Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Friday, May 2, 2014
Tennis world champion for 1000 weeks and counting
THERE are those among us who might believe the staging of a world championship of real tennis would involve a match in which the combatants must serve-and-volley on both deliveries while wearing Dunlop Volleys and using those old wooden Maxfli racquets with the Union Jack stamped on the throat.
But the most genuine form of real tennis dates back to the 1200s, grabbed the attention of William Shakespeare, has been crowning World No 1s since 1740 and is the oldest contested championship in world sport.
A London-based Australian with an unrivalled record of achievement will chase his 12th world title this week. The 46-year-old Rob Fahey and American Camden Riviere will go best-of-13 sets at the Royal Melbourne Tennis Club from Tuesday. Fahey has been the World No 1 for more than 1000 weeks after tumbling into the sport from his pursuit of the most coveted commodity for most prospective university students: the amber fluid.
“I answered a job ad in a newspaper in Hobart,” he told The Weekend Australian. “It was to work at the real tennis club in Hobart. I’d never even heard of it, but it seemed like a good option for a bit of beer money at the time. It turned out to be a bit more than that.
“Most of my adult life has been spent as the world champion, so it’s become a pretty big part of me.”
Fahey and Riviere will don white clothes. Depending on their progress, the match can continue on Thursday and finish on Saturday. Fahey’s 11 world titles, 11 British Opens, eight US Opens, 13 French Opens and 13 Australian Opens make him the most successful real tennis player of all time. Which is a long, long time. “That’s always been one of the fascinating things about it for me — how a sport can survive from as far back as the 1200s and 1300s,” he said.
“The clubs and palaces you get to play at around the world are pretty amazing. Each one is quirky in its own way.
“I’ve become an honorary life member at Queens in London after I won there, so I get out on the grass courts there and have a hit of what you call your regular tennis. I’m not quite as proficient.”
Lawn tennis. Real tennis. Compare and contrast. “They might look quite similar but they’re amazingly different,” he said. “We’ve got such a hard ball, small racquet and walls. It’s almost more like cricket than tennis because you’ve got the ball skidding on to you. There’s more of the element of control. The lawn tennis ball pops off the surface. You can absolutely leather it with heavy topspin.
“Our stuff is very deliberate positional play. You’ll get a loose ball you can wind up on, like a squash shot when it’s coming off the back wall. You can hit that ball ridiculously hard.
“When you see lawn tennis and real tennis side by side, they do look quite similar. But in all honesty, they’re not.”
source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/tennis-world-champion-for-1000-weeks-and-counting/story-fnbe6xeb-1226903849099#
Follow me:
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Nadal's Hold At No. 1 On The Line In Madrid
The World No. 1 Emirates ATP Ranking will be in play at next week's Mutua Madrid Open, where Novak Djokovic has a mathematical chance to dethrone Rafael Nadal.
Should defending champion Nadal lose before the quarter-finals and Djokovic win the title, the Serb would regain the top spot for the first time since 6 October 2013. Djokovic lost to Grigor Dimitrov in the Madrid second round last year and has only 10 points to defend, compared to the 1000 points that Nadal will defend. The tournament begins Sunday.
Since ending his 101st week at No. 1, Djokovic has compiled a 31-3 match record.
The Serbian has gone on to win four ATP World Tour titles. He finished 2013 with victory at the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris (d. Ferrer) and the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals (d. Nadal). So far in 2014, he has lifted trophies at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells (d. Federer) and the Sony Open Tennis in Miami (d. Nadal).
read more http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/04/18/Madrid-2014-Nadal-Djokovic-No-1-Rankings.aspx
Follow me:
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Tennis Star Rafael Nadal Remains in Limbo
Not sure defeat to David Ferrer in Monte Carlo affect him more than necessary. He refuses, but something is happening to Rafael Nadal for not regaining his confidence. He lost in the quarterfinal against Nicolas Almagro in Barcelona Open again in the quarterfinals. "He played too tight and that prevents him from returning to his best," says Toni Nadal. The point is that in their debut in the Tournament of Barcelona, his club, Nadal suffered much over the odds to defeat an inspired Albert Ramos, who took the tie break in the original manga and 6-4 in the second after an hour and 56 minutes.
That's not usual. Ramos played at a high level, adjusted for baseline and occasionally breaking up the game with balls and balloons left. But that is not usually a problem for the world number one. Nadal is not right. His balls lack depth and do not have the ability to overwhelm opponents. Now, earn the most points by exhaustion overflow. And besides, is very irregular. It is not that tight, invulnerable player whose mindset dismantled all its rivals. Not the man of the 13 Grand Slam titles. He lacks confidence. It is probably only a matter of a couple of games to finish cleaning his head bad memories and recall the feelings that now is not on the track.
