2007 Schedule... Sadly, Nothing's Changed

A quick look at the 2007 Grand Slam schedule, which I recently found posted on Tennis Week Online, makes it abundantly clear that the powers that be in the world of professional tennis are still clueless.

Here's what the geniuses have come up with:

Australian Open: Jan 15-28
Roland Garros: May 27-June 10
Wimbledon: June 25-July 8
U.S. Open: Aug 27-Sep 9

Brilliant, isn't it? Such a huge leap forward! I don't know about you, but I'm tired of banging my head against the establishment, because they just aren't listening.

Case in point #1: We've still got one of the sport's largest and most important events occuring a mere two weeks after the season has opened. That's like holding Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series in April. The play would be abysmal and the injuries high. And there would be little time for a build-up of interest and/or suspense. Sound familiar?

Case in point #2: We must still endure 17 weeks (count 'em!) of mostly European clay court tennis as the lead-up to Roland Garros.

Case in point #3: There's still only two weeks and a day between the last ball struck on the crushed red brick of Paris and the first ball in play on the grass of London's All England Club. And, we've still got to swallow seeing the British flag on our TVs while we're celebrating our Independence Day. So much for that victory in 1776.

So, two weeks to get ready for the Australian; 17 to prepare for the French; two to go from slow red dirt to quick, slippery grass; and to top it all off, we don't even get the star-spangled banner waving on our living room sets while we eat strawberries and cream for breakfast at Wimbledon. You couldn't make up a worse schedule if you tried. The lost marketing opportunities alone guarantee the pro game will continue to go relatively unnoticed by the larger sporting world. It's way past time tennis learns to market its prize products effectively.

It's really quite simple, and I've said it time and time again. But it bears repeating: we must structure the tour around the four majors — those stalwarts of the game, those time-honored traditions, those world-renowned entities, those most successful product brands. To do otherwise is quite simply to dilute the power and appeal of the sport. Now, personally, I would also add Davis Cup and the Masters Series, with its year-end Masters Cup, to the list. But that's another story for another time. For now, let's just focus on the four majors — the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open.

In the service of creating a RATIONAL Grand Slam tournament schedule that can be marketed to full effect, let's propose a set of four "Grand Slam Series" in the mold of the U.S. Open Series, with players competing for points that will translate to a doubling or trebling of their take at the major which is the series' namesake should they finish the series as points leader — just like the U.S. Open Series is structured today. So, in order to do this, each of the Grand Slam Series would need to be between five and seven weeks long, followed by the two-week long Slam. And ideally, each Grand Slam Series would be contested on the surface on which the Slam will be contested. Finally, strong consideration should be given to the regional market which could be tapped or exploited to ensure continued successful globalization of the sport.

With the basic tenets laid down, we'd have a Grand Slam schedule that looked something like this:

We'd start the year off with the Australian Open Series, a hardcourt and indoor series that would begin around the first of the year and run for five to seven weeks (each tournament in the series being a one-week event with a draw no larger than 64) and culminate with the two-week long Australian Open in Melbourne. It could have an Australasian flavor, circling the Pacific Rim, with one or two hard court events played in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor; two or three events played in Japan, Korea and China; one event in Southeast Asia or Indonesia; and one in New Zealand or Australia prior to the Slam. We could even go out on a limb and name it the Australian Open-Pacific Rim Series, and it would run seven to nine weeks and take us to the end of the third week of February or the end of the first week of March.

Next, we'd have a six- to eight-week Roland Garros-EuroAfrican Series, which would be a red clay series held throughout Europe and parts of Africa. It might, for example, include week-long events in Stockholm, Moscow, Istanbul, Morrocco, perhaps Johannesburg, then Rome, Barcelona or Madrid, and culminate in the two-week Slam in Paris. Nine or 10 weeks tops, taking us to the end of the second week of May.

Then we'd have a six- to eight-week Wimbledon-Atlantic Seacoast Series, a grass court series that would be played in coastal towns on either side of the "pond" (Atlantic Ocean), and culminate with the fortnight in London. This series could reach from the Netherlands to Boston, with a stop in Newport, Rhode Island, over the week comprising the Fourth of July, so Americans can see the stars and stripes gallantly waving while watching the top Wimbledon contenders compete at the Hall of Fame. Inductees to the Hall would become a real attraction, with the current crop of stars on hand to witness and pay tribute, as well. It's a double-whammy.

Finally, we'd head into the U.S. Open-Americas Series, which would take us to points across Canada, the U.S., and Central and South America, culminating of course in New York with the U.S. Open, the game's largest and most spectacular show. This tour could go to places like Toronto-Montreal, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Houston, Mexico City or Buenos Aries or Lima or Santiago, then Washington, New Haven and New York. The only difference I would make to the way it's done today is that I'd push it out one to two weeks, and hold all match play under the bright lights. Why do we insist on holding the majors during our vacation/holiday times? And imagine the stars who would come out each and every night, adding celebrity glitter to an already brilliant display of talent on court. During the daylight hours, the USTA could utilize their abundant resources to "grow the game"; the PTR and USPTA could hold clinics and certification seminars; there could be plenty of activities to draw kids in; and the boy's and girl's tournaments could be played.

As I see it, there is no down-side to structuring the pro tour around the Grand Slam events in the aforementioned manner. All that's needed is the will to make it happen. Where's our Commissioner of Tennis? John?... Andre?... Pete?....

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Read me in TENNIS WEEK (December 2006)

I don't normally make a habit of tooting my own horn, but... if you happen to be a USPTA or PTR tennis professional, or know where you can pick up the December issue of TENNIS WEEK at a newstand, check out my article in Sight Lines on page 55, "Service Lets and Sudden Death." I believe you will find my thoughts on simple ways to improve the pro game interesting, or at least provocative.

So, if you get a chance to read my piece, let me know what you think by commenting here. Thanks.

TENNIS WEEK magazine's all-time picks

As promised, here are the results of TENNIS WEEK magazine's "A Tourney for All Time" fantasy men's tennis tournament. In brackets are my picks, round by round. (Note: Names only appear in the brackets if I picked a different winner, loser, or both.)

TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe

First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)

Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)

Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)

Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)

Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)

As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.

In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

To watch the ball (or not)

Everyone can appreciate Roger Federer's superlative shotmaking abilities — his forehand crosscourt winners on the dead run, his topspin backhand passes and rifled shots up the line, among the more impressive. But what strikes me as his most distinctive quality, or competency, is his seemingly effortless movement in pursuit of the ball. Focus your eyes on Federer, and only on Federer, and you'll be convinced that he has some sort of mental radar or telepathy, as he gets to the ball so quickly it appears he already knows where it will be before he makes his first move. The question is: How does he do it? What is his trick for making it look so easy, for getting to the ball so quickly?

I think part of the answer lies in his natural quickness and in his ability to dissect all the angles of the court to determine his opponent's most favorable shot, then to cover that shot as quickly as possible. But I think one other equally large part of it has to do with his anticipation, his ability to make highly educated, or intelligent, guesses at just the right moment, maximizing his ball coverage and minimizing errors of judgment. But what is the root cause of such superb anticipation? I believe it has everything to do with what Federer visually focuses on and when.

It's almost cliche to talk about how well Federer keeps his eyes fixed on the contact point throughout his stroke. Like a good billiards player who has the capacity to make the ball scoot this way or that after the shot in order to find the best spot on the table for the following shot, but who knows none of that matters if she doesn't sink that first ball, Federer narrows his focus on the shot he's making, and nothing more, until he's made it. He refuses to get ahead of himself, to rush to get ready for the next ball; he knows that if he strikes the ball as well as he can, the ball may simply not come back.

But what does he focus on next? What should all players visually focus on once they've struck the ball and are motoring to get into position for the reply? The answer I'm about to reveal may surprise you: you should look at your opponent, very critically. Watch how well and how quickly he's moving toward the ball. Is he rushed? Is he tense? Is he straining with all his might to get there? And what about his racquet preparation? Is he early or late? Is he preparing for a topspin drive or a slice? Will he be offensive with his reply or defensive? These and other answers will flood your mind as you watch your opponent respond to your shot. And the answers your pattern-identifying brain gives you will help you determine whether to follow your shot to the net or adopt a defensive position, look for an opening or hustle back to the neutral zone.

Most of us watch our shot to see where it lands. We watch the ball, and only the ball, as we were taught from the beginning. But to take your game to that next level, where you are anticipating like Federer, you must learn to multi-task. You must learn when to focus your eyes on the ball and when not to. You'll soon realize that it is imperative to focus on the ball from the moment your opponent strikes it to the moment you strike it, but at all other times your focus may deviate from watching the ball to maintaining your gaze on the contact point, or to critically observing your opponent for clues as to his ability to respond to the shot you've just made. Indeed, you will likely find yourself actually watching the ball only about 60 to 70 percent of the time, with about 10 percent allocated to fixing your gaze (and therefore your head and shoulder position) on the contact point — even after contact is made — and the remaining 20 to 30 percent allocated to fixing your gaze on your opponent so as to better understand the efficacy of your shot and the likely effectiveness of his reply.

