tennis a rich persons sport

Victor Estrella Burgos of the Dominican Republic is one of those typical tennis stories that have you both proud of the man himself yet almost angry at the sport and the way in which it is run. 

Victor didn't even turn pro until he turned 26 years of age, Borg was the same age when he retired. The reason the inspirational little man from the Caribbean didn't turn pro earlier was because he couldn't afford to, pretty simple really. So it begs the question, what if he had the funding to turn pro as a teenager or in his early twenties at least ? Many what if's with Victor Estrella Burgos.

I wrote a post on my site quite some time ago about this man because I was taken back by his desire to earn his spot in the Tennis World amongst the big guns albeit as a 'veteran' right from the very start.

The yearly expenses of a tennis pro add up to around $150,000 including coaching also which means that three grand is needed per week just to make ends meet. Now that figure has not been plucked from thin air, it appears to be a fact.

The USTA has stated that it costs around $143,000 per year to fund the life of a Pro Tennis player however that figure could actually be halved by some. Apparently it costs $70,000 alone just to fund a travelling coach for the year so if you are a struggling player you may not even consider a coach. 

Tough to get better if you don't have someone analysing your matches and explaining where the improvement needs to happen.

I have always been rather bemused at the ever increasing prize money at the Grand Slams in particular as I am sure that all players would be more than happy with a 'capped' two million for a title win. Yet each year we read on in awe of the three or four million dollar first prize for a Grand Slam win which is more than an average Lotto win in the land of Oz.

I have often stated that I firmly believe the next Novak is sliding around on a clay court somewhere in an obscure South American Challenger event relying on a semi final showing just to break even for the week. 

The pressure to perform would be nothing short of enormous. Some say that it's the nature of the sport where only the strongest survive but I disagree with that.

If you have bucket loads of money you do not have to make the semis each time you play because you have a financial back up and no pressure as far as a time frame is concerned. 

Look at Victor's circumstances, he saved his coaching money and received nothing else to help him speed up the process of getting him on tour. 

That to me is a blight on the entire tennis system that boasts $100,000,000 in Novak's account now days, ( Before Tax of course ). 

Unless you are a 'once in a generation' talent such as Zverev or Coric you will scratch around for years on the Challenger Circuit earning the equivalent some weeks of a Check Out chick's K Mart wage. 

Victor Estrella Burgos is a man who could have been a top twenty player if he had the funds to support himself at an earlier age, no risk whatsoever. It is inspiring to read his story, one that gives us all a more realistic view of just how tough the sport can be to break through.

As one last example that I believe to be most relevant, when Victor was just 23 he defeated a then 18 year old Pablo Cuevas of Uruguay in three straight sets in a Davis Cup match. Victor was ranked 1,110. Yes that isn't a mis print, ONE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TEN. Cuevas reached a high of World number 19 in 2016.

As Victor says, he had the ability, just not the finances to make it happen.

A rich person's sport indeed is tennis........

'THE GOAT' ( GREATEST OF ALL TIME )

