Andy Murray v Pete Sampras?

Great Britain celebrated Andy Murray winning Wimbledon for the second time in his career.  A significant victory for Murray, it now puts him in a slightly elevated status in terms of open era tennis greats.  There are a few great players who won two majors in their career, but not many have won three and stay there.  As of now, Andy has the opportunity to win more majors before his career ends.

However, Andy’s victory brought out the inevitable comparison of eras from British journalists who were getting (over) excited about Andy’s success.  I read an interesting article by Sean Ingle of the Guardian newspaper.  In the article Sean gave us a variety of statistics which was designed to come to the conclusion that in any other era Murray would have been a multi grand slam champion, most likely at Wimbledon.  So far Murray has played in eleven major finals, winning three of them.  Eleven finals puts Murray in the top echelons for appearances in major finals, which is extremely impressive.  Three wins is not a good return but this is mitigated in Sean’s mind by the fact that Murray is playing in the greatest era of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.  Sean Ingle also canvassed the opinion of Swedish Davis Cup captain Thomas Enqvist who played in the 1990s and early 2000s.  Thomas thought that during his time nobody could beat Sampras on grass but due to changes in racquets, strings, the ball and the composition of the grass with players being “fitter”, the implication that Murray would have been able to bag a few Wimbledon titles and other major titles during that period. 

My mind is immediately drawn to that quote by the late great commentator Bill Threllfall “statistics, damned statistics!” Statistics can be used in any way you wish, and today, statistics is used as the yardstick in tennis media in the most crazed fashion.  In some ways this is entirely pointless; however, in another way, it might be worth looking at how Andy matches up with the top grass court player of that era, Pete Sampras.  After all, it is clear that if Andy were to win four to five Wimbledons he would have to beat Sampras on more than one occasion as he was the man to beat for eight years.  Since 2008, Wimbledon has been about three or four players who are serious contenders.  In the 1990s, there was one man all the other contenders had to get past.   So, I have decided to bite the bait and look at both players’ strengths and weaknesses in detail.  Then we could see perhaps, how a rivalry like that on grass could have gone.

The first thing to say is that court speed, racquets, strings and tennis balls are rather superfluous to this comparison.  This is because the gap between eras is too small; we are not comparing a forty year decade difference.  Both Murray and Sampras played many of the same adversaries, including Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Roger Federer, Marat Safin, Carlos Moya and others. In 2001 Sampras easily dismissed Mikael Youzhny at the US Open; Youzhny is still playing on the tour.  By 1999 Wimbledon was already considered a hard high bouncing grass court which took a mean kick serve; and Sampras won that tournament relatively easily.  What we need to focus on are four things: ability, technique, strategy and intangibles.

Let us look at Andy Murrays’ strengths in detail:

Movement:

This is an easy one; Murray is in the top five players when it comes to movement, in fact, in the top two along with Novak Djokovic at this moment in time.  Whilst Federer and Nadal were at their peak, movement was equal but those two players have clearly declined allowing Murray to move ahead.  Murray is probably at his best on grass as he has demonstrated that throughout his entire career, winning Queens on five occasions which is a record, and Wimbledon twice and counting on both fronts.

First Serve

Murray definitely has one of the best first serves on tour, with the ability to get the speed up to 135mph.  Murray has also finally added the swing serve down the middle on the ad court; for many years Murray over relied on the serve to the backhand on the important points, making him predictable. When Murray gets a high percentage of first serves, he is very difficult to beat.  Rather surprisingly, Murray’s swing serve on the ad court is barely 115mph.  The technical reason is that he collapses on the shot, it is not a fluid motion, but it is clearly well placed enough to win some free points. 

Return of serve

Along with Djokovic, Murray has the best return of serve on the tour.  In fact, I would argue that Murray is better at neutralizing the big serve than Djokovic, Djokovic has displayed on a number of occasions that he can be vulnerable to the big server, we have seen this the last two years at Wimbledon against Kevin Anderson and Sam Querrey.  On grass, the return of serve is one hell of an asset in any era.  Murray is also good at getting the return back low and implementing the passing shots off both wings, that’s due to the fact that superior movement counts for so much on the grass surface and Murray loves to run down everything, much in the way Angelique Kerber does, he hates anything getting passed him.

