|
|
|
|
|
Earth hijacked by Little Green Men!
I always find conspiracy theories very appealing, don't you? My wife says I would find
a conspiracy theory in a wet wristband. My latest is a conviction that we are witnessing
an attempt by environmentalists to grab totalitarian control over the entire planet. The
Little Green Men are taking over!
One of the less-publicised occurrences in the build-up to the 2004 Olympics was a Memorandum
of Understanding between the organisers and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Well, you might argue, where's the harm in agreeing to put rubbish in bins? Fair enough. But
the document went further. Quite a bit further actually. And having planted a friendly green
foot in the door, UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer was soon declaring that the environment
should be seen as "the third pillar of Olympism". He went on to describe the Olympic olive
wreath as "a reminder of the precious link between humankind and the natural environment that
we must learn to better preserve and cherish." But wait a minute. What happened? How did an
Olympic symbol get hijacked by the UN's eco-agenda?
UNEP has since contacted the five candidate cities to host the 2012 Olympic Games - Moscow,
Madrid, London, Paris and New York - offering assistance "to strengthen the environmental
component" of their bids. Does that not suggest that the UN is getting involved in the selection
process? I don't know why, but it bothers me.
It also bothers me that certain governmental groups and sections of the media have clearly been
infiltrated by the Little Green Men and nobody seems to care. The case for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions to avert global warming, for example, is continually misrepresented. I'm no scientist,
but I've always been given to understand that carbon dioxide is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent
of the greenhouse effect and that only 3 percent of that 3.6 percent relates to human activity
(the rest being natural emissions). The Little Green Men conveniently overlook the significance
of water vapour in this context. It accounts for about 95 percent of atmospheric greenhouse
gases, but it's often completely ignored by those who want us to buy into the green agenda. Those
who do acknowledge its relevance insist that the effect of increased temperature on water vapour
is to amplify the warming process, but they often neglect to factor in the resultant cloud cover.
Clouds tend to cast shadows over the best global climate prediction models. My untutored brain
therefore suspects that human-related carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for far less
environmental damage than green politicians would have us believe.
I have the greatest respect for the natural world, but I just think that the money wasted
on compliance with the Kyoto agreement would be better spent on eliminating hunger and malnutrition
and providing universal access to clean water and sanitation.
The green tentacles of the eco-agenda are reaching into many aspects of life, including sport, and
it strikes me that we should be on our guard against the hijacking of the Olympic Games by a UN
quango. Equally, we should take steps to stop the hijacking of our planet by the Little Green Men.
Dave Winship (13 December 2004)
 Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Tilting at windmills?
The last significant date of the 2004 tennis calendar takes us to a converted corner
of the huge Olympic stadium in Seville for the Davis Cup final this weekend. The city
that spawned Don Quixote is expected to witness Andy Roddick and his trusty squires and
companions tilting at windmills while Jordi Arrese's matadors execute passes to the delight
of 22,000 Spanish fans. Ole!!!
But will it be that one-sided? Suppose Andy Roddick or Mardy Fish succeed in their heroic
quest and the Americans go into the second day with a lead or with the match tied at 1-1?
As with many Davis Cup ties, the doubles rubber should then prove crucial. The Bryan brothers
have won all three of their cup rubbers this year without losing a set, and, given that they
won their first Grand Slam title at Roland Garros in 2003, they have no reason to fear the
red clay. They are a truly formidable team and, as Mike Bryan quipped during the build-up to the match,
they've been playing together for 26 years! Spain's pairing of Rafael Nadal and Tommy Robredo
boasts just one win and two losses so far in the 2004 competition. It's a record that might
well prompt the Bryan twins to utter Sancho Panza's immortal words: "Pray look better,
Sir . . . those things yonder are no giants!"
Dave Winship (30 November 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Dumbing down tennis
Recently we've seen some dubious attempts to glamourise tennis and make it more attractive
to spectators. The tournament directors at the Madrid Masters opted for models as ball-girls,
prompting Spain's Secretary for Equality to criticise them for "reinforcing negative
stereotypes that women are merely objects of decoration and entertainment". Organisers of
the WTA Tour Championships in Los Angeles also came in for criticism for the way they
focused their promotion of the season-ending event on Maria Sharapova. "The closer you sit
the hotter she gets" was the tag line of the ubiquitous poster featuring the 17-year-old
Wimbledon champion. Rock music during changeovers is now de rigueur at the US Open.
It's sad that the sport is being trivialised and dumbed down in this way by those responsible
for promoting it. Tennis doesn't need it. It's a great product that just needs a little
tweaking in the rules department to make it more spectator-friendly and more TV-friendly.
If you've ever tried to look up the origins of the tennis scoring system, you'll be familiar
with bizarre references to clock faces and eggs and the french phrase 'à deux' (I'll bet
you've never found a satisfactory explanation as to why 40 follows 30!). Truth be told,
it's absolute nonsense, especially to spectators new to the sport. If anything in tennis
needs dumbing down, it's the scoring system.