Those players who continue to watch the ball at all times are too quick to "leave their post" and too late to "catch the train" — never fully committing to their own shot or giving themselves a chance at seeing what their opponent is capable of doing during a given exchange. What you focus your eyes on during the point is crucial to determining how much information you gather about your opponent's capabilities and your opportunities to take charge. Learn when to take you eyes off the ball and use your peripheral vision to keep track of the non-essentials, such as the trajectory of your shot or the exact spot on the court where it lands, and your shots will take on greater force, spin and precision, while your level of anticipation will skyrocket!

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

My picks for All-Time Greats tennis championships

In response to a challenge put out by the staff at TENNIS WEEK magazine to select the winners in a hypothetical "All-Time Greatest Players" men's tennis tournament — using a list of the players selected by the writers of TENNIS WEEK and the first-round match-ups produced by draw of the hat at TENNIS WEEK — I am using this entry to reveal to you my picks, which were submitted to TENNIS WEEK last month.

Today TENNIS WEEK announced a winner of the fantasy challenge on their website, and will print the entire drawsheet results in the December issue, currently at the presses. I will reprint them here for your edification when the issue arrives in my mailbox. Visit TENNIS WEEK online to read what the winner of the fantasy challenge has to say and to learn who the seven-member panel of former greats and current TENNIS WEEK writers picked to take it all. In the meantime, enjoy my picks and let me know what you think!

First Round (32 players)
1. Roger Federer d. John Newcombe 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
2. Ken Rosewall d. Ilie Nastase 7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4
3. Roy Emerson d. Frank Sedgman 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Boris Becker d. Don Budge 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
5. Bjorn Borg d. Tony Trabert 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
6. Guillermo Vilas d. Jean Borotra 4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
7. Pancho Gonzalez d. Jim Courier 6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5
8. John McEnroe d. Lew Hoad 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
9. Arthur Ashe d. Jack Kramer 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
10. Henri Cochet d. Rene Lacoste 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
11. Jimmy Connors d. Ellsworth Vines 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4
12. Pete Sampras d. Stefan Edberg 7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
13. Bill Tilden d. Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
14. Mats Vilander d. Manolo Santana 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
15. Andre Agassi d. Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3
16. Rod Laver d. Fred Perry 7-5, 7-5, 6-4

Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4
2. Becker d. Emerson 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Gonzalez d. McEnroe 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6
5. Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
7. Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
8. Laver d. Agassi 5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4

Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
2. Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4
3. Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3
4. Laver d. Tilden 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4

Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
2. Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4

Final
Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

The world watches, mesmerized, as Federer wins the championship in five unbelievable sets over an exhausted Pete Sampras, who remains slumped in his chair for a full five minutes before being helped to the podium to accept his trophy.

Note that the hat drawing produced a few amazing pairings, which caused me to eliminate some very special players earlier than I'd have liked to. For example, Lew Hoad falling in the first round to John McEnroe is a tough pill to swallow, yet I cannot imagine how Hoad would be able to break down McEnroe's serve, especially being a righty facing that wide-swinging lefty hook in the ad court. And in my opinion, Hoad's inability to break serve when it counts gives the edge to McEnroe. Justice is served in the very next round as McEnroe faces one tough competitor in Pancho Gonzalez, who was at least as big a bad boy as McEnroe and who I believe would prevail in five very tough sets. Of course, that is an incredibly difficult draw for McEnroe, whom I would otherwise have picked to reach the quarterfinals, if not the semifinals.

But if McEnroe's draw was difficult, Gonzalez's was simply treacherous. First he had to face Jim Courier, who for all intents and purposes can be credited for perfecting the inside-out forehand rip. And that would pose problems for anyone, but especially for a player who had not faced such an awesome weapon off the ground before. Still, I think Gonzalez's versatility, athleticism, monster serve and touch would win out against Courier. Next up, though, is McEnroe with his lethal lefty hook serve and the most effective net game the sport has seen. I picked Gonzalez on the basis of his grittiness and unbreakable will. After sneaking by McEnroe in five, Gonzalez has to face Borg, who will pass him like he's not even there. In a battle of two of the most willful players of all time, I again pick Gonzalez, but here on the basis of his versatility. That and the fact that I think if anyone could rattle Borg, it would be Pancho. And finally, Gonzalez goes up against Federer, who I think just has too much game for him. Still, it takes Federer a while to adjust to all the stuff Gonzalez throws at him, and he prevails in four tough and highly entertaining sets, with shotmaking like the world has never seen before.

Also notice that Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi face off in the first round. That is very unfortunate for Lendl, as he doesn't have the foot speed to handle Agassi's angled assaults. Lendl's power game presents some problems for Andre in the early going, but once he gets dialed in, he wears Lendl down physically. And that despite the fact that Lendl was a pioneer in bringing new levels of fitness, conditioning and nutrition to the pro game. He just simply had rarely run that far for that long, excepting his occasional matchups with fellow countryman, Miroslav Mecir. But when Agassi and Laver battle it out, we see how foot speed and a lefty hook can really take its toll on a righty with a two-handed backhanded, even one as good as Agassi.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Federer at his most masterful in Shanghai

With decisive straight-set victories over world #2 Rafael Nadal in the semifinal and the turbo-charged James Blake in the final at the Masters Cup year-end championships in Shanghai, China, Roger Federer erased any lingering doubts about his complete mastery of the game and the rest of the field.

After winning his group's round robin with three victories to no losses, Federer's decisive, though not easy, defeat of Nadal was as symbolic as it was real. With that win, Federer established that he would be able to take real satisfaction from his phenomenal year — which included retaining the number 1 ranking by a few thousand ATP points, 11 titles, three out of four slams, and more than $7 million in prize earnings — by finally exacting revenge on the man who had practically owned him everywhere but on the lawns of Wimbledon.

And so, going into the final against Blake, who had also knocked out Nadal in round-robin play and streaked past a dazed and confused David Nalbandian, last year's Master Cup titlist, Federer was brimming with confidence and personal pride. And boy did it show in his match with Blake, a dangerous competitor and shotmaker with some of the tour's best wheels to boot. Not content to let Blake dictate play with his huge, slashing forehand and hammer serve, Federer took it to his man with pre-emptive strikes and some awesome displays of athleticism. What worked for Blake against Nadal and Nalbandian, both of whom seek to find some rhythm in constructing points before delivering the juice, was completely nullified by Federer, who refused to let Blake take charge.

And if there were ever any doubts about Federer's backhand efficacy, which in this observer's mind has always been one of the game's most beautiful and lethal shots, he eradicated those doubts in the 15 minutes it took him to secure the first set from Blake at love. For someone who delights in the sheer aesthetic of tennis, I was most impressed by the long, fluid strokes and effortless movement Federer displayed, particularly on the backhand side, which conventional wisdom has said is his weaker side. Well, you can erase that thought now. Federer showed the world why so many of his opponents come away shaking their heads in wonderment, mumbling about his lack of weaknesses. He really has none, and in this match against Blake, he demonstrated why his backhand rates as one of the all-time greatest shots in the history of tennis.

Federer doesn't merely hit backhand winners, he carves out spaces in the air and on the court with them. On several occasions in his match with Blake, Federer was forced to take a backhand directly off the baseline on the half-volley, something we've seen Agassi often do on the forehand side, but which few tennis players can do with any consistency on the backhand wing. In true Federer style, he hit pure winners with two out of three of those half-volley backhands, impossibly flicking them down the line off of Blake's huge inside-out forehands, and taking a full topspin cut at another baseline-hugger to keep Blake from going on the offensive. With 17 backhand winners, more than off his forehand wing, Federer dispelled any notions that his backhand is vulnerable to attack, at least on any surface but crushed red brick.

A Federer backhand is a thing of beauty and variety. And when he cocks back his wrist and flings it across his body, it can prove quite nasty, too. He's as adept at slicing the ball as he is at driving it with topspin or flattening it out on his approach shots. Federer moves to the ball so quickly and in such perfect balance — hence the appearance of effortlessness; he sets up so early with a complete shoulder turn and full step across his body and toward his target, that it must seem to his opponent that any shot is likely to come from Federer's racquet at any given moment. This explains the deer-frozen-in-the-headlights look on Blake's face throughout the match, I suppose.

When historians look back one day at the career of Roger Federer, I suspect there will be those who focus on his shotmaking abilities, while others recall his graceful movement and tactical genius. I hope that some will recogninze, as I do, the artfulness and efficacy of his one-handed backhand, perhaps the greatest living example of the lethality and variability possible from one of the last of a dying breed of one-handers.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Use variety and disguise to achieve the element of surprise!

