The 2007 Australian Open was, for me, a story about the game's two best athletes showing the world what they're made of — Roger Federer and Serena Williams, two Grand Slam veterans at ripe old age of 25. The way they each dominated in their final is a testament to their skills and fierce desire to win. But the differences between the manner in which they go about making their living and their mark is striking.
Roger Federer, the clear favorite among the men, came into the Aussie Open (Oz) poised to surpass Jimmy Connors on the consecutive-weeks at-number 1 list, leaving only Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras standing on a higher rung. Holder of 45 ATP tour titles, including nine Grand Slam titles, three Year-End Championships (Masters Cups) and 12 Masters Series events, his story was about whether he would continue to demonstrate the greatness we've come to expect and perhaps, take for granted. Inevitably, the talk at Oz, as everywhere he now plays, was whether Roger Federer would move one step closer to claiming the title of Greatest Of All Time (aka GOAT), or whether the pressure would overwhelm him as he succumbed to one of the hungry young lions, such as Rafael Nadal or Andy Murray, both of whom had beaten him in 2006. Or would Andy Roddick, working with Jimmy Connors to "close the gap" between himself and Roger, be able to build on his near-upset of Federer at the 2006 Masters Cup in Shanghai and his straight-sets exhibition win over the world's number 1 in Kooyong. To put it more succinctly, the story was whether Federer could live up to his own, and our, expectations.
When the curtain was pulled back at Oz, it revealed a real champion and man on a mission, an athlete as large in life as the image the tennis world projects of him. A man who has coe to appreciate his moment with a grace and humility that harkens back to the champions of old. He deigned to predict his title run, giving much air time in his run to the final to how well each of his opponents had been playing and how nervous he would be entering their match. Federer spoke o Roddick's improvements since his run at Cincinnati, and the fear his huge serve instilled. He spoke of Gonzalez's new-found judiciousness, and the effectiveness of his ballistic forehand. All this made for high drama going into each match; the expectations were set for some real throw-downs. But in the end, Federer threw down the hype and dispensed with his opponents, all seven of them, in straight sets. His only real scare came from Gonzalez, who held a double-set point serving 5-4, 40-15 in the first set of the final.
In the past, Gonzalez might be counted on to go for broke on both points, hoping to pull something special from his bag of tricks. Instead, he played within himself on the first point, staying back and looking forthe right opportunity to unleash the monster forehand. I was Federer who took the risk and came in behind an approach to the Gonzalez backhand. Gonzo hit a very respectable dipping pass at the left hip of Federer, who blocked it into the deuce-court corner. On the dead run, Gonzo had a split second to make the right play. He chose to go for the cross-court dipping pass, but his attempt didn't go quite far enough cross court and it sat up a bit for Federer to block into the open court — one set point gone, 40-30 Gonzalez. Had Gonzo curled his forehand down the line, which would have been more in keeping with his high-risk mentality of old, he might well have passed Federer outright or gotten a volley that he could have punched past Roger for the set.
On the 40-30 point, the two men exchanged backhands until Federer took the initiative and found the sharp angle to the ad court. Gonzo elected to run around that shot and, with one foot in and one foot outside the doubles alley, send a forehand bullet down the line for the set. But he missed into the net, and the game as sent to deuce. What was telling in these pivotal moments was that Federer took the initiative and played pre-emptive strike tennis, aproaching the net on the first of the two set points, and opening up the court with the angled backhand in the second. Gonzalex was left playing reactive tennis, which is not the game he wanted to play against Federer.
It was like this throughout the tounrament, although Federer clearly stepped up his attacks in the final in order to stymie Gonzalez's devastating striking power. By taking the initiative and playing pre-emptive strike tennis, Federer took away Gonzalez' one hope of winning, which was to wait for a ball he could drill and seize that moment, taking Roger out of the play quickly and decisively. But Roger turned the tables, showing again why he is the best player in the game and how he finds ways to widen the gap between himself and the rest of the field.
On the women's side, the story took some time to develop. First there was the talk of Justine Henin-Hardenne's withdrawal due to family matters, opening the door for Grand Slam champions Amelie Mauresmo and Maria Sharapova. Then there was Kim Clijsters and her farewell tour — would she, could she, finally hoist the trophy in her adoptive home? With Davenport effectively retired, Venus Williams out with a wrist injury, and Serena out of shape and out of practice, the road to glory seemed set for one of the young warriors -- the hard-hitting 17-year-old Nicole Vaidisova from the Czech Republic, the athletic Ana Ivanovic of Serbia, or the fearlessly confident Jelena Jankovic of Croatia. Or perhaps the talented Nadia Petrova, the best player in the women's field to have never won a Slam, would finally have her day in the sun.
Serena defeated seeded Mara Santangelo in the first round, Mauresmo was ousted in the fourth, and Ivanovic self-destructed. Serena then roared back from the brink of defeat to dismantle the heavily favored Petrova in three sets. And that's when the tournament was decided — right then and there. But of course, no one knew it yet but Serena. She had found her desire, her insatiable hunger to win, to prove wrong all the doubters and naysayers who had said she was not fit enough to play the tournament in the Aussie summer sun, let alone be a serious threat to win. She then took down Jankovic quickly in two in the fourth round and staved off an emboldened Shahar Peer in the quarterfinals. The teenager from Israel played fearless tennis against the mighty lioness for three sets, more fight than anyone lse had been able to muster. If that win caused some to double their bets against Serena, it onlycaused Serena to redouble her efforts in the semifinal against Vaidisova, whose power Serena in turns absorbed and reflected to walk away a two-sets victor.
