'A BAGEL OR TWO'
Tennis is a funny sport and some players are a little more ruthless than others when it comes to limiting the opposition to scoring. I remember my first tournament at 12 years of age at the Albany Junior Open and I received a belting even though it was only one set matches until the finals. I did not win a game against the best player in my age division in a first round demolition. I learned from that.
Tennis however is a sport that unless you lack common sense you will only learn from a loss and you will find a way to gain respectability on the score board even if you don't win. Sometimes it comes down to self respect even if your ability is by far outweighed by a much better opponent and plan B or C can often win a few points which can ultimately turn into games.
Take for instance a 6-2, 6-2 loss, on paper it looks like a smashing but 4 games can bring a vanquished player back for another dose of the tough stuff in the next tournament. Those 4 games show heart despite a one sided victory by a player who simply was way too good. Let's look at it in another way; If someone was to say to a player, 'you are no where near this guy's ability but you have nothing to lose', then wouldn't it be an opportunity for someone to hit out and try some things that they wouldn't normally attempt in most matches ?
Perhaps this may be the case with a player who has been taught an A, B or even C game but a player who has only been shown one style can only hope for that to be good enough on the day. 'A' games are every players' dream however in reality most players will need something other than just one train of thought to win a tennis match.
I often wondered what became of the Swede Stefan Eriksson who qualified for the US Open in 1986, the French Open in '86 and '87 and Wimbledon in 1987. Eriksson also won a Challenger event in '87 in France and was runner up to former top ten fellow Swede Jonas Svensson in a Grand Prix event in Cologne, West Germany in 1986. Stefan Eriksson was basically a tennis 'nobody' yet he could play the game, that's obvious.
Yet in his Wimbledon debut in 1987 he drew Swedish legend Stefan Edberg who was one of those ruthless tennis players that I mentioned earlier, a player not interested in winning 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, he wanted the triple bagel. This particular match was the first time for around 40 years that a triple bagel was dished out to a rather unfortunate player who was good enough to qualify for the calendar's most prestigious event.
Stefan Edberg defeated Stefan Eriksson 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in 1987 and it is a record that still stands despite some beltings given to players' since then.
So how did that happen ? At pro level you would imagine that most players would be good enough to at least win a few games against the superstars, it's not really possible to shut a player out of a tennis match, or is it ? I often refer to our own code here in Australia, AFL, our home grown sport which often highlights defensive type skills of certain teams.
Some teams are happy to win with 10 goals as long as their opposition only scores 5 or 6. Other teams go for the ego type of game plan, say 18 goals to 12, they are happy to let through a few just as long as they score more in the end.
I am certain however that even when an AFL team loses they are looking at some positives and if they lose with 18 goals against then 12 goals for will give them some heart and some positives for the following week. An 18 to 6 goal score line obviously will not leave a team or coach for that matter with many positives to look at.
So to my conclusion; A double bagel is unacceptable, that's not even turning up, physically or mentally, 6-2, 6-2 is still a whitewash but it leaves the mind something to work with. A player needs to work with their coach on finding ways to hang in there even after a first set belting. Good players will often lose 6-1, 7-5 or 6-0, 7-6 because they have more than one way of playing tennis.
The sport where you are trying to out hit your opponent isn't necessarily a sport where power will eventually win the day, it may come down to a little finesse as opposed to belting the cover off the ball.
Tennis is all about thinking, if you can't think your way through a match then you may as well take up something that doesn't require thought.
Maybe fishing.......
Tennis however is a sport that unless you lack common sense you will only learn from a loss and you will find a way to gain respectability on the score board even if you don't win. Sometimes it comes down to self respect even if your ability is by far outweighed by a much better opponent and plan B or C can often win a few points which can ultimately turn into games.
Take for instance a 6-2, 6-2 loss, on paper it looks like a smashing but 4 games can bring a vanquished player back for another dose of the tough stuff in the next tournament. Those 4 games show heart despite a one sided victory by a player who simply was way too good. Let's look at it in another way; If someone was to say to a player, 'you are no where near this guy's ability but you have nothing to lose', then wouldn't it be an opportunity for someone to hit out and try some things that they wouldn't normally attempt in most matches ?
Perhaps this may be the case with a player who has been taught an A, B or even C game but a player who has only been shown one style can only hope for that to be good enough on the day. 'A' games are every players' dream however in reality most players will need something other than just one train of thought to win a tennis match.
I often wondered what became of the Swede Stefan Eriksson who qualified for the US Open in 1986, the French Open in '86 and '87 and Wimbledon in 1987. Eriksson also won a Challenger event in '87 in France and was runner up to former top ten fellow Swede Jonas Svensson in a Grand Prix event in Cologne, West Germany in 1986. Stefan Eriksson was basically a tennis 'nobody' yet he could play the game, that's obvious.
Yet in his Wimbledon debut in 1987 he drew Swedish legend Stefan Edberg who was one of those ruthless tennis players that I mentioned earlier, a player not interested in winning 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, he wanted the triple bagel. This particular match was the first time for around 40 years that a triple bagel was dished out to a rather unfortunate player who was good enough to qualify for the calendar's most prestigious event.
Stefan Edberg defeated Stefan Eriksson 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in 1987 and it is a record that still stands despite some beltings given to players' since then.
So how did that happen ? At pro level you would imagine that most players would be good enough to at least win a few games against the superstars, it's not really possible to shut a player out of a tennis match, or is it ? I often refer to our own code here in Australia, AFL, our home grown sport which often highlights defensive type skills of certain teams.
Some teams are happy to win with 10 goals as long as their opposition only scores 5 or 6. Other teams go for the ego type of game plan, say 18 goals to 12, they are happy to let through a few just as long as they score more in the end.
I am certain however that even when an AFL team loses they are looking at some positives and if they lose with 18 goals against then 12 goals for will give them some heart and some positives for the following week. An 18 to 6 goal score line obviously will not leave a team or coach for that matter with many positives to look at.
So to my conclusion; A double bagel is unacceptable, that's not even turning up, physically or mentally, 6-2, 6-2 is still a whitewash but it leaves the mind something to work with. A player needs to work with their coach on finding ways to hang in there even after a first set belting. Good players will often lose 6-1, 7-5 or 6-0, 7-6 because they have more than one way of playing tennis.
The sport where you are trying to out hit your opponent isn't necessarily a sport where power will eventually win the day, it may come down to a little finesse as opposed to belting the cover off the ball.
Tennis is all about thinking, if you can't think your way through a match then you may as well take up something that doesn't require thought.
Maybe fishing.......
No comments:
Post a Comment