'A HAIRCUT AND A FOREHAND'

If ever there was a famous quote in World Tennis it had to be the one from Czech Champion Ivan Lendl in 1987 when asked at a press conference what he thought of a young Andre Agassi.
 The Stratton Mountain Tournament in the US played in August of '87 saw the emergence of a 17 year old kid who wore denim tennis shorts and wore his hair rather long. The kid would go on to win every Grand Slam available and became the World's best player in 1995.
Andre Agassi entered Stratton Mountain as a player ranked 90 in a field of 64 players so naturally he had to receive a bit of a helping hand by the tournament committee, a Wild Card was granted.
 In the first round he faced American Luke Jensen , a player ranked number 415 but who could serve with both his left and right arms , now that's clever.
Andre struggled past Jensen in three sets then set up a second round meeting with '87 Wimbledon Champion, Aussie Pat Cash. On paper this match looked rather one sided however Agassi found a way to sneak past Cash in two breakers , people were starting to take notice.
The round of 16 saw Andre take out American Chip Hooper in three, then a quarter final win against countryman Joey Rive in straight had him up against World number 1 Ivan Lendl. Now this match was entertaining however I have only seen extended highlights of it , would love to watch the entire match one day.
This match saw Andre running around his backhand at any given opportunity to belt his already huge forehand back at Lendl who at times looked rather confused at the kid's ability. The big Czech eventually won the match in three sets , 6-2, 5-7, 6-3 but not before being given a huge fright by a skinny 17 year old with flash shorts.
The press conference after the match was one that produced this chapter's title as Lendl gave his opinion on the new kid on the block. Looking back I suppose Andre could've taken it as a compliment as it was rather obvious that Ivan rated the forehand highly, perhaps not so much the haircut.
A year earlier at the same tournament John McEnroe beat Andre at the quarter final stage in straight sets but paid him a huge compliment. Whilst I do not have the transcript in front of me he told a press conference that a winner by Agassi from his forehand was the hardest shot he had ever had hit against him. Fair endorsement for a 16 year old. 
Some people knock Agassi because he admitted taking drugs but they obviously haven't read all the detail.
 I don't remember the last time a recreational drug has been proven to enhance any sportsman's performance, Andre included. At the time that he tried it he stated he wasn't enjoying the game and his ranking had dropped. I believe everyone is entitled to a little 'time out'.
Andre Agassi didn't have to tell anyone yet he was big enough to admit he took something, I think that shows integrity........
Glenn Thompson.


********** I finally wrote that book I have been promising to write for years. 'PERSPECTIVE' is available at AMAZON.COM in paperback and Ebook versions. Released June 26, 2019 **************

“It's no accident, I think, that tennis uses the language of life. Advantage, service, fault, break, love, the basic elements of tennis are those of everyday existence, because every match is a life in miniature. Even the structure of tennis, the way the pieces fit inside one another like Russian nesting dolls, mimics the structure of our days. Points become games become sets become tournaments, and it's all so tightly connected that any point can become the turning point. It reminds me of the way seconds become minutes become hours, and any hour can be our finest. Or darkest. It's our choice.”
― Andre Agassi, Open

CONNORS, AGASSI, SAMPRAS, A LACK OF LOVE

Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras  have one thing in common with each other, there is tension between them and Andre Agassi, for different reasons. As far as I know there is no tension between Sampras and Connors and these two are definitely not members of the Andre Agassi fan club. Here's why.
The tension between Andre and Jimmy started way back when a young Andre was apparently 'snubbed' by Jimmy when all the young fellow wanted was a friendly chat and as Andre put it in his book, 'some love'. Andre's father used to string Jimmy's rackets so there should've been a starting point for a conversation however it didn't really eventuate. Rather than me try to explain it have a read of the Agassi book , a great read and it explains it in detail. 
Andre Agassi had to wait possibly another 10 years until he got some pay back on Connors for the way he was apparently spoken to as a kid, a 1988 US Open Quarter Final. This match was no real classic but it gave the tennis public a glimpse of the talent of an 18 year old kid with long hair and a very big forehand.
 At the conclusion of the match in an interview Agassi apparently told reporters that he had a dream he would win the match 3, 3 and 3. A loss of just 9 games against a man who won 109 tournaments, a big ask. He actually won 6-2, 7-6, 6-1 so his prediction of a win with the loss of just 9 games proved to be correct, just around the wrong way, near enough.
Connors was rather peeved at the way Andre spoke of the dream as reporters relayed the Agassi prediction. 'Jimbo' was notorious for his 'Jimbo quotes' and this was his post match reaction to Agassi's comment. "I enjoy playing guys who could be my children. Maybe he's one of them. I spent a lot of time in Vegas".  
The 1989 US Open Quarter Final between these two was a different story, in fact Connors took the third set 6-0 and came back from 1-5 all the way to 4-5 in the fifth set to just lose in a thriller. In Agassi's book he writes about a comment he made to his brother in the crowd  "I'm going to take him to five sets and give him some pain". I suppose if you lose a set in around 20 minutes with 19 unforced errors then you have something planned.
Andre was not happy again with Connors when he had played his last match of his career against Benjamin Becker at the 2006 US Open in round 3. Connors did not applaud Agassi in the locker room as everyone else apparently did and Agassi felt offended.

