Indoor Tennis Surface Speeds - Dilemma for ATP & WTA

The winter indoor season has just ended in Europe and the United States. However, the prestige of the indoor season seems to have diminished over the last 5 to 10 years. Indoor tennis used to have a characteristic all of its own, and in many ways it still does, but there are not as many tournaments as before and the surface used indoors is no longer distinct from the rest of tour.

That is because for many years, indoor tennis was played primarily on a carpet surface (not carpet as we know it obviously!). Tennis was played on either Supreme or Taraflex. Some of the most prestigious tournaments took place on carpet; the Masters Championships in New York was played on Supreme throughout the 1980s. The ATP World Championships in Germany was played on Taraflex from 1990 to 1996. The WTA Masters was held in New York on Supreme up to the year 2000.

However, carpet as an official surface has been phased out completely since 2008 and there are now no carpet events on the ATP or WTA tour. They have been replaced with either an indoor hardcourt or plexipave. This is a culmination of changes the authorities have made to slow the game down as they see it. But what it also means that we get the same type of tennis all year round, regardless of surface and conditions, diversity has gone out of the window in professional tennis.

The diminishing in importance of indoor tennis is reflected by the introduction in the calendar of outdoor hardcourt events during February in Doha and Dubai since 2001, which while not carrying a huge amount of points, attract the best players due to the weather and the money on offer. With these events held in February before Indian Wells and Miami, the Hardcourt season seems now to be extended from the Australian season right the way to April and the clay court season.

This is interesting because there has always been talk that playing too much hardcourt tennis is punishing on the joints for athletes, and yet hardcourt tennis is now played around 9 months of the year (not including the clay and grass court season). This is hardly conducive to limiting injuries of the top players, especially with the grinding style of play so many players adopt, and the medium paced courts mean it is harder to put the ball away for winners.

Players now play the same game regardless of conditions. It used to be the case that women played their game regardless of surface, and the men played different tactics depending on surface. However, this is no longer the case for the men and the result is that the volley is no longer a viable tactic in the game and younger players are being coached only to come to net on a sure thing. Jim Courier was interviewed on BBC radio in 2005 during Wimbledon and he attributed the demise of attacking tennis and net play to the demise of faster indoor surfaces on the tour.

I recently contacted a spokesman for the ATP based in Florida. He said that “medium paced surfaces is fairer for everybody as you have more rallies because of the style of play today”. I asked him if hardcourts were more punishing on the body, he pointed out that carpet had caused serious injuries as well and it didn’t necessarily follow that hardcourts were more punishing, he noted Alexander Chesnekov suffered a serious injury one year in Philadelphia playing on carpet “you may have cement rolled over the boards, not necessarily the case that carpet is less punishing on the body.” The ATP spokesman pointed out there were complaints that tennis was too fast, there were not enough rallies and many players favoured a change to a more acrylic surface.

That’s fair enough as the authorities have to act as they see fit. However, it gave me the impression that tennis from the past was somehow devalued. Indoor tennis was not all about big serves and no rallies during that era, some of the greatest baseline and clay specialists were great indoor players as well. Ivan Lendl, who won 28 claycourt events, also won 33 indoor events and is seen as one of the five best indoor players of the open era. Lendl won the year end Masters Championships on 5 occasions, overcoming incredible serve and volleyers often such as John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. Other great indoor players included Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Bjorg, Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles and Martina Hingis – all great baseline players.

During the 1990s, Andre Agassi won the ATP Championships in 1990 defeating Boris Becker in the semifinal and Stefan Edberg in the final. Jim Courier was losing finalist in 1991 and 1992 while, Michael Chang made the final in 1995 defeating Sampras in the semifinal before losing to Becker in the final, Yvegeny Kafelnikov lost to Sampras in the final in 1997. Alex Corretja defeated Sampras in the semi and Carlos Moya in the final in 1998. This clearly indicates that attacking players and baseliners had a chance on carpet and then plexicushion during the 1990s. One of the greatest matches of the open era took place in the 1996 ATP final between Pete Sampras and Boris Becker. A match which lasted over 4 hours and was full of high quality tennis, great net play and great baseline rallies – all court tennis in the purest form.

I decided to get an ex player’s perspective who is now in administration. Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and 17 tournaments on the ATP tour, including titles on all surfaces. Krajicek had a great serve but was also a good mover across the baseline for a tall man, and of course a great volleyer.

You are the Tournament Director of ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, was the event always held on an indoor hardcourt?

“It was played on Supreme Court and now on wood painted with Plexipave ( similar to Hardcourt)”

What in your opinion is the difference between playing on indoor carpet and indoor hardcourt? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

“I only see advantages to Hardcourt. 1. you can control the speed of the court (you can make it a slow, medium or fast court).
The rallies are longer, but if you adjust the speed of the court, to the speed of the balls, it will be an honest surface to both attacking and defensive players)”

I spoke to an ATP spokesman and he believes introducing medium surfaces indoors has slowed tennis down and made for more rallies and more of a spectacle, I believe it has reduced the volley as a viable tactic. How do you view the situation and the demise of attacking tennis?

“I believe slowing down the courts has created more rallies, but I do not believe it has made players stay back because of it. It is just the way players play.
Even on grass everybody plays from the back. Mardy Fish is one of the few exceptions in the top 10.”

During your career, your game was based on fast court play, did you enjoy playing on indoor carpet surfaces and would you like to see carpet re-introduced to some events?

"The speed is good at most events. But the combination of ball and court is important. If you have a heavy ball and a slow court, then play might be slowed down too much.
And same if you have a very light ball and a quick court, then the rallies will be too short and that is no fun either."