The debate about who is the greatest tennis player of all time has been going for as long as I can remember and unfortunately the great Rod Laver, due to politics, will only be remembered as ONE of the greatest tennis players of all time.
If 'Rocket' had played those five years that he was banned then it would be a massive understatement to say that Federer and Nadal would only be vying for second and third on the all-time list of Grand Slam titles.
Rod Laver played in an era that was simply not on the same page as today's Walt Disney type of script where a Spanish lefty and a Swiss genius dominate the record books.
We should always remember just how good 'Rocket' was as a tennis player despite a rather 'modest' Grand Slam record that continues to be belittled by the aforementioned players.
So to those two;
Many swear that Roger Federer will ALWAYS be the greatest player of all time, or is simple terms, the GOAT, though I beg to differ.
Let's look at these two players and dissect a few facts and figures.
Rafael Nadal leads Roger Federer by 24 wins to 16 in head to head singles matches.
The Spanish legend also owns a 10-4 win/ loss record in Grand Slam meetings between the two.
In Paris, on Rafa's favourite surface, clay, the Spaniard leads six matches to zero.
At the Australian Open, Nadal leads 3-1.
The two quite surprisingly have never met at the US Open.
At Wimbledon, Federer leads 3-1.
So what do all of those figures tell us?
Personally, I believe that Rafa is all over Roger and unlike Novak Djokovic who initially used to get beaten up badly by Roger, well, Rafa has never been afraid of Federer. In fact, at the Miami Masters in 2004 a 17-year-old long-haired upstart from Mallorca belted the then World Number 1 by the score of 6-3, 6-3. 
By that same time, Federer had already won four Grand Slam titles.
In fact, by 2010, Federer led Nadal by as much as 16 Grand Slam titles to 9.
As it stands at the end of the 2019 Grand Slam run, Rafa sits just one behind Roger at 19- 20.
Personally, I have never witnessed such an egotistical obsession between two sportsmen in the run home to be known as THE GREATEST. Once again, let's spare a thought for Rod Laver who quite possibly would have retired on perhaps 25 Grand Slam titles, and I believe that's being conservative.
Right from the start of his career, Rafa was after Roger's mantle which was rather obvious in that Miami thumping when most 'normal' 17-year-olds boys were playing soccer or trying to impress girls at lunch hour in High School.
Rafa was no ordinary kid.
When he was 16 he beat the then World Number 4 and his mentor Carlos Moya in straight sets at the Hamburg Masters in Germany. 
What were you doing when you were 16??!!
It seems that Rafa had a vision right from day one on a tennis court and that was to be the best ever. At one stage Roger Federer led Rafa by as many as 9 Grand Slam titles yet even that figure did not seem to be a daunting one for the Spaniard as he has reeled them in with the precision and patience of a surgeon.
So are we forgetting the OTHER tennis player who owns a rather healthy Grand Slam record also?
Well for some reason Novak Djokovic has managed to escape the hype that Roger and Rafa have created although that may just be human nature as we only look at first and second in most instances, let's be honest here.
When Nick Faldo came back from 6 strokes behind Greg Norman at the Augusta Masters Golf in 1996 do you remember who came third?
When Usain Bolt won the 100 metres over Justin Gatlin at the 2015 World Athletic Championships who came third?
Most brains can only ever digest first and second in any walk of life.
Novak Djokovic though, in my most humblest of opinions will surpass both Federer and Nadal in Grand Slam title wins, he has to, he is the youngest of all three and seems to save his best for the big titles. 
He owns no fear of Federer nowadays as he proved in the Wimbledon Men's Singles Final of 2019 after being down two Championship points.
That's not easy to turn around.
He also owns no fear of becoming the greatest, some have struggled with that label in past years.
Novak sits at 16 Slam wins. Barring injury, he will become the greatest Grand Slam winner of all time, with a leg in the air, no risk at all.
Tennis is a funny sport, that's stating the obvious and I often refer to it as egotistical, however, there is a reason for that and I could state many examples, but here's just two;
Andre Agassi once labelled Jimmy Connors an 'egotist'.
Now I like Andre but that comment lacks substance coming from a player who once said "Image is everything" in a Nike television ad. 
He coulda said no.
Or going on a 'Summer of revenge' against the great Boris Becker in 1995 that gained many pages in his bestseller 'Open'. 
That's not egotistical talk either ey Andre?
C'mon Champ, perspective required here.
Many eras of tennis, many egotistical things said and done, this current one, however, takes the cake.
Federer has just announced he will play the Olympics next year in Tokyo.
If Rafa wasn't going to, well, I reckon he will now.........

Glenn Thompson

ATP BIASED UMPIRES

At the Madrid Masters in May this year, Alexander Zverev was about to serve to his opponent Stefanos Tsitsipas when he looked up and found that Stefanos was nowhere to be found.

