DISCUSSION

1. It would destroy the upire's position as the ultimate authority in a tennis match. He's the one that makes the calls. If that means he has to get out of his chair occasionaly, so be it.

2. I saw Mauresmo's match today. Frankly, I don't think Amelie choked. She didn't make many unforced errors, she didn't hold back her strokes, she was just outplayed. It happens.

3. Debatable. In my view, they should try to keep it in. I know that when my serve suffers, it usually is because my ball toss goes wrong, not because I hit it too hard or not hard enough.

4. Don't really understand what Carrillo was talking about.

5. Both valid points. Capriati obviously wasn't ready for the fame and succes when she was that age, Hingis was. Personally, I think the age rule is a good thing.
By the way, Hingis obviously isn't burned out at all :)

4. shes saying the challenger system should be done away with bc with the kind of technology that they have, she feels that it should be used on every close point not just the ones that players challenge with the challenge systems. are you familiar with this system?

5. this was a comment said at the aussie open '05 . sorry . but yeah hingis isnt burned out now, shes definitely refocused. but it makes me wonder how much of that time was spent recuperating from the ankle injury and could she have taken less time off (instead of 3 yrs)

4. I agree, much to my dismay, with Mary (we don't really agree on many issues, as I'm not such a purist). It shouldn't be used only when the players make the decision to use one of their 2 challenges-- it puts players in the position of doing something that isn't really their job. John made the excellent point yesterday that the record for players actually being correct in the challenge situation is so poor due to the fact that many of the players are afraid to use their challenges, for fear that another situation may arise later in the set. Eventually, it comes towards the end of the set, and the player has their challenges leftover, and then decides to use them on two either inconsequential, or clearly "in", points.

It should be used in all tournaments in which it CAN be used-- especially the majors-- and on all courts (which is hopefully something that will be done in the future, rather than just having it in use just on the show courts).

I'm surprised you didn't add to that list the issue of "loss of conditioning" trainer usage/abuse by players (like Ancic today and Djokovic in the past)-- another much discussed issue during the morning televised matches ;)

about the djokovic

this is definitely a topic of discussion, maybe you should post about it. but i think most people will agree that the conditioning trainer usage is just bull shit and is unfair . today they mentioned that some player last year did the same thing, only to admit in a press conference that it was the only way he could beat his opponent. IT REALLY SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH.

Re: about the djokovic

Exactly... poor Monfils, it was he who was "victimized", as John and Mary called it, when he played Djokovic last year (the match to which you were referring). Ancic today did it, basically almost stopped mid-point, losing the point, ran over to the chair, just to call a trainer and get treatment for his cramping. It's just like McEnroe said, the point of players training so hard is to be able to have more strength, and endure longer than their opponent-- otherwise, what's really the point of playing. It's such an obvious change that needs to be made, but none of the tennis governing bodies are willing to deal with it, for fear of upsetting upcoming (and even well-established) players. Arg.

im still debating on whether i agree with mary's comment or not. but i will say this the sharapova match is clear evidence that even though the ball makes a mark in the surface, doesnt mean anything. Many marks that the ball makes are long & skidding and is hard to determine where the ball made initial contact with the ground. moreover, according to shot spot, the chair umpire was wrong on about 4-5 points ...heh, i guess i do agree with mary .

It's true; even with clay, the easiest surface to identify marks on, there are always going to be mistakes like slides, wrong mark ID's, and like many players do (most recent example I can think of was Mathieu yesterday) wiping and stomping out marks with their feet before the judge gets down from the chair. I guess she is finally right about something ;)

Well, Mathieu wiping the mark away was because he looked at the mark, saw that the call was (correctly) against him, and conceded the call, essentially telling the umpire "don't bother checking, the call against me was correct."

Or that's how I remember it, from when I saw it. I didn't think it was any sort of obstruction-of-calls.

Yeah, after looking back, that really was the situation in that particular point. No wrongdoing by any party :)

Yes, I remember that point now; thank you for clearing up my foggy tennis-filled mind :)

The point still remains, though, that players sometimes (not often, but occasionally) will attempt to wipe out the mark, which shouldn't happen, but I suppose there's quite a few more important things, in the grander scheme of tennis, to worry about than just this tiny little habit. (I hope that didn't sound sarcastic or mean, it wasn't meant as such; I'm just sad watching the highlights of the Blake match)

I'm surprised you didn't add to that list the issue of "loss of conditioning" trainer usage/abuse by players (like Ancic today and Djokovic in the past)-- another much discussed issue during the morning televised matches ;)

Robredo took a break in the 5th during the match today, too. In fact, someone at mtf said that the chair ump actually ordered Mario to take one because he was so messed up looking and he had thrown un earlier in the match. It really pissed me off that NBC got something like that so wrong. Anyway, Djokovic's wasn't nearly as nefarious as the commentators have been portraying it. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons it took so long was because they were on an outer court and it took a while for a trainer to get there. Plus, it wasn't caused by lack of fitness, but by a breathing problem that he has since gotten surgery to correct.

Haha, sorry this is so long! I'm a fan of both, if you couldn't tell. ;)

No, that's fine! It's great that people know more than I can find out through the few MTF threads I read and NBC. It's definitely fine for players to take timeouts with trainers when needed (in cases of extreme illness, or fear of something-- which, despite most, I tend to believe the banana story of Nadal's). I hadn't heard about Robredo's break, interesting. I'm sure no players have total malice reasons behind taking a break, as was somewhat portrayed by the commentators, but sure, they do know, and learn from an early age to take advantage of the system. It's so engrained in most of the players today that very few people see it as an abuse; rather, it is seen as an advantage, a tool that must be used. It's fine if a player has a legitimate problem that really needs corrected or treatment, something that either just occured or has come to a point of complete loss of ability to play by the player. The concept of "loss of conditioning", though, in my mind, seems to represent the opportunity for a player to take advantage of using a trainer several times just to be able to sit down-- almost like players stalling in between points if they need to catch a breath, just on a larger and more extreme level.

actually pam shriver was the one that brought out the stuff about hingis winning as a teen. let me correct myself: this was said at the aussie open 05, when hingis wasnt playing .

personally i dont agree with the age system bc a player doesnt know when they will have their best years. capriati's marijuana problem and trouble with the law may not be typical to tennis players , but it is typical to teenagers in general. i know that there were other teen players that burned out too. i think andrea jaeger was one of them . before capriati, jaeger was the youngest to make it to the semifinals

1) I say let the umpire do it. The linesman can go and point out the mark to the chair umpire, but the chair ump should be the one to make the final ruling. No reason to change the way that it is now, IMO.

2) Well, former champions aren't always successful coaches because the skills required are different. To become a great champion, you need great physical skill and talent, you need great dedication to training and to the sport. Neither of these are at all necessary or even helpful to a Coach. A Coach needs to be great at analyzing OTHER player's games, figuring out how to help THEM improve, how to make a gameplan that works to their strengths. Sure, this helps