Kutzenspetvenova

I mean seriously. First of all, she looks like a man. How can you be a Russian tennis player and ugly? Isn’t that impossible? She’s got this weird expression on her face. Like she permanently smells something funny. Her game is ugly – there’s nothing about her that’s fun to watch. I think that in this world of reality TV and the consumer getting more of a voice, we should be able to vote players we don’t like off of the tour. It could revolutionize the sport. Because when you think about it, the biggest reason tennis isn’t a bigger sport is because of the lack of personality. Even Sharapova, the poster child for consumerism, is kinda bitchy and uninteresting when you talk to her. By the way, is it just me or is Sharapova 7 feet tall now? I personally believe a woman becomes unattractive once she reaches 7 feet. Just about any man alive is going to look like her little teddy bear next to her. I think she’s still growing too. Look for her to reach 8 feet by 2009. Even Yao Ming will be like, “She too tall.” For some reason that made me think of Sharapova and Jackie Chan as a couple. She could put him in her little purse whenever they go out. But back to what I was talking about. Kusnetzova needs to get off the tour because absolutely NOBODY wants to see her play besides her parents. And Jackie Chan.

ROGER FEDERER IS THE BEST PLAYER EVER

After demolishing Rafael Nadal even worse than Jo-Willifree Tsonga demolished him, I’m going to move on to a more positive note – one in which I drool over the greatness of Roger Federer – the greatest player of all time. I remember watching Federer play at the U.S. Open back in 2001, a time I remember well because after I flew home, I realized that had I left two weeks later, I might’ve been on a plane that ended up inside the World Trade Center. It was the third round on Armstrong Court and there were only a few people scattered about watching some skinny little Swiss player with long hair and, supposedly, a bit of potential. The scouting report on him was that he had “some” talent but lacked focus and consistently got down on himself. Watching him play, I couldn’t agree more. After every miss his eyes would shoot down to the ground in disappointment. He was, quite simply, a moper. He moped around the court like a big baby. The guy had a sweet backhand but just about nothing else. After he lost, I wrote him off.

You see, there’s more to this story than what’s on the surface. Here I am, pronouncing this guy the greatest player in history, and yet seven years ago I tabbed him as a loser. What changed? Well, besides 12 Grand Slams? Federer won. That’s what changed. And I know that seems simplistic but it’s more complicated than you think. In a sport where the top 200 players all have talent, the only thing that separates them is their brain. Do they have confidence? Do they believe they can win? I remember back in the juniors when I encountered a particular bad stretch where I just wasn’t getting better. It was very frustrating. And then I played a tournament where I took out the number 1 seed in the first round. Now it was well known that he wasn’t feeling well. He was also not playing very well. But after that win, I gained so much confidence that I *believed* I could win every match. I hadn’t practiced any more that month than I had the previous month. For all intents and purposes I was the exact same player. And yet I started beating guys than just a few weeks ago I was losing to. Belief. Confidence. That’s what happened to Federer. He pulled off a few good wins and he started to believe.

Let’s say Federer had lost those “turning point” matches and continued to mope around, thinking to himself, “This always happens to me. I’m not good enough.” He may have never won a Grand Slam. I know that seems ludicrous, but there are guys out there with loads of talent who just can’t find their way to the top. It’s because they don’t believe - or never got that win. If talent were all you needed, Fernando Gonzalez would be number one right now. Wait a minute, doesn’t that go against my statement a few days earlier where I said talent trumps all? Hmm, I guess I’m retracting that. BLOG RETRACT! ---- BRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!! Talent only trumps all if you have the brain to back it up.

Now the thing I like best about Federer is that he used to be a laughingstock. He used to be that kid in group everybody made fun of. He was a technique-fiend, as mechanical as they get. Whenever he missed a shot, he’d put on a little off-Broadway play where he pretended to do the same shot over and over again, frequently five or six times. This is the tennis equivalent of finding the asthma-toting pocket-protector-displaying stuttering freshman in an empty locker room. Heck, I probably would’ve made fun of him too. Federer was a dork. He wasn’t popular. Nobody was in awe of him. He was just some nerdy kid who wanted everything to be perfect, regardless of the consequences.

Well, look who's laughing now. All those practice swings resulted in a man who, arguably, has the best form ever (on every single stroke). The funny thing is, you can still see Federer keeping his head down and repeating misses with practice strokes, just like he's always done. I used to believe that stroke technique didn’t matter. That everybody develops their own little quirks but if they had talent, they made it work. Federer proves that notion wrong. If you do stick with the “right” way, it pays off. Federer’s swings are as sweet as candy.

