HUMOUR COACHING TIPS COMMENT QUIZ QUOTES LINKS HOME
	exploring the world of tennis . . .

Talking Points 2006

Ghost of Christmas Present visits British LTA The British LTA will tuck into the Quality Street a little ruefully this Christmas, reflecting on its preposterously extravagant spending on the likes of Brad Gilbert, Paul Annacone, Peter Lundgren, Carl Maes et al. Many of us wilt under the psychological pressure of Christmas greed lists as the season of rabid consumerism approaches its peak, but the governing body of British tennis has showered new chief executive Roger Draper with everything he could possibly have wanted. Such profligacy makes the LTA the very antithesis of Scrooge, but the ironic utterings of Russia's Davis Cup captain Shamil Tarpishchev now echo through the corridors of Queen's Club like a visitation by the Ghost of Christmas Present. "In Russia, preparation goes on until the players are 14," he explains. "After that we are simply compelled to give those players over to other international tennis academies. This works well for us because if they did not leave, then the following generation, say the 12 year-olds, would simply have no place to play. All of them will play for Russia in the future anyway, so it is a good thing. In the last year we had 360 juniors playing in 56 countries, and we would not be able to handle all of those at home." So while the US has apparently been getting everything wrong, the Russian policy of moving their promising youngsters into international academies abroad has been reaping dividends. "Today we are considered the world's strongest tennis power," Tarpischev brags. "In the last six years we have won two Davis Cups and two Fed Cups and I think that is an impressive result. We now also have 17 of the top 100 women's tennis players in the world, which, as a result, has seen the level of US tennis fall - we are killing tennis in America." It's an impressive boast, and not one to be taken lightly, especially when you consider how it has been achieved. You would think that the British LTA might have drawn lessons from this. You would hope they might have noticed that rising star Andy Murray developed his game at the Sanchez-Casal Academy in Barcelona. Surely all the money at their disposal would be better spent addressing the base of the pyramid and selective funding of player development at international tennis academies. But no, Draper and co have opted instead to issue statements of good intent and lure big-name coaches from the US and elsewhere to spearhead rehashed LTA programmes blighted by a culture of under-achievement, an unsuitable climate and a persistently inadequate competitive infrastructure. Is it already too late for the LTA to repent and change its fate? D.W. (21 December 2006) Back to the topics