You’re serving. It’s the third set of a tight match, which has see-sawed on several service breaks. In this service game, you’ve worked the court well to get to 40-30. A hold here will not only consolidate the service break you earned at 3-all, but will put you firmly in the driver’s seat, up 3-5 with the chance to break for the win or, failing that, serve out the match. An awful lot rides on this one point. What you may or may not realize is that the match may very well ride on what you choose to do with your first serve.

Conventional wisdom would have you play a relatively safe serve hit with three-quarter pace to the weak side or directly at your opponent’s body with plenty of topspin for a wide margin of error, and to look to attack the second ball. What you don’t want to do at this crucial moment is needlessly throw away your first serve by going for too much, thus be obligated to play a safer, more predictable second serve. By going for broke on the first serve (and missing) you unwittingly hand over the advantage to your opponent by failing to utilize the server’s most precious commodities — variety and disguise, which together equal the element of surprise.

Much has been made of the parallels between serving in tennis and pitching in baseball, and for good reason. In baseball, if the pitcher is able to “get ahead of” the batter, meaning to advance the strike count ahead of the ball count, he gains a huge advantage. Why is this? Because if the pitcher is able to get the count to 1 ball and 2 strikes, for example, then he has three pitches with which to get that last strike. He can essentially “waste” two of the three. Of course, no pitcher worth his salt would ever waste a pitch, but he might elect to throw a hard-breaking ball low and off the outside corner in an attempt to fool the batter into swinging at, and missing, a “bad” pitch — one that is unreachable and well beyond the strike zone. By getting “ahead” of the batter, the pitcher opens up his options and can then utilize the element of surprise by using his twin commodities — variety and disguise — to earn that last strike, perhaps even avoiding the strike zone altogether and therefore making it very difficult for the batter to get good wood on the ball should he make contact with it.

On the other hand, a pitcher who gets “behind” the batter, taking the count to 3 balls and 1 strike, for example, is obligated (by custom, external pressures, and ego/pride) to throw a ball well within the strike zone — to play it safe — or suffer the consequence of walking the batter. Now that he is in the unenviable position of needing a strike to keep the batter off the bases, he is paradoxically also more likely to throw a pitch that the batter can hit hard, as the pitcher’s options are greatly reduced and the batter can predict with greater success the type, speed and position of at least one of the next three pitches. The element of surprise has been temporarily suspended. The batter now has the advantage.

The exact same kind of thing occurs on the tennis court, in two distinct ways. The first is by the score: a server who is up 40-15 has more options and can utilize the element of surprise to great advantage. The second, by the count: the options available for the first service delivery are far greater than for the second delivery, for obvious reasons. Like the pitcher, the server is obligated, out of a need to keep the receiver from earning a free or easy point, to place the second delivery well within the “strike zone” — in this case, within the receiver’s range of preconceived, hence predictable, scenarios. The only advantage the server still has on the second serve is that he can place the ball to the receiver’s weaker side, if he can find one. All other advantages have been lost due to the first service fault.

So, it should be clear that if a server cannot get his first serve in, he hands a large share of the advantage over to his opponent, the receiver. Conversely, should he succeed in getting a high percentage of first serves in, doesn’t it stand to reason that the advantage is on his racquet? Well, not entirely. Common sense tells us that even if the server gets 100 percent of his first serves in throughout a match, if he places the serve in the same place with the same pace and spin every time, he will have succeeded merely in achieving a very high degree of predictability, and again the pendulum of advantage will have swung over to the receiver.

How, then, can the server gain true advantage? He must utilize the precious commodities of variety and disguise to achieve the element of surprise and he must get a high percentage of first serves in the court. Why both? Because it has already been established that, by definition, second serves must be hit with more predictability, less variety and less disguise; therefore, less surprise, than first serves. Else the server would risk double-faulting too often.

Here it should be stated that many athletes, tennis players included, are risk-takers and will opt to utilize the element of surprise to the fullest even on second serves, albeit often at the expense of winning. And it should also be stated that there are times when a second serve should be delivered with all the surprise the server can muster, in order to keep from becoming so predictable that he has almost no chance of winning a point on his second serve.

Paradoxically again, as tennis is full of paradoxes, the server who gets a high percentage of first serves in with successful results (i.e., he wins most of those points) can “experiment” more freely with his second delivery. Thus he is at liberty to use variety and disguise on his second serve more confidently and to greater advantage than he would (or could) were he not so successful with his first serve. Let that sink in for a moment, because it is a crucial point.

Viewed from the receiver’s side, surprise means guessing where the server is going (which direction and placement); what type of and how much spin will be imparted, if any; and how much pace the serve will have. That’s over and above guessing whether the server will attack the net or stay back and look for a second ball to attack. There’s so much guesswork involved in receiving the first serve — when the server adroitly employs variety and disguise — that the receiver cannot approach the return with confidence or aggression. He must focus on reading the serve, getting good string on the ball, and putting the ball back in play with a modicum of spin or placement so as not to give the server an easy put away opportunity. Quite a different story than when the receiver is facing a much more predictable second serve, which conventionally is played with less variety and disguise!

Now let’s see what happens when we take the conventional wisdom I spoke about at the beginning of this analysis, where you have a 40-30 opportunity to hold serve, consolidate the break and sit in the driver’s seat at 3-5 in the third set — what I’ll call the wisdom of restraint — and turn it on its head.

What happens when we adopt this wisdom of restraint as our general serving tactic, and not reserve it merely for those times when getting our first serve in is imperative? To put it another way, what happens when we play as though getting our first serve in is always imperative? Consider again the mental approach of the baseball pitcher. “Get ahead and stay ahead of the batter,” must be his overriding thought. Throw strikes early, but use a variety of pitches and placements in order to keep the batter guessing and to minimize the risk that the batter will get solid wood on any pitch. Then, once ahead in the count, tempt the batter to swing at a “bad” pitch, either striking him out; forcing him to ground out or fly out; or throwing him off-balance and ensuring he won’t be able to hit for extra bases, minimizing any damage he can possibly inflict. It’s the philosophy of containment.*

*I think it is worth noting that only a small handful of baseball players, the legendary Pittsburgh Pirates catcher, Manny Sanguillan, being one who comes most readily to mind, consistently swing at the first pitch. Most batters “look” at the first pitch to get a feel for the pitcher’s stuff. What better time than that to slip in a pitch inside the strike zone? That said, too fat a pitch, one that is right over the plate with little stuff on it, will occasionally get rocked into the upper decks.

Applying the wisdom of restraint and philosophy of containment to your service game — by fully utilizing variety and disguise to achieve the much prized element of surprise — can help you hold serve more easily than you ever dreamed imaginable. Yes, on occasion your opponent will guess correctly and hit a winner off of your more conservatively struck first serve, but over the course of a game or match he should not be able to guess correctly often enough to inflict serious damage (i.e., break your serve). I say “should not be able to guess correctly often enough” because this depends entirely on how well you employ variety and disguise.

By variety I mean any and all of the following:
> varying the placement of your serve
> varying the speed or pace of your serve
> varying the type of spin you use
> varying the amount of spin you use
> varying the position on the baseline from which you serve, and
> varying what you do after the serve (e.g., staying back or rushing the net)
I believe the only variable I haven’t included is choosing which hand to serve with. So, if you happen to be ambidextrous like Luke Jensen, then add that to the list.

Disguise can be achieved in a number of ways, but most commonly through one or more of the following:
> disguising the service type through a single, unchanging tossing motion
> disguising the service placement, pace and spin by establishing and then breaking a few simple patterns, or
> disguising your intention by maintaining a high degree of variety, of course!
Variety allows you to achieve a certain degree of disguise and disguise gives your variety a supercharge. Use both successfully and keep the receiver guessing on his heels.

Turn your service tactics on their head and begin viewing your first serve as an imperative. Get ahead of the receiver and stay ahead of him by getting a high percentage of first serves in using the twin commodities of variety and disguise to achieve that precious element of surprise. Adopt the wisdom of restraint and the philosophy of containment: take some pace off your first serve, aim 1-2 feet inside the lines, add more topspin for a greater margin of error and diminish your opponent’s ability to inflict serious or lasting damage by reducing the number of second deliveries you place into the service box.

And then start putting more stuff on your second serve, adding more spin and pace as your first serve percentage goes way up and your points-won percentage takes off. Before long, your second serve will begin to resemble your first serve, about the time your opponent begins screaming “No mas!”

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Coaching on court: the pros and cons

Coaching is to sports as roots are to trees. There is not a major, established sport in existence that doesn't promote the reliance on well-trained, professional teachers and coaches in the development of skills, especially in young people. Take coaching out of some professional sports, and you've just got a bunch of guys playing street ball on a manicured lawn or polished wood floor. Is and should tennis at the pro level be any different? I think the answer is yes, and I entreat you to share your views with me. But first, let me explain my position.