He wrote words to that effect in his book. Connors said it wasn't his style to applaud other players . It seems that this was the case especially with Agassi, a long history that started some 25 years earlier.
As far as Agassi and Pistol Pete were concerned well this was all rather silly. The Hit For Haiti in 2010 was a charity event and a Mens doubles match between Federer and Sampras against Rafa and Andre was a ripper. Andre however thought Pete should loosen up a little as he felt he was taking it too seriously so he told him "You always have to go and get serious don't you Pete "? That brought on an impersonation of Andre by Pete so Andre returned the favour, then it got rather uncomfortable, worth a look on the net.
Sampras did however get his revenge against Andre , a 6-4, 7-5 victory in New York early in 2011. Usually though an exhibition match is a 'friendly' match, this one however wasn't as Pistol fired down ace after ace plus many non returnable serves that had Andre scrambling left, right and centre for. Andre was in no physical shape to belt them back as he so often used to.

A phone call to Pistol later that night did not go down too well as Andre asked Pete to 'lighten up' as it was only an exhibition match. This was a quote from Andre regarding the matter: "Pete certainly is more capable than me on the court these days and the quality of that entertainment was solely in his hands".
The following exhibition matches scheduled in Argentina did not take place, they in fact flew in replacement opponents, Mardy Fish and Marat Safin. Is the common denominator in all of this one man by the name of Andre or is it just me ? Three players, several incidents, yet one man's name keeps coming up.
Egotistical sport is tennis, always has been , always will be........

' THE RALLY BALL'

Not sure if I have already posted this one, the memory is getting worse as I head towards 50 but I do remember many days on court speaking to my students about the benefit of the 'rally ball'. I don't know if I was ahead of my time or behind as i have seen some rather funny ways of teaching over the past 31 years on court but one thing is for certain. If you can rally, you can win a game of tennis.
I received a comment on my site a while back from a gentleman who has sent me numerous 'ideas' on what he perceives as smart tennis, this one in particular stuck in my mind. "No point in tactics without weapons, gotta have weapons first and foremost ". 
This comment came from a chapter I wrote on tactics regarding the high bouncing ball , Rafa style, as I felt it was a smart way of playing. I believe that the high topspin ball off either side can win free points as it creates many short balls from the opponent unless it is returned precisely. 
I am all for 'weapons' however you have to start somewhere. How do you think Rafa's forehand became possibly the biggest shot in World Tennis ? Did it start from the first ball struck ? I doubt it. I would suspect that after many sessions as a 14 and 15 year old on the clay with mentor Carlos Moya that the 'rally ball' from Rafa was turned into a shot that dictated play. 
It gave me great heart that what I was teaching regarding the 'rally ball' was in fact technically correct after buying a copy of the Andre Agassi book that spoke of the benefits of simply keeping the ball in play. Page 189 of 'Open' is testimony to the fact . "What'd you do that for ? I know it's a killer shot , but every shot doesn't have to be killer. Sometimes the best shot is a holding shot, an OK shot, a shot that gives the other guy a chance to miss. Let the other guy play ".( Brad Gilbert )
Pretty simple stuff hey ? But it's not, the whole perception of teaching the game has changed, it's more about 'pulling the trigger' ala Roger Rasheed style . The guy is obsessed with it as you would have seen with his commentating at the Australian Open . You can't 'pull the trigger' on a ball unless you get it into your hitting zone and how do you get it into your hitting zone ? You set it up with smart play. Smart rallying will do this. 
I had a lesson with a kid last season who wanted to drive every ball within a foot of the height of the net so I asked the obvious question ."So how about your margin for error" ?
Told him that he would have to be technically gifted and as fit as hell to be able to sustain that sort of hitting throughout a match. Showed him the benefits of a slower ball with height to mix up play. On top of that I also pointed out that front foot tennis is not possible on every shot as some kids think. I told him to watch Rafa and Novak on wide balls to their backhand side , front foot tennis is not an option in these circumstances. 
As the great Mats Wilander states on many occasions "The open stance finds you ". Problem is simple, some players , especially kids are only taught front foot play, that's an issue, no player is quick enough to get every ball on the front foot.
Complex game tennis but one thing is for sure, the rally ball can win you a match without you even hitting a winner, just keep it in play, keep it simple........

