Tennis Chump

Nicolas Mahut vs John Isner: Tiebreak anyone?

2010-06-23T21:33:00.002+01:00

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!

What a difference a year makes

2010-06-01T22:32:00.002+01:00

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.

Well done, Justine

2010-02-04T06:19:00.003Z

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!

Hawk-Eye's impact on tennis

2010-01-16T21:13:00.000Z

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.

Tennis is a team sport

2010-01-09T22:53:00.001Z

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?"

The Importance of Mental Fitness in Tennis

2009-12-17T21:34:00.002Z

If you have ever played the game of tennis, you know that no matter how fast and how strong you are, if your head isn't in the game, you are going to lose. This is true for players new to the game and for those athletes who have been playing tennis for many many years. In order to play a truly successful game of tennis, you need to be mentally fit as well as physically fit.

Like physical fitness, mental fitness fits into the same four categories: strength, flexibility, speed and agility. Strength is the first important component. When you look at strength as a purely physical concept, it is seen as providing strong resistance to outside forces. For example, being able to life heavy weights. However, in terms of mental fitness, strength is being able to provide strong resistance under extreme levels of emotional pressure.

Flexibility is the next component. Physical flexibility allows you to get into different positions in order to react to whatever shot is being sent your way. Mental flexibility does the same, though instead of being able to stretch your body, you can stretch your mind. You could look at this time of flexibility as creativity and the ability to control your emotions throughout the game.

Speed is the next component. As a physical attribute it allows you to react quickly to each shot, reaching it's destination in plenty of time to return the ball successfully. Mental speed allows your mind to move quickly and stay at pace with the game. It wont matter how quick your body can be, if your mind doesn't trigger it to move fast, you wont get to your shots in time.

The last mental skill you will need is agility. As a physical attribute it refers to the ability to move, stop and change direction quickly without forfeiting control. It also encompasses the ability to recover from problems such as a loss of balance. As a mental trait, it requires that negotiate a wide range of emotions. You will need to stay mentally and emotionally balanced even when things are not going your way.

No matter how physically skilled you are at the game of tennis, and no matter how physically fit you are, your mental state plays an important roll in your execution of the game. As you improve physically, your mental prowess must increase as well. Once you have learned to "get your head in the game", you will see remarkable improvements in your performance.

Sydney Garrison is an avid cyclist and sports enthusiast. She is also a partner in an online bike carrier store.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sydney_Garrison
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Importance-of-Mental-Fitness-in-Tennis&id=2854466

Great tennis comebacks - Monica Seles

2009-12-16T06:32:00.001Z

Monica Seles burst onto the professional tennis scene at the tender age of 14, and played in her first grand slam final at the 1989 French Open, where she lost to World Number One Steffi Graf (who was later to marry Andre Agassi) in three sets. The following year the two met again in the French Open final, where this time Seles emerged the victor, and in so doing became the youngest winner of the French Open, at the age of 16 and a half.

Known as much for her trademark on-court grunting as her feisty and tenacious play, she was utterly dominant in 1991 and 1992, where she won the Australian Open, French Open and US Open both years (she didn't compete at Wimbledon in 1991 due to injury and was the losing finalist there in 1992).

Monica looked set to continue in the same vein in 1993, but then was tragically stabbed in the back by a deranged Steffi Graf fan during a changeover at a tournament in Hamburg. Fortunately she was not seriously injured physically, but the incident left lasting psychological scars which kept her out of tennis for over two years, during which time she battled depression and a food disorder. She vowed never to play in Germany again after her attacker was spared jail and simply given probation and psychological treatment.

It's a credit to Monica that she made a successful comeback to the sport in 1995, losing in the final of the US Open (once again to Steffi Graf), then going on to win the 1996 Australian Open for the fourth time. But sadly she never quite managed to reach her former heights as a player, and this was to be her final grand slam victory. Ironically, the stabbing incident endeared her to the tennis public and she enjoyed far greater support in the latter part of her career than when she was previously unstoppable.

