A PROFESSOR'S DEGREE'
I recently viewed some statistics from the US Open Men's Qualifying Event, one in particular I can't quite work out. There was a result where the winner of the match actually made 46 unforced errors, and won. So why is this unusual ?
What on earth was going through his opponent's mind in a best of three set match where nearly 12 games worth of points were handed to him ?
If someone is making that many errors then surely the style that should be played against them is simply a steady brand of tennis with the emphasis on making the opponent play . If unforced errors are being made at a steady rate then it's rather obvious what is happening, they don't like playing you. If someone doesn't miss against you then your style obviously is one that is comfortable to play against, and that's a problem.
I have made mention on many occasions the match to decide the 1988 US Open Men's Single's Championship between Wilander and Lendl. The reason Mats won this match was due to the lack of unforced errors that came off his racket, 37, whereas Lendl's count was double that. Bare in mind that this match was 5 sets, nearly 5 hours and featured remarkably long rallies so even Lendl's amount of errors equated to just 15 per set, each hour.
Wilander's lack of errors were so remarkable that he averaged just over seven unforced errors per set, each hour. This however was from the same man who missed just two first serves in the 1988 French Open Men's singles final which he won easily.
Try playing tennis for an hour and count how many times you make a stupid mistake, including double faults, what would be your average?
So the Qualifier who won his match with 46 unforced errors was basically handed the match as his opponent did not do the sums on what was happening. A smarter player would have sized up the situation and capitalized on it. If this player in question is to go ahead and qualify for this year's US Open his error count will need to halve.
Only 7 per cent of the World's top 100 juniors go on to become Tennis Professionals and just one per cent will become a top 20 player. The game of tennis is not one that requires the greatest looking shots , it is one however that requires a Professor's thinking .
What was the combined age of the two recent finalists in Cincinnati ? About 64. That's a lot of years of tennis thinking but puts it all into perspective.
Remember that kid you always hear at a junior tennis tournament? " I can't believe I just missed that " !!
Get used to it buddy, you will miss many more until you gain that Professor's Degree.......
What on earth was going through his opponent's mind in a best of three set match where nearly 12 games worth of points were handed to him ?
If someone is making that many errors then surely the style that should be played against them is simply a steady brand of tennis with the emphasis on making the opponent play . If unforced errors are being made at a steady rate then it's rather obvious what is happening, they don't like playing you. If someone doesn't miss against you then your style obviously is one that is comfortable to play against, and that's a problem.
I have made mention on many occasions the match to decide the 1988 US Open Men's Single's Championship between Wilander and Lendl. The reason Mats won this match was due to the lack of unforced errors that came off his racket, 37, whereas Lendl's count was double that. Bare in mind that this match was 5 sets, nearly 5 hours and featured remarkably long rallies so even Lendl's amount of errors equated to just 15 per set, each hour.
Wilander's lack of errors were so remarkable that he averaged just over seven unforced errors per set, each hour. This however was from the same man who missed just two first serves in the 1988 French Open Men's singles final which he won easily.
Try playing tennis for an hour and count how many times you make a stupid mistake, including double faults, what would be your average?
So the Qualifier who won his match with 46 unforced errors was basically handed the match as his opponent did not do the sums on what was happening. A smarter player would have sized up the situation and capitalized on it. If this player in question is to go ahead and qualify for this year's US Open his error count will need to halve.
Only 7 per cent of the World's top 100 juniors go on to become Tennis Professionals and just one per cent will become a top 20 player. The game of tennis is not one that requires the greatest looking shots , it is one however that requires a Professor's thinking .
What was the combined age of the two recent finalists in Cincinnati ? About 64. That's a lot of years of tennis thinking but puts it all into perspective.
Remember that kid you always hear at a junior tennis tournament? " I can't believe I just missed that " !!
Get used to it buddy, you will miss many more until you gain that Professor's Degree.......
Saturday, 16 August 2014
'THE RALLY BALL'
In 1995 at The US Open Men's Final between Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras a ten shot exchange was timed at 10.5 seconds. Shall we put this into perspective ? That sort of hitting is basically 'ping pong' or table tennis hitting yet these two made it look easy. The entire rally lasted 20 shots but the 10 shots that were timed at that mentioned speed were possibly some of the hardest hitting you will ever witness.