The only major rule change of the last century has been the introduction of the tie-breaker
in 1970. Despite the initial misgivings of the tennis establishment, there can be no doubt
that the sudden-death nature of the tie-breaker injected a lot of excitement into the sport.
I'd advocate a much simpler scoring format, building on the success of the tie-breaker. Each
game should have a 0-1-2-3-game format (no deuce or advantage points). Each set should be
first to four games with a tie-breaker played at 4-4. There would be no need for the sort of
lame gimmicks we've witnessed in the last few weeks. The WTA could save on the posters and
glue - the dramatic tension created by such a scoring system would have fans glued to the tennis.
Dave Winship (16 November 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Who is behind the Russian tennis mission?
|
Anastasia Myskina
|
Would it be fair to attribute the glory days of Russia's space programme to Nikita Khrushchev and
his desire to assert the superiority of communism? Possibly not. That would be a disservice to the
man who left his signature on nearly all of Russia's impressive space records (first man in space,
first woman in space, first artificial satellite, first lunar and interplanetary probes, first
spacewalk, etc). That man, Sergei Korolev, a brilliant pioneering engineer known as the "Chief
Designer", was not responding to the demands of his political leaders. He was in the grip of an
unrelenting ambition to find out "what is out there". Soviet leaders can be credited only with
opportunism. They simply steered into Korolev's slipstream.
By the same token, although the Soviet Union has been funneling serious funds into tennis development
ever since the sport was reinstated in the Olympic games in 1988, players like Anastasia Myskina,
Elena Dementieva, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Nadia Petrova, Maria Sharapova, Vera Zvonareva and Elena
Bovina must take credit themselves for the recent upsurge in Russian fortunes on the world tennis
stage. They're not products of one system. Their stories are all different. Sharapova never even
lived in Russia from the age of six. It's unlikely that these embryonic careers were forged in the
desperate yearning to escape hardship. Indeed, Kuznetsova and others have acknowledged a debt to
their parents for financial support and coaching, so they can't have been short of a rouble or two.
To some extent, their success is the legacy of Anna Kournikova's profile in the game. Despite her
lack of titles, Kournikova was the catalyst for the recent flourishing of Russian talent. She
attracted girls to tennis and away from other sports (Kuznetsova, for example, grew up in an
environment of world-class cycling).
If the formidable Russian team win the Fed Cup later this year, there may be a lot of talk about
what the Russian Tennis Federation is doing right, but I can't help feeling they're simply enjoying
a ride in the slipstream of gifted young players desperately intent on finding out "what is out
there".
Dave Winship (1 November 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Stop the Race!
On its website, the ATP claims the Champions Race is a "simple-to-follow" system whereby a player's
ranking is determined by his accumulation of points throughout the calendar year. Most tennis fans
are probably not too bothered about the intricacies of how the points are earned, but, setting this
aside, it's ludicrous to suggest that a system is "easy-to-understand" when it runs in parallel with
another system.
Because all the players start at zero at the beginning of each year, the Champions Race cannot be used
for seeding purposes or to determine who gains entry to a tournament. So the old Entry System, a
rolling 52-week calculation of points, is retained for this purpose. The Race itself is therefore
nothing more than a litmus test of early-season form. With all due respect to the excellent Slovak
who started 2004 in such fine fettle, it was ludicrous to imply, as the Champions Race did for several
weeks earlier this year, that the best player in the world was Dominik Hrbaty! The Race makes no
allowance for injuries, tempting players to compete when they're not fully fit. Above all, it simply
yields misleading results.
The WTA Tour also operates two parallel systems. The Porsche Race to the Championships is similar to the
ATP Champions Race and its stated purpose is "to determine the eight singles players and four
doubles teams that will contest the WTA Tour's season-ending Championships". The fact is, both the ATP
and the WTA Races start off with nonsensical rankings in January, gradually acquire some validity over
the course of the year and end up with virtually identical results to the parallel ranking system!
By contrast with the Champions Race, the Entry System provides an element of protection for players
who suffer injury. It's already relied upon for seedings and draw cutoffs. In short, it's a valid ranking
system with no serious shortcomings - certainly none serious enough to warrant an alternative or
supplementary system.
Players are entitled to expect that their tournament acceptances and seedings will reflect their performances
over a reasonable amount of time and that some account of injuries will be taken. Fans are entitled to
know who is the number one (two, three, ...) player in the world by reference to a single, unambiguous
system.
It's time the Race was stopped!
Dave Winship (18 October 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Thoughts on the quiet "Mosquito" season
|
Juan Carlos Ferrero
|
When the Tennis Masters event in Madrid gets underway on October 18th, spare a thought for
the defending champion.