As Richard Krajicek said, surface speeds should be fair for all of the players. At the moment current conditions favour the counterpunchers too much; this is reflected in the fact that indoor surfaces mimic the pace of outdoor surfaces. For some years now the number 1 player in both the ATP and WTA tour have been grinding baseline players who have many qualities, but lack flair, imagination and extra skill. One way to bring flair and imagination back into tennis is to reconsider speeding up indoor courts to encourage net play and improvisation, at the moment almost a lost art at the highest level. Long, attritutional 6 hour matches in major finals is not the long term solution for tennis. The authorities should consider bringing diversity back into the game.

My Visit to Open Gaz De France - WTA Paris Indoor 2012

This weekend I attended the Paris Indoor tournament for the women. The tournament is called Open Gaz De France and is held in the South West sector of Paris, not far from Roland Garros. I got tickets for quarterfinals and finals day, although when I got my tickets in December, I had no idea that this year was to be a special occasion.

Open Gaz De France was celebrating its 20th year as a tournament and had organised a special exhibition doubles match featuring four legends of womens tennis. Martina Navratilova teamed up with Martina Hingis to play Monica Seles and Amelie Mauresmo, Mauresmo is also Tournament Director. It was a great moment in front of a packed crowd, the volleying skills and trick shots on display were incredible, I’m sure memories came flooding back for many in the audience.

The ladies had a lot of fun; Mauresmo even hit a hotdog winner at one point. At the end of the match (which Navratilova/Hingis won incidentally), there was a special birthday cake presented to commemorate 20 years, a huge cake brought out by at least 4 chefs! But no one cut into the cake!

Onto the tournament proper, I attended 3 excellent matches on quarterfinal day. I arrived on Friday, straight from London via Eurostar; I arrived too late for the first match between Yanina Wickmayer of Belgium and Mona Barthel of Germany but at least Germany’s Julia Georges was warming up to play Klara Zakopalova of the Czech Republic, I would see the whole contest. The match started how I expected with Georges attempting to make the play, firing a couple of big serves and aces.

Georges raced to a 4:1 lead and was looking good, Zakopalova had some good shots, particularly on the run, but made too many errors on the forehand side. By this stage, Zakopalova was fighting hard, saving more break points to hold at 4:2 down. However, Georges went on to close out the first set 6:3. I was expecting Georges to win in straight sets but was secretly hoping it would go to 3 sets. Zakopalova obliged by racing to a 3:1 lead in the 2nd set, Georges broke to make it 3:3 but Zakopalova broke at the end of the set to take it 7:5 and force a third.

By now Georges looked quite irritable and before we knew it, she was 4:0 down in the 3rd set. Georges called for the trainer and received treatment for what seemed to be either a back or leg injury, in the end Georges succumbed 6:1. A surprising result but Zakopalova upped her game, cut down on the errors and played quite well in the 2nd and 3rd sets.

The next match between Maria Sharapova and Germany’s Angelique Kerber was a repeat of their Australian Open encounter of three weeks prior. I had never seen Kerber play before but was looking forward to it as I think she has an interesting game and felt she would run Sharapova close. Kerber was broken in her very first service game and Sharapova held the lead twice but after an exchange of breaks Kerber held to reach 5:4 in the first set. Kerber then broke Sharapova to claim the first set 6:4.

The first set had some really good tennis; there was a good contrast in styles. Kerber is a lefty and is an interesting mix of puncher and counterpuncher, she can do both. Kerber is a good retriever who can also hit the forehand down the line and is not afraid to attack the net. Sharapova found that she had a lot of trouble with Kerber and getting a handle on Kerber’s game.

Sharapova broke early in the 2nd set but was broken back, Kerber then survived a long game with many deuces and break points to hold at 3:2. Both players held serve until 5:4 to Kerber, then lightning struck again as Sharapova was broken to 30 whilst serving to stay in the match. Sharapova hit a crucial double fault at 30:15 which cost her dear. It was unfortunate because Sharapova actually served well throughout the match and didn’t hit too many double faults, but as so often these days, it came at the wrong time. Having said that, Kerber was the better player and deserved to win 6:4 6:4.

The next match between home favourite Marion Bartoli and Italy’s Roberta Vinci was a real thriller. This was even more of a clash in styles, Vinci is a real old school player from the 1980s and 1990s – big topspin forehand, sliced backhand and very good volleys, in the mould of Novotna, Sukova, Sabatini and Conchita Martinez. Vinci’s sliced backhand, drop shots and sneaking in to volley floating balls were very exciting to watch and gave Bartoli a lot of trouble, Vinci also employed the drop shot often, exploiting Bartoli’s lack of forward movement.

When Bartoli attacked the net early, Vinci hit a beautiful rolled backhand pass; Vinci gave a wry smile because she didn’t practise a single topspin backhand in the warm up! Vinci broke at 4:4 in the first set and served out a tight set at 6:4. Vinci went up 4:1 in the 2nd set and then suffered a major wobble and lost 5 games in a row as Bartoli took the set 6:4. By this stage, the fantastic Paris crowd were really getting into it, the sort of atmosphere I had seen so often on television but was now experiencing.

Vinci broke early in the 3rd set with another topspin backhand pass as Bartoli approached, and seemed to get it together. Vinci now served for the match at 5:2 and it went all horribly wrong again, by this stage Bartoli and the Parisians were incredibly pumped. Vinci tried again at 5:4 and was broken again, now Vinci somehow managed another crisis at 6:5 down to get to a tiebreak, but the force was with Bartoli and she won it convincingly 7 points to 2. It was 10:30pm and I had witnessed an excellent day of tennis with an incredible climax to the evening.

Finals day was another festival of tennis. The Doubles final between Huber / Raymond and Greonefeld / Martic was first up at 12pm. The experience of Raymond and Huber proved too much for the new pair and they won the match 7:6 6:1. After the presentation I had a brief chat with Lisa Raymond, I told her that the first match I saw was between her and Gabriela Sabatini in Wimbledon in 1995 and now we are in 2012 and she’s still winning titles. She said it has been a long a career, I congratulated her on her longevity, which she appreciated.

