Sunday, 14 February 2016

'SOME MORE FACTS AND FIGURES'

The following is from 'THE CONVERSATION'

The bottom line

To cut to the chase, it costs the average tennis player in the order of $US160,000 per year to compete (once coaching costs are factored in). In 2013 only around 150 players made enough money to “break even” from prize-money alone.
Let’s think about that for a minute. More than 75 million people play tennis globally, and only about 160 men and 150 women earn enough prize-money to cover the cost of playing professionally.
So your chances of making money out of the game as a professional player are about one in 250,000.
Compare that to domestic sport such as the Australian Football League (AFL). There are 18 teams, each of which needs at the very least 38 players on its primary list. Given that it’s estimated that just under 1 million people play AFL, your chances of making a living in AFL are comparatively greater, at one in about 1,500!
Being a pro tennis player is like running a small business. Prize-money is not tax-free income, and you’re generally not backed by a club.
So unless your ranking belongs in the upper echelons of the sport, you likely have to pay for your own coaching and training staff as well as flights, accommodation, medical expenses, balls, rackets, strings etc. All that doesn’t come cheap.

An opportunity for change

It’s not the intention here to be critical of the tall poppies of our sport. Who could argue that what the likes of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, bring to the sport is not worth the investment or cost?
Despite the commercial prerogative, some thought does need to be given to the viability of a tour where almost all the prize-money goes to a handful of people, who in some cases don’t rely on prize-money to sustain their career anyway.
Unfortunately, most of the time, nobody cares much about the 160th and 150th-best male and female tennis players, which is a shame because they have to be ridiculously good tennis players to outperform the other 74,999,850 odd people who pick up a racket.
If you think grand-slam finals are tense, it’s nothing compared to final-round qualifying where entire livelihoods are on the line.
But with recent announcements of prize-money increases, grand slams have an opportunity to continue to distribute growing amounts of prize-money to those who exit earlier in the tournament.
While it may seem counter-intuitive to reward players who “turn up and lose first round”, the bottom line is that if talent is lost simply because people can’t pay the bills, the sport and fans suffer in the long term.

Friday, 12 February 2016

'WORTH A READ'

I find the following article fascinating if not rather disturbing as it brings to light the struggles of budding tennis professionals. With a ranking in the low 300's you would imagine this particular player to have a realistic shot at making a living from the game, yet he can spend a week at a Challenger event and only pick up what a tennis coach makes in an hour's lesson. It's farcical.
Novak picks up nearly 4 million for a Slam win and the 'next Novak' in an obscure event has to rely on someone giving him accommodation and quite possibly food also just so he can chase his dream.
The ATP seriously need to look at it because the next Novak may never even get a chance to show the World his talent due to the ridiculous prize money discrepancies.
It's all very well to pay a winner of a Slam 4 mil but if that was capped at 2 mil and the semis, quarters etc were capped at a more realistic rate could sponsorship dollars at major events be put towards the growth of future champions ? 
Would the Worlds best players not turn up just because they could win ONLY 2 mil do you think ? What about players who have received funding from their governing bodies to help them out initially have a pay back scheme in place if they make the big time ? Could those funds then be used to help future stars survive their initial years on tour ? Many questions, not many answers. The rich keep getting richer........