So why doesn't this sort of hitting happen more regularly ? It does, in junior tennis, not in the big league. The best players in the World are the best because they know their limitations, most kids do not own that sort of thinking. So what about the rally between the two Americans in 1995 ?
The rally was actually at set point for Sampras , in the first set, so what did Agassi have to lose ? He basically just said " Ok Pete I am going to keep belting this thing , if you are better at it then you have the set" Unfortunately for Andre that was the case, Sampras was just that , too good, he won the rally, the set , the title match in 4 sets.
I am not knocking kids , it is a game that requires a huge learning curve and one that requires experimentation so trying to out hit an opponent at age 13 or 14 is common. The problem is this; Unless the ball is hit with a huge amount of spin then the hard hitting will account for nothing, a kid will miss more than he or she gets in. Why is this ?
Tennis is taught predominantly the same way , hit hard , reasonably flat and from close to the baseline, all pretty much 'ho hum tennis'. It's all about taking time away from the opponent.
There is a picture of Nadal , a birds eye shot of the great man receiving serve from around 10 foot behind the baseline. So why isn't this position taught more by the modern tennis coach?
This position allows time to think, it gives a player time to swing, it creates a 50/50 play where the serve is not a hit/ miss type of situation. Borg was the master at this and Rafa is the modern day master, they will both go down in history as two of the greatest ever returners the game has ever seen. Agassi was altogether different as sometimes he would be two feet inside the baseline to receive a serve from possibly one of the greatest servers of all time Pete Sampras.
It is not essential to stand up to receive serve now days as there are very few serve volleyer's , so why rush the return ? In doubles sure stand up if the guys are rushing in but in singles why not stay back and give yourself some time ?
As you get older in tennis you will develop better timing, until then give yourself some time to hit each shot, especially the return, it's possibly the most important shot in the game apart from the rally ball. If you get the serve back regularly then you will naturally be able to start a rally , missing returns will put you in trouble right from the outset.
Imagine if a game was started with an underarm serve, each return would come back 99 per cent of the time, so why not treat a serve just like that ? If you get it back then it comes down to who is the better rally ball player, not the best returner.
Give yourself time in tennis, standing up on the base line is an ego thing , not a smart thing, have a look at the Spaniard who 'owns' the French Open and look where he stands, not only to receive but to rally. Take note also of how high he hits his ball over the net, it gives him time to make position.
Tennis doesn't need to follow a trend , it needs to be thought out realistically.......
So why doesn't this sort of hitting happen more regularly ? It does, in junior tennis, not in the big league. The best players in the World are the best because they know their limitations, most kids do not own that sort of thinking. So what about the rally between the two Americans in 1995 ?
The rally was actually at set point for Sampras , in the first set, so what did Agassi have to lose ? He basically just said " Ok Pete I am going to keep belting this thing , if you are better at it then you have the set" Unfortunately for Andre that was the case, Sampras was just that , too good, he won the rally, the set , the title match in 4 sets.
I am not knocking kids , it is a game that requires a huge learning curve and one that requires experimentation so trying to out hit an opponent at age 13 or 14 is common. The problem is this; Unless the ball is hit with a huge amount of spin then the hard hitting will account for nothing, a kid will miss more than he or she gets in. Why is this ?
Tennis is taught predominantly the same way , hit hard , reasonably flat and from close to the baseline, all pretty much 'ho hum tennis'. It's all about taking time away from the opponent.
There is a picture of Nadal , a birds eye shot of the great man receiving serve from around 10 foot behind the baseline. So why isn't this position taught more by the modern tennis coach?
This position allows time to think, it gives a player time to swing, it creates a 50/50 play where the serve is not a hit/ miss type of situation. Borg was the master at this and Rafa is the modern day master, they will both go down in history as two of the greatest ever returners the game has ever seen. Agassi was altogether different as sometimes he would be two feet inside the baseline to receive a serve from possibly one of the greatest servers of all time Pete Sampras.