Stefanos took a little extra time after a point and went for the towel at the back of the court even though it seems to be a tennis rule that the receiver must play to the server's tune. 

On this particular occasion, however, the receiver was not ready so the server walked away from the baseline rather than simply wait and watch, because you see in tennis, that's what happens. 

It's an ego thing where players like to have the upper hand and when a player is not 'bowing' to the opposition's 'requirements', well many players will walk away and come back when the opponent is ready, rather than stand there and wait.

Again, it's an ego thing.

That's tennis.

In this particular match, the umpire made quite possibly the dumbest call I have ever witnessed, he gave the server, Zverev a time violation for not serving within the allotted 25 seconds, even though it was an impossibility due to the simple fact that his opponent was not ready.

It was no surprise to see Zverev take on the umpire and state his case that he was actually ready to serve some 15 seconds before. A player can only do so much in a match as it's rather obvious, if the opponent is not ready, well, not a lot can happen.

It's interesting to note that in another match in Madrid, the biggest tennis time-waster on the planet, Rafael Nadal was timed at 56 SECONDS between serves, yet no time violation was given.

Why not?

Because it's Rafa, the legend.

Umpires are reluctant to get on the wrong side of him due to his status and the fact that they may just get an unwanted paragraph or two in the Spaniard's next Biography.

Fast forward to Wimbledon this year.

On more than one occasion Rafa made Nick Kyrgios wait while he got everything in place before he received another NK bomb. Quite rightly NK had words with the umpire and explained that the receiver must play to the server's tune. 

When the umpire calls time, most players are up and about, not so the case with Rafa, he will quite often take another 30 seconds or so while he drops his water bottles in place or places his towel strategically on the chair. 

The opponent waits.

Rafa's opponents ALWAYS have to wait.

So to Cincinnati this week.

The verbal stoush between Nick K and the umpire started when NK was given a time violation for taking just a few more seconds than what he should have done, though common sense surely should have taken precedence here.

Nick Kyrgios would have to be the FASTEST player on tour between points, no risk.

The violation ticked Nick off to such an extent that he forgot he was in a tennis match as he spent more time talking to the umpire than he did in focusing on trying to beat Kachanov.

After the match which the Aussie lost in three sets, NK posted a video of him taking 28 seconds to serve, which is indeed a long time for the Aussie to deliver, though the adjoining video of Rafa taking 41 seconds to serve quite strangely went unpunished.

So what is it then?

Do the ATP umpires turn a blind eye to Rafa simply because his trophy cabinet is larger than the rest and is NK being targeted simply because he is a bit of a live wire and they know it will send him over the edge?

Are they trying to send him over the edge??

Nick Kyrgios has definitely got a bee in his bonnet about Rafa, that's obvious, though I do believe he has a valid point as there are TWO RULES, one for the Spanish legend and one for everyone else.

The ATP needs to educate their umpires on what they are in fact doing in a tennis match because it's not really that hard to do when you really look at it.

Forget who is playing, legend or backyard hack, keep the time, look at the shot clock, call a time violation if a player goes over the allotted time on a regular basis or they could just use a bit of common sense. 

If a player who regularly plays quickly has a few seconds here and there over the available 25 seconds then maybe, just maybe that player could be afforded a few seconds luxury without being given a violation.

Surely an ATP umpire should own enough intelligence to work the angles on this one.

Rafa took 41 and 56 seconds between points on two occasions at different events and nothing gets said.

NK gets a warning at 28 seconds.

You gotta be joking, or as the great Jonny Mac once said 'You cannot be serious'.

Is it just me or do these ATP umpires pick and choose who they dish out their time violations to as they seek their 2 minutes of fame in the following day's Sporting headlines?

You do the sums..........