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SIMON BRIGGS OF 'THE TELEGRAPH', LONDON....
Even by the standards of British tennis, 2014 has been a turbulent year. The exit of Roger Draper last autumn was followed by the arrival of Michael Downey, a tough-talking new boss in Roehampton, who has slashed back funding and questioned the players’ hunger. Meanwhile, a number of promising young talents have been walking away from the game.
In the view of Oli Golding – who won the junior US Open in 2011 but joined the exodus in August – the two themes may be connected.
In his first interview since leaving the tour, Golding was keen to credit the Lawn Tennis Assocation for supporting him since he was a young teenager. But he also described the reduction of the LTA’s popular bonus scheme as “crazy” and admitted that the closure of the high-performance programme at the National Tennis Centre – the glitzy £40m training base only 15 minutes from his family home in Richmond – had felt like the last straw.
“I was struggling to find places to train that were good enough,” Golding told the Telegraph. “When I heard that the NTC was going to close, I decided that I was going to go and base myself in France but that would have been another 15 weeks away per year, and it’s not a secret that I have found the travelling difficult.
“Just before I was going to move overseas, I played a tough run of tournaments in Taiwan and Kazakhstan. I thought ‘If I am struggling to do this when based in London, it’s going to be even worse when I’m based in France.
“It’s surprisingly difficult to find places to play in London. Either the clubs aren’t keen on having performance players based there or, if they are keen, they don’t have adequate facilities. It was frustrating for me that the NTC closed, having been born 10 or 15 minutes around the corner. I’m not saying it won’t turn out to be the right decision, but it didn’t help me.”
Golding – who turned 21 in September – is one of five young men who all seemed to have a chance of becoming regular tour players, yet decided this year to step off the treadmill. Three of them are close contemporaries of his, in George Morgan, Ashley Hewitt and Jack Carpenter. And then there is 19-year-old Harry Meehan, a 6ft 5in left-hander with a bomb of a serve, who told the Telegraph in October that “I was beginning to struggle with my mental state.”
If there is a common thread, Golding suggests, it is the amount of expectation heaped onto players who are not ready for it.
“It’s an issue in UK that we don’t create enough tennis players,” he said. “Which means there is more pressure on the ones that do try to make it. People tend to write you off very early, and if things aren’t going well for six months it’s a disaster. Yes, we’ve got a gap in that area of players from 30 to 70 in the world, but those players don’t usually break through at 20, more likely at 24.

