|
|
|
|
|
Bring back the "parky"!
When the LTA launched its Club Vision initiative, attention was drawn to the fact that
"the number of casual players has fallen dramatically in the last five years, restricting the
flow of new blood into the clubs". Club Vision is a valid and sincere attempt to address the
problem and this is not in any way a criticism of it, but it seems to me at least part of the
solution lies outside the jurisdiction of the sport's governing body.
There are probably a few people whose first efforts at playing the game took place at the
local tennis club, but I suspect that most of us first wielded a racket on a school court or,
like me, on a public park court.
Clubs are becoming better organised, better equipped and better inclined to provide
encouragement to raw beginners, but the perception remains that clubs cater for people who
can already play tennis. And that perception will not just go away.
The LTA are to be applauded for their focus on establishing club-school links, but nobody
seems to acknowledge the role of public park courts in the development of the game. Nobody,
in fact, appears to care about them at all! They have fallen victim to a depressing spiral of
decline. Unstaffed, vandalised and neglected, our public parks are abused by gangs of youths
and irresponsible dog owners and are now unusable for most other purposes.
Clearly, something should be done, not just for would-be tennis players, but for the well
being of everybody in the community. Good quality playing fields and green space can
relieve stress, promote health and foster a sense of community pride. What's really
required is the return of on-site park-keepers committed to maintaining standards of
safety and hygiene. The job could and should be given a higher profile than previously,
combining the routine menial tasks with a new role in community involvement, etc.
The LTA has demonstrated it can work successfully with local authorities on setting up
club-school links. Why not extend the concept to public recreation? If the parks could
be improved and looked after, the clubs could offer affordable coaching on public courts
as a means of introducing people to the game and "nudging" them towards the local tennis
club.
Wherever possible, the LTA should use its influence to persuade local authorities that we want
our "parky" back!
Dave Winship (18 December 2001)
 Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Equality now, please!
Let's face it, women's tennis is in the ascendancy. The new female exponents of power tennis
are producing more than booming serves and sizzling groundstrokes. They're producing drama,
personalities and gripping rivalries. Metaphorically speaking, they're out on the town,
leaving the menfolk at home doing the housework. Sponsors of the men's tour are watching
enviously as the media warms its hands on the controversy fuelled and re-fuelled by the
likes of the Williams sisters, Capriati, Davenport, Dokic, Hingis, Kournikova and so on.
Every press conference fans the flames (and the Williams family inflame the fans). Whether
it's Capriati's comeback or Venus's "injuries" or Hingis's demise, the profile of the women's
game has snowballed in the last year or two, leaving Wimbledon and the French Open feeling
increasingly uncomfortable on the question of equal prize money.
Some women acquiesce without any protest. Anna Kournikova has been quoted as saying, "Men play
five sets, and it's tougher for them". Others, like Lyndsay Davenport, make much more of an
issue of it and they are supported by John McEnroe who says, "If the women entertain people
just as much, . . . get it over with, have equal prize money and start trying to improve the
sport even more."
It's not enough to narrow the gap. The women deserve equal prize money in all four of the
Grand Slams. Starting in 2002!
Dave Winship (16 November 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Who's tending the garden?
Our national heroes and heroines are often sports people these days.
Ellen MacArthur, Steve Redgrave, Tim Henman, Greg Rusedski, David
Beckham and Denise Lewis, to name but a few, have all earned considerable
acclaim in the last year or so. It's not surprising. We are, after all,
a country with a strong sporting ethos. Even during this time of global
crisis, we're able to go in for a bit of collective rejoicing when
the national football team qualifies for the World Cup and the Davis Cup
team regains World Group status. Sport is inextricably linked to our
national cultural identity.
Some aspects of cultural identity are fairly constant - things like
language and food and music and attire - but there's also something else,
something fickle and less easy to define, something which exists in the
minds and hearts of people. In a way, national cultural identity is broadly
analogous to a garden. The basic landscape stays more or less the same year
after year, but its aesthetic appeal depends on variables like the weather
and having somebody sow the flowers and do the weeding and so on.
The "garden" of British sport has always been characterised by the rough
and wild beauty of the amateur era - individuals flourishing through their own force of
character and perseverance and determination. Up until recently,
there's been scant evidence of any green-fingered tending, but the world of
sport is changing. Governments and businesses have woken up to the economics of
sport and the serious "gardeners" have moved in. Major competitions are now
sponsor and media-dominated events. Australia's "garden" looked simply
superb during the Sydney Olympics.
But what's happening right now in our "garden"? Despite spending £3 million
on the Picketts Lock project, we have no prospect of building a
stadium in time and so we've been stripped of the 2005 World Athletics
Championships. How can we now mount any serious bid for staging events
like the World Cup and the Olympic Games? We evidently can't build a
national football stadium. Our Sports Minister has failed to redeem
himself since his lack of sporting knowledge was humiliatingly exposed
in a radio interview when he first took over the portfolio and now
looks totally out of his depth.
As for British tennis - it looked as if we were on the verge of a courageous
revamp after Wimbledon this year - and then the LTA postponed it! John
Crowther's insistence on a more efficient structure, better results and
more accountability was thwarted last month by the LTA Council members
who voted unanimously that change is necessary but decided that "more
time is required for the details to be agreed"!
Oh for the likes of David Lloyd to lead a "Ground Force" into action,
secretly transforming England's tennis lawns while the LTA's backs are
turned!
Dave Winship (12 October 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Double vision
Can you name any three of the current top 10 doubles pairs, men or women? If you can't, it's
not surprising, since you probably haven't seen any doubles at all - not on television, anyway.
If you've gone out of your way to track down some news about doubles, you'll know that
there are virtually no top male singles players involved, and a decreasing number of top ladies.
Doubles does not get much coverage anywhere and is in danger of becoming a second class
sport, dismissed by some tournament directors as a waste of time. Professional mixed doubles
is pretty much on the verge of extinction!
Some of the great names in the history of the game - players like John McEnroe, Martina
Navratilova, Ilie Nastase, John Newcombe, Rod Laver, Billie Jean King and Roy Emerson - were
serious doubles competitors. The top 40 all-time men's doubles listing contains the name of only
one present day male player: Todd Woodbridge. Singles totally dominates the sport. Doubles,
however, is at a crossroads. It needn't be that way - the Jensens showed that it has a lot of
potential for spectator appeal. Imagine Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick pairing up - wouldn't
that be great to see! As it is, the top flight players are boycotting doubles and consigning
it to sport's scrapheap.
Meanwhile, at clubs all over the world, doubles is far and away the most popular choice of
activity on a tennis court. I recently received a letter from a woman complaining about male
attitudes in mixed doubles (see POSTBAG). It was interesting because if anyone ever has
anything to say against mixed doubles, it's usually the men! After all, playing mixed offers
really valuable experience for women - facing big servers, etc. From the men's point of view,
however, it's maybe not such a good practice opportunity. In spite of this, I'd say
that in my experience men and women choose to play doubles in preference to singles
and really enjoy mixed doubles most of the time, since it allows a more relaxed and sociable
attitude towards competition. It's just a pity that its popularity is not really reflected in
the pro game.
Possible remedies include amalgamating singles and doubles rankings and improved prize money
for doubles, but I'd like to see the ATP and WTA tours promote some doubles-only tournaments.
That way, doubles will have the opportunity to stand on its own two feet (four feet?) and
re-invent itself as a spectator sport.
Dave Winship (22 September 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Postponed!
The Davis Cup Tennis tie between the US and India scheduled for this coming weekend has been
postponed for a month. Golf's Ryder Cup competition has now been postponed until next year.
There's no doubt international sport has been rocked by the events of Tuesday September 11th.
Insofar as it's a barometer to society's well-being, however, the immediate outlook is
actually not too bad. The rest of the Davis Cup ties will go ahead as planned. American
baseball is back. "Our nation was horrified, but it's not going to be terrorised," says George
Bush, and America is defiantly attempting to resume normal service.
Beyond this short-term demonstration of resilience, the dark clouds of reprisal and
counter-reprisal are looming. Americans are unlikely to countenance any kind of tortuous
inquisition and understandably feel that the scale of the attack demands a prompt and
proportionate response. Afghanistan's ruling Taliban already expect big trouble and have told
the Afghan people to prepare for holy war.
In a scenario where ordinary civilians all around the world come to terms with being regarded
as de facto enemies of one ideology or the other, we need some cool heads. Coolness, however,
is apparently off the agenda. The world will therefore need to be rescued by men and women
with the vision and creativity to see beyond the ideological impasse. I hope that the human
condition embraces such vision and such creativity. I believe it can.
But I fear, like the tennis and the golf, it may be postponed for a while.
Dave Winship (17 September 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Let's have more first-to-four!
Several people mentioned to me that Wimbledon featured a lot of five-set thrillers this year.
I can't help feeling that many of them weren't actually too thrilling until at least the last
couple of sets. If one or two of the first three sets were entertaining, they only became so
in the last couple of games (or the tiebreaker).
It would be interesting to know what percentage of spectators actually sit through an entire
five-set match without a break. Of those who manage this remarkable feat of endurance, it
would also be interesting to know how many avoid dozing off at some point.
Recently, there has been experimentation on the satellite circuit with a best-of-five-sets
format where each set is first to four games (tiebreaker at 4-4) instead of first to six. The
ATP tour are apparently considering adopting this format in major events.
With the traditional first-to-six-games set, how many of us go for a beer or an ice-cream (or
switch TV channels) when a player takes a 4-1 lead, figuring that the set is basically over
and we can return in a quarter of an hour for the next set? Lots of us, I bet! How many of us
take a break at the start of each set, especially in a service-dominated match (especially at
Wimbledon!), figuring that the excitement is twenty minutes or so away?
In a first-to-four-games set, however, a player serving for the set at 3-1 can easily get into
trouble. No set is really safe. Concentration lapses disappear.
Spectators are not really interested in how long players are able to concentrate. They want
to be entertained and they want to be emotionally involved in the cut and thrust of the match
from start to finish. And they're right! Let's have more first-to-four!
Dave Winship (9 August 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Keep off the grass!
Along comes Wimbledon. And along comes the annual controversy about the grass. Bud Collins
advocates a serving stripe three feet behind the baseline. John Lloyd has pitched in with a call
to replace the courts with a medium-fast synthetic alternative, based on the argument that
Wimbledon is the Grand Slam event of the tennis calendar and should therefore avoid
rewarding such a small minority of fast-court specialists such as Sampras, Henman, Rusedski
and Rafter.
Most experts would expect this year's champion to come from that list (although
many would also include Agassi!). Philippoussis would have got included if injury
hadn't forced his absence. Some might also have found space for Marat Safin and a big
server like Wayne Arthurs. But is it really so cut and dried? Have the
serve-volleyers got it all sewn up? Can the achievements of Agassi and Borg over
the years be dismissed so easily as aberrations?
The players I'm looking out for to break the mould this year include the Stella Artois
champion, Lleyton Hewitt and Thomas Johansson, who enjoyed a lot of success in grass
court tournaments prior to Wimbledon (including Halle where the draw included Pat Rafter).
Sebastien Grosjean must be considered a danger on any surface, including grass.
Kafelnikov's form this year has not been great, but he's a very good doubles
player and should not be discounted. Now what about Juan Carlos Ferrero? Can we really
ignore his form this year? To my mind, Ferrero is a player who could very well emulate
Bjorn Borg and transfer his skills effortlessly from clay to grass.
Did somebody say Andy Roddick?
Well, he's got a big serve and an explosive forehand. He's got charisma, derived from
the fact that he clearly "loves being out there", as John McEnroe says. The public are
going to take to him - as long as he avoids playing the Brits! Actually, they'll like
him regardless. Commentators have long preached the gospel that British tennis needs
British success to inspire youngsters to pick up a racket. Not true. Youngsters will
pick up a racket when they're excited and inspired by someone. Anyone! Andre Agassi
has done as much for British tennis over the years as Tim Henman has done. Andy Roddick
is the new inspiration. Fuelled by increasingly manic support and his own enthusiasm,
he shouldn't have to wait too long for his first grand slam title.
As for the ladies - is it just a case of waiting for the Williams family party on the
second Saturday? I say look out for gatecrashers in the form of Jennifer Capriati, pursuing
her quest for a Grand Slam, Jelena Dokic, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin.
Whether I'm right or wrong, there's plenty of intrigue and excitement in prospect and I don't
think all the points will be less than four shots! Strawberries without cream? Wimbledon
without grass? Some things should never change.
Dave Winship (24 June 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
A heart of clay
In a year when Jennifer Capriati has reinvented herself as a Grand Slam champion, it is
timely that the International Tennis Federation has launched an anti-drug campaign,
targeting junior tournaments throughout Europe.
"Professional tennis has had few problems with drug abuse and it is our intention to keep our
sport clean, . . . we recognise that, in the 21st century, the authoritarian messages of
previous campaigns are no longer relevant to today's increasingly streetwise youth culture,"
said Francisco Ricci Bitti, the ITF president, at the launch of the campaign.
The greatest influence on aspiring young tennis players is the image created by the sport's
top professionals. It's encouraging, therefore, that players like Martina Hingis, Gustavo
Kuerten and Anna Kournikova have lent their full support to this campaign.
The waters are somewhat muddied, however, when other players, such as Mary Pierce, openly
admit to the use of nutritional supplements like creatine. Creatine is a naturally
occuring compound, traceable in any normal meat and fish based diet. It is consequently
"legal" in terms of the lists of banned substances published by the various sports' governing
bodies. But is supplementation safe just because it's legal?
And professional tennis may be serious business these days, but does corinthian spirit mean
nothing now?
When Gustavo Kuerten won a hard-fought match against Michael Russell in the French Open, he
drew a large heart in the clay with his racket, before dropping to his knees and blowing kisses
to everyone. It's great to see that players like Kuerten and 'Rocky' Hewitt and the emerging Andy
Roddick visibly demonstrate to their fans that success in tennis comes down to hard work and
practice. And, above all, it comes down to having a big heart.
Dave Winship (4 June 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Vote for more sport!
The other day I had occasion to speak to some bored youngsters who were throwing stones onto
the tennis courts while I was coaching. Given that their behaviour was extremely disruptive
and dangerous, they did not get too much sympathy from me at the time, but I became
more acutely aware of the plight of young people who feel alienated from their community
and who lack the leadership skills to do anything constructive about it.
Not too keen on tennis, it emerged that these boys were fairly enthusiastic
about football, but seldom played it. It had apparently not occured to them to just get a
ball, cross over to the field, put down their coats as goalposts and get on with a game.
Sport is a significant force in our economy and contributes to our sense of
national identity and pride. It has the power to unite communities and should therefore be
used to prevent youth alienation and lead the fight against youth crime. Many studies have
highlighted the benefit of sport in providing children with positive lifestyles and
leadership qualities. At the very least, more involvement in sport should equip youngsters with
enough resourcefulness to throw down their coats and organise a game of football.
Given that the estimated cost of combating youth crime in this country is in
the region of 7 billion pounds a year, and given that health expenditure would benefit
from the production of healthier and fitter young people, and given that links between sporting
activity and academic attainment are well recognised, there would seem to be a
powerful argument for increased public expenditure in sport, both in the community and in schools.
This argument for a sports infrastructure serving a socially inclusive community is a compelling
one. I've certainly argued it in this space before. But you won't hear it in the run-up to the
general election? Why not? Ask the candidates when they call at your door!
Dave Winship (10 May 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Seeds of doubt
"If something is seen to be subjective then it is open to misinterpretation". This acknowledgement
by Tim Phillips, Chairman of the All England Club, on disbanding the Seedings Committee for this
year's Championships, is a welcome sign that the Club is becoming more responsive to the
concerns of the players. Although an alternative method of determining the seedings has not yet
been announced, one hopes that the players, especially the clay-court specialists, will
embrace any attempt to introduce a more objective system. In reality, though, there are some
players who will kick dust at any departure from the ATP Tour rankings, no matter how scientific.
Unfortunately, Mr Phillips is caught between a rock and a hard place. Acknowledging the
legitimate interests of the players is one thing, but they need to be balanced against the
interests of the fans (and the fast-court specialists) too. After all, Pat Rafter and Andre Agassi
could have faced each other in the first round at last year's Championships, were it not for the
Seedings Committee. As it was, they figured in an extremely memorable and high-quality semi-final.
As Mr Phillips points out, "Last year Sampras was No 4 in the world, we moved him to the top seed
and he won. Currently he is fourth in the world. Should we seed him fourth? If the guy’s won seven
of the last eight titles here, he’s probably quite good!".
It must be possible to come up with a science which is based primarily on the rankings,
but which allows for some tweaking in respect of both Wimbledon and the French Open,
mustn't it? Additional weighting in respect of results on the relevant surface could
be applied. It would be scientific. Everybody would be happy, wouldn't they? Fat chance!
Never mind. At least there's the aesthetic appeal of a day at Wimbledon. But wait! What's this?
The Boston ivy on the front of the Centre Court has gone! They're repairing the concrete
structure of the court and the ivy has had to go. This is an outrage! It must be replaced
as soon as possible. Never mind Sampras and Rusedski, let's get the ivy seeds sorted out!
Dave Winship (1 May 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Coping with the Williams phenomenon
Women's tennis certainly seems to get people excited these days. Just as Martina Hingis was
jeered and booed two years ago in the French Open Final, Serena Williams had to endure a
particularly hostile 16,000 crowd yesterday before she took the Indian Wells title.
American patience with the Williams family finally snapped after Venus withdrew from
the sisters' scheduled semi-final meeting at very short notice on Thursday, leaving
spectators hugely disappointed and not a little cynical.
It was a traumatic ordeal for Serena, who certainly struggled at first to come to terms
with an American crowd jeering her errors and double faults, but she did eventually come
through, albeit a little shaken, and even managed a magnanimous victory speech. Alluding
to the dreadful treatment dished out to her, she said "You guys were pretty tough on me today
. . . but I love you all". In the circumstances, she showed dignity and maturity beyond her
years.
The whole scenario of two siblings forging their way together to the top of a professional
sport is the stuff of fiction. The pressures on Venus and Serena and their parents and
their other siblings must be absolutely immense. Clearly, they have chosen to cope by putting family first. Venus has said "Family is so important to us. It provides stability and
support in our lives". Serena's post-match comments reveal how hard they try to foster
good public relations, but there are inevitably occasions when family priorities conflict
with those of fellow competitors, the media and the tennis public.
If Venus and Serena become alienated, it's bad news for tennis. And, after all, if Indian Wells
is anything to go by, it's not so much the Williams family doing the public a disservice - it's
the tennis public that is failing to cope with the Williams phenomenon.
Dave Winship (19 March 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Set sail for Wimbledon!
|
Ellen MacArthur
|
The LTA has made much of its efforts to establish and improve playing facilities and coaching
standards, and quite rightly so. Maybe a few more grassroots initiatives and tournaments wouldn't
go amiss, but these priorities are laudable enough. Its critics, however, will only be happy if it
produces a Wimbledon champion.
With over £30 million pouring in every year from the Wimbledon surplus, there is a considerable
amount of emphasis on what the LTA is doing with its money. It is, after all, a lot more money
than many sports enjoy in this country, so clearly the LTA must be held accountable for the
development of the game.
I'm not entirely convinced, however, that it should also be held accountable for the success of
our top professional players. Furthermore, I worry that all the emphasis on the LTA and its money
actually discourages keen young players by implying that they cannot succeed unless they have
access to indoor facilities and a professional coach.
Privilege guarantees nothing in sport. What really counts are personal qualities such as those
inspirationally displayed by Ellen MacArthur during the round-the-world yacht race. At school,
Ellen saved her dinner money and lived on baked beans to pay for her first boat. She spent hours
reading about her heroes like Sir Francis Chichester and Robin Knox-Johnston. In the build-up to
the race, she slept in boatyards and on people's floors. Her courage and perseverance are an
example to all our sportsmen and sportswomen.
Winning Wimbledon is not down to the LTA. "If you really have a dream and you want to achieve it,
you can", said Ellen MacArthur on achieving hers. I hope our young players were listening.
Dave Winship (16 February 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Economics - it's a question of sport
Whether economists (and others) like it or not, the morale of the country is influenced by the
performance of sportsmen and sportswomen who represent us in international competition. This applies
particularly to football, but also to rugby, cricket, athletics and tennis.
As morale is, in turn, a significant factor in determining the health of the nation, it is fairly
straightforward to make the case that money spent on sport is money extremely well invested. Not
only does it reduce the amount which would otherwise be spent on (ill) health, but a well-motivated
workforce also improves productivity and is less afflicted by absenteeism. There's also the
potential benefit of continuing growth in our already thriving multi-million leisure industry!
So, in the run up to a general election, we are entitled to ask our politicians about their
commitment to sport. We are entitled to ask about the decline of sport in our schools. We are
entitled to ask why our efforts to construct a decent national stadium are in such chaos. Health,
education, economics - why, it's all a question of sport!
Dave Winship (11 January 2001)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