'WIMBLEDON 2019, ( SOME OBSERVATIONS )

This year's Wimbledon Championships have so far dished up a smorgasbord of Journalist delights, however not all of the action has been on court and we have the walking, talking billboard Nick Kyrgios to thank for that.
Let's, however, start with some on-court observations;
Maria Sharapova, the screeching Russian who has battled to find her way back amongst the World's elite once more since her well-documented drug suspension a few years ago, did herself no favors in Round 1.
How can't you finish a match at 0-5 down in the third??
Was it too much of a dent to her huge ego to simply play the final set out or did it all have to be about her latest 'injury'? 
Whatever the facts were surrounding the supposed injury it's an unwritten law in tennis that you let the opponent take just a 'hint' of glory if you are trailing by daylight in the final set. 
Man up, cop it on the chin, accept the fact that you were outplayed, injury or otherwise.
At 0-5, C'mon, grit the teeth, swing at a few, go through the motions, lose with dignity.
Complain about the shoulder in the Press Conference but don't make it all about YOU on the court.

Now speaking of Press Conferences, I fully understand that it's a necessity for Journalists and Newspaper Companies alike that they take place but seriously, I do not blame  Nick K for treating them with contempt.
Some of the questions he was asked were a little lame, to say the least.
For a start, 11 pm in London is probably about an hour or so after it gets dark at this time of year so if Nick was at a pub at that hour should it really be front page news? 

By all reports he wasn't drunk so was he simply out for dinner and a lemon, lime, and bitters while enjoying his time in London as opposed to what all of the other 'robots' who play the game were probably doing at the same time?

Here's a question thrown at Nick by a Reporter;

"Do you regret going to the pub last night and do you think you would have played better if you hadn't?"

“You look way too excited to ask that question. You must have a really boring life.”

I thought that was a pretty good answer.

Another tennis enthusiast described Nick's night at the pub as 'legendary status', obviously referring to the Aussie's outrageously down to earth approach to his chosen sport.
Whilst most Tennis Pros are stuck inside their tiny bubble as far as training, diet and early nights are concerned it seems the sport now has someone who spends more time out of the bubble than in it.

After all, isn't it an Aussie tradition the night before the local Club Championships to go to the pub with ya mates and sink an ale or two to keep it real? 

How can we not love Nick's way of dealing with taking on one of the sport's all-time greats? Stay at home, play the match over in your head and get minimal sleep or go out and take your mind off it.

Have a few laughs.

Love it.

Whilst the Media outlets had a field day with that particular story I found the whole thing to be somewhat endearing towards Nick K's rather polarizing personality. 

The guy actually treats tennis as a job and not a matter of life or death and in this era where the outrageous egos of Roger, Rafa and Novak are still trying to outdo one another for the 'GOAT' status ( Greatest of all time), well, I find it somewhat refreshing.
Now just on Rafa, I don't mind him but seriously the guy flaunts the rules doesn't he?
I mean, how many service lets did he hit during the Kyrgios match and was it really necessary to go through that whole painful routine after each let serve?  
Is it just me or does the rule need a slight tweak?
Why after a service let is it not a priority to serve the next ball almost instantly and in particular without a superstitious routine thrown in for good measure? Rafa, along with Novak's ball bouncing antics will be the reason why tennis one day gets limited to ONE SERVE ONLY which may, in fact, make tennis a whole lot more interesting than some of the matches we endure as spectators.
Can you imagine an Isner/ Anderson match with ONE SERVE each?? Oh the joy of that scenario.
Have you seen the highlights of the Connors/ Navratilova 'Battle of the Sexes' match from a few years back? Now there was a ridiculously entertaining tennis match where the great 'Jimbo' was only allowed ONE SERVE and boy was it fun to watch. 
Whoever invented the two serve tennis rule obviously was a player who lacked the technical qualities required to start a point without a free swing first.
Funny rule when you really give it some thought.
Now to Serena and Ash.
A lot of the talk has been about whether or not Serena 'disrespected' Ash by acting surprised in a Press Conference at the fact that Ash was, in fact, World Number 1. Personally, I found it all a bit ho-hum. Whilst I am not really a Serena fan I can see her point on this occasion.
I mean seriously, does a player who has won that many titles and that much money still get up in the morning and log on to the World Tennis Rankings website and take a deep breath "I can barely contain my anxiety level here, what number am I today? "
C'mon, get a grip, let's give Serena the benefit of the doubt on this one, as Australia's very own 'Tennis Expert' Sam Groth perhaps should have also done. Grothy attracted the ire of many as he hammered Serena in an article he recently wrote which went down as well as a fish milkshake for Serena fans.
One even suggested that Grothy is as good a Reporter as he was at tennis.
That was harsh.
Now just on our very own new World Number 1 Ash Barty; 
Brutal isn't she? 
At 6-1, 5-1 up in her second round clash she had the audacity to challenge her helpless opponent's first serve which was called in however Ash was merciless in her approach and was not simply prepared to cough it up without another look at it.
Yet that's what the greats of the game do, they are merciless and meticulous in everything they do and probably not out at the local Pub at 11 pm kissing female Journalists on the cheek as Nick K was spotted doing in London the night before he was due to face Rafa.
Each to their own.
Wimbledon week 2 is sure to be full of tennis, tennis and more tennis but unfortunately for those of us who like a bit of the feisty stuff and entertaining post-match interviews, well Nick won't be around, in singles that is. 
I am sure he will behave himself in the Mixed Doubles.
Between you and me, I find the thought of that rather uninspiring.