I felt a few years ago that Murray stood too far back on return of serve, allowing a top class server like Federer to serve wide into the corners giving him no chance.  There is no point being the best returner of serve in the world if you cannot get the ball back into play on a consistent basis.  However, I have noticed this year Murray has been standing in more, and really stepping in on the 2nd serve and going after it, frankly that is the tactic he needs to use if he wants to win more major titles.

Backhand

Murray has one of the best two handers on the tour.  It is his most reliable shot and he has one of the best backhands down the line.  The one problem Murray has is his propensity to push the ball down the middle of the court, which he has to work hard to avoid.

Determination

One of Murray’s key assets.  Murray is a talented player but is not blessed with natural weapons.  Therefore he has had to work extremely hard to get to the top of mens tennis, or at least near the top, he has yet to conquer the number 1 position.  Determination has carried him a long way in terms of professionalism, looking after his body, being disciplined and really building his stamina up from the player who often seemed short of staying power in five set matches. 

Now let us look at Andy’s weaknesses

Second serve

This is the key reason Murray has lost eight out of eleven major finals so far.  Murray gets away with hitting soft 2nd serves against most players on the tour but comes unstuck against the very best players in the world.  However, that is what being in major finals is all about, facing the best players in the world.  Murray has been extremely vulnerable to being attacked, and in the three finals Murray lost to Roger Federer, Federer attacked Murray with the chip and charge tactic, something Federer hardly ever uses against other opponents.  Murray has improved his 2nd serve considerably in the last year and this paid dividends in Wimbledon this year against Milos Raonic in the final. Murray has to remind himself to hit deep 2nd serves in the box at a speed of at least 90mph.

Forehand grip

Murray has had a tendency to pull on this particular shot, often dropping the ball short, making him vulnerable to being attacked.  Murray also went short on his crosscourt forehand in the rallies on many occasions, a no-no against the very best players in the world.  Lendl has worked hard on getting Murray to improve his forehand and be braver, hit into the corners.

Smashes

For some reason, like Novak Djokovic, Murray has one of the weakest smashes in the mens game.  For a player who is considered one of the quickest and most athletic, I find this unexplainable, and therefore will not even try to explain it.

Now, let us look at Pete Sampras’ strengths

Serve

Not a lot to be said, one of the best serves and the best 2nd serve in history under pressure.  Measurements showed on some serves upward of 120mph, Sampras was imparting over 4000rpms on the ball, which is astonishing and unprecedented, see study here.  The ball is very heavy, like a great fast bowler in cricket. The interesting thing is Sampras could swing the serves on the line time and again, frustrating his opponents.  The other interesting thing is Sampras serve on the ad court was often coming in between 125mph and 135 mph, with slice and hitting the line, whereas Murray barely gets above 115mph. This is important because prior to 2000, the speed of serves were timed 20 feet away from contact point.  A 115mph serve in the 1990s is not a 115mph serve today.

Return of Serve

It has always been the case, everyone talks about the Sampras serve, but that doesn’t mean his return of serve was not a strength.  Sampras’ strengths on return was his ability to up his level and break serve when his opponent was least expecting.  He often coasted on a few service games which lulled his opponent into a false sense of security.  Sampras also had a few strategies up his sleeve; he could chip the return on his backhand, drive the return or employ the chip and charge.  In the first part of his career, Sampras liked to run around his backhand to hit the forehand return but changed to the chip and charge in the latter part of his career on the ad court. Against serve volleyers Sampras was very good at getting the return to feet then implementing the passing shot.  If Sampras was in the mood, he would go after every return game; the match was often on his racquet, not the opponent. 

Movement

Sampras was the number one player when it came to movement in the 1990s, hence the reason he was ranked number 1 for over 270 weeks through that decade.  Sampras was the best at turning defence into attack and due to his strong baseline game, could stay in rallies until he got a short ball he could attack with.  Sampras was also one of the quickest players of that era along with Michael Chang, Sergei Brugera and Patrick Rafter.  Sampras had the best athleticism on the tour, the greatest overhead smash (including the famous slam dunk) and high backhand volley, a shot we don’t see as much today, probably because players are not coming to net as often and opponents are not hitting the topspin lob as much as in the past.