Promise: Oli Golding was ranked No. 327 in April (PAUL GROVER)
“In my case, my head wasn’t in it at the end, for the last couple of months. It was funny because I was playing some of my best tennis but at the same time I felt I was going through the motions. Taking a break was the best option, because nothing was going to happen while I felt like that. There are too many other people out there who are feeling fresh and enjoying it and when the score’s 5-5 in the third set, nine times out of ten they find a way to win.”
Golding – who reached a high point of No. 327 in the world in April – has spent the autumn and winter helping out with his mother’s tennis-coaching business while he decides what to do next. A career in business is a possibility, though he does not rule out returning to the tour in a year’s time if he feels he is missing it. (Which he hasn’t, particularly, as yet.)
If he does go back, Golding says that it would have to be on his own terms, rather than under the watchful eye of LTA coaches and sponsors. “When I was a kid I used to swing in quite a carefree way, but after I won the US Open juniors a lot of people wanted to have an input into the way I was playing. The result was that I got regulated and lost touch with the way I used to hit the ball.”
Yet while Golding might like the idea of trading as a lone wolf, how would he support himself? With the exception of Andy Murray and perhaps three or four others, British players have long relied on matrix funding (which used to be handed out on the basis of junior results) and the bonus scheme (which assisted senior players who reached the later stages of Futures events).
Now that the first safety net is being taken down, and the second cut back, Downey's critics argue that a professional tennis career will soon be out of reach for everyone but once-in-a-generation talents and those with wealthy backgrounds.
“It’s crazy,” says Golding. “The people who need funding are the ones at the lower levels. You just can’t make ends meet playing Futures $10,000s. I think a hell of a lot of people will give up.
“It’s a hell of a tough life. The rewards are very limited. I can understand that the LTA want to have targets but I think it’s tough enough as it is. When you look at the conditions at a Futures, it’s below the minimum wage. I entered one 128-player draw, qualified and won a round, and reached the semis of the doubles. I was there from Thursday to Thursday and after tax my pay packet was 88 Euros. Considering how much money there is at the top level, more should filter down.”
So what about the main criticism that Downey, implicitly, has been aiming at Golding, Morgan et al? That they just don’t want it enough? Heather Watson added her own voice a fortnight ago, when she told reporters that “A lot of British tennis boys I’ve grown up with think it’s a jolly, that you’re going to play some tennis, get all the girls, go out, but it doesn’t work like that.”
Golding disagrees. "People who say that wouldn’t have any idea how difficult it is. How much you have to put in and how little you get back. I was incredibly hungry, I used to get frustrated on the court because I wanted to win so much. I gave it absolutely everything for six or seven years of my life, travelling for 25 or 30 weeks a year. In the end I felt I didn’t have much in the tank, and that it wasn’t honest to take sponsorship from people in that state.
“What Downey’s been saying, it’s a bit of a generalisation, because everyone is different. When he and [performance director] Bob Brett came in they started saying stuff and taking decisions without talking to people.
“I felt about 18 months ago there was a good spirit and team atmosphere around British tennis. Everyone was pulling together really well but that was lost slightly. The NTC was quite busy for a while but then it did start to empty out even before the new regime arrived. I’m not sure why that was; the players didn’t get told very much. What I would say is that tennis is a very individual sport but the new LTA seem to be making their decisions on a group basis.”
If he can work out which path to follow, Golding should have a bright future. He is intelligent and articulate, as well as confident enough to have appeared as a child actor in major films and theatre productions, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on the West End stage. And then there is his acute analysis of the British tennis scene, which is so well-informed that Downey should think about giving him a different sort of role in the NTC's administrative offices.
“It is difficult for the LTA,” says Golding. “They are rich in terms of money but poor in terms of facilities, which isn’t the fault of Downey or Brett. Clubs in Europe are much more interested in generating players, more community-based. Here it’s all about money. They don’t want someone on court for free when they could be making £27 an hour.
“Around me, most of the courts are either artificial grass or macadam – two surfaces that are used for zero pro tournaments. They’re cheaper to install, survive the weather in this country, and are easier for the older generation to play on than clay. On artificial turf, you can’t rally for more than three or four shots if you’re putting any pace on the ball. People wonder why we struggle to create players in this country and that is a big part of the answer.”

Friday, 5 February 2016

'FROM RAFA'

"The spin is the right shot to play on the clay, because when you play with a lot of spin you can produce a lot of important shots, a lot of winners, but without the risk, so that was the key to my success on clay " . Rafael Nadal.....
There is a video going around that involves Rafa and his take on the intricacies of spin. Interesting insight into the mind of possibly the greatest clay court player of all time.
A kid will have the perception that winners will need to be hit to win a tennis match, even Rafa says so in a way yet Rafa believes in spin and not hitting flat balls as many kids do.
Hitting flat balls with little margin for error leaves the ball in the opposition's hitting zone, a no, no, particularly on clay. It's why Rafa has owned both Monte Carlo and Paris for ten or so years with a net clearance that makes the opposition feel uncomfortable.
I love watching clips like this as it reinforces tennis fundamentals of consistency and smart play. The thing I noticed in this clip also is the grip change of Rafa which many times is neglected by coaching 'gurus'.
It's an old story that more than one 'coach' teaches the two handed backhand with a forehand grip and it's why the backhand of many kids is not one of substance. Watch Rafa slow motion and how he changes the hands between forehands and backhands.
Next time your coach gives you a lesson, ask the question...........