But is Federer really the greatest ever? Opponents will claim that he has no competition. McEnroe had Borg. Agassi had Sampras. Who does Federer have? Well, if you read my piece on Nadal, you know I won’t say him. And to a certain degree, they’re right. Federer has no real competition. BUT… I would argue that the reason he has no competition, is because he is so head and shoulders above everyone else. If Federer was anything less – if he actually had a weakness – then guys like Roddick and Nadal and Dava-Stealo would all be more competitive against him and he *would* have competition. But he’s just so mind-blowingly great that even the best of the rest pale in comparison.

Now when you start getting into the argument of how Federer would’ve done against Agassi or Sampras in their prime, that’s when the conversation gets a little sticky. It’s very difficult to compare athletes of different eras. With technology and strength seemingly on an annual upswing (take Roddick’s body versus McEnroe’s body during his playing days for example), it really is like comparing golf balls to tennis balls. Practice time alone has tripled from 20 years ago. I mean Yannick Noah used to smoke a cigarette during changeovers for God’s sake! But if you can assume that had McEnroe played in this age, he would have bulked up just like today’s players, or had Federer played back then, his practice routine would’ve been a third of what it is now, then you can start to formulate some theoretical matches between the players. However the thing that works against the “Federer has no competition” opponents, is the very argument itself.

The reason why it’s so rare to find players who are THAT much better than everyone else, is because you tend to be only as good as you need to be. If every player is an 8, well then the number 1 player in the world only needs to be a 9 to beat them. If all of the players were 5s, then you’d only need to be a six. In Federer’s instance – every player is an 8, and he has managed to become a 12. That makes me believe that if Federer had some “real” competition, he’d be even better. Federer has not reached his ceiling by any means. The scary thing is that Agassi and Sampras might not be able to challenge him at all. They might actually - gasp - make him even better. Scary, considering how amazing Federer already is.

Let’s face it though. When Sampras was serving like a madman and Agassi was pounding the ball like God, Federer would've had to play. They need to do that virtual computer matchup thing they did in Rocky Balboa to prove my case. But in the end, Federer is so technically sound, so consistent, so confident, no computer program would be able to quantify how dominant he would be. -- On a side note, I hold a very controversial view on Agassi and Federer's final match together (in the final of the U.S. Open). I believe that it being (at the time) Agassi's final match, Federer didn't want to embarrass him in front of his home country on such a big stage. I believe he gave the hobbling Agassi a set and kept it close on purpose. There were simply too many easy shots that Federer never misses. Which in my eyes makes Federer even better. He's not only awesome, he's nice. The nerdy kid from Switzerland never left him. -- If Federer is indeed the greatest player ever (and yes - on nostalgic days I do occasionally bestow this title on Agassi), he's the perfect player to hold that title. If I were forced to draw a picture that looked most like a tennis player is supposed to look, it would probably end up looking a lot like Federer.

So before everyone thinks all I do is hate on people (I really do hate Nadal though), this article should give you pause. Viva la Federer. And if you want to be involved in this conversation some day, then stop reading this blog and GO OUT AND HIT!

I DON'T LIKE RAFAEL NADAL

I don’t like Rafael Nadal. I’m sorry, I just don’t. There are going to be a lot of angry responses to this entry because a lot of people DO seem to like Rafael Nadal. But I don’t. Why? Well let’s start from the beginning. Way back in 2002 (or possibly 2003), the U.S. was playing Spain in the Davis Cup. Now while I’m not interested in verifying this, I remember Nadaley being like 17 years old. He was playing for the Spanish team – and somehow this 17 year-old kid BEAT both Roddick and Fish to win the tie (in Davis cup a match is called a “tie”. Just one more attempt by tennis to alienate as many potential fans as possible). A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD! Heck, why didn’t they just field their Jr. High team against us? Now this was around the same time when people thought Roddick had potential and was just going through a little post Grand Slam Champion depression. Nobody knew at the time that this was the real Roddick, and that the guy who won the U.S. Open was the anomaly. So I was pissed that Roddick was such a wuss that he would lose to a 17 year old, and I was pissed that this 17 year old disgraced our country (you know, because when the average American thinks about what defines our country – tennis and Davis Cup are at the top of the list).

Now that Nadaley was on my radar, I started to follow him. Americans are notoriously bad on clay, the surface we lost in Davis Cup on, so maybe this guy was just a flash in the pan. Apparently I was wrong, because in either that or the following year, Nadal was playing for the French Open championship. And he brought along with him… his Capri shorts. Now THIS was the true beginning of my hatred for Nadal. The guy wore shorts that WOMEN wear. Yeah yeah, I know. He comes from Spain. There are cultural differences and such. Blah blah blah. I DON’T CARE! The guy was wearing girl shorts! In my mind that made him a girl, no matter how irrational that sounds. And as he bounced around the court and people like Most Annoying Announcer Ever Mary Carillo fell in love with his “energy” and his “toughness”, all I saw was a little girly man that had weird strokes.

