'IT HAS A WAY'

Tennis sometimes has a way of levelling things out and on many occasions it rewards the player who has suffered a degree of pain over their career with a win to make it all seem worthwhile.
In the 2009 Australian Open Mens final I vividly recall a game in the third set that quite possibly changed the outcome of the match. From memory the score was 5-5 and Federer had two break points on Nadal's serve and as usual Rafa went for broke and hit two clean winners to erase the opportunity for Federer to serve out the third set and take a two sets to one lead.
I recall some moments in matches quite vividly because they are moments where history quite possibly could have been written differently, particularly in sport. Federer despite losing that third set in 2009 came back to win the fourth however Nadal won the fifth with relative ease. Perhaps Roger could have taken that match in 4 sets with an ounce of luck at break point in the third.
Roger lost the final of Wimbledon a year earlier to Rafa 7-9 in the fifth set with many chances going begging in the final set. Again, history could have been written differently with an ounce of luck going the way of Roger.
The amount of pain that Rafa has inflicted on Roger over the years is blatantly obvious as their head to head currently stands at 23-12 in Rafa's favour. Five of those meetings were at the French Open, and four were in the final so it would be fair to say that without Rafa's clay court dominance the Grand Slam count of Federer's would be well over 20.
Every great player however has an Achilles heel.
The great Bjorn Borg lost four US Open finals, I believe two each to both McEnroe and Connors with only one going to five sets in 1980 when Mac won 6-4 in the fifth. Earlier that same year though Borg won the Wimbledon final against Mac 8-6 in the fifth. Is there a Tennis God do you think who likes to share things around ?
So to this year's Australian Open Mens Singles final, a Rafa win would continue his dominance over Roger and everyone would be talking about how the lefty style of the Spaniard is the most difficult match up for the one handed backhand of Roger. So what happened ?
At age 35 Roger finally decides to step in and refuses to be bullied by the spin of Rafa. He takes the high bounce on the rise and on more than one occasion hits a clean winner off a ball that in the past had him well beyond the baseline. Good coaching ?? Great thinking.....
If Roger had his time over again do you think he would have tried that several years earlier ?? And the return to Rafa's backhand rather than to his strength which in a way put the point back to a 50/50 situation rather than a 75/25 in Rafa's favour if it was returned to his forehand, a tactical change of genius proportions ?
The final was as frustrating as it was entertaining because of the length of it. There wasn't the long rallies of the past on a regular basis because if that had occurred I believe my tip of Rafa in 4 would have been right on the money. It was a match that Roger had to win within a certain time frame and if it went five hours surely the younger legs of the Spaniard would have won through despite his epic semi against Dimitrov.
Just one thing though, why aren't both semis played on the same day to give both players an equal rest for the final ?? Sponsorship and advertising dollars to do it on different days ? C'mon don't be silly......
Rafa's effort was nothing short of brilliant and Roger may just have had an ounce of luck go his way finally at the ripe old age of 35 with an extra day's rest and an epic semi win for Rafa but that's tennis for you, it has a way........

'I WORKED IT OUT IN 2015'

I published this post almost two years ago when Dimitrov was going nowhere with his tennis. He was being 'coached' by someone who's expertise was in another field. Thank goodness Grigor found someone to teach him how to play the game......

'NEW COACH GRIGOR' ? FEBRUARY 2015

I have been saying it now for a long, long time, Roger Rasheed is not a tennis coach, he is a fitness expert. Rasheed took Hewitt from World Number 1 to number 19 in a short period of time yet he seems to be a walk up start to coaching gigs with top players. So how did his resume look after he finished with Hewitt ? Not flattering.
He then spent time with Monfils and Tsonga, now he is with a man who is going to be known as ' the greatest waste of talent in Mens Tennis' unless he finds a guy who can teach him how to play. Grigor Dimitrov of Bulgaria has all the shots with no game plan or a way to beat the top guys or even guys who he should be beating for that matter. His loss to Ryan Harrison in Acapulco proved just that.
Ranked a lowly 169 the American found a way to handle the windy conditions better than his opponent who many have touted as the 'baby Federer'.
Dimitrov has all the shots with out all the ideas and he reminds me of a young Andre Agassi before the 'brains trust' Brad Gilbert got inside his head and turned things around. Grigor is in desperate need of his very own 'Gilbert' as it's one thing to be coached by a fitness expert, it's another to be learning the game from a genius.
If I was still a betting man I would have my beach shack on Rasheed to be looking for another job before the financial year is up......