Monday, 25 January 2016

TA CONTRADICTION

 

'TA CONTRADICTION'

I have always been rather mystified at the stance of Tennis Australia ( TA ) and their seemingly one track mind as far as a court surface is concerned for Davis Cup ties in this country. Looking back it seems that the last time a tie in Australia was played on hard court was in fact 2006 in Adelaide when Australia lost to Sweden. 
Several years ago a local tennis club was awarded a grant to resurface it's tennis courts however there was one stipulation, they had to be of the same colour as the Australian Open surface. Part of the 'deal' was that if TA helped with the funding then the courts were to look like the home of the national Grand Slam held at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne. No argument there.
 The Australian Open moved away from a grass surface in 1988 when the new centre was put on display for the World to see and for the best players to perform at. My hero Mats Wilander beat Pat Cash in the final in five sets in what was a fitting way to end two weeks of a new Slam at a new venue.
There were possibly many reasons for the Australian Open to move away from the ageing stadium and grass courts of Kooyong but the seating capacity was possibly the greatest factor. Kooyong held just 8,500 whereas the Rod Laver Rena holds almost double that at 15,000. The decision to build a much larger stadium was a smart one no doubt yet the surface still remains somewhat of a talking point.
Why did the new stadium lay a hard court surface rather than simply remain with grass as it had done since 1927 ? Did Tennis Australia finally accept the fact that the Europeans owned a dominance in World tennis due to their home surface of clay and the ability of that surface to produce countless champions ?
Whilst TA were never going to even contemplate a clay surface a hard court was the next obvious choice as a surface Australia's best players both junior and senior could cut their teeth on and become competitive with the rest of the World.
 A hard court is an 'evener' as a player can develop an all round game as opposed to grass which is not a surface that can help a player develop ground strokes effectively due to the lower bounce and skidding nature of the ball. Let's face it if a player can win on a hard court he or she has some ability to say the least as there is no advantage on a hard court. It's just you versus your opponent, nothing more, nothing less. If you win on a hard court you really didn't rely on what was under foot, you simply won because you were a better player.
So to the point of this chapter, why are TA so pedantic about clubs around the country painting their courts the same colour as the Rod Laver Arena ? TA do not even practice what they preach. On one hand they are saying that it wants a court surface at small cubs around the country synonymous with it's home Grand Slam. On the other hand they are saying that it isn't really that confident of their players performing on it.
Why don't TA embrace the surface as one that it is proud of and one that should surely be showcased to the World in Davis Cup ties in this country and not just at the Australian Open ?
To me it is very much like the tennis coach who is simply a 'talker' and not a 'walker', you know the do as I say but not as I do type of coach. The one who never shows up to play a club match or a tournament which on many occasions comes from their inability to in fact play the game at all.
If TA endorse the surface yet play on a totally different one when playing the biggest tennis team event in the World what is it saying about it's players ? Do they have no confidence in them to win on a neutral surface ? A grass court looks for an advantage from a big serve or solid volley but not every Australian tennis professional owns both.
Wimbledon is once a year and apart from that no player who is in their right mind would train on grass as the majority of tournaments around the World are on clay and hard courts. Grass is basically a novelty surface so why do the Australian tennis hierarchy choose a surface for Australian players to play Davis Cup on that realistically is of no real advantage to them ?
It may just lay in the old traditional type of sentimental mindset as the players from our past, Laver, Newcombe etc dominated not only here on a grass surface but at Wimbledon. It was a surface that holds many fond memories yet that was many years ago.
Times have changed, the game has changed, time to move on and develop a new tradition that has Australian players winning neutrally with no real advantage and no sentimental influences. Imagine if Australia did in fact hold a Davis Cup tie on a hard court, preferably at the Rod Laver Arena against a nation as mighty as the USA. What would that say to the Tennis World ?
Pretty obvious, WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY ADVANTAGE AS FAR AS COURT SURFACE IS CONCERNED. Bring your best team, we are confident we can beat you on any surface and in particular a NEUTRAL one.
It's time this country embraced what it set out to do in 1988, build and develop a new culture.....