The final between Angelique Kerber and Marion Bartoli took place after the exhibition, and it was another cracking match; played in front of a raucous Parisian crowd. There were exchange of breaks but Kerber held the upper hand and served for the 1st set at 5:4 but was broken, but then held her nerve to claim the first set on a tiebreak. In the 2nd set, Kerber served for the match at 5:3 but wobbled, which got Bartoli and the crowd really worked up, Kerber couldn’t respond and was broken again as Bartoli took the 2nd set 7:5.

Kerber steadied herself and broke early in the 3rd set and ran to a 4:1 lead with a double break. Bartoli broke back to 4:2 and Kerber survived an incredibly long game to get to 5:2. Bartoli saved at least 3 match points but in the end the pressure was too much and Kerber closed it out 6:2 to win her first title on the WTA tour.

I thought Kerber was the better player on the day. She had the better serve and teased Bartoli with sliced backhands and drop shots, exposing Bartoli’s relative lack of movement. Kerber also retrieved well and showed a good level of athleticism because Bartoli really pounds the ball from corner to corner. Kerber has the potential to be a consistent top 10 player for years to come.

There were some tears in the presentation by Bartoli but it was a great match and the crowd was tremendous for Bartoli, but very fair to Kerber and applauded her good shots. I had the opportunity to congratulate Kerber after the presentation on a job well done.

I had an excellent time at the Open Gaz de France; I met some interesting people there as well and would definitely consider attending the tournament in future years.

Kvitova v Azarenka - The Next Big Rivalry?

Well, the first major of the year has been decided. Victoria Azarenka emphatically beat Maria Sharapova 6:3 6:0 to claim her first Grand Slam title and the World Number 1 ranking at the same time, not bad for a day’s work. Two of the last three major tournaments have been claimed by Victoria Azarenka and Petra Kvitova. In 2011, the two also played each other in the final of Madrid, the semi-final of Wimbledon and the final of the year end WTA Championships in Istanbul.

Victoria Azarenka is now world number 1 and Petra Kvitova world number 2. It seems appropriate that we could see these two players swap places quite a bit over the next few years, much in the way Federer / Nadal, Agassi / Sampras, Graf / Seles did in recent history. They have all of the ingredients for a great rivalry – contrast in styles of play, contrasts in personality and both have a will to win and desire to improve their game.

It is almost ironic that both players beat Maria Sharapova to claim their maiden grand slam title. On each occasion Sharapova was made favourite by the pundits and bookmakers, although I thought Kvitova and Azarenka would come through in their respective finals, they were the players in form and ready to claim the big prize.

Looking at their personalities, Azarenka is a feisty character on court, someone who plays hard and throws her heart and soul into a match, which has led to many “meltdowns” as Azarenka herself puts it. I first saw Azarenka as a junior in the 2005 French Open and I remember her being almost hysterical in her match, on the court and during changeovers, virtually sobbing in her chair! I wasn’t impressed and questioned how far she could go at senior level acting like that on the court but Azarenka sure left an impression on me that day. It is great to see her come so far, banish her demons and realise her potential.

Azarenka is a player that makes fans take sides, there are not too many neutrals out there. Some will love her fighting spirit, others will dislike her grunting (or wailing) and the way she orders ball kids around. Although at the same time she is still young at 22 years and will probably mature further as time goes on.

Whilst Azarenka is the feisty player out on court giving everything until it hurts, Kvitova is often as cool as a cucumber. But like all great players, looks can be deceiving; Kvitova has a burning intensity to win her matches, that’s displayed often when she screams PODJ! after winning an important point. Kvitova also makes it look easy often, she has incredible natural power and timing, she doesn’t look like she’s making a huge effort, and yet the ball whistles off her racquet for winners.

Their differing personalities and styles of play are the perfect ingredients for a great rivalry. Kvitova is the player with the all court skills, great net play and natural power with a great serve. Azarenka is the solid player with a great groundstroke game but doesn’t have the best serve out there. Traditionally, the attacking player with more options has the better head to head in this type of rivalry. And so far that has proved to be the case, they’ve met 6 times so far and Kvitova has a 4:2 lead. Kvitova won most of the big matches in 2011, the finals in Madrid and Istanbul, plus the semi-final in Wimbledon. Kvitova also beat Azarenka in 2010 Wimbledon, coming from 5: 3 down in the first set to win 9 games in a row 7:5 6:0. Azarenka beat Kvitova in the 2009 Australian Open 1st round 6:2 6:1 and in Prague in 2008.

Kvitova has proved a bad match up for Azarenka so far, Kvitova usually has all the answers to Azarenka’s play. Azarenka likes to play solid and manoeuvre her opponent from side to side, but Kvitova nullifies that by going for lines and coming to net often, putting Azarenka in situations she doesn’t like. Kvitova plays high risk tennis which when it comes off, Azarenka hasn’t got an answer to as yet.

In a press conference during the Australian Open, Azarenka was quoted as saying "New rivalries are being set up like the one I can have with Kvitova. Maria and Serena came back to the top. Kim's still there. We are playing at a very high level." With Kvitova and Azarenka being the same age, that rivalry will be around for many years and they will play each other in many semi-finals and finals. Both Clijsters and Serena are in the autumn of their careers and Sharapova is currently going through a phase Boris Becker once experienced, where he was just 2 to 3 years older than many of his rivals like Agassi, Sampras, Courier and Ivanisevic, but it seemed a world away because he broke through to win Wimbledon at 17, just like Sharapova years later. Sharapova is now playing catch up against her younger opponents.

This is an exciting period for womens tennis after the problems that were caused by Justine Henin’s sudden retirement in 2008. Serena Williams didn’t play enough to stay number 1 consistently whilst we’ve had 3 number 1 players without major titles to their name. Now we have two players who could help take the game to the next level; Azarenka is looking to improve her movement and variety all the time, Kvitova is looking at ways of making her game solid whilst keeping that level of creating something out of nothing, her lefty game making her angles and improvisation even more spectacular, much in the way Marcelo Rios once did on the ATP tour.

