Flashback to 2000 WTA Championships

Laurie’s Tennis Articles will take a look at some of the classic WTA championships in recent times, which culminated in either a memorable final or memorable matches throughout the event.  This week we take a look at the 2000 championships.

In November 2000, the event called the Chase championships would be held at Madison Square Garden in New York for the very last time after a successful period of almost 30 years.  There was controversy over the new venue chosen for 2001 and 2002 in Munich Germany as Monica Seles publicly stated that she would never play in Germany again after the infamous stabbing incident in Hamburg in 1993 and perceived lack of justice in the German courts where her attacker was not given a prison sentence.

The tournament set up was vastly different back in 2000.  The top 16 in the world qualified for the year end tournament which was pure knock out from first round to the final.  With the format change since, this seems a bit harsh now because players could travel half way around the world just to play one match!  Players who withdrew from the tournament included Venus and Serena Williams, plus Amelie Mauresmo who were all injured.

There were some great matches as the tournament progressed and they mostly revolved around Elena Dementieva.  As Eurosport commentator Simon Reed noted, Dementieva posed a striking resemblance to Steffi Graf in terms of looks and speed around the court.  In the first round against Davenport, Lindsay found it all a bit too much, having claimed he first set and looking good for the win, but even at the age of eighteen Dementieva was already building a reputation for being a slow starter but getting better as the as the match went on.  And on the fast supreme court her speed around the court was in turn highlighting Davenport’s lack of relative mobility, which made Davenport frustrated.  Dementieva came through the match in three sets to put defending champion out of the tournament in the very first round. Davenport looking quite distraught in the end, no doubt annoyed to lose to such an inexperienced player.

Dementieva’s next great match came against Kim Clisjters in the quarterfinal.  Both players were seen as the future of the game and were the same age.  Clijsters would go on to dominate the rivalry but in their first encounter in New York, Dementieva would take the match again in three sets, coming from 4:2 down in the 3rd set to take it 6:4 2:6 6:4.  A strange call in the final game left Clisjters looking quite forlorn and frustrated.  What is interesting about this match fourteen years on is not only was it a great match between two extremely athletic and quick players, but it was also a contest between two teenagers at the top level, an absolute rarity in today’s tennis.

Meanwhile world number 1 Martina Hingis breezed through the tournament taking out Julie Halard in the first round, who went on to retire from tennis and  Nathalize Tauziat in the quarterfinal, who also went on to retire from tennis!.  Kournikova and Seles also arrived in the semifinals after easy wins; Kournikova taking out Conchita Martinez in the quarterfinal 6:4 6:0.  Therefore, the semifinal line up was Hingis against Kournikova and Seles against Dementieva; three of the four semifinalists were teenagers and Seles a former teenage prodigy.  Both Hingis and Seles won their semifinal matches comfortably although Seles was taken to a 2nd set tiebreak after Dementieva found her feet as Seles’ fast start stated to subside, but was able to finish it in straight sets.

The final between Seles and Hingis turned out to be one of the matches of the year with Seles pushing Hingis hard and it looked for a good period that Seles would cause an upset and walk away Masters champion.  As in the semifinal, Seles really took her game to the opponent, going for big serves and quick winners overwhelming Hingis who was flustered by the constant attack.  Seles’ plan was a combination of tactical and fitness; having missed a lot of the year through injury Seles wanted to finish the match quickly.

The tactic almost paid off as it looked like Seles would win the match in straight sets after being a break up twice in the 2nd set.  However, comparisons are often made between tennis and boxing and last week was the 40th anniversary of the “Rumble in the Jungle” between Mohammed Ali and George Foreman.  The scenario here was similar as Foreman exhausted himself trying to take out Ali and was knocked out in the eleventh round.  A similar fate befell Seles who had Hingis on the rack for an hour but was unable to finish the job and was taken to three sets where she lost it after visibly tiring.  In fact, both were tiring but Hingis’ counter punching skills and tenacity got her through to take the match 6:7 6:4 6:4.

Hingis was very emotional at the end the encounter knowing she had to work extremely hard for the victory and validated her number 1 position.  Hingis had come in for a lot of criticism for finishing the year as number 1 without winning a major title.  The tour was set up quite differently in 2000 and under today’s conditions, Venus’ run of Wimbledon, US and Olympic titles may well have seen her claim the number 1 position. 

2000 was the first year of the new millennium and set up what would be a golden period for WTA tennis with the emergence of Venus and Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Amelie Mauresmo, Elena Dementieva and the re-emergence of Jennifer Capriati who was only a few years older at the age of 24 even though she had played in the 1991 US Open semifinal!  Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis were the established top two players in the world but Davenport would continue with her career in the top 10 while Hingis would retire in 2002 after citing a chronic foot condition.

When is the time to go full time? By John Cavill

Noah Wimbledon wins 2014 Junior Wimbledon

I was inspired to write this article after a conversation with a parent last month who was asking about the pathway of a player and when is the best time for a junior to play full time. I have had many debates with many coaches including those who have produced world class players, but what is interesting about this debate is that there is no definitive answer. Like with many things in tennis and life, it depends on the person and their individual needs. In this article I wanted to cover some options and how others have done it, along with my personal opinion having seen players follow various pathways over the years.