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

'INTERESTING PERCEPTION'

I watched two 'young' tennis players have a hit last weekend, well they were a lot younger than me anyhow. One of them was a local, the other a European gentleman who is in town for a while and who is a rather gifted tennis player, in most aspects anyhow. I set up the hit between the two as I was fascinated to see how they would go against each other plus I was interested in doing some watching from a distance for a change. Sometimes being up close when teaching or playing does not give the mind enough room to think.
During the 20 minute hit up I noticed several things about both players that I perhaps would not have otherwise and then during a set which lasted 10 games I noticed even more, it was an educational 90 minutes of tennis to say the least. The European guy says to me afterwards "We have a lesson and we fix my forehand", ( don't you just love it how the Europeans have a way with words " ? ) I say 'no worries, trust me, we fix it'.
The next day we have a 70 minute session, we talk plenty, we experiment plenty. The Italian starts by hitting balls open stance on his weaker forehand side. I say to him straight away " There's your problem right there ". He asks what the problem is. I say "Why are you waiting for the ball when you can go to it " ? He looks a little confused, I explain myself in detail.
" You wait for every single ball on your forehand, you are a 'reactive tennis player', there is nothing 'proactive' about your forehand side. What foot do you hit off on your backhand side ? Yes it's your front foot, so why is this ? You take the initiative on your backhand side and that's why it is your best shot, you move toward the ball yet on your forehand side even when the ball is short you wait for it then hit it with an open stance. You don't get enough on your shot like you do on the backhand side which you rip regularly so why is your forehand so different " ?
We chat for a while and I suggest to him that it may just be the most common issue in tennis now days amongst budding juniors, 'perception'. Most kids believe that tennis is an open stance sport but that only happens in certain situations on a tennis court such as a deep high bouncing wide ball yet look at Federer on a low ball down the middle. Does he wait for it or does he go to it ? Easy to answer that one.
So I start feeding down the middle to give the Italian,  'Isi' ( shortened version of his real name ) a chance to work on his footwork and a chance to start coming forward on his forehand to give the shot some substance rather than just spin. He likes the idea straight away. This is what happened. Isi got himself into the 'zone' and he totally forgot about his swing which wasn't perfect as it lacked a full backswing yet it was far from average either and he simply concentrated on his feet.
I asked him to not 'fluff' the ball back, I told him I don't care if the ball goes long, I simply asked him to hit it with a force that he felt comfortable with but assured him the power would increase with his left foot forward. After around 30 balls I started feeding shorter and wider yet still asked Isi to get up to the ball and hit it on the front foot.
I explained that even if the ball was short and wide it could still be hit on the front foot. We then worked on approach shots, the natural front foot progression. This is what happened.
Now usually if a player does not miss it is from them not hitting the ball with any conviction so then I usually say something like " 10 balls to go, you haven't missed yet, how about you hit the ball and not just push it back ey " ? That's usually when a student misses but this lesson was rather unique in the way that the first basket ( around 110 balls ) was hit. Isi HIT all of 'em, I mean he really hit 'em hard with no fear of missing, just a focus on a different approach to the shot.
Now Isi hit about 10 long and 5 wide yet he did something I have never seen before, he did not hit one ball into the net. That's 110 balls over the net out of 110 balls with different spins off the feed. I am not someone who continually feeds a flat perfect ball so a student can look a million bucks, I have always fed a ball with variety, makes a student think more.
I say to Isi " So how did that feel buddy " ? He says 'Unbelievable but no one has ever told me to get on my front foot back home, we all play off the other foot'. Now putting that into perspective the Europeans train on clay and take less steps to a ball and slide more but how did Robin Soderling beat Rafa in Paris ? He stepped in and hit it, he didn't wait for it like most do. Soderling is the perfect example of front foot tennis, such a shame that he did not compete more over the last few years due to illness before his retirement. The Swede proved that you could win on clay playing on the front foot.
Of course it is an impossibility to play EVERY ball on the front foot particularly on a clay court but 'Isi' was living proof that you need to adapt when switching surfaces. Playing on a hard court enables a player to step into the ball whereas a clay court does not offer that same type of positioning. Perhaps it is why the clay court dynamos with the exception of Rafa have trouble on the hard courts yet dominate on the dirt.
Many perceptions in tennis but one thing is for certain and that is you need to be able to reprogram certain things in your mind and that leads to 'tweaking' certain styles according to the surface and conditions. Open stance tennis has it's place of course but it is not THE ONLY way to play tennis. Waiting for a ball leaves you open to be dictated to by an opponent who senses opportunities to attack yet stepping in can let your opponent know that you are someone who is going to force the issue.
Get on the front foot and dictate play when the opportunity arises, open stance is not something that oozes confidence and many balls are mishit when leaning back off a shot. If you step in on your backhand there is no reason why you can't do it on your forehand.
Tennis owns many perceptions, it's up to a player to work out what is correct. Experimenting is something that doesn't happen often enough in a practice session. Isi has a new forehand to go home with, he's happy about that and he has changed his initial perception of how a ball should be hit.
Technical sport tennis yet it's one that can be made simpler if we look at different ways to do things and don't treat a current way of playing as the ONLY way of playing.
Never too old to try something else......