You see Nadaley is not as talented as a lot of people think. He simply benefits from the fact that there aren’t a lot of players out there like him. He loops the ball up with impossible spin, disregarding all form and manner you’re taught as a junior – then on TOP of that he's a southpaw - you’re playing against a style that, unless you’re playing him, you never see anywhere else. Couple this with the spin-friendly surface that suits his awkward game, and you’re going to have trouble beating the guy. This is why he gives Federer so much trouble. Even Federer revealed, “He just has a really funny game”. And I think that’s what annoys me the most about Nadaley – he’s not nearly as good as people give him credit for. He’s just lucky his game is so strange. I HATED playing players like this. They’d be up 4-0 before you’d find even an ounce of rhythm against them.

So after Nadal won that first French Open, the newly converted Rafa fans (what an annoying nickname) began coming out of the woodwork. And since everybody knows me as the “tennis guy”, they bombarded me with their take El Matador. When all I wanted was a large pepperoni and mushroom to go, my pizza guy couldn’t stop talking about “that new Spanish guy”. “Did you see him, Chris? He was awesome! He runs down everything!” Now since my pizza guy is 250 pounds, and can't even run down a second packet of parmasean cheese, I don't know how he should get any opinion on another person's quickness. But I listened patiently, bit my tongue, and once he was finished, blurted back, “Trust me, that guy won’t make it past the second round of Wimbledon.” This really depressed Joe The Pizza Guy. He never looked at me the same after that. But it didn't matter. I was right. Nadal lost in the second round of Wimbledon. Another flash in the pan.

And for all intents and purposes, Nadaley was a flash in the pan. He’d win all those pointless clay court tournaments, but couldn’t win on any other surface. We call these players “specialists” and they do not deserve to be in the conversations of great players. Great players win on every surface (Agassi). Of course since tennis desperately needs stars, the media hyped him up. So when he came around to the French again and annoyed his way to the championship, everybody seemed to forget the fact that he was a non-factor in every other Grand Slam.

I didn’t forget.

In the meantime, tennis put more effort into making this guy a star than it would take to actually travel to a star. Because he does steroids he started growing muscles. His boyish features became so cro-magnum like, I originally thought he was the star of those Geico caveman commercials. But his “wild” pre-match routine of running onto the court and bouncing around like a boxer captured the imagination of millions – especially Mary Carillo, who very well be the most annoying person in the universe. But then something happened. Something the media wasn’t expecting. Despite all their hype, despite all their adoration… Rafael, surprise-surprise, didn’t have a personality. In fact, he was so boring, that his 2 minute post-match interviews were approved by the FDA as sleeping aids. God was the guy dull. And I’m sure there are many of you who will rush to his defense claiming, “English isn’t his first language!” You know what, it isn’t Novak Djokovic’s first language either – but he seems to have a pretty easy time displaying personality, doesn't he? So what that left us with was an annoying caveman, who only wins on one surface, who wears girl pants, who takes steroids, and who doesn’t have a personality. Gee, sign me up for the future of tennis!

Ultimately, it is Nadal’s reluctance to play a traditional game that will doom him. Big loopy unorthodox strokes put a lot of strain on your muscles and leave you incredibly susceptible to injury. And since Nadaley likes to run around til his feet fall off, he’s got a lot more mileage on those shoes than other players his age. He is a walking injury magnet. And if I understand correctly, it’s already starting. Isn’t there something wrong with his foot? What is he, 22? 23? The guy just got smoked (and I mean SMOKED) by some dude who’s more of a boxer than he is a tennis player. Look for him to MAYBE pull off a final French Open (although I think Federer will win it this year) and then fade into obscurity as another European who could only win on clay. People will say, “Whatever happened to Nadal?” And I’ll be right there to answer, “Who cares?”

I’d love to write more but you should really GO OUT AND HIT!

How To Make Your Child A Tennis Superstar!

