|
|
|
|
|
Ghost of Christmas Present visits British LTA
The British LTA will tuck into the Quality Street a little ruefully this Christmas,
reflecting on its preposterously extravagant spending on the likes of Brad Gilbert,
Paul Annacone, Peter Lundgren, Carl Maes et al.
Many of us wilt under the psychological pressure of Christmas greed lists as
the season of rabid consumerism approaches its peak, but the governing body of
British tennis has showered new chief executive Roger Draper with everything he could
possibly have wanted. Such profligacy makes the LTA the very antithesis of Scrooge, but
the ironic utterings of Russia's Davis Cup captain Shamil Tarpishchev now echo
through the corridors of Queen's Club like a visitation by the Ghost of Christmas
Present. "In Russia, preparation goes on until the players are 14,"
he explains. "After that we are simply compelled to give those players over
to other international tennis academies. This works well for us because if they did
not leave, then the following generation, say the 12 year-olds, would simply have no
place to play. All of them will play for Russia in the future anyway, so it is a good
thing. In the last year we had 360 juniors playing in 56 countries, and we would not
be able to handle all of those at home."
So while the US has apparently been getting everything wrong, the Russian policy of
moving their promising youngsters into international academies abroad has
been reaping dividends. "Today we are considered the world's strongest tennis power,"
Tarpischev brags. "In the last six years we have won two Davis Cups and two Fed Cups
and I think that is an impressive result. We now also have 17 of the top 100 women's
tennis players in the world, which, as a result, has seen the level of US tennis
fall - we are killing tennis in America." It's an impressive boast, and not one to be
taken lightly, especially when you consider how it has been achieved.
You would think that the British LTA might have drawn lessons from this. You would hope they
might have noticed that rising star Andy Murray developed his game at the Sanchez-Casal
Academy in Barcelona. Surely all the money at their disposal would be better spent addressing
the base of the pyramid and selective funding of player development at international tennis
academies. But no, Draper and co have opted instead to issue statements of good intent and lure
big-name coaches from the US and elsewhere to spearhead rehashed LTA programmes blighted by a
culture of under-achievement, an unsuitable climate and a persistently inadequate competitive
infrastructure.
Is it already too late for the LTA to repent and change its fate?
Dave Winship (21 December 2006)
 Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Appearance money devalues sport
It's not long ago that tennis was an elitist amateur game of starched white flannels
and white balls and wooden racket presses. The notion of making money out of playing the
game was anathema to the sport's governing bodies. Today, the game has made great technological
advances and is both accessible and attractive to a much wider player base. But the amount
of money sloshing around at the top level of the game threatens to corrupt the motivation
of players and turn away the fans.
No one would begrudge the world's best players the right to earn what their market value
dictates, but there is an increasing perception that under-the-table appearance fees or
guarantees are beginning to warp the integrity of sporting commitment. One of the main
problems with such payments is that they are shrouded in secrecy. Lack of transparency
invariably breeds distrust. People naturally become suspicious when rumours of six-figure
appearance fees abound and a star player unexpectedly loses in the early rounds of a lesser
event. When one of these stars pockets a huge fee at one of the minor tournaments and then
pulls out of a Masters Series event the following week, citing exhaustion or injury, suspicion
turns to outright cynicism.
The impenetrable wall that separated amateur and professional tennis players in the early
part of the 20th century crumbled during the era of "shamateurism" in the 1950s and 60s when
the top so-called amateurs received under-the-table payments of hundreds of dollars a week.
Having belatedly got something so right with the advent of open tennis in 1968, tennis then
contrived to get it all wrong again, ushering in a new era of deceit and hypocrisy in 1990
when the ATP Tour started encouraging tournament directors to wave the carrot of guaranteed
fees on top of prize money. These guarantees often dwarf the amounts of prize money on offer
and distort the economic realities of life on the men's tour. Although the WTA has steadfastly
refused to sanction the practice, marquee attractions like Maria Sharapova get around it by
signing up for extra promotional appearances.
