Will British Tennis get the memo?

Lizzy Yarnold

The winter Olympics in Sochi has been a great event with so many sports to enjoy.  From ski jumping, downhill skiing, speed skating to ice hockey, figure skating and snow boarding, there is one recurring theme throughout the games.

Which is the athleticism of the participants on display in virtually every sport I’ve watched so far.  The speed, power, endurance, twists, turns and bravery is there for all to see and is a sight to behold; especially as so many of the sports come with a “don’t try this at home tag”.  And Lizzy Yarnold’s dominance to take gold in the Skeleton is a culmination of all of those things mentioned.

Lizzy Yarnold’s achievement is incredible for a number of reasons.  After taking gold, she was interviewed on BBC radio 5 live and immediately made herself available to schools in her local area of Kent! where she offered to go in and give inspirational chats to schoolkids and girls in particular to chase their dreams and participate in sport.  Lizzy sited former heptathlete Denise Lewis as a strong woman and inspiration to her growing up.  It transpired that Lizzy had only been doing the Skeleton for five years, having switched from heptathlon as a teenager, and had issues initially with funding along her journey to dominance and achievement.  The reasons are precisely that, switching from heptathlon to trying the Skeleton and taking so well to it after at first not having ever heard of the sport.

I understand what allowed Lizzy to switch sports is a programme where athletes are encouraged by UK Sport to try out different sports presumably to use their athleticism in other areas where they may be able to excel better.  This seems an excellent idea; potentially top class athletes are not lost at a young age and may find their calling in other areas.

As far as I can tell, British tennis is not part of this set up.  Run by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) we know that British tennis has failed to produce a champion of any significance for decades other than Andy Murray.  We also know that Andy Murray’s parents took the risk of mortgaging their house to send Andy to Valencia in Spain to get elite training, which clearly worked.  In fact, it’s not just a matter of not producing champions, but the thing that has vexed me for so long is  the woeful lack of athleticism of many past and present British players.

There are many reasons for this but one of the key reasons is the obsession with British coaches and Tennis Leadership of hand eye co-ordination.  I refer you to quotes by former Queens club Tournament Director Ian Wight made during a speech recorded by the Observer newspaper in December 2006 “'We excel at middle-class sports in the UK and tennis is a middle-class sport. Let's exploit it”.  Ian Wight went on to say that tennis is a complex game to learn “'An intelligent player will, over time, win out, so let's think about finding kids who are bright enough to excel at the technical and tactical aspects of the game. Let's put brains before brawn. The former is a god-given gift, the latter can be developed.”

If this is the approach that has been taken for decades, well this approach has failed miserably.  Look at some of the best tennis players male and female in the open era.  In the late 1970s and early 1980s Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe held the number 1 position.  Ivan Lendl took over from John McEnroe and there were a host of players who burst on to the scene including Pat Cash, Yannick Noah, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg.  In the 1990s, new breed of players came through in Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Michael Chang, Pat Rafter, Richard Krajicek.  Then came Hewitt, Safin, Federer, and then Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga.  In the womens game we had Martina Navratilova at the very top followed by Steffi Graf and since the 2000s superior athleticism became ultra important with Serena and Venus Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo.

Many of these players could easily have turned their abilities to other sports at a young age.  Steffi Graf had the ability to be a sprinter or long jumper, Sampras had the spring in his legs to play basketball or volley ball.  Yannick Noah also had that spring and his son is a successful basketball player in the NBA.  

The legendary ex Wimbledon winner and founder of professional tennis Jack Kramer made some interesting comments to Tennis magazine back in 2004 when he said youngsters should be allowed to choose which sport they would like to follow at the age of 14, until that age they should be allowed to play a range of sports until they find their niche and stick to that.  We have seen examples of that here in England where the likes of Philip Neville and Joe Hart were accomplished cricketers before deciding to concentrate exclusively on football around the age of 16.    

In tennis, Czech player Petra Kvitova started to concentrate wholly on tennis at the age of 16, and became Wimbledon champion at the age of 21. Being encouraged to follow different sports gives young players a different perspective on how to approach sport.  For instance, Anabel Croft mentioned once that footballers make really good tennis players because they have naturally good footwork and movement. In fact, since retiring from football in 2011, ex Cameroon and Chelsea player Geremi Njitap has played in his national tennis championships. 

So, this goes back to why the Lawn Tennis Association are not getting the right types of young athletes to play the game of tennis, they often appear to be looking in the wrong areas and at the wrong criteria.  If the LTA have changed that policy in the last few years then so far I do not see any evidence of our best players coming through who can be considered natural athletes.