Appearance money devalues sport It's not long ago that tennis was an elitist amateur game of starched white flannels and white balls and wooden racket presses. The notion of making money out of playing the game was anathema to the sport's governing bodies. Today, the game has made great technological advances and is both accessible and attractive to a much wider player base. But the amount of money sloshing around at the top level of the game threatens to corrupt the motivation of players and turn away the fans. No one would begrudge the world's best players the right to earn what their market value dictates, but there is an increasing perception that under-the-table appearance fees or guarantees are beginning to warp the integrity of sporting commitment. One of the main problems with such payments is that they are shrouded in secrecy. Lack of transparency invariably breeds distrust. People naturally become suspicious when rumours of six-figure appearance fees abound and a star player unexpectedly loses in the early rounds of a lesser event. When one of these stars pockets a huge fee at one of the minor tournaments and then pulls out of a Masters Series event the following week, citing exhaustion or injury, suspicion turns to outright cynicism. The impenetrable wall that separated amateur and professional tennis players in the early part of the 20th century crumbled during the era of "shamateurism" in the 1950s and 60s when the top so-called amateurs received under-the-table payments of hundreds of dollars a week. Having belatedly got something so right with the advent of open tennis in 1968, tennis then contrived to get it all wrong again, ushering in a new era of deceit and hypocrisy in 1990 when the ATP Tour started encouraging tournament directors to wave the carrot of guaranteed fees on top of prize money. These guarantees often dwarf the amounts of prize money on offer and distort the economic realities of life on the men's tour. Although the WTA has steadfastly refused to sanction the practice, marquee attractions like Maria Sharapova get around it by signing up for extra promotional appearances. Shortly after securing the appearance of Rafael Nadal at the Stella Artois Championships in "economics of the madhouse" 2007 and 2008, tournament director Ian Wight recently conceded: "We are killing our game. It is the economics of the madhouse that a player can receive more than three times the prize money not for winning a tournament but just for turning up." ATP Chairman Etienne de Villiers is unmoved by such protestations. "It is impossible to stop the practice in the same way you can't stop people opening the fridge to see what's inside," he said. "We are introducing measures we hope will allow us to understand the practice better. Yes, we have to manage our tournaments better to improve the incentives and player commitment. Doing that, you will bring the situation involving guarantees back into some kind of equilibrium. What I must emphasise, though, is that this is not a huge crisis." Personally, I think it would only take one episode of high-profile "tanking" to make this issue a crisis. The fridge should have a transparent door. Tournament directors should come out in the open concerning appearance fees, so everyone is clear just what is guaranteed and what is actually at stake in any given competition. Better still, the practice of offering such payments should be outlawed altogether. After all, if tournament directors can afford to offer players vast guarantees, they can afford to increase the prize money instead. D.W. (7 December 2006) Comments: I didn't realize these players were getting that much! I thought the "we-can't-stop-them-from-doing-it" dodge was a bit cute. They can't stop the Mob or gambling tycoons from slipping players money, either - except by making the rules against accepting it so dreadful that no player dares risk it. But, many people don't know how corrupt sports like professional boxing used to be, so they don't realize the danger in allowing players to accept money under the table. Posted by Kathy Krajco on 13 December 2006 My opinion is that professional players nowadays have managers and agents whose main aim should be the welfare of their clients. However cash is king, and these agents and such benefit themselves by devising various ways and means to increase payments to their player clients. Doubtless, there will be other schemes invented to increase the players’ lot. The players themselves have a lot to answer for. Among the top players there are often reported remarks like "It is not the money, but the feeling of achievement that counts". This sentiment somehow rings hollow. Posted by Henry Belletty on 31 December 2006 Back to the topics

Greatness beckons for Federer Roger Federer's victory in the Masters Cup underlined his domination of the men's game in 2006. Such is his lead at the top of the world rankings that he will break Jimmy Connors' record as the longest-reigning world number one towards the end of February even if he doesn't hit another ball until then. Connors' record of 160 consecutive weeks at the top lasted 25 years. "I think that is definitely one of the big records I've broken, maybe the biggest so far in my career," said Federer. "I'm waiting for that date to come and then I'll celebrate it, not right now." The world number one does not take his successes for granted. His public blubberings bear witness to that. But it must be difficult for him to keep his feet on the ground when he can see the heavens so "it's important to be nice" close. The Swiss has a passion for excellence and is keen to chase the lure of sporting greatness. Self-confidence is the fuel that keeps you in that chase but it can be a volatile gas and it requires careful treatment. The kind of success he has become accustomed to would fan the fires of arrogance in most people, but there is a counteracting humility in Federer that allows him to stay focused on just beating the next guy while the writers scribble at the record books in his wake. "I have a motto that I like: It's nice to be important, but it's important to be nice." he insists. He has never lost the common touch and is popular in the dressing room. "He hasn't changed a bit," James Blake once remarked. "He hasn't been arrogant in the locker room. He never is. That's great to see someone that does it with class. He doesn't intentionally get in anyone's face. He doesn't put people down." Federer feels justified in expecting success if he feels he has put in the effort. "I used to feel pressure when I was young," he revealed at this year's US Open. "People were saying 'this guy's got some talent, but he can't get his mind right, he's not fit enough'. This stuff hurt me, you know, back then. I was at a junction, which road do I want to take - the talented road or the hard working road? I chose for the hard working road and it paid off." His tennis may look effortless to us, but Federer clearly believes he is paddling furiously under the surface. Happily for all of us, Federer is still paddling hard enough to disturb the waters of sporting acclaim and cannot catch his reflection. Would he recognise himself if he did? Would he be the same person? Click here for a list of Roger Federer's achievements so far. D.W. (22 November 2006) Back to the topics

