The Tennis Career Grand Slam, Future Normal?

Novak Djokovic created a lot of history last weekend on the tennis court.  By winning the French Open, Novak became the first man to hold all four grand slam titles simultaneously; this has not been done since Rod Laver won the calendar grand slam in 1969.  If that wasn’t enough, Novak also became the first man since Jim Courier in 1992 to win the Australian Open and French Open in the same season!  This now means that Novak has an opportunity to complete the calendar grand slam, which has not been on the cards since Jim Courier in 1992.

This is a most incredible achievement and puts Novak in a unique position in the history of modern tennis to hold all four titles.  However, at the same time, Novak is the third man since 2009 complete the career grand slam of winning all four major titles.  Prior to 2009, Andre Agassi completed his feat in 1999 when he won the French Open; and then we have to go back to Rod Laver in 1969.  In Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, we are talking about three very talented individuals; but it is worth looking at the factors which have created the conditions for three players to complete the career grand slam over such a short period of time. 

Tennis is one of those sports which seem to be in a constant state of change.  Since I have been watching tennis from the early 1990s onwards, the ATP Tour has been reorganised at least twice if not three times, graphite racquets completely replaced wood racquets by the mid 1980s; which has since been replaced by a variety of space age technologies such as titanium, kevlar and graphene.  Strings also made a big impact especially in the last 15 years with new sturdy synthetic strings adding ever more topspin to all shots.  The most famous (or infamous) string being the Big Banger which Gustavo Kuerten used to win his three French Open titles in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  We should also add the introduction of Hawkeye in 2006 which allowed players to challenge line calls. 

These are all significant when it comes to the progress of tennis in recent history.  However, for me, the biggest changes have been those initiated by the tennis authorities themselves, namely the ATP and the ITF plus the All England Club at Wimbledon.  It is worth looking at how these changes have impacted each of the major championships and how they have impacted the sport.

The beginning of significant changes started to be implemented towards the end of the 1990s.  Throughout the 1990s the consensus had been that the serve was too dominant on grass at Wimbledon, robbing the watching public of long rallies.  In 1995 a “softer” tennis ball was introduced for the championships, however this had minimal impact.  Around 2000, the decision was taken to change the composition of the grass to rye with a slightly higher cut and to make the Slazenger balls soften a bit further slowing play down.   By pure coincidence; this change coincided with a boycott by Spanish players headed by Alex Corretja in 2001 in protest at the seeding system used by Wimbledon.  Wimbledon compromised by increasing the seeds from 16 to 32, giving players more opportunity go further in the tournament, whereas previously, top players had the chance of meeting each other a lot earlier as those not deemed as grass court specialists were given a lower seeding or not seeded at all and thus no real incentive to give their best at Wimbledon.  Top five players like Thomas Muster regularly skipped Wimbledon, as had then world number 1 Gustavo Kuerten, who skipped Wimbledon to take a holiday after winning the French Open.

While this was happening at Wimbledon, the ATP were also making significant changes to the tour.  In 1996, the end of year championships in Hanover (World Tour finals) had the surface changed from indoor carpet to indoor hardcourt. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the tournament had always been played on indoor carpet, the tournament was held in Madison Square Garden New York up to 1989 on a surface called supreme, then from 1990 to 1995 in Frankfurt and Hanover in 1996 on taraflex.  The players voted on switching surface for 1997 onwards and there was an immediate impact from this decision.  In 1997 Kafelnikov played the final against Sampras and in 1998 the two finalists of the 1998 French Open battled it out over five sets for the title, with Alex Corretja gaining revenge over Carlos Moya who beat him at the French Open.  Up until 1998, clay court players got nowhere near winning the end of year championships.  The bounce of the ball was considerably higher especially off the 2nd serve and groundstrokes, aiding clay court players who prefer the higher bounce. 