Set to face the hard-hitting Sharapova in the final, the lioness could sense the moment was ripe for a quick kill. Serena came out ready to do battle. She maintained a focus and intensity from the first point onward that the world has rarely seen from her. Normally a towering, if slender, figure on the court, Sharapova looked like a shrinking violet next to the super-pumped Serena. Dozens of points ended with one swing of Serena's racquet. One strangely telling statistic from the match was the relative few unforced errors from Sharapova. She simply never got a chance to touch the ball, as Serena pounced on shot after shot after shot, and served ace after ace. Serving for the match, Serena hit two 122 mph aces to earn her first and only match point at 40-love, at which time she went for an ace to the wide sideline in the ad court, barely missing. On her secind delivery, Serena went for the ace up the T, clocking it at over 100 mh and forcing Sharapova to hit a weak return that Serena made good on.
Serena's Oz story was that of the lioness who showed she had the courage and the heart to overcome all challenges in displaying some of her finest tennis against the greatest odds, despite not being anywhere near her physical peak. She showed us all that there's much more to tennis than hitting a ball. She showed us that when there's a deep hunger and a strong will to win, there are no boundaries to what the great athletes can achieve. Serena Williams confirmed that she is still the best athlete in the women's game, and she made a convincing argument for being the most skilled tennis player in the women's game. She made it clear why her presence is so desperately needed on the WTA tour. She roared, and we stood and took notice.
In her press conferences, both during and after the event, Serena made it clear she feels she can beat any woman on the tour if she's playing at even 50- to 60-percent of her ful potential. She also made it clear she had come to Melbourne to win, and that it wouldn't be a surprise were she to make a run to the final. On can only infer that she clearly thinks of herself as the best in the game; that, barring injuries and other distractions, hen she wants to win she wins. Period. Serena Williams possesses a little bit of Muhammad Ali in her pronouncements of greatness, yet she exhibits none of the verbal flair or eye-winking self-mockery that Ali was famous for and which took the edge off of his grand pronouncements.
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, January 28, 2007
Aussie Open 2007: Federer will raise the bar again
In just over 30 minutes, Roger Federer will attempt to defend his Australian Open title against one of the most enigmatic players in the men's game today — Fernando Gonzalez. Along with Serena Williams' long-awaited return to tennis and her masterful title match against top-ranked Maria Sharapova, Gonzalez has been the story at this year's championships in Melbourne.
He has cruised through his half of the draw in blazing style, beating in succession James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tomy Haas, all in straight sets. His winners-to-unforced errors differential is over +190, more than 100 points better than Federer's, and in his semifinal match against Haas he made only three unforced errors in the entire three-set match, none at all in sets one and three. To say Gonzalez is on fire would be a huge understatement. And yet, it is Roger Federer he will be facing across the net this morning, a fact which changes the entire equation.
Ordinarily not one to predict outcomes, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Federer will show the world just how much wider the gap is between himself and the rest of the men's field. Because Gonzalez is playing so brilliantly, serving smartly and using the entire court and varying the spins, depth and pace of his groundstrokes to make opportunities to end points with one swing of his racquet, Federer will need to employ a different strategy to keep Gonzalez from gaining confidence as the match wears on. I believe that Federer will take a page from the Sampras playbook, and take away Gonzalez's time by approaching the net earlier and much more frequently than he has thus far in his career.
The wise strategy for Federer is to keep Gonzalez on his heels, searching for a quick answer to Federer's strong forays to net, and to do so early and often so as to put maximum pressure on Gonzalez's groundstrokes. By coming to the net early and often, Federer can prohibit Gonzalez from finding his form on his groundstrokes and dictating the pace and tempo of the match. And if Gonzalez cannot find the spot with his passing shots and lobs early on, he will be forced to play a much more aggressive strategy, perhaps even choosing to try to beat Federer to the net to stem the bleeding.
We may very well witness, in this 2007 Australian Open men's final, the raising of the bar by the world's best player. And he'll do it, not so much because he'll need to do so to win, but because it will bring him victory much sooner than if he were to stay on the baseline and trade strokes with his opponent. And if he can successfully demonstrate his prowess as a serving-and-volleying, net-aproaching pre-emptive striker, he'll have sent another strong message to those trying to "close the gap" between them. And that message is that Roger Federer has no intention of resting on his laurels; he plans to continue improving and adding to his arsenal of weapons, strategies and tactics.
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.
He has cruised through his half of the draw in blazing style, beating in succession James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tomy Haas, all in straight sets. His winners-to-unforced errors differential is over +190, more than 100 points better than Federer's, and in his semifinal match against Haas he made only three unforced errors in the entire three-set match, none at all in sets one and three. To say Gonzalez is on fire would be a huge understatement. And yet, it is Roger Federer he will be facing across the net this morning, a fact which changes the entire equation.
Ordinarily not one to predict outcomes, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Federer will show the world just how much wider the gap is between himself and the rest of the men's field. Because Gonzalez is playing so brilliantly, serving smartly and using the entire court and varying the spins, depth and pace of his groundstrokes to make opportunities to end points with one swing of his racquet, Federer will need to employ a different strategy to keep Gonzalez from gaining confidence as the match wears on. I believe that Federer will take a page from the Sampras playbook, and take away Gonzalez's time by approaching the net earlier and much more frequently than he has thus far in his career.
The wise strategy for Federer is to keep Gonzalez on his heels, searching for a quick answer to Federer's strong forays to net, and to do so early and often so as to put maximum pressure on Gonzalez's groundstrokes. By coming to the net early and often, Federer can prohibit Gonzalez from finding his form on his groundstrokes and dictating the pace and tempo of the match. And if Gonzalez cannot find the spot with his passing shots and lobs early on, he will be forced to play a much more aggressive strategy, perhaps even choosing to try to beat Federer to the net to stem the bleeding.