Save tennis from Frankenstein! The scientific landscape was still relatively pastoral half a century ago when Albert Einstein warned: "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity". Today, when scientists are applying for permission to create part-human, part-animal embryos, it seems pertinent to consider how scientific and technological innovations have blurred the lines between reality and fantasy, between authenticity and artificiality, even in the world of tennis. It was way back in 1818 when Mary Shelley's famous novel, Frankenstein, drew attention to the danger of scientists running amok and crossing thresholds that ought not to be crossed. In tennis, a significant threshold flashed by when Jimmy Connors started brandishing his metal Wilson T2000, consigning wooden rackets to junk shops, museums and attics within a decade. Nowadays we have electronic line-calling technology. We also have "smart" rackets. Piezoelectrics in the form of lead zirconate titanate fibres are embedded into composite frames. When these "smart materials" contort, they generate electric energy which is harnessed to increase the stability of the racket and dampen vibrations. Is it cheating to use a microchip to produce a counterforce in this way? Apparently not. But how far will manufacturers be allowed to go? What if the next innovation were to allow players to adjust string tension "on the fly"? Would that be acceptable? Technological advances tend to elicit reactive responses. Innovators seldom anticipate controversy. Actually, perhaps that's too kind. Innovators have plenty to gain from the postponement of ethical debate. So, clearly, the onus is on decision-making bodies to anticipate and plan for the future. Being proactive is the only way to avoid being presented with faits accompli. A good example of the creeping introduction of new technology is the advent of pitch-correction in the music industry. Fans are just beginning to wrestle with the thorny ethical question of authenticity as it dawns on them that their favourite artists utilise auto-tuning to make them sound better. Singer-songwriter Allison Moorer brought the subject to the forefront of public attention when she noted on the liner notes of her 'Miss Fortune' CD: "Absolutely no vocal tuning or pitch correction used in the making of this record." She was drawing attention to the fact that the use of auto-tune was the rule, not the exception. But what about integrity, she appears to be asking? What about authenticity? It's difficult to imagine Johnny Cash would have taken advantage of auto-tuning. But it's Ms Moorer's misfortune (!) that she is a great singer at a time when it isn't necessary to be one. In fact, pitch correction technology has been prevalent in the music industry since the 1990s and poor Allison is simply whistling in the wind, albeit with pitch-perfect delivery. Unlike the music industry, tennis is not primarily profit-driven. The marketability of the product is important - crucially important, according to tournament organisers and tour executives - but the sport must be managed in a way that ensures its integrity. No one would wish to stifle innovations that are targeted at injury prevention, but the time has come for the ITF and other tennis organisations to start defining what aspects of the game should be preserved and protected. They must then legislate accordingly, before tennis stealthily mutates into something undesirable. D.W. (8 November 2006) Back to the topics