In 2000 another clay court specialist Gustavo Kuerten won the championships in Lisbon Portugal, by this stage rebranded as the Masters Cup, defeating Pete Sampras in the semifinal and Andre Agassi in the final, the only player ever to defeat Sampras and Agassi back to back in a tournament.  Even by today’s standard, the surface in Lisbon was the slowest I have seen indoors and the balls used were heavy duty ones, playing right into Kuerten’s hands.  The change of surface and balls slowed indoor tennis down considerably, allowing for the baseliners to take over the winning of the tournament from the attacking players. 

This development is somewhat unresolved by the fact that the top attacking players were slowing down or retiring, Pat Rafter stopped playing after the Masters cup in Sydney in November 2001 and clearly no younger players were coached to come through and play attacking tennis, everyone was staying back.

Now let us take a look at the other three major championships.  In 2002, more changes followed with reports that the court surface of the US Open was slowed down with more sand added to the deco turf 2 surface.  Again, the changes were not immediately apparent as aggressive players continued to win the US Open throughout the 2000s although Roger Federer started going to net less and less to finish points from 2004 to 2008 when he won his titles. By 2009 it was reported the US Open surface was slowed down even further than previous years with longer rallies now the order of the day.

The Australian Open also made significant changes in the 2000s.  Like the French Open in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Australian Open had a habit of throwing up surprise finalists and champions.  Many players also skipped the Australian Open including Agassi who made his debut in 1995 despite turning pro in 1986.  In fact, Agassi would win the title in his first appearance defeating Sampras in the final.  Meanwhile, Sampras skipped the tournament in 1991 and 1992 and in 1999 missed the tournament to have a break from tennis after breaking the record for most years at number 1 at the end of 1988.  Petr Korda won the title in 1998 defeating Marcelo Rios in the final.  In 1999, Yevgeny Kafelnikov defeated Thomas Enqvist and in 2002 Thomas Johansson caused the biggest surprise yet by defeating Marat Safin in the final. 

Other surprise finalists included Arnaud Clement in 2001, Rainer Schuettler in 2003, Marcos Baghdatis in 2006 and Fernando Gonzalez in 2007.  Surprise finalists were one factor but there were also continual complaints from the players of the surface being too sticky, with many players turning their ankle when their shoes got stuck in the surface, particularly under the very hot sun in Melbourne.  In 2008 the Australian Open pulled up the rebound ace and replaced it with plexicushion, a surface found on most indoor hardcourts with very solid bounce and no surprises which rebound ace regularly threw up.   Rebound ace itself had only been around since 1998 when the Australian Open moved from Kooyong on grass to Melbourne to attract the best players who were regularly avoiding the event which at the time was played in December and not January.  Since 2008 when Novak Djokovic defeated Jo Wilfried Tsonga, we have seen the best players in the world get to the finals and win the Australian Open on a yearly basis.  Stan Wawrinka was a surprise winner in 2014, but unlike other past surprise winners, Wawrinka has backed it up with a French Open title in 2015 and good results in other big tournaments around the world. 

Other changes at the Australian Open included the introduction of the heat rule with more matches played under the roof; and many more night matches for the top players, including all semifinals and finals, ensuring the top players stay a lot fresher throughout the fortnight of the tournament than in previous years when played on rebound ace.

At the French Open, with clay being clay, there have been no changes to the surface.  However, the changes in racquet and string technology and the introduction of the lighter Babolat tennis ball has made the French Open a vastly different tournament to the one played in previous decades.  Tennis on clay is now much more similar to tennis played on hardcourts and no doubt would have been to the liking of many aggressive / attacking players who played in the 1990s with stiffer graphite racquets, natural gut strings and heavier duty tennis balls.