Tennis has been compared with boxing and wrestling — sports with great physical and psychological demands — and for good reason. The one-on-one physical and mental combat that is the cornerstone of these sports is the trademark of tennis, also. Yet boxing and wrestling have allowed, indeed have promoted, the presence of qualified coaches and trainers working in the corners of their charges. There is a very good reason for this: boxers and wrestlers are at great risk of sustaining extreme physical trauma every time they step into the ring or onto the mat. Were no coach or trainer present, more athletes would leave the arena with serious injuries, or even on stretchers. Granted, the referees are there in large part to protect the athletes, but between rounds it is the coach and/or trainer who must assess his athlete's ability to continue and the likelihood of his sustaining serious injury should he go on.

Tennis players are not at nearly as great a risk of sustaining severe trauma. And should a player sustain one of the many common injuries during play, such as an ankle strain, ligament or cartilage tear, or severe cramps, heat exhaustion or dehydration, a non-partisan trainer is always waiting in the wings to assist that player. In fact, while the physical demands of tennis are great at the professional level, the risk of permanent or career-ending injury is fairly low. Life-threatening injuries are very rare to non-existent.

Tennis has also been compared to chess, with its multiple strategies and tactical maneuvers. And, while the physical demands of chess are not as great, surely mental stamina plays a large role in a chess master's success. But notice there are no coaches on the sideline helping the chess master to determine his next move or to help him see the deficiencies in his strategy or defense. The chess master is expected to adapt to the circumstances and to figure out on his own the best path to victory.

I believe that thinking for oneself is a cornerstone of the successful and admired tennis player. The successful player is able to think his way out of trouble — to innovate and improvise. He is first and foremost a problem solver, and each match is a test of his abililty to solve the puzzle and then to adapt his tactics in order to execute his new, winning strategy. As soon as a coach is allowed to "enter the ring" and sit beside his charge at the changeovers, call out to him between points, or make hand signals and gestures, the puzzle solver is no longer the guy with the racquet in his hand. The coach becomes the mastermind, and the player is reduced to executioner of the grand plan passed on to him. He's still the quarterback, but he receives his direction from the sidelines.

While on-court coaching would undoubtedly make for compelling TV, especially should the coaches be hooked up to microphones, it would also bring the sport down from its lofty perch as the only major individual sport, aside from the track and field events, bicycling and swimming (which do not have interruptions and are not so much mental challenges as physical), in which the best athletes are also the best thinkers on their feet. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. But one must also face facts: the most successful players (who also have the largest bank accounts) would be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can by. Talk about stacking the deck!

In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. As it stands today, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, and far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. When coaches are tasked by eager parents to produce winners in young players, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.

It is my hope that tennis will remain the true individual sport it was intended to be, and that the guidance of the coach is restricted to the practice court.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Preparing to go the distance

In my previous entry (“America’s dominance: will history repeat itself?”), I stated that "Until we find a way to develop our youngsters' games on the slower surfaces, particularly the crushed red brick, American juniors will struggle to develop the stroke proficiency, movement, endurance, tactical acumen and heart to compete with those who spend five to six hours a day on the gritty, slippery stuff." I will use this space to elaborate on this point and pitch in my two cents on where and how we should be taking the games of our best juniors if we hope to achieve the kinds of results we've come to expect and demand.

If you've read my entry on the scheduling of the Grand Slams and, subsequently, Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments, Davis and Federation Cups, and year-end Masters Cups (“A modest proposal (for the pro game)”), you already know how I feel about the trend away from multiple surfaces and toward a dual standard — crushed red brick and Rebound Ace. I don't like it, and I don't think it's good for the sport. Having said that, I also don't think it made sense 35 years ago to play three of the four Grand Slam championships on grass. It can be argued quite easily that the primary reason for the shift from a preponderance of continental and eastern grips and one-handed backhands to semi-western and western grips and two-fisted backhands is the abandonment of low-bouncing, fast-playing grass and indoor wooden surfaces for slow, high-bouncing clay and outdoor hard courts.

The best scenario, in my view, is to test the players on at least four, if not five or six, different surfaces, including (1) the true-bounce, slow hard courts known as Rebound Ace; (2) the crushed red brick found at Roland Garros and throughout Europe and South America and parts of the Middle East, Asia and Indonesia; (3) the grass courts of Wimbledon and surrounding areas as well as parts of northeast U.S.; (4) the composition courts (also known by the brand name, Har-Tru) common throughout the resort and private club community; (5) the fast cement, macadam and asphalt courts common in the public parks of the U.S.; and (6) the ultra-fast carpeted or rubberized surfaces primarily reserved for indoor play. By doing so, you'll see the best and most versatile athletes emerge as champions and you'll witness a diversification of playing styles we haven't seen in some time.

It is clear that the present direction is toward limiting professional competition primarily to two surfaces — red clay and Rebound Ace. This being the case, and taking into account the successes on both the men's and women's tours of individuals from European, South American and former Soviet Bloc countries, it is clear that success on the tour is dependent on the development of four key competencies: stroke proficiency; footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and desire or "heart." These four competencies, which I’ll call “elements” after the fundamental Elements of Aristotelian cosmology — earth, air, water and fire — are essential arrows in the quiver of an elite tennis player.

By stroke proficiency I mean simplicity, efficiency, stability, reliability and durability. The ideal strokes, whether we're talking about service motions, groundstrokes, volleys, overheads or the auxilliary shots such as half-volleys and backhand smashes, are those which can be performed effectively under all conditions and stressors, both physical and psychological. This demands the development of strokes that are simple and efficient. Excess motion, or complexity, impedes effectiveness when conditions are windy, the surface fast, or the bounce unpredictable. Strokes that are stable and reliable are those that do not break down under varying conditions and pressures and produce intended results when properly executed. Durability refers to how the mechanics of a stroke are impacted by age and factors outside the player’s control, such as changes in surface or changes in racquet and ball technology. In this way, durability is connected conceptually to simplicity and efficiency. Strokes that are durable are those that hold up over time. Think Andre Agassi. Clearly, a player who has developed strokes that meet all these criteria has a huge leg up on a player whose strokes do not meet one or more of these criteria. When we watch Roger Federer, we are witnessing this principle in practice.

Footwork and movement obviously refers to much more than foot speed. As with stroke proficiency, footwork that is simple and efficient is more effective in getting a player from point A to point B and back again with less wasted energy and in less time than a player whose footwork and movement is complicated and inefficient. In addition, efficient movement enables a player to maintain perfect balance as he maneuvers around the court as well as while executing a stroke, particularly those strokes executed on the run, which so many strokes are in today's professional game. Efficient footwork and movement also are key factors in enabling a player to transition from defense to offense or from offense to defense quickly. Again, Federer’s game provides a case study in efficient footwork and movement.

Tactical acumen refers to a player's ability to match the most effective tactics to the strategy he has chosen to employ against a particular opponent under certain conditions. Of course, the more tactical options at a player’s disposal, the more effective he will be at employing a particular strategy or in altering his strategy should it prove ineffective. In this way, tactical acumen is closely tied to stroke proficiency and movement, as a player who has mastered many strokes and moves efficiently around the court is a player who can utilize multiple tactics in pursuit of one objective. For example, a player who has mastered the inside-out topspin forehand as well as the low, penetrating slice forehand, and whose efficient movement enables him to quickly improve his court position when the opportunity arises, is able to utilize the tactic of seizing the net with a deep shot that pins his opponent to the ad court corner. And he can do it in one of two ways—with the inside-out topspin forehand or with the low, penetrating slice forehand. So, we can see that tactics drive strategy in as much as strategy drives tactics.

Stamina and endurance refer simply to a player’s physical strength and durability. All the tactical know-how and stroke proficiency in the world cannot overcome a serious physical deficiency like a lack of stamina. But give a great shotmaker superb stamina and endurance, and you’ve got something special. Then add in a healthy dose of “heart” — that intangible yet quite palpable ability to dig deep and then deeper into one’s reserves of strength and will and craftiness to architect a victory against seemingly insurmountable odds. Heart, the fire within, is the final element that must be developed and which will sustain a player when all else is teetering on the verge of collapse. It is what we saw time and again from Pete Sampras, who, in addition to possessing some of the greatest shots in the history of the game, had the capacity to reach down into his gut and come up with something brilliant at just the right moment. On a few memorable occasions, Pete’s guts were literally displayed for all the world to see. And instead of shrinking in embarrassment, he gathered the courage to match his pride and pushed himself to limits few ever reach.

