There's something about the Australian Open tennis championships at Melbourne Park that inspires me to put digit to keypad, as it were, and hunt-n-peck my way to some sort of resolution. Fitting, then, that it is held in January. In spite of my misgivings about the placement of the season's first Grand Slam on the ATP and WTA calendars, the event never fails to quicken my pulse and give clarity to my thinking.
Perhaps the installation of the Plexicushion surface and the rule changes regarding when the retractable roof over Rod Laver Arena would be closed had an impact, but I was pleasantly surprised to note a reduction in withdrawals, injuries, and retirements due to heat exhaustion or fatigue. Still, I believe the tennis community as a whole — including the pros who compete for this first of the year's major titles — would be better served if the tournament committee would move the Aussie Open out four or five weeks the the last week in February. Holding the AO at that time would have a two-fold positive effect: it would delay the event until early fall, when temperatures wouldn't be so oppressive; and it would open a six- to seven-week window of opportunity for a Pacific Rim or Asia-Pacific Series, taking a page from the highly successful U.S. Open Series notebook.
This latter point should not be so easily dismissed. The U.S. Open Series has clearly generated interest in the hard-court run-ups to the U.S. Open at the end of August. ATP events in Los Angeles, Washington, Toronto/Montreal, Cincinnati and elsewhere have seen record attendance, as well as commitments from most of the top players. It's not too much of a stretch to say that the record-breaking attendance numbers at the U.S. Open in 2006 and 2007 were a byproduct of the Series and its marketing. USTA past president Arlen Kantarian and current president Jane Brown Grimes thinks so, anyway.
And the Australian Open was at one time played in December; it was the last Grand Slam of the season, not the first that it is today. If you'll recall, that was one of the main reasons that Bjorn Borg stopped making the trek to the land Down Under, having failed time and again to win the U.S. Open, thereby making a calendar-year Grand Slam impossible. So, this blind allegiance to the January schedule is not a long-standing tradition. There is precedent for it to be otherwise.
All this being true, the tournament committee and Tennis Australia's governing body have a few good arguments to support keeping things the way they are. Attendance for this year's Aussie Open exceeded that of all others previous, reaching more than 600,000 for the fortnight and rivaling the U.S. Open numbers. In addition, holding the Aussie open in the summer months when schools are not in session allows more yong fans and families to attend the matches at Melbourne Park. Australia's version of Labor Day even falls on the last weekend of the tournament.
Still, I cannot help but think that pushing the major to late February has overwhelming merit. It would allow Tennis Australia to truly capitalize on the "Grand Slam of the Asia-Pacific" slogan and maximize the marketing value of this great event. It would provide a meaningful context for other large-venue Tier 1 and Tier 2 events in Japan, China and throughout Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and give the Australian Open the added import of being a culminating event. I'm quite sure that with what the Aussie Open has going for it — its rich history, its importance as the year's first Slam, the beauty of the venue and region, and the intelligence of its marketing and planning committees, fans will continue to flock there for years to come.
Or, at least until its current contract expires or its major sponsor, Kia Motors, redirects its entertainment dollars.
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 27, 2008
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Davis Cup, North Carolina Style (Day 1)
The last time North Carolina hosted the Davis Cup was in 2001, when the U.S. squad defeated India to stay in the World Group. On April 6, 2007, the USTA and Captain Patrick McEnroe brought the American squad back to Winston-Salem to use a home-court advantage against the perennially successful Spaniards.
Winston-Salem, at one time most recognized as the home of R.J. Reynolds Co. and the birthplace of famous cigarette brands such as Winston and Salem, is now a cozy town known for its Wake Forest University basketball and the world-renowned Bowman-Grey Medical Center. It's situated about two hours due west of the state capital, Raleigh, along a stretch of Interstate 40 that is just plain weird. Between Durham and Winston-Salem are towns like Burlington, with its many factory-direct shops, its factory irregulars, and its china replacement megastore; Greensboro, which is best remembered for its clash between some members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Communist Party, which ended in a police intervention and several dead; and High Point, former world center of furniture (it's quickly being eclipsed by the big monied and convention-friendly Las Vegas). Also along the road to Winston-Salem, you'll find such oddities as a Dockside Dolls strip joint sharing a parking lot with a Life Fellowship Baptist church. Actually, in North Carolina, that's not all that odd.
The Davis Cup tie is being held at the Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where the Demon Deacons play basketball. It seats about 14,500, and we've got a full house. The event sold out in three days.
The Demon Deacs, as they're called by the locals, used to hail from a small hamlet just north of Raleigh on N.C. Route 1 called Wake Forest. It began as a seminary, and when the school grew into a college, it relocated to Winston-Salem. Wake Forest still has the seminary, now called the Southeastern Baptist Seminary, a quaint campus on a hill of orange brick buildings in the Classical Revival style, I believe. I forgot to mention that this part of North Carolina, known as the Piedmont, is also known for its red clay soil and consequently its brick manufacturing.
I arrive at the coliseum, which is smack dab in the middle of nowhere — actually, it's part of the fairgrounds — a bit early to see what I can take in. Apparently, not early enough to catch Andy Roddick's practice session, but early enough to meet a home-grown celebrity of sorts — Elizabeth "Lizzie" Horton, Miss North Carolina. Lizzie, tiara and all, hails from High Point and is there to sing the National Anthem. She's a cute, pixie-like young woman who claims to have played on her high school tennis team. She's enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, and has a dual major in vocal performance and something or other. Later, after she has belted out the Star Spangled Banner, I find her soaking in the action through my binoculars.
Next I watch Fernando Verdasco practice. He's got good wheels (must be a Spanish thing, because they all do), a huge roundhouse forehand, and a solid, flat two-handed backhand. He can blast a flat first serve, which is dart-like but doesn't look as heavy as Blake's or Roddick's, of course. I'm a bit surprised by his volleys, however. He seems to get a late start with his footwork, and often lets his elbow collapse behind him on his forehand wing. A decent teaching pro would make him drill endlessly until he learned to keep that elbow in front of his belly button.
I'm in the Upper Level, Section 213, Row P, Seat 1. It's only a half-dozen rows below the roof line, but there's not a bad seat in the house, except the first three rows of the Upper Level, which are partially obstructed by a metal rail and a translucent plexiglas.
Before the action starts, I go to get my requisite hot dog, peanuts and tasteless beer, where I spot a couple of young guys juggling plastic bowling pins. They're sending them back and forth in a rapid volley, and have perfected an impressive move in which, while facing each other, one guy flips a pin around his leg while the other flips it between his legs. I show them the Roddick 'Tweener, and will check back today and Sunday to see if they've mastered it. I promise a picture if they do.
I get back to my seat in time to see the next pre-match activity, the Calypso Tumblers. This group of five black performers does amazing things with their bodies, and thoroughly entertains the crowd. I wonder, though, why the USTA doesn't come up with some sort of traveling tennis show, either with kids or with a small troupe of athletes that could showcase some of the exciting things we're about to witness, except in a super-lively, acrobatic manner a la Ringling Brothers or Harlem Globetrotters.
Next, the teams are introduced. The Spanish captain has decided to put Tommy Robredo and Fernando Verdasco in the singles, while Captain McEnroe goes with his two studs, Roddick and James Blake. The twin towers, Bob and Mike Bryan, wil take on Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez, who I must say is not as handsome in person as he is pretty.
The play itself is a bit pedestrian on this day, I think, except for Blake's performance. James comes out fired up and ready to play in the first match, looking a bit like Nadal as he bounces on his toes and then dashes back to the baseline to start the warm-up. You can sense that he's hungry for a win; God only knows he needs one.
Robredo is silky smooth, with his relaxed and easy strokes off both sides. As the match wears on, though, I notice that Disco Tommy is never able to really crank it up when needed. He hurts you mostly with his disguise. He has the classic windshield-wiper forehand, and in his case he never ever breaks his wrist. He cocks it back and up, and it stays rigid throughout the stroke, hence he is not able to get that extra bit of leverage, or pop, from a good wrist snap. Robredo doesn't really extend toward the target on either side; his racquet path is perfectly circular. I think that's his weakness. That, and the fact that, despite his quickness, he doesn't play a very good defensive game on this day. He's far better off when dictating play and his opponent is on the run and guessing which way the ball will come next. At that he is pure genius.
Robredo won the toss and elected to receive. Despite frittering away a 40-love lead on serve at 3 games apiece, Blake fights for his hold and breaks Robredo at 5-4 to take the first set. And that is essentially the match, as Blake overpowered Robredo time and again with his serve and forehand on the slick, rubberized surface. Robredo's first serve is actually quite good, but he made the mistake of going to Blake's forehand a few too many times; his second delivery lacks the power or kick (at least on this seemingly deadening surface) to hurt anyone.
To his credit, James held his errors to a minimum, and he used his head well, rarely playing a numbskulled shot or going for broke too early, as he is prone to do. I was impressed with his performance, as was the packed house who cheered him wildly. One thing about Davis Cup that is unlike any other tennis match, is that it's alright to cheer the opposing team's error and to be unashamedly biased. It's a weird departure for me, but I get into costume quickly. The most effective ploy the home crowd can employ is to remain utterly silent when an opposing player makes a good play. It must be feel terribly lonely out there.
Next up, Roddick and Verdasco. This kid Verdasco, ranked number 35, is a terrific athlete, but his swagger is too evident, even from Section 213, Row P. It's not wise to strut around in Roddick's face; it just makes him angry. Verdasco actually played a brilliant first set; well, almost. He was up 5-3 and blew it, seving an ace, two double faults, another ace, then shanking a forehand into the stands behind Roddick, and finally missing wide with a forehand down the line. That's all Roddick needed to make it clear Verdasco was a lot more swagger than he was confident and capable. Roddick never looked back. And despite having a very nice first serve — he ended up with 14 aces — Verdasco double-faulted often and seemed to wilt when it counted most. For his part, Roddick didn't play brilliantly, and seemed to be content roaming the backcourt some six to eight feet behind the baseline. He needs to step up for his forehand to be the weapon it can be.
Other notable attractions were the brass band that played loudly and often, a Blake contingent in the Upper Level that were all wearing blue and had some makeshift drums, and a large band of Spanish hopefuls in red behind their team. Every time they tried to whoop it up and make some noise with their cow bells and rattles, the PA system would drown them out with some American rock'n'roll.
There's a strong contingent from Raleigh, and I will try to get a few pictures. I did run into a small group from Down East — the Greenville, Wilson, Rocky Mount area, and hope to see them again on Day 2.
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.
Winston-Salem, at one time most recognized as the home of R.J. Reynolds Co. and the birthplace of famous cigarette brands such as Winston and Salem, is now a cozy town known for its Wake Forest University basketball and the world-renowned Bowman-Grey Medical Center. It's situated about two hours due west of the state capital, Raleigh, along a stretch of Interstate 40 that is just plain weird. Between Durham and Winston-Salem are towns like Burlington, with its many factory-direct shops, its factory irregulars, and its china replacement megastore; Greensboro, which is best remembered for its clash between some members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Communist Party, which ended in a police intervention and several dead; and High Point, former world center of furniture (it's quickly being eclipsed by the big monied and convention-friendly Las Vegas). Also along the road to Winston-Salem, you'll find such oddities as a Dockside Dolls strip joint sharing a parking lot with a Life Fellowship Baptist church. Actually, in North Carolina, that's not all that odd.
The Davis Cup tie is being held at the Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum, where the Demon Deacons play basketball. It seats about 14,500, and we've got a full house. The event sold out in three days.