Seems to have not yet forgotten the Australia Open final he lost with back problems, compared to Swiss Stanislas Wawrinka. "I had prepared thoroughly for that tournament. Generated insecurity And lose me and a mental letdown," confessed shortly after arriving in Barcelona, where you get the Sport and Culture prize in his sporting side. Yes there his punches flow naturally and it shows you have good feelings. The victory over Ramos can help you pick the pulse of the competition, because he was able to win without playing their best. And now he will face Croatian Ivan Dodig, who at 29 seems to have already given the best of her tennis career. Since last February have won a game and lost three times in the first round. For Nadal, it may be a good time to regain confidence.
"I played dull but with passion and intensity," admitted Nadal. "It was an important match for me and I think I've faced with the right attitude, accepting my mistakes and forgetting the points I lost." Nadal won his 40th straight win at the tournament in Barcelona. " Today I experienced the whole game because I have not played my usual level, but the motivation and enthusiasm are always there. Sensations are recovering slowly. Better hope to play against Dodig."
Nadal seemed confident and was looking for his 9th title in Barcelona Open but lost 2-6, 7-6, 6-4 to Nicolas Almagro, just a week after going out in the quarterfinals of the Monte Carlo Masters to David Ferrer. Nadal was shocked once again in the span of a few weeks.
What is already clear is that the hypothetical final between Rafael Nadal and David Ferrer was frustrated at the debut of the Valencian David Ferrer. The of Javea, 32, lost to Russian Teymuraz Gabashvili, 28, 6-4, 6-2 in 1 hour and 21 minutes. Gabashvili had not passed the second round of the Barcelona tournament eight times he had participated. Ferrer, however, played four late - he lost to Rafa Nadal, but last year also succumbed the day of its debut in the second round.
Ferrer, 5th global player, won this year's tournament in Buenos Aires, but it seems to be going through its best game. Fell in the Australia Open quarter- final against Berdych and last week removed Rafa Nadal for the first time on clay in the last 10 years in the quarterfinals of the Open de Montecarlo, before being defeated by the Swiss Stanislas Wawrinka in two rounds.
Follow me:
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Tennis: Wimbledon first-round losers set to be financial winners
LONDON (REUTERS) - First-round singles losers at this year's Wimbledon tennis championships will receive 27,000 pounds (S$57,000) prize money as organisers continue to help the sport's lesser lights make ends meet.
Outlining how the grass-court Grand Slam tournament's increased 25 million pounds prize pot will be distributed, the All England Club announced a 14.9 per cent raise for first-round losers in the main draw of the men's and women's singles.
At the top end, this year's singles champions will bank 1.76 million pounds, a 10 per cent increase on the 1.6 million pounds Andy Murray and Marion Bartoli earned last year.
That compares favourably with the 1.65 million euros (S$2.9 million) for the singles champions at next month's French Open, while Stanislas Wawrinka and Li Na earned US$2.65 million (S$3.3 million) for their wins at the Australian Open in January.
read more: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/sport/tennis/story/tennis-wimbledon-first-round-losers-set-be-financial-winners-20140429
Follow me:
Monday, April 28, 2014
Roger Federer? No way! The 6 most overrated tennis players ever
Tennis fans often argue over which underappreciated or forgotten players should be considered all-time greats. 1930s star Ellsworth Vines comes to mind. And, more recently, Jan Kodes. But what about the players whose reputations are greater than they should be?
Well, fans argue about that, too. Based on a very unscientific survey of serious tennis fans in my orbit, along with my memory of overhearing tournament commentators and spectators over the years, I have picked out six players who have been accused of being overrated. Do all of these legends belong on a list of overrated players? I certainly don't think so. Point being: please keep in mind that the arguments put forward below are the ones out there in the tennis universe, not necessarily mine. (In other words, don't shoot the messenger!) I do let my loyalties show in how I have ranked the players, from, strictly in my opinion, least or not at all overrated (number 6) to legitimately overrated (number 1).
All of that said, tell me which of these arguments ring true with you -- and which you think are total poppycock. Who else should have been included here instead of one or more of those listed? Weigh in below.
6. Rod Laver
The argument: He won his first Grand Slam, the 1962 amateur Slam, when the best players in the world -- Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Alex Olmedo and Pancho Gonzales -- were barred from the majors. He won his second Grand Slam, the 1969 Open era Slam, when 33-year-old Olmedo, 34-year-old Rosewall, 34-year-old Hoad and 40-year-old Gonzales were all beyond their best years and/or semi-retired -- and the younger, newer pros were still adjusting to the influx of battle-hardened barnstormers. He holds a solid 80-64 lead in documented matches against Rosewall, his chief rival, but the first time they met, in 1963, Rosewall was already 28, Laver an in-his-prime 24.
5. Roger Federer
The argument: During Federer's 2004-2009 heyday, people routinely called the all-time major champion the greatest player of all time, pointing to both his astounding accomplishments and his beautiful, all-around game. But how can he be the greatest ever when he isn't even the best in his own time? This is, yes, about Federer's poor head-to-head record against Rafael Nadal -- 10-23 overall and an even worse 2-9 in major tournaments. True, Federer just happens to match up particularly badly against Nadal, what with Rafa's unprecedentedly mammoth lefty spin going naturally to the Swiss' one-handed backhand. But shouldn't the GOAT still find a way more than twice in 11 tries in the sport's biggest tournaments?
