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.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
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!
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Welcome tennis players!
This is a forum for my thoughts on tennis — the pro game, the amateur game, the way the game is taught and how it is played, what's right about the game and what could be improved. On occasion, I will examine particular matches or the results of a particular player, but the focus will be on the macro level — on analysis rather than on reportage. Also, on occasion I will share my views on how best to teach players different skills at varying levels. I will entertain your thoughts, as well, and over time will link to other bloggers and websites that I find useful or interesting. I hope you'll enjoy what you read here, and that you'll tell your friends about it when you discover something that has helped you to better understand and play the game. Because, bottom line... this is a blog for players who are passionate about tennis.
Please note that the material posted on this blog is protected by copyright. Thank you.
Please note that the material posted on this blog is protected by copyright. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