Andre Agassi's autobiography: Open

2009-12-11T06:44:00.013Z

I guess life at the top is hard. Andre Agassi, in his recent autobiography Open, describes the unravelling that occurs at the top level as a centrifugal force that disrupts a player physically, mentally and emotionally. Incidentally, John McEnroe describes in his book Serious how he went through a fairly similar process when he was at the top.

It's funny because I've always kind of assumed I'd enjoy tennis more if I could be better and win more, but the message these guys are delivering is that the better you get and the more you win, the less you seem to enjoy it! It seems being ranked Number One is far less enjoyable than my own Infinity ranking - which leads me to wonder what the optimal world ranking is for enjoying the game. 100? 500? 10,000? If anyone knows, please let me know!

As I mentioned previously, when I first heard about Andre's drugs revelation in the book I was a bit cynical that it was just a ploy to sell more copies. Well, that may be true, but read in context it's just part of the overall psychological mess that he seems to have ended up in back in 1997 - personal, relational and professional problems piled on top of each other. As Andre reminds us repeatedly in the book, he truly hates tennis!

The rest of the book chronicles his journey of self-discovery and self-acceptance in transforming himself from that kid who hates tennis to someone who uses his God-given talent to help others. For it is in looking out for the needs of others that he finds the meaning and fulfillment that he never could in tennis itself. It's a lesson we all need to learn in one way or another, I guess.

I also found it interesting to read Andre's take on his relationship with Brad Gilbert, because I read Brad's book Winning Ugly earlier this year. Andre mostly glosses over the change to his mental approach that Brad introduced and talks about a lot in his (Brad's) book, but interestingly he does appear to credit Brad with the intervention late in 1997 that sparked his comeback to the top level. Actually Andre talks a lot in the book about how important his team was to his success - another important life lesson right there.

The book is well written (perhaps surprisingly as Andre reveals that he dropped out of high school in the ninth grade - then again he'll have had help writing it, of course) and left me with a greater insight into the pitfalls of success and fame. It's a compelling read and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone with even a passing (no pun intended) interest in tennis.

Great Tennis Comebacks - Martina Hingis

2009-12-06T20:47:00.002Z

Martina Hingis became the youngest grand slam singles winner of the 20th century when she won the 1997 Australian Open, aged just 16 years and three months. Shortly after that she became the youngest ever world number one. Between 1997 and 2000 the "Swiss Miss" was practically unstoppable, winning numerous grand slam events in both singles and doubles, and dominating the women's game.

Unfortunately in 2001 and then again in 2002 she was forced to take time off for surgery on her ankle tendons and was not able to maintain her form. This resulted in Martina announcing her retirement from tennis in 2003, at the age of just 22 - which seems very young, but then again she had been playing professionally from the age of 14!

Luckily we had not seen the last of her, as she made a comeback in 2006. Overall she had a good year with several wins over top 10 opponents, and managed a couple of tournament wins too, to finish the year ranked number seven in the world. The following year continued in a similar vein, although she was once again affected by injuries, which culminated in her November 2007 announced of her permanent retirement from competitive tennis. No doubt the timing of this had a lot to with with the fact that she had tested positive for cocaine during Wimbledon 2007 (although she maintained her innocence and had an independent test done which came back negative). In any event, she was subsequently banned from the WTA tour for two years and did not contest it.

It's a pity Martina's comeback was so short-lived as she was undoubtedly one of the most talented players of her generation and could have cemented her position as one of the all-time greats by reclaiming her former spot at the top of the world rankings, and possibly adding to her tally of majors.

