Jo Wilfried Tsonga - Currently Underachieving

Jo Wilfried Tsonga is one of the more talented players on the ATP tour.  He plays a game people love to watch, full of energy, enthusiasm and displays a big smile when he pulls off a great shot or dive.  However, the feeling is that Tsonga is headed in the same direction as so many other French players of the past 30 years – underachievement.

I first saw Tsonga play in the 3rd rd of Wimbledon in 2007 when he comprehensively beat Feliciano Lopez of Spain in three sets.  At the end of the match, the Spanish fans nodded approvingly, they knew their man had been well beaten.  I thought I saw a player who could be a future slam champion.  Six months later in January 2008, Tsonga would have an incredible run to the final of the Australian Open, taking the first set before going down in 4 sets to Novak Djokovic. 

2008 proved to be a good year for Tsonga; he finished top 8 in the world and played in the World Tour Finals in Shanghai.  Tsonga also won his first masters title in Paris Bercy defeating David Nalbandian in the final.  Tsonga also had a good 2011, getting to the final of Queens and pushing Roger Federer to three sets in the World Tour final in London.  Tsonga also came from two sets down to beat Federer in Wimbledon quarterfinal, and won events in Metz and Vienna.  However, despite injuries hampering his progress, Tsonga’s results have proved inconsistent.

There have been many talented French players who have not realised their potential.  In the 1980s, Henri LeConte was as talented as any other player on the tour during that era.  However, LeConte only made the final of the French Open in 1988, which he lost to Mats Wilander in straight sets. In the 1990s, Cedric Pioline made it to two major finals, but each time lost to Pete Sampras at the US Open and at Wimbledon. 

In more recent times players such as Sebastien Grosjean, Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet have all displayed superior shotmaking and athleticism, especially in Monfils’ case, but none of these players have made it to a Grand Slam final.  Grosjean played in semifinals in France, Australia and Wimbledon, Monfils at the French and Gasquet at Wimbledon.

Tsonga has beaten all of the top players in the world at Masters or Grand Slam level.  What Tsonga has not shown so far is a consistency of performance that is required to become a champion.  That is linked to poor shot selection, as Tsonga doesn’t always choose the right shot or when to use the shots he has.  Tsonga has the courage to go for his shots, which is very admirable, but to become a champion Tsonga must figure out when to use the shots he has to hurt the opponent.  

In 2011, Tsonga parted company with long term coach Éric Winogradsky. It was reported that there was a difference of opinion in how the coach wanted Tsonga to play and how Tsonga wanted to approach the game.  Tsonga plays a game that doesn’t always have a definite game plan.  A lot of people would think that Roger Federer plays how he wants on the court but Federer has a definite gameplan, which is to get the forehand into play as often as possible and stretch his opponent with the backhand down the line whenever possible.  

Tsonga is not afraid to get to net but on slower courts, Tsonga needs to be patient and choose the right short balls to attack.  Tsonga also has to work on improving his backhand, which is a slight liability.  Tsonga likes to go for flashy one hand backhands which look spectacular but give the impression of a showman.

Tsonga could look to fellow French player Amelie Mauresmo for inspiration as Mauresmo was also seen as a talented underachiever. In 2005, Mauresmo won the WTA championships which gave her the confidence to win two major titles in 2006 including Wimbledon.  Tsonga needs the spark of a big win against a big player in a final, the 2011 ATP world tour final in London could have been the moment. 

However, at the age of 27, Tsonga has a three year window to claim a major title.  It is very rare for a player over the age of 28 to win a maiden major title but Tsonga has the talent to do it.  Petra Korda and Goran Ivanisevic are the only two players in recent times to pull off that feat.

Can There Really Be One Greatest?

The past few years has seen a real intensification of the debate as to who is the greatest tennis player of all time. The most recent activity has seen a countdown of the 100 greatest players of all time, men and women from 100 to 1, taking into account pre and post Open era players.


It is an interesting concept but I can’t help but think it is a rather fruitless exercise perpetuated in the media in it’s quest to claim the one player the greatest of all time or “GOAT” as it has become known on internet speak the last 5 years. In the latest countdown, Roger Federer was acclaimed as the greatest player of all time. Steffi Graf came in at number 2; the top 5 was rounded off with Rod Laver, Martina Navratilova and Pete Sampras. Rather interestingly, Rafael Nadal came in at number 6. Mixing male and female players is always a dangerous thing to do, simply because if this countdown is based on achievements, then Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova should be number 1.


For instance, Steffi Graf won each major tournament at least 4 times, won the Golden slam, held all four major titles at the same time twice, spent 377 consecutive weeks at number 1, won major doubles titles and won well over 100 titles. Graf also held winning records over virtually all of her rivals including Monica Seles. The fact that Graf opponents’ were women shouldn’t detract from her achievements which easily far outweigh Roger Federer’s.


This is particularly what makes the greatest discussion fraught with dangers as it is just too subjective for there to be any definitive guide as to who really is the greatest tennis player of all time. The “greatest” is also a very fluid word in sport and tennis in particular. In fact, there seems to be a “greatest” tennis player every five years; especially in the age of the internet.


Since I’ve been following the sport, Bjorn Borg was considered the greatest, then John McEnroe for a few years, then Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and now Roger Federer. Many people and pundits already consider Rafael Nadal to be the greatest or set to take over as the greatest, especially as Federer has not beaten Nadal at a major tournament since 2007 and has only beaten Nadal at Wimbledon.


In five years time, Novak Djokovic will be highly likely considered to be the greatest if he keeps winning major titles. As far as the women go, some have argued for Serena Williams being the greatest because they reckon the competition in the early to mid 2000s was at the peak with opponents like Venus Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis, Clijsters and Henin.


If statistical criteria is the key, then Serena’s case is non existent as her numbers are nowhere near the likes of Graf, Navratilova and Chris Evert or Margaret Court. Also, should major titles be the only guide as to who is seen as the greatest?


Whatever way you look at it, either as a bit of fun or deadly serious, the debate as to who is the greatest continually attracts column inches by eager journalists, internet forums and social media all over the world. One thing can be guaranteed, the list of who is the greatest and in what order they should come will always be subjective and in any case is sure to change in 5 years time when there will be a new debate as to who is the “latest” greatest player of all time.


If the greatest player of all time cannot stand up to the test over a 5 year period, then it really is a pointless exercise to claim one player as the greatest of all time above all other greats.

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.