We may very well witness, in this 2007 Australian Open men's final, the raising of the bar by the world's best player. And he'll do it, not so much because he'll need to do so to win, but because it will bring him victory much sooner than if he were to stay on the baseline and trade strokes with his opponent. And if he can successfully demonstrate his prowess as a serving-and-volleying, net-aproaching pre-emptive striker, he'll have sent another strong message to those trying to "close the gap" between them. And that message is that Roger Federer has no intention of resting on his laurels; he plans to continue improving and adding to his arsenal of weapons, strategies and tactics.
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.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Aussie Open 2007: The lioness roars back!
It wasn't a particularly good match. It had few decent exchanges, and zero suspense. Calling it "one-sided" would be like saying the lion had a bit of an advantage over the young zebra colt. But as Grand Slam finals go, this one stood out for its ferociousness, for the efficiency of the kill.
No, it wasn't a competitive match, but every so often a player of Serena Williams' caliber steps onto one of the grandest stages in the game and delivers. And how did she deliver! Knock-out blow after knock-out blow to a stunned and helpless Maria Sharapova, the same Maria who came into the Australian Open championships as the world's second-ranked player and who will leave Melbourne ranked number one.
Serena Williams came into the Slam of Asia-Pacific ranked number 81 in the world and out of shape with too little match play under her belt. But the seven-time Grand Slam titleist would not be denied. After surviving near-tournament-ending challenges from Nadia Petrova and Shahar Peer, as well as the power and fearlessness of the young 17-year-old, Nicole Vaidisova, Serena roared back onto tennis' center stage. There was one moment in her victory over Peer when Serena, after having won a tough and important point, let out a throaty, full-toothed yell. In the slo-mo replay, she resembled more closely a panther announcing a fresh kill than a pretty, young woman from LA.
Throughout her final under the closed roof of Rod Laver Arena, Serena showed her opponent and the world the hungry heart of a lioness. And what a way to win. She made nearly three times as many winners as unforced errors, and beat Sharapova again and again with just a single stroke, leaving the usually fierce Sharapova flat-footed and demoralized. Finally serving for the match right at the hour mark, Serena hit back-to-back aces to earn a championship point at 6-1, 5-2 (40-love). She missed her first serve, a flat blast, wide of the ad court sideline, and at that point I had a notion that she might try to go for a second service ace up the middle. Sure enough, she went for the ace up the T, but had to settle for a weak return and easy winner to seal the victory.
This wasn't a match to be remembered for its swings in momentum, its pressure-filled break points denied, or its long, suspenseful exchanges from doubles alley to doubles alley. This was a match that will be remembered as the return of the game's most ferociuos competitor. We can only hope that her hunger is great enough to keep her in the game for a few more years. Tennis has its lion in Roger Federer. It needs its lioness, too.
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.
No, it wasn't a competitive match, but every so often a player of Serena Williams' caliber steps onto one of the grandest stages in the game and delivers. And how did she deliver! Knock-out blow after knock-out blow to a stunned and helpless Maria Sharapova, the same Maria who came into the Australian Open championships as the world's second-ranked player and who will leave Melbourne ranked number one.
Serena Williams came into the Slam of Asia-Pacific ranked number 81 in the world and out of shape with too little match play under her belt. But the seven-time Grand Slam titleist would not be denied. After surviving near-tournament-ending challenges from Nadia Petrova and Shahar Peer, as well as the power and fearlessness of the young 17-year-old, Nicole Vaidisova, Serena roared back onto tennis' center stage. There was one moment in her victory over Peer when Serena, after having won a tough and important point, let out a throaty, full-toothed yell. In the slo-mo replay, she resembled more closely a panther announcing a fresh kill than a pretty, young woman from LA.
Throughout her final under the closed roof of Rod Laver Arena, Serena showed her opponent and the world the hungry heart of a lioness. And what a way to win. She made nearly three times as many winners as unforced errors, and beat Sharapova again and again with just a single stroke, leaving the usually fierce Sharapova flat-footed and demoralized. Finally serving for the match right at the hour mark, Serena hit back-to-back aces to earn a championship point at 6-1, 5-2 (40-love). She missed her first serve, a flat blast, wide of the ad court sideline, and at that point I had a notion that she might try to go for a second service ace up the middle. Sure enough, she went for the ace up the T, but had to settle for a weak return and easy winner to seal the victory.
This wasn't a match to be remembered for its swings in momentum, its pressure-filled break points denied, or its long, suspenseful exchanges from doubles alley to doubles alley. This was a match that will be remembered as the return of the game's most ferociuos competitor. We can only hope that her hunger is great enough to keep her in the game for a few more years. Tennis has its lion in Roger Federer. It needs its lioness, too.
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, January 16, 2007
Service lets and sudden death: a few simple changes to give the pro game a shot in the arm
Like America’s national pastime, tennis is steeped in tradition. Tinkering with the game is invariably met with derision by the traditionalists who represent the game’s perennial support base. Propose eliminating the second serve, for example, and the legions respond with a gasp: “Good God, man, have you lost your mind!” Suggest that the best three-of-five sets in the Grand Slam championships should give way to the best two-of-three, and risk being railroaded out of town. Do not pass Go! Do not collect 200 dollars.
Little does it matter that racquet and ball manufacturers, as well as court surface technicians, have been tinkering with the game for years. That’s the way the ball bounces, one hears. Can’t stop progress, you know. And for once they’re right. The pro game has benefited enormously from changes engineered by entrepreneurs like Howard Head, whose oversized metal and graphite racquet frames virtually created the baseline power game. Even John McEnroe, that purist and critic of baseline bashing who once vociferously proposed that pros compete only with wooden racquets, has been quiet of late.
The introduction of the instant replay is cause for optimism. A purist and optimist myself, I believe a few small changes are in order. (A realist, too, I have my bags packed and a ticket on the Silver Streak just in case.)