Andre Agassi's drugs confession

2009-11-29T21:47:00.001Z

In his autobiography "Open", Andre Agassi controversially confesses to taking the recreational drug crystal meth while competing on the ATP tour back in 1997, and perhaps even more shockingly, to asking / allowing a friend to take the rap when he failed a doping test around the same time. Now, if it had been bad-boy John McEnroe who had made the admission, perhaps no one would have been that surprised, but the fact that it was Andre Agassi, who was (and still is) regarded as one of tennis's greatest ambassadors makes it doubly unpalatable.

Andre went on after that episode to regain tennis's top spot and win numerous titles - one wonders what would have happened if he'd been banned for his drug-taking. Would his career have taken off in the same way? Obviously we'll never know. Andre has since expressed his regret over the incident, but the question is: why did he feel the need to make the disclosure in the first place? What does he hope to achieve?

Marat Safin, another former world number one and grand slam winner, recently had the following to say:

He feels guilty? So let him just give back his titles, money, his grand slams! If he is so fair play, he should go all the way. You know, ATP have a bank account, he can refund if he wants to.

Safin also goes on to speculate about Andre's motives for the disclosure, suggesting that it's all about selling his book. There may well be substance to that - I've certainly not heard a more convincing reason yet. At best though, one feels that it's an ill-advised move which is unlikely to enhance Agassi's reputation. Fortunately he has a lot of moral capital to draw on, built up by years of humanitarian and charitable work.

Great tennis comebacks: Andre Agassi

2009-11-22T21:44:00.001Z

Andre Agassi burst onto the professional tennis scene in 1986 as a precocious 16 year old who quickly established himself as a supremely talented, if somewhat rebellious individual. Who can forget his rockstar mane (which, it turns out was actually a wig) or the bright neon-and-denim outfits he used to turn up to play in? A lesser personality would not have gotten away with it, but his phenomenal talent, charm and charisma meant that ordinary rules did not apply to him.

By the end of 1988 he had already reached number 3 in the world rankings and earned over $2 million, and was a regular grand-slam semi-finalist, but he had to wait until 1992 for his first grand slam title - Wimbledon - which was a tremendous achievement for a baseline player at a time when serve-volley players still ruled the grass courts.

In spite of his talent and success however, Agassi was regarded as somewhat weak mentally, a player who could be beaten if you could hang in long enough against him. He wasn't prepared to graft as much as certain other less-talented players, relying rather on his natural ability to carry him through. This all began to change in 1994 when he teamed up with Brad Gilbert, perhaps the most cunning tactician of the modern tennis era. Gilbert worked with Andre to develop his tactical nous, which undoubtedly was a major factor in his longevity and later success.

But the pressure began to tell in 1997 when injuries and personal issues took their toll on Andre's game, and by the end of the year his ranking had slumped to 141 in the world, which for a player of his ability was almost unthinkable.

His comeback started in 1998 with Andre working hard on his conditioning and working his way back up the rankings by playing in Challenger Series tournaments. He won the French Open in 1999, the only grand slam to elude him up until then, and in so doing joined a very select group of players to have won all four grand slam singles titles during his career.

He carried on playing at the top level until 2006 when he was eventually forced to retire due to chronic injuries at the age of 36. By then he was very much the elder statesman of the game, having transformed himself from the unruly teenage sensation to a mature, tough competitor who was (and still is) a great tennis ambassador.

Great tennis comebacks: Kim Clijsters

2009-11-15T21:40:00.002Z

Belgian tennis star Kim Clijsters recently completed a fairytale comeback to win the 2009 US Open grand slam event after being out of the professional game for almost two years. In so doing, she cemented her place in the Great Tennis Comebacks hall of fame.

Kim retired from professional tennis in May 2007, shortly before her 24th birthday. Despite playing on the tour for almost ten years, it was almost universally felt that she was too young to retire and was prematurely ending a good career which could have ended up being a great one. Kim's stated reasons for leaving tennis were injuries and a desire to start a family, which she duly did - her daughter Jada was born in February 2008.