******* FOR THE RECORD, the two split in July 2015, glad I didn't put my beach shack on it, I was two weeks out with my prediction. My landlord owned it anyhow.......*******

'MANY SIMILARITIES'

I vividly recall a semi final at the US Open around the year 1980 when the great Bjorn Borg of Sweden took on South Africa's Johan Kriek.
After the first two sets the eventual winner had only won a total of 8 games.
Watching the first two sets of the Wawrinka / Federer semi at the Oz Open this year there are striking similarities.
Borg lost the first two sets to Kriek in the '80 Semi by the score of 4-6, 4-6 and I am certain the South African had already written his victory speech.
Borg came back to win the next three sets by the score of 6-1, 6-1, 6-1.
Stan just got the third by the same score and is up a break in the fourth. Could it happen again ? My apologies however my mind never stops as I watch the sport and write accordingly.
Whether Roger gets out of the spot he's currently in is almost irrelevant, it doesn't matter what your lead is, it's only a number . Borg was 8 after two sets, Kriek was 12, Borg finished at 26, Kriek was stuck on 15 and that to me is still a belting.
Play the ball, not the scoreboard.......

'THE BIRTHDAY BOY'

At age 48 I suppose I can say what the great John McEnroe once said 'The older I get, the better I was'. Wise and very true words from the great man himself.
Tennis at age 48 is a physical battle now days more than anything else because you simply do not move the way that you either used to or the way you wish to so therefore it comes down to just what you learned in your younger years.
By that statement I refer to finding ways to win or at least be competitive without engaging in long rallies which will drain the tank rather quickly and not leave enough in reserve for the final stages of a match which define you as a player.
The way I see it you've got two options as a tennis player as you age, you learn to volley and finish a point or you stand there and belt winners past your opponent. ( I am joking as far as the latter is concerned ).
The only way to conserve your energy on a tennis court as you get older is to shorten the points, rather obvious statement, though the fitness fanatics of over 50's tennis will tell you otherwise and can still sit out there all day with the young blokes and trade punches. Personally I couldn't think of anything worse.
When I was a kid I only ever went to the net to shake hands, now days I volley reasonably well as coaching will do that for you, it will naturally develop a volley for even the most seasoned baseliner because you can't coach from the baseline, not all day anyhow.
So if I was to leave one thing as something that I have learned over the years in tennis I would say that the most important shot that I have ever learned was in fact the volley because it can finish a point and if you know how to set yourself up at the net then you can make life for yourself on a tennis court a whole lot easier.
I played a kid when I was age 41 in a best of three sets match and I swear the kid hardly missed a groundie. When however I worked out that he in fact was never taught to volley or even to come in for that matter I simply brought him in and hit the ball straight at him.
From memory he gave me the equivalent of around four or five games in missed volleys and approaches, just enough for me to sneak in a win.
Anyone can hit a ball from the back of a tennis court but if you know how to finish the point when the opportunity arises or know how to bring your opponent into the zone they are least comfortable with then you may just be able to win enough points through tactics rather than brute force.
I couldn't hit a sliced backhand until I was 18, now days unless someone comes to the net and I need some pace on the pass then I will simply slice the ball from the backhand side. Why ? Because I haven't found a player yet who likes scraping a ball low off the court but I have played plenty who like the ball in their hitting zone, something that topspin will give them.
So from a 12 year old kid who never volleyed and never knew what a sliced backhand even felt like until I was old enough to go out to a pub, it is rather amusing that as I approach age 50 those two shots are now my most treasured.
Tennis becomes a game of chess as you get older and due to the physical demands of it, well it's probably about as slow as a game of chess also but if ever you have read the story of the 'Tortoise and the Hare', well, you may just understand where I am coming from.......
Regards 'The Birthday Boy'
GT

'NO ADVANTAGE'