It is not essential to stand up to receive serve now days as there are very few serve volleyer's , so why rush the return ? In doubles sure stand up if the guys are rushing in but in singles why not stay back and give yourself some time ?
As you get older in tennis you will develop better timing, until then give yourself some time to hit each shot, especially the return, it's possibly the most important shot in the game apart from the rally ball. If you get the serve back regularly then you will naturally be able to start a rally , missing returns will put you in trouble right from the outset.
Imagine if a game was started with an underarm serve, each return would come back 99 per cent of the time, so why not treat a serve just like that ? If you get it back then it comes down to who is the better rally ball player, not the best returner.
Give yourself time in tennis, standing up on the base line is an ego thing , not a smart thing, have a look at the Spaniard who 'owns' the French Open and look where he stands, not only to receive but to rally. Take note also of how high he hits his ball over the net, it gives him time to make position.
Tennis doesn't need to follow a trend , it needs to be thought out realistically.......
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
'THANKS BUDDY'
Good point Champ but remember , a high bouncing ball off either side is more difficult to get back than a hard drive that is right in the slot. A regular rally ball with a high bounce would be a shot that most players of any standard would struggle with.
That's why Rafa's regular 'holding shot' can still win him free points or set him up for the big one.
A weapon is essential however until you receive a short ball you need to have the ability to still trouble your opponent. The high ball does just that.
Thanks for your input Champ , you are thinking like a tennis player......
That's why Rafa's regular 'holding shot' can still win him free points or set him up for the big one.
A weapon is essential however until you receive a short ball you need to have the ability to still trouble your opponent. The high ball does just that.
Thanks for your input Champ , you are thinking like a tennis player......
Sunday, 10 August 2014
'THE NEW BREED'
Firstly I must send an apology out there for doing something I do from time to time, have a look at other tennis sites on the net, I apologize for being inquisitive. I tell you what though I do find it amusing as the new breed of 'Tennis Coach' strives for that all important 'ego boost' that will make them sleep well at night and make them walk a foot taller the next day.
On reading some comments you get a realization that tennis has definitely changed some what over the years, read on...
One of my favourite's was "we are leading the way in tennis coaching". Fair dinkum you guys if you were 'leading the way' then your players would be cleaning up at every tournament available, I don't believe this is the case, correct me if I am wrong.
How about this one " we will break you then rebuild you"!!! Yep this was right up there with the best of the comments I have seen . Maybe this idiot should take on a sport such as AFL or Rugby where that sort of dialogue is more appropriate. 'Breaking' kids in a sport such as tennis isn't what I would call a 'positive' message.
And then of course there is the 'Facebook Tennis Coach', you know the one who has more hits on the site than their pupils have accurate ones on court. The one's that crave the attention and brag about just how many people look at their pages of 'wisdom' are by far the most amusing. These 'coaches' remind me of the kid who never received much attention as a youngster, but now it's their time , albeit on a computer counter. "Billy Blogs 'LIKES' this" , you attention seekers thrive off the 'LIKES' don't you ?
I love reading these 'guru's' students' results especially the 'consolation' victories, come on you guys , I think you are just trying to fill up a bit of space with 'practice match' results. Sounds good though to people reading the article who are none the wiser. "Hey did you see where Jonny Smith made it to the semi's at the State Champs in the consolation ? Not sure what this consolation thing is but this kid must have a good coach "!!
You guys need to extract your heads from you know where and just do your 'jobs' without the 'Mickey Mouse' stuff that seems to be a bigger part of the sport now. Forget 'breaking' kids, just teach them the game without the gimmicks. Site and face book 'hits' aint going to make your pupils better players , why not concentrate on the on court hitting instead ??
'Exaggerated' newspaper articles will not do you any favours either because there is always someone who will read it who will see straight through it for what it really is.
The new breed of player needs the new breed of coach to teach them how to play the game of tennis , forget the garbage, it's important to you, no one else. People will eventually talk about you if your students start winning consistently, then everyone will 'LIKE' you. The New Breed, fair dinkum.......
On reading some comments you get a realization that tennis has definitely changed some what over the years, read on...