The Demon Deacs, as they're called by the locals, used to hail from a small hamlet just north of Raleigh on N.C. Route 1 called Wake Forest. It began as a seminary, and when the school grew into a college, it relocated to Winston-Salem. Wake Forest still has the seminary, now called the Southeastern Baptist Seminary, a quaint campus on a hill of orange brick buildings in the Classical Revival style, I believe. I forgot to mention that this part of North Carolina, known as the Piedmont, is also known for its red clay soil and consequently its brick manufacturing.
I arrive at the coliseum, which is smack dab in the middle of nowhere — actually, it's part of the fairgrounds — a bit early to see what I can take in. Apparently, not early enough to catch Andy Roddick's practice session, but early enough to meet a home-grown celebrity of sorts — Elizabeth "Lizzie" Horton, Miss North Carolina. Lizzie, tiara and all, hails from High Point and is there to sing the National Anthem. She's a cute, pixie-like young woman who claims to have played on her high school tennis team. She's enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, and has a dual major in vocal performance and something or other. Later, after she has belted out the Star Spangled Banner, I find her soaking in the action through my binoculars.
Next I watch Fernando Verdasco practice. He's got good wheels (must be a Spanish thing, because they all do), a huge roundhouse forehand, and a solid, flat two-handed backhand. He can blast a flat first serve, which is dart-like but doesn't look as heavy as Blake's or Roddick's, of course. I'm a bit surprised by his volleys, however. He seems to get a late start with his footwork, and often lets his elbow collapse behind him on his forehand wing. A decent teaching pro would make him drill endlessly until he learned to keep that elbow in front of his belly button.
I'm in the Upper Level, Section 213, Row P, Seat 1. It's only a half-dozen rows below the roof line, but there's not a bad seat in the house, except the first three rows of the Upper Level, which are partially obstructed by a metal rail and a translucent plexiglas.
Before the action starts, I go to get my requisite hot dog, peanuts and tasteless beer, where I spot a couple of young guys juggling plastic bowling pins. They're sending them back and forth in a rapid volley, and have perfected an impressive move in which, while facing each other, one guy flips a pin around his leg while the other flips it between his legs. I show them the Roddick 'Tweener, and will check back today and Sunday to see if they've mastered it. I promise a picture if they do.
I get back to my seat in time to see the next pre-match activity, the Calypso Tumblers. This group of five black performers does amazing things with their bodies, and thoroughly entertains the crowd. I wonder, though, why the USTA doesn't come up with some sort of traveling tennis show, either with kids or with a small troupe of athletes that could showcase some of the exciting things we're about to witness, except in a super-lively, acrobatic manner a la Ringling Brothers or Harlem Globetrotters.
Next, the teams are introduced. The Spanish captain has decided to put Tommy Robredo and Fernando Verdasco in the singles, while Captain McEnroe goes with his two studs, Roddick and James Blake. The twin towers, Bob and Mike Bryan, wil take on Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez, who I must say is not as handsome in person as he is pretty.
The play itself is a bit pedestrian on this day, I think, except for Blake's performance. James comes out fired up and ready to play in the first match, looking a bit like Nadal as he bounces on his toes and then dashes back to the baseline to start the warm-up. You can sense that he's hungry for a win; God only knows he needs one.
Robredo is silky smooth, with his relaxed and easy strokes off both sides. As the match wears on, though, I notice that Disco Tommy is never able to really crank it up when needed. He hurts you mostly with his disguise. He has the classic windshield-wiper forehand, and in his case he never ever breaks his wrist. He cocks it back and up, and it stays rigid throughout the stroke, hence he is not able to get that extra bit of leverage, or pop, from a good wrist snap. Robredo doesn't really extend toward the target on either side; his racquet path is perfectly circular. I think that's his weakness. That, and the fact that, despite his quickness, he doesn't play a very good defensive game on this day. He's far better off when dictating play and his opponent is on the run and guessing which way the ball will come next. At that he is pure genius.
Robredo won the toss and elected to receive. Despite frittering away a 40-love lead on serve at 3 games apiece, Blake fights for his hold and breaks Robredo at 5-4 to take the first set. And that is essentially the match, as Blake overpowered Robredo time and again with his serve and forehand on the slick, rubberized surface. Robredo's first serve is actually quite good, but he made the mistake of going to Blake's forehand a few too many times; his second delivery lacks the power or kick (at least on this seemingly deadening surface) to hurt anyone.
To his credit, James held his errors to a minimum, and he used his head well, rarely playing a numbskulled shot or going for broke too early, as he is prone to do. I was impressed with his performance, as was the packed house who cheered him wildly. One thing about Davis Cup that is unlike any other tennis match, is that it's alright to cheer the opposing team's error and to be unashamedly biased. It's a weird departure for me, but I get into costume quickly. The most effective ploy the home crowd can employ is to remain utterly silent when an opposing player makes a good play. It must be feel terribly lonely out there.
Next up, Roddick and Verdasco. This kid Verdasco, ranked number 35, is a terrific athlete, but his swagger is too evident, even from Section 213, Row P. It's not wise to strut around in Roddick's face; it just makes him angry. Verdasco actually played a brilliant first set; well, almost. He was up 5-3 and blew it, seving an ace, two double faults, another ace, then shanking a forehand into the stands behind Roddick, and finally missing wide with a forehand down the line. That's all Roddick needed to make it clear Verdasco was a lot more swagger than he was confident and capable. Roddick never looked back. And despite having a very nice first serve — he ended up with 14 aces — Verdasco double-faulted often and seemed to wilt when it counted most. For his part, Roddick didn't play brilliantly, and seemed to be content roaming the backcourt some six to eight feet behind the baseline. He needs to step up for his forehand to be the weapon it can be.
Other notable attractions were the brass band that played loudly and often, a Blake contingent in the Upper Level that were all wearing blue and had some makeshift drums, and a large band of Spanish hopefuls in red behind their team. Every time they tried to whoop it up and make some noise with their cow bells and rattles, the PA system would drown them out with some American rock'n'roll.
There's a strong contingent from Raleigh, and I will try to get a few pictures. I did run into a small group from Down East — the Greenville, Wilson, Rocky Mount area, and hope to see them again on Day 2.
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, March 14, 2007
USTA finally gets it (right)!
I've been away too long, I know; it's good to be back. I experienced a natural post-Australian Open malaise, which sapped me of my will to post. And then, starting a new and demanding job in January, in which I spend my day researching, writing and editing, has left me too drained to write during my evening down-time. But something occurred recently that has roused the rumpel in my stiltskin: the USTA has announced its new ad campaign approach and launch strategy for the 2007 U.S. Open Series. You know, the six-week, 10-tournament lead-up to the U.S. Open Championships in New York, also touted as "The Greatest Road Trip in Sports" by the USTA marketing execs.
What's got me fired up is the fact that the USTA marketing geniuses (a term I used derisively in a post a few months ago) have finally got it right. More to the point, they finally "get" it! If you'll recall, last year, the second year of the U.S. Open Series, the "geniuses" strained their brains to come up with an ad campaign (print and TV) that proudly touted the prize the players were competing for as $2 million and change. That's 200-plus athletes competing in 10 events over six weeks for a mere $2 million, according to the geniuses. If you heard or saw it, you probably thought, like me, that you're a lot better off keeping your lousy day job. I mean, doing the math yielded on average about $10,000 to each athlete. Some high stakes, huh?
Didn't the geniuses realize that athletes with names like Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez earn that much per minute on the court and field? It was nothing short of an insult to the players and an affront to fans. What's worse, it was wrong! Yes, it was inaccurate. The geniuses had chosen, for some reason no marketeer worth his salt could ever fathom, to advertise the prize potential of only the Series point leader, should that same individual hoist the singles trophy in New York. But the actual total prize value on the line was something like $31 million. Now that figure might have turned a few heads, and earned the sport a little respect!
So it is with great pleasure (and some pride) that I can tell you that the USTA marketing geniuses have seen the error of their past ways and have redeemed themselves in 2007. Here is a snippet from the 2007 U.S. Open Series Ad Campaign article currently appearing on the USTA website:
"The campaign’s tagline - - 'The Greatest Road Trip in Sports…. 6 Weeks, 10 Tournaments, $30 Million On The Line.' - - communicates the essence of the US Open Series...".
And there you have it ... $30 million ... all is well with the world again. I'd like to think I had a hand in bringing the geniuses around, as I had written them directly in 2006 to admonish them, as well as having posted here under the title, 2006 US Open Series miscalculation. Who knows what forces move the geniuses. Whatever or whoever they are, let's hope the geniuses continue to be moved in a positive direction. Our sport needs a little boost from time to time, and the U.S. Open Series is undoubtedly the most visible (and marketable) "event" in tennis today, eclipsing even the fabled Wimbledon. That makes "The Greatest Road Trip in Sports" the perfect place for tennis to put her best foot forward. No more excuses!
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.
What's got me fired up is the fact that the USTA marketing geniuses (a term I used derisively in a post a few months ago) have finally got it right. More to the point, they finally "get" it! If you'll recall, last year, the second year of the U.S. Open Series, the "geniuses" strained their brains to come up with an ad campaign (print and TV) that proudly touted the prize the players were competing for as $2 million and change. That's 200-plus athletes competing in 10 events over six weeks for a mere $2 million, according to the geniuses. If you heard or saw it, you probably thought, like me, that you're a lot better off keeping your lousy day job. I mean, doing the math yielded on average about $10,000 to each athlete. Some high stakes, huh?
Didn't the geniuses realize that athletes with names like Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez earn that much per minute on the court and field? It was nothing short of an insult to the players and an affront to fans. What's worse, it was wrong! Yes, it was inaccurate. The geniuses had chosen, for some reason no marketeer worth his salt could ever fathom, to advertise the prize potential of only the Series point leader, should that same individual hoist the singles trophy in New York. But the actual total prize value on the line was something like $31 million. Now that figure might have turned a few heads, and earned the sport a little respect!
So it is with great pleasure (and some pride) that I can tell you that the USTA marketing geniuses have seen the error of their past ways and have redeemed themselves in 2007. Here is a snippet from the 2007 U.S. Open Series Ad Campaign article currently appearing on the USTA website:
"The campaign’s tagline - - 'The Greatest Road Trip in Sports…. 6 Weeks, 10 Tournaments, $30 Million On The Line.' - - communicates the essence of the US Open Series...".
And there you have it ... $30 million ... all is well with the world again. I'd like to think I had a hand in bringing the geniuses around, as I had written them directly in 2006 to admonish them, as well as having posted here under the title, 2006 US Open Series miscalculation. Who knows what forces move the geniuses. Whatever or whoever they are, let's hope the geniuses continue to be moved in a positive direction. Our sport needs a little boost from time to time, and the U.S. Open Series is undoubtedly the most visible (and marketable) "event" in tennis today, eclipsing even the fabled Wimbledon. That makes "The Greatest Road Trip in Sports" the perfect place for tennis to put her best foot forward. No more excuses!
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: what a ride!
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
2007 Schedule... Sadly, Nothing's Changed
A quick look at the 2007 Grand Slam schedule, which I recently found posted on Tennis Week Online, makes it abundantly clear that the powers that be in the world of professional tennis are still clueless.
Here's what the geniuses have come up with:
Australian Open: Jan 15-28
Roland Garros: May 27-June 10
Wimbledon: June 25-July 8
U.S. Open: Aug 27-Sep 9
Brilliant, isn't it? Such a huge leap forward! I don't know about you, but I'm tired of banging my head against the establishment, because they just aren't listening.
Case in point #1: We've still got one of the sport's largest and most important events occuring a mere two weeks after the season has opened. That's like holding Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series in April. The play would be abysmal and the injuries high. And there would be little time for a build-up of interest and/or suspense. Sound familiar?
Case in point #2: We must still endure 17 weeks (count 'em!) of mostly European clay court tennis as the lead-up to Roland Garros.