Juan Carlos Ferrero appeared to be on the verge of dominating men's tennis as he stormed to
victory over Nicolas Massu in last year's final. He had lifted the French Open trophy, reached
the US Open final, climbed to the top of the Entry Rankings and edged ahead of Andy Roddick and
Roger Federer in the 2003 Champions Race. The claycourt king was rapidly extending his realm to
include all the other surfaces (except grass).
But instead of launching him into a period of supremacy, Madrid proved to be part of a draining
end-of-season run from which the player dubbed the "Mosquito" has yet to recover. His withdrawal
from this week's Shanghai Open was just the latest in a long series of calamities that have seen
him all but disappear off the radar in 2004. He has tumbled out of the Top 10 and will probably
miss this year's Masters Cup. Leg, arm, wrist, rib and back injuries, not to mention a bout of
chicken pox, have all conspired to sap his confidence and competitiveness. In the meantime, Roger
Federer has become the dominant force on the ATP Tour and Guillermo Coria has usurped the claycourt
throne (only to find himself in possession of a poisoned chalice - the Argentine has been beset by
injuries himself ever since the French Open final).
"I am not happy with my year," said Ferrero after his second round defeat at the US Open. "This year
is almost finished and I just want to forget it."
The 2004 "Mosquito" season has certainly been a quiet one, but no one can afford to drop their guard
in 2005. Players will be scrambling for the repellant again as soon as Ferrero gets some proper
rest and takes a more judicious look at his scheduling. He'll be zipping from corner to corner again
with the speed that earned him the nickname. Won't he?
Or is there more to all this? Could it be that some kind of psychological dysfunction is involved
here? Although most injuries have purely physical causes, some have a mental component as well.
For some time now, sport psychologists have mooted the link between stress and increased risk of
injury. The pressure applied to a player who suddenly reaches the zenith of the sport demands
considerable psychological coping skills.
If he works his way back to the top of the rankings next year, it will certainly be interesting
to see if Ferrero copes better the second time around.
Dave Winship (1 October 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Serena advances the anti-Williams conspiracy theory
When chair umpire Mariana Alves robbed Serena Williams of a point with an erroneous
overrule during her US Open quarter-final encounter with Jennifer Capriati and then
presided over a bizarre climax in which further dubious calls went in favour of
Capriati, the former world number one saw red. "I thought it was another Wimbledon
conspiracy," she complained. "I'd prefer she not umpire at my court any more. She's
obviously anti-Serena."
Conspiracy? Anti-Serena? Oh dear, paranoia is definitely beginning to set in. It's not
that long ago that conspiracy theories involving the Williams sisters centred on the outcome
of the intra-family finals. Mind you, it's understandable that she should feel aggrieved.
No sooner had she brushed aside the memories of her 2003 French Open semi-final loss to
Justine Henin-Hardenne, in which she was subjected to catcalls and boos by boorish
spectators (not to mention gamesmanship by her opponent), than she witnessed the bizarre
incident involving her sister at this year's Wimbledon championships. Umpire Ted Watts
helped to confound Venus's ambitions of a third Wimbledon crown when he inexplicably
awarded an extra point to Karolina Sprem in the decisive second-set tie-break of their
second round match. Hence the Wimbledon conspiracy to which Serena alluded.
Controversy all but obscured the battling merits of Capriati at Flushing Meadows and Sprem
at Wimbledon, which is a pity. Serena and Venus were both sensible enough to acknowledge
that umpiring errors were not the sole factor in their defeats. Nevertheless, Serena's
perception that the dice are loaded against her and her sister will continue to be a
feature of the women's tour for some time to come. And even if she is paranoid, it doesn't
mean players, spectators, umpires and line judges aren't making life hell for her!
Dave Winship (9 September 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The danger of another IOC compromise
Some people still seem to believe that the Olympic Games should be the exclusive
preserve of amateur athletes. In the last few days, quite a few of my friends have
voiced their disquiet about highly-paid tennis professionals besmirching the noble
ideals of the Olympic creed.
In fact, the International Olympic Committee deleted the words "amateur" and
"professional" from the Olympic Charter back in 1986. The definition of amateurism
had become blurred by a whole host of controversies. Issues such as cash prizes,
reimbursement of travel expenses, compensation for time off work, scholarships,
payments for product endorsements, coaching and so on had been giving the IOC a real
headache. When state-supported athletes like Cuban boxer Teofilo Stevenson came on
the scene, the pain rapidly became a migraine. Stevenson won three gold medals. He
never accepted a salary or took a cash prize, but he was coached by the best in the
business and was presented with a mansion in an exclusive residential area by Fidel
Castro.
By the 1970s it was widely acknowledged that Olympic athletes devoted the majority
of their time to their sport. They simply couldn't compete if they tried to juggle
training with a full-time job. The hypocrisy dubbed as "shamateurism" became rampant,
prompting the IOC to abolish the distinction between amateur and professional
altogether. The rules were changed to simply allow each nation to select its finest
athletes.