Shortly after securing the appearance of Rafael Nadal at the Stella Artois Championships in
|
"economics of the madhouse"
|
2007 and 2008, tournament director Ian Wight recently conceded: "We are killing our game.
It is the economics of the madhouse that a player can receive more than three times the prize
money not for winning a tournament but just for turning up." ATP Chairman Etienne de
Villiers is unmoved by such protestations. "It is impossible to stop the practice in the same
way you can't stop people opening the fridge to see what's inside," he said. "We are introducing
measures we hope will allow us to understand the practice better. Yes, we have to manage our
tournaments better to improve the incentives and player commitment. Doing that, you will
bring the situation involving guarantees back into some kind of equilibrium. What I must
emphasise, though, is that this is not a huge crisis."
Personally, I think it would only take one episode of high-profile "tanking" to make this
issue a crisis. The fridge should have a transparent door. Tournament directors should
come out in the open concerning appearance fees, so everyone is clear just what is guaranteed
and what is actually at stake in any given competition. Better still, the practice of offering
such payments should be outlawed altogether. After all, if tournament directors can afford to
offer players vast guarantees, they can afford to increase the prize money instead.
Dave Winship (7 December 2006)
Comments:
|
I didn't realize these players were getting that much! I thought the
"we-can't-stop-them-from-doing-it" dodge was a bit cute. They can't stop the
Mob or gambling tycoons from slipping players money, either - except by
making the rules against accepting it so dreadful that no player dares risk
it. But, many people don't know how corrupt sports like professional boxing
used to be, so they don't realize the danger in allowing players to accept money under
the table.
Posted by Kathy Krajco on 13 December 2006
My opinion is that professional players nowadays have managers and agents whose main aim
should be the welfare of their clients. However cash is king, and these agents and such benefit
themselves by devising various ways and means to increase payments to their player clients.
Doubtless, there will be other schemes invented to increase the players’ lot. The players
themselves have a lot to answer for. Among the top players there are often reported remarks
like "It is not the money, but the feeling of achievement that counts". This sentiment somehow
rings hollow.
Posted by Henry Belletty on 31 December 2006
|
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Greatness beckons for Federer
Roger Federer's victory in the Masters Cup underlined his domination of the men's game
in 2006. Such is his lead at the top of the world rankings that he will break Jimmy
Connors' record as the longest-reigning world number one towards the end of February even
if he doesn't hit another ball until then.
Connors' record of 160 consecutive weeks at the top lasted 25 years. "I think that is
definitely one of the big records I've broken, maybe the biggest so far in my career,"
said Federer. "I'm waiting for that date to come and then I'll celebrate it, not right now."
The world number one does not take his successes for granted. His public blubberings bear witness to that.
But it must be difficult for him to keep his feet on the ground when he can see the heavens so
|
"it's important to be nice"
|
close. The Swiss has a passion for excellence and is keen to chase the lure of sporting greatness.
Self-confidence is the fuel that keeps you in that chase but it can be a volatile gas and it
requires careful treatment. The kind of success he has become accustomed to would fan the fires
of arrogance in most people, but there is a counteracting humility in Federer that allows him to stay
focused on just beating the next guy while the writers scribble at the record books in his wake. "I
have a motto that I like: It's nice to be important, but it's important to be nice." he insists. He
has never lost the common touch and is popular in the dressing room. "He hasn't changed a bit," James
Blake once remarked. "He hasn't been arrogant in the locker room. He never is. That's great to see
someone that does it with class. He doesn't intentionally get in anyone's face. He doesn't put people
down."
Federer feels justified in expecting success if he feels he has put in the effort. "I used to feel
pressure when I was young," he revealed at this year's US Open. "People were saying 'this guy's got
some talent, but he can't get his mind right, he's not fit enough'. This stuff hurt me, you know, back
then. I was at a junction, which road do I want to take - the talented road or the hard working road?
I chose for the hard working road and it paid off." His tennis may look effortless to us, but Federer
clearly believes he is paddling furiously under the surface.