 

Arvind Parmar had very nice strokes indeed, but his movement was just not good enough to make it to a decent level.  Ditto with Jamie Delgado who was junior world number 1 in the 1990s but never got beyond the challengers in the pro level.  Then there was Alex Bogdanovic who never won a match in Wimbledon after almost 10 wildcards.  In the womens game Melanie South had a very strong serve and good groundstrokes but struggled for movement.  The same can be applied to Elena Baltacha.  Anne Keothavong neither possessed world class athleticism.

And our current top two players of Laura Robson and Heather Watson also do not possess elite athleticism.  In Laura Robson’s case, her lack of athleticism could prevent her getting to the very top as she has all the other attributes of hand eye coordination and clean strokes, but her lack of athleticism really prevents her from moving forward and adding important net play to her game.

A lot of players above were given the opportunity to play the game because as Ian Wight quite rightly points out, they had parents who could afford to pay for expensive lessons and travel to tournaments, the opportunity to play is there.   

However, the reason Britain is much more successful in athletics and other individual sports is because the clubs are much more intertwined into the community, allowing kids with natural ability to make their way, and try out different sports.  We know that in France, tennis is also linked to local authorities who run many of the facilities, and the results are clear by how many players they have in the top 100 in both the ATP and WTA tours.

British tennis will only improve when it is acknowledged that athleticism, speed and physicality are as important as the fabled hand eye co-ordination and intelligence borne from the opportunity to attend very good schools.  I think anyone who has natural athletic ability can pick up good hand eye co-ordination because they simply can get to the ball quickly and efficiently to play the strokes.  The technicalities can be taught such as serving, volleys etc.  Tennis is no more technical a sport than high hurdles, triple jump or basketball.  From that viewpoint I disagree with what Ian Wight stated back in 2006.

We need to find kids with natural athletic ability first and foremost, and then the technical and tactical aspects can be put in place.  And we have to encourage kids to discover tennis from different sports and not be obsessed with concentrating on that alone from the age of 4, 5 or 6.    

 

My visit to WTA Paris Indoors 2014 (Open GDF Suez)

So, I’ve enjoyed the Open GDF Suez so much in the last two years I decided to attend for a third year in a row!  In 2012 and 2013 I witnessed a German winner but that wasn’t to be this year.

But like 2012, there was a special occasion.  That year, a special exhibition took place to commemorate 20 years of the tournament.  This time a commemoration to honour Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli, in a special presentation made by WTA Chief Executive Officer Stacey Allastar.

 

I stuck to the format of attending quarterfinals day on Friday and the final on Sunday.  Friday had some interesting matchups.  The first match took place between 2012 champ Angelique Kerber and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova of Russia.  I knew it was going to be a good match and could go to three sets.  Anastasia was someone I identified in my preview of the 2012 season to be a talented player who could challenge at the top of the game.  Since then Anastasia has not progressed as quickly as I would have thought but what we now know is that it is perfectly normal for players to mature and play their best in their mid 20s as opposed to their teens as so often happened in previous decades.

The match started with Kerber taking a 4:1 lead early on but Pavlyuchenkova got the break back to level.  However, at 5:5 Kerber broke again and served out the set for 7:5.  It was a good set but Pavlyuchenkova made too many errors and was unable to punish Kerber’s 2nd serve delivery consistently.

Pavlyuchenkova did manage a break early in the 2nd set and held serve impressively throughout to take it 6:3; she served quite a few aces and was the more enterprising player.  The tactics were also interesting, trying to get Kerber stretched out wide as often as possible to hit winners into the open space.

The 3rd set was keenly contested with both players holding serve until Pavlyuchenkova got the break to serve out the match at 6:5.  Kerber managed to break right back to take the match to a deciding tiebreak.  As the tiebreak was about to commence my mind was immediately drawn to what commentator and ex player Frew McMillan said in 2001.  During the famous US Open quarterfinal between Sampras and Agassi, Frew said that in a tiebreak the player with the bigger serve usually wins.  With that in mind I immediately thought that Pavlyuchenkova would take it as she had been serving better all match and Kerber has been struggling on 2nd serve in recent times.  That proved to be the case as Pavlyuchenkova ran away with the tiebreak and Kerber made some uncharacteristic errors at critical moments, betraying a lack of confidence she has been suffering of late when matches have got close in the 3rd set.  Pavlyuchenkova deserved to take the match, a good come from behind confidence booster.