Love hard court tennis, just love it. Hate playing on it at age 48 but love watching it because there is no advantage whatsoever to any player, it simply comes down to who you are as a player and what you own as far as brains, shots and tactics are concerned.
In 2004 and 2005 our very own Lleyton Hewitt expressed his concerns that the hardcourts at Melbourne Park were in fact too slow for his liking and he wanted them quickened up. I found that rather interesting to say the least. Try Roland Garros Lleyton, that's slow Champ.
With new balls every seven games and guys like Roddick in the draw back then I doubt that it was really that slow as far as a surface was concerned, I think it was more about some personalities believing they were bigger than the game itself. Tennis is like that, full of self centred egotists rearing their egos on a regular basis, nature of the sport.
For the record, Lleyton never won the Aussie Open, the closest he got was the final against Safin in 2005 where the big Russian blew him away after a slow first set. Court must have played too slow.......
So to this year, how does a guy ranked 50 plus beat the World number 1 ? This was the same guy who lost to Rafa in Brisbane around ten days ago, 1-6, 1-6. Mischa Zverev is a tactical genius or is he just a smart tennis player ?
I guarantee you he did some soul searching after Rafa belted him. 'If Rafa beats me 1 and 1 I have to change something against Andy. If I play from the back I lose 1, 1 and 1, if I serve and volley I may be a silly chance'. Maybe words to that effect anyhow.
That's tennis for you, it's a sport where you only get smarter with each loss. Winning brings contentment, losing exposes  your flaws and teaches you how to become better. Losing isn't so bad, it can make you a good tennis player by the end of your days on court providing you accept that what you currently do is not good enough.
How did Mischa win the 'unwinnable' ? Well it has a lot to do with the surface for sure because a hard court makes you think about things to the extent that thinking becomes educational. If you think on a court you are respecting the game and everything that goes with it.
If you don't think then you are probably a one dimensional tennis player who will only go so far before you lose to the guys who own the grey matter required to go further in the sport.
Mischa Zverev gives every tennis player hope, just as Denis Istomin did when he beat Novak in round 2, they make us all believers that the impossible can be achieved in a sport that usually only delivers the usual suspects at the business end of proceedings.
A serve and volley game can only do one thing, it can bother a baseliner who does not like to be rushed into anything. Serve and volley was the only tactic that could have bothered Sir Andy and Zverev is smart enough to have learned from the Rafa match that things need to be mixed up particularly against a baseliner.
Plan B and C needs to also get a run at some stage when things aren't going according to plan. Hard court tennis is a joy to watch because only the smartest player can win on a surface that only rewards the player who is prepared to go into each match with an open mind and play the opposition on what they bring to the table.
You may go into a tennis match with an 'idiot proof' plan however when that plan gets ridiculed by someone who didn't read your script then it is up to you to tear up the paper and start thinking of what else you have learned from hitting thousands of tennis balls and what else you can come up with.
Rafa taught Mischa a big lesson just recently, it worked, Mischa should send Rafa a belated Xmas card, I reckon it's the least he could do......

'ALL IN THE NAME OF STUPIDITY'

No tennis player on the planet should be forced to start a tennis match at almost midnight due to many reasons but the main being that it totally puts the body clock out and in a Grand Slam event, well that is crucial.
Sure it may be the 'luck' of the draw however it's never the Big 4 who are asked to set foot on a tennis court when most will have already had themselves at least two hours sleep.
Yes folks I firmly believe that it's all in the name of stupidity, perhaps advertising, perhaps poor scheduling, perhaps the Tournament organisers not allowing for long matches prior to the final one of the night, but hang on wasn't Rafa playing another baseliner earlier in the afternoon ???
So when doing the scheduling for that match didn't the light globe go off ? Not in a fat fit was that match ever going to be under three hours, moreso the 4 plus that it took as both the great man himself and his younger opponent Zverev don't venture much past the furthest line that they can find on a tennis court.
Scheduling a Womens match inbetween the two Mens matches is the dumbest thing you could possibly do because if both go the distance ( which they did ) then you will see a farcical situation as we did last night with Dimitrov and Gasquet which did no one any favours, least of all the players.
Rescheduling is the only way to in fact look after the players in a situation like this yet that doesn't seem to be on the agenda, stupidity prevailed instead.
The Womens match could have been rescheduled to the next day or if that sounds sexist then perhaps the Gasquet/ Dimitrov match could have been put back to Sunday with a promise of an extended time between that result and their following match. Surely either one would have been both accepted and respected by the players in particular.
That way the crowd actually gets to go home by midnight, still a long day at the tennis. You can't tell me that some would have opted for an 'early' night rather than watch the final Mens match last night, it was obvious if you looked at the many empty seats that this was the case.
Experts will always tell you the same thing 'They are Professionals, they have to play and perform no matter what the circumstances ', however what Gasquet and Dimitrov were forced to do was nothing short of plain silly. Have you played a tennis match at say 8 pm then tried to go to bed at a reasonable hour and ask your body to simply relax and forget what just happened ?? These two were asked to play at midnight !!!
The body is pumped full of adrenalin after running around a tennis court no matter what time it is and it requires a period of relaxation before it in fact is asked to sleep. I would suggest that Dimitrov who won the match would not have got to bed much before 5 am after stretching, eating, relaxing and doing whatever else was required to allow his body to eventually sleep.
The Hewitt/ Baghdatis match in 2008 was even more farcical with a 4.30 am finish and from memory I believe that Hewitt got smashed in his next match by Novak. Sure he was playing Novak however what that finishing time did to him was rather obvious. Poor scheduling taken to a new level of incompetence.
It will be interesting to see how Dimitrov performs in his next match though he is playing Istomin who has played ten sets in his past two matches so he may just have luck riding on his side.........

'AREN'T WE LUCKY'

So far no Jim Courier, he may be busy somewhere else, however we are 'lucky' enough to have the one and only Roger Rasheed in the commentary box at this year's Australian Open. Now don't just take my word for it but Roger R is not that well respected by some in this Country ( I may be part of that select group ).
John Tomic once congratulated Roger R for taking Lleyton from the top ranked position to around the 20 mark in a short period of time, not sure how that happened but it happened. Not a great look for your next coaching appointment.
Anyhow Roger R is here folks, fasten your seatbelts........