So naturally she was received back with open arms when in March 2009 she announced her intention to return. She was granted wildcard entries into tournaments in Cincinnati and Toronto, where she reached the quarter finals and third round respectively - a good enough showing to then be granted a wildcard for the main draw of the US Open which she had won in 2005. In the 2009 tournament she played some solid tennis, defeating both Venus and Serena Williams on her way to the title where she beat Caroline Wozniacki in the final.

When announcing her return to the game, Kim stated that she would evaluate the success of her comeback after the US Open, both in tennis terms and how it works combined with her new family responsibilities. It was surely an unmitigated success on the first count, so let's hope she can find a way to balance her personal commitments so that we can see more of her, because surely this is a player with potential to achieve a lot more in tennis.

How to play a single-handed backhand

2009-10-21T17:51:00.001+01:00

There is no finer sight in tennis than a player nailing a single-handed backhand. Unfortunately this elegant shot seems to be going the same way as the serve-volley player, which is to say it's disappearing. Offhand I can think of only a handful of recent players who use the shot - the two most accomplished exponents recently are Roger Federer and Justine Henin on the ladies side.

Here are some of the things I remind myself of when my own single-hander goes south – perhaps they will help you too:

Turn your back to the ball

That's right, your back! Don't just turn sideways, you need to turn even further. This allows you to really wind up for the shot and transfer energy not just from your arm, but from your legs and core muscles when you unwind. It also gets your legs out of the way so you can take a proper backswing.

Keep your arm straight

Your arm needs to become an extension of the racket (or is it the other way around?) - either way you need to hold your form as you swing at the ball. I find this much easier to do if my arm is almost perfectly straight; if it's bent I tend to lose the feeling of my swing.

Swing through the line of the ball

Make sure you play down the line of the shot (which is where turning your back really helps). You really don't want the ball to be coming off your racket at an angle to where you want it to go, or you will have very little control over where it ends up. And you'll also find it has weird spin all over it, which admittedly can confuse your opponent, but can also cause the ball to drift out.

No doubt there are many other tips for playing a single-hander, but when my backhand is having an off-day, concentrating on these three factors is normally enough to get it back on track.

US Open Preview

2009-08-27T18:11:00.004+01:00

In the last few weeks I've been enjoying watching some of the fantastic hard-court action in the buildup to the US Open which starts next week, It always amazes me how hard the pros hit the ball, but still with such a high level of consistency. It's obviously a result of extremely good hand-eye co-ordination coupled with hours out on the practice courts.

I guess mere mortals like myself could certainly improve a lot if we put in the kind of time and effort that these guys and gals do. But you also have to have the right facilities, and most important, hitting partners. Even if I was to quit my job and put everything into developing my game (not going to happen, but a guy can dream...), this would be an obstacle. The traditional solution to the problem is hitting against a wall or with a tennis ball machine, although these are still a poor substitute for hitting with a real person. Mind you, at least ball machines are consistent and you don't spend your day waiting for the other player to get the ball over the net so you can have a turn. I must say, I could use a nice midrange machine like a Wilson Portable or Tennis Tutor - I'm sure it would make a huge difference to my game.

Anyway, I digress. I'm looking forward to watching some of the US Open. No doubt the TV coverage over here in the UK will be dominated by Andy Murray and whomever he's playing. Still, I guess he's got a pretty good chance, and probably needs to win a major soon before the weight of expectation from the British public becomes too unbearable. I've also been impressed with Roger Federer's play in the Masters events. To me he looks back to his best and seems to be playing with a freedom I haven't seen from him for awhile. Perhaps breaking Pete Sampras's record at Wimbledon has taken the pressure off him and he can just relax and play his game. I guess it also helps that Rafael Nadal has been absent for the last few months, giving him time to regain his number one spot and re-establish his dominance. OK, he's not as dominant as he used to be, but I reckon Roger's still the man to beat - if I were a gambler I would certainly put my money on him.

Who do you think's going to win, and why?