'A TIEBREAK STORY'

Here's one for you, a tiebreak story that backs up my last chapter. You tell me if the following match statistics doesn't make for good entertainment. 
A Futures match in Florida between two battlers, a guy ranked 569 vs another ranked 636 saw the most amazing tiebreak that perhaps has ever been played. The score was 36-34 in favor of Benjamin Balleret of Monaco against fellow countryman Guillaume Couillard. 
If you do the sums on that then you will realize that from say 6 points to 5 in favor of either player then it is quite plausible that each player may have had a total of around 15 set points each, roughly anyhow. The second set score was 6-1. Do you think that maybe after having 15 set points and losing the set it could have shattered the confidence of Couilliard ?? 
Quite possibly.........

'TIEBREAK OR NO TIEBREAK'

I often thought that the Americans had it right as far as the fifth set of a Men's Singles match was concerned, they played a tiebreaker. What this did was rather obvious, it gave players a chance to conserve their energy for another match even if it did go the distance.
June 22-24 2010 at Wimbledon gave an argument that the tiebreak system was in fact a good idea as American John Isner and Frenchman Nicolas Mahut played possibly the most ridiculous match of all time. This match was no classic, it was one that simply dragged on, it actually dragged on over 3 days with the final set lasting over 8 hours, the match just over 11 hours. Tough to schedule matches when this happens.
The match between these two was intriguing but not one that will go down as a shot maker's dream, it was simply a match that gave an argument to a rather old saying in tennis " It has to end sometime ".
The US Open can schedule matches far better than any other Grand Slam Tournament as the tiebreaker in the deciding set will end a match possibly up to an hour or even longer than an advantage set will. Surely this is enough to sway the other big 3 to change their rules, doesn't seem to be the case though.
Let's look at it another way, what does a match like the above mentioned do to players ? Easy to answer. Isner got belted in his next match 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 by Thiemmo de Bakker of The Netherlands, a player ranked 30 places behind him. So is it fair on players to make them play this long ? Well in a match such as this one it is an extraordinarily long match and one that totally put the scheduling behind and one that defied logic. Glad it happened though personally, it got people talking as to whether the rules needed to change.
I think 5 sets of tennis can be a little 'ho hum' at times especially with big servers, not much gets sent to the highlight package man and as far as a spectator friendly match is concerned it lacks entertainment value. Mac and Borg, well now that was entertainment, Rafa and Roger, brilliant, some matches just can't go long enough and the highlight reel is never ending.
Isner didn't play again after his second round loss at Wimbledon until the 19th of the following month, you do the sums on why. Was he a little body and mind weary ? I do believe that even the great John McEnroe stated something along the lines of "A match like this could take months off a player's game ". Mac would know. As far as doubles were concerned, more fire to the tie break argument.
Isner was seeded 12 with partner Sam Querrey, two huge servers, tough to return against on grass, they were a big chance. This pairing didn't even get on court, Isner withdrew due to fatigue. That's tough on a guy like Querrey who relies on doubles to bump up his earnings as he struggles to go deep in tournaments in singles.
Personally I believe the Americans have it right, the tie breaker in the fifth is a fantastic way to finish a match, it's cut throat yet it's exciting, every point counts. One day I would love to see a tournament played like the one I designed myself locally where every point you won went towards your score for the day. It was something different, well received, I think 250 points won the day, good fun.
I am a big fan of the US Open , I remember the match between Connors and Krickstein in '91, absolute classic , not just the match either but the way it unfolded in the end, theater at it's best. Agassi and Blake played another classic in the Quarter Finals of the 2005 US Open, Andre eventually won the breaker 8-6 in the fifth. That's an exciting way to finish a tennis match, not one that drags on.
Keep the game fresh, 5 sets with a breaker to finish is still a lot of tennis either for live viewers or a television audience and most importantly the players may just have enough energy left to perform in the next round.
Tennis doesn't need to be over cooked, well done both sides served with something light is plenty, sorry Mr Isner........