Case in point #3: There's still only two weeks and a day between the last ball struck on the crushed red brick of Paris and the first ball in play on the grass of London's All England Club. And, we've still got to swallow seeing the British flag on our TVs while we're celebrating our Independence Day. So much for that victory in 1776.
So, two weeks to get ready for the Australian; 17 to prepare for the French; two to go from slow red dirt to quick, slippery grass; and to top it all off, we don't even get the star-spangled banner waving on our living room sets while we eat strawberries and cream for breakfast at Wimbledon. You couldn't make up a worse schedule if you tried. The lost marketing opportunities alone guarantee the pro game will continue to go relatively unnoticed by the larger sporting world. It's way past time tennis learns to market its prize products effectively.
It's really quite simple, and I've said it time and time again. But it bears repeating: we must structure the tour around the four majors — those stalwarts of the game, those time-honored traditions, those world-renowned entities, those most successful product brands. To do otherwise is quite simply to dilute the power and appeal of the sport. Now, personally, I would also add Davis Cup and the Masters Series, with its year-end Masters Cup, to the list. But that's another story for another time. For now, let's just focus on the four majors — the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open.
In the service of creating a RATIONAL Grand Slam tournament schedule that can be marketed to full effect, let's propose a set of four "Grand Slam Series" in the mold of the U.S. Open Series, with players competing for points that will translate to a doubling or trebling of their take at the major which is the series' namesake should they finish the series as points leader — just like the U.S. Open Series is structured today. So, in order to do this, each of the Grand Slam Series would need to be between five and seven weeks long, followed by the two-week long Slam. And ideally, each Grand Slam Series would be contested on the surface on which the Slam will be contested. Finally, strong consideration should be given to the regional market which could be tapped or exploited to ensure continued successful globalization of the sport.
With the basic tenets laid down, we'd have a Grand Slam schedule that looked something like this:
We'd start the year off with the Australian Open Series, a hardcourt and indoor series that would begin around the first of the year and run for five to seven weeks (each tournament in the series being a one-week event with a draw no larger than 64) and culminate with the two-week long Australian Open in Melbourne. It could have an Australasian flavor, circling the Pacific Rim, with one or two hard court events played in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor; two or three events played in Japan, Korea and China; one event in Southeast Asia or Indonesia; and one in New Zealand or Australia prior to the Slam. We could even go out on a limb and name it the Australian Open-Pacific Rim Series, and it would run seven to nine weeks and take us to the end of the third week of February or the end of the first week of March.
Next, we'd have a six- to eight-week Roland Garros-EuroAfrican Series, which would be a red clay series held throughout Europe and parts of Africa. It might, for example, include week-long events in Stockholm, Moscow, Istanbul, Morrocco, perhaps Johannesburg, then Rome, Barcelona or Madrid, and culminate in the two-week Slam in Paris. Nine or 10 weeks tops, taking us to the end of the second week of May.
Then we'd have a six- to eight-week Wimbledon-Atlantic Seacoast Series, a grass court series that would be played in coastal towns on either side of the "pond" (Atlantic Ocean), and culminate with the fortnight in London. This series could reach from the Netherlands to Boston, with a stop in Newport, Rhode Island, over the week comprising the Fourth of July, so Americans can see the stars and stripes gallantly waving while watching the top Wimbledon contenders compete at the Hall of Fame. Inductees to the Hall would become a real attraction, with the current crop of stars on hand to witness and pay tribute, as well. It's a double-whammy.
Finally, we'd head into the U.S. Open-Americas Series, which would take us to points across Canada, the U.S., and Central and South America, culminating of course in New York with the U.S. Open, the game's largest and most spectacular show. This tour could go to places like Toronto-Montreal, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Houston, Mexico City or Buenos Aries or Lima or Santiago, then Washington, New Haven and New York. The only difference I would make to the way it's done today is that I'd push it out one to two weeks, and hold all match play under the bright lights. Why do we insist on holding the majors during our vacation/holiday times? And imagine the stars who would come out each and every night, adding celebrity glitter to an already brilliant display of talent on court. During the daylight hours, the USTA could utilize their abundant resources to "grow the game"; the PTR and USPTA could hold clinics and certification seminars; there could be plenty of activities to draw kids in; and the boy's and girl's tournaments could be played.
As I see it, there is no down-side to structuring the pro tour around the Grand Slam events in the aforementioned manner. All that's needed is the will to make it happen. Where's our Commissioner of Tennis? John?... Andre?... Pete?....
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Here's what the geniuses have come up with:
Australian Open: Jan 15-28
Roland Garros: May 27-June 10
Wimbledon: June 25-July 8
U.S. Open: Aug 27-Sep 9
Brilliant, isn't it? Such a huge leap forward! I don't know about you, but I'm tired of banging my head against the establishment, because they just aren't listening.
Case in point #1: We've still got one of the sport's largest and most important events occuring a mere two weeks after the season has opened. That's like holding Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series in April. The play would be abysmal and the injuries high. And there would be little time for a build-up of interest and/or suspense. Sound familiar?
Case in point #2: We must still endure 17 weeks (count 'em!) of mostly European clay court tennis as the lead-up to Roland Garros.
Case in point #3: There's still only two weeks and a day between the last ball struck on the crushed red brick of Paris and the first ball in play on the grass of London's All England Club. And, we've still got to swallow seeing the British flag on our TVs while we're celebrating our Independence Day. So much for that victory in 1776.
So, two weeks to get ready for the Australian; 17 to prepare for the French; two to go from slow red dirt to quick, slippery grass; and to top it all off, we don't even get the star-spangled banner waving on our living room sets while we eat strawberries and cream for breakfast at Wimbledon. You couldn't make up a worse schedule if you tried. The lost marketing opportunities alone guarantee the pro game will continue to go relatively unnoticed by the larger sporting world. It's way past time tennis learns to market its prize products effectively.
It's really quite simple, and I've said it time and time again. But it bears repeating: we must structure the tour around the four majors — those stalwarts of the game, those time-honored traditions, those world-renowned entities, those most successful product brands. To do otherwise is quite simply to dilute the power and appeal of the sport. Now, personally, I would also add Davis Cup and the Masters Series, with its year-end Masters Cup, to the list. But that's another story for another time. For now, let's just focus on the four majors — the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open.
In the service of creating a RATIONAL Grand Slam tournament schedule that can be marketed to full effect, let's propose a set of four "Grand Slam Series" in the mold of the U.S. Open Series, with players competing for points that will translate to a doubling or trebling of their take at the major which is the series' namesake should they finish the series as points leader — just like the U.S. Open Series is structured today. So, in order to do this, each of the Grand Slam Series would need to be between five and seven weeks long, followed by the two-week long Slam. And ideally, each Grand Slam Series would be contested on the surface on which the Slam will be contested. Finally, strong consideration should be given to the regional market which could be tapped or exploited to ensure continued successful globalization of the sport.
With the basic tenets laid down, we'd have a Grand Slam schedule that looked something like this:
We'd start the year off with the Australian Open Series, a hardcourt and indoor series that would begin around the first of the year and run for five to seven weeks (each tournament in the series being a one-week event with a draw no larger than 64) and culminate with the two-week long Australian Open in Melbourne. It could have an Australasian flavor, circling the Pacific Rim, with one or two hard court events played in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor; two or three events played in Japan, Korea and China; one event in Southeast Asia or Indonesia; and one in New Zealand or Australia prior to the Slam. We could even go out on a limb and name it the Australian Open-Pacific Rim Series, and it would run seven to nine weeks and take us to the end of the third week of February or the end of the first week of March.
Next, we'd have a six- to eight-week Roland Garros-EuroAfrican Series, which would be a red clay series held throughout Europe and parts of Africa. It might, for example, include week-long events in Stockholm, Moscow, Istanbul, Morrocco, perhaps Johannesburg, then Rome, Barcelona or Madrid, and culminate in the two-week Slam in Paris. Nine or 10 weeks tops, taking us to the end of the second week of May.
Then we'd have a six- to eight-week Wimbledon-Atlantic Seacoast Series, a grass court series that would be played in coastal towns on either side of the "pond" (Atlantic Ocean), and culminate with the fortnight in London. This series could reach from the Netherlands to Boston, with a stop in Newport, Rhode Island, over the week comprising the Fourth of July, so Americans can see the stars and stripes gallantly waving while watching the top Wimbledon contenders compete at the Hall of Fame. Inductees to the Hall would become a real attraction, with the current crop of stars on hand to witness and pay tribute, as well. It's a double-whammy.
Finally, we'd head into the U.S. Open-Americas Series, which would take us to points across Canada, the U.S., and Central and South America, culminating of course in New York with the U.S. Open, the game's largest and most spectacular show. This tour could go to places like Toronto-Montreal, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Houston, Mexico City or Buenos Aries or Lima or Santiago, then Washington, New Haven and New York. The only difference I would make to the way it's done today is that I'd push it out one to two weeks, and hold all match play under the bright lights. Why do we insist on holding the majors during our vacation/holiday times? And imagine the stars who would come out each and every night, adding celebrity glitter to an already brilliant display of talent on court. During the daylight hours, the USTA could utilize their abundant resources to "grow the game"; the PTR and USPTA could hold clinics and certification seminars; there could be plenty of activities to draw kids in; and the boy's and girl's tournaments could be played.
As I see it, there is no down-side to structuring the pro tour around the Grand Slam events in the aforementioned manner. All that's needed is the will to make it happen. Where's our Commissioner of Tennis? John?... Andre?... Pete?....
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Read me in TENNIS WEEK (December 2006)
I don't normally make a habit of tooting my own horn, but... if you happen to be a USPTA or PTR tennis professional, or know where you can pick up the December issue of TENNIS WEEK at a newstand, check out my article in Sight Lines on page 55, "Service Lets and Sudden Death." I believe you will find my thoughts on simple ways to improve the pro game interesting, or at least provocative.
So, if you get a chance to read my piece, let me know what you think by commenting here. Thanks.
So, if you get a chance to read my piece, let me know what you think by commenting here. Thanks.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
TENNIS WEEK magazine's all-time picks
As promised, here are the results of TENNIS WEEK magazine's "A Tourney for All Time" fantasy men's tennis tournament. In brackets are my picks, round by round. (Note: Names only appear in the brackets if I picked a different winner, loser, or both.)
TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe
First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.
In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe
First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.
In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
To watch the ball (or not)
Everyone can appreciate Roger Federer's superlative shotmaking abilities — his forehand crosscourt winners on the dead run, his topspin backhand passes and rifled shots up the line, among the more impressive. But what strikes me as his most distinctive quality, or competency, is his seemingly effortless movement in pursuit of the ball. Focus your eyes on Federer, and only on Federer, and you'll be convinced that he has some sort of mental radar or telepathy, as he gets to the ball so quickly it appears he already knows where it will be before he makes his first move. The question is: How does he do it? What is his trick for making it look so easy, for getting to the ball so quickly?
I think part of the answer lies in his natural quickness and in his ability to dissect all the angles of the court to determine his opponent's most favorable shot, then to cover that shot as quickly as possible. But I think one other equally large part of it has to do with his anticipation, his ability to make highly educated, or intelligent, guesses at just the right moment, maximizing his ball coverage and minimizing errors of judgment. But what is the root cause of such superb anticipation? I believe it has everything to do with what Federer visually focuses on and when.
It's almost cliche to talk about how well Federer keeps his eyes fixed on the contact point throughout his stroke. Like a good billiards player who has the capacity to make the ball scoot this way or that after the shot in order to find the best spot on the table for the following shot, but who knows none of that matters if she doesn't sink that first ball, Federer narrows his focus on the shot he's making, and nothing more, until he's made it. He refuses to get ahead of himself, to rush to get ready for the next ball; he knows that if he strikes the ball as well as he can, the ball may simply not come back.