Who Will Make the Next Breakthrough in Mens Tennis

2011 was an incredible year for mens tennis, primarily due to one player – Novak Djokovic. Djokovic won 3 major titles and went on a 43 match win streak between January and June claiming the Australian Open, Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome, an incredible feat. Djokovic also went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open. But what Djokovic managed to do was break the cosy monopoly of Federer and Nadal at the top of mens tennis. Now that Djokovic has shown that it can be done, the question must be, who will be next to make the big breakthrough and can it happen in 2012.

Andy Murray is the player most pundits, fans and bookmakers are looking at to be the next player to win a major title. Murray has been to three major finals so far but has yet to win a set in any of those matches. A lot of people point to Ivan Lendl and Andre Agassi as players who suffered similar results in their first few finals but both those guys had 5 set final losses, at the French Open, Lendl in 1981 to Bjorn Borg and Agassi in 1991 to Jim Courier. Therefore, you have to come to the conclusion that Murray is actually overwhelmed in major finals; and is not able to play his game or impose himself on his opponent.

That’s partly the reason as Murray’s style of play is also a contributing factor to his lack of major success. Murray is a counterpuncher by nature but to win a title match you have to do more than hope for your opponent to miss. That is precisely the reason why Murray hasn’t been able to claim a set in any of his finals. Other players who can be counted as counter punchers have learned their lesson well. Both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have added aggressive strategies to their game to complement their defensive skills, making them formidable opponents on the generally slower surfaces in the professional game today.

Andy Murray has been content to surround himself with guys who do not want to rock the boat and say what was needed to be said, that is evidenced by Murray’s attitude to his camp during matches. Miles McClaghan is a good coach but in any of his interviews pre and post Murray, McClaghan gives the impression that Murray is more or less the finished article and just needs minor adjustments. I happen to think Murray needs major adjustments, adjustments in his mentality and his game plan.

And Murray has acknowledged that by hiring Ivan Lendl as coach. A brave decision in my view, some argue that they won’t get on and it won’t work as a partnership but I hope it does and I am sure it will. Murray will have instant respect for Lendl due to his standing in the game and Lendl’s achievements. Also, Lendl knows what it is like lose many major finals before claiming one and what needs to be done to get another opportunity. Lendl can show Murray discipline and how to impose his game on his opponent. Murray’s forehand has often appeared a liability and I also think Murray relies too much on his 1st serve; his form has declined badly if he doesn’t get his 1st serve in consistently. What Lendl will impress on Murray is to have a good game and strategy behind his 2nd serve. When Murray puts in a 2nd serve, what type of serve will it be and will it be designed to win points or just get it in and hope for the best.

This is really an indication of how mentality and skill is intertwined. You have to have the skill to construct winning points behind 2nd serves against top returners, but also the courage to play like that in pressure situations. If Lendl can instil the mentality to be more courageous in pressure moments, Murray could and should make a big breakthrough in 2012 with his 1st major championship, hopefully for him at the Australian Open where he already has an excellent record as twice losing finalist.

Joe Wilfred Tsonga could not be more different to Andy Murray in terms of attitude and temperament. Tsonga is a real showman on the court, and by all accounts quite shy off the court.

Tsonga is a great talent for sure, I first saw him play in 2007 at Wimbledon in the 3rd round where he comprehensively outplayed Feliciano Lopez to win in straight sets. I knew that day he was going to become a top player and that has proved to be the case. In 2008 Tsonga lost to Djokovic in the final of the Australian Open after taking the first set. Tsonga hasn’t quite hit the heights since then which is a bit of a surprise, mainly due to injuries and inconsistency.

Tsonga has shown he can live with the big boys by taking Federer out at the quarterfinal stage in 2011 Wimbledon. Tsonga also got to the final of the ATP World Tour finals, losing to Federer in a thrilling final. Tsonga has the game to blow his opponents away, especially when he gets inspired. However, Tsonga’s biggest challenge is playing at a consistent level throughout a five set match without having too many ups and downs. I like the way Tsonga goes for his shots when the pressure is on, what Tsonga has to ensure is that he makes those shots at key moments and not miss them, that’s the fine line Tsonga is walking. If Tsonga can get that consistency under pressure, he has the skill and power to defeat the best players in the world and claim a major title. What better place than Wimbledon? Tsonga has the perfect game for grass.

If we think of other players that can make a breakthrough, or at least re-establish themselves, then Juan Martin Del Potro would be a good candidate. Del Potro had a great 2009, getting to the semifinal of the French Open, where he held a two sets to one lead against Federer before losing. Del Porto returned the favour, coming from behind to beat Federer in the US Open final, his only major title to date. Del Potro also got to the final of the ATP World Tour finals, losing to Nikolay Davydenko.

Del Potro has suffered a nasty wrist injury and was out of the game for virtually 12 months, returning in early 2011. It’s fair to say that Del Potro is struggling to get back to top 5 status, which is understandable. Del Porto is a great shotmaker with an incredible forehand and good movement for a tall guy. And that’s where I feel Del Potro has a problem, almost all top players who are 6ft 4 inches plus ( 1 metre 96cm) have had serious injuries - Todd Martin, Richard Krajicek, Robin Soderling, Mario Ancic, Goran Ivanisevic all suffered long term injuries. In tennis, there seems to be a threshold that players over a certain height are more injury prone. Also, the way Del Porto hits the forehand, i.e. the technique he uses; he is vulnerable to a recurrence of his wrist injury.

If Del Porto can stay injury free and recover his self belief and movement, he’s a threat because he’s already proven he’s a champion and has the mentality to beat the best players in the biggest matches. Mentality and self belief is as important as talent at the highest level.