Thursday, 24 December 2015

'CONFUSION' ( AND MERRY XMAS )

I wrote the following post Xmas eve afternoon after I heard a news report regarding the Davis Cup tie in Australia next year. I had a few beers in the late afternoon and I was told to never post a chapter after a drink, just in case it makes no sense.
Makes sense, though a lot of what I write could be likened to someone is constantly drunk. So the following chapter is one of those things that I find rather amusing about tennis in this country and when I find something amusing well quite simply I write about it.....

I always do a Christmas message on my site and this year is no different yet perhaps the content of this one may not be the regular 'To all out there who read my site.......etc, etc. Nope this one is dedicated to Tennis Australia who have given me a countless amount of things to write about over the past year or two, or is that three ? Time flies when you are having fun...
Many people call me cynical, many call me an idiot, it's all part of the fun of having an opinion on tennis. I wish more people would call me a genius so I could give up my day job however that may just be asking for a little too much.
All I will say is that as far as light entertainment is concerned well I love writing and I can usually knock up a chapter now days within half an hour as my typing has improved over the years. My mind does not need a first copy like we used to do before the real thing so I just go in the direction that my silly mind takes me. It's not easy being me.
So to my Christmas message and it was magnificent timing to say the least when I hopped into my car and headed to work at an ungodly hour this morning, call it 'sparrow's fart'. The news just came on and when I heard the sports report well it was like an early Xmas present, an unwrapping of a 'gift' a day before the main event. I went to work with a smile on my face, my workmates wondered what I had been doing. So this is it.
Tennis Australia will play the USA in a Davis Cup tie in March 2016 at the KOOYONG TENNIS CENTRE in Melbourne on a GRASS court. Yes that appears to be a fact and Lleyton Hewitt will make the decisions as far as the team line up is concerned as he has officially been announced as the Australian Davis Cup Captain. Goodo. So what's wrong with this and why am I cynical ?
Well it's all about Tennis Australia and what they have in fact done over the last 27 years that contradicts what it set out to do.
The Kooyong Tennis Centre was ageing and on it's last legs admittedly by the time it had staged it's final Australian Open on grass in 1987, the year Edberg beat Cash in five sets in the final. I remember that match as though it was yesterday where Cash took a while to get going yet lead 5-1 in the fourth set after losing the first two.
The biggest factor in that particular match was that Pat did not secure that set easily as he should have and it gave the Swede Edberg plenty of ideas going into the last set despite dropping the fourth 5-7. He broke Cash twice from 1-5 in the fourth and that has to give a player some food for thought. Pat Cash at 5-1 in the fourth had a hand on the trophy, such is life. Back to the facts and figures.
Kooyong was closed and the Australian Open moved away from the 'traditional' grass courts of the early tennis days in this country which saw the likes of Laver, Emerson, Hoad, Newcombe, Roach etc rule the turf not only in Australia but at Wimbledon.
The Aussies it is fair to say knew how to play on grass tennis courts because they could volley, a necessity to the craft of winning on a slick surface.