At the Global Tennis Team academy in Mallorca which is ran by Jofre Porter, technical coach to Nadal and coach to Moya, they have a very flexible system. Players from all over the world visit there but those who live on the Island and play full time will get special dispensation from the school to go to the academy and train during curriculum time. The players are usually from 13 years old when they do this and they may get 2 or 3 afternoons a week out of school so they can train in the afternoon and early evening. The players who live on site at the academy are usually foreign or from mainland Spain and most are registered at the local Spanish school which they attend daily with time out for tennis. The academy arrange all the transportation to and from school and Jofre’s girlfriend, Afiza, who lives on site makes sure that everyone is on top of their homework! There are some players which don’t attend school and they have a syllabus that they must follow online. There are then set times to submit work and contact time with tutors etc. via the online support but Afiza still keeps a close eye on them to ensure all is up to date!

How Global Tennis operate is quite similar to other academies although some of the larger ones, like Sanchez-Casal in Barcelona, they have their own school on site.

I think it is accepted that children from 13/14 years old need to be coming out of school for a certain number of hours each week to be able to put in the quality hours on court and do their fitness. The sacrifice might be that they have to drop a few subjects and do less exams when they are 16 but there are many players who manage to cope. I think that if you are a tennis player you have to have a high level of self-discipline and studying should be a part of a junior player’s job. At Global Tennis if they don’t keep up with their studies then they are asked to leave and I think this is a great ethos to set.

The highly debated area of junior players playing full time is when they are 9 or 10 years old. Personally I think this is a bit too young but who am I to comment if there is a good balance within the player’s life. I feel that if they only do tennis and don’t go to school then they will miss out on the social skills and environment of mixing with people who don’t play tennis. A lot about being a tennis player is about being a well-rounded individual, so whatever is required to make that possible should be done. The problems I have heard about with children leaving school and going full time at an academy from such an early age is that their group of friends outside of tennis is limited, they get bored with being in the same environment every day and that the variety of activities at an academy are limited. Ultimately this could lead to leaving the game.

I think that sometimes there is pressure or expectancy on parents to commit their child’s future so early and that when they see other players going full time so young, they feel they need to keep up. My personal feelings are that there is no major rush at 9 years old and that doing 20 hours a week at this age is likely to lead to boredom or burnout and the kids will be done with tennis by 14 or 15 years old. I like to see kids stay in school for as long as possible and at 11 or 12 years old to start taking one or two afternoons a week to train at the club. I think that the crucial time to go full time is around 14 or 15 as the players will have the skills to manage themselves and the hours of work required to go as far as they can needs to be around 20 hours so it’s unrealistic to fit this in and a full day of school in.

There are 6 players in this year’s Wimbledon Main draw that have come from the US College system. Education is important and the balance between this and tennis can be done. There are lots of people going to US college and then going to pro tennis, which I think is a great path to follow but it may not necessarily be for all.

If any parent is looking at the options for their child to go full time then they should seek good advice from a coach or academy that will look at what is best for the child. It’s usually best to consult those who have been working with the player for many years as they will know the players best and have a much better feel for what approach to take.

 John Cavill runs Tennis Works, a tennis developmental and resource company.  For more information check out http://www.tennisworks.net/

The Old and The New: A Glimpse to The Future in Grand Slam Tennis

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 counterpunchers and win. 

We can say order was restored at grand slam level when Nadal faced Novak Djokovic in the final at Roland Garros.  Nadal rewrote the history books again by winning his ninth French Open and equalling Pete Sampras’ record of 14 major titles.  I never thought I would see the day where a player wins a major tournament nine times.  When Sampras won his seventh Wimbledon title in 2000 that sounded like crazy numbers but incredibly Nadal has gone two better at a major tournament with the opportunity to win a tenth in 2015.

For a while though as in previous years, it looked like Djokovic would finally get the better of Nadal after taking the first set with some good tennis.  But as happened before, Nadal wore down Djokovic to the point of near exhaustion; Djokovic couldn’t take any more grinding.  I believe this has been the case since Djokovic beat Nadal in the 2012 Australian Open final in a match that lasted five hours and fifty seven minutes.  The human body and mind can only take so much and in the really long matches, Djokovic is often coming up short.

However, in Wimbledon, Djokovic was able to rectify that by taking his 2nd Wimbledon title beating Roger Federer in a five set thriller.  Roger Federer played his ninth Wimbledon final which is an absolutely incredible record over an eleven year period, especially as last year he lost in the 2nd round as defending champion.

It was a strange final, in footballing terms Federer almost sneaked the match at the end of extra time when he should have been out of the match in normal time.  He took the first set on a tiebreak when Djokovic seemed the better player.  Djokovic then took the next two sets by upping his level and consistency.  Djokovic was then in control when he served for the match in the fourth set but let it slip and Federer played some great tennis to win four games in a row to take it to a fifth set. Then, just as you thought Federer finally grabbed the momentum he lost it late in the fifth set.