Roger Federer and me

2009-08-15T09:48:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I witnessed another interesting parallel between the fortunes of Roger Federer and myself. Playing in the quarter finals of the Montreal Masters event against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Roger lost the first set in a tie break, but then comfortably won the second 6-1. He continued that momentum and had the opportunity to serve it out at 5-2 in the third. But then the wheels came off! Tsonga won the next four games in a row, and had Roger 0-40 down on his serve at 5-6, until Roger managed to claw his way out of the hole and level it at 6-6. But try as he might, he just couldn't finish it off and Tsonga won the tie-break to complete an amazing comeback.

The interesting parallel is that I had a similar lead in my last match against Tom a couple of days ago, and also couldn't close it out. We eventually had to abandon the match at 6-6 due to time constraints after I'd also had a 5-2 lead which I couldn't hold onto. I won't pretend the comparison goes much further than that (Roger just can't compare to me on the court!), but it's gratifying in a perverse sort of way that the best player in the world faces the same challenges that a tennis chump like me does!

I know it's easy to criticise from the comfort of my armchair, but perhaps there's also something for me to learn from Roger about how not to play (that'll be a change)! A couple of things caught my attention about Roger's performance in those last few games:

loss of focus
In the changeover at 5-2, Roger appeared to be gazing around the arena and up at the big screen in a distracted sort of way rather than staying focussed on what he had to do to win the match. Of course he can be forgiven for assuming he would win, but it just goes to show you cannot afford to underestimate your opponent.

loss of confidence and appetite
When things started going against him, Roger seemed unable to respond mentally. He seemed more concerned about not losing than trying to win. He almost had an air of resignation about him, and although he continued to play, it seemed like he lost the match a lot earlier than the final ball.

loss of aggression
Serving at 5-2, Roger played a bit tentatively, which allowed Tsonga back in. Heck, I'm not one to criticise as I also struggle with the balance between consistency and all-out attack. But I was surprised Roger didn't go for it a bit more - after all he had a comfortable lead to fall back on if it didn't work out.

Impatience
Once Tsonga had dug in his heels, Roger appeared to lose patience in some of the rallies, going for the winner when it wasn't really on. Again, I think it shows that mentally he didn't have confidence in his ability to close out the match at that point.

first serve percentage
It was also pretty evident that Federer couldn't get his first serve in in those final few games. Tsonga hadn't had a break point the whole match until the final set, when he broke Roger twice in a row (and had Federer at 0-40 in the third).

Even though it was surprising to see how Roger Federer capitulated as he served a double fault to lose the match, I guess it's not so surprising that he was emotionally and mentally flat and tired - he's had a lot going on emotionally over the last few weeks with the birth of his daughters. And hey, when you've achieved what he has in the game, we can cut him a bit of slack, can't we?

I'm sure Fed will still be a force to be reckoned with at the US Open later this month. Just make sure you get some rest, Roger, OK?

Rod vs Tom - Mixed Fortunes

2009-08-13T22:03:00.006+01:00

I had a game today after work, after not playing for three or four weeks. Tom and I have played a couple of times previously, so I more or less knew what to expect. He plays regularly at his club and is very consistent. To be honest, he's a bit better than me, although I don't like to admit it.

The first time we played I had no idea what his level was. You know what it's like - you kind of circle around each other, neither knowing whether what you consider good is the same as the other guy. Some people are naturally confident and reckon they can play a bit when in actual fact they can barely hold a tennis racket, while others play it closer to the chest but turn out to be really good. Anyhow, Tom waited until we stepped onto the court to casually mention that his grandfather had once played for Ireland - at that point I began to suspect I was in for a tough afternoon. As I remember it I lost in three straight sets - can't remember the exact score except that Roger Federer went down earlier that same day by exactly the same scoreline, so I didn't feel too bad!