Happily for all of us, Federer is still paddling hard enough to disturb the waters of sporting
acclaim and cannot catch his reflection. Would he recognise himself if he did? Would he be the same
person?
Click here for a list of Roger Federer's achievements so far.
Dave Winship (22 November 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Save tennis from Frankenstein!
The scientific landscape was still relatively pastoral half a century ago when Albert Einstein warned: "It
has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity". Today, when scientists are
applying for permission to create part-human, part-animal embryos, it seems pertinent to consider
how scientific and technological innovations have blurred the lines between reality and fantasy, between
authenticity and artificiality, even in the world of tennis.
It was way back in 1818 when Mary Shelley's famous novel, Frankenstein, drew attention to the danger of
scientists running amok and crossing thresholds that ought not to be crossed. In tennis, a significant
threshold flashed by when Jimmy Connors started brandishing his metal Wilson T2000, consigning
wooden rackets to junk shops, museums and attics within a decade. Nowadays we have electronic line-calling
technology. We also have "smart" rackets. Piezoelectrics in the form of lead zirconate titanate fibres are
embedded into composite frames. When these "smart materials" contort, they generate electric energy which
is harnessed to increase the stability of the racket and dampen vibrations. Is it cheating to use a microchip
to produce a counterforce in this way? Apparently not. But how far will manufacturers be allowed to go? What
if the next innovation were to allow players to adjust string tension "on the fly"? Would that be acceptable?
Technological advances tend to elicit reactive responses. Innovators seldom anticipate controversy.
Actually, perhaps that's too kind. Innovators have plenty to gain from the postponement of ethical
debate. So, clearly, the onus is on decision-making bodies to anticipate and plan for the future. Being
proactive is the only way to avoid being presented with faits accompli. A good example of the creeping
introduction of new technology is the advent of pitch-correction in the music industry. Fans are just
beginning to wrestle with the thorny ethical question of authenticity as it dawns on them that
their favourite artists utilise auto-tuning to make them sound better. Singer-songwriter Allison Moorer
brought the subject to the forefront of public attention when she noted on the liner notes of her 'Miss
Fortune' CD: "Absolutely no vocal tuning or pitch correction used in the making of this record." She was
drawing attention to the fact that the use of auto-tune was the rule, not the exception. But what about
integrity, she appears to be asking? What about authenticity? It's difficult to imagine Johnny Cash would
have taken advantage of auto-tuning. But it's Ms Moorer's misfortune (!) that she is a great singer at a time when
it isn't necessary to be one. In fact, pitch correction technology has been prevalent in the music industry
since the 1990s and poor Allison is simply whistling in the wind, albeit with pitch-perfect delivery.
Unlike the music industry, tennis is not primarily profit-driven. The marketability of the product is
important - crucially important, according to tournament organisers and tour executives - but the sport must
be managed in a way that ensures its integrity. No one would wish to stifle innovations that are targeted
at injury prevention, but the time has come for the ITF and other tennis organisations to start defining
what aspects of the game should be preserved and protected. They must then legislate accordingly, before
tennis stealthily mutates into something undesirable.
Dave Winship (8 November 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Round-robin rashness
The Next Generation Adelaide International, starting on the first day of 2007, will be the
first ATP event to use the new experimental round-robin format. ATP chairman Etienne de Villiers
appears to have sold the idea to tournament directors, members of the ATP Player Council and
a whole host of concurring players and pundits who may well have paid scant attention
to the detail. "We will have 12 tournaments or so experimenting next year," said De Villiers,
who is keen to make the new format mandatory for 2009. "Most of the players are very positive
about this."
Tournament directors would not have needed much persuading. Delray Beach tournament director
Mark Baron was just one of those voicing unreserved approval. "Spectators will get to see all the
seeded players at least twice, which is great," he enthused. "Before, if a top seed had a bad
match, he was out. Now, you could see him in the final. And we'll start on Sunday, which allows
us to have a big family day, something we've always wanted. All in all, this is great news for
our event."
The round-robin has previously been used only at the year-end Masters Cup and the World Team
Championship in Dusseldorf.