Marion Bartoli

The next match on was Maria Sharapova and Kirsten Flipkens of Belgium.   The first time I saw Sharapova play was in Wimbledon 2004 when she beat Daniela Hantuchova in the 3rd round that day.  I knew she would win Wimbledon but didn’t expect it to be that year.  Meanwhile it was the first time I would watch Flipkens live.  

Well, this was one of the easiest victories Sharapova would have had in a long time.  Flipkens was just too over reliant on the slice backhand, a throwback to previous generations, like Vinci, but unlike Vinci has a two handed backhand but has no confidence to use it, which is very unusual.  The final score was 6: 2 6:2 and as the saying goes, nothing new to see here…

The 3rd match was the first of the evening session between Alize Cornet and Andrea Petkovic.  It was good to see Petkovic after so many injuries in the last couple of years, as she tries to re-establish herself as a top class player. 

Petkovic raced to a 4:0 lead in the first set and was hitting the ball as hard as I’ve ever seen a player hit the ball off the ground, looked like it would be a quick match.  But then Petkovic got visibly nervous when serving for the set at 5:2 and Cornet started to make a comeback.  The first set ended up in a tiebreak and despite two set points, Petkovic contrived to lose the tiebreak.  

In the 2nd set, Cornet got the break late on and served for the match, where she held two match points at 40:15 playing well, then the wheels came off big time and after a series of deuces, got broken to level the set at 5:5.  Then serving to stay in the set, Cornet was broken again and that was it, 7:5 to Petkovic.  Having watched tennis for over 20 years, Cornet is one of the most up and down players I think I’ve seen play live.  

At that point, I decided to take my leave as I was “tennised out” and was mentally not prepared for another wacky races set of tennis where each player hands the initiative to the other on an almost point by point basis.  Another thing worth mentioning, maybe I was in need of some food and drink but throughout the match, unless my eyes were deceiving me, there were some very dubious decisions going on, where the ball looked in but called out and vice versa.  It would be an idea for Tournament Director Amelie Mauresmo to consider installing Hawkeye.  It’s a prestigious tournament and what Hawkeye does is make the Umpire and Officials raise their game as their decisions can be challenged by the players. 

I would hear later on that Cornet took the match 6:3 in the deciding set.

On finals day, the officials moved the singles final to be played first followed by the doubles final.  I wonder if that was because last year’s semifinalist Kristina Mladenovic made it through to the doubles final.  The final saw Sara Errani again for the second year in a row, having lost to Mona Barthel in straight sets in 2013.  In Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova she would play another final against a player who likes to make the play and make things happen. Both finalists came through tough three set semifinals.

Pavlyuchenkova got an early break and was playing very well.  But Errani came back from 40:15 at 3:1 down with the most amazing retrieving you will see, side to side, saving smash after smash and forced Pavlyuchenkova into errors which not surprisingly made her very cross.  After a series of games in a row Errani served out the first set 6:4 with some good play of her own, especially using the drop shot and then pass at net combination.  

Errani got an early break in the 2nd set but was visibly tiring and Pavlyuchenkova was able to take advantage and really upped her serving, winning six games in a row to take it 6:2.  In the 3rd set Errani got an early break again and despite the obvious tiredness, it did look like she was about to win her first premier WTA title.  However, Pavlyuchenkova seemed to believe she could turn the match around, and that’s exactly what she did with brilliant shotmaking.  Perhaps she knew all the running Errani was doing wasn’t helping and she needed to keep hitting the ball into the corners. 

Pavlyuchenkova broke back for 3:3 and held her serve for 4:3.  At which point she broke Errani again and impressively served the match out to win her first premier WTA title.

What impressed me most was Pavlyuchenkova’s adjustment to her tactics.  As I mentioned before, Pavlyuchenkova was hitting a lot of smashes throughout, coming to net to force the action but Errani kept getting them back with high lobs which incredibly never quite touched the roof or lighting fixtures (which would have meant her losing the point).  But in the 3rd set, Pavlyuchenkova started to let the ball drop a little and hit drive volleys instead into the open space, giving herself a bit more time to wrong foot Errani on a number of occasions.  It was nice to see a player thinking about how to change things around.  

The remainder of the crowd who stayed saw an entertaining doubles match.  Pesche and Greonefeld came from a set down to beat Mladenovic and Timea Babos in a champions tiebreak, Stacey Allastar stayed to help dish out the trophies.  And that was that for another year!