First, let’s get rid of the service let, as has been done at the collegiate level. This would bring several positive results, not the least of which is that matches would be shortened by several minutes. Since a let is called whenever a player’s first or second serve touches the net cord before landing in, it stands to reason that eliminating it would also reduce the number of double-faults. I don’t know precisely how often a player miscues after one or more serves is played over due to a let, but I’m certain it’s commonplace. The service let is an anomaly; all other lets occurring once the ball is in play are disregarded — play continues. Eliminate the let rule and kill three birds with one stroke!
Second, make stalling nonexistent by strictly enforcing the 20-second rule between points. Let’s go a step further, make it 18 seconds, and insist that play not begin until 10 seconds have passed, thereby eliminating quick-serve gamesmanship, too. According to tennis’ code of conduct, the receiver is expected to “play at the reasonable pace of the server,” which is practically meaningless and entirely unenforcible. After all, what is a reasonable pace? Andre Agassi played extremely quickly, and while no one ever leveled the charge of gamesmanship on Agassi, his was an unreasonable pace by many standards. Simply allow the receiver a full 10 seconds to prepare for the serve, with 18 seconds as the maximum allowed the server to put the ball in play or receive a warning. The receiver should be allowed four seconds before the second serve, with the ball put in play within eight.
One other area that could use a quick fix is the first-round scheduling of the week-long 32- and 64-player tournaments that are sprinkled between the slams and that occupy the greater part of the calendar year. At present, the singles player who wins five or six matches to claim the title on Sunday afternoon must hop on a flight to the next city to face a first-round challenger the very next morning. Let’s give byes to those singles players who competed in semifinal and final matches the week before. This small change will eliminate a fistful of first-round upsets and withdrawals by marquis players. Tournament directors will have their main attractions live up to their commitments and fans will get what they came for.
While we’re at it, keep the best three-of-five set matches for the second week of a Slam. This will not only ease scheduling during the early rounds in rainy London and New York, but it will ensure that players have something left to give in the final rounds of play. We’ll miss the occasional first- or second-round barnburner, but those matches rarely make the history books. Save the best for last and give the people paying top dollar for seats on Centre Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium their money’s worth.
Am I the only one over the 12-point tiebreak? Let’s face facts: it’s not sudden death, as players must win by two points. The pro game should adopt the 9-point tiebreaker that the late James Van Alen left to the game. Fast, furious, full of suspense, the first to five points wins and at four points apiece the receiver chooses where to take the serve — deuce court or ad. Just five to nine points of gutsy tennis in under three minutes. That’s sudden death.
As for coaching during matches… good God, never!
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article first appeared in the December 2006 issue of TENNIS WEEK Magazine. The author has requested and been granted permission by the editors of TENNIS WEEK Magazine to reproduce the article in its entirety on this blog. 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.
Little does it matter that racquet and ball manufacturers, as well as court surface technicians, have been tinkering with the game for years. That’s the way the ball bounces, one hears. Can’t stop progress, you know. And for once they’re right. The pro game has benefited enormously from changes engineered by entrepreneurs like Howard Head, whose oversized metal and graphite racquet frames virtually created the baseline power game. Even John McEnroe, that purist and critic of baseline bashing who once vociferously proposed that pros compete only with wooden racquets, has been quiet of late.
The introduction of the instant replay is cause for optimism. A purist and optimist myself, I believe a few small changes are in order. (A realist, too, I have my bags packed and a ticket on the Silver Streak just in case.)
First, let’s get rid of the service let, as has been done at the collegiate level. This would bring several positive results, not the least of which is that matches would be shortened by several minutes. Since a let is called whenever a player’s first or second serve touches the net cord before landing in, it stands to reason that eliminating it would also reduce the number of double-faults. I don’t know precisely how often a player miscues after one or more serves is played over due to a let, but I’m certain it’s commonplace. The service let is an anomaly; all other lets occurring once the ball is in play are disregarded — play continues. Eliminate the let rule and kill three birds with one stroke!
Second, make stalling nonexistent by strictly enforcing the 20-second rule between points. Let’s go a step further, make it 18 seconds, and insist that play not begin until 10 seconds have passed, thereby eliminating quick-serve gamesmanship, too. According to tennis’ code of conduct, the receiver is expected to “play at the reasonable pace of the server,” which is practically meaningless and entirely unenforcible. After all, what is a reasonable pace? Andre Agassi played extremely quickly, and while no one ever leveled the charge of gamesmanship on Agassi, his was an unreasonable pace by many standards. Simply allow the receiver a full 10 seconds to prepare for the serve, with 18 seconds as the maximum allowed the server to put the ball in play or receive a warning. The receiver should be allowed four seconds before the second serve, with the ball put in play within eight.
One other area that could use a quick fix is the first-round scheduling of the week-long 32- and 64-player tournaments that are sprinkled between the slams and that occupy the greater part of the calendar year. At present, the singles player who wins five or six matches to claim the title on Sunday afternoon must hop on a flight to the next city to face a first-round challenger the very next morning. Let’s give byes to those singles players who competed in semifinal and final matches the week before. This small change will eliminate a fistful of first-round upsets and withdrawals by marquis players. Tournament directors will have their main attractions live up to their commitments and fans will get what they came for.
While we’re at it, keep the best three-of-five set matches for the second week of a Slam. This will not only ease scheduling during the early rounds in rainy London and New York, but it will ensure that players have something left to give in the final rounds of play. We’ll miss the occasional first- or second-round barnburner, but those matches rarely make the history books. Save the best for last and give the people paying top dollar for seats on Centre Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium their money’s worth.