Apparently, the French phrase rond ruban derives from an 18th century French military practice.
When officers sought redress of a grievance by means of a petition, their superiors were
sometimes inclined to seize and execute those whose names headed the list, so it became customary
to sign such petitions in a circular form.
If Etienne de Villiers heads the list of round-robin advocates, the name of Rafael Nadal is not
far behind. "People want to see Federer or Roddick. Now perhaps me," the world number two told
reporters recently, "and this way they will see them at least twice, instead of once. If the world
number two or the number one lose in the first round, it is a catastrophe for the tournament."
It's rather ironic that Nadal should attribute his recent run of poor form to fatigue because
round-robin tournaments will certainly make the tour schedule even more onerous than it is
already. While tournament directors rub their hands at the prospect of starting the round-robin
events on Sundays, overlapping with the final day of the previous week's tournaments, the
Spaniard will see his seven-day working week become an eight-day one! Tournaments like the
pre-Wimbledon Stella Artois Championships in London will probably opt for a 48-man draw, with
16 groups of three. The finalists will therefore play six matches instead of the five required
previously. Ouch! No wonder Roger Federer has turned against the idea.
Even if the Tour eventually sees the light and replaces groups of three with groups of four,
other worrying factors will surely surface. One such drawback is the potential for players to
indulge in "tanking" or not trying too hard once they have ensured their progression to the
elimination stage. Lindsay Davenport is concerned about such dubious tactical ploys.
"There (could be) a lot of fixing if your friend needs you to win or lose or whatever," she
warned. "A lot of things could happen. There are some kinks to be worked out for sure."
"I'm very, very excited because this is something I petitioned for for a long time," said
Mark Baron. I hope he and his fellow advocates had the foresight to sign their names in
circular fashion. Otherwise, it's off with his head!
Dave Winship (27 October 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Tennis and the deprivation model
Yesterday the United States of America passed a population landmark, welcoming its 300 millionth
citizen. Ironically, the 2006 season-ending WTA Championships will take place next month without a
single American representative for the first time in the history of the event.
Not that population ratios mean that much in this context. The representation of countries and nationalities
on the professional tours does not obey any numerical model. China boasts the world's largest population,
but the only Chinese player to appear in the top 20 of either the ATP or the WTA ranking lists is Li Na.
One out of six people on the globe live in India, but Sania Mirza is the only one making waves in the
sport and she is currently labouring outside the top 50. Nevertheless, Wimbledon was an embarrassment
for the Americans and, for the first time since rankings were introduced in 1975, they currently do not
have a single woman inside the top 10.
Lindsay Davenport, who is taking a sabbatical for the rest of the year and may be on the threshold of
retirement, is at a loss to explain the situation. "I honestly don't know what it is," she said. "I think
Serena, Venus [Williams] and I have done a pretty good job for the last decade, staying at the top. But it
is unfortunate that there haven't been bigger American stars coming up to help with the load yet." Some
speculate that young Americans just have it too good and lack the hunger that drives some of the East
European, Russian, South American and Asian players. Russia's Elena Dementieva subscribes to this view.
"It is strange because when I play here in the United States I see all these clubs and tennis academies and
it's just amazing how professional they are," she commented recently. "In Russia, it is all on the parents'
support." The implication is that, while others perceive tennis as their meal ticket, Americans have been
gorging on an abundance of facilities and opportunities until apathy and complacency have taken hold.
It may be a bit premature to talk about a serious decline. After all, Davenport and one or other of the Williams
sisters has won the Wimbledon women's singles title six times since 1999. But a downward spiral threatens
to consume American aspirations if the losing trend is not reversed really soon. If the players don't win,
the fans stop watching. If the fans are not watching, television coverage will be reduced and sponsorships
will be jeopardised. Perhaps the USTA should look at the deprivation model. There are many disadvantaged
groups in the United States: Hispanic, African-American, Native American and Asian American to name but a few.
It's time to roll out a tennis roadshow programme that truly reaches the kids that don't have the iPods and the
Playstations that are distracting their more prosperous compatriots.