Round-robin rashness The Next Generation Adelaide International, starting on the first day of 2007, will be the first ATP event to use the new experimental round-robin format. ATP chairman Etienne de Villiers appears to have sold the idea to tournament directors, members of the ATP Player Council and a whole host of concurring players and pundits who may well have paid scant attention to the detail. "We will have 12 tournaments or so experimenting next year," said De Villiers, who is keen to make the new format mandatory for 2009. "Most of the players are very positive about this." Tournament directors would not have needed much persuading. Delray Beach tournament director Mark Baron was just one of those voicing unreserved approval. "Spectators will get to see all the seeded players at least twice, which is great," he enthused. "Before, if a top seed had a bad match, he was out. Now, you could see him in the final. And we'll start on Sunday, which allows us to have a big family day, something we've always wanted. All in all, this is great news for our event." The round-robin has previously been used only at the year-end Masters Cup and the World Team Championship in Dusseldorf. Apparently, the French phrase rond ruban derives from an 18th century French military practice. When officers sought redress of a grievance by means of a petition, their superiors were sometimes inclined to seize and execute those whose names headed the list, so it became customary to sign such petitions in a circular form. If Etienne de Villiers heads the list of round-robin advocates, the name of Rafael Nadal is not far behind. "People want to see Federer or Roddick. Now perhaps me," the world number two told "catastrophe" reporters recently, "and this way they will see them at least twice, instead of once. If the world number two or the number one lose in the first round, it is a catastrophe for the tournament." It's rather ironic that Nadal should attribute his recent run of poor form to fatigue because round-robin tournaments will certainly make the tour schedule even more onerous than it is already. While tournament directors rub their hands at the prospect of starting the round-robin events on Sundays, overlapping with the final day of the previous week's tournaments, the Spaniard will see his seven-day working week become an eight-day one! Tournaments like the pre-Wimbledon Stella Artois Championships in London will probably opt for a 48-man draw, with 16 groups of three. The finalists will therefore play six matches instead of the five required previously. Ouch! No wonder Roger Federer has turned against the idea. Even if the Tour eventually sees the light and replaces groups of three with groups of four, other worrying factors will surely surface. One such drawback is the potential for players to indulge in "tanking" or not trying too hard once they have ensured their progression to the elimination stage. Lindsay Davenport is concerned about such dubious tactical ploys. "There (could be) a lot of fixing if your friend needs you to win or lose or whatever," she warned. "A lot of things could happen. There are some kinks to be worked out for sure." "I'm very, very excited because this is something I petitioned for for a long time," said Mark Baron. I hope he and his fellow advocates had the foresight to sign their names in circular fashion. Otherwise, it's off with his head! D.W. (27 October 2006) Back to the topics

Tennis and the deprivation model Yesterday the United States of America passed a population landmark, welcoming its 300 millionth citizen. Ironically, the 2006 season-ending WTA Championships will take place next month without a single American representative for the first time in the history of the event. Not that population ratios mean that much in this context. The representation of countries and nationalities on the professional tours does not obey any numerical model. China boasts the world's largest population, but the only Chinese player to appear in the top 20 of either the ATP or the WTA ranking lists is Li Na. One out of six people on the globe live in India, but Sania Mirza is the only one making waves in the sport and she is currently labouring outside the top 50. Nevertheless, Wimbledon was an embarrassment for the Americans and, for the first time since rankings were introduced in 1975, they currently do not have a single woman inside the top 10. Lindsay Davenport, who is taking a sabbatical for the rest of the year and may be on the threshold of retirement, is at a loss to explain the situation. "I honestly don't know what it is," she said. "I think Serena, Venus [Williams] and I have done a pretty good job for the last decade, staying at the top. But it is unfortunate that there haven't been bigger American stars coming up to help with the load yet." Some speculate that young Americans just have it too good and lack the hunger that drives some of the East European, Russian, South American and Asian players. Russia's Elena Dementieva subscribes to this view. "It is strange because when I play here in the United States I see all these clubs and tennis academies and it's just amazing how professional they are," she commented recently. "In Russia, it is all on the parents' support." The implication is that, while others perceive tennis as their meal ticket, Americans have been gorging on an abundance of facilities and opportunities until apathy and complacency have taken hold. It may be a bit premature to talk about a serious decline. After all, Davenport and one or other of the Williams sisters has won the Wimbledon women's singles title six times since 1999. But a downward spiral threatens to consume American aspirations if the losing trend is not reversed really soon. If the players don't win, the fans stop watching. If the fans are not watching, television coverage will be reduced and sponsorships will be jeopardised. Perhaps the USTA should look at the deprivation model. There are many disadvantaged groups in the United States: Hispanic, African-American, Native American and Asian American to name but a few. It's time to roll out a tennis roadshow programme that truly reaches the kids that don't have the iPods and the Playstations that are distracting their more prosperous compatriots. D.W. (18 October 2006) Back to the topics