There are not too many other players who will be seen as potential major winners, other than two more tall guys, namely Milos Raonic and Tomas Berdych. Raonic is an exciting young player from Canada with an incredible serve. Raonic is 6ft 5 inches tall, and already has suffered a lot of injuries. 2012 may be too early for Raonic as he is a raw talent, but a player to watch for the future, especially on grass. Berdych has the talent to win a major and reached the 2010 Wimbledon final. Berdych probably requires a bit more self belief and a bit of luck at this stage, but he’s a threat at the majors and shouldn’t be discounted in 2012.

Previewing the 2012 WTA season

The 2011 WTA season turned out to be a very interesting one with four different nationalities winning the major titles. Serena Williams did not win a major title for the first time since 2006 whilst Petra Kvitova announced herself as the most exciting young talent to emerge for many years, perhaps since Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters 10 years previously. An exciting transition at the top is certainly taking place. With the season about to commence in Australasia, it’s a good time to assess the contenders for the major prizes in 2012.

Caroline Wozniacki

Currently the world number 1 for the past 18 months, Caroline Wozniacki has come in for quite a bit of criticism. There are a number of reasons for this, Wozniacki didn’t win any major titles or make any major finals. Traditionally, tennis fans or media do not like to see a number 1 player with no major titles. Wozniacki’s style of play is a contributing factor to her lack of major success; a counterpuncher by nature, winning majors is all about being brave on the day and taking the game to your opponent before they take it away from you.

As for 2012, Wozniacki is still only 21 years old and has time on her side to win a major title, that could happen in 2012 as she will be top seed for the Australian Open and still holds the edge on many of her opponents. Wozniacki had a good 2011 winning 6 titles including Dubai and Indian Wells. To go one better and win a first major title, Wozniacki would need to work on her serve and making her forehand a bigger weapon, plus improve her play in the forecourt, volleys in particular.

This sounds a tall order, and it’s surprising a number 1 player has so many technical deficiencies. Therefore we will see whether Wozniacki has improved or allowed the pressure to get to her. If Wozniacki has worked to improve during the off season, she has every chance of winning a major.

Petra Kvitova

This is the player which has made the new season such an exciting proposition; I would imagine this is the most anticipated new season for a number of years. Kvitova had a great breakout season, winning 7 titles including Wimbledon, Madrid, WTA championships and the Federation cup with Czech Republic defeating mighty Russia in the final. Kvitova won titles on all surfaces and finished the season 115 points off Caroline Wozniacki’s number 1 position. Kvitova also won a host of awards including WTA player of the year and breakout player of the year, and fans favourite player of the year.

The question for 2012 will be whether Kvitova can build on the momentum she’s established. There will probably be some downs along the way but Kvitova has the game not only to become number 1 but to dominate the game for the foreseeable future. That’s due to the fact that Kvitova has more shots, weapons and skill than probably all of her rivals and has recently shown she has mental fortitude under pressure, often coming from behind in the score to win.

Kivitova has yet to master outdoor hardcourts, I think she can make her serve more of a weapon on that surface and add more topspin to her forehand for control to account for varying conditions. It’s entirely possible Kvitova will defend her Wimbledon trophy and is capable of winning the French Open as well, 2012 should be another great year for Petra Kvitova.

Serena Williams

Serena Williams is certainly at a crossroads, she’s been the top player since 2008 with the demise of Justine Henin during that period, winning a hatful of major titles. However, a life threatening illness meant that Serena couldn’t start her season until June at Eastbourne, which didn’t give her time to get enough matches for a proper Wimbledon challenge.

Serena did go on to claim the Canadian Open title (Rogers Cup) and reach the US Open final before succumbing to an inspired Sam Stosur. That has turned out to be Serena Williams’ last match of 2011. The simple questions are, is Serena motivated to enter enough tournaments to keep her match sharp for the major tournaments. Also, will the rise of Petra Kvitova motivate Serena to get back to the top to challenge the younger players? Serena has the best serve and return of serve in the womens game, but Kvitova is looking to challenge that position. Serena has the edge on athleticism but has a litany of injuries to contend with.

If Serena can challenge for the major titles, it could be a vintage 2012 for the WTA.

Victoria Azarenka

Azarenka had a great purple patch in the spring winning Miami for a 2nd time and Marbella on clay. Azarenka also won Luxembourg in the autumn and made the final of Madrid, the semi final at Wimbledon and the final of the year end WTA championships, each time losing to Petra Kvitova. Azarenka has a great solid groundstroke game and has the ability to come to net from time to time to finish off points. That type of game usually means hard courts will be her best surface but the French Open is also a realistic possibility in 2012.

Azarenka should be able to continue her progression to a possible major title in 2012; she’s feeling confident and has improved her movement and fitness, her chances for a great 2012 look good. The only problem I see is Azarenka facing Kvitova in a major semi final or final. In that scenario she becomes the immediate counterpuncher because of Kvitova’s aggressive attitude. A lot of people predict it to be the great rivalry for years to come; I see it developing in the same way as Agassi v Sampras, with Azarenka playing the Agassi role.

Another analogy / comparison will certainly be Janica Kostelic and Anja Paerson who had that great rivalry in skiing, Azarenka being similar to Paerson and Kvitova similar to Kostelic. Contrast in styles and personalities make for great rivalries and Azarenka has the opportunity to help create something special in 2012.

Maria Sharapova

It’s strange to think that Sharapova won the Italian Open, Cincinnati and got to the final of Wimbledon and the semi final of the French Open. And yet Sharapova is kind of the forgotten player in the top 5 despite her being such a renowned figure in the world of sport.

And to me there’s a simple reason for that, despite having such a great comeback in 2011 playing great tennis and winning big events, you never know when she’s going to hit a double fault! And you certainly don’t know when she’s going to double fault during a crucial stage of a big match. Double faults are the reason why Sharapova hasn’t reclaimed a major title.