Forehand

One of the best forehands and the best running forehand in the open era, often employing the banana shot, more associated with a lefty, Jeff Tarango claims to have taught Sampras that shot when they were teenagers, putting sidespin on the ball, a shot Nadal uses a lot himself down the line as a lefty.  Unlike Murray who often hit his forehand short, Sampras hit the forehand very deep which really comes through the court, Sampras’ forehand is very similar to Ivan Lendl’s.  Lendl had the best forehand in the open era until Federer claimed that mantle in the 2000s.

Determination

Sampras won the US Open as a teenager beating Thomas Muster, Ivan Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi in a row.  Therefore, Sampras knew from an early age he had talent to burn, it was a matter of putting it together to dominate.  Sampras reached the number 1 ranking in April 1993 at the age of 21.  To put in perspective, a 21 year old tennis player today is considered at the same stage a 17 year old would have been considered in past eras.  I think it is easier to acquire determination quickly when you know you have the talent to beat the other players on a regular basis.

Weaknesses

Whenever the Sampras game comes up for discussion, two things are mentioned, Sampras’ game on clay and the high ball to the backhand, which was accentuated on clay, especially in the rallies if the clay courter was running around his backhand to hit loopy forehand drives to Sampras‘ backhand.  That was Sampras’ only real weakness.  Unlike a player such as Grigor Dimitrov who has serious issues with his backhand, Sampras hit his backhand deep, and had excellent passing shots off that wing, which Rafter and Becker could attest to.  But that is the one area players could look to attack on a regular basis.  The interesting thing here is that Murray’s groundstrokes simply are not heavy enough to threaten the Sampras backhand. Like Djokovic, Sampras was a bit more uneasy against power players like Marat Safin.

The Intangibles.

The mistake that is always made, and will be continued to be made by journalists, is reckoning that Murray is great at getting big serves back and thus controlling the match, that is true up to a point. However, Murray struggles mightily against the Federer serve, because Federer moves the ball around the box beautifully and into the corners. Plus Federer backs up his serve with good movement, great groundstrokes and good volleying.  Agassi once noted that Sampras does not serve as big as Australian Wayne Arthurs did back then, but backed up his serve better than anyone he ever played.  Therefore on hardcourts he backed up his serve with movement, staying back and coming in, and on grass coming in all of the time. And Sampras can match Murray in the movement department anytime on grass, being competitive in the baseline rallies.  The trick is not to win every rally in the match, but to win the rallies that matter in the important points, Sampras was one of the best at doing that. This is another reason why straight up statistics can be so misleading; it is a cover for those who don’t want to partake in observational analysis.

Here is another area where there is great confusion. By definition, in the 1990s there should have been a different winner at Wimbledon every year, there were so many big and great servers out there, it should have been shared out: Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek, Mark Philippoussis, Greg Rusedski, Michael Stich, Boris Becker, and Patrick Rafter. But Sampras won it seven times. How come?  Because Sampras bridged the gap with his rivals by having a better return of serve, better movement and better passing shots.  Sampras was also at his very best against counterpunchers; he enjoyed playing them as they didn’t have much to hurt him with.  A player like Rusedski never made a single semifinal at Wimbledon, and he was considered a grass court specialist.

There are two matches that stick out for me when it comes to gauging Andy Murray’s chances in the 1990s.  The first is Sampras v Henman in the 1999 semifinal, the second being Federer v Murray from the 2012 final.  The common denominator is Paul Annacone, who was the coach in both of those matches.  The tactics and the way the matches unfolded are remarkably similar.  Both Henman and Murray got the early upper hand after an exchange of breaks of serve, Henman and Murray won the first set, Sampras and Federer won the second set right at the death and then slowly took control of the match.  Both Sampras and Federer put pressure on their opponent at the net and both really grappled control by punishing the 2nd serve.  And on both occasions Sampras and Federer had the edge in the groundstroke department, reaping more havoc, even if the stats would show the other guy won a higher percentage of rallies.  Both matches finished with four set victories and no tiebreaks, the bottom line was that the more talented player came through because they had more options.

In the 1990s on grass, I am struggling to see where Murray would be a multi champion at Wimbledon.  Winning the tournament once, why not?  Murray is a counterpuncher and during that period, counterpunchers on a whole did not win the tournament. Andre Agassi won in 1992 but Agassi is much more than a counterpuncher, Agassi was one of the most aggressive returners on the planet.