Back to the ATP tour.  The points system has also changed dramatically over the last 15 years since 2000.  In 1994 Sampras scored 350 points for winning the Miami (Masters) tournament.  In 2000 that increased to 500 points when Sampras won his third title there.  Now, 1000 points is awarded for winning Miami and all other Masters 1000 tournaments.  In fact, whereas in the past number 1 players would be seen playing smaller tournaments whether that be Los Angeles or Lyon, Djokovic is so far ahead he only plays the nine Masters events, the grand slams plus China Open and Dubai every year, meaning he is always fresh and stays well ahead of the pack.  Even within the Masters events, the cards have fallen quite nicely for Djokovic.  In 2007 Indian Wells, Miami (they alternated every year), Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Paris Bercy and the end of year world tour finals were best of five set finals.  Players often had to pick and choose which Masters events to play to save energy levels, Masters events were not always mandatory as they are now. However,  all finals switched to best of three in 2009, choosing events is no longer an issue and with the events being made mandatory, there are no reasons not to play them.  Many non-Masters events such as Barcelona and Vienna also played best of five set finals for many years prior to 2009.

What we have here is a perfect storm of factors coming together to allow the best players to get to the latter stages of tournaments at all times regardless of surface.  And now, all four grand slam surfaces actually play at a similar pace, meaning players no longer have to make big adjustments depending on the tournament. In the 1980s, Ivan Lendl served and volleyed on both serves in his attempt to win Wimbledon.  At the French Open, Boris Becker played an almost exclusive baseline game.  Those sorts of big changes are no longer necessary which potentially in the past threw off players’ rhythm, timing and confidence from one tournament to the next. 

In summary, the changes that have seen tennis become the more physical sport where players peak at a later age than ever before:

• the decision to replace the surface of all indoor tournaments from carpet to higher bouncing plexicushion in the late 1990s

• the change in the grass at Wimbledon designed to slow down play, plus softening the Slazenger ball

• increase of seeds from 16 to 32 at Wimbledon, meaning top players would avoid each other until the latter stages and encouraging clay court players to play the event without having to change their tactics.

• the slowing down of the deco turf surface at the US Open, adding more sand

• the change from rebound ace to the much more reliable and medium paced plexicushion surface in Australia

• advancements in racquet and string technology which allowed players to counteract attacking players with more success on grass and indoor hardcourts

• the decision by the ATP to reduce all Masters tournaments to best of three set finals and vastly increase the points system, allowing for those at the top to stay at the top for much longer periods.

• players no longer having to dramatically change their style of play depending on surface.

I believe the culmination of these changes to the game of professional tennis has been the reason why we have seen Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic continually reach the finals of all four grand slam tournaments on a regular basis.  Andy Murray has joined the club by getting to the final of the French Open.  Whilst Novak made an incredibly historic achievement last Sunday, I believe that over the next two decades, top players will continue to reach the finals of all four majors and the opportunities to win all four will become the norm as opposed to the exception which was the case in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.  It shows what an achievement it was for Agassi to win all four majors in such diverse conditions.  The other players to make the finals of the four grand slam tournaments pre 2000 were Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg and Jim Courier. 

Equal Pay - Why The Fuss?

Tennis has been in the news a lot this year and we are still in March. 

It started at the Australian Open when the BBC and BuzzFeed made reports of match fixing which had been taking place over a number of years.  That was already well known but it was suggested that the Tennis Integrity Unit had not been taking the accusations seriously enough, did not investigate properly and the unit was too small to be effective, mainly comprising of a few part time senior ex policeman.  ATP Chief Chris Kermoode refuted this claim and promised robust actions.  However, in the last week, the Italian Authorities claim they have evidence of top 20 tennis players being involved in match fixing and accused the tennis authorities of not doing enough to bring these players to justice.

If that was not bad enough, Maria Sharapova announced to the world not her retirement which some journalists had predicted, but that she failed a drug test for meldonium which was put on the banned WADA list at the start of 2016.  What made this story curious was the fact that Maria explained she had been taking the substance for ten years initially to offset conditions that ran in the family such as heart trouble and diabetes; although it appears Maria’s conditions were ongoing if she felt the need to keep taking it for such a long period.  There has been a spate of positive tests for meldonium in the last month so Maria is now in a very difficult situation and a ban is inevitable, a blow to the WTA as Maria is their most marketable player.