Assuming Sharapova recovers from her foot injury sustained in Japan in October and continues to be relatively injury free with her right shoulder, Sharapova could have a great 2012 and win a major title as long as she can somehow banish the demons (i.e. nerves) within her and cut out the double faults in big matches. John McEnroe reckons Sharapova should cut the 2nd serve out of the equation and work on getting a high first serve percentage. I don’t know if that is realistic but Sharapova has to rectify the situation to get back to the top of tennis.

Sam Stosur

Sam Stosur had a great 2011, winning the US Open title in emphatic style, comprehensively outplaying Serena Williams in the final. Stosur also got to the final of the Italian Open where she lost to Maria Sharapova, and the year end championships semi final, playing a great match against Petra Kvitova before losing in 3 sets.

Stosur will always be a threat at the French Open, clay being by far her best surface. Stosur also has the experience of playing a final there, so a good opportunity to win there in 2012. Stosur will also be a sentimental favourite with the Australian fans to win the Australian Open, there will be a lot of pressure and it will be interesting to see how she handles it.

My only concern for Stosur in 2012 will be that she just doesn’t win enough smaller events. In fact, besides being a great doubles specialist before her illness and reincarnation as a top singles player, Stosur has only won 3 singles titles so far in her career. Stosur has a game to become a dominant player at the top of the womens game, with an incredible forehand and topspin (kick) serve. However, Stosur needs to win some smaller events to give her the confidence to win the big events consistently.

Other players that can make a breakthrough in 2012 include:

Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova – I think Pavlyuchenkova has the game to become a top five player in the next few years; she’s a natural ball striker with a good serve. Pavlyuchenkova needs to work on her fitness and mental game but has great potential.

Kim Clijsters – You never write off a naturally talented player who has a lot of experience, Clijsters is defending Australian champion after all. With Clijsters it’s about fitness, motivation and making time for her daughter, if she can stay fit, she’s a threat at the majors.

Jelena Jankovic – I keep thinking Jankovic is too talented not to breakthrough to win a major title, but for some reason Jankovic just cannot get it together mentally. It’s not too late for her so let’s see what will happen in 2012.

Na Li – Pete Sampras recently joined Na for an exhibition in China and said some kind words about her. Along the lines that it will take time for her to adjust to being a grand slam champion in the way it did for Novak Djokovic and for Sampras 20 years ago. I think the difference is that both those guys were very young where Na is almost veteran status and probably not as hungry for success. Na certainly has the talent; if she can find the motivation she can surprise everyone again in 2012.

Vera Zvonareva - Similar in game style and temperament to Jelena Jankovic, Zvonareva has the talent to be a major champion. However, like Jankovic, Zvonareva may lack the self belief to be a champion and beat all of the contenders in 7 matches. Zvonareva still has about 3 years to make something happen, let’s see if that can be in 2012.

Assessing Federer and Sampras

The last 20 years have been a very interesting period for men’s tennis with two of the most prolific champions of the 1990s and 2000s overlapping each other. Both players had significant rivals and set many records along the way. With Roger Federer breaking yet another record at the year end ATP World Tour finals a couple of weeks ago, it will be interesting to assess how both players have helped to define their eras.

Pete Sampras’ major achievements

Sampras won 64 titles including 14 major championships. Sampras finished year end number for 6 years from 1993 through 1998 which is a record. Sampras currently holds the record for most weeks at number 1 (286 weeks). Sampras won Wimbledon on 7 occasions which is an open era record; he’s also tied with Jimmy Connors and Roger Federer for 5 US Open titles. Sampras is the youngest ever US Open winner at 19 years and 28 days. Sampras won the Davis Cup in 1992 and 1995 and was a losing finalist in 1994 and 1997. Sampras won the Australian Open in 1994 and 1997 and was a losing finalist in 1995. Sampras won major titles every year from 1993 to 2000 and appeared in major finals from 1992 to 2002.

As far as other titles go, Sampras won the ATP championships 5 times and played in 6 finals. He won Miami, Cincinnati, Indianapolis three times each plus Indian Wells, Queens, Los Angeles, Paris Bercy twice. Sampras won 11 Masters Series including the Italian Open.

Roger Federer’s major achievements

Federer has won 70 titles including 16 major championships which is a record. Federer has participated in a record 23 major finals and played in over 30 consecutive major quarterfinals. Federer is tied with Sampras and Connors for 5 US Open wins. He’s tied with Andre Agassi with four Australian Open wins in the Open era; he’s won Wimbledon 6 times and the French Open on one occasion. Federer spent 237 straight weeks as number 1 between 2004 and 2008 which is a record, and 285 weeks in total so far. Federer won Olympics doubles gold in 2008 in Beijing with Stan Warinka. Incredibly, Federer has not missed a single Grand Slam tournament which is very unusual, no doubt accounting for his consistency of results as well.

In terms of other tournaments, Federer recently broke the record of winning the ATP World Tour finals on six occasions, going one better than Sampras and Ivan Lendl. Federer has won his local tournament Basel four times, Cincinnati, Canada, Dubai three times each. Federer has won 18 Masters Series titles so far including Hamburg on three occasions.




1990s – Sampras era

1990s was very much Sampras’ decade; he won 61 titles from 1990 to 1999. It was an interesting decade because there were more sanctioned surfaces on the ATP tour, and court speeds varied starkly depending on location and time of year. Most indoor tournaments in Europe and America were played on indoor carpet (Supreme in America, Taraflex in Europe) and the surfaces were fast and low bouncing, although kick serves were still effective, the surface suited attackers and baseliners as long as they played aggressive.

Grass was hard, fast and low bouncing and clay slow and high bouncing, fast balls were used on grass and heavy balls were used on clay. Hardcourts were also quite varied in pace, Australia used rebound ace which was often very slow and high bouncing, whilst hardcourts in America were relatively fast (except Miami which has always been slow).

The many different types of surfaces meant there were a variety of styles of play on the ATP tour, serve and volleyers, aggressive baseliners, counterpunchers, grass and claycourt specialists. This is reflected by the fact that, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Moya, Rafter and Kafelnikov all held the number 1 position, a cross section of serve and volleyers (all court players) and baseliners.