But what does he focus on next? What should all players visually focus on once they've struck the ball and are motoring to get into position for the reply? The answer I'm about to reveal may surprise you: you should look at your opponent, very critically. Watch how well and how quickly he's moving toward the ball. Is he rushed? Is he tense? Is he straining with all his might to get there? And what about his racquet preparation? Is he early or late? Is he preparing for a topspin drive or a slice? Will he be offensive with his reply or defensive? These and other answers will flood your mind as you watch your opponent respond to your shot. And the answers your pattern-identifying brain gives you will help you determine whether to follow your shot to the net or adopt a defensive position, look for an opening or hustle back to the neutral zone.
Most of us watch our shot to see where it lands. We watch the ball, and only the ball, as we were taught from the beginning. But to take your game to that next level, where you are anticipating like Federer, you must learn to multi-task. You must learn when to focus your eyes on the ball and when not to. You'll soon realize that it is imperative to focus on the ball from the moment your opponent strikes it to the moment you strike it, but at all other times your focus may deviate from watching the ball to maintaining your gaze on the contact point, or to critically observing your opponent for clues as to his ability to respond to the shot you've just made. Indeed, you will likely find yourself actually watching the ball only about 60 to 70 percent of the time, with about 10 percent allocated to fixing your gaze (and therefore your head and shoulder position) on the contact point — even after contact is made — and the remaining 20 to 30 percent allocated to fixing your gaze on your opponent so as to better understand the efficacy of your shot and the likely effectiveness of his reply.
Those players who continue to watch the ball at all times are too quick to "leave their post" and too late to "catch the train" — never fully committing to their own shot or giving themselves a chance at seeing what their opponent is capable of doing during a given exchange. What you focus your eyes on during the point is crucial to determining how much information you gather about your opponent's capabilities and your opportunities to take charge. Learn when to take you eyes off the ball and use your peripheral vision to keep track of the non-essentials, such as the trajectory of your shot or the exact spot on the court where it lands, and your shots will take on greater force, spin and precision, while your level of anticipation will skyrocket!
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think part of the answer lies in his natural quickness and in his ability to dissect all the angles of the court to determine his opponent's most favorable shot, then to cover that shot as quickly as possible. But I think one other equally large part of it has to do with his anticipation, his ability to make highly educated, or intelligent, guesses at just the right moment, maximizing his ball coverage and minimizing errors of judgment. But what is the root cause of such superb anticipation? I believe it has everything to do with what Federer visually focuses on and when.
It's almost cliche to talk about how well Federer keeps his eyes fixed on the contact point throughout his stroke. Like a good billiards player who has the capacity to make the ball scoot this way or that after the shot in order to find the best spot on the table for the following shot, but who knows none of that matters if she doesn't sink that first ball, Federer narrows his focus on the shot he's making, and nothing more, until he's made it. He refuses to get ahead of himself, to rush to get ready for the next ball; he knows that if he strikes the ball as well as he can, the ball may simply not come back.
But what does he focus on next? What should all players visually focus on once they've struck the ball and are motoring to get into position for the reply? The answer I'm about to reveal may surprise you: you should look at your opponent, very critically. Watch how well and how quickly he's moving toward the ball. Is he rushed? Is he tense? Is he straining with all his might to get there? And what about his racquet preparation? Is he early or late? Is he preparing for a topspin drive or a slice? Will he be offensive with his reply or defensive? These and other answers will flood your mind as you watch your opponent respond to your shot. And the answers your pattern-identifying brain gives you will help you determine whether to follow your shot to the net or adopt a defensive position, look for an opening or hustle back to the neutral zone.
Most of us watch our shot to see where it lands. We watch the ball, and only the ball, as we were taught from the beginning. But to take your game to that next level, where you are anticipating like Federer, you must learn to multi-task. You must learn when to focus your eyes on the ball and when not to. You'll soon realize that it is imperative to focus on the ball from the moment your opponent strikes it to the moment you strike it, but at all other times your focus may deviate from watching the ball to maintaining your gaze on the contact point, or to critically observing your opponent for clues as to his ability to respond to the shot you've just made. Indeed, you will likely find yourself actually watching the ball only about 60 to 70 percent of the time, with about 10 percent allocated to fixing your gaze (and therefore your head and shoulder position) on the contact point — even after contact is made — and the remaining 20 to 30 percent allocated to fixing your gaze on your opponent so as to better understand the efficacy of your shot and the likely effectiveness of his reply.
Those players who continue to watch the ball at all times are too quick to "leave their post" and too late to "catch the train" — never fully committing to their own shot or giving themselves a chance at seeing what their opponent is capable of doing during a given exchange. What you focus your eyes on during the point is crucial to determining how much information you gather about your opponent's capabilities and your opportunities to take charge. Learn when to take you eyes off the ball and use your peripheral vision to keep track of the non-essentials, such as the trajectory of your shot or the exact spot on the court where it lands, and your shots will take on greater force, spin and precision, while your level of anticipation will skyrocket!
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Monday, November 20, 2006
My picks for All-Time Greats tennis championships
In response to a challenge put out by the staff at TENNIS WEEK magazine to select the winners in a hypothetical "All-Time Greatest Players" men's tennis tournament — using a list of the players selected by the writers of TENNIS WEEK and the first-round match-ups produced by draw of the hat at TENNIS WEEK — I am using this entry to reveal to you my picks, which were submitted to TENNIS WEEK last month.
Today TENNIS WEEK announced a winner of the fantasy challenge on their website, and will print the entire drawsheet results in the December issue, currently at the presses. I will reprint them here for your edification when the issue arrives in my mailbox. Visit TENNIS WEEK online to read what the winner of the fantasy challenge has to say and to learn who the seven-member panel of former greats and current TENNIS WEEK writers picked to take it all. In the meantime, enjoy my picks and let me know what you think!
First Round (32 players)
1. Roger Federer d. John Newcombe 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
2. Ken Rosewall d. Ilie Nastase 7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4
3. Roy Emerson d. Frank Sedgman 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Boris Becker d. Don Budge 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
5. Bjorn Borg d. Tony Trabert 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
6. Guillermo Vilas d. Jean Borotra 4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
7. Pancho Gonzalez d. Jim Courier 6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5
8. John McEnroe d. Lew Hoad 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
9. Arthur Ashe d. Jack Kramer 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
10. Henri Cochet d. Rene Lacoste 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
11. Jimmy Connors d. Ellsworth Vines 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4
12. Pete Sampras d. Stefan Edberg 7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
13. Bill Tilden d. Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
14. Mats Vilander d. Manolo Santana 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
15. Andre Agassi d. Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3
16. Rod Laver d. Fred Perry 7-5, 7-5, 6-4
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4
2. Becker d. Emerson 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Gonzalez d. McEnroe 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6
5. Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
7. Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
8. Laver d. Agassi 5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
2. Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4
3. Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3
4. Laver d. Tilden 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
2. Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
Final
Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
The world watches, mesmerized, as Federer wins the championship in five unbelievable sets over an exhausted Pete Sampras, who remains slumped in his chair for a full five minutes before being helped to the podium to accept his trophy.
Note that the hat drawing produced a few amazing pairings, which caused me to eliminate some very special players earlier than I'd have liked to. For example, Lew Hoad falling in the first round to John McEnroe is a tough pill to swallow, yet I cannot imagine how Hoad would be able to break down McEnroe's serve, especially being a righty facing that wide-swinging lefty hook in the ad court. And in my opinion, Hoad's inability to break serve when it counts gives the edge to McEnroe. Justice is served in the very next round as McEnroe faces one tough competitor in Pancho Gonzalez, who was at least as big a bad boy as McEnroe and who I believe would prevail in five very tough sets. Of course, that is an incredibly difficult draw for McEnroe, whom I would otherwise have picked to reach the quarterfinals, if not the semifinals.
But if McEnroe's draw was difficult, Gonzalez's was simply treacherous. First he had to face Jim Courier, who for all intents and purposes can be credited for perfecting the inside-out forehand rip. And that would pose problems for anyone, but especially for a player who had not faced such an awesome weapon off the ground before. Still, I think Gonzalez's versatility, athleticism, monster serve and touch would win out against Courier. Next up, though, is McEnroe with his lethal lefty hook serve and the most effective net game the sport has seen. I picked Gonzalez on the basis of his grittiness and unbreakable will. After sneaking by McEnroe in five, Gonzalez has to face Borg, who will pass him like he's not even there. In a battle of two of the most willful players of all time, I again pick Gonzalez, but here on the basis of his versatility. That and the fact that I think if anyone could rattle Borg, it would be Pancho. And finally, Gonzalez goes up against Federer, who I think just has too much game for him. Still, it takes Federer a while to adjust to all the stuff Gonzalez throws at him, and he prevails in four tough and highly entertaining sets, with shotmaking like the world has never seen before.
Also notice that Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi face off in the first round. That is very unfortunate for Lendl, as he doesn't have the foot speed to handle Agassi's angled assaults. Lendl's power game presents some problems for Andre in the early going, but once he gets dialed in, he wears Lendl down physically. And that despite the fact that Lendl was a pioneer in bringing new levels of fitness, conditioning and nutrition to the pro game. He just simply had rarely run that far for that long, excepting his occasional matchups with fellow countryman, Miroslav Mecir. But when Agassi and Laver battle it out, we see how foot speed and a lefty hook can really take its toll on a righty with a two-handed backhanded, even one as good as Agassi.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Today TENNIS WEEK announced a winner of the fantasy challenge on their website, and will print the entire drawsheet results in the December issue, currently at the presses. I will reprint them here for your edification when the issue arrives in my mailbox. Visit TENNIS WEEK online to read what the winner of the fantasy challenge has to say and to learn who the seven-member panel of former greats and current TENNIS WEEK writers picked to take it all. In the meantime, enjoy my picks and let me know what you think!
First Round (32 players)
1. Roger Federer d. John Newcombe 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
2. Ken Rosewall d. Ilie Nastase 7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4
3. Roy Emerson d. Frank Sedgman 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Boris Becker d. Don Budge 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4
5. Bjorn Borg d. Tony Trabert 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
6. Guillermo Vilas d. Jean Borotra 4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
7. Pancho Gonzalez d. Jim Courier 6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5
8. John McEnroe d. Lew Hoad 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
9. Arthur Ashe d. Jack Kramer 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
10. Henri Cochet d. Rene Lacoste 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
11. Jimmy Connors d. Ellsworth Vines 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4
12. Pete Sampras d. Stefan Edberg 7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
13. Bill Tilden d. Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
14. Mats Vilander d. Manolo Santana 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3
15. Andre Agassi d. Ivan Lendl 5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3
16. Rod Laver d. Fred Perry 7-5, 7-5, 6-4
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4
2. Becker d. Emerson 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
4. Gonzalez d. McEnroe 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6
5. Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
7. Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
8. Laver d. Agassi 5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
2. Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4
3. Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3
4. Laver d. Tilden 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3
2. Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4
Final
Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5
The world watches, mesmerized, as Federer wins the championship in five unbelievable sets over an exhausted Pete Sampras, who remains slumped in his chair for a full five minutes before being helped to the podium to accept his trophy.
Note that the hat drawing produced a few amazing pairings, which caused me to eliminate some very special players earlier than I'd have liked to. For example, Lew Hoad falling in the first round to John McEnroe is a tough pill to swallow, yet I cannot imagine how Hoad would be able to break down McEnroe's serve, especially being a righty facing that wide-swinging lefty hook in the ad court. And in my opinion, Hoad's inability to break serve when it counts gives the edge to McEnroe. Justice is served in the very next round as McEnroe faces one tough competitor in Pancho Gonzalez, who was at least as big a bad boy as McEnroe and who I believe would prevail in five very tough sets. Of course, that is an incredibly difficult draw for McEnroe, whom I would otherwise have picked to reach the quarterfinals, if not the semifinals.