That being said, the hot topic I want to focus on is the recurring issue of equal prize money which is reared its ugly head again.  Raymond Moore was forced to resign as Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Wells tournament after what seemed to be the most bizarre comments I have heard from a senior person in sports for some time.  We have seen the comments but here it is again “In my next lifetime when I come back I want to be someone in the WTA, because they ride on the coattails of the men. They don't make any decisions and they are lucky. They are very, very lucky.

“If I was a lady player, I'd go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have.” In colloquial terms, that really is a quote and a half, the sort of stuff journalists dream about having a field day over, and for any detractors to jump on right away with glee.  Perhaps Raymond Moore had been drinking, the desert heat got to him or he had some sort of strange death wish at that particular moment.  Those comments are clearly long held views and for some reason decided to make them known to the public in a press conference.  We also know since the storm didn’t pass very well for him, after the negative news reporting, inevitable social media uproar and statements by Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and the WTA amongst others, Raymond Moore handed in his resignation as Chief Executive Officer to owner of the tournament and Oracle founder Larry Ellison. 

One thing that I fail to understand after all these years is why equal pay still exorcises the minds of so many people?  Equal pay has been around for some time at grand slam level and Wimbledon was the last of the majors to introduce it in 2007; before that the US Open and Australian Open had equal pay for some time.  Let us look at the context as well; in the late 1990s and early 2000s, women's tennis was doing very well as a product.  The stars were as well known as the top men and were putting “bums on seats” in tournaments throughout the world.  There were many great stories and rivalries; Venus v Serena, Capriati vs Serena, Davenport v Hingis, Hingis v Venus, Davenport v Venus.  Then we had Henin v Clijsters, Mauresmo v Henin, the Russians like Dementieva, Sharapova and Kuznetsova joined the party; there were rivalries and high level tennis everywhere so it seemed logical there should be equal pay.  The argument I often hear is that men play longer matches and more sets and so should get more money.  However, from what I have always understood, equal pay reflected that as a product attracting sponsorship and high television ratings, the women's game was doing just as well as the men's game at the period of time.

Now, the irony is this.  As far as I can tell, the reason why this has come up now is the level of women's tennis has no doubt dropped from the heights of 1999 to 2007.  The number 1 ranking changed a handful of times between players who never went on to win a major tournament.  Before 2008, all players who were number 1 won more than one grand slam tournament in their careers (bar Clijsters who won multiple majors on her return in 2009).  Putting injuries aside, Serena Williams has been able to dominate the tour in a way she didn’t in the early to mid-2000s.  If Serena stayed injury free she may have done so but the competition was very fierce regardless.   We have also seen since 2010 a handful of players win grand slam tournaments for the first time at the age of 29 plus which would have been unheard of ten years ago; the latest being Flavia Pennetta who won the US Open at the age of 33 in 2015. 

Therefore, I get the angst that some people may be feeling that women’s tennis is not at a current level deserving of equal pay.  I am sure however that this cannot be the only equation that should be looked at when determining equal pay.  There are still some very good women players around today and great matches.  For instance the Australian Open final between Angelique Kerber and Serena Williams was a compelling match, with both players making more winners than errors; the match was universally acclaimed with good ratings, and let's be frank far better than the drab match between Murray and Djokovic which like groundhog day continue to give us dull Australian Open final matches year on year.

Also, it was ludicrous for Raymond Moore to bring Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal into his “rant”.  If the women players are to thank anyone, it should be Billie Jean King, Gladys Heldman, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Rosie Casals and the other pioneers from the early 1970s who helped set up the WTA tour and made it a big hit with public and sponsors.  I don’t think they need to get on their knees but today’s players are well aware of the sacrifices made by those women.  What makes Raymond Moore’s rant more amusing is the fact he didn’t mention the dominant number 1 player Novak Djokovic about carrying the sport, perhaps that’s why Djokovic took it upon himself to say men should fight for more (extra amusement here) and receive more money, potentially jeopardising good relations with the WTA players and organisers. 