On-court coaching is bananas The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour has experimented with on-court coaching at tournaments in Montreal, New Haven and Stuttgart so far this season and wider experimentation is anticipated in 2007. Dee Dutta, Corporate Vice President and Head of Marketing for Sony Ericsson explains: "For Sony Ericsson, our sponsorship of women's tennis is all about connecting players to fans, be it through our technology or through introduction of innovative entertainment concepts. We are committed to respecting the great traditions of women's tennis and the one-on-one gladiatorial battle that makes tennis so exciting, while also testing creative ideas that will enable the sport to continue to compete and succeed in the entertainment marketplace." Illegal coaching became a hot issue during this year's Italian Open when Roger "they might as well legalise it" Federer claimed that Rafael Nadal was being coached from the stands. Temperatures rose higher at the US Open when cameras clearly revealed Maria Sharapova's entourage communicating with her by means of visual cues and signals. Her father, Yuri, and fitness coach Michael Joyce were seen at various times motioning her to drink and eat bananas. The discontent threatened to boil over. It was the bananagate scandal. "The cheating is out of control," Daniela Hantuchova complained. "There are signals and words instructing the players. I've complained to the umpires, wondering how they can't hear this when I can." Meilen Tu went further. "There's so much cheating going on as it is, they might as well legalise it," she said. Sharapova was unrepentant. "Right now I'm sitting here as a US Open champion," she said. "And the last thing I think people need to worry about is a banana." On-court coaching has all the signs of being a half-baked effort to address these concerns. But it will not stop clandestine coaching from the stands. Nor is it fair. Many lower-ranked players cannot afford to travel with a coach. There are many logistical problems too. What happens, for example, if two players drawn against each other share the same coach? And 'miking up' the coaches is a pretty lame idea if viewers are not provided with some kind of language translation service. Innovative ideas are fine, but they should be treated with the utmost caution when they involve rule changes that would skew the fundamental nature of the sport. It can hardly be considered a "one-on-one gladiatorial battle" if, at the moment a combatant's shield bites the dust, he simply scratches his head and, in the parlance of 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire', opts to phone a friend. At the US Open, Andre Agassi summed it up: "Tennis is ... a sport that forces you to solve problems by yourself. It's a vehicle for education, a great thing for somebody's life. That message needs to be sold better." All in all, on-court coaching is not just a misguided experiment, it's bananas, it's an unacceptable interference with the very principle of singles competition. It's nonsense for Sony Ericsson to claim that the traditions of the game are being respected. Since when did entertainment become the raison d'etre of sport anyway? Tennis may happen to be entertaining but it does not and should not have to sell itself in the "entertainment marketplace". The WTA Tour seems to be kow-towing to its sponsors in a manner that jeopardises its very integrity. D.W. (6 October 2006) Comments: Why shouldn't tennis players get on-court coaching during matches? It happens in other individual sports (boxing, golf, etc). Meilen Tu is right - you might as well legalise it as it goes on anyway. Posted by Gareth on 9 October 2006 On-court coaching strikes at the heart of what tennis is all about. While it may be a very popular idea with coaches, as it presents all sorts of profile-lifting opportunities for them, I cannot imagine any intelligent player supporting an idea that negates, to any extent whatsoever, a superior ability to out-think an opponent. The beauty of the game is that you are completely alone out on court, facing a player who is equally alone (which is why it is called "singles"). In order to preserve the appeal that tennis has to independent thinkers - and to the very integrity of the game - that aspect of the game should remain sacrosanct. Of course, in a team situation such as Davis or Fed Cup, it is absolutely appropriate to have input from a coach or captain who is every bit a part of the team as the players. But it is absolutely inappropriate to allow on-court coaching during individual tournament play. Just as the ATP Tour wisely decided in the late nineties, let's hope that the WTA also decides to scrap an idea that never should have been allowed in the first place. Posted by Chris Lewis (1983 Wimbledon finalist) on 15 October 2006 Check out Chris's website: Expert Tennis Tips. Back to the topics