'REACHING POTENTIAL'

Paul Kilderry was the best junior tennis player I have ever seen, he was quite simply, brilliant. Paul was coached by his father Rob and by 1991 was ranked 8 in the World for juniors in singles and 4 for doubles. I had the good fortune to play on a court next to him at a junior championship in Perth and I found watching him to be rather extraordinary. I was disappointed to not play him but I got belted in the quarters of the East Fremantle Junior Championships by Christian Christensen from Sweden 3 and 2 . The Swede went on to beat Paul in the Semi's in 3 sets but the most significant aspect of the whole tournament was that Paul was from memory 12 years old at the time playing in the 16's.
I don't see that much now days because the physical difference between these age groups is huge but Paul made up for it with his technical brilliance. We all knew that this kid was going to be something else, yet it didn't really happen.
I remember vividly Kilderry losing to Thomas Enqvist of Sweden in the Semi's of the Wimbledon juniors 2 and 2, perhaps 1990. Enqvist went on to become a top ten player for the Men and reached an Australian Open Singles Final.
 Paul hit a high of 138 in the World for singles in 1995 , made half a million dollars , beat Wimbledon Champion Richard Krajicek in Florida and became Pat Rafter's practice partner and travelling buddy. Paul left an impression on me however as his standard was something that I visualize in juniors when I see them play now days as a sort of bench mark.
Victor Estrella Burgos from the Dominican Republic just reached a career high of 69 this month and he made it to the third round of the US Open . He lost a match in three straight tie breakers , tough way to go out of a Slam, beaten by one of the World's biggest servers of all time Ivo Karlovic.
Victor is 34 years of age. So what's the difference between Paul Kilderry and Victor Estrella Burgos ? Paul I believe peaked at a very young age, he was in a way unfortunate to have done this , he simply failed to get any better. Victor has done things his way, peaked at an age that most players are thinking about or have already retired, he simply maintained the passion to reach his potential despite his age.
Do I think Paul still reached his potential ? Yes I do , the problem was that he reached it at an age too young to cope with the physical and mental demands of the game.
Putting it another way, Kilderry got too good, too young, he reached a height of ability that was tough to improve on as tennis is a game you get better at as you become physically and mentally stronger. Just because you are a top junior doesn't necessarily guarantee you a spot with the big boys , it's a spot you earn with experience. You can own every shot in the book as a 12 year old but by the time you are 18 you may have hit all those shots to a standard that may not have any improvement left.
Some juniors such as Agassi, Becker, Wilander, Krickstein, Arias and Chang all made the top ten after being some of the World's best juniors, these guys are a one in a million. Victor Estrella Burgos is a story of a player who every tennis player needs to take notice of as he is one who perhaps will reach his potential at age 35 or 36 depending on his fitness. 
You can have the World at your feet as a tennis player at a very young age but there are no guarantees you will get any better because of the numerous reasons why the game has been labelled the toughest individual sport in the World. My buddy who I toured Europe with in '91 Brett Patten made it to World Number 1 for his age group 35-40 just recently. That's never letting go of your dream to reach your potential.
If someone was to give me an option of two profiles I would take Victor's over Paul's as much as I loved to see young Kilderry play when I was a kid. Paul had a lot of pressure on him from many people and organizations because of his ridiculous talent as a kid , tough to live up to expectations. Mr Burgos has quietly gone about his business as a tennis 'journeyman' , no pressure, just simply living the life as a Pro Tennis Player who has doubled his career earnings within the past year.
So did he leave his run too late ? Of course not. If you reach your potential it doesn't matter how old you are, if you get to a standard that you cannot possibly surpass then I think you made it as a tennis player.......

'OUTSTANDING MARINKO'

To the 'forgotten' Aussie Tennis Professional who I believe has a better win/ loss ratio than any other male Australian Tennis Professional this year. A great win over Kyrgios in Kuala Lumpur this week. Remember Marinko was the one who made himself 'unavailable' for Davis Cup duties in Cottesloe earlier this month. As per usual I had a theory on this one.
He was never going to gain a spot over Kyrgios or Hewitt so why would he have made himself available, practised on the turf that is played on for around 4 weeks each year then be left out in favour of the above mentioned ?
Nope this guy is all class, a man who knows which side his bread is buttered on and a man who has a crystal ball plus a smart coach in Woodforde who no doubt knew the Davis Cup selections ahead of the official draw.
Marinko did some training instead, looks like it paid off, a moral victory, good lad......