HOW TO MAKE YOUR CHILD A TENNIS SUPERSTAR

There are a lot of tennis parents out there who are wondering, “How can my child become the next Agassi?” Well first of all, they can’t. Agassi was the best player ever. So give up on that dream right now. But if you want to know how your kid can become the next Roddick (not so good) or Jankovic (even more not so good) then read on. Being a tennis pro for nearly 15 years, I find it hilarious when a parent whose child takes a whopping two classes a week is surprised when, after a year, their budding superstar still can’t beat Willy, the best friend who took four lessons 2 years ago and plays with a racketball racket. “What gives?”, they ask. “Why can’t my son beat Willy?” Well first of all, I hear Willy’s pretty good. But really, it comes down to the two “T’s”. Time and talent. The less one has of one, the more they better have of the other. Let me put it to you plainly. While your child is taking two group lessons a week, some other child is taking four group lessons a week. Assuming all else is equal, who do you think is going to be better?

But in Willy’s case it might be as simple as the kid having talent. I see athletic kids come in all the time and destroy my extremely *unathletic* lesson who I’ve been teaching for two years. It used to demoralize me. But then I realized – talent trumps all. A few years ago they had a serve station at the U.S. Open where you could measure the speed of your serve. Some rando walked up who had never played tennis before and blasted a 145 m.p.h. serve. That’s as fast as Andy Roddick. The Sportscenter hosts rightly questioned, if some rando can serve as fast as Andy Roddick, how hard can this sport be? Well, of course we don’t know if that serve went in (the station was a booth) and I’d be surprised if this guy could hit even 2 out of 100 145 mph serves anywhere near the court. But it teaches a great point. Talent trumps all.

This leads to the classic conflict of a tennis parent: Seeing your child for who they are verses seeing them for who you want them to be. Rarely have I met a parent who can accurately judge the talent level of their child. They see only their child’s killer drop shot (while ignoring the previous fifteen backhands that went into the net). This results in parents constantly pressuring pros to move their children into more advanced classes. If there’s one thing that I can tell you about tennis pros, it’s that they’re pretty good judges of talent. When they believe somebody is ready to move up, it’s usually the right time. Parents have to understand that moving a kid into a class undeservedly has a trickle down [up?] effect. Parents of kids in this higher class now believe that the level of the class has diminished, and they then demand to have THEIR kids moved into a higher class. This continues all the way up to the top, where if too many undeserved kids get in, then the top kids, aka the ranked players who sell the program, jet off to another facility. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this happen. So the next time you ask a pro to move your kid up, you better be damn sure he/she can handle it, or else you’re going to get a lot of crooked stares from me or the pro you’re dealing with.

So then what should you do if your kid isn’t good enough to move up? It’s very simple. Do as many of these three things as possible:

1) Practice more outside of class.
2) Take a private lesson(s).
3) Play tournaments.

All three of these things prove to a pro that your child is dedicated. And it is almost impossible not to improve under a regimen that includes them. I promise you, tennis pros aren’t cruel (well, most of them aren’t anyway). They see things for what they are. If a child is consistently dominating a class, we’re not going to keep them there just to spite you.

So this brings us back to our original question: How can your child become the next Roddick? Well lucky for you, I’m going to break it down for you into one simple paragraph. So get out your pencils (or your printers) and take note. Follow this regimen and you’re going to get the most of your child’s talent (if they have any that is). Here goes: First, start your child at around age 5 or 6. Put them in one or two group classes a week. After a year, add a half-hour private lesson. In six months, make it an hour private lesson. When they hit 8, try to have them in 3 to 4 group lessons a week, as well as one private lesson. At 9, have them play their first tournament. Aim for about five tournaments that year. At ten years old, they should be playing six days a week, 8-10 tournaments a year, and *at least* one private. At 11 or 12 is when things begin to get serious. If you really want to compete at the highest level, you will have your child playing at least 12 hours of tennis a week, plus 15-20 tournaments a year. His/her ranking will improve and the tournaments will get tougher. Set up practice sets with other highly ranked players in addition to his group/private tennis schedule. At 14 they should also add a regimen of 2-3 hours of off-court activity a week. Running, weights, cardio, whatever. Try to get your child in the best training programs in the city. If he/she is the best in the program, you’re not at the right facility (be honest though – are they *really* the best?). From there, if your child really has talent, good coaches will take over. They’ll begin to structure your child’s schedule for you. They can then determine if they’re good enough to go straight to the pros, or if college is the more logical route. Top tennis players practice at least 4 hours a day and include a daily off-court workout routine. These days, that’s par for the course. Still interested in your child becoming the next Roddick? Well, then go for it. But if I may suggest – don’t push a child who doesn’t want to be in the sport. It almost never works out. Keep it fun, set achievable goals, and always support them. It’s not your life. It’s theirs. Who knows, one day you might be sitting at Wimbledon holding up a sign that says, “I told you so!”

Til then, GO OUT AND HIT!