But today at least I knew what to expect. Tom doesn't try to hit the cover off the ball - he plays the corners very well, keeps it deep, and doesn't make too many mistakes. Solid, but unspectacular. Same with his serve - doesn't serve too many doubles, but not too many aces either, and doesn't mix it up much. He's OK at the net, but doesn't come up much. Actually I reckon he'd be a lot harder to handle if he was a bit more aggressive, but of course I'm not going to tell him that - not as long as he's already beating me consistently!

In the past I've had some success attacking his second serve, which doesn't have anything on it. I've also been able to exert some pressure by playing deep and crosscourt to his backhand (did I mention I'm a lefty?). Not that he has a bad backhand - in fact it's pretty good, but not quite as strong as his forehand side. And the one other thing I've observed is that he prefers the ball coming to him at a decent height with topspin, so I try and slip in a few low slices here and there to mix things up a bit.

So how'd it go? Well, I had a lot of Brad's advice on winning ugly buzzing around in my head and tried to employ some of it, but in retrospect I think it was a bit of a distraction on the court. Tom asked me to serve first (he must have been reading Brad's advice too!) and I played a solid game and won it 40-15, but things went downhill fast after that and I lost the set 6-1! It was bad - I could hardly get a ball in the court for most of the set.

One thing I did remember is the importance of the first two games of the second set - Brad calls them the dictate games. I'm pleased to report I won them both! And then the next two as well. I feel like I was playing better, hitting the ball a bit more freely and making fewer stupid mistakes - hey, I actually managed to get a few balls in! Tom, on the other hand, went walkabout at the same time, so he was probably as much to blame for the scoreline as I was. Anyhow, I wasn't complaining. Unfortunately he managed to get his head back in the game at 5-1, and pulled it back to 6-6. I kept telling myself the whole time "don't blow this lead", but as hard as I tried, I couldn't stop the slide. Credit to Tom - he played some good points/games in there (actually I think we both did, but he came out on top more than I did).

Unfortunately at that point we both had to hit the road to catch our respective rides home, so we didn't get to finish the set or the match! So we'll just have to call it a draw, cos hey, I could still have turned it around - miracles do happen, don't they?

Anyhow, I was pleased with a couple aspects of my game - I went for consistency on my serve and tried to get my first in as much as possible. I have no idea what the percentage was, but I guess a bit above 50% of first serves in? Only two double faults, together with an ace and a few unreturnables add up to a pretty good day serving. I also won a few points in the forecourt with solid volleys, and even hit a good overhead once. But in retrospect I think I was a bit too tentative on my groundstrokes. I was aiming for consistency, but ended up allowing Tom to dictate too many points - that's a tough balancing act that I still need to figure out.

Bottom line is I need to play more - it took me the entire first set to get my eye in, and even then didn't feel all that comfortable on my groundstrokes in the second. Well, hopefully (weather permitting) I'll get to play once or twice a week for the next month or two, so I shall keep you informed how it goes!

Brad Gilbert - Winning Ugly

2009-08-11T21:00:00.010+01:00

Brad Gilbert is one of the top tennis coaches in the world, having helped players such as Andre Aggasi, Andy Roddick and Andy Murray make it to the top of the professional game (d'you think if I change my name to Andrew he'll help me out too?). Actually he was a pretty good player in his day too; he was consistently in the top 10 and peaked at number 4 in the world at the beginning of 1990, which most people attribute more to his mental game rather than his ability to outplay his opponents with big shots! One way or another he managed to beat most of the big names of his era - John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras - so he must know a thing or two about how to play the game.

Play smart

In case you don't know, he wrote a book a few years back - Winning Ugly - filled with advice for recreational players like me on how to maximise your game and gain a winning advantage over your opponent by playing smarter. Sounds like just what I need, so I picked up a copy a couple of weeks ago and haven't been disappointed!

Who's doing what to whom?

Brad talks a lot about understanding what is happening out on the tennis court ("who's doing what to whom?") and trying to control proceedings so that you match your strengths up against your opponent's weaknesses, while at the same time preventing him from doing the same to you. He also stresses the importance of preparing mentally and physically for a match - having a definite plan for how you want to approach things.