But if McEnroe's draw was difficult, Gonzalez's was simply treacherous. First he had to face Jim Courier, who for all intents and purposes can be credited for perfecting the inside-out forehand rip. And that would pose problems for anyone, but especially for a player who had not faced such an awesome weapon off the ground before. Still, I think Gonzalez's versatility, athleticism, monster serve and touch would win out against Courier. Next up, though, is McEnroe with his lethal lefty hook serve and the most effective net game the sport has seen. I picked Gonzalez on the basis of his grittiness and unbreakable will. After sneaking by McEnroe in five, Gonzalez has to face Borg, who will pass him like he's not even there. In a battle of two of the most willful players of all time, I again pick Gonzalez, but here on the basis of his versatility. That and the fact that I think if anyone could rattle Borg, it would be Pancho. And finally, Gonzalez goes up against Federer, who I think just has too much game for him. Still, it takes Federer a while to adjust to all the stuff Gonzalez throws at him, and he prevails in four tough and highly entertaining sets, with shotmaking like the world has never seen before.
Also notice that Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi face off in the first round. That is very unfortunate for Lendl, as he doesn't have the foot speed to handle Agassi's angled assaults. Lendl's power game presents some problems for Andre in the early going, but once he gets dialed in, he wears Lendl down physically. And that despite the fact that Lendl was a pioneer in bringing new levels of fitness, conditioning and nutrition to the pro game. He just simply had rarely run that far for that long, excepting his occasional matchups with fellow countryman, Miroslav Mecir. But when Agassi and Laver battle it out, we see how foot speed and a lefty hook can really take its toll on a righty with a two-handed backhanded, even one as good as Agassi.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Federer at his most masterful in Shanghai
With decisive straight-set victories over world #2 Rafael Nadal in the semifinal and the turbo-charged James Blake in the final at the Masters Cup year-end championships in Shanghai, China, Roger Federer erased any lingering doubts about his complete mastery of the game and the rest of the field.
After winning his group's round robin with three victories to no losses, Federer's decisive, though not easy, defeat of Nadal was as symbolic as it was real. With that win, Federer established that he would be able to take real satisfaction from his phenomenal year — which included retaining the number 1 ranking by a few thousand ATP points, 11 titles, three out of four slams, and more than $7 million in prize earnings — by finally exacting revenge on the man who had practically owned him everywhere but on the lawns of Wimbledon.
And so, going into the final against Blake, who had also knocked out Nadal in round-robin play and streaked past a dazed and confused David Nalbandian, last year's Master Cup titlist, Federer was brimming with confidence and personal pride. And boy did it show in his match with Blake, a dangerous competitor and shotmaker with some of the tour's best wheels to boot. Not content to let Blake dictate play with his huge, slashing forehand and hammer serve, Federer took it to his man with pre-emptive strikes and some awesome displays of athleticism. What worked for Blake against Nadal and Nalbandian, both of whom seek to find some rhythm in constructing points before delivering the juice, was completely nullified by Federer, who refused to let Blake take charge.
And if there were ever any doubts about Federer's backhand efficacy, which in this observer's mind has always been one of the game's most beautiful and lethal shots, he eradicated those doubts in the 15 minutes it took him to secure the first set from Blake at love. For someone who delights in the sheer aesthetic of tennis, I was most impressed by the long, fluid strokes and effortless movement Federer displayed, particularly on the backhand side, which conventional wisdom has said is his weaker side. Well, you can erase that thought now. Federer showed the world why so many of his opponents come away shaking their heads in wonderment, mumbling about his lack of weaknesses. He really has none, and in this match against Blake, he demonstrated why his backhand rates as one of the all-time greatest shots in the history of tennis.
Federer doesn't merely hit backhand winners, he carves out spaces in the air and on the court with them. On several occasions in his match with Blake, Federer was forced to take a backhand directly off the baseline on the half-volley, something we've seen Agassi often do on the forehand side, but which few tennis players can do with any consistency on the backhand wing. In true Federer style, he hit pure winners with two out of three of those half-volley backhands, impossibly flicking them down the line off of Blake's huge inside-out forehands, and taking a full topspin cut at another baseline-hugger to keep Blake from going on the offensive. With 17 backhand winners, more than off his forehand wing, Federer dispelled any notions that his backhand is vulnerable to attack, at least on any surface but crushed red brick.
A Federer backhand is a thing of beauty and variety. And when he cocks back his wrist and flings it across his body, it can prove quite nasty, too. He's as adept at slicing the ball as he is at driving it with topspin or flattening it out on his approach shots. Federer moves to the ball so quickly and in such perfect balance — hence the appearance of effortlessness; he sets up so early with a complete shoulder turn and full step across his body and toward his target, that it must seem to his opponent that any shot is likely to come from Federer's racquet at any given moment. This explains the deer-frozen-in-the-headlights look on Blake's face throughout the match, I suppose.
When historians look back one day at the career of Roger Federer, I suspect there will be those who focus on his shotmaking abilities, while others recall his graceful movement and tactical genius. I hope that some will recogninze, as I do, the artfulness and efficacy of his one-handed backhand, perhaps the greatest living example of the lethality and variability possible from one of the last of a dying breed of one-handers.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
After winning his group's round robin with three victories to no losses, Federer's decisive, though not easy, defeat of Nadal was as symbolic as it was real. With that win, Federer established that he would be able to take real satisfaction from his phenomenal year — which included retaining the number 1 ranking by a few thousand ATP points, 11 titles, three out of four slams, and more than $7 million in prize earnings — by finally exacting revenge on the man who had practically owned him everywhere but on the lawns of Wimbledon.
And so, going into the final against Blake, who had also knocked out Nadal in round-robin play and streaked past a dazed and confused David Nalbandian, last year's Master Cup titlist, Federer was brimming with confidence and personal pride. And boy did it show in his match with Blake, a dangerous competitor and shotmaker with some of the tour's best wheels to boot. Not content to let Blake dictate play with his huge, slashing forehand and hammer serve, Federer took it to his man with pre-emptive strikes and some awesome displays of athleticism. What worked for Blake against Nadal and Nalbandian, both of whom seek to find some rhythm in constructing points before delivering the juice, was completely nullified by Federer, who refused to let Blake take charge.
And if there were ever any doubts about Federer's backhand efficacy, which in this observer's mind has always been one of the game's most beautiful and lethal shots, he eradicated those doubts in the 15 minutes it took him to secure the first set from Blake at love. For someone who delights in the sheer aesthetic of tennis, I was most impressed by the long, fluid strokes and effortless movement Federer displayed, particularly on the backhand side, which conventional wisdom has said is his weaker side. Well, you can erase that thought now. Federer showed the world why so many of his opponents come away shaking their heads in wonderment, mumbling about his lack of weaknesses. He really has none, and in this match against Blake, he demonstrated why his backhand rates as one of the all-time greatest shots in the history of tennis.
Federer doesn't merely hit backhand winners, he carves out spaces in the air and on the court with them. On several occasions in his match with Blake, Federer was forced to take a backhand directly off the baseline on the half-volley, something we've seen Agassi often do on the forehand side, but which few tennis players can do with any consistency on the backhand wing. In true Federer style, he hit pure winners with two out of three of those half-volley backhands, impossibly flicking them down the line off of Blake's huge inside-out forehands, and taking a full topspin cut at another baseline-hugger to keep Blake from going on the offensive. With 17 backhand winners, more than off his forehand wing, Federer dispelled any notions that his backhand is vulnerable to attack, at least on any surface but crushed red brick.
A Federer backhand is a thing of beauty and variety. And when he cocks back his wrist and flings it across his body, it can prove quite nasty, too. He's as adept at slicing the ball as he is at driving it with topspin or flattening it out on his approach shots. Federer moves to the ball so quickly and in such perfect balance — hence the appearance of effortlessness; he sets up so early with a complete shoulder turn and full step across his body and toward his target, that it must seem to his opponent that any shot is likely to come from Federer's racquet at any given moment. This explains the deer-frozen-in-the-headlights look on Blake's face throughout the match, I suppose.
When historians look back one day at the career of Roger Federer, I suspect there will be those who focus on his shotmaking abilities, while others recall his graceful movement and tactical genius. I hope that some will recogninze, as I do, the artfulness and efficacy of his one-handed backhand, perhaps the greatest living example of the lethality and variability possible from one of the last of a dying breed of one-handers.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Use variety and disguise to achieve the element of surprise!
You’re serving. It’s the third set of a tight match, which has see-sawed on several service breaks. In this service game, you’ve worked the court well to get to 40-30. A hold here will not only consolidate the service break you earned at 3-all, but will put you firmly in the driver’s seat, up 3-5 with the chance to break for the win or, failing that, serve out the match. An awful lot rides on this one point. What you may or may not realize is that the match may very well ride on what you choose to do with your first serve.
Conventional wisdom would have you play a relatively safe serve hit with three-quarter pace to the weak side or directly at your opponent’s body with plenty of topspin for a wide margin of error, and to look to attack the second ball. What you don’t want to do at this crucial moment is needlessly throw away your first serve by going for too much, thus be obligated to play a safer, more predictable second serve. By going for broke on the first serve (and missing) you unwittingly hand over the advantage to your opponent by failing to utilize the server’s most precious commodities — variety and disguise, which together equal the element of surprise.
Much has been made of the parallels between serving in tennis and pitching in baseball, and for good reason. In baseball, if the pitcher is able to “get ahead of” the batter, meaning to advance the strike count ahead of the ball count, he gains a huge advantage. Why is this? Because if the pitcher is able to get the count to 1 ball and 2 strikes, for example, then he has three pitches with which to get that last strike. He can essentially “waste” two of the three. Of course, no pitcher worth his salt would ever waste a pitch, but he might elect to throw a hard-breaking ball low and off the outside corner in an attempt to fool the batter into swinging at, and missing, a “bad” pitch — one that is unreachable and well beyond the strike zone. By getting “ahead” of the batter, the pitcher opens up his options and can then utilize the element of surprise by using his twin commodities — variety and disguise — to earn that last strike, perhaps even avoiding the strike zone altogether and therefore making it very difficult for the batter to get good wood on the ball should he make contact with it.
On the other hand, a pitcher who gets “behind” the batter, taking the count to 3 balls and 1 strike, for example, is obligated (by custom, external pressures, and ego/pride) to throw a ball well within the strike zone — to play it safe — or suffer the consequence of walking the batter. Now that he is in the unenviable position of needing a strike to keep the batter off the bases, he is paradoxically also more likely to throw a pitch that the batter can hit hard, as the pitcher’s options are greatly reduced and the batter can predict with greater success the type, speed and position of at least one of the next three pitches. The element of surprise has been temporarily suspended. The batter now has the advantage.
The exact same kind of thing occurs on the tennis court, in two distinct ways. The first is by the score: a server who is up 40-15 has more options and can utilize the element of surprise to great advantage. The second, by the count: the options available for the first service delivery are far greater than for the second delivery, for obvious reasons. Like the pitcher, the server is obligated, out of a need to keep the receiver from earning a free or easy point, to place the second delivery well within the “strike zone” — in this case, within the receiver’s range of preconceived, hence predictable, scenarios. The only advantage the server still has on the second serve is that he can place the ball to the receiver’s weaker side, if he can find one. All other advantages have been lost due to the first service fault.