It is my contention that if the high-performance coaches and trainers in America today truly want to develop the next wave of great young players who will be fit to compete and win on the pro tour, they must reduce their efforts to developing the four elements detailed above. And the best way to do this is to create an environment in which players must rely on these elements in order to succeed against their peers. And since court surface is perhaps the single most defining factor in selecting successful game style and tactics, those who are charged with developing America’s next class of players must look to the slow, gritty, slippery crushed red brick as the primary surface on which to develop the fundamental elements of an elite player’s game.

The slow, crushed brick demands stroke proficiency; efficient footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and heart. A player with the smallest inefficiency or mechanical hiccup in his stroke cannot survive the test of clay, where points are often decided in no less than 20 to 30 strokes. Because high-percentage play is rewarded and risk-taking is not, in order to win a point on red clay a player must use all of his tactical options to push his opponent hopelessly out of position before attacking with impunity or going for the winner. For this reason, the dirt demands the most of a player in terms of stamina and endurance. And as a match wears on and players are tested to their limits, the player with the most heart and desire to win will more often than not prevail in the end.

It’s no accident that nearly 30 years ago, when the turf of the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, New York, was replaced by composition and soon after the U.S. Open was moved to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows, the world was also witnessing the rise of nations like Sweden, Argentina and Spain on the pro tour. The Swedes had created a national training center in Stockholm, and used Bjorn Borg’s meteoric success to develop a generation of players who could compete for Grand Slams and Davis Cups. Argentina and Spain were not far behind, and today are well represented in the top ranks on tour. These players all trained on the crushed brick, and developed the strokes, movement, tactical acumen, stamina and heart needed to compete on the slow, slippery, high-bounce surface.

After having achieved success with Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger in the 70s, the Bolletieri Academy became the de facto elite training center in the U.S., developing young talent from all over America and around the world. With the success of Andre Agassi and Monica Seles in the 1980s and 90s, and the impact their style of play has had on the game, Bolletieri can lay claim to having helped architect America’s resurgence after the ATP careers of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had come to an end. Now, as the USTA pushes for a national training center of its own, a place where the best juniors can come to get the best training and compete against the best of their peers — a sort of super-Bolletieri academy — it would behoove the architects to review the plans that have propelled the Swedish, Spanish and, most recently, Russian federation players to elite status.

To sum up, the road to American success on the pro tour must not be smoothly paved, but made of crushed red brick. The next wave of junior players to be developed in America’s high-performance training center(s) must be prepared to go the distance in order to compete with their European, South American and Russian counterparts.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

America's dominance: will history repeat itself?

Will Americans ever dominate the tennis world again? Or, more to the point, is it even possible for one nation to dominate the game anymore?

It must be said that the situation looks less than rosy on the women's side. The Williams sisters, too often sidelined with injuries of late, can't seem to commit. And Lindsay Davenport, likewise plagued by recurring injuries to her wrist, back and thigh, is clearly due to retire soon. There's a Frenchwoman perched atop the rankings for the first time since Suzanne Lenglen dominated the ladies game; a bevy of Russian and eastern European bombshells, led by the leggy Maria Sharapova, are hungry to assume the mantle; and the friendly Belgian rivals, Kim Clijsters and Justin Henin-Hardenne, are capable of stepping up when it counts most—in the Slams.

On the men's side, it would seem to be all Federer and Nadal. Or is it? Two U.S. players are among the eight-man delegation heading to Shanghai for the year-end Masters Cup. Andy Roddick, ranked #5 in the world, and James Blake, ranked #8, enter the tournament with a full head of steam, having played superb hardcourt tennis over the past two months. Both men are very dangerous when the bounce is true and the footing sure. Outside the top-10 are a handful of American players, including Robby Ginepri, Taylor Dent, Mardy Fish, and the young up-and-coming Sam Querrey. While the current crop is nothing like the class led by Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Jim Courier, with Michael Chang, Todd Martin and Malivai Washington representing in fine fashion, Americans today possess the top-ranked and history-making duo of Bob and Mike Bryan. The last time the U.S. produced a doubles team as dominant as the twin towers was in the 1970s and 80s when John McEnroe teamed with Peter Fleming for some 70-plus titles and several Slams.

Roddick, with his bunker-busting serve and huge inside-out forehand, is a threat every time he steps on the court, as is Blake, whose athleticism and forehand rank among the very best. And the Bryan brothers are simply unstoppable when rested and hungry. In short, despite not boasting the top singles player, the U.S. men's squadron looks pretty lethal to this observer.

Having said that, and having paid my respects to the current class, once we look beyond our veteran tour players there may be some cause for alarm. Except for the steady progress shown by Sam Querrey, the U.S. doesn't have much to pin our hopes on among the underclassmen. Donald Young, highly touted since he was a 14-year-old Orange Bowl champion, has had little success adapting to the big guns on the professional tour so far. This may change, but not unless he makes some fundamental changes in his game.

What has gone wrong between the Sampras-Agassi class and the Roddick-Blake class? Aside from natural talent, the main difference has been that the crop of players coming out of the training centers in Europe, South America and the former Soviet Bloc nations have simply gotten better and better as we've continued to pin our hopes on a select one or two stars from the junior or college ranks. Roddick was the world's top-ranked junior player, so expectations for him were naturally quite high. Federer was also a world #1 junior, as was Baghdatis and Gasquet. But what of Nadal? Davydenko? Ljubicic? Or Nalbandian, Robredo and others? (Check out this list of ITF year-end world champions from 1978 to 2005.)

What has gone wrong, and what continues to go wrong, is that we continue to let our juniors develop their skills and compete regularly on the hard courts that dot the American landscape. While some privileged few practice on composition courts at country clubs, the vast majority of their playing time is on hard courts — a painted asphalt-rubber mix, to be exact. Until we find a way to develop our youngsters' games on the slower surfaces, particularly the crushed red brick, American juniors will struggle to develop the stroke proficiency, movement, endurance, tactical acumen and heart to compete with those who spend five to six hours a day on the gritty, slippery stuff. And those who somehow manage to do so will be the exception rather than the rule.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

The foreign invasion: is it a bad thing?

The last time an American-born player won the NCAA Division I men's singles title was in 2000, when Alex Kim of Stanford was hoisted on his teammates shoulders. The last six men's champions were all foreign-born (see this listing of NCAA Division I past champions). On the women's side, nearly half of the 64 players in the 2006 NCAA Division I draw were foreigners. This, according to a recent article in TENNIS Magazine by Christopher Chung titled, "The College Question" (November/December 2006 issue, not yet available online as of this writing).

What's more, many of these players are non-traditional students, meaning they are matriculating well after their 18th birthday. And some have played on a professional circuit, such as the highly competitive ITF circuit, USTA Futures and Challenger circuits, or multi-tiered club circuit in Europe. The latter, by the way, has traditionally been a proving and weeding-out ground for American college players and former college players who get a chance to try their hand against international competition.

But now, the foreign competition is coming to America's training ground, most on full athletic scholarships. The question is: is this a bad thing? Or, to put it another way, are foreign student-athletes impeding the career aspirations of American-born players? And if the answer is yes, should anything be done to curtail the practice of recruiting physically and mentally more mature and seasoned talent from abroad to the U.S. collegiate ranks?

For many concerned about the perceived dirth of American-born and trained talent entering the pro ranks with good prospects, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" For my part, I'm not so quick to judge this a bad thing, although I think some restrictions should be applied. My reasons stem from personal experience and from my sense that as the college playing field becomes more "internationalized," it will in actuality prove to be a better barometer of a young (and not so young) player's future success on the ATP and WTA tours.

It should be pointed out that the last five great male champions to rise through the ranks of American junior tennis to take their place among history's elite have all either foregone their secondary education or made a brief cameo appearance. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are Hall of Fame players who, in sum total, spent two years in college. Connors won the NCAAs in 1971 as a freshman at UCLA and McEnroe in 1978, while a freshman at Stanford. Both then wisely rode their successes straight to the pro tour. Sampras and Agassi never even attended high school, opting instead to train at tennis academies or with personal coaches and receive their diplomas through correspondence courses. Andy Roddick has followed a simliar path and seems headed for the hallowed Hall. Bob and Mike Bryan both played tennis at Stanford, capturing the doubles crown in 1998 as freshmen. Bob also won the singles title that year, by the way. But they, too, went their merry way after their highly successful freshmen years. So, most of the uber-successful U.S. men's singles players have seen little return on their investment in a college tennis career.

It's ironic that so many bemoan the fact that highly recruited high school basketball players are jumping ship for the fame and fortune of an NBA career earlier and earlier, when tennis has been witnessing this for decades, albeit on a much much smaller scale. That trend may be changing, however.