Dave Winship (18 October 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
On-court coaching is bananas
The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour has experimented with on-court coaching at tournaments in
Montreal, New Haven and Stuttgart so far this season and wider experimentation is anticipated
in 2007. Dee Dutta, Corporate Vice President and Head of Marketing for Sony Ericsson explains:
"For Sony Ericsson, our sponsorship of women's tennis is all about connecting players
to fans, be it through our technology or through introduction of innovative entertainment
concepts. We are committed to respecting the great traditions of women's tennis and the
one-on-one gladiatorial battle that makes tennis so exciting, while also testing creative
ideas that will enable the sport to continue to compete and succeed in the entertainment
marketplace."
Illegal coaching became a hot issue during this year's Italian Open when Roger
|
"they might as well legalise it"
|
Federer claimed that Rafael Nadal was being coached from the stands. Temperatures rose
higher at the US Open when cameras clearly revealed Maria Sharapova's entourage
communicating with her by means of visual cues and signals. Her father, Yuri, and
fitness coach Michael Joyce were seen at various times motioning her to drink and eat
bananas. The discontent threatened to boil over. It was the bananagate scandal. "The
cheating is out of control," Daniela Hantuchova complained. "There are signals and words
instructing the players. I've complained to the umpires, wondering how they can't hear
this when I can." Meilen Tu went further. "There's so much cheating going on as it is,
they might as well legalise it," she said. Sharapova was unrepentant. "Right now I'm
sitting here as a US Open champion," she said. "And the last thing I think people need to
worry about is a banana."
On-court coaching has all the signs of being a half-baked effort to address these concerns.
But it will not stop clandestine coaching from the stands. Nor is it fair. Many lower-ranked
players cannot afford to travel with a coach. There are many logistical problems too.
What happens, for example, if two players drawn against each other share the same coach?
And 'miking up' the coaches is a pretty lame idea if viewers are not provided with some kind
of language translation service.
Innovative ideas are fine, but they should be treated with the utmost caution when they
involve rule changes that would skew the fundamental nature of the sport. It can hardly
be considered a "one-on-one gladiatorial battle" if, at the moment a combatant's
shield bites the dust, he simply scratches his head and, in the parlance of 'Who Wants to
be a Millionaire', opts to phone a friend. At the US Open, Andre Agassi summed it up:
"Tennis is ... a sport that forces you to solve problems by yourself. It's a vehicle for
education, a great thing for somebody's life. That message needs to be sold better."
All in all, on-court coaching is not just a misguided experiment, it's bananas, it's an
unacceptable interference with the very principle of singles competition. It's nonsense
for Sony Ericsson to claim that the traditions of the game are being respected.
Since when did entertainment become the raison d'etre of sport anyway? Tennis may happen
to be entertaining but it does not and should not have to sell itself in the "entertainment
marketplace". The WTA Tour seems to be kow-towing to its sponsors in a manner that
jeopardises its very integrity.
Dave Winship (6 October 2006)
Comments:
|
Why shouldn't tennis players get on-court coaching during matches? It happens in other
individual sports (boxing, golf, etc). Meilen Tu is right - you might as well legalise
it as it goes on anyway.
Posted by Gareth on 9 October 2006
On-court coaching strikes at the heart of what tennis is all about. While it may be a
very popular idea with coaches, as it presents all sorts of profile-lifting opportunities
for them, I cannot imagine any intelligent player supporting an idea that negates, to any
extent whatsoever, a superior ability to out-think an opponent.
The beauty of the game is that you are completely alone out on court, facing a player who
is equally alone (which is why it is called "singles"). In order to preserve the appeal
that tennis has to independent thinkers - and to the very integrity of the game - that
aspect of the game should remain sacrosanct.
Of course, in a team situation such as Davis or Fed Cup, it is absolutely appropriate to
have input from a coach or captain who is every bit a part of the team as the players. But
it is absolutely inappropriate to allow on-court coaching during individual tournament play.