One of my favourite's was "we are leading the way in tennis coaching". Fair dinkum you guys if you were 'leading the way' then your players would be cleaning up at every tournament available, I don't believe this is the case, correct me if I am wrong.
How about this one " we will break you then rebuild you"!!! Yep this was right up there with the best of the comments I have seen . Maybe this idiot should take on a sport such as AFL or Rugby where that sort of dialogue is more appropriate. 'Breaking' kids in a sport such as tennis isn't what I would call a 'positive' message.
And then of course there is the 'Facebook Tennis Coach', you know the one who has more hits on the site than their pupils have accurate ones on court. The one's that crave the attention and brag about just how many people look at their pages of 'wisdom' are by far the most amusing. These 'coaches' remind me of the kid who never received much attention as a youngster, but now it's their time , albeit on a computer counter. "Billy Blogs 'LIKES' this" , you attention seekers thrive off the 'LIKES' don't you ?
I love reading these 'guru's' students' results especially the 'consolation' victories, come on you guys , I think you are just trying to fill up a bit of space with 'practice match' results. Sounds good though to people reading the article who are none the wiser. "Hey did you see where Jonny Smith made it to the semi's at the State Champs in the consolation ? Not sure what this consolation thing is but this kid must have a good coach "!!
You guys need to extract your heads from you know where and just do your 'jobs' without the 'Mickey Mouse' stuff that seems to be a bigger part of the sport now. Forget 'breaking' kids, just teach them the game without the gimmicks. Site and face book 'hits' aint going to make your pupils better players , why not concentrate on the on court hitting instead ??
'Exaggerated' newspaper articles will not do you any favours either because there is always someone who will read it who will see straight through it for what it really is.
The new breed of player needs the new breed of coach to teach them how to play the game of tennis , forget the garbage, it's important to you, no one else. People will eventually talk about you if your students start winning consistently, then everyone will 'LIKE' you. The New Breed, fair dinkum.......
Saturday, 9 August 2014
'THE SWEDES IN PARIS'
When Borg retired he actually did what not too many players have ever done, left the game as a defending Grand Slam Champion, as he did in 1981. Mats Wilander kept the French Open Men's Single's Title in Swedish hands with an amazing run as a 17 year old in '82 that gave Sweden the title for five years running. Wilander won it on two more occasions following in Borg's footsteps who won it six times giving Sweden a total of nine French Open Singles titles between 1974 and 1988.
The Swedes could have had an even more dominant hold on the title in Paris but had to be content with three runner up performances. Wilander lost in the final in '83 and '87 and Stefan Edberg could've completed a career Grand Slam had he converted break points in '89. Edberg lead two sets to one against 17 year old Michael Chang and at 4 games all in the fourth had break point opportunities. He lost the fourth 4-6 but broke Chang in the opening game of the fifth yet he only won one more game.
In 1986 little known Swede Mikael Pernfors made it all the way through to the Men's Singles Final unseeded where he lost in straight sets to Ivan Lendl.
In Men's Doubles the Swede's were also prominent in the 80's and 90's which all started in 1983 with a young pair by the name of Anders Jarryd and Hans Simonsson. These two surprised the tennis world as an unseeded pair and even won the final in straight sets against the Australian / American pairing of Edmondson and Stewart.
Jarryd went on to win the Men's Doubles title in Paris on two more occasions, in '87 with American Rob Seguso and in '91 with Australian John Fitzgerald. From memory I believe that Jarryd and Fitgerald were in fact the first Men's Doubles team to win a million dollars in prize money in one year.
The Swedes love affair with Paris from the first title won by Borg in 1974 to the victory by Jarryd in '91 with 'Fitzy' netted them nine singles titles, three doubles crowns, four singles runner ups plus three doubles finals appearances. Putting it into perspective, this means that Sweden produced a Men's Singles finalist fifty percent of the time over a period of 18 years, that is quite remarkable. In Men's Doubles over the same time span the Swedes averaged at least one player in the final every three years.
So why the success at The French Open for the Swedes? Bjorn Borg inspired a new generation of players from Scandinavia and he taught them a way of playing that was simple yet effective. Not one of the above mentioned players had a real weapon, except maybe for Edberg who's serve and volley was exceptional. So what made their games so effective? They didn't miss .