USTA crowns King and embarrasses Wimbledon When Billie Jean King took on and beat Bobby Riggs in the famous (or is it infamous?) "Battle of the Sexes" exhibition match in 1973, it was a watershed moment for women in sport. It could be argued that her victory was as significant for women's rights as Rosa Parks's bus protest was for the civil rights movement. But it was hardly a match of equals. Riggs was a 55-year-old ex-player at the time, while King was in her prime. Although the most-watched tennis match in history prompted a seismic shift in the perception of women's role in sport and society, it also served to confuse the issue. Equality, in this context, is not about sameness and uniformity. Biological differences render notions of sameness between the sexes nonsensical. Men and women are different but equally important. And it is this equality of importance that should determine issues like the distribution of prize money. On the opening night of the 2006 US Open, the USTA ceremoniously renamed the National Tennis Center as the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in honour of the tennis pioneer who has been relentless in her pursuit of equal rights in the sport. The fireman's daughter who started playing tennis on the public courts in Long Beach, California, rose from humble origins to dominate the game. She won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, 14 Grand Slam women's doubles titles and 11 Grand Slam mixed doubles titles. In 1967 she became the first woman in almost 30 years to take the triple crown of singles, doubles and mixed doubles championships at both Wimbledon and the US Open. Her off-court achievements were also immense. After founding the Women’s Tennis Association in 1973, she started the Women’s Sports Foundation a year later and fought successfully for the passage of Title IX, the federal law that banned sex discrimination in schools and colleges. In recognition of her many achievements, Life magazine named her one of the "100 Most Important Americans of the 20th Century". She continues to serve as a director on several boards including the Elton John AIDS Foundation. "She just sped everything up as pioneers do; they bring about change," said Martina Navratilova. "She changed opinions of people that had nothing to do with sports." Small wonder, then, that the USTA chose to elevate her to the level of another great American sporting icon whose name lives on in the Arthur Ashe stadium. "I would never in a trillion years think that this would have happened to a woman - only to a man," said King on hearing about the opening day ceremony. When she comes to terms with it, she will no doubt reflect that there is at least one more unfulfilled challenge ahead. Bobby Riggs has resurfaced in the form of the All England Club which continues to refuse to pay equal money to men and women. "Over the years Wimbledon has always been one of the leaders in our sport in so many areas," King said earlier this year. "Because of that, it is truly amazing to me that all of these years later they still have not stepped up and done the right thing on the prize money issue." Billie Jean King can take credit for advancing the cause of women's athletics over the last thirty years. The USTA can take credit for recognising her achievements. Both will deserve plenty of credit if they succeed in shaming the All England Club into recognising the validity of her beliefs. D.W. (29 September 2006) Back to the topics