It is folly to compare eras but it will be done again in future.  But looking at both Murray’s and Sampras’ strengths, there is a clear reason why Murray has lost eight of eleven major finals and why Sampras won fourteen out of eighteen major final appearances. The late 1990s through early 2000s period was a volatile period at both the Australian Open and French Open.  I believe this is where Murray could have had great opportunities, with the game he has.   

We must remember, the game Murray has acquired is not good enough to be number for long periods in any era, it is not aggressive enough and his 2nd serve has been too weak.  If Murray can get to number 1 and win a few more majors at the tail end of his career, it will be one hell of a testament to determination.

Building the Foundations for Tennis By John Cavill

From my experience, I have developed a method in which I feel I can progress players from their early years to around 12, which gives them a great base to progress their tennis into adulthood. There are so many permutations and factors that will enable a player to develop that there has to be a huge amount of adaptation for individual needs. Once you go down the path of trying to fulfil individual needs, the time and commitment increases massively and so does the cost, time and commitment from the parents.

The ‘bread and butter’ to any successful programme is having a good flow of players coming into the game, which can be attracted through schools, advertising, word of mouth etc. Kids nowadays have so many things going on that you need to be able to offer sessions most days of the week. When a child shows a great attitude, passion for the game and a desire to be better, then cease the opportunity to help them further! We have a programme called the Talent Development Programme (TDP) for anyone who shows commitment to their tennis and wants to play in competitions. The TDP runs several days a week and it allows me to set the environment to push the players harder in training and ask more of them. There are people who have no desire to play competition or will be put off by having to train hard, so the weekly programme is perfect for having fun and developing skills without a high level of expectation, which is what some children exactly want. I believe it is my role to give people what they want and that’s why it is important to offer a diverse programme that can cater for all.

Whether you’re a ‘once a week’ player or playing at National level, there are 3 things we ask of every player as a performance indicator; Concentration, Positivity and Effort. I believe that there isn’t much point wasting coaches time and parents money if people don’t have a good attitude towards tennis (or life) and we grade the players with a mark out of 10 on each of the three performance indicators at the end of each session. This system alone is invaluable to our development. The players will grow up with a performance mind-set and although results are important to players, hopefully they will understand that results are a bi-product of a good performance. The other important message is that the players have 100% responsibility for their performance which is in their control, whereas results are uncontrollable. Even if a player gives it their all, they could lose a match, but they will be rewarding themselves if their performance is good. After sessions the parents ask the kids what their ‘scores’ are, which refers to their performance indicator, so they get instant performance feedback rather than asking what the result was, which is usually the second question!

Like a house, the ability to develop it further, will depend a lot on the foundations. Good foundations are essential for development and fulfilling potential and the most important things about building good foundations are attitude, habits and commitment which will help them develop the physical, technical and tactical skills required. I believe that discipline is the way to achieve a good environment and that nothing apart from the best will do. By setting high standards and keeping to them, the players will push themselves harder and improve more. Naturally people will take the easy option as we like to reserve energy but unfortunately excellence can only come through hard effort. I’ve seen many players with natural coordination and athleticism which at a young age are looked at as the future stars but in their teens they are outclassed by the ‘work horses’ who have been pushing their limits every day and addressing all the areas of their game.

I think that when you start with young players from as young as 2 or 3 years old, you must focus a lot on their balance, coordination and agility but specifically for tennis and other ball sports, you must develop their perception skills. The earlier you can start developing this, the better, as you must be able to judge the flight of the ball well to be able to know where to position yourself for the shot. For those in the 8 and under age group I think that racket skills linked with coordination and perception training will help the player to feel at one with the racket. The term ‘having good hands’ is commonly known in tennis and this relates to the ability of the player to control the ball very well. The feel required to hit spin, change angles or move the ball around the court is advantageous. When a player is around 10 years old, they should have some nice technique to their shots and be able to stay on balance, contact the ball consistently in front, move around the court with good footwork patterns and have a good understanding of tactics they can employ against a variety of opponents. As competition become more important in the 12&U age group, the foundations from which were developed over the past 6-8 years will give them the platform to enhance all areas of their game as their bodies mature into teenagers then adults.

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

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.