Aussie Final

Today I watched the final of the Australian Open with my good tennis buddy David Boyd. Jo-Willifreed Tsonga played Novak Djokovic in a battle of two players who had never won a grand slam before. This was such an opportunity for both players because most of the time, when you maneuver your way into a Grand Slam final, you find yourself battling against someone who’s already won one (see Baghdatis vs. Federer circa 2007). As a result, you get in about three games of balls-out go for broke tennis, then become completely overwhelmed by the situation and toasted in straights. Neither of these guys had that to worry about. And both came in feeling like they had a legitimate shot at winning a grand slam. Wow, what that must feel like…

Now because I have sworn off cable from my immediate life (it preys on my inability to concentrate – sucking hours from my day like a baby sucks bottles), I’d never seen Tsonga play. But as soon as I saw him walk into that stadium, I knew he was done. Tsonga simply does not have a tennis player’s body. He’s too thick, there’s too much weight in his legs, and since on top of that, he’s tall, he can’t possibly move well. Now , people had told me he was quick, which threw a wrench into my analysis. But as soon as I saw him I said, “He may be able to scramble for balls in the first set. But let’s see him do it the third”. As it turns out, I was exactly right (humble, I know). The guy was simply too late getting to balls. Easy forehand winners became a preview of Tsonga's next Pilates class as he was stretched into just about every position possible.  Is this tennis or Twister.(note: Chris has never taken a Pilates class - nor does he plan to). 

This led me to ponder why it was so easy for Tsonga to beat Nadal in the semis but upon about 12 seconds of reflection, I knew exactly why he beat him.  Nadal isn’t a guy who hits winners. He’s a guy who wears you down by hitting extremely high and heavy balls (and for anyone who’s played against guys like this – where you’re hitting eye-high balls with the kind of spin that breaks wrists – you know how agonizing it can be). But Tsonga is the perfect player to handle Nadaley. He’s tall and strong. Eye-high for us is shoulder high for him, perfect for crank-forehand-central. And the “heavy” ball doesn’t faze him cause he’s distantly related to Muhammad Ali. Nadaley better pray that the next time they meet, it’s on the red stuff.

And finally, this leads me to Djokovic. Djokovic (whose name is incredibly annoying to spell btw) has started to cause a little uproar in the community because of his arrogance. Well you know what I say? GOOD! It’s about time we have someone saying, “Guess what? I’m not afraid of Federer. Federer should be afraid of me.” (I don’t know if he’s ever said those exact words but it sounds better that way). This in contrast to wussy little Nadaley who offers pearls like – “He such good player. You have play best and you beat him but maybe not cause he most of time beat you. I am so lucky to play on court that he play. Slurp slurp slurp little Spanish accent.” I mean are there any MEN left?? Anyone left to talk the talk and BACK IT UP?? Tennis nuts, let me introduce you to Novac Djokovic – the first player in 20 YEARS not afraid to say what’s on his mind. And you know what I love about it? I love how Federer doesn’t know how to deal with it. He’s so flummoxed by the blatant disrespect and so bound to the “gentleman ambassador” role he’s embraced, that he can do nothing but pretend to be unfazed by it. But during those interviews, boy do his eyes tell a different story. It bothers him. A lot. And I love it. I mentioned something to Boyd’s live-in girlfriendo, Holley, about Federer. Everybody makes such a big deal out of the fact that Federer is so nice. He spends 20 extra minutes talking to the press after matches and is always there when you need him. Well of course he’s always there. HE’S ALWAYS WINNING! I’ll tell you what, I’ll give you the rest of my week if I win a match at the Australian Open. How freaking easy is it to talk about winning? “Oh yeah, I’m great. What can I say?” Times 1000. But what happens when 5 losses a year turns into 10? And the questions switch from “How does it feel to be so dominant?” to “How does it feel to be on the downside of your career?” I’m curious to see how “available” Federer will be then. Cause, you know, everybody just loves to pontificate about the myriad of reasons why they’re losing. [Cue any Roddick post-match interview.]

Now before you flip out, let me remind you that I love Federer. He’s the nerd who overcame the bullies. Who doesn’t like that story? But there’s no question that he needs more competition – and Djokovic is offering that. I’m of the belief that Nadaley will fade. He’s a clay-courter with loopy strokes and those guys are almost always doomed to career-ending injuries before they’re old enough to rent a car (can anyone say Guga?). It’s already starting. Trust me, this guy has maybe one more French in him then it’s bye-bye Nadaley. Which is fine by me cause to be honest, I don’t really like the guy. But I’ll talk about that another time.

Til then, GO OUT AND HIT!