What really surprised me about this final was that both players were regularly serving 1st serves between 110mph and 119mph throughout the match, surprisingly relatively slow for top players in 2014.

The highlight of the grasscourt season for me was Grigor Dimitrov who won Queens and reached the semifinal of Wimbledon, beating defending champion Andy Murray in the quarterfinal in straight sets.  In the semi-final, Dimitrov could have taken Djokovic to a fifth set decider but faltered in the fourth set tiebreak.  Dimitrov’s big first serve where he can get up to 135mph, cat like movement around the court, volleying ability and willingness to hit down the lines and attack the net really reminds me of Sampras and I have no doubt that Dimitrov is a Wimbledon champion in the making; as long as he believes and things fall into place. 

And onto the US Open.  Well, what a tournament!  Nadal missed the event as defending champion but in the end his absence was not really felt.  The tournament really came to life in the semifinals, with two huge upsets in one day.  The first time that has happened in a major tournament for years, since Federer and Nadal lost the semifinals of the Australian Open in 2008 to Djokovic and Tsonga, but that was on different nights.

Kei Nishikori had no business beating Djokovic in four sets in the first semifinal after five set battles against Raonic in Rd 16 and Warwinka in the quarterfinals.  Djokovioc should have been the fresher but Nishikori grabbed all of his opportunities and deserved to win.  I also often feel that Djokovic plays too passive in big matches and is not prepared to grab the initiative.  Djokovic is rapidly becoming the modern equivalent of Ivan Lendl; he has the number 1 slot locked down and appears in many finals but has lost a number of them so far.  Lendl’s problem was that he was always vulnerable to attacking players whilst Djokovic’s problems is a lack of aggression as he faces similar counterpunchers to himself.

However, the real eye catching performance was the second semifinal where Marin Cilic literally “thrashed” Roger Federer in straight sets.  Federer described Cilic’s performance as “old school tennis”.  Cilic rewrote all of the conventions which you are supposed not to be able to do anymore.  Having Goran Ivanisevic in his corner has proved to be a masterstroke.

The final was equally one sided.  On paper it looked like a 50:50 match up, the first “pick em” since Pat Rafter faced Greg Rusesdki in the 1997 final.  Unfortunately, Nishikori finally ran out of gas, and Cilic played the big game with the type of sustained brilliance we don’t see often anymore; it reminded me of Richard Krajicek’s Wimbledon run in 1996 when a player of 6ft 5 was hitting his groundstrokes and moving around the court like a much shorter man, Cilic was in that kind of zone.  It is very rare for a player that tall to serve, return and volley as well as Cilic did during this year’s US Open.

Those familiar with my articles over the years will know that I have been observing that many players can serve fast today but technically do not serve as well as the previous generation of the 1990s.  Ivanisevic persuaded Cilic to remodel his serving technique and it worked.  On the ad court Cilic now stands much closer to the centre line and instead of hitting fast deliveries more or less into the returner’s strike zone, Cilic was swinging the serve away from the returner with slice at pace which is much nastier to deal with.  That adjustment of technique also opened up so many more possibilities on the 2nd serves; he could be more in control of his destiny.  Ivanisevic was a master of serving and it is interesting to think how many other players can benefit from this sort of advice.  And it is certainly a technique I have been advocating top players use for the last ten years.

The other huge improvement was Cilic’s movement.  On almost every occasion where Cilic hit a big inside out forehand he attacked the net and finished the point with a good volley off a floating reply.  One source of frustration for me in mens tennis has been watching guys hit three or four inside out forehands, eliciting weak replies and eventually losing the point because they wouldn’t attack the net.   I always considered this not very tactical and downright diabolical, whilst many hid behind the excuse of slower courts and polyester strings.  It could be also a fact that many players today are not able to volley to a reasonably technical level.  Cilic proved this strategy still works on hardcourts if implemented properly.

Cilic’s win was a very satisfying end to a great grand slam year.  The question is, what does this all mean for the 2015 season?  Well I wrote an article back in the spring called Warwinka’s example where I argued that Warwinka winning the Australian Open and Monte Carlo showed that the top guys can be beaten in the big matches.  Cilic and Nishikori recognised this and took advantage.  Unfortunately in the US Open quarterfinal, Gael Monfils had his opportunity against Roger Federer but did what we have seen so often in the last ten years, not grab his opportunity because he played too passive when it mattered.  The lesson from 2014 is that both Wawrinka and Cilic won their majors because they took the game too their opponents and were prepared to go in bold on their 2nd serves. 

The other equation is the stage is now set for both Raonic and Dimitrov to show they are capable of winning major tournaments.  However, at the same time it is looking increasingly the case that Tsonga, Berdych, Monfils and Ferrer may have missed the boat.  But lets’ not count these guys out yet.  With Murray out of the top 4 and Nadal coming back from injury again, the opportunity is there in 2015 to win majors for those skilful enough to grab it.

Here’s hoping for a great grand slam year in 2015!