Time for the 'Tour de France'........

Glenn Thompson
( Author of 'PERSPECTIVE' A Tennis Point of View)
Available on Amazon.com, paperback, and Ebook

BOOK IN STORE

GT WROTE A BOOK, AVAILABLE AT AMAZON.COM FROM JULY 1, 2019

PAPERBACK AND EBOOK VERSIONS

'A SUGGESTION FOR LLEYTON'

OK here it is, a totally unbiased update for you on just how well the latest Lleyton Hewitt comeback is going.
In the last 24 hours, a bloke by the name of David Vega Hernandez of Spain who is currently ranked 105 in the World (in Doubles) teamed with Alex De Minaur of Australia to defeat Hewitt and Jordan Thompson in the first round of the Libema Open in the Netherlands.
Vega Hernandez has amassed a grand total of $14,500 this year in Mens Doubles and since commencing on the World Tour in 2012 he has won a total of just over $127,000. So in my calculations, David has earned around $18,000 for each year he has spent playing Mens Professional tennis.
I would say that Roger and Rafa would carry that amount of money around with them in the ashtray of their Porsche or Ferarri.
As far as the matchup in the Netherlands was concerned, well I believe that was a reasonably kind draw for Hewitt and Thompson as De Minaur doesn't really own too many credentials in the art of two on two tennis. 
In fact up until the win yesterday, Alex hadn't actually won a Mens Doubles match this year.
Now since January, Lleyton has played five events with three different partners including John-Patrick Smith, Alexei Popyrin and his good mate Thompson for a grand total of ZERO wins.
So I will put this suggestion out there to the ATP.
If a retired player wishes to still play tennis should the obvious suggestion be this;
There are a series of tournaments played regularly over the course of a season for 'retired' Tennis Professionals and the tour is commonly known as 'The Champions Tour'. 
It gives players who are not up to the challenge of the main tour anymore a chance to still play the game. It can still provide a lifeline of sorts for players who are struggling with the fact that they simply are no longer competitive against the 'big boys'.
Veterans AFL is a big hit here in Australia for guys who still like to have a kick and a bit of a run around with their mates. The Champions Tour of tennis is basically the equivalent of Veterans AFL and by all reports, it really is a wonderfully run organization for guys who still own a bit of skill but simply are no longer capable of playing the highest league anymore.
So here it is, my suggestion to the Association of Tennis Professionals, commonly known as the ATP;
Please, for the goodness of tennis, can you guys consider having a quiet word with Lleyton, for the credibility of not only the ATP but for the sport itself?
I will offer some dialogue as a small suggestion;
'Look Lleyton, it's like this, you haven't won a match since January and this latest event just proved what we have been thinking for quite some time now, you are no longer competitive on the ATP Tour.
I know, it's tough but a fact of life, sometimes you just have to accept that you had your time and now it's no longer your time. We feel that your spot in the main draw of an event should be taken by a younger player who requires not only the chance to prove themselves but also the prize money and ranking points that are essential in the growth of a future Tennis Professional.
We have for you a list of events that are available for you on the Champions Tour and we wish you well in your future days against guys who are a little bit like you, past their prime technically and physically yet still an asset to the sport as far as nostalgia is concerned.
We will no longer be allocating you a Wild Card into any future ATP Tour events'.
Kind Regards
The ATP