So, it should be clear that if a server cannot get his first serve in, he hands a large share of the advantage over to his opponent, the receiver. Conversely, should he succeed in getting a high percentage of first serves in, doesn’t it stand to reason that the advantage is on his racquet? Well, not entirely. Common sense tells us that even if the server gets 100 percent of his first serves in throughout a match, if he places the serve in the same place with the same pace and spin every time, he will have succeeded merely in achieving a very high degree of predictability, and again the pendulum of advantage will have swung over to the receiver.
How, then, can the server gain true advantage? He must utilize the precious commodities of variety and disguise to achieve the element of surprise and he must get a high percentage of first serves in the court. Why both? Because it has already been established that, by definition, second serves must be hit with more predictability, less variety and less disguise; therefore, less surprise, than first serves. Else the server would risk double-faulting too often.
Here it should be stated that many athletes, tennis players included, are risk-takers and will opt to utilize the element of surprise to the fullest even on second serves, albeit often at the expense of winning. And it should also be stated that there are times when a second serve should be delivered with all the surprise the server can muster, in order to keep from becoming so predictable that he has almost no chance of winning a point on his second serve.
Paradoxically again, as tennis is full of paradoxes, the server who gets a high percentage of first serves in with successful results (i.e., he wins most of those points) can “experiment” more freely with his second delivery. Thus he is at liberty to use variety and disguise on his second serve more confidently and to greater advantage than he would (or could) were he not so successful with his first serve. Let that sink in for a moment, because it is a crucial point.
Viewed from the receiver’s side, surprise means guessing where the server is going (which direction and placement); what type of and how much spin will be imparted, if any; and how much pace the serve will have. That’s over and above guessing whether the server will attack the net or stay back and look for a second ball to attack. There’s so much guesswork involved in receiving the first serve — when the server adroitly employs variety and disguise — that the receiver cannot approach the return with confidence or aggression. He must focus on reading the serve, getting good string on the ball, and putting the ball back in play with a modicum of spin or placement so as not to give the server an easy put away opportunity. Quite a different story than when the receiver is facing a much more predictable second serve, which conventionally is played with less variety and disguise!
Now let’s see what happens when we take the conventional wisdom I spoke about at the beginning of this analysis, where you have a 40-30 opportunity to hold serve, consolidate the break and sit in the driver’s seat at 3-5 in the third set — what I’ll call the wisdom of restraint — and turn it on its head.
What happens when we adopt this wisdom of restraint as our general serving tactic, and not reserve it merely for those times when getting our first serve in is imperative? To put it another way, what happens when we play as though getting our first serve in is always imperative? Consider again the mental approach of the baseball pitcher. “Get ahead and stay ahead of the batter,” must be his overriding thought. Throw strikes early, but use a variety of pitches and placements in order to keep the batter guessing and to minimize the risk that the batter will get solid wood on any pitch. Then, once ahead in the count, tempt the batter to swing at a “bad” pitch, either striking him out; forcing him to ground out or fly out; or throwing him off-balance and ensuring he won’t be able to hit for extra bases, minimizing any damage he can possibly inflict. It’s the philosophy of containment.*
*I think it is worth noting that only a small handful of baseball players, the legendary Pittsburgh Pirates catcher, Manny Sanguillan, being one who comes most readily to mind, consistently swing at the first pitch. Most batters “look” at the first pitch to get a feel for the pitcher’s stuff. What better time than that to slip in a pitch inside the strike zone? That said, too fat a pitch, one that is right over the plate with little stuff on it, will occasionally get rocked into the upper decks.
Applying the wisdom of restraint and philosophy of containment to your service game — by fully utilizing variety and disguise to achieve the much prized element of surprise — can help you hold serve more easily than you ever dreamed imaginable. Yes, on occasion your opponent will guess correctly and hit a winner off of your more conservatively struck first serve, but over the course of a game or match he should not be able to guess correctly often enough to inflict serious damage (i.e., break your serve). I say “should not be able to guess correctly often enough” because this depends entirely on how well you employ variety and disguise.
By variety I mean any and all of the following:
> varying the placement of your serve
> varying the speed or pace of your serve
> varying the type of spin you use
> varying the amount of spin you use
> varying the position on the baseline from which you serve, and
> varying what you do after the serve (e.g., staying back or rushing the net)
I believe the only variable I haven’t included is choosing which hand to serve with. So, if you happen to be ambidextrous like Luke Jensen, then add that to the list.
Disguise can be achieved in a number of ways, but most commonly through one or more of the following:
> disguising the service type through a single, unchanging tossing motion
> disguising the service placement, pace and spin by establishing and then breaking a few simple patterns, or
> disguising your intention by maintaining a high degree of variety, of course!
Variety allows you to achieve a certain degree of disguise and disguise gives your variety a supercharge. Use both successfully and keep the receiver guessing on his heels.
Turn your service tactics on their head and begin viewing your first serve as an imperative. Get ahead of the receiver and stay ahead of him by getting a high percentage of first serves in using the twin commodities of variety and disguise to achieve that precious element of surprise. Adopt the wisdom of restraint and the philosophy of containment: take some pace off your first serve, aim 1-2 feet inside the lines, add more topspin for a greater margin of error and diminish your opponent’s ability to inflict serious or lasting damage by reducing the number of second deliveries you place into the service box.
And then start putting more stuff on your second serve, adding more spin and pace as your first serve percentage goes way up and your points-won percentage takes off. Before long, your second serve will begin to resemble your first serve, about the time your opponent begins screaming “No mas!”
Conventional wisdom would have you play a relatively safe serve hit with three-quarter pace to the weak side or directly at your opponent’s body with plenty of topspin for a wide margin of error, and to look to attack the second ball. What you don’t want to do at this crucial moment is needlessly throw away your first serve by going for too much, thus be obligated to play a safer, more predictable second serve. By going for broke on the first serve (and missing) you unwittingly hand over the advantage to your opponent by failing to utilize the server’s most precious commodities — variety and disguise, which together equal the element of surprise.
Much has been made of the parallels between serving in tennis and pitching in baseball, and for good reason. In baseball, if the pitcher is able to “get ahead of” the batter, meaning to advance the strike count ahead of the ball count, he gains a huge advantage. Why is this? Because if the pitcher is able to get the count to 1 ball and 2 strikes, for example, then he has three pitches with which to get that last strike. He can essentially “waste” two of the three. Of course, no pitcher worth his salt would ever waste a pitch, but he might elect to throw a hard-breaking ball low and off the outside corner in an attempt to fool the batter into swinging at, and missing, a “bad” pitch — one that is unreachable and well beyond the strike zone. By getting “ahead” of the batter, the pitcher opens up his options and can then utilize the element of surprise by using his twin commodities — variety and disguise — to earn that last strike, perhaps even avoiding the strike zone altogether and therefore making it very difficult for the batter to get good wood on the ball should he make contact with it.
On the other hand, a pitcher who gets “behind” the batter, taking the count to 3 balls and 1 strike, for example, is obligated (by custom, external pressures, and ego/pride) to throw a ball well within the strike zone — to play it safe — or suffer the consequence of walking the batter. Now that he is in the unenviable position of needing a strike to keep the batter off the bases, he is paradoxically also more likely to throw a pitch that the batter can hit hard, as the pitcher’s options are greatly reduced and the batter can predict with greater success the type, speed and position of at least one of the next three pitches. The element of surprise has been temporarily suspended. The batter now has the advantage.
The exact same kind of thing occurs on the tennis court, in two distinct ways. The first is by the score: a server who is up 40-15 has more options and can utilize the element of surprise to great advantage. The second, by the count: the options available for the first service delivery are far greater than for the second delivery, for obvious reasons. Like the pitcher, the server is obligated, out of a need to keep the receiver from earning a free or easy point, to place the second delivery well within the “strike zone” — in this case, within the receiver’s range of preconceived, hence predictable, scenarios. The only advantage the server still has on the second serve is that he can place the ball to the receiver’s weaker side, if he can find one. All other advantages have been lost due to the first service fault.
So, it should be clear that if a server cannot get his first serve in, he hands a large share of the advantage over to his opponent, the receiver. Conversely, should he succeed in getting a high percentage of first serves in, doesn’t it stand to reason that the advantage is on his racquet? Well, not entirely. Common sense tells us that even if the server gets 100 percent of his first serves in throughout a match, if he places the serve in the same place with the same pace and spin every time, he will have succeeded merely in achieving a very high degree of predictability, and again the pendulum of advantage will have swung over to the receiver.
How, then, can the server gain true advantage? He must utilize the precious commodities of variety and disguise to achieve the element of surprise and he must get a high percentage of first serves in the court. Why both? Because it has already been established that, by definition, second serves must be hit with more predictability, less variety and less disguise; therefore, less surprise, than first serves. Else the server would risk double-faulting too often.
Here it should be stated that many athletes, tennis players included, are risk-takers and will opt to utilize the element of surprise to the fullest even on second serves, albeit often at the expense of winning. And it should also be stated that there are times when a second serve should be delivered with all the surprise the server can muster, in order to keep from becoming so predictable that he has almost no chance of winning a point on his second serve.
Paradoxically again, as tennis is full of paradoxes, the server who gets a high percentage of first serves in with successful results (i.e., he wins most of those points) can “experiment” more freely with his second delivery. Thus he is at liberty to use variety and disguise on his second serve more confidently and to greater advantage than he would (or could) were he not so successful with his first serve. Let that sink in for a moment, because it is a crucial point.
Viewed from the receiver’s side, surprise means guessing where the server is going (which direction and placement); what type of and how much spin will be imparted, if any; and how much pace the serve will have. That’s over and above guessing whether the server will attack the net or stay back and look for a second ball to attack. There’s so much guesswork involved in receiving the first serve — when the server adroitly employs variety and disguise — that the receiver cannot approach the return with confidence or aggression. He must focus on reading the serve, getting good string on the ball, and putting the ball back in play with a modicum of spin or placement so as not to give the server an easy put away opportunity. Quite a different story than when the receiver is facing a much more predictable second serve, which conventionally is played with less variety and disguise!
Now let’s see what happens when we take the conventional wisdom I spoke about at the beginning of this analysis, where you have a 40-30 opportunity to hold serve, consolidate the break and sit in the driver’s seat at 3-5 in the third set — what I’ll call the wisdom of restraint — and turn it on its head.
What happens when we adopt this wisdom of restraint as our general serving tactic, and not reserve it merely for those times when getting our first serve in is imperative? To put it another way, what happens when we play as though getting our first serve in is always imperative? Consider again the mental approach of the baseball pitcher. “Get ahead and stay ahead of the batter,” must be his overriding thought. Throw strikes early, but use a variety of pitches and placements in order to keep the batter guessing and to minimize the risk that the batter will get solid wood on any pitch. Then, once ahead in the count, tempt the batter to swing at a “bad” pitch, either striking him out; forcing him to ground out or fly out; or throwing him off-balance and ensuring he won’t be able to hit for extra bases, minimizing any damage he can possibly inflict. It’s the philosophy of containment.*
*I think it is worth noting that only a small handful of baseball players, the legendary Pittsburgh Pirates catcher, Manny Sanguillan, being one who comes most readily to mind, consistently swing at the first pitch. Most batters “look” at the first pitch to get a feel for the pitcher’s stuff. What better time than that to slip in a pitch inside the strike zone? That said, too fat a pitch, one that is right over the plate with little stuff on it, will occasionally get rocked into the upper decks.
Applying the wisdom of restraint and philosophy of containment to your service game — by fully utilizing variety and disguise to achieve the much prized element of surprise — can help you hold serve more easily than you ever dreamed imaginable. Yes, on occasion your opponent will guess correctly and hit a winner off of your more conservatively struck first serve, but over the course of a game or match he should not be able to guess correctly often enough to inflict serious damage (i.e., break your serve). I say “should not be able to guess correctly often enough” because this depends entirely on how well you employ variety and disguise.