The official Olympic motto is "Citius Fortius Altius", a Latin phrase meaning "Swifter,
Stronger, Higher". It has inspired athletes and coaches to find new ways to push the
envelope, inevitably resulting in some compromises of the Olympic ideals that Pierre
de Coubertin had in mind when the first modern Games were held.
As well as compromising on the issue of amateurism, the IOC has had to address
technological improvements such as spikes, specially-engineered cycles, aerodynamic
clothing and equipment, etc. In recent times, attention has focused on the use of
drugs to enhance athletic performance. It would be easy for the IOC to compromise over
this issue as well. After all, drug testing is currently still off the pace - by the
time a test is developed, the athletes have moved on to something else.
Perhaps drugs scandals have contributed to the poor attendances in Athens and to the
poor television viewing figures. Perhaps they haven't. Either way, it will be one
compromise too many if we end up with a perception that the medals are won by chemists
and not athletes.
Dave Winship (18 August 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Grasping the Olympic torch
When Irishman John Boland travelled to Athens for the first modern Olympic Games in
1896, he went as a spectator - a student with a keen interest in Greek culture and
history - and returned with the tennis gold medal. Since then, Olympic tennis has
had a rather chequered history, dominated by a 64-year exile between 1924 and 1988
while arguments raged over the inclusion of professionals in the Games.
Many of today's Olympic tennis players are household names - high-profile athletes accustomed to travelling in style and living in luxury, but many of them are excited
by the prospect of bunking in the Olympic village with the other athletes and pulling
on a T-shirt bearing the Olympic rings.
"It's the Olympic Games," enthused Andy Roddick. "Someone's going to have to drag me
off the court not to play there. I want that gold medal. I definitely would cherish
it just as much as a Grand Slam title."
Although a spectator brandishing a borrowed racket is not going to win a gold medal
in this year's tennis event, there is the prospect of a 47-year-old rookie making
the headlines. Martina Navratilova is heading for the Games for the first time in
her distinguished career. "That's why I really played one more year," she said. "It
wasn't to play Wimbledon one more time, it was to play the Olympics." She and her
partner Lisa Raymond will be among the favourites in the ladies doubles.
Not that everyone is enraptured by the Games. "The Olympics is not for tennis,"
grumbled Marat Safin recently. "Tennis doesn't need the Olympic Games. We have four
Grand Slams. We have a lot of tournaments. We have a pretty tough schedule. I have
to play for Russia because I have to. But it is not my goal in my life to win the
Olympic Games. I'm not excited at all to go there."
There are also concerns about security and a number of sponsorship rows. However, the
vast majority of the world's best tennis players are desperately keen to pursue the Olympic
ideal of human sporting achievement. They have grasped the Olympic torch and tennis
will be all the brighter for it.
Dave Winship (1 August 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't tennis at the Olympics be more prestigious?
When the 2004 Olympic Tennis Tournament gets underway next month in Athens, cooperation
between the IOC, the ITF, the ATP Tour and the WTA Tour has ensured that rankings will
be used as the basis for determining direct acceptances into the men’s and women’s singles
draws. Even more significantly, both ATP and WTA ranking points will be awarded at the
event (WTA Tour ranking points were not awarded at the 2000 Olympics).
This represents a major step forward for tennis as an Olympic sport. But does it go far
enough?
The Olympic tennis champion will receive 400 ATP ranking points. If you compare that with
the 500 points earned by Tennis Masters Series champions and the 1000 points available to
winners of grand slam events, it raises a few issues. Surely, if the Olympics is considered
to be the most prestigious sporting event in the calendar, the ranking points should reflect
that.
Certain top players will miss the Olympics this year because of its close proximity to the US
Open. Injuries and sponsorship conflicts will account for other absentees. But one or two will
just be apathetic towards it (though they'll probably cite injury, of course). If, in
future, the ranking points on offer were to at least equal those applicable to the grand slams,
we would see far fewer absentees and Olympic Tennis would shuffle off the semblance of an
embarrassing sporting anomaly and transform itself befittingly into the greatest tennis
tournament in the world.
Dave Winship (9 July 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The aftermath of a Henman defeat at Wimbledon
Only a short moment after Tim Henman's 2004 Wimbledon campaign fizzles out
on Centre Court, spots of rain interrupt the soporific pock, pock, pock
of tennis balls on the outside courts. They smear the St George's flags
on the fans' faces and draw a veil over a bitterly disappointing performance
by the British number one.
Yes, the Mexican waves have receded for another year. In the post-match
interviews, Henman masks his inner darkness with the usual wry humour and
stiff upper lip, while the sports correspondents sharpen their poison pens.
There's an inevitability about all this - it's just part of some kind of
natural cycle. If it were otherwise, it just wouldn't be right. If it were
otherwise, in the words of Lucinda Williams (no, she's nothing to do with
Venus and Serena): "How would misery know which back door to walk through?
