Laurie's Tennis articles

What a year of grand slam tennis 2014 has proved to be.   It all started with Stanislas Warwinka’s win at the Australian Open against Rafael Nadal.   Now, some will argue that Nadal was injured but the fact remains that Nadal was being totally outplayed for a set and a half before injury set in.   The situation was similar to the 2006 Australian Open final between Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin when Mauresmo was outplaying Henin.   The difference here is that whereas Henin retired early in the 2nd set, Nadal decided to play through the pain and finish the match; even though he knew defeat was inevitable as long as Warwinka held his nerve. What so impressed me about Warwinka’s victory was the tactical deployment of big 2nd serves, deep into the corners around 110mph.   This definitely caught Nadal by surprise and threw him off his game.   It also proved that it is still possible to play an aggressive game against one of the world’s best cou...

Last Sunday I watched the Rogers cup final between Agnieszka Radwanska and Venus Williams.   Radwanska won the match in straight sets to claim her first title in Canada. However, it was the conversation between commentators Sam Smith and Anne Keothavong which got me thinking. Venus went for a bathroom break so to pass the time Sam and Anne had a “natter” as Sam put it.   The conversation focused on Radwanska and her skill on court.   Keothavong said that although Radwanska had grown up on clay, 10 of her 13 titles had come on hardcourt (11 by the end of the match) Keovathong thought that on clay Radwanska would be a “nightmare” to play against.   Sam Smith concurred by saying Radwanska won the junior French Open and destroyed the field but so far on the WTA didn’t have the power to contend with the other top players.   Sam Smith mentioned the quicker courts in Madrid and Rome didn’t suit her but went on to say that the court in Canada suited her beca...

Recently I watched a rerun of the 1993 Wimbledon quarterfinal on DVD between Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi.   After the great matches at Wimbledon this year including the semifinal between Dimitrov and Djokovic and the final between Djokovic and Federer, I was inspired to watch this match.   For some reason this is an often overlooked match in their rivalry, one of two which went to five sets at grand slam level. I was intrigued because even though this is a totally different era, we had the match up of the talented shotmaker against the talented baseliner, much in the way of this year’s Wimbledon semifinal and final.   The dynamics going into this match were also interesting for a number of reasons.   Sampras was ranked number 1 for the first time in his career two months earlier in April of 1993.   That proved to be controversial because the argument was how can a player who hasn’t won a major for almost three years be ranked number 1 in the world? ...

Pat Rafter at Wimbledon  I have been watching tennis for over 20 years and in that time the game has gone through tremendous changes.   Technological advances from racquets to strings, to the weight and size of tennis balls plus alterations of surfaces; it’s all happened since the mid 1990s.     And now, whenever I watch archive footage on YouTube or DVDs of favourite matches, I feel like I am watching something I shouldn’t be watching and it’s an odd feeling, something that has been banished or outlawed and you shouldn’t go there. That my friend is the short point.   It really shouldn’t be allowed, which seems to be an unwritten code in top flight tennis.   I for one absolutely love and have always loved short points.   Many of my favourite players over the years were masters of short points.   Some of my favourite matches since the early 1990s have been a study in the art of high quality short points.   Matches like the 200...