Hewitt clutches security blanket in Buenos Aires Lleyton Hewitt's arrival at Buenos Aires for the Davis Cup semi-final between Australia and Argentina was heralded by a blaring siren and the flashing blue-and-white light of a police car whisking the former world number one to his hotel. A series of bad-tempered run-ins with Argentinian players Juan Ignacio Chela, David Nalbandian and Guillermo Coria has made Hewitt an unwelcome visitor to the Land of Silver. Chela was incensed by the Australian's overt celebrations during a third-round encounter at the 2005 Australian Open and spat at him during a change of ends. The animosity continued in the quarter-finals when Hewitt came up against Nalbandian. The two players bumped shoulders as they crossed paths on the way to their chairs. Nalbandian had taken exception to Hewitt celebrating his opponent's mistakes by pumping his fist and crying "C'mon". Later that year, a Davis Cup tie in Sydney was marred by the unsavoury spectacle of Hewitt and Coria openly trading insults during and after their singles rubber. Hewitt figured that the atmosphere in the 15000-capacity Parque Roca would have been torrid enough without the added fuel of these incidents and approached Tennis Australia for guarantees about his personal safety. "The situation has got steadily worse for visiting teams and it takes only one whacko over there to turn things on its head," he told Australian reporters. "I've got my family to think about and there are issues around the security situation." "Hewitt seems to be thinking that he's come to Iraq," commented Argentina's Jose Acasuso, clearly unimpressed by Hewitt's concerns. "But we're not bothered because this is the circus that he wanted to set up. Nothing's going to happen and we shouldn't pay any attention to it." Unfortunately, it's a circus that will come around more and more frequently. And it's not just the players that are getting twitchy. Hooligans, disgruntled fans, political protesters, terrorists and animal rights activists all represent an increasing threat to the participants, spectators and organisers of sporting events. Any sporting occasion may foster spontaneous acts of violence and any stadium is a potential target for organised terrorism. Managers of entertainment and sporting venues are no longer paying just lip service to security. The provision of a safe environment has never been higher up the agenda. It's becoming a huge factor in every aspect of sport, from stadium design to playing times and the conditions under which spectators are permitted to attend. And rightly so. Acasuso and co may choose to ridicule Hewitt and his security blanket, but, as journalist and satirist H.L. Mencken once observed: "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." D.W. (20 September 2006) Back to the topics

Champion or nearly man? Andy Roddick: in his own words Andy Roddick is certainly one of the most quotable tennis players in the professional game. Our Quotes page is liberally sprinkled with witty gems such as his post-match analysis on losing the 2004 Wimbledon final to Roger Federer: "I threw the kitchen sink at him but he went to the bathroom and got his tub." When asked if he planned to follow the lead of his friend and fellow American James Blake and wear sleeveless shirts on the court, he quipped: "If I wore a sleeveless shirt, people would try to feed me after the match." He has had self-deprecation down to a fine art. He rated his chances of winning the 2005 US Open as "as good as anybody not named Roger." Another example surfaced a couple of years ago at Wimbledon when he was asked about his match-up with Federer. "I'm gonna have to start winning some of the matches to call it a rivalry!" he said. This may well be a form of self-healing, deflecting the pain and disappointment of losing for at least the duration of a press conference, but sometimes you wonder if it reflects real insecurities and self-doubt. After this year's US Open final, Roddick commented: "If I lose to Roger in eight Grand "I'll dog him everywhere!" Slam finals, that's fine." Watching the interview in the players' lounge was his new mentor, one James Scott Connors. "No!" he exploded. "That's bull**** and you can quote me. Andy's a gentleman to say that, but there are three men in the mix now, make no mistake. I want to give Andy the attitude where he doesn't care who he plays. He's going to be winning Grand Slam titles in a year or two, and hang on for the ride!" It comes as no surprise that self-deprecation is not one of Connors's favourite character traits. His reaction to losing to Bjorn Borg or John McEnroe was in stark contrast to Roddick's engaging self-effacement. "I'll chase that son of a bitch Borg to the ends of the earth," he once declared. "I'll be waiting for him. I'll dog him everywhere. Every time he looks round he'll see my shadow." The shadow of Jimmy Connors is now much in evidence once again. Roddick's opponents have been looking round and feeling its sinister chill in Indianapolis and Cincinatti and most recently at Flushing Meadows. No wonder Federer felt the need to switch on the light of Tiger Woods in the players' box! Roddick himself once commented: "At one point in your life you have the thing you want or the reasons why you don't." Lack of self-belief is probably the biggest reason why he hasn't had the thing he wants, so talking a bit tougher like his mentor could prove a watershed in his quote-unquote career. His recent performances should certainly encourage him to echo Connors's expressions of resoluteness. In his own words. D.W. (12 September 2006) Back to the topics

More talking points of 2006

© 2006 Dave Winship

HUMOUR COACHING TIPS COMMENT QUIZ QUOTES LINKS HOME