Am I the only one over the 12-point tiebreak? Let’s face facts: it’s not sudden death, as players must win by two points. The pro game should adopt the 9-point tiebreaker that the late James Van Alen left to the game. Fast, furious, full of suspense, the first to five points wins and at four points apiece the receiver chooses where to take the serve — deuce court or ad. Just five to nine points of gutsy tennis in under three minutes. That’s sudden death.
As for coaching during matches… good God, never!
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article first appeared in the December 2006 issue of TENNIS WEEK Magazine. The author has requested and been granted permission by the editors of TENNIS WEEK Magazine to reproduce the article in its entirety on this blog. 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, January 15, 2007
Sideshows and circus acts: why pro tennis should say no to on-court coaching
Now that the Hawk-Eye instant reply has been deemed a rousing success by promoters, players and fans alike, tennis has turned its attention to the prospect of on-court coaching. In the January/February 2007 issue of TENNIS Magazine, Brad Gilbert, former coach of Andre Agassi and current mentor to rising British star Andy Murray, gives three reasons why coaching should become a regular part of the pro game. Gilbert argues that coaching will (1) put an end to cheating, (2) give players their money’s worth, and (3) enhance the “show” by letting fans listen-in on what coaches are saying to their charges.
I believe that coach Gilbert’s and others’ arguments put forth in favor of on-court coaching are misguided and, should they be adopted, may lead the pro game down a slippery slope toward traveling theater.
Let me address Gilbert’s first point, that on-court coaching will put an end to cheating. Should coaching be limited to a once-per-set conference, as he proposes, that will merely allow the coach to transmit verbally what he or she might otherwise share via gestures and other non-verbal signals. Why would the covert tactics disappear, simply because the coach is given an opportunity to talk with his player face to face once a set? The monitoring of coaches would still be necessary, as the temptation to “cheat” would still exist. To truly eliminate the cheating Gilbert suggests is rampant and that goes unpunished today, coaches would need to be relegated to viewing matches on a monitor from a room outside the court.
Gilbert’s second point, that allowing coaching will finally let players get their money’s worth, is interesting. Presumably, this follows logically because players will receive their coach’s help when it is most needed and most valuable — during the match. While this argument seems logical on the surface, it completely overlooks a simple economic reality. The most successful players also have the largest bank accounts, and would therefore 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 buy. Talk about stacking the deck! This basic inequity all but guarantees that the highest ranked players will receive the best coaching. It is easy to see how the advent of on-court coaching might have the effect of promoting the status quo and widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.
The last of Gilbert’s arguments, that on-court coaching will make the game more compelling and entertaining, is certainly partly true. 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. Who wouldn’t want to hear the advice Jimmy Connors is giving to Andy Roddick as Roger Federer is taking him apart? It would certainly be entertaining. It would be even more entertaining if we were privy to the on-court “coachings” of John McEnroe, as his charge went head to head against Roddick and old rival, Connors. But would it be compelling or a mere novelty? Personally, I would rather the players figure out on their own how to turn their fortunes around.
Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that — Gilbert’s once-per-set conference notwithstanding — pro tennis might soon give in to the market forces that would demand the co-branding of big-name former pros? We could easily see the rise of “personalities” assuming the on-court duties to maximize tennis’ entertainment value while the day-to-day coaching is handled by someone of lesser or more modest celebrity, but greater substance. Think of the possibilities: Guillermo Vilas “coaching” Rafael Nadal. McEnroe and Roger Federer. And what could be better than an Ilie Nastase–Marat Safin on-court partnership? Except perhaps Goran Ivanisevic–Safin! Could professionally choreographed matches be too far off? Are we ready to let tennis devolve into a sideshow, a circus act?
Unless on-court conferences are severely restricted, as Gilbert proposes, the bulk of the “coaching” would be missed by television viewers due to those ubiquitous and vital sponsor ads at every change-over. Only folks sitting in the stadium seats would benefit from this new form of entertainment. The real reason for the interest in on-court coaching is to bolster the entertainment value of the pro game for paying fans. It’s simply another opportunity to brand one more product.
Yes, play would likely improve, and some matches might become more competitive, swinging on a pendulum as each player’s coach devises a counter-plan or tweaks tactics. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that blowouts will become a thing of the past. No amount of coaching will keep the Federer Express from flattening 90 percent of the men’s field. And no amount of on-court coaching will fix Elena Dementieva’s service woes during her match. That’s something that can only be accomplished on the practice court.
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. Coaches already sit on the court during college matches; high school and junior matches will likely be next. As it stands, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, with far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. Cheating in the juniors is rampant; it’s the elephant in the corner that no one dares acknowledge. When coaches and parent-coaches are tasked with producing winners, 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 parents and coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
Tennis should be in the business of promoting self-reliance, the development of problem-solving skills, and taking responsibility for on-court behaviors. Coaches need to stay on the sidelines, not become a sideshow.
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.
I believe that coach Gilbert’s and others’ arguments put forth in favor of on-court coaching are misguided and, should they be adopted, may lead the pro game down a slippery slope toward traveling theater.
Let me address Gilbert’s first point, that on-court coaching will put an end to cheating. Should coaching be limited to a once-per-set conference, as he proposes, that will merely allow the coach to transmit verbally what he or she might otherwise share via gestures and other non-verbal signals. Why would the covert tactics disappear, simply because the coach is given an opportunity to talk with his player face to face once a set? The monitoring of coaches would still be necessary, as the temptation to “cheat” would still exist. To truly eliminate the cheating Gilbert suggests is rampant and that goes unpunished today, coaches would need to be relegated to viewing matches on a monitor from a room outside the court.
Gilbert’s second point, that allowing coaching will finally let players get their money’s worth, is interesting. Presumably, this follows logically because players will receive their coach’s help when it is most needed and most valuable — during the match. While this argument seems logical on the surface, it completely overlooks a simple economic reality. The most successful players also have the largest bank accounts, and would therefore 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 buy. Talk about stacking the deck! This basic inequity all but guarantees that the highest ranked players will receive the best coaching. It is easy to see how the advent of on-court coaching might have the effect of promoting the status quo and widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.