With the influx of foreign talent to the college scene comes increased competition for the top flights on the six-man rosters. That ratcheted-up competition undoubtedly makes the collegiate experience more valuable for players who aspire to the professional tours. Provided the American kids can make the team in the first place, of course. And therein lies the rub. At what point are we unwittingly enabling the National Collegiate Athletic Association to become the INTERnational Collegiate Athletic Association? Is the trickle-in effect overwhelming us? Or are we simply seeing the net result of a certain few programs who are perennially guilty of "abusing" a system that has few checks and balances?

I can clearly say that the practice has become widespread, and not limited to the Baylors and Pepperdines. In fact, I saw it happening at the small-college level as early as 1981, when I was competing for a Division I school made up entirely of American-born players. One of our local rivals, a national team-title contender in the NAIAs year after year, was made up entirely of foreign-born players, plus one or two token Americans who played "exhibition" matches outside the six flights that counted for team points. And a couple of local traditionally black colleges in the area (Raleigh-Durham-Greensboro, North Carolina) are also heavily weighted with foreign talent. In part, this is a natural consequence of programs that have successfully recruited one or two young foreign players from a particular region, greasing the skids for others from that country or training area to follow.

Personally, I believe my college tennis experience was enriched by the presence of foreign opponents. I thought so even then, when most of my teammates were mumbling under their breaths about how they had no chance against "the Swedish team." I had the good fortune to go toe-to-toe against Australian, Indian, South African, South American and Swedish players — players whom I'd never have had the chance to test my skills against were it not for the recruiting practices of a few coaches in the area and conference. Of course, this one player's positive take on the situation doesn't justify the practice, it merely serves to provide a different perspective.

When all the data is weighed in, I fall somewhere in the mushy gray middle. I firmly believe our young American-born players can benefit from exposure to the often older, tougher, hungrier foreign-born recruits, many of whom have grown up playing on red clay or grass courts. At the same time, I don't particularly like seeing these tour drop-outs taking up precious court time that rightfully belongs to a kid from College Park, Maryland, or Raleigh, North Carolina.

I hope the NCAA will approach this issue with some common sense, and allow for continued recruitment of foreign-born players with some deinitive limitations. For example, limit the number of foreign-born players on each roster to two, and the number with extensive "circuit" experience to one. Anyone who has achieved an ATP or WTA tour ranking above 600 should be barred from matriculating. So, every coach can be free to fill one-third of his six-man roster with two non-Americans, one of whom is a "ringer."

Let's allow the B. Beckers to play collegiate tennis in America, so long as none of their first names is Boris.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

2006 US Open Series miscalculation

Did anyone else notice that in the lead-up to and advertising for the 2006 US Open Series — the "greatest road trip on earth" — some marketing genius working for the USTA decided that "200 players in 10 tournaments held over 6-8 weeks competing for more than a $2 million prize" was a bright idea?

By my calculations, the men and women were competing for a total of more than $31 million. Granted, if the US Open Series points winner were to win the US Open Grand Slam championship in New York, he/she would take home something like a $2.2 million purse. But that's hardly the point when you're trying to make your sport look spectacular to the average remote-wielding couch potato.

Kobe Bryant hauls down $2 mil every 10 games (or less). By my reckoning, $2 million spread out over 200 players is on average $10,000. I'll keep my day job, thank you very much. What was the USTA thinking?!!!! Let's get serious about promoting our fine game and put up some numbers that will make Joe Q. Public put down his salted nuts and beer, sit up and take notice.

For crying out loud... we've got to do better than that!

A modest proposal (for the pro game)

What the pro game needs is a shot in the arm of good old-fashioned common sense. Just look at the injury-plagued men's and women's tours, if you don't believe me. Day-in, day-out competition for 44-plus weeks leaves little time for athletes' bodies to adequately heal, let alone invest in root cause analysis and remediation of unsound footwork or stroke production. Then there's the ridiculous scheduling of the Grand Slam events. Show me another major sport in which the athletes compete for a major prize a mere two weeks after coming off a 6- to 8-week hiatus. Tennis does just that by holding the Australian Open in mid-January — smack dab in the heart of the Aussie summer, to boot! Something's got to change, and I propose we start by rethinking the Grand Slam event schedule. Afterall, those are the most coveted prizes in the sport.

An editor with ATP Tennis International's media division once said to me: "It (the Grand Slam schedule) is what it is. Sure, a lot of people would love to start the Autralian Open a little later, and a week extra between the French Open and Wimbledon would be great. You've also got Davis Cup to throw in there. It's a complicated thing." You'll get no argument from me. Which is exactly why we need to SIMPLIFY and UNIFY the tour schedule.

Let's take a look at the current Grand Slam schedule. We start the year off with the Australian in the third and fourth week of January. Seventeen weeks after the last ball has been struck Down Under, Roland Garros (hereafter referred to as the French) commences. Fifteen days after the French champion is crowned, the first ball is struck at The Championships (Wimbledon) in London. Fifteen days! The Slams conclude with the U.S. Open, held seven weeks after Wimbledon and spanning the Labor Day holiday. Freeze frame that, and think about how absurd a schedule it truly is. Make a special note that the last man to win both the French and Wimbledon titles back-to-back was Bjorn Borg in 1980. This fact alone should be cause enough to reconsider the scheduling of the sport's premier events.

Borg's back-to-back titles were an amazing feat that may never happen again, should we continue on our present course. Something must be done about the scheduling of the French and Wimbledon championships, or Wimbledon fans will have to endure many more early-round losses by the French victor, if not pre-match withdrawals.

If you happened to catch Larry King Live a few nights after Andre Agassi bowed to the crowd in his signature way for the final time, you would have heard Andre address a question from a woman caller who asked if he’d consider accepting the role of Commissioner of Tennis. Of course, this idea is not new, as John McEnroe once promoted the idea, half in jest, half in an attempt to elevate himself to the equivalent of a Pete Rozelle. At any rate, Andre wisely said he’d consider such a role only if it were not dangled before him as a token gesture, but really had teeth. (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)

Well, Andre, if you or Johhny Mac should ever become the Commissioner of Tennis, I have a modest proposal for you. I believe the ideal pro tennis season, including the Grand Slam and Davis Cup schedule, should look something like this:

January...
Season opens after New Year's Day with seven weeks of indoor and hardcourt play designed to prepare players for the two-week hardcourt championships Down Under. That would mean the Australian Open would begin the second or third week in February and end the first or second week in March.

7 weeks later (1st week in May)...
After several claycourt events throughout South America and Europe, the French Open should commence. That would place the start at the first week in May and the finale the third week.

7 weeks later (2nd week in July)...
After the French, with a lineup of stellar grasscourt tournaments in the U.S. and Northwestern Europe, hold Wimbledon, beginning the second week in July and wrapping up at the end of the month.

7 weeks later (2nd or 3rd week in September)...
Seven weeks of hardcourt play throughout North America should bring us to New York for the last of the Slams — the U.S. Open — to be held the second and third weeks in September.

Week 37-41 (last week in September through third week in October)...
Thirty-six weeks of Grand Slam Series events will have elapsed, leaving two weeks for the year-end Masters Series championships and two for the Davis and Fed Cup finals, respectively. Four weeks after the last ball is struck at the U.S. Open, draw the curtain and let the players take their bows and go home.

Weeks 42 through 52...
Once the Cup victors are determined, give the players a much needed 10- to 11-week (more than two months) hiatus to mend their bodies, enjoy the holidays like the rest of us, and regroup with their coaches to work out the kinks and learn new tricks.

Consider...

The Australian is held in the suffocating summer swelter Down Under (hence the retractable roof over the stadium court). Heat injuries are common. This is due in part to the absence of competition prior to this first of tennis's Slams, a victory without which none can claim the grandest prize in the sport — the Grand Slam. More time should be allotted to hard court play prior to this pivotal event. Let's move the Australian out five or six weeks to the end of February, and work in several week-long hard court events on America’s west coast as well as throughout the burgeoning Asian markets. An Australian Open Series touring the Pacific Rim would be created, in much the same way as the U.S. Open Series was, which by all accounts has been hugely successful and gives sports fans a reason to watch the smaller events leading up to the Slams. Besides, who's brilliant idea was it to broadcast the Aussie Open during the NFL playoffs?

The next stop, the French, is currently held a full four months after the Australian, when Spring is springing in Paris. That's certainly plenty of time to prepare for the physical demands of the slow red dirt. Fact is, it may be too much time, as players have by then begun to feel the effects of the long and grinding claycourt season in Europe, with the well-established, popular and hotly contested Monte Carlo, German (Hamburg) and Italian Opens (Rome) played as lead-ups to the French. Moving the French up two weeks, to the first week of May, would mean the field of dirtballers would be fresh as tulips. Why continue to compete with Americans’ Memorial Day travels? It just doesn’t make good economic or marketing sense.