So there you go, I have been accused in the past of perhaps being a little too harsh on Lleyton however on this occasion I believe that what I have written is simply a suggestion for a guy who is struggling with his own mortality.

Maybe I am mellowing in my old age...

'THE TAXI DRIVER'

When someone has a win at anything in life, every man and his dog wants to have a piece of the victory.
But maybe that's just human nature as everyone who has ever rubbed shoulders with a winner believes that their 'influence' may just have been the touch of gold that made all the difference on game day.
Take for example the recently played French Open Tennis Championships where a Social Media organization liked to believe that their time with the runner up made all the difference to their rapidly improving career.
Let me explain;
Two years ago, Marketa Vondrousova of the Czech Republic played a tournament in the Land Down Under, not a big event, just a stepping stone event for budding professionals, an event that the World has a seemingly never-ending amount of.
They are called Challenger Events and just about every Country in the World has them but it's all about the timing as far as some are concerned as they look to claim their part of tennis success. 
So it seems that one tournament, in particular, believes that their little event paved the way for Marketa to become a Grand Slam semifinalist, simply because that was one of the events she participated in on her road to tennis success.

Let's just say that it is part of the same organization who lay claim to being part of Roger Federer's success at the Australian Open a couple of years ago. Just quietly, they couldn't wait to get their mugshot in the newspapers as they did their best to explain that Roger graced their courts in the lead up to the Oz Open so therefore they are taking some of the credit.
I live in a small town that owns several organizations who love to take credit for a win by anyone in any field and over the years there have been some absolute classics. In some articles, the player who has had some success on the big stage is still referred to as 'a product of'....
So do these 'accolade claimers' in fact have a point or are they simply full of their own self-importance?
In my most humble of opinions this is my point of view;
If you were the one who first taught a player to hold a racket, kick a ball, bend it like Beckham or run like the Bolt then sure, I believe that you can lay claim to an accolade. If you took a player from another coach and that player's success level was rather modest until he or she started to excel then you can look at it in two ways;
The initial coach did the hard work and you simply came along after that hard technique work had been done and helped with the tactical side.
OR;
You took that player from a wasted talent and turned them into a champion through your own way of teaching.
Which way do you want to look at it?
I wrote a post some time ago regarding Stan Wawrinka's win in the French Open and Magnus Norman's rather humble view on the part he played in it all. Sure Magnus was Stan's coach at the time however even Magnus admitted that he did not teach Stan how to hit a ball so therefor Stan's initial tennis coaches should take much of the credit.
Nicely said Magnus.
So to the 'accolade claimer';
We all yearn for success, to be known as a link in the chain of success, to have been part of an event that was lucky enough to have had a champion grace your courts in the years prior to that player's success.
But please be honest with yourself;
Only certain organizations or coaches can really lay claim to have had any real impact on a player's success. The rest are simply part of the chain, sort of like a Taxi Driver who offers a hint of their 'expertise' as an armchair expert on a trip from the airport to an event.
Be honest with yourself, did you really help and were you a fair dinkum part of it all or were you simply a Taxi Driver?