The last of Gilbert’s arguments, that on-court coaching will make the game more compelling and entertaining, is certainly partly true. 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. Who wouldn’t want to hear the advice Jimmy Connors is giving to Andy Roddick as Roger Federer is taking him apart? It would certainly be entertaining. It would be even more entertaining if we were privy to the on-court “coachings” of John McEnroe, as his charge went head to head against Roddick and old rival, Connors. But would it be compelling or a mere novelty? Personally, I would rather the players figure out on their own how to turn their fortunes around.
Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that — Gilbert’s once-per-set conference notwithstanding — pro tennis might soon give in to the market forces that would demand the co-branding of big-name former pros? We could easily see the rise of “personalities” assuming the on-court duties to maximize tennis’ entertainment value while the day-to-day coaching is handled by someone of lesser or more modest celebrity, but greater substance. Think of the possibilities: Guillermo Vilas “coaching” Rafael Nadal. McEnroe and Roger Federer. And what could be better than an Ilie Nastase–Marat Safin on-court partnership? Except perhaps Goran Ivanisevic–Safin! Could professionally choreographed matches be too far off? Are we ready to let tennis devolve into a sideshow, a circus act?
Unless on-court conferences are severely restricted, as Gilbert proposes, the bulk of the “coaching” would be missed by television viewers due to those ubiquitous and vital sponsor ads at every change-over. Only folks sitting in the stadium seats would benefit from this new form of entertainment. The real reason for the interest in on-court coaching is to bolster the entertainment value of the pro game for paying fans. It’s simply another opportunity to brand one more product.
Yes, play would likely improve, and some matches might become more competitive, swinging on a pendulum as each player’s coach devises a counter-plan or tweaks tactics. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that blowouts will become a thing of the past. No amount of coaching will keep the Federer Express from flattening 90 percent of the men’s field. And no amount of on-court coaching will fix Elena Dementieva’s service woes during her match. That’s something that can only be accomplished on the practice court.
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. Coaches already sit on the court during college matches; high school and junior matches will likely be next. As it stands, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, with far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. Cheating in the juniors is rampant; it’s the elephant in the corner that no one dares acknowledge. When coaches and parent-coaches are tasked with producing winners, 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 parents and coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
Tennis should be in the business of promoting self-reliance, the development of problem-solving skills, and taking responsibility for on-court behaviors. Coaches need to stay on the sidelines, not become a sideshow.
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, January 14, 2007
Who's the greatest of all time? Wrong question!
On the eve of the Australian Open, the first leg of tennis' holy grail, the Grand Slam, it's difficult not to contemplate the possibility and importance of a 10th Grand Slam singles title for world no. 1, Roger Federer. One can already hear the sports writers clicking out their pronouncements of "greatest of all time." The GOAT list, seemingly the most treasured commodity among sports writers today, would suddenly show a shift in the hierarchy, or at the very least the insertion of an asterisk next to Pete Sampras' name: "*Most Grand Slam singles titles, for the moment."
Yes, a 10th Grand Slam title would bring Federer another step closer to surpassing Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam victories and — it will be written as surely as the sun will rise another day — will set Federer apart from the rest by leaps and bounds. He's already amassed the single best three-year run in modern ("Open") tennis history, having lost merely 15 matches to date in that span and having amassed nine Grand Slam titles along the way. In three short years! No doubt, most now say, he's well within reach of Sampras' record, and a 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne would simply close the book on that debate.
All this may be true, although I'm one to remain uncommitted until it happens, because all players are one torn ACL, one broken foot or fractured wrist, or one hip replacement away from leaving their careers too soon and too young. Remember Magnus Norman and Gustavo Kuerten. So I'll reserve final judgment on whether Federer is the greatest of all time. I will, however, say that in my estimation, he is one of the most well-rounded players, with as diverse and deadly an arsenal of offensive weapons and as solid a defensive game as anyone I've seen play the game. Furthermore, his transition game is right up there with the best, and his movement is second to none, though he is not the fastest player even of his own generation. What is certain, is that he has dominated his contemporaries as soundly and as surely as Sampras, Borg, Lendl and others had dominated theirs. But as for predicting the outcome of head-to-head battles, while it's an interesting exercise in what-if's and why-for's, I'm not certain it really amounts to much.
The question that I think really is worth asking, is "Which players have had the greatest impact on the game?" And here, I think, one might try to rank them and to present reasons for one's choices. I've given this question some serious thought, and I'd like to pose it to you. So, I won't give you my list (let's call it the GIOG list) quite yet, although I can tell you that the great Roger Federer is not at the top of this heap.
I'll post my list by the end of next week.
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.
Yes, a 10th Grand Slam title would bring Federer another step closer to surpassing Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam victories and — it will be written as surely as the sun will rise another day — will set Federer apart from the rest by leaps and bounds. He's already amassed the single best three-year run in modern ("Open") tennis history, having lost merely 15 matches to date in that span and having amassed nine Grand Slam titles along the way. In three short years! No doubt, most now say, he's well within reach of Sampras' record, and a 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne would simply close the book on that debate.
All this may be true, although I'm one to remain uncommitted until it happens, because all players are one torn ACL, one broken foot or fractured wrist, or one hip replacement away from leaving their careers too soon and too young. Remember Magnus Norman and Gustavo Kuerten. So I'll reserve final judgment on whether Federer is the greatest of all time. I will, however, say that in my estimation, he is one of the most well-rounded players, with as diverse and deadly an arsenal of offensive weapons and as solid a defensive game as anyone I've seen play the game. Furthermore, his transition game is right up there with the best, and his movement is second to none, though he is not the fastest player even of his own generation. What is certain, is that he has dominated his contemporaries as soundly and as surely as Sampras, Borg, Lendl and others had dominated theirs. But as for predicting the outcome of head-to-head battles, while it's an interesting exercise in what-if's and why-for's, I'm not certain it really amounts to much.