Recapping the 2014 Australian Open

The 2014 Australian Open has proved to be the most interesting in many years, resulting with two first time winners.

Yesterday’s ladies final between Li Na and Dominika Cibulkova was an intriguing match, and had Cibulkova sneaked the first set tiebreak, it could have well have been a surprise victory.  But in the end Li’s greater experience and incredible shot making ability saw her take the 2nd set 6:0.  The victory speech was probably the best part of the night, classic Li Na and as BBC commentator Jonathon Overend said, a post tennis career of stand-up comedy would not look out of place!

Today’s mens final between Warwinka and Nadal proved just as intriguing.  The big question was always going to be how Warwinka would deal with the nerves of being in his first major final and play a guy who he never even took a set off in twelve tries, a very tall order indeed.

But as the first set developed it was clear Warwinka was ready to have a go at Nadal. What Warwinka had going for him was that he is a vastly experienced player and was able to use that to his advantage even though being in a major final was a new experience.

The interesting thing here is that Warwinka employed the sort of tactics against Nadal which we haven’t seen for some years.  Back in the mid to late 2000s Nadal always had great trouble on hardcourts at slams losing to Blake, Youzhny and Del Potro at the US Open, Fernando Gonzalez and Tsonga at the Australian Open.  The memo was that when playing Nadal you went for big shots, you used the backhand down the line, you went for big serves all the time, you really attacked his 2nd serve with big returns; in essence you played the big game with conviction and no letting up of intensity.

Until Nadal injured his back in the 2nd set, this is exactly what Warwinka was doing  in terms of tactics and conviction.  Warwinka was hitting some really big 1st serves, and really bold 2nd serves on the line and in the corners, really keeping Nadal off rhythm, something that was great to see as this is a form of tennis that has been lost in the last five years or so.  

After taking the first two sets, it almost turned into a video nasty for Warwinka, the extensive treatment and pain killers kicked in which allowed Nadal to move better in the 3rd set, slowing his serve down to get it in. Warwinka’s level dropped alarmingly as he grappled with how to deal with the situation, taking too much pace off his shots meant him conceding the 3rd set.  But I always felt that with Warwinka serving first in the 4th set, he had to hold serve and he would break Nadal’s serve.  He didn’t handle it too well the first time he got the break but got the job done when serving for the title.

It was a fitting way to end the Australian, perhaps the most intriguing grand slam tournament for many years with none of the big players winning the mens event, and with Li’s triumph in the womens event, a winner from Asia Pacific! We also have to go back to 2008 when Djokovic and Sharapova won the Australian Open to find two first time winners at the event.   

This sets up the rest of the 2014 tennis season beautifully.

Previewing the 2014 Australian Open final (ladies)

In its long history, the Australian Open has a tradition of throwing up surprise finalists.  And that has proved to be the case in 2014 with Stan Warwinka of Switzerland making the mens final and Dominika Cibulkova making the ladies final.

Cibulkova will play Li Na of China in a final that guarantees a first time winner of the event from either China or Slovakia.  For Slovakia, it would be a first as Slovakia have lived in the shadows of the Czechs for such a long time.  Cibulkova is indeed the first major finalist since Miroslav Mecir got to a US Open final back in the late 1980s when he lost to Ivan Lendl. Daniela Hantuchova got to the semifinal of the Australian Open in 2008 but lost out to Ana Ivanovic (that match being famous for Ivanovic’s “squeaky” sneakers).

Meanwhile Li has already played in two Australian finals and lost both to Kim Clijsters and Victoria Azarenka in 2011 and 2013, each time in three sets.  Li will see this as a great opportunity and will go into the match as the favourite.  Cibulkova is an unknown quantity and it is impossible to gauge how she will handle the occasion and the nerves in her first major final.  If Cibulkova lets the occasion get to her it will be very quick match in Li’s favour.  

What Cibulkova does possess is an incredible fighting spirit which she demonstrated against Maria Sharapova in the 4th round.  Cibulkova also knows that she is not facing Serena Williams in the final and that is already a leveller in the eyes of not just the players but the watching public.

This could give Cibulkova the inspiration to really have a go at Li and give a good account of herself.  Li will also be aware that the pressure will be on her to deliver the goods and for coach Carlos Rodriguez to validate his position as one of the very best coaches in the womens game today.

I predict Li Na to take the final in straight sets, but would not be surprised if there were to be an upset on Saturday night.