This brings us to Wimbledon, which has traditionally been every tennis player's dream prize. Let's push Wimbledon out two weeks, so that the first ball is struck in the second week of July. I ask: Why should Americans' Fourth of July be spoiled by having to watch the British flag wave majestically over the grounds of the All-England Club? And again, many Americans vacation on the Fourth, which means fewer people at home viewing The Championships. We've now gained an additional five weeks between the French and Wimbledon. A total of seven weeks between these two most difficult (and different) challenges — the one a trial of endurance, heart and backcourt skill; the other a test of athleticism, will and frontcourt acumen — would give the late-round contestants at the French time to tune themselves to the speed and unpredictability of the turf. Who knows, maybe we'll yet see another men's Grand Slam champion in our lifetime.

Inserting five additional weeks between the French and Wimbledon championships might also encourage the creation of several new grass court events prior to the Big W. This would give claycourters much needed practice on the tricky stuff and would create a mini-season for the grasscourt game, which I fear is inching toward extinction. Bring back the grass — there's nothing else like it in professional sports today. Can you say “Wimbledon Series”?

With a slight reshuffling of the deck, the Campbell’s Hall of Fame Tennis Championships, currently held each year the week following Wimbledon, could be moved to one of the weeks prior to Wimbledon, if not the week just before. Think of it, Newport, Rhode Island abuzz with the best players in the world moored in that rustic sailing town for a week to determine the Wimbledon favorite. As it is today, none of the biggest names in the game and few in the top-50 come to play on the hallowed lawns where each year a few legends of the game are inducted. What a spectacle it could be, were the Casino to regain some of its former glory. Who knows, the finals and inductions might even fall on the Fourth of July, as the Stars and Stripes proudly waves.

Let's not forget there are two or three other great sites for a grasscourt event on American soil, where TV revenues so greatly impact the solvency of the professional game. Philadelphia has at least three fine lawn tennis clubs that could hold a large event — the U.S. National Championships was won by Bill Tilden at the Germantown Cricket Club. And the Longwood Cricket Club in Boston could still muster up a pro-sized event. I saw Arthur Ashe and others play there in 1968 as a young summer camper in New Hampshire. Then there are the beautiful lawns of Southhampton, New York, out on the Long Island Sound, another site that would draw a sizable and well-heeled crowd.

Finally, we come to the season-ending U.S. Open in New York, an event that inspires every player with a passion for the game and a penchant for the dramatic to play their gutsiest, grittiest best. I would change very little there, except push it off of the Labor Day weekend (same old refrain: travel… vacation…) to the third week in September, when the summer sun is waning and apple-picking season has begun. I'd suggest only that it be made a purely night-time event, ensuring an electric atmosphere and guaranteeing a capacity crowd. Big city, bright lights. Cold beer and hot pretzels. Who could ask for anything more?

So there you have it. Simple, isn't it? Now if only we can find a way to nudge a few Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments over a little to make room for a Slam or two, and perhaps get everyone to agree on a one-week break from play after each Slam.... Andre, a little help please.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

Man on a mission: Andre Agassi took it all in and gave it back in spades

I confess I was late in joining the Andre Agassi fan club. When he was a brash young gun with a mane and a forehand fresh out of Nick Bollietieri’s tennis academy in Bradenton, Florida, I was a staunch Stefan Edberg supporter, entranced by the graceful Swede’s effortless glide to the net and stinging first volleys. As Andre came into his own, shocking the tennis world in ascending the Wimbledon throne, I was hooked by the power, precision and efficiency of Pete Sampras’s dominating game. It took me a decade and a dozen fortnights to fully appreciate Agassi’s genius as a strategist and tactician. But what finally, ultimately, endeared Andre to me was something far greater than his skill with a racquet.

Tennis’s renaissance man redefined himself at every stage of the journey that was his professional tennis career, and each incarnation produced a more complete player and human being. One of the most-photographed athletes of our time, he made the journey from boy-wonder to man-on-a-mission with the whole world looking on. And like other trailblazers before him, along that journey he changed how the game is played and inspired a generation of young players to conceive and play the game in a revolutionary new way. Waning were the days of the serve and volley; the new game demanded speed and power, and the stamina to outlast and out-blast your opponent.

A master of the tactical game
The tennis court with Agassi on it seemed to take on greater dimensions. He created angles that hadn’t previously existed, and forced opponents into long-running rallies that inevitably, invariably, ended badly for them. If tennis can be likened to chess, or boxing, or both, then Agassi perfected the art. In tennis, as in chess, the player who can dominate the center commands the court. From that strong position, he can find ever-wider angles or quickly move in for the kill. A wide-slicing serve allowed Andre to dictate play from the first ball, as it sent his opponents out of bounds and opened the court for his lethal two-fisted backhand or penetrating forehand.

Rarely caught backpedaling, Agassi stalked his opponent like a prizefighter who stakes the center of the ring and refuses to let his prey out of arm’s reach. With a combination of shots to the corners, followed by an unearthly angle and back again to the same spot, he didn’t dazzle his opponent so much as pound him into submission. Like a boxer delivering a series of body blows that weaken his opponent’s defenses and ability to counterpunch, Andre took the wind out of his opponent with a flurry of shots from side to side before delivering the knockout.

It was this strategy of commanding the center of the court and making his opponent do all the work that led an exhausted Edberg to declare that competing against Agassi was harder on the legs than anything he’d ever experienced on a tennis court. And so it was fitting that the only man who could beat Andre at his best was Sampras, the one player whose shot-making ability allowed him to end a point with one powerful swing of his racquet.

Holding his own (and then some) against the greatest
It was Sampras who brought out the best tennis in Agassi, as he was forced to counterpunch, invent and improvise — things he hadn’t had to do often. Against Sampras, we learned to see Andre as a work in progress, a prodigy who had still to reach his full potential. It was his rivalry with Sampras that nearly defined his career as second fiddle, and it was the passion and intensity of that rivalry that propelled Agassi to his greatest heights as a performer. Andre developed his signature departing bow and kiss during the Sampras years, and this, too, would be another way in which he would leave his mark on the sport. Today’s players pay tribute to Andre each time they take the court after victory to salute the crowd in their trademark way.

How untimely that after Sampras retired, leaving Andre as the sole heir to the throne, along came two of the most dominant players the game has ever witnessed. Andy Roddick, with his 140-plus mph serve, could quickly erase any thoughts of breaking serve. And Roger Federer, undeniably the most versatile and talented player anyone has seen in the Open era, simply had too much game for the aging Agassi. Still, Andre competed brilliantly and often stole the show if not the match.

Agassi’s professional career spanned two full decades, years in which the world saw more than a dozen current and future Hall of Fame players take center stage — from McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and Wilander to Edberg, Courier, Chang and Sampras to Muster, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Rafter to Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal and Federer. And there was Andre, standing shoulder to shoulder with them all, often besting them at their peak.

Much is made of the fact, and rightly so, that Agassi is one of only five men in the history of the game to have won all four Grand Slam titles. Along with Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson and Rod Laver, Andre has held aloft the championship trophies at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, the US Open and the Australian. Yet Andre is the only man to have accomplished the feat on three different surfaces — the grassy turf, the brick-red clay and the painted asphalt.

A focus on fitness
It is practically legendary how Agassi prepared his body for the physical abuse that 10 months and 18 to 24 tournaments a year doles out. When he came out of Bollietieri’s, he had speed and endurance, but it took years of work and a special relationship with a renowned trainer to cut the figure that would enable Andre to compete at or near the top of the sport well into his 30s. In Gil Reyes, perhaps best known for whipping Jerry Tarkanian’s UNLV basketball team into NCAA-championship shape, Andre found the man who would take his fitness to a whole new level.

Fitter and stronger than ever under Reyes’ guidance, Las Vegas’s brightest star still needed to reign in his thoroughbred-like talent, which could at times run away with him. In Brad Gilbert, he found a coach who could teach him the discipline not to gamble too soon but instead to use his superior fitness to wear down opponents and soften them for the kill. Under Gilbert, Agassi began to punish opponents like never before, working them over until they had nothing left to attack him with.

The combination of Reyes’ and Gilbert’s tutelage helped Agassi mold himself into the kind of player most feared on a tennis court — fit, fast, strong and relentless. He had developed into a player whose intellect ruled his instinct, knowing how to play the percentages and when to go for broke. Most likely this transformation was the key to Andre’s four Grand Slam titles after the age of 30.

From Zen master to master of his own destiny
Anyone who spends as much time in the public eye as Agassi cannot help but run afoul of the yellow journalists, and Andre spent his share of time in the pulp magazines. When it became known that Barbra Streisand and Andre had developed a cross-generational friendship, the press had a field day. Streisand’s effusive admiration for the young tennis star created quite a buzz, but failed to deter Andre one bit, as he seemed to grasp that the real motivation behind it all was to sell rag.