They developed their ground strokes on the same surface as the French Open which was like playing in their own back yards . Their shots weren't overwhelming but they hit so few errors that playing against them was like hitting against a wall. This way of playing was proven to be a winning style as Borg's game was a model of consistency, a proven way of winning. Borg would not hit a winner unless he was pressured by a net rusher, he was simply content to out rally his opponents , that takes a strong mind and body.
The Swedes in Paris were inspiring in a golden era for their country and they were as much a part of the tournament back then as Paris in the Spring is part of folklore.....
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
'FOUND THIS'
'LEGEND'( I thought this chapter was worth a 'RE POST') My apologies to all who enjoy reading this site however I have been too busy to write lately, will attempt to update soon, regards GT)
Stefan Koubek is no house hold name, he never was, he was a tennis professional from Austria and in 2000 he reached a career high of World number 20 in singles. He made over 3 million dollars in prize money. Stefan Koubek was an 'enigma'. Here's some random stories regarding the life and 'infamous' times of the Austrian who a movie should be made about, here's why;In 2002 Koubek played a Frenchman by the name of Cyril Saulnier of France in the first round of the Australian Open. What the hell was Koubec doing while trailing 0-6, 1-6, 1-4, 15-40 ? Was he on the phone to his bookie to raise the odds at the change of ends ?? The Austrian put his opponent to sleep for nearly the entire first three sets then while the Frenchman was tucked up in bed with his victory speech already in his dreams, the scoreline in the paper the next day read Koubek def Saulnier 0-6, 1-6, 7-6, 6-4, 8-6, work that one out......
Next round he played American James Blake , (within 4 years Blake would become World number 4) Blake won the first two sets while Koubek was still eating his breakfast, 6-4, 6-2. Koubek wins the next three sets 6-4, 6-1, 6-2, does this make any sense?
In his last seven matches of 2002 Koubek lost in the first round, interesting to say the least.....
In 2004 Koubek tested positive to drug use at the French Open. He claimed it was for an 'injury' to his wrist, it was inconclusive......
Koubek had a couple of 'off years' , he played mainly Challenger Events before 'getting it together' in 2007.
The Australian Open of that year saw the Austrian up against Aussie Wayne Arthurs, playing his last Australian Open , Koubek had him on toast, two sets to love, he lost in 5, hmmmm....
In Sopot , Poland in 2007 Koubek played Augustine Calleri of Argentina, this match was ridiculous. In Koubek's previous tournament he lost 4-6, 0-6 so his very next match was the one against Calleri. Shall we put it into perspective?
Koubek lost his last tournament 0-6 in the second set , then trailed 0-6, 0-4 in his next outing, what was this guy doing??
At 6-0, 4-0 did the Argentinian get a call from Cyril Saulnier ?? What ever happened will go down in tennis history as possibly the most ridiculous match ever played.
Koubek def Calliri 0-6, 7-6, 7-5, saving 5 match points, is there a pattern here ??
In Metz , France , Koubek took on Sebastien Grosjean, he lead 5-7, 7-6, 4-2, in the driver's seat, received a bad call , went nuts, was disqualified, is there a pattern here ??
In 2010 a 'friendly' league match between two Austrians, Koubek and Daniel Kollerer got way out of hand as Koubek took offence to his opponent's language so he did what anyone else would do, he choked him. Yep he put his hand around his opponent's neck and tried to kill him , plenty of us have wanted to do the same to our opposition, however it's probably not in the book of 'tennis etiquette'. Kollerer however was no angel, he had a string of offences in World Tennis including racism taunts towards opponents, he was banned for life in 2011 for match fixing.
So what about our Austrian live wire Stefan Koubek? He retired in 2011 with just over three million earned. Take off tax and expenses, add on endorsements, he probably finished with around two mil in the bank. Enough to buy a villa in the Austrian alps and teach the next generation how to play, perhaps with not as much 'exuberance' as he did though.
Funny game tennis, Stefan Koubek of Austria is living proof, legend......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)