By variety I mean any and all of the following:
> varying the placement of your serve
> varying the speed or pace of your serve
> varying the type of spin you use
> varying the amount of spin you use
> varying the position on the baseline from which you serve, and
> varying what you do after the serve (e.g., staying back or rushing the net)
I believe the only variable I haven’t included is choosing which hand to serve with. So, if you happen to be ambidextrous like Luke Jensen, then add that to the list.
Disguise can be achieved in a number of ways, but most commonly through one or more of the following:
> disguising the service type through a single, unchanging tossing motion
> disguising the service placement, pace and spin by establishing and then breaking a few simple patterns, or
> disguising your intention by maintaining a high degree of variety, of course!
Variety allows you to achieve a certain degree of disguise and disguise gives your variety a supercharge. Use both successfully and keep the receiver guessing on his heels.
Turn your service tactics on their head and begin viewing your first serve as an imperative. Get ahead of the receiver and stay ahead of him by getting a high percentage of first serves in using the twin commodities of variety and disguise to achieve that precious element of surprise. Adopt the wisdom of restraint and the philosophy of containment: take some pace off your first serve, aim 1-2 feet inside the lines, add more topspin for a greater margin of error and diminish your opponent’s ability to inflict serious or lasting damage by reducing the number of second deliveries you place into the service box.
And then start putting more stuff on your second serve, adding more spin and pace as your first serve percentage goes way up and your points-won percentage takes off. Before long, your second serve will begin to resemble your first serve, about the time your opponent begins screaming “No mas!”
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Coaching on court: the pros and cons
Coaching is to sports as roots are to trees. There is not a major, established sport in existence that doesn't promote the reliance on well-trained, professional teachers and coaches in the development of skills, especially in young people. Take coaching out of some professional sports, and you've just got a bunch of guys playing street ball on a manicured lawn or polished wood floor. Is and should tennis at the pro level be any different? I think the answer is yes, and I entreat you to share your views with me. But first, let me explain my position.
Tennis has been compared with boxing and wrestling — sports with great physical and psychological demands — and for good reason. The one-on-one physical and mental combat that is the cornerstone of these sports is the trademark of tennis, also. Yet boxing and wrestling have allowed, indeed have promoted, the presence of qualified coaches and trainers working in the corners of their charges. There is a very good reason for this: boxers and wrestlers are at great risk of sustaining extreme physical trauma every time they step into the ring or onto the mat. Were no coach or trainer present, more athletes would leave the arena with serious injuries, or even on stretchers. Granted, the referees are there in large part to protect the athletes, but between rounds it is the coach and/or trainer who must assess his athlete's ability to continue and the likelihood of his sustaining serious injury should he go on.
Tennis players are not at nearly as great a risk of sustaining severe trauma. And should a player sustain one of the many common injuries during play, such as an ankle strain, ligament or cartilage tear, or severe cramps, heat exhaustion or dehydration, a non-partisan trainer is always waiting in the wings to assist that player. In fact, while the physical demands of tennis are great at the professional level, the risk of permanent or career-ending injury is fairly low. Life-threatening injuries are very rare to non-existent.
Tennis has also been compared to chess, with its multiple strategies and tactical maneuvers. And, while the physical demands of chess are not as great, surely mental stamina plays a large role in a chess master's success. But notice there are no coaches on the sideline helping the chess master to determine his next move or to help him see the deficiencies in his strategy or defense. The chess master is expected to adapt to the circumstances and to figure out on his own the best path to victory.
I believe that thinking for oneself is a cornerstone of the successful and admired tennis player. The successful player is able to think his way out of trouble — to innovate and improvise. He is first and foremost a problem solver, and each match is a test of his abililty to solve the puzzle and then to adapt his tactics in order to execute his new, winning strategy. As soon as a coach is allowed to "enter the ring" and sit beside his charge at the changeovers, call out to him between points, or make hand signals and gestures, the puzzle solver is no longer the guy with the racquet in his hand. The coach becomes the mastermind, and the player is reduced to executioner of the grand plan passed on to him. He's still the quarterback, but he receives his direction from the sidelines.
While on-court coaching would undoubtedly make for compelling TV, especially should the coaches be hooked up to microphones, it would also bring the sport down from its lofty perch as the only major individual sport, aside from the track and field events, bicycling and swimming (which do not have interruptions and are not so much mental challenges as physical), in which the best athletes are also the best thinkers on their feet. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. But one must also face facts: the most successful players (who also have the largest bank accounts) would be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can by. Talk about stacking the deck!
In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. As it stands today, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, and far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. When coaches are tasked by eager parents to produce winners in young players, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
It is my hope that tennis will remain the true individual sport it was intended to be, and that the guidance of the coach is restricted to the practice court.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tennis has been compared with boxing and wrestling — sports with great physical and psychological demands — and for good reason. The one-on-one physical and mental combat that is the cornerstone of these sports is the trademark of tennis, also. Yet boxing and wrestling have allowed, indeed have promoted, the presence of qualified coaches and trainers working in the corners of their charges. There is a very good reason for this: boxers and wrestlers are at great risk of sustaining extreme physical trauma every time they step into the ring or onto the mat. Were no coach or trainer present, more athletes would leave the arena with serious injuries, or even on stretchers. Granted, the referees are there in large part to protect the athletes, but between rounds it is the coach and/or trainer who must assess his athlete's ability to continue and the likelihood of his sustaining serious injury should he go on.
Tennis players are not at nearly as great a risk of sustaining severe trauma. And should a player sustain one of the many common injuries during play, such as an ankle strain, ligament or cartilage tear, or severe cramps, heat exhaustion or dehydration, a non-partisan trainer is always waiting in the wings to assist that player. In fact, while the physical demands of tennis are great at the professional level, the risk of permanent or career-ending injury is fairly low. Life-threatening injuries are very rare to non-existent.
Tennis has also been compared to chess, with its multiple strategies and tactical maneuvers. And, while the physical demands of chess are not as great, surely mental stamina plays a large role in a chess master's success. But notice there are no coaches on the sideline helping the chess master to determine his next move or to help him see the deficiencies in his strategy or defense. The chess master is expected to adapt to the circumstances and to figure out on his own the best path to victory.
I believe that thinking for oneself is a cornerstone of the successful and admired tennis player. The successful player is able to think his way out of trouble — to innovate and improvise. He is first and foremost a problem solver, and each match is a test of his abililty to solve the puzzle and then to adapt his tactics in order to execute his new, winning strategy. As soon as a coach is allowed to "enter the ring" and sit beside his charge at the changeovers, call out to him between points, or make hand signals and gestures, the puzzle solver is no longer the guy with the racquet in his hand. The coach becomes the mastermind, and the player is reduced to executioner of the grand plan passed on to him. He's still the quarterback, but he receives his direction from the sidelines.
While on-court coaching would undoubtedly make for compelling TV, especially should the coaches be hooked up to microphones, it would also bring the sport down from its lofty perch as the only major individual sport, aside from the track and field events, bicycling and swimming (which do not have interruptions and are not so much mental challenges as physical), in which the best athletes are also the best thinkers on their feet. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. But one must also face facts: the most successful players (who also have the largest bank accounts) would be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can by. Talk about stacking the deck!
In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. As it stands today, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, and far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. When coaches are tasked by eager parents to produce winners in young players, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
It is my hope that tennis will remain the true individual sport it was intended to be, and that the guidance of the coach is restricted to the practice court.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Preparing to go the distance
In my previous entry (“America’s dominance: will history repeat itself?”), I stated that "Until we find a way to develop our youngsters' games on the slower surfaces, particularly the crushed red brick, American juniors will struggle to develop the stroke proficiency, movement, endurance, tactical acumen and heart to compete with those who spend five to six hours a day on the gritty, slippery stuff." I will use this space to elaborate on this point and pitch in my two cents on where and how we should be taking the games of our best juniors if we hope to achieve the kinds of results we've come to expect and demand.
If you've read my entry on the scheduling of the Grand Slams and, subsequently, Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments, Davis and Federation Cups, and year-end Masters Cups (“A modest proposal (for the pro game)”), you already know how I feel about the trend away from multiple surfaces and toward a dual standard — crushed red brick and Rebound Ace. I don't like it, and I don't think it's good for the sport. Having said that, I also don't think it made sense 35 years ago to play three of the four Grand Slam championships on grass. It can be argued quite easily that the primary reason for the shift from a preponderance of continental and eastern grips and one-handed backhands to semi-western and western grips and two-fisted backhands is the abandonment of low-bouncing, fast-playing grass and indoor wooden surfaces for slow, high-bouncing clay and outdoor hard courts.
The best scenario, in my view, is to test the players on at least four, if not five or six, different surfaces, including (1) the true-bounce, slow hard courts known as Rebound Ace; (2) the crushed red brick found at Roland Garros and throughout Europe and South America and parts of the Middle East, Asia and Indonesia; (3) the grass courts of Wimbledon and surrounding areas as well as parts of northeast U.S.; (4) the composition courts (also known by the brand name, Har-Tru) common throughout the resort and private club community; (5) the fast cement, macadam and asphalt courts common in the public parks of the U.S.; and (6) the ultra-fast carpeted or rubberized surfaces primarily reserved for indoor play. By doing so, you'll see the best and most versatile athletes emerge as champions and you'll witness a diversification of playing styles we haven't seen in some time.
It is clear that the present direction is toward limiting professional competition primarily to two surfaces — red clay and Rebound Ace. This being the case, and taking into account the successes on both the men's and women's tours of individuals from European, South American and former Soviet Bloc countries, it is clear that success on the tour is dependent on the development of four key competencies: stroke proficiency; footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and desire or "heart." These four competencies, which I’ll call “elements” after the fundamental Elements of Aristotelian cosmology — earth, air, water and fire — are essential arrows in the quiver of an elite tennis player.
By stroke proficiency I mean simplicity, efficiency, stability, reliability and durability. The ideal strokes, whether we're talking about service motions, groundstrokes, volleys, overheads or the auxilliary shots such as half-volleys and backhand smashes, are those which can be performed effectively under all conditions and stressors, both physical and psychological. This demands the development of strokes that are simple and efficient. Excess motion, or complexity, impedes effectiveness when conditions are windy, the surface fast, or the bounce unpredictable. Strokes that are stable and reliable are those that do not break down under varying conditions and pressures and produce intended results when properly executed. Durability refers to how the mechanics of a stroke are impacted by age and factors outside the player’s control, such as changes in surface or changes in racquet and ball technology. In this way, durability is connected conceptually to simplicity and efficiency. Strokes that are durable are those that hold up over time. Think Andre Agassi. Clearly, a player who has developed strokes that meet all these criteria has a huge leg up on a player whose strokes do not meet one or more of these criteria. When we watch Roger Federer, we are witnessing this principle in practice.
Footwork and movement obviously refers to much more than foot speed. As with stroke proficiency, footwork that is simple and efficient is more effective in getting a player from point A to point B and back again with less wasted energy and in less time than a player whose footwork and movement is complicated and inefficient. In addition, efficient movement enables a player to maintain perfect balance as he maneuvers around the court as well as while executing a stroke, particularly those strokes executed on the run, which so many strokes are in today's professional game. Efficient footwork and movement also are key factors in enabling a player to transition from defense to offense or from offense to defense quickly. Again, Federer’s game provides a case study in efficient footwork and movement.