The question that I think really is worth asking, is "Which players have had the greatest impact on the game?" And here, I think, one might try to rank them and to present reasons for one's choices. I've given this question some serious thought, and I'd like to pose it to you. So, I won't give you my list (let's call it the GIOG list) quite yet, although I can tell you that the great Roger Federer is not at the top of this heap.
I'll post my list by the end of next week.
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.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Groin pulls, pullouts and other tennis' ailments
Less than five days from the start of the first leg of tennis' Grand Slam, the Australian Open, we're already down two marquee players with the likelihood of others announcing early withdrawal. For starters, last year's finalist, Justine Henin-Hardenne, has withdrawn from this year's contest for personal reasons. Then there's Venus Williams, out due to a recurring wrist injury. And Rafael Nadal looks either hopeful or doubtful, depending on whether you're a glass half-full or half-empty sort. Also, Nikolay Davydenko might yet withdraw with a foot injury, as might Anastasia Myskina.
Rafa pulled up lame in his lead-up event, citing a groin pull, which started the tennis community talking. Was he really injured? Or is he saving himself for the Slam? No matter how you slice it, it doesn't bode well for tennis, in general. Too many name players injured or claiming injury, withdrawing from Slams or retiring in the middle of lead-up events to save themselves for the Slams. The latter is preferable, of course, because it at least demonstrates a desire on the part of players to be in top form for the Slams.
But there's an underlying problem that is not being sufficiently dealt with, and it's complicated. First, you have the schedule of events and the length of the season. Holding a Grand Slam tournament in the third and fourth week of the new season is ludicrous. It's akin to Major League Baseball scheduling the American and National League Championship Series games in April, at the conclusion of the preseason exhibitions. No one in their right mind would ever consider proposing that. Add in the sheer length of the season, some 42-46 weeks for the world's best players — longer for those in the "minor leagues" — and you've got a recipe for disaster. All elite athletes need time to rest and repair their broken-down bodies, regroup their efforts and get back into their training routine, and retool their arsenal and add to their games. Rest. Repair. Regroup. Retool.
Were some miracle to occur, were the stars to align and a Commissioner of Tennis be appointed who had the power to makeover the schedule, much of tennis' troubles would persist. Why? Two words: appearance money. Call it promotional fees, if you will. Tournament directors around the globe and throughout the schedule vie for the best players, and many offer appearance money, what is often referred to as "guarantee" money. These appearance fees are often larger than the winner's purse, which creates one obvious problem right off; namely, incentive kill. If a top player can use his or her market value to obtain an appearance fee of $100,000 to commit to an event that will only pay out $25,000 to the victor, where is the incentive to give 100 percent effort? It is left to the ranking points to carry the burden.
So, if Nadal pulls out due to a suspicious groin pull, because he wants to save himself for the Slam the next week, can anyone blame him? Particularly if he has copped a cool hundred grand or more in appearance money to show up and sell tickets? After all, that's what the appearance fee is all about — selling tickets to the show. That's why I think we should call it what it really is: a promotional fee. What the tournament directors are really paying is a fee for the use of the player's name and image in advertising and on programs, billboards and other signage promoting the event. If the player never shows, the marketing has still worked to sell a certain number of seats, so he or she has done their part. It's how promotional marketing works, and today's top players are commodities for the tennis industry in the same way that Tyra Banks or Kate Moss is a commodity for the fashion industry. That they should command top dollar for their "services" should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with how using celebrity star power in advertising creates demand for a product.
The answer, of course, is to first adjust the schedule so that there are four Grand Slam Series — one leading up to the Australian Open, one leading up to Roland Garros, one to Wimbledon, and one to the U.S. Open. Then, each of the Series "owners" or stakeholders would sign players to contracts. For example, Federer might sign a commitment to play no fewer than three events in the Series leading up to the Australian Open, three events leading up to Roland Garros, three events leading up to Wimbledon, and three events leading to the U.S. Open. He'd sign four different contracts. That would account for 12 of his 18 or so events on the year. The contract would stipulate the right of the Series "owners" to use his name and image in all marketing for any or all events within the Series. So, in signing onto the U.S. Open Series, Roger would in effect be committing to play three of the events leading up to the U.S. Open in New York, and in doing so would be granting the Series "owners" the right to use his name and image in all promotional materials for any and/or all the events in the U.S. Open Series. Should Roger choose not to play the Washington event, for example, his name and image might well grace the materials (except for the final drawsheet and on-site player promos) used by the tournament director to sell seats for that event. Roger could enter the event at his discretion, provided a spot in the draw was available. If, however, he chose not to enter the event, he would need to find three other events within the U.S. Open Series to enter, or run the risk of breaking his contract. A breach of contract would carry a stiff monetary penalty, perhaps equal to the appearance or promotional fee he'd been guaranteed for signing on and granting permission to the Series "owners" to use his name and image.
In this way, the Series "owners" could better control the use of appearance/promotional fees, and assure their constituents (i.e., fans) of the actual appearance of their marquee players in some, if not all, of the events within their product. The only other way to go would be to eliminate appearance fees completely, which would merely bring back the "black market" fees that once got Guillermo Vilas in trouble in the 1970s. The fees wouldn't disappear, they'd just go underground, and we'd lose all visibility and accountability.