How would scars find skin to etch themselves into? How would broken find
the bones?"
Meanwhile, the hollow pock, pock, pock has started up again, reminding us
Brits that maybe we're missing the point here. We shouldn't be grieving - wearing
black is not appropriate at Wimbledon. We don't need the greatest player - we've
got the greatest tournament. And the Championships is still very much alive
and kicking.
Dave Winship (1 July 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The Mark Petchey School of Motivation
The three British players who lost in the first round of Wimbledon qualifying at Roehampton
had salt liberally rubbed into their wounds by Mark Petchey, LTA manager of men's national
training, who described their performances as "rubbish". He criticised their commitment and
attitude and reproached them for their failure to take the opportunity offered them.
Petchey was instrumental in the LTA's decision to withdraw Alex Bogdanovic's funding after he
refused to play an event in Athens earlier this year because of illness. Presumably, the theory
behind the Mark Petchey School of Motivation consists of insulting, ridiculing and ultimately
disowning students in an effort to provoke them into discovering their own intrinsic motivation
(or an alternative career).
Actually, it might even work. Witness the intriguing background to this year's French Open final
between the two Argentines, Gaston Gaudio and Guillermo Coria. Coria, like David Nalbandian,
is a product of the Argentine Tennis Federation coaching system, whereas Gaudio received no
invitation to join the junior programme and had to motivate himself to get out on the practice
courts in Buenos Aires. There was a bitter confrontation between the two at last year's Hamburg
Masters and Gaudio admonished Coria for failing to appreciate how difficult it had been for him
to break into the top echelons of tennis. Perhaps that just provided the spur for Gaudio's dramatic
comeback at Roland Garros.
So if Bogdanovic or one of the other three "rubbish" Brits winds up going it alone and winning a
Grand Slam title a few years down the line, no doubt Mark Petchey will take the credit.
Dave Winship (17 June 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Cheers and jeers are the real impostors
At some point when you're watching the Wimbledon Championships on television later
this month, the camera will pan over London SW19 and the familiar landmark of St Mary's
Church with its slender steeple will slide into view, evoking a sense of timelessness
and spirituality.
This pinnacle of leafy suburbia was the scene of a minor ecclesiastical spat a little
while back when the PCC (Parochial Church Council) sought to block plans for the erection
of a plaque commemorating Leslie and Kathleen "Kitty" Godfree. Twice Wimbledon Champion,
Kitty Godfree was one of the outstanding women players of the 1920s and the only player
to beat Helen Wills Moody in singles at the All England Club. She and Leslie won the
Wimbledon Mixed Doubles in 1926 and remain the only married couple to have done so. The
PCC argued that commemoration should be restricted to those who had worshipped regularly
in the church, but the ruling went against them.
Perhaps the only notable aspect of this is that the Church Council should have bothered at
all. In a society increasingly obsessed with sport and, more worryingly, increasingly
dominated by the cult of celebrity, it would be easy to argue that the cinema and the
sports arena have replaced the church as the focal points of public worship. It's as if
we've been replacing our old anthropomorphic vision of god with a new apotheosis of
celebrities and sports stars.
A few actively pursue this adoration and a few, poor devils, have it thrust upon them.
The fact is, objects of idolatry often become victims of it, especially those who view
their popularity as a gauge of their self-worth. The media whips the public into a buzz
and players get bundled onto the roller-coaster ride of intemperate adulation and vindictive
criticism. At this time of year, Tim Henman is invariably subjected to this behaviour.
Fortunately, he's got the stomach for it.
Kipling got it wrong. Triumph and disaster aren't the impostors - there have to be winners
and losers in sport - it's cheers and jeers that should be treated just the same. Of course,
I wouldn't want to pour cold water on the achievements of sporting champions, but I do think
we should refrain from burdening mere mortals with mythological properties. It may do them
even more harm than it does their misguided fans. Perhaps the PCC were right. Champions
deserve recognition for their achievements, but their claims to posterity should be confined
to perennial trophies and sporting almanacs.
These days, modern tall buildings diminish the visual impact of church steeples. We get a
completely different perspective from those that Kitty Godfree and her peers enjoyed. A sense
of perspective - now that's something we should try to hang on to.
Dave Winship (1 June 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The LTA should make a name for themselves
If the Lawn Tennis Association is really determined to shake off its stuffy,
conservative image, it should start with a change of name.
The word 'lawn' is anachronistic. It conjures up images of Victorian garden
parties, croquet and bowls. It perpetuates the myth that British tennis is
synonymous with Wimbledon and little else. A rose by any other name might smell
as sweet, but this name reeks of elitism and must be replaced by something that
will help attract more young people to the sport.