Just as the ATP Tour wisely decided in the late nineties, let's hope that the WTA also
decides to scrap an idea that never should have been allowed in the first place.
Posted by Chris Lewis (1983 Wimbledon finalist) on 15 October 2006
Check out Chris's website: Expert Tennis Tips.
|
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
USTA crowns King and embarrasses Wimbledon
When Billie Jean King took on and beat Bobby Riggs in the famous (or is it infamous?)
"Battle of the Sexes" exhibition match in 1973, it was a watershed moment for
women in sport. It could be argued that her victory was as significant for women's
rights as Rosa Parks's bus protest was for the civil rights movement. But it was
hardly a match of equals. Riggs was a 55-year-old ex-player at the time, while King
was in her prime. Although the most-watched tennis match in history prompted
a seismic shift in the perception of women's role in sport and society, it also
served to confuse the issue. Equality, in this context, is not about sameness and
uniformity. Biological differences render notions of sameness between the sexes
nonsensical. Men and women are different but equally important. And it is this equality
of importance that should determine issues like the distribution of prize money.
On the opening night of the 2006 US Open, the USTA ceremoniously renamed the National
Tennis Center as the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in honour of the
tennis pioneer who has been relentless in her pursuit of equal rights in the sport.
The fireman's daughter who started playing tennis on the public courts in Long Beach,
California, rose from humble origins to dominate the game. She won 12 Grand Slam
singles titles, 14 Grand Slam women's doubles titles and 11 Grand Slam mixed doubles
titles. In 1967 she became the first woman in almost 30 years to take the triple crown
of singles, doubles and mixed doubles championships at both Wimbledon and the US Open.
Her off-court achievements were also immense. After founding the Women’s Tennis
Association in 1973, she started the Women’s Sports Foundation a year later and fought
successfully for the passage of Title IX, the federal law that banned sex discrimination
in schools and colleges. In recognition of her many achievements, Life magazine named
her one of the "100 Most Important Americans of the 20th Century". She continues to
serve as a director on several boards including the Elton John AIDS Foundation.
"She just sped everything up as pioneers do; they bring about change," said Martina
Navratilova. "She changed opinions of people that had nothing to do with sports."
Small wonder, then, that the USTA chose to elevate her to the level of another great
American sporting icon whose name lives on in the Arthur Ashe stadium. "I would never
in a trillion years think that this would have happened to a woman - only to a man,"
said King on hearing about the opening day ceremony. When she comes to terms with it,
she will no doubt reflect that there is at least one more unfulfilled challenge ahead.
Bobby Riggs has resurfaced in the form of the All England Club which continues to refuse
to pay equal money to men and women. "Over the years Wimbledon has always been one of
the leaders in our sport in so many areas," King said earlier this year. "Because of
that, it is truly amazing to me that all of these years later they still have not stepped
up and done the right thing on the prize money issue."
Billie Jean King can take credit for advancing the cause of women's athletics over the
last thirty years. The USTA can take credit for recognising her achievements. Both will
deserve plenty of credit if they succeed in shaming the All England Club into recognising
the validity of her beliefs.
Dave Winship (29 September 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Hewitt clutches security blanket in Buenos Aires
Lleyton Hewitt's arrival at Buenos Aires for the Davis Cup semi-final between Australia and Argentina
was heralded by a blaring siren and the flashing blue-and-white light of a police car whisking the former
world number one to his hotel.
A series of bad-tempered run-ins with Argentinian players Juan Ignacio Chela, David Nalbandian
and Guillermo Coria has made Hewitt an unwelcome visitor to the Land of Silver. Chela was incensed
by the Australian's overt celebrations during a third-round encounter at the 2005 Australian Open and
spat at him during a change of ends. The animosity continued in the quarter-finals when Hewitt came
up against Nalbandian. The two players bumped shoulders as they crossed paths on the way to their
chairs. Nalbandian had taken exception to Hewitt celebrating his opponent's mistakes by pumping his fist
and crying "C'mon". Later that year, a Davis Cup tie in Sydney was marred by the unsavoury spectacle of
Hewitt and Coria openly trading insults during and after their singles rubber. Hewitt figured that
the atmosphere in the 15000-capacity Parque Roca would have been torrid enough without the added fuel
of these incidents and approached Tennis Australia for guarantees about his personal safety. "The
situation has got steadily worse for visiting teams and it takes only one whacko over there to turn
things on its head," he told Australian reporters. "I've got my family to think about and there are
issues around the security situation."