4. Boris Becker
The argument: At 18, he was a two-time Wimbledon champion. Let's repeat that: he was barely old enough to join the military and he'd already won tennis' most prestigious title -- twice! But he couldn't keep it up (at least not on the court). The Hamlet of the ATP tour, Becker was never sure how much he wanted to be a tennis star. As a result, after those two remarkable teenaged triumphs in 1985 and '86, he would win just four more major titles, two of them at a still reputation-challenged and underrepresented Australian Open. By the time he was 25, he had been definitively surpassed on his beloved grass courts by Pete Sampras. Plus there's this: He not only couldn't win the French Open, he couldn't win any clay-court title in his entire career.
3. Arthur Ashe
The argument: He is one of the sport's icons, and deservedly so. But the high regard grew chiefly from his off-court activism and courage, and over the years those aspects of his remarkable life have been conflated with his tennis deeds. He was, to be sure, a first-rate player. But he had trouble climbing up to his top level and staying there. He won only three major singles titles in a long career, most notably the 1975 Wimbledon, when at 31 he upset Jimmy Connors in the final. Even in his prime, he was just as likely to lose in the first week of a major as he was to blast his way to the later rounds.
2. Margaret Smith Court
The argument: The bulk of the Aussie's major singles titles -- 11 of her record 24 -- came at the Australian championships at a time when few of the American and European stars bothered or could afford to make the long, inconvenient trip Down Under. (Peter Bodo has made this case against Court.) And her 1970 Grand Slam? Yes, Court outlasted the great Billie Jean King 14-12, 11-9 in an epic Wimbledon final. But she beat second-tier players Kerry Reid and Helga Niessen Masthoff in the finals of the Australian and French championships, respectively, a good indication of the soft fields at those events. At the U.S. Open, she didn't have to worry about a rematch with King, who missed the tournament. And in the final, she needed three sets to best firebrand Rosie Casals in a serve-and-volley duel, even though Casals was nearly a foot shorter than her. Then there's the embarrassing Mother's Day Massacre in 1973, when 55-year-old "wrinkled runt" Bobby Riggs sliced and diced the 30-year-old Court in a 6-2, 6-1 tennis clinic. Court's humiliating loss in the PR stunt was a serious blow to feminism (really!) and led to the "Battle of the Sexes" later in the year between Riggs and King -- won, of course, by King in straight sets.
1. Jimmy Connors
The argument: He lasted more than 20 years on the tour, and helped change tennis with his two-handed backhand and aggressive service return. But, let's face it, his game was constrained by limited athleticism and an even more limited imagination. Ultimately, Connors' reputation is built more on his larger-than-life bluster than his performance between the lines. "I peak every time I play," he once crowed. Despite this, Connors spent most of his career one step off the pace set by the best player in the world -- first Bjorn Borg, then John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. He never won a tournament on European red clay, which is slower and bouncier than the green American dirt. (He reached the 1981 Monte Carlo final, but it was canceled because of inclement weather.) Worse, from 1975 through 1978, when he was in his prime, Connors lost six of eight major finals. He then spent three years losing in Grand Slam semifinals before Borg quit the game, allowing Jimbo to get back to the last Sunday. The American holds one significant record: most professional singles titles, with 109. But is that a selling point for greatness when only eight of them came at Grand Slam tournaments?
source: http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2014/04/roger_federer_no_way_the_6_mos.html
Follow me:
Sunday, April 27, 2014
The man who invented the Internet (well, sort of)
David Wallechinsky didn't invent what's on the Internet. It just seems that way.
In 1977, Wallechinsky,
his father Irving Wallace and his sister Amy Wallace published "The Book
of Lists." The compendium of cleverly presented facts, such as "15
People Who Became Words," "10 Men Who Were Supported By Their Wives" and
"6 Positions for Sexual Intercourse -- In Order of Preference," wasn't
just simple enumeration.
It featured detailed
explanations about its subjects, proving itself a worthy and
entertaining reference work. "The Book of Lists" immediately took its
place on another list -- the bestseller list -- and spawned three
sequels.
More than three decades
later, in the Internet age, its impact is everywhere. Countless
websites, including CNN.com, have turned to lists -- sometimes in the
form of galleries -- to help tell stories in a digestible way and boost
page views. Topics range from "History's Biggest Mysteries" to "13 Team Names That Will Make a Lot More Sense When You Know Their Origins" to "11 Things You Didn't Know About Spinal Tap."
Sure, you can't copyright an idea that goes back to God and Hammurabi, but one might think that Wallechinsky might be seething about seeing his child so misused.
read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/tech/web/david-wallechinsky-lists-internet/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
Follow me:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)