One thing I would question Djokovic on is his comments that men matches get more spectators.  I watch a lot of tournaments and the stands in ATP events are often half empty except for finals day; I see no difference between men and women’s tournaments.  Scheduling wise, women can get a raw deal in the big events, if they schedule a match after a men's match, if it is a long match between two top players, people are satisfied and might go home after a long day, I go to many tournaments, and it can be a long day at tennis events.  This is even more pronounced at the US Open and Australian Open where women matches often start 11pm at night after a men's match, it is inevitable there will be fewer spectators. 

No doubt Raymond Moore’s supporters will point to political correctness accounting for his resignation.  However, the reason they would cite that is because they have been missing the point of equal pay from day one so it will not change now. 

As a tennis fan, one thing I would like to see is the WTA and ITF consider playing best of five set finals at grand slam level.  The players are fit enough to do that and should be mentally ready for such a challenge, I wrote an article about this in 2013 and this may be one way to placate some of the doubters amongst certain fans and some sections of tennis establishment, plus I think it will be a great spectacle.  Women played best of five set finals at the end of year championships in New York from 1984 to 1998 so should definitely be revived as a concept.

Angelique Kerber's Australian Open Triumph

The Australian Open has a habit of throwing up surprising results and brilliant stories for fans of tennis and sport in general.

In 2014 Stan Warwinka beat Novak Djokovic in the quarterfinal and Rafael Nadal in the final to win the Australian Open in dramatic fashion.  This weekend Angelique Kerber pulled off a similar feat, defeating Victoria Azarenka in the quarterfinal and Serena Williams in the final.  Like Wawrinka, Kerber found something deep inside herself, an inspiration to come up with an aggressive game plan to go for her shots and overcome players who had been dominating her in the head to head rivalry.  We were treated to a riveting final and at the end of it there was not a dry eye in the house, a very emotional victory, even Serena Williams felt emotional for Angelique! 

So, how was Angelique able to transition to grand slam champion?  Let us have a look at her progression over the last few seasons which brought her to this special moment.

It has been quite a roller coaster ride for Angelique and her fans.  After making a surprise run to the US Open semifinal in 2011, Angelique made a dramatic rise in the rankings from exactly 100 to top 10 in the space of twelve months.  I was at the Paris indoor event in 2012 when Angelique won her first ever WTA title beating Marion Bartoli in a topsy-turvy three set final.  Angelique followed that up by beating Caroline Wozniacki in Denmark to win another title two months after her first.  Everything was looking good but then hit her first real bump in Eastbourne when she lost the final after serving for the match in the 3rd set against Tamira Paszek. However, that didn’t deter her as she made a great run to the Wimbledon semifinal, beating Sabine Lisicki in a dramatic quarterfinal before losing to Agnieszka Radwanska rather easily in the semifinal.

In the 2012 Cincinnati final against Li Na, Angelique started like a house on fire, taking the first set 6:1 but eventually ran out of steam and lost in three sets.  At the US Open, Kerber defeated Venus Williams in the 2nd round but fell to Sara Errani two rounds later. Angelique qualified for the end of year championships in Istanbul and then spent much of 2013 coming to terms with her status as a top 10 player.  Angelique did win one title in 2013 towards the end of the season in Linz defeating Ana Ivanovic in an entertaining final which sealed her qualification for the season ending championships in Istanbul for the second time. 

2014 proved to be a poor year for Angelique; her performances in the majors were starting to dip dramatically. In Australia she lost to Flavia Pennetta in the fourth round and also had early losses at the French and US Open.  In Wimbledon she beat Sharapova in three sets in the fourth round but then lost to Eugenie Bouchard quite easily in the quarterfinal.  By this stage the reasons why Angelique was struggling were quite clear for everyone to see. 