So once again let's look at the news headline, I do tend to get side tracked with stats. There was a reason apparently that Tennis Australia changed their national Grand Slam from grass to hard yet this is still not totally cut and dried. Was it a cost issue of maintaining the grass or was it because grass is not a surface that can possibly be expected to help a young player develop into an all round player ? Was it both of the above ?
I would say both personally but lean toward the latter as a hard court is an 'equalizer' in tennis. If you can develop a game on hard court then you are well on your way as that requires an almost 'complete' game to be successful on.
So if the grass court tradition was perhaps put aside in favour of a surface that would help Australia's up and comer's become competitive against the baseline robots of Europe why is it that Tennis Australia keep reverting back to grass ?
If a player works on his game in Australia throughout the year then he works on two surfaces, hard and clay, that's it but then he is made to play on grass if he gets selected for Davis Cup. Confusion ??
Surely with Kooyong being put to rest it was making a statement, this country was moving ahead in a different direction in regards to player development and style. The Pat Cash style of serve and volley was no longer the way of the future. Tough to win on hard and clay courts with serve and volley yet is a proven style on grass but how many grass court events are there now days ?
So here we are in 2015, nearly 2016 and even Lleyton Hewitt surely can see that Australia's Davis Cup players are more at home on a hard court than grass due mainly to the hours put in on a hard surface. Or has Lleyton been told by the hierarchy at TA that there is no choice but to play on grass for one reason or another ?
Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall when these guys get together ? I would love to know the theory behind the one track mind as far as the Davis Cup playing surface in this country is concerned.
Sure there is an argument that a week's training on a surface will get a player grooved enough to be ready for battle but in the heat of a match where will a player's thought process be ? Doesn't a professional tennis player go to the 'well' where all of their training has been over many years when looking for an answer to the many questions an opponent asks.
What if they are looking for that crucial answer at that crucial time in a match yet the surface does not permit that type of play through lack of training on it ?
We could come up with a dozen or so examples but I am already writing a book, this site is just a brief 'point of view'.
No matter how you look at it all Tennis Australia are confused because they are trying to hold onto something from the past but at the same time trying to move ahead.
I guarantee you that the grass court idea for Davis Cup has nothing to do with the players, it is not their choice, it is handed to them by Tennis Australia and they are still obsessed with an old tradition.
Grass court tennis is a once a year event at the hallowed grounds of Wimbledon and the smaller lead up tournaments to it. Apart from that how many players would use that surface to develop their game ? Do you think any ???
Merry Xmas to all, thanks for reading my site and to Tennis Australia thank you for handing me so much dialogue over the years.......
Regards Glenn 

Monday, 7 December 2015

'A MONUMENTAL BLUNDER'