Obviously, some care must be taken with the choice of a new name. Remember the
UK Post Office's disastrous decision to change its name to Consignia? If possible,
the name should be either catchy and positive in itself or produce a catchy and
positive acronym, but something like GBTA (GB Tennis Association) would probably
suffice.
A change of name would signify a new attitude, a new credibility, a radical new
approach to the presentation and organisation of tennis in this country. It's time
they made a name for themselves!
Dave Winship (12 May 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The dark secret of Roland Garros
One of the things that's synonymous with the month of May is tennis in Paris in the springtime.
The mystique of the place clouds the senses - bateaux-mouches drifting along the Seine; red and
white chequered tablecloths and trees laden with blossom; croissants and coffee, garlic and
Gitanes; grunting and squealing from the courts and tiny clouds of red dust. It's the very stuff
of art and music and poetry.
And yet, Roland Garros bears a nasty scar. When Paris fell under German occupation during the
Second World War, tennis was banished from the stadium, and, along with other sites like the
Velodrome d'Hiver, a stadium designed for bicycle racing, it was used as a transit camp for
Jews before they were transported East to concentration camps. The Velodrome d'Hiver was destroyed
by the French after the war. Although the tennis stadium survived, its guilty secret still lurks
underneath the red clay.
There's no reference to this on the official French Open website. Although you can understand the
French being uncomfortable with references to the Vichy administration's complicity in the Nazi
Holocaust, surely the lesson of that whole tragic episode was that evil must be confronted to be
defeated. Maybe they should erect a memorial to the victims somewhere prominent in the stadium.
On n'oublie jamais rien.
Dave Winship (30 April 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Should Patty Schnyder refuse to shake hands with "nasty" Conchita Martinez?
There could be fireworks a-plenty when Switzerland plays Spain in Fed Cup this weekend.
The Family Circle Cup semi-final encounter between Conchita Martinez and Patty Schnyder
descended into an acrimonious affair when Schnyder, incensed by the Spaniard's quirky
routine of demanding the same ball after winning a point on serve, twice pocketed the
offending object and, on another occasion, launched it high into the stands to keep it
out of her clutches. The two openly taunted each other and Schnyder theatrically
pulled her hand away when Martinez approached the net for the traditional post-match
handshake.
Martinez insists she has a routine and WTA Tour rules allow 20 seconds between points.
"I can do with the 20 seconds whatever I want," she said.
"With her, it's just nasty play," Schnyder complained afterwards. "She's showing no
respect to the ball person. She's walking around between first and second serve,
letting everybody wait. I don't think it's the way you should behave."
Schnyder interpreted her opponent's behaviour as a deliberate ploy to annoy her and
disrupt her concentration and rather naively expected the umpire to intervene.
Unfortunately, there is only so much a player (and an umpire) can do when an opponent
resorts to such tactics. Although gamesmanship is anathema to those who cherish the true
spirit of sport, the perpetrator is often just exploiting weaknesses in the rules
without actually breaking them.
Many sports fans have an attitude towards gamesmanship which is at best ambivalent
and at worst downright bizarre and hypocritical. Remember the antics of the bad guys
like Connors, Nastase and McEnroe? Well, no sooner were they denounced as complete
jerks than they were acclaimed as the great characters of the game!
Anyway, you might think it unfair to cast Conchita Martinez in the role of the villain here.
You might prefer to attribute her behaviour to some kind of superstitious
compulsion. But the fact is, she cannot possibly be oblivious to the animosity she provokes.
Patty Schnyder is obviously one of the players who feels disinclined to view these shenanigans
in a charitable light. But refusing to shake hands is reprehensible. It reveals a lack
of class and character. It's a serious breach of etiquette and it's disrespectful to
the sport itself. Bad blood will doubtless still linger when these two meet again, but
Schnyder should avoid bringing the women's game into further disrepute. Regardless of
the provocation, she should accept the hand of her opponent unflinchingly, remembering
the words of Mahatma Ghandi: "Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong."
Dave Winship (22 April 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
The Tao of Federer
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything."
I suppose I shouldn't really write a eulogy to someone who's just in the spring of his
career, but what the heck.
Eulogies always seem more convincing against a background of doom and gloom. So let's get
into Eeyore mood:
You know, it seems to me we live in an increasingly prosaic world - measured by statistics,
stripped of spirituality. Our artists write and paint and dance and sing unobserved in the
shadows cast by the commercial giants of mass culture. Our schools churn out children whose
worth is defined by nothing more than their ability to pass exams. Our health service is
obsessed with nursing performance indicators rather than patients. And our communities are
policed in total disregard of Sir Robert Peel's insistence that "the test of police
efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action
in dealing with it." Our very thoughts and feelings are assessed in terms of percentages in
opinion polls.
The tennis world is not immune from it. "Playing the percentages" has become the mantra of
players, coaches and pundits. Players are obsessed with chasing ranking points, even at
the expense of their health.