2000s – Federer era

As often, eras overlap; Federer won his first major title at Wimbledon in 2003, 10 months after Sampras’ last in September 2002 at the US Open. From 2000 to 2009 Federer won 62 titles. As the decade progressed, there was a convergence of surfaces and surface speed, and with the gradual retirement of attacking players, there was a convergence in styles of play. Court surfaces also changed, indoor carpet was phased out to be replaced by indoor hardcourts, which were slower and higher bouncing. This change along with the change of composition of grass at Wimbledon ensured that net play would become an exception rather than the norm.

Clay was also speeded up as the decade progressed; lighter balls were introduced, which ironically would have suited the many attacking players of the 1990s. String technology also advanced and more top players used synthetic strings or a combination of synthetic and natural gut. To reflect the slowing down of surfaces, players on average were stringing their racquets much looser than top players of the 1990s.

The Australian Open changed surfaces from distinctive rebound ace to a more conventional plexicushion hardcourt which is medium slow and high bouncing, again favouring baseline play. Tennis shifted from players with natural ability, athleticism and improvisational skills to a more physical, functional style which favours stamina and percentage play.

Sampras style of play

Sampras is an interesting player because he seems to fit into many categories of peoples thoughts about his game. Sampras once said that the media didn’t understand him or his game, there might be some truth in that. Depending on who you speak to, you get a different view of what Sampras’ game was about. Some see Sampras as a serve and volley specialist, some view him as having a big serve where the returner didn’t get a look in. Some view him as an all court player with great movement, one guy I spoke to recently didn’t remember him for a big serve, whilst another guy remembers him been very cool under pressure.

Fred Perry made the famous quote in 1993 which said Sampras “moves like oil, you don’t hear him, you just hear the other guy, and the other guy’s losing.” In 1999 Agassi described Sampras’ forehand as “obnoxious” during a Wimbledon press conference.

Sampras talked about his versatility in his book, which is reflected by the many conceptions different people have of his game, he can be described as all of these things. Sampras was one of the most talented players of the open era who modelled his game after Australians Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall. Sampras was very much a product of the modern era, and I would describe his game as a hybrid between Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker, the movement and big forehand of Lendl and the big serve and athleticism of Becker.

Sampras had every shot and improvised shot in the book, as evidence by the many YouTube clips that document his game. Sampras also has what is considered the best and most beautiful rhtymic serve of the open era, which had twice as many rpms as his rivals, which made his 2nd serve delivery fantastic because it was delivered at pace with an incredible amount of slice and topspin. Sampras also played differently depending on the surface, on grass, Sampras served and volleyed on every serve, first and second, on hardcourts he often played a more baseline oriented game, especially in the early 1990s on slower hardcourts like Indian Wells, Miami and Australia.

Sampras’ game also went through a few phases, under Joe Brandi in the early 1990s, Sampras was a raw talent who blew hot and cold, under Tim Gullickson, Sampras became the number 1 player who could play on any surface. Under Paul Annacone, Sampras used his athleticism and big serve and volleys more later in his career. Sampras also started chipping and charging more, something he hardly did before. Sampras’ more aggressive game late on in his career sacrificed his game on clay which requires more patience from the baseline.

Sampras' return game also changed as he got older, in his early years he often ran around his backhand to smack forehands, later in his career he used the chip and charge and backhand drive down the line return more often.

One aspect of the game which really gave Sampras a different dimension was his ability to hit winning returns and passing shots, off both wings, down the line and crosscourt plus lobs, that separated him from other attacking players of that era and was the reason he won Wimbledon 7 times. In the 1995 Wimbledon final against Becker, Sampras hit over 25 passing shot winners and in the 2000 final against Rafter, Sampras hit over 20 passing shot winners, and 12 return winners, on each occasion he lost the first set in a tiebreak.

Federer style of play

In Federer’s case, there are no arguments or discussion; he’s universally admired as having a beautiful game. One of the reasons for this is that Federer likes to bring out his best regardless of who he’s playing, whether it be a journeyman or a top player. For instance, some of Sampras’ greatest performances are against his peers like Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final, Federer makes great performances against journeymen as well, something crowds appreciate.

As Sampras gradually got older, his game became less and less baseline oriented, whilst as Federer got older, his game became more and more baseline oriented. In the 2003 Wimbledon final, Federer served and volleyed on over 3 quarters of his first serves, in 2004 that ratio fell to under 20%. The reason for this is the slowing down of surfaces, however, this allowed Federer to play an expansive baseline game which is great to watch, especially on grass where the ball should move quicker and stay lower.

The speeding up of the clay surfaces also helped Federer as it allowed him to play his game and create lots more opportunities to hit winners with the faster balls and more modern strings. Federer’s trademark has been his forehand and serve, and exceptional movement which has allowed him to stay relatively injury free for long periods of time, or at least, not have the serious injuries many of his colleagues suffer.

Federer also has a mean backhand down the line and exceptional improvisational skills. Federer also has every shot in the book and seems to invent new ones as well, which is no mean feat. What would have been even more interesting is if Federer had used his volleying ability and athleticism at net even more, that would have given him an even extra dimension especially in the really big matches he plays at this stage of his career.

Recently Federer has been playing a more aggressive game under the guidance of Paul Annacone, who of course was Sampras’ long term coach after the death of Tim Gullickson. Federer has been running around his backhand more to hit forehand returns and is using the chip and charge as a tactic at opportune moments.