Here's an interesting piece of information for you regarding the Davis Cup final of 2001 played at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne, Australia, 30th November- Dec 2, between Australia and France. Now you all know my views on Tennis Australia and their lack of faith in their players to win on anything but a grass court but this little chestnut is rather staggering.
It all began at Wimbledon in the same year.
A Frenchman by the name of Nicolas Escude was seeded 24 and took on Lleyton Hewitt of Australia, seeded 5 in the fourth round. Most would have tipped Hewitt to win that particular match but Escude had a rather unique style which was not unlike that of Swede Mats Wilander particularly his backhand which was a magnificently fluent shot.
Escude managed to beat Hewitt in five sets which on paper looked like an upset but anyone who knew just how talented the Frenchman was knew that this win was within his capabilities. The Frenchman went through to the quarters and won the first set off Agassi before losing in four. Let's now fast forward to the US Open of that same year.
Lleyton Hewitt survived a tough five set test in round two against James Blake before going on to beat Roddick in the quarters, again in five, then Kafelnikov in straight and then belted Sampras in straight sets also for the title. Hewitt had hard court form without a doubt. Now let's fast forward to the Davis Cup final of 2001.
The team in Australia comprised of Hewitt, Rafter, Woodbridge and Arthurs. Todd Woodbridge had won his 18th Grand Slam Doubles title with Bjorkman at the Australian Open on hard court in 2001. Todd also had hard court form. Wayne Arthurs made it to the semi finals of the 2001 Australian Open Mens doubles with Zimonjic. So it would be fair to say that Arthurs also didn't mind playing on hard courts.
Pat Rafter had already won the US Open Mens Singles title twice, in '97 and '98. His form on hard court could not be questioned. Rafter in fact won ten doubles tournaments over the course of his career though four of those were with possibly one of the greatest doubles players of all time, Swede Jonas Bjorkman. ( I reckon I may have had a chance to win at doubles with Bjorkman on my side of the net ). Jonas was a doubles genius and he did not require a fellow doubles expert on his side as he proved in a tournament win with John McEnroe in 2006 when Mac was 47.
I believe only one player in the World could have taken McEnroe out of retirement and won a doubles tournament, that was Jonas. Yes Mac was a doubles expert but he had been in retirement for around 12 years apart from the Seniors tour and that is a huge difference from the ATP Tour.
Sorry I have got off track again, as I usually do.
So the Australian Tennis 'brains trust' decided to lay a grass court over the hard court at the home of the Australian Open for reasons unbeknown to anyone but themselves. The above statistics all pointed to a hard court show down against France in that 2001 Davis Cup final. Yet it did not happen and it backfired big time. There was however another monumental blunder in that particular final that didn't get enough air play at the time yet it was the most relevant issue in the final.
Why did Rafter play doubles with Hewitt when these two were not a proven team and they had never won a title together ? Why also did the issue of Rafter's injured arm not get taken more seriously and why was he not just used as a singles player ? Were the Aussies trying to lose this final ??! Why was Woodbridge overlooked for the doubles when he had been Australia's most successful doubles player in the last 40 or so years and one of the World's all time great exponents of the two on two format ?
Wayne Arthurs was no World beater yet he was more than a handy partner for Woody and surely his semi final showing in January at the Aussie Open was more than enough to put these two together for the pivotal doubles. Apparently not.
So to the final; Escude beat Hewitt again in five sets which proved his Wimbledon win against him was no fluke. 
Rafter held his end of the bargain up with a win against Grosjean in straight sets. The little 'Maestro' as he was known Fabrice Santoro, the French doubles genius teamed with Pioline who really had no doubles form to speak of yet it was not a necessity either. Anyone could have won with Fabrice, he was as clever as Jonas on a doubles court, a genius in fact. He was the one player in that doubles match that made the difference.
The Aussies did not do their homework on this final and the amount of blunders in it were nothing short of almost comical. Hewitt did end up taking the tie to the final match with a straight sets win over Grosjean in the first reverse singles yet Rafter could not play the final match due to how bad his arm was after the doubles so Arthurs played it. Escude won that in four sets as everyone expected him to, he was a class above Arthurs who was not a proven singles player.
The whole set of circumstances did not make sense.
Surely if Rafter had issues with his arm then he shouldn't have played the doubles but John Fitgerald as the Captain should not even have looked at him for doubles as Woody was the only man who could match Santoro's genius in doubles.
It actually would have made for a great match, Woody/ Arthurs vs Pioline/ Santoro. For history's sake the French won that match in four sets, 6-1 in the fourth, totally outplaying a team in the end who were dubbed 'the Dream Team' at the start of the match. They were anything but.
This Davis Cup final will go down as one of the biggest 'cock ups' in Australian tennis history for all of the above reasons. Someone should have sent Tennis Australia a 'please explain letter' back then and asked for some answers.
Pity I didn't know how to type back then..........