If ever there was a match that deserved a tiebreaker, it was the one between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut in the first round of Wimbledon today. It was a classic case of an irresistable force meeting an immoveable object, with neither player able to break the other's serve in the final set. If this was the US Open it would have been over hours ago, but with Wimbledon not having a fifth set tiebreak it went on and on and on ... and then on some more.
Eventually after playing for most of the day the players went off court at 9:10pm with the score tied at 59-all in the fifth, the sun setting in the background, and no end in sight! The physical and mental strength of both players is astounding, that they could last as long as they did in this unprecedented match. One wonders if there will be a rules change to stop a repeat of this in future because, entertaining as it was, it can't be good for the players. One almost feels sorry for whomever wins because he will have to go out and do it all again the next day.
But before then, Mahut and Isner will be back for a third day running to decide the outcome of this phenomenal match. No doubt it will be something of an anticlimax, over in minutes rather than hours. But whoever emerges the victor, both players will be remembered for their contribution. Sleep well guys, and good luck for tomorrow!
Tuesday
What a difference a year makes
Just a year ago, Roger Federer beat Robin Soderling in straight sets to claim his first French Open title. Even though Soderling gave it everything he had, there was only ever going to be one winner in that match and both players knew it; Soderling had made no secret before the match that he didn't think he could beat Federer. He was typically gracious in defeat but also issued a light-hearted warning after the match that he would not be so easily beaten in future.
Fast forward to 2010 and the two met again in the quarter finals, but this time Soderling was like that kid who'd had sand kicked in his face by the bully, then gone away and worked out so he could take revenge the next time they met. His powerful serve and groundstrokes were simply too much for Federer to handle today and Soderling won in four sets.
But good as they were, it wasn't his awesome shots that made the difference - it was his belief that he could win. And I can't help thinking that that belief was conceived in the disappointment of the earlier defeat. Perhaps he would have won even without that experience - perhaps, but I doubt it.
Fast forward to 2010 and the two met again in the quarter finals, but this time Soderling was like that kid who'd had sand kicked in his face by the bully, then gone away and worked out so he could take revenge the next time they met. His powerful serve and groundstrokes were simply too much for Federer to handle today and Soderling won in four sets.
But good as they were, it wasn't his awesome shots that made the difference - it was his belief that he could win. And I can't help thinking that that belief was conceived in the disappointment of the earlier defeat. Perhaps he would have won even without that experience - perhaps, but I doubt it.
Thursday
Well done, Justine
Justine Henin showed recently that she means business by reaching the final of the 2010 Australian Open in only her second professional tournament in a year and a half. That she lost to Serena Williams in the final should not detract from the achievement; had Justine won the tournament I believe she would have become the first unranked player to ever do so. Admittedly the "unranked" tag is slightly misleading in this case, as Henin was ranked number one in the world when she announced her retirement from tennis at the age of 25. Nevertheless, to come back and compete at such a high level after such a long layoff shows the talent and determination of the woman.
Unfortunately for Justine, the magnitude of her achievement is slightly tarnished by her Belgian compatriot Kim Clijsters' own dramatic comeback last year to win the US Open. If it wasn't for that amazing Hollywood-esque storyline, no doubt we'd all be much more impressed by Henin's comeback.
Anyhow, I for one am delighted to see her back on the tour, and I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of her in the next few years.
Allez, Justine!
Unfortunately for Justine, the magnitude of her achievement is slightly tarnished by her Belgian compatriot Kim Clijsters' own dramatic comeback last year to win the US Open. If it wasn't for that amazing Hollywood-esque storyline, no doubt we'd all be much more impressed by Henin's comeback.
Anyhow, I for one am delighted to see her back on the tour, and I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of her in the next few years.
Allez, Justine!
Saturday
Hawk-Eye's impact on tennis
Who remembers John McEnroe's famous "You cannot be serious!" rant at Wimbledon 1981 when disputing a close line call with the officials? That, and many other similar incidents involving any number of other players throughout the years have provided an interesting sideshow to the tennis action. But when was the last time you saw such a heated exchange over a close line call?
Not for a couple of years, I'm willing to bet. The reason? The adoption of the Hawk-Eye computer system which tracks the position of the ball and is able to display instant replays of where each shot lands in the case of disputed line calls. At the start of each set, each player is allocated two chances to challenge a call which they believe to be incorrect and get instant objective feedback that demonstrates whether the ball was in or out. If the challenge is upheld the call is overruled and the player retains the challenge; otherwise the player loses one challenge.
This now forces players to either "put up or shut up" when it comes to line calls. If the player genuinely believes the call to be wrong he or she can dispute it in a legitimate way and either be vindicated immediately or have the call confirmed. The result may at times genuinely shock the player - but it's not surprising that he or she will sometimes believe a ball to favour them simply because they desperately need it to, regardless of whether it actually does or not.