When Angelique broke out in 2011, her retrieving skills and speed around the court were hailed as plus points.  However, she also possessed the ability to hit down the lines and stretch her opponents with good enterprising play.  However, by 2014 Angelique had become too reliant on defence and not developed her offensive play or serve, which had become a liability particularly in finals.  In fact, during this period Angelique played a handful of important finals including Doha and Eastbourne but lost all of them, which in turn was draining her confidence.  After another disappointing early round loss at the 2015 Australian Open, Angelique decided to dispense with coach Benjamin Ebrahimzadeh and re-hired Torben Beltz who she had worked with when she made the semifinals of US Open and Wimbledon from 2011 to 2012. 

This appointment paid immediate dividends as Angelique started to rebuild her confidence and won her first title in over a year by beating Madison Keys in a close final in Charleston, and then another even closer final against Wozniacki in Stuttgart in May 2015.  Despite early losses at the French Open and Wimbledon, Torben Beltz was definitely trying to get Angelique to play a more enterprising game and to improve her serve which had become a liability against the best returners in the game.  Her finals record continued in the summer with three set victories against Karolina Pliskova in Birmingham on grass and in Stanford during the US Open series. Angelique played a great match against Victoria Azarenka in the 3rd round of the US Open but lost.  However, she did play well during the autumn tournaments in Asia and qualified for the season ending championships in Singapore for the fourth year in succession.

A career in sport is all about progression, and although the results at the majors were not to her liking, turning her losing record in WTA finals to a winning one gave Angelique  something tangible to work on in the off season. The best players in the world combine defence and offence to make a winning combination, the key to that is the serve.  Angelique’s racquet head speed was slow, she was not generating enough pace and the serve was not accurate in the corners, her second serve was landing in the middle of the box asking to be put away.  The ability was there to hit down the lines but she was not taking advantage of this ability by attacking the net to put her opponents under pressure. Torben Beltz knew the potential.

Angelique started 2016 well, getting to the final of Brisbane before losing to Azarenka in straight sets.  And in the 1st round of the Australian Open, Angelique was match point down against Misaki Doi of Japan in the 2nd set tiebreak and came through that.  However, the match which really turned things around was the quarterfinal against Azarenka whom she had never beaten in six attempts; what was satisfying is the way she did it.  In 1997 when Pat Rafter won the US Open, then Australian Davis cup captain John Newcombe said that Rafter had found something deep down within himself which he didn’t know he had, the same could be said of Angelique.  What was so different this time was when the score got close, Angelique pulled out an ace on the line on the deuce court on at least three occasions! 

That is a perfect example of finding something deep inside herself, a bit of magic when needed which the best players can produce.  And when Azarenka had three sets points in a row in the 2nd set, Angelique hit clean offensive winners, they were not Azarenka mistakes.  Winning the match in that fashion gave Angelique the belief that she should play that kind of tennis more often, she hit 31 winners and made 16 unforced errors which is hardly the statistics of a player perceived as a counterpuncher.  Her semifinal win over Johanna Konta was a formality once she got over early nerves against an opponent in her first major semifinal.  In the final, Angelique played the best match of her entire career to date, seizing the moment against Serena Williams, who also played a good match, not at her best but her form was good enough to beat most of the other players on that particular night. Meanwhile Angelique made 25 winners and only 13 unforced errors in three tight sets, very impressive. It was a well deserved victory and now Angelique can bask in the glory of being grand slam champion.

I think Angelique has it within her to win another grand slam tournament before her career comes to a close.  Like Stan Wawrinka and Li Na, Angelique may need a bit of time to adjust to her new status as champion and we might not see her best results again for the next few months but she certainly has the desire to improve further and win more big tournaments in years to come.

It is great to see when a player realises their potential.