I guess many recreational players aren't really too bothered about this mental aspect of tennis - they just want to go out there, hit a few balls, and let the chips fall where they may. But Brad's approach actually strikes a chord with me - I already have a similar preparatory approach to other stuff I'm involved with, so I reckon it won't be too difficult to apply this to my tennis game too.

Practical tips

Winning Ugly is also full of practical tips you can apply to give yourself a better chance of winning. For example, if your opponent's killing you with his serve, change where you stand to force him to do something different and/or to give yourself more time on the ball. He also gives some specific advice on tactics to beat different kinds of opponent - the Serve-volleyer, the dreaded Retriever who gets everything back, etc. I play one of those quite regularly - he beats me regularly by pushing soft little "nothing" shots back at me all day long, and waits for me to self-destruct. I can't wait to try out some of Brad's advice on him!

Anyhow, I haven't finished reading it yet, but this book has just become my tennis bible. If you haven't read it, I definitely recommend you get hold of a copy. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

About Me

2009-08-06T07:58:00.006+01:00

It's traditional in blogging to introduce yourself, so here goes. I'm a thirty-something (OK, 36 if you must know) South African guy who's been playing tennis since the age of about 9. You'd think I'd be pretty good by now, but unfortunately that's not the case! I mean I could probably beat your grandma on a good day, but as much as I enjoy playing the game, I regularly seem to lose to "lesser" players.

One of the main reasons for that is that I like to hit the ball and try stuff out on the court, rather than just pushing it around and letting my opponent make all the mistakes. Sure, I know most games are won at my level by the guy who makes the least mistakes - that's why I lose a lot. Call me an idealist if you like, but I'd rather play an enjoyable game and lose than win by default.

The thing is, I don't get much time or opportunity to actually practise (like with a hitting partner or tennis ball machine), except when I'm playing a match. So when else are you gonna experiment with shots? And my philosophy is that I hope to get good enough before I die to start winning a bit! Is that so much to ask?

So anyhow, I thought I'd start this blog as a kind of journal of my progress, and with any luck maybe some of you superior players can chip in along the way and tell me where I'm going wrong. Deal?

Privacy Policy

2009-08-01T06:25:00.000+01:00

Visitor information

This website uses Google Analytics, a web analytics service provided by Google, Inc. (”Google”). Google Analytics uses “cookies”, which are text files placed on your computer, to help the website analyze how users use the site. The information generated by the cookie about your use of the website (including your IP address) will be transmitted to and stored by Google on servers in the United States. Google will use this information for the purpose of evaluating your use of the website, compiling reports on website activity for website operators and providing other services relating to website activity and internet usage. Google may also transfer this information to third parties where required to do so by law, or where such third parties process the information on Google’s behalf. Google will not associate your IP address with any other data held by Google. You may refuse the use of cookies by selecting the appropriate settings on your browser, however please note that if you do this you may not be able to use the full functionality of this website. By using this website, you consent to the processing of data about you by Google in the manner and for the purposes set out above.

Advertising

We offset the costs of providing this website to the public free of charge by displaying third-party advertising. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you.

To this end they may make use of cookies such as the DoubleClick DART cookie to serve ads to you based on your visits to this and other internet sites.

Commenting

When leaving comments on this site, you may be required to supply a valid e-mail address. We will never rent, sell, or otherwise disclose it to any other third party unless required to do so by law.

Disclaimer

Whilst we endeavour to ensure the information on this site is as accurate as possible, we will not be held liable for any loss or damages which you may suffer as a result of anything contained on this site. Use of any information or service found here is entirely at your own risk.

We specifically disclaim any responsibility for content hosted on third-party websites (including advertisements) that may be linked to from this site. Content and services provided by such sites are not necessarily endorsed by the owners of this site.