The irony in it was that the pop diva may have been right when, referring to Andre’s emotional maturity and self-awareness, Streisand had said he played like a “Zen master.” Anyone witnessing his matches in his final years on the tour would be hard-pressed not to come to a similar conclusion. One could actually see in Andre’s eyes whether he was in the zone — one with the ball and channeling his energies — or whether he would struggle to get in the moment.

When Agassi decided finally to hang up his sticks after nearly twenty years in the top echelon of the game, equaled in modern times only by Jimmy Connors and Ken Rosewall, one could not help but feel that he had given his all and would have no regrets. He seemed to have reached a place of peace that only a person possessing the intellect, the compassion and the self-awareness to be cognizant of his time and his place can achieve.

Giving back
In the later years of his career, one would be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent spokesman for his sport. He was the ultimate sportsman, always speaking highly of his opponent, in both victory and defeat, and reaching into his heart to find the words that would reflect the gravity or levity of the moment.

Well-spoken and reflective — an unusual trait among athletes, but even more impressive given that he had foregone formal schooling after eighth grade to pursue tennis full time — interviews with Andre Agassi never failed to reveal something profound about the man and the state of the game. He was gracious in defeat, and he was the first to tell the world about the gifts the young Roger Federer brought to the game. And, in an interview with Larry King after his exit from the 2006 U.S. Open, Andre extended the ultimate praise for his fellow patriot, James Blake, when he said of him, “[James is] somebody you want your son to grow up to be.” (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)

In the dog-eat-dog world of professional tennis, there were few players as fair-minded as Agassi. Oftentimes Andre would overrule the linesperson in favor of his opponent, signaling with a nod of his head and a brisk walk to the other receiver’s box that the serve had clipped the line. He wanted to win, but he insisted on winning on his own terms.

Never one to talk at length about his charitable giving, there are few in the sporting world who have given back to their community as Andre has. With his Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation, he has committed his considerable resources and talent to providing educational and recreational opportunities to at-risk children of southern Nevada. He established a prep school in the heart of Las Vegas’ most at-risk neighborhood, and each year his Foundation receives several millions in donations from his fundraising efforts.

Andre Agassi has gone the distance and left it all out on the court; taken it all in and given it all back, in spades. And somehow, one senses that he’s just getting started on his life’s true mission.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.

The best game in town

The sporting world has been rocked by scandal and foul play in recent years, most notably the federal investigation of illegal drug doping against BALCO and several marquis clients of the San Francisco-based cooperative. Some of the biggest stars in baseball and track and field have been implicated, leaving a bad taste in my mouth for much of professional sport.

In light of this, a closer look at the virtues of the men’s and women’s tennis tours seems in order.

Let’s begin with the game’s stars, the brightest of whom is Roger Federer. Many fretted that when Pete Sampras exited the game with his record 14 Grand Slam titles, his leaving would create a huge vacuum, with few young players showing the fortitude and drive to fill the void. The Federer Express has filled it convincingly, amassing three Grand Slam titles and going 11-0 in championship finals in 2004, repeating this feat in 2006 while three-peating at Wimbledon and the US Open. Displaying amazing grace under pressure, he’s done it mostly without the benefit of a coach. The murmurs of Roger rewriting the history books have become deafening, quite a turn from the doomsday predictions of a few years ago.

Andre Agassi, tennis’ indefatigable elder statesman, was still competing gamely for, if not winning, titles when he decided to step down after losing in the 3rd round of the 2006 US Open. Andre can look back at a career that — singular in its dramatic resurrection — helped Americans embrace the game while changing the very way it is played. With eight Grand Slam titles to his credit, including a Slam on every surface, he may yet be remembered most for forming one-half of a rivalry with arguably the greatest player in history — Pete Sampras. A tireless spokesperson for the game, Andre generously donates money, time and energy to youth programs across the country.

A strong supporting cast is contributing hugely to the health and excitement of the pro game. Andy Roddick, back in top form after winning Cincinnati, is sporting a new coach in none other than Jimmy Connors, the original never-say-die showman. Competing gamely, A-Rod infects us all with his unbridled passion. And there's Rafael Nadal, the Spanish conquistador who injects all his matches with the air of a heavyweight prizefight. When all is said and done, and Federer is whisked away on a golden chariot with a record number of slams under his belt, we may look back and recall how Nadal was the one man whom The Maestro could not dominate. Perhaps their head-to-head battles will one day match those of Laver-Rosewall, Borg-McEnroe, and Sampras-Agassi.

The women’s game is experiencing nothing short of a resurgence, in spite of the relative absence of two of the most colorful players to ever grace a tennis court, sisters Venus and Serena. For the first time since Evonne Goolagong, the women's game is led by an all-court athlete in Amelie Mauresmo, who wields a combination of superior natural gifts and graceful movement. And the Belgian rivals, Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters, always add entertainment value when they face-off. Of course, the WTA can always count on a bevy of Russian glam-girls to tickle our fancies, from the sweet, demure and athletically superior Dementieva to the willful and aloof assassin, Maria Sharapova. To top it off, the return to the top 10 of Martina Hingis is a welcome sight, as no one is as physically and mentally agile or strokes the ball with as much intelligence and finesse as the Swiss prodigy.

Then there's the majors. Four slams in three seasons on three continents. Imagine the entire National Football League tripping around the world to compete for their sport’s most coveted prize. That’s tennis. The men’s and women’s tours come together each year for eight weeks to bask in the glow of the Grand Slam spotlight, totaling more than 1,500 matches. That's a lot of world-class tennis!

The Australian Open. The Aussie Open has featured some of the most memorable matches in recent Grand Slam memory, like the Roddick-El Aynaoui marathon in 2004 that left even the players awed by their shotmaking. Of course, this year's final between Federer and Nadal seemed preordained after the incredible year each had in 2005. The Australian is an awesome contest of fitness and willpower, with players enduring court temperatures that climb to 120 degrees.

Roland Garros, also known as the French Open. Where else on earth can a single rally turn into a 3- to 5-minute test of wills, stamina and guile? No amount of promotional marketing can save the game’s elite from the crafty dirt-ballers from Europe and South America. Just ask a guy named Sampras. It’s a different game on the crushed orange brick, one that elevates speed and toughness to primary status. Bring a change of shoes... and an oxygen tank.

Wimbledon, or as the British like to call it, The Championships at Wimbledon. In an age when tradition is tossed out as “old school” tennis clings steadfastly to this, its most time-honored event. Where else can a long-shot have such a good shot? Think Goran Ivanisevic, the lanky lefty from Croatia with the frightening serve who won as a Wild Card entry in 2001. And who among us predicted Nadal's ascendance to the finalists' platform in 2006? On the slippery grass under a wooden roof in a sliver of time called a fortnight anything can happen. Able hands and agile minds need only apply.

The U.S. Open. Against the bright lights of New York, the U.S. Open sizzles with electricity, igniting the deepest passions and inspiring the greatest effort from the players. The influence on a player’s confidence is so great that victory in New York all but guarantees success in other slams. Win Wimbledon, and win the tennis world’s most coveted crown. Win the Open, and win the whole world’s admiration.

Rivalries. Apart from boxing’s Ali-Frazier face-offs, tennis has sported the most captivating rivalries, going back to Laver-Rosewall and including King-Court, Evert-Navratilova, Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, McEnroe-Lendl, Edberg-Becker, Graf-Sanchez-Vicario, and Sampras-Agassi. Will Roddick-Federer be next? Federer-Nadal? How about Sharapova-Henin-Hardenne? Or perhaps Hingis-Sharapova? Stay tuned; it's heating up out there.

Sportsmanship. The gentleman’s game is alive and well. Players routinely hold up their racquets and clap their strings to acknowledge the fine play of opponents. Or show an opponent a palm to confess winning the point on a cheap shot or a lucky net cord. In a battle for hundreds of thousands of dollars, Agassi routinely turned and strode to the other court in spite of the umpire’s call of fault, awarding his opponent the point by ace.

Yet among all the things that set tennis apart from the rest, my personal favorite is the ubiquitous ball-person. Not a match is played without 12- to 16-year-olds scampering after errant balls, then waiting like pointers for the signal from players to give up the prize. It’s charming, and it shows a playful side to an otherwise serious business. Long live the ballboys and ballgirls. They lend an air of innocence to professional sport, and do it on the world’s grandest stages.

I got hooked on tennis as an eight-year-old watching my brother Tom play a spirited match on the neighborhood black-top with his high school rival, Charlie Watson. Tom and Charlie’s matches had a rhythm I found completely engrossing. For two summers I held court with Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe on the blacktop of our neighborhood park, a plywood backboard as our only judge and arbiter. Those imaginary matches of my youth went the distance every time.

Sport needs the innocent imaginings of young park-rats to stay alive, and by my reckoning, tennis is thriving.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.