'PARTY TIME'

I have always been fascinated by tennis scores, I have always looked further into them than just the score that has been published in the paper the next day. I used to cut out newspaper clippings when I was a kid and stick them on my wall.
 There is always more to a score line in the game of tennis than what appears to be just a series of numbers. Rather than going back through internet data I will simply go from the memory bank as to the matches that stuck in my mind for reasons other than just a win or a loss to Professional Tennis players.
Czech player Thomas Smid was a player who had some very similar losses as far as score cards were concerned. Thomas once lost two matches within a fortnight by the score of 7-6, 6-1 and 7-6, 6-0. He then won a match not long after these two losses by a score of 7-6, 6-2, from memory. Pardon me for the lack of knowledge on the tournaments these were played in , I simply just remember them even though I was a kid. So why ?
It told me that Smid was a front runner, a player who relied on a first set victory, a player who if down in a match possibly did not have the mindset to come back. A first set tie break loss can be disappointing to say the least , it can break a player. So what of that victory by Smid of a similar score ? That's easy. After a tight first set that's when you are loose, it's party time, the narrow win in the first can often bring an easy win in the second. Not that I am a fan of Women's Tennis but do you remember the Women's Semi Finals at Wimbledon this year ? 7-6, 6-1 and 7-6, 6-2 , pretty obvious what happened there.
Bjorn Borg, the great Swedish Champion destroyed Argentinian Guillermo Vilas in two French Open finals by the scores of 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 and 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, interesting score lines. How does the World's best clay courter beat the second best on that surface at the final match of a Grand Slam Championship ? The mind, simply the mind. If you watch the way both Borg and Vilas played it was very similar , a huge amount of spin, very few volleys, a serve that was simply a point starter and one that won very few cheap points. It all came down to the thought process.
Borg once beat American Eddie Dibbs, a former top ten player in the final of a clay court event by the score of 6-0, 6-0, 6-2, work that one out. Borg in his early career once beat an American Professional by the name of Billy Martin 0-6, 6-0, 6-1. To throw some useless trivia on this particular score it was once stated that former Coach of Vilas, Ion Tiriac came to the side of the court and told Borg to stop going for so many winners, apparently fact.
Rafael Nadal once beat former top Aussie Mark Phillippousis 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 at the US Open, so what's unusual about that ? Nothing but look at the score, what does it tell you ? Rafa knew he only had to step up the pace and pressure on the return of Flip's once each set, any more than that would be a bonus, not a necessity. 
Every time a first serve is missed against the return of Rafa the pressure goes up a notch and it can bring on some double faults. A second serve to Rafa is usually a 50/50 situation and when it comes to baseline hitting in a 50/50 who will more often than not come out on top ?
And finally I will dedicate these last paragraphs to my two favourite players of all time , Wilander and Borg. At the US Open in 1980 Borg took on Johan Kriek and after losing the first two sets 4-6, 4-6, Borg won the next three 6-1, 6-1, 6-1. This tells us that Borg was waiting for Kriek to finish playing his best tennis that he knew he could not sustain for 5 sets. After that it was simply a formality for a man as smart as Borg. The Swede not only knew his own limitations but usually he knew his opponent's. 
At the 1982 French Open Final Vilas had Mats right where he wanted him at a 6-1 first set win and set point in the second set to gain a strangle hold on the title. Wilander saved the set point, won the set in a breaker , smashed Vilas 6-0 in the third set and claimed the match in the fourth set 6-4. That was a turn around of epic proportions especially when you consider Mats was only 17 years of age. So my theory ? The 'party time' mind set about getting 'out of jail' with a tie break win. It loosens a player up to such an extent that their best tennis can be played from then on, with no fear, with no limitations.
A good player will always weigh up situations in a tennis match that can be used to their advantage , it's what separates the good from the rest........
* FOOT NOTE * My inquisitive mind got the better of me and I looked up Smid's Profile, here were the actual scores and Tournaments that I mentioned earlier. Ok I admit I was a few games out plus his win came before the two losses but hey it was 1983 ;
24-1-1983 Brazil  Smid def Dupre 7-5, 6-2
31-1- 1983 Philadelphia   McNamara def Smid 7-6, 6-0
7- 2 -1983  Ricmond USA   Borowiak  def Smid  7-6, 6-0