"Hewitt seems to be thinking that he's come to Iraq," commented Argentina's Jose Acasuso, clearly
unimpressed by Hewitt's concerns. "But we're not bothered because this is the circus that he wanted
to set up. Nothing's going to happen and we shouldn't pay any attention to it." Unfortunately, it's
a circus that will come around more and more frequently. And it's not just the players that are getting
twitchy. Hooligans, disgruntled fans, political protesters, terrorists and animal rights activists all
represent an increasing threat to the participants, spectators and organisers of sporting events. Any
sporting occasion may foster spontaneous acts of violence and any stadium is a potential target for
organised terrorism. Managers of entertainment and sporting venues are no longer paying just lip service to
security. The provision of a safe environment has never been higher up the agenda. It's becoming a huge
factor in every aspect of sport, from stadium design to playing times and the conditions under which
spectators are permitted to attend. And rightly so.
Acasuso and co may choose to ridicule Hewitt and his security blanket, but, as journalist and satirist
H.L. Mencken once observed: "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."
Dave Winship (20 September 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
Champion or nearly man? Andy Roddick: in his own words
Andy Roddick is certainly one of the most quotable tennis players in the professional
game. Our Quotes page is liberally sprinkled with witty gems such as his post-match
analysis on losing the 2004 Wimbledon final to Roger Federer: "I threw the kitchen sink
at him but he went to the bathroom and got his tub."
When asked if he planned to follow the lead of his friend and fellow American James
Blake and wear sleeveless shirts on the court, he quipped: "If I wore a sleeveless shirt,
people would try to feed me after the match." He has had self-deprecation down to a fine
art. He rated his chances of winning the 2005 US Open as "as good as anybody not named
Roger." Another example surfaced a couple of years ago at Wimbledon when he was asked
about his match-up with Federer. "I'm gonna have to start winning some of the matches to
call it a rivalry!" he said. This may well be a form of self-healing, deflecting the pain and
disappointment of losing for at least the duration of a press conference,
but sometimes you wonder if it reflects real insecurities and self-doubt.
After this year's US Open final, Roddick commented: "If I lose to Roger in eight Grand
|
"I'll dog him everywhere!"
|
Slam finals, that's fine." Watching the interview in the players' lounge was his new
mentor, one James Scott Connors. "No!" he exploded. "That's bull**** and you can quote
me. Andy's a gentleman to say that, but there are three men in the mix now, make no
mistake. I want to give Andy the attitude where he doesn't care who he plays. He's
going to be winning Grand Slam titles in a year or two, and hang on for the ride!"
It comes as no surprise that self-deprecation is not one of Connors's favourite character
traits. His reaction to losing to Bjorn Borg or John McEnroe was in stark contrast
to Roddick's engaging self-effacement. "I'll chase that son of a bitch Borg to the
ends of the earth," he once declared. "I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere.
Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow."
The shadow of Jimmy Connors is now much in evidence once again. Roddick's opponents have
been looking round and feeling its sinister chill in Indianapolis and Cincinatti and most
recently at Flushing Meadows. No wonder Federer felt the need to switch on the light of
Tiger Woods in the players' box!
Roddick himself once commented: "At one point in your life you have the thing you want
or the reasons why you don't." Lack of self-belief is probably the biggest reason why
he hasn't had the thing he wants, so talking a bit tougher like his mentor could prove a
watershed in his quote-unquote career. His recent performances should certainly encourage
him to echo Connors's expressions of resoluteness. In his own words.
Dave Winship (12 September 2006)
Back to the topics
|
|
|
|