Either way, having objective proof that the umpire and line judges are not out to get them can help players channel their thoughts and energy into the match rather than directing it at the officials, and can also help the line judges to call it as they see it and not allow themselves to be intimidated by the players.
The fact that there is now a legitimate process for dealing with disputes also undermines the negative tactics of players who in the past may have gotten away with causing an on-court disturbance for no other reason than to disrupt their opponent's rhythm, regardless of whether the player truly believed the call to be wrong. Many have used such underhand tactics to great effect to unsettle their opponent, and in my opinion there is no room in tennis for subtle cheating of this kind.
For these reasons I believe the adoption of this technology to be a good development and one that enhances rather than detracts from the wonderful game of tennis.
Not for a couple of years, I'm willing to bet. The reason? The adoption of the Hawk-Eye computer system which tracks the position of the ball and is able to display instant replays of where each shot lands in the case of disputed line calls. At the start of each set, each player is allocated two chances to challenge a call which they believe to be incorrect and get instant objective feedback that demonstrates whether the ball was in or out. If the challenge is upheld the call is overruled and the player retains the challenge; otherwise the player loses one challenge.
This now forces players to either "put up or shut up" when it comes to line calls. If the player genuinely believes the call to be wrong he or she can dispute it in a legitimate way and either be vindicated immediately or have the call confirmed. The result may at times genuinely shock the player - but it's not surprising that he or she will sometimes believe a ball to favour them simply because they desperately need it to, regardless of whether it actually does or not.
Either way, having objective proof that the umpire and line judges are not out to get them can help players channel their thoughts and energy into the match rather than directing it at the officials, and can also help the line judges to call it as they see it and not allow themselves to be intimidated by the players.
The fact that there is now a legitimate process for dealing with disputes also undermines the negative tactics of players who in the past may have gotten away with causing an on-court disturbance for no other reason than to disrupt their opponent's rhythm, regardless of whether the player truly believed the call to be wrong. Many have used such underhand tactics to great effect to unsettle their opponent, and in my opinion there is no room in tennis for subtle cheating of this kind.
For these reasons I believe the adoption of this technology to be a good development and one that enhances rather than detracts from the wonderful game of tennis.
Tennis is a team sport
One of the things that struck me on reading Andre Agassi's autobiography, "Open", was the obvious importance to him of his support team - both as a player and as an individual. Although it was Andre playing the matches and collecting the trophies, he freely acknowledges that he could not have done it without his brother and encourager Philly; his advisor and manager Perry Rogers; his coaches Nick Bollettieri, Brad Gilbert and Darren Cahill; his trainer, friend and sometimes-bodyguard, Gil Reyes; and even his father who pushed him to become the best tennis player in the world.
Team sports also have a support team behind the scenes whose role it is to coach, organise and look after the players' interests. Often it is the quality of the support team that makes the difference between winning and losing when there is not much to choose between the players on each side. The same principle applies in business, the military, and probably any other human organisation you care to think of.
This concept can even extend beyond the direct involvement of colleagues and employees, to family and dependants. Andre Agassi has made no secret of his ambivalent feelings towards tennis. Yet he seems to have discovered his purpose in it all through his family and charitable foundation which, amongst other projects, funds inner-city education. Indeed, this seems to be the factor that motivated him to continue playing at the highest level until the age of 36, despite enduring agonising back pain towards the end of his career. When things were tough he would consciously remind himself that he was playing not for his own benefit, but for all those who depended on him. So these too became part of his extended team, and every time he stepped out on the court he was representing them.
Perhaps it's by chance that Andre's enlightenment coincides with his transformation from bad-boy rebel to elder statesman of the game - but I don't think so. I believe we all have an inner need to feel that our work has a purpose and impact beyond ourselves; ultimately this is what gives meaning to our existence. It's worth each one of us asking ourselves the same question, regardless of our role and station in life: "Who am I playing for?"
Team sports also have a support team behind the scenes whose role it is to coach, organise and look after the players' interests. Often it is the quality of the support team that makes the difference between winning and losing when there is not much to choose between the players on each side. The same principle applies in business, the military, and probably any other human organisation you care to think of.
This concept can even extend beyond the direct involvement of colleagues and employees, to family and dependants. Andre Agassi has made no secret of his ambivalent feelings towards tennis. Yet he seems to have discovered his purpose in it all through his family and charitable foundation which, amongst other projects, funds inner-city education. Indeed, this seems to be the factor that motivated him to continue playing at the highest level until the age of 36, despite enduring agonising back pain towards the end of his career. When things were tough he would consciously remind himself that he was playing not for his own benefit, but for all those who depended on him. So these too became part of his extended team, and every time he stepped out on the court he was representing them.
Perhaps it's by chance that Andre's enlightenment coincides with his transformation from bad-boy rebel to elder statesman of the game - but I don't think so. I believe we all have an inner need to feel that our work has a purpose and impact beyond ourselves; ultimately this is what gives meaning to our existence. It's worth each one of us asking ourselves the same question, regardless of our role and station in life: "Who am I playing for?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)