Sampras’ Rivals

Sampras was one of the few players to dominate virtually all of his top rivals. Sampras only had losing records against Sergei Brugera, Michael Stich and Richard Krajieck amongst his peers, whilst having close losing records to Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, but there’s a ten year age gap (11 years in Hewitt’s case). This was due to Sampras’ ability to raise his game in the big matches, and match his opponents from the baseline, that again separated him other attacking players of that era.

v Andre Agassi 20-14
v Jim Courier 16-4
v Patrick Rafter 12-4
v Thomas Muster 9-2
v Michael Chang 12-8
v Goran Ivanesivic 12-6
v Boris Becker 12-7
v Greg Rusedski 9-1
v Cedric Pioline 9-0
v Albert Costa 5-0
v David Wheaton 8-0
v Todd Martin 18-4
v Jonas Bjorkman 9-2
v Yvegeny Kafelnikov 11-2
v Michael Stich 4-5
v Mark Phillipoussis 7-4
v Richard Krajieck 4-6
v Sergei Brugera 2-3
v Tim Henman 6-1
v Stefan Edberg 8-6
v Petra Korda 12-5

Federer’s Rivals

Federer also enjoys healthy leads on many of his rivals. However, he has a comprehensive losing record to Rafael Nadal, mainly because Nadal has been able to get to Federer’s backhand in a way no other player can. Federer also has a losing record to Murray, but Murray has never beaten Federer in a grand slam tournament. Other than that, Federer has excellent records against many top players.

V Rafael Nadal 9-17
V Novak Djokovic 14-10
V Andy Roddick 21-2
V Joe Wilfred Tsonga 8-3
V David Ferrer 12-0
V Marat Safin 10-2
V Juan Martin Del Potro 7-2
V Nicolay Davydenko 15-2
V Lleyton Hewitt 18-8
V Juan Carlos Ferrero 9-3
V David Nalbandian 11-8
V Andy Murray 6-8
V James Blake 10-1
V Tomas Berdych 10-4
V Gael Monfils 6-1
V Carlos Moya 7-0
v Gaston Gaudio 5-0
v Guillermo Canas 3-3

Roger Federer’s career is still on and it may be a while before he retires, but make no mistake, all achievements today are a bonus and his career has been defined by his exploits in the 2000s. It’s remarkable how he and Sampras have had such similar careers in some ways and different in other ways. Both men can identify as having a unique talent and the ability to use a small headed heavy Wilson midsize racquet that most other players will not touch. These guys are one offs.

Can ATP Tour Learn from WTA scheduling?

We’ve had a tremendous finish to the 2011 WTA season, probably the best finish for a number of years. Petra Kvitova won the BNP Paribas WTA Championships for the first time, and in emphatic style winning all of her matches. The championships took place in Istanbul for the first of a 3 year contract and the atmosphere was great with record breaking attendences, which really inspired the players to put on a good show for the crowds.

A week later we had the Federation cup shootout between Russia and the Czech Republic in Moscow. The Czechs edged out the Russians 3:2 to win the cup for the first time as an independent nation. One of the matches of the year took place in the 3rd rubber between Svetlana Kuznetsova and Petra Kvitova. The match kept everyone on the edge of their seats with 3 sets of high quality intense tennis with both players hitting an incredible number of winners under pressure. It was a great advert for womens Tennis.

With Ana Ivanovic winning the tour of champions in Bali for a second time, there is now a nice two month break until end December when the merry go round of the tour recommences in Australasia. The players have an opportunity to have 3 to 4 weeks off to relax and recharge their batteries before commencing pre season preparations. However, it’s not only an opportunity for the players to decompress; the fans can also recharge and really get excited about the upcoming 2012 season.

While the WTA tour has shut down for another year, the ATP continues to roll. During the week of the WTA championships, there were indoor tournaments in Stockholm and Vienna. Then last week there were tournaments in Valencia and Basel. The Paris Masters has just taken place and then from November 20th through 27th the ATP World Tour finals at the 02 arena in London. And if that wasn’t enough, the Davis cup final between Spain and Argentina takes place a week later in early December.

It’s been difficult to keep up with who’s winning what and where. Not only that, but a bit of mental fatigue has crept in, I kind of want the season to be over already.

I’ve been following the ATP tour closely since 1993 and for as long as I can remember the complaints have been the same, the season is too long. It seems less like a season and more like a circus, a never ending commitment to play tournaments all around the world for pretty much 12 months a year. Like cricket, mens tennis has suffered from a scenario of nonstop touring. That is set to change from 2012.

There have been many vague changes to the tour designed to reduce the workload of the players. One change included making all ATP finals best of 3 sets including the ATP World Tour final (a mistake in my view which reduces the prestige of the tournament). There have also been changes to the rankings system which gives out points almost like confetti for winning major championships. Players are encouraged via complicity to take breaks during the course of the season, somewhere between the end of the grass court season and the beginning of the hard court season. Also between the end of the US Open and the Asian swing in late summer.

However, what will really make the difference for players and fans is to have a proper off season, like the WTA tour has managed. This year there is a huge difference where the WTA has a break of 8 weeks and the ATP a break of just over 4 weeks. We’ve heard the complaints from the likes of Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray but we are still in the same scenario as previous years.

Finally, after years of lack of will and vested interests by tournament directors, it seems as though the ATP has listened and shortened the calendar for 2012, which will see the World Tour finals finishing on November 11th, with the Davis cup final presumably taking place a week later. This is a welcome change of thinking and overdue, the tennis tour is quite a grind of nonstop travelling and as a consequence top players retire fairly young compared to many other professional sports. Players of the calibre of Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Patrick Rafter among others have all retired before reaching their 32nd birthday. Tennis fans have been deprived of these great players playing into their mid 30s.

At the same time, the ATP needs to work harder to find a way of shortening the season still further for the top players. One way to do that would be to match the WTA and end the season at the end of October and not towards mid November. Shortening the season further will not only reduce the mental and physical fatigue of players, but also give players a longer off season to recharge their batteries and make proper preparations for the next season.

For once, the sometimes maligned WTA tour has taken the lead on improving the lot of their players. The ATP have now followed the lead for the 2012 season, let’s hope this is the start of a new trend of having at least an off season where players and fans can take stock and look forward to the next season with fresh minds and spirits.