We all bounce around like Tigger in a pandemonium of benchmarks, quotas, performance targets
and league tables. I guess that's what Tiggers do best. And after all, we're doing the
bidding of some very wise people - Rabbit and Owl seem to know a lot of Important Things.
The trouble is, they just can't see the wood from the trees.
So it's refreshing that, just occasionally, someone like Pooh comes along blissfully ignoring
it all. As Benjamin Hoff writes in his book, The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet: "While
Eeyore frets and Piglet hesitates and Rabbit calculates and Owl pontificates, Pooh just is."
Roger Federer is like that. Not on purpose. He probably doesn't think about aesthetics at
all. But when he won the Australian Open earlier this year, it was almost as if the
scoreboard had stopped and we just gazed in awe as he oozed around the court dispatching
shots of elegance and effortless authority.
"I guess it looks quite simple," Federer has said. "My movements are smooth and I guess
people like to watch it, and it's nice to hear, but in the end I know how much work I'm
putting in there."
Okay, maybe the swan is paddling furiously under the water, but suddenly tennis is
aesthetically pleasing again! And at the moment he's doing it all without any input
from a coach. But then, as Eeyore would say: "What is Learning? A thing Rabbit knows! Ha!"
Dave Winship (31 March 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Lonely at the top
As Tim Henman contemplates the sunset of his career, he may well reflect how his country
likes to build people up and then, with the greatest of pleasure, likes to knock them down
again. Of course, it's not just a British trait. They say it's lonely at the top. Well,
in tennis, it can be lonely getting to the top and utterly desolate when you arrive.
The total focus required to win major tournaments in an individual sport demands a
level of independence that is sometimes incompatible with harmonious social interaction.
The strong sense of camaraderie evident in Davis Cup and Fed Cup competition serves only to
demonstrate how relieved some players feel when they are released from the blinkered
constraints of self-absorption.
Like it or not, champions find their heads sticking above the parapet and some of them
don't like the draught. Pete Sampras spoke of getting the monkey off his back when he
lost in the 1991 US Open quarter-finals after winning the title as a 19-year-old the previous
year. He eventually mustered the courage to stick his head up again and again, but who knows
how many under-achievers duck below the parapet and just stay there?
The psychological dynamics of competitive sport are intriguing. Just as peer effect is often
a strong influence on academic achievement in schools, aspiring tennis champions must be
conscious of the fact that winning trophies can turn peer approval to icy disinterest
or even overt antipathy as resentment sets in. So it's understandable that many winners blink
uneasily in the glare of recognition. After all, peer perception becomes particularly fickle
and unpredictable when you stand out from the crowd. Just ask Greg Rusedski, who drew
attention to himself by fighting for his reputation in public after his positive drugs test.
He perceived that he had the support of his fellow professionals, but Todd Woodbridge, the
vice-president of the ATP's player council, warned that such a perception was ill-founded.
"It's a pretty selfish world in tennis," he said. "Everybody is playing head-to-head and
they want to have a leg up and be just that bit ahead."
The Williams sisters appear to inhabit an alien world of their own. But do they do it out
of choice or are they consigned to it by the envy and mistrust of others? Are they aloof
or are they just proud and self-confident? It's a curious facet of social behaviour that
people are often made to feel guilty or ashamed of their most virtuous aspirations. We
encourage competition, but when we celebrate with the winners it's almost like kissing them
goodbye. We empathise with the losers.
There are, of course, popular champions. But we are very demanding of them. They are required to
prove their worthiness. So the intensity of peer and public examination is turned up, magnifying
blemishes in the effort to detect fraud. Only the most astute (or the most thick-skinned)
survive.
Applying too much pressure to those who succeed is deeply corrosive to the health
of sport and to the health of society in general. Eagles don't flock with the rest of us,
but they are magnificent and the world is a better place for them. May the pigeons rejoice when
the eagle soars.
Dave Winship (3 March 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Unhealthy tennis calendar
Household appliances improve quality of life by ensuring people have more free time.
It befits the ATP to have secured a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal with Indesit,
the manufacturers of fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, cookers, etc. Perhaps it
will prompt them to give a higher priority to negotiations over a restructured tour,
allowing players more breaks.
If they had more time to recover from one season and prepare for the next, the players
would be fitter, better motivated and altogether better equipped to entertain the
humble tennis consumer, who according to Indesit's philosophy should be "at the centre of
everything".
The ATP has been beset by financial problems since the break-up of its ten-year marketing deal
with ISL a couple of years ago. But there's another more serious break-up threatening
professional tennis at the moment - the break-up of players' bodies! An increasing number
of players have succumbed to chronic overuse injuries in the last year or so, and the WTA
Tour has been decimated during the first weeks of 2004. If the ATP's new deal represents a financial tonic, the attrition of players' hips, knees, ankles, shoulders, wrists and
backs threatens a relapse. The viability of both tours obviously depends on the
availability of top players to draw the crowds.