Retiring with injury may be the only card a player can play legally if he needs to save himself for the big event with the big prize. Tanking, for most pros, is out of the question, as it may scar one's reputation and hurt one's chances of obtaining an appearance fee next time around. The verdict is still out on Nadal; we'll have to wait and see how he holds up in Melbourne. As for Henin-Hardenne's retirement to Amelie Mauresmo in last year's Aussie Open final, either her physical pain must have been real, or she couldn't bear the psychological and emotional pain of a convincing defeat. The truth we may never know.
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.
Rafa pulled up lame in his lead-up event, citing a groin pull, which started the tennis community talking. Was he really injured? Or is he saving himself for the Slam? No matter how you slice it, it doesn't bode well for tennis, in general. Too many name players injured or claiming injury, withdrawing from Slams or retiring in the middle of lead-up events to save themselves for the Slams. The latter is preferable, of course, because it at least demonstrates a desire on the part of players to be in top form for the Slams.
But there's an underlying problem that is not being sufficiently dealt with, and it's complicated. First, you have the schedule of events and the length of the season. Holding a Grand Slam tournament in the third and fourth week of the new season is ludicrous. It's akin to Major League Baseball scheduling the American and National League Championship Series games in April, at the conclusion of the preseason exhibitions. No one in their right mind would ever consider proposing that. Add in the sheer length of the season, some 42-46 weeks for the world's best players — longer for those in the "minor leagues" — and you've got a recipe for disaster. All elite athletes need time to rest and repair their broken-down bodies, regroup their efforts and get back into their training routine, and retool their arsenal and add to their games. Rest. Repair. Regroup. Retool.
Were some miracle to occur, were the stars to align and a Commissioner of Tennis be appointed who had the power to makeover the schedule, much of tennis' troubles would persist. Why? Two words: appearance money. Call it promotional fees, if you will. Tournament directors around the globe and throughout the schedule vie for the best players, and many offer appearance money, what is often referred to as "guarantee" money. These appearance fees are often larger than the winner's purse, which creates one obvious problem right off; namely, incentive kill. If a top player can use his or her market value to obtain an appearance fee of $100,000 to commit to an event that will only pay out $25,000 to the victor, where is the incentive to give 100 percent effort? It is left to the ranking points to carry the burden.
So, if Nadal pulls out due to a suspicious groin pull, because he wants to save himself for the Slam the next week, can anyone blame him? Particularly if he has copped a cool hundred grand or more in appearance money to show up and sell tickets? After all, that's what the appearance fee is all about — selling tickets to the show. That's why I think we should call it what it really is: a promotional fee. What the tournament directors are really paying is a fee for the use of the player's name and image in advertising and on programs, billboards and other signage promoting the event. If the player never shows, the marketing has still worked to sell a certain number of seats, so he or she has done their part. It's how promotional marketing works, and today's top players are commodities for the tennis industry in the same way that Tyra Banks or Kate Moss is a commodity for the fashion industry. That they should command top dollar for their "services" should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with how using celebrity star power in advertising creates demand for a product.
The answer, of course, is to first adjust the schedule so that there are four Grand Slam Series — one leading up to the Australian Open, one leading up to Roland Garros, one to Wimbledon, and one to the U.S. Open. Then, each of the Series "owners" or stakeholders would sign players to contracts. For example, Federer might sign a commitment to play no fewer than three events in the Series leading up to the Australian Open, three events leading up to Roland Garros, three events leading up to Wimbledon, and three events leading to the U.S. Open. He'd sign four different contracts. That would account for 12 of his 18 or so events on the year. The contract would stipulate the right of the Series "owners" to use his name and image in all marketing for any or all events within the Series. So, in signing onto the U.S. Open Series, Roger would in effect be committing to play three of the events leading up to the U.S. Open in New York, and in doing so would be granting the Series "owners" the right to use his name and image in all promotional materials for any and/or all the events in the U.S. Open Series. Should Roger choose not to play the Washington event, for example, his name and image might well grace the materials (except for the final drawsheet and on-site player promos) used by the tournament director to sell seats for that event. Roger could enter the event at his discretion, provided a spot in the draw was available. If, however, he chose not to enter the event, he would need to find three other events within the U.S. Open Series to enter, or run the risk of breaking his contract. A breach of contract would carry a stiff monetary penalty, perhaps equal to the appearance or promotional fee he'd been guaranteed for signing on and granting permission to the Series "owners" to use his name and image.
In this way, the Series "owners" could better control the use of appearance/promotional fees, and assure their constituents (i.e., fans) of the actual appearance of their marquee players in some, if not all, of the events within their product. The only other way to go would be to eliminate appearance fees completely, which would merely bring back the "black market" fees that once got Guillermo Vilas in trouble in the 1970s. The fees wouldn't disappear, they'd just go underground, and we'd lose all visibility and accountability.
Retiring with injury may be the only card a player can play legally if he needs to save himself for the big event with the big prize. Tanking, for most pros, is out of the question, as it may scar one's reputation and hurt one's chances of obtaining an appearance fee next time around. The verdict is still out on Nadal; we'll have to wait and see how he holds up in Melbourne. As for Henin-Hardenne's retirement to Amelie Mauresmo in last year's Aussie Open final, either her physical pain must have been real, or she couldn't bear the psychological and emotional pain of a convincing defeat. The truth we may never know.
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.
Friday, January 05, 2007
TENNIS WEEK bought by IMG
In the blink of an eye, it seemed, TENNIS WEEK Magazine went from an independent publication to another in the growing stable of media vehicles owned by IMG. IMG, which also represents and manages many of the world's top athletes, has been making major inroads in the print publishing business. It promises to revamp the magazine, which I sincerely hope will vastly improve its production and editorial quality without adversely affecting TW's decades-long commitment to going after the real news inside the world of tennis. Read about it on TennisWeek online and on IMG's website. To learn more about the history of IMG, founded by the late Mark McCormack, visit IMGworld online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