Tactical acumen refers to a player's ability to match the most effective tactics to the strategy he has chosen to employ against a particular opponent under certain conditions. Of course, the more tactical options at a player’s disposal, the more effective he will be at employing a particular strategy or in altering his strategy should it prove ineffective. In this way, tactical acumen is closely tied to stroke proficiency and movement, as a player who has mastered many strokes and moves efficiently around the court is a player who can utilize multiple tactics in pursuit of one objective. For example, a player who has mastered the inside-out topspin forehand as well as the low, penetrating slice forehand, and whose efficient movement enables him to quickly improve his court position when the opportunity arises, is able to utilize the tactic of seizing the net with a deep shot that pins his opponent to the ad court corner. And he can do it in one of two ways—with the inside-out topspin forehand or with the low, penetrating slice forehand. So, we can see that tactics drive strategy in as much as strategy drives tactics.
Stamina and endurance refer simply to a player’s physical strength and durability. All the tactical know-how and stroke proficiency in the world cannot overcome a serious physical deficiency like a lack of stamina. But give a great shotmaker superb stamina and endurance, and you’ve got something special. Then add in a healthy dose of “heart” — that intangible yet quite palpable ability to dig deep and then deeper into one’s reserves of strength and will and craftiness to architect a victory against seemingly insurmountable odds. Heart, the fire within, is the final element that must be developed and which will sustain a player when all else is teetering on the verge of collapse. It is what we saw time and again from Pete Sampras, who, in addition to possessing some of the greatest shots in the history of the game, had the capacity to reach down into his gut and come up with something brilliant at just the right moment. On a few memorable occasions, Pete’s guts were literally displayed for all the world to see. And instead of shrinking in embarrassment, he gathered the courage to match his pride and pushed himself to limits few ever reach.
It is my contention that if the high-performance coaches and trainers in America today truly want to develop the next wave of great young players who will be fit to compete and win on the pro tour, they must reduce their efforts to developing the four elements detailed above. And the best way to do this is to create an environment in which players must rely on these elements in order to succeed against their peers. And since court surface is perhaps the single most defining factor in selecting successful game style and tactics, those who are charged with developing America’s next class of players must look to the slow, gritty, slippery crushed red brick as the primary surface on which to develop the fundamental elements of an elite player’s game.
The slow, crushed brick demands stroke proficiency; efficient footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and heart. A player with the smallest inefficiency or mechanical hiccup in his stroke cannot survive the test of clay, where points are often decided in no less than 20 to 30 strokes. Because high-percentage play is rewarded and risk-taking is not, in order to win a point on red clay a player must use all of his tactical options to push his opponent hopelessly out of position before attacking with impunity or going for the winner. For this reason, the dirt demands the most of a player in terms of stamina and endurance. And as a match wears on and players are tested to their limits, the player with the most heart and desire to win will more often than not prevail in the end.
It’s no accident that nearly 30 years ago, when the turf of the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, New York, was replaced by composition and soon after the U.S. Open was moved to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows, the world was also witnessing the rise of nations like Sweden, Argentina and Spain on the pro tour. The Swedes had created a national training center in Stockholm, and used Bjorn Borg’s meteoric success to develop a generation of players who could compete for Grand Slams and Davis Cups. Argentina and Spain were not far behind, and today are well represented in the top ranks on tour. These players all trained on the crushed brick, and developed the strokes, movement, tactical acumen, stamina and heart needed to compete on the slow, slippery, high-bounce surface.
After having achieved success with Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger in the 70s, the Bolletieri Academy became the de facto elite training center in the U.S., developing young talent from all over America and around the world. With the success of Andre Agassi and Monica Seles in the 1980s and 90s, and the impact their style of play has had on the game, Bolletieri can lay claim to having helped architect America’s resurgence after the ATP careers of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had come to an end. Now, as the USTA pushes for a national training center of its own, a place where the best juniors can come to get the best training and compete against the best of their peers — a sort of super-Bolletieri academy — it would behoove the architects to review the plans that have propelled the Swedish, Spanish and, most recently, Russian federation players to elite status.
To sum up, the road to American success on the pro tour must not be smoothly paved, but made of crushed red brick. The next wave of junior players to be developed in America’s high-performance training center(s) must be prepared to go the distance in order to compete with their European, South American and Russian counterparts.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
If you've read my entry on the scheduling of the Grand Slams and, subsequently, Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments, Davis and Federation Cups, and year-end Masters Cups (“A modest proposal (for the pro game)”), you already know how I feel about the trend away from multiple surfaces and toward a dual standard — crushed red brick and Rebound Ace. I don't like it, and I don't think it's good for the sport. Having said that, I also don't think it made sense 35 years ago to play three of the four Grand Slam championships on grass. It can be argued quite easily that the primary reason for the shift from a preponderance of continental and eastern grips and one-handed backhands to semi-western and western grips and two-fisted backhands is the abandonment of low-bouncing, fast-playing grass and indoor wooden surfaces for slow, high-bouncing clay and outdoor hard courts.
The best scenario, in my view, is to test the players on at least four, if not five or six, different surfaces, including (1) the true-bounce, slow hard courts known as Rebound Ace; (2) the crushed red brick found at Roland Garros and throughout Europe and South America and parts of the Middle East, Asia and Indonesia; (3) the grass courts of Wimbledon and surrounding areas as well as parts of northeast U.S.; (4) the composition courts (also known by the brand name, Har-Tru) common throughout the resort and private club community; (5) the fast cement, macadam and asphalt courts common in the public parks of the U.S.; and (6) the ultra-fast carpeted or rubberized surfaces primarily reserved for indoor play. By doing so, you'll see the best and most versatile athletes emerge as champions and you'll witness a diversification of playing styles we haven't seen in some time.
It is clear that the present direction is toward limiting professional competition primarily to two surfaces — red clay and Rebound Ace. This being the case, and taking into account the successes on both the men's and women's tours of individuals from European, South American and former Soviet Bloc countries, it is clear that success on the tour is dependent on the development of four key competencies: stroke proficiency; footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and desire or "heart." These four competencies, which I’ll call “elements” after the fundamental Elements of Aristotelian cosmology — earth, air, water and fire — are essential arrows in the quiver of an elite tennis player.
By stroke proficiency I mean simplicity, efficiency, stability, reliability and durability. The ideal strokes, whether we're talking about service motions, groundstrokes, volleys, overheads or the auxilliary shots such as half-volleys and backhand smashes, are those which can be performed effectively under all conditions and stressors, both physical and psychological. This demands the development of strokes that are simple and efficient. Excess motion, or complexity, impedes effectiveness when conditions are windy, the surface fast, or the bounce unpredictable. Strokes that are stable and reliable are those that do not break down under varying conditions and pressures and produce intended results when properly executed. Durability refers to how the mechanics of a stroke are impacted by age and factors outside the player’s control, such as changes in surface or changes in racquet and ball technology. In this way, durability is connected conceptually to simplicity and efficiency. Strokes that are durable are those that hold up over time. Think Andre Agassi. Clearly, a player who has developed strokes that meet all these criteria has a huge leg up on a player whose strokes do not meet one or more of these criteria. When we watch Roger Federer, we are witnessing this principle in practice.
Footwork and movement obviously refers to much more than foot speed. As with stroke proficiency, footwork that is simple and efficient is more effective in getting a player from point A to point B and back again with less wasted energy and in less time than a player whose footwork and movement is complicated and inefficient. In addition, efficient movement enables a player to maintain perfect balance as he maneuvers around the court as well as while executing a stroke, particularly those strokes executed on the run, which so many strokes are in today's professional game. Efficient footwork and movement also are key factors in enabling a player to transition from defense to offense or from offense to defense quickly. Again, Federer’s game provides a case study in efficient footwork and movement.
Tactical acumen refers to a player's ability to match the most effective tactics to the strategy he has chosen to employ against a particular opponent under certain conditions. Of course, the more tactical options at a player’s disposal, the more effective he will be at employing a particular strategy or in altering his strategy should it prove ineffective. In this way, tactical acumen is closely tied to stroke proficiency and movement, as a player who has mastered many strokes and moves efficiently around the court is a player who can utilize multiple tactics in pursuit of one objective. For example, a player who has mastered the inside-out topspin forehand as well as the low, penetrating slice forehand, and whose efficient movement enables him to quickly improve his court position when the opportunity arises, is able to utilize the tactic of seizing the net with a deep shot that pins his opponent to the ad court corner. And he can do it in one of two ways—with the inside-out topspin forehand or with the low, penetrating slice forehand. So, we can see that tactics drive strategy in as much as strategy drives tactics.
Stamina and endurance refer simply to a player’s physical strength and durability. All the tactical know-how and stroke proficiency in the world cannot overcome a serious physical deficiency like a lack of stamina. But give a great shotmaker superb stamina and endurance, and you’ve got something special. Then add in a healthy dose of “heart” — that intangible yet quite palpable ability to dig deep and then deeper into one’s reserves of strength and will and craftiness to architect a victory against seemingly insurmountable odds. Heart, the fire within, is the final element that must be developed and which will sustain a player when all else is teetering on the verge of collapse. It is what we saw time and again from Pete Sampras, who, in addition to possessing some of the greatest shots in the history of the game, had the capacity to reach down into his gut and come up with something brilliant at just the right moment. On a few memorable occasions, Pete’s guts were literally displayed for all the world to see. And instead of shrinking in embarrassment, he gathered the courage to match his pride and pushed himself to limits few ever reach.
It is my contention that if the high-performance coaches and trainers in America today truly want to develop the next wave of great young players who will be fit to compete and win on the pro tour, they must reduce their efforts to developing the four elements detailed above. And the best way to do this is to create an environment in which players must rely on these elements in order to succeed against their peers. And since court surface is perhaps the single most defining factor in selecting successful game style and tactics, those who are charged with developing America’s next class of players must look to the slow, gritty, slippery crushed red brick as the primary surface on which to develop the fundamental elements of an elite player’s game.
The slow, crushed brick demands stroke proficiency; efficient footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and heart. A player with the smallest inefficiency or mechanical hiccup in his stroke cannot survive the test of clay, where points are often decided in no less than 20 to 30 strokes. Because high-percentage play is rewarded and risk-taking is not, in order to win a point on red clay a player must use all of his tactical options to push his opponent hopelessly out of position before attacking with impunity or going for the winner. For this reason, the dirt demands the most of a player in terms of stamina and endurance. And as a match wears on and players are tested to their limits, the player with the most heart and desire to win will more often than not prevail in the end.
It’s no accident that nearly 30 years ago, when the turf of the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, New York, was replaced by composition and soon after the U.S. Open was moved to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows, the world was also witnessing the rise of nations like Sweden, Argentina and Spain on the pro tour. The Swedes had created a national training center in Stockholm, and used Bjorn Borg’s meteoric success to develop a generation of players who could compete for Grand Slams and Davis Cups. Argentina and Spain were not far behind, and today are well represented in the top ranks on tour. These players all trained on the crushed brick, and developed the strokes, movement, tactical acumen, stamina and heart needed to compete on the slow, slippery, high-bounce surface.
After having achieved success with Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger in the 70s, the Bolletieri Academy became the de facto elite training center in the U.S., developing young talent from all over America and around the world. With the success of Andre Agassi and Monica Seles in the 1980s and 90s, and the impact their style of play has had on the game, Bolletieri can lay claim to having helped architect America’s resurgence after the ATP careers of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had come to an end. Now, as the USTA pushes for a national training center of its own, a place where the best juniors can come to get the best training and compete against the best of their peers — a sort of super-Bolletieri academy — it would behoove the architects to review the plans that have propelled the Swedish, Spanish and, most recently, Russian federation players to elite status.
To sum up, the road to American success on the pro tour must not be smoothly paved, but made of crushed red brick. The next wave of junior players to be developed in America’s high-performance training center(s) must be prepared to go the distance in order to compete with their European, South American and Russian counterparts.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