Indesit offer warranty protection in respect of their products. The ATP and WTA need
to restructure the tennis calendar so that they can offer the same in respect of their
players.
Dave Winship (27 February 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Marat, friend of the people
|
Marat Safin
|
So the raving racket-trasher made it to another Grand Slam final. Given that he was named after
French revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat, whose vitriolic writings helped foment the worst excesses
of the French Revolution, it's only fitting that Marat Safin should display a somewhat
combustible approach to playing tennis.
At the Australian Open four years ago, the mercurial Russian courted controversy when he
received a fine for allegedly "tanking" a match. Nine months later, he pulled off one of the
great upsets of all time by beating Pete Sampras in straight sets in the US Open final and went
on to become the youngest man in history to hold the world number one ranking. He looked set to
dominate men's tennis for several years. But a combination of unfocused performances and a
persistent wrist injury conspired to deny him success commensurate with his talent. Although
his candour made him popular with fans all over the world and his "just live, just enjoy"
philosophy amused journalists in press conferences, the fact is, he was simply not winning
enough titles.
Safin, who has confessed to breaking 68 rackets in one year, doesn't so much wear his heart
on his sleeve as boot it around behind the baseline. "Angry outbursts are part of my
character," he once explained. "I have to let out of my body the negative energy. Otherwise
it builds up and sometimes I get ill."
He may have astonished the tennis world by reaching the final of the Australian Open, but it
may not have been a fluke. If he's found a way of converting negative energy to positive
energy on court, men's tennis had better brace itself for an unexpected new uprising from the revolutionary's namesake.
Dave Winship (31 January 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
ATP in the dock
Since Greg Rusedski broke the news of his positive drugs test to the world, he has been
throwing plenty of mud around in defence of his situation. Some of it has blown straight
back in his face, but much of it has reached its intended target and may well stick there.
By concluding that its own trainers had been at fault in providing players with contaminated
supplements last year, the ATP earned itself a disapproving stare from the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) who grumbled that internal investigations, no matter how well done, would
always be tainted with doubt.
Unfortunately, the ATP's somewhat dubious investigations resulted in somewhat dubious actions
(or inaction), in that disciplinary action does not appear to have been taken against any
of the aforesaid trainers or their managers. We're talking about mistakes that seriously
threatened (and continue to threaten) the careers, reputation and well-being of the world's
top professional tennis players. No wonder WADA believes tennis is not doing enough to ensure
fair play and to protect athletes' health.
Given that they owned up to sabotaging the players themselves, and given the perception
that they were acting as both judge and jury in dealing with the issue, surely the LTA
needed to come up with a greater show of strength?
Apparently, WADA has no direct authority to intervene. More's the pity.
Dave Winship (23 January 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
No excuses for Rusedski
Greg Rusedski's protestations of innocence after testing positive for nandralone are useless.
Athletes just cannot be excused for positive tests.
The thresholds set by the testers are well above the levels that can be produced endogenously,
so his defence will doubtless revolve around inadvertent ingestion. But even if Rusedski could
prove that he took a particular supplement containing a banned substance inadvertently at the
time of the test, it would not preclude the possibility that he was also taking other illegal
products at the same time. Unfortunately, he has a duty to be aware of banned substances and
must be held responsible for everything that enters his system.
If Rusedski is found guilty of a doping offence and the source turns out to be a dietary
supplement or sports food, there are three possibilites:
i) either he deliberately used a product containing a banned substance, or
ii) he inadvertently used a product that contained a banned substance as a stated ingredient,
or
iii) he inadvertently used a product that contained an undeclared banned ingredient.
Although even the last of these scenarios does not alter his culpability, surely something
should be done to protect the sport from rogue companies who are guilty of mislabelling?
Regulation of the production and marketing of supplements is inadequate despite pressure from
sports governing bodies. So, given that increased surveillance of the supplement industry
is unlikely in the short term, could sports bodies introduce some controls of their own? Could
lists of "safe" products be circulated like the lists of banned medications?
The trouble is, even if a product were to be tested in a laboratory and found clean, how could you
guarantee that another batch of the same product would be identical? Testing agencies commissioned
by sporting organisations would not want to be sued by athletes who trusted their findings
but still tested positive.
Maybe athletes should consider legal action against the supplement companies. That might force
some changes.
Sports bodies should plough resources into educating athletes about banned substances. It's
easy to get caught out. Some cold and cough remedies, for example, include banned stimulants
such as ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. It's also possible to fall foul of inadvertent
by-products of certain ingredients found in supplements.
In the meantime, the buck stops with the athlete. The risk involved in taking a dietary
supplement may be a very small one, but the price of a mistake is very high. As James Blake
recently commented: "You have to be careful putting things in your body when your body is
your profession."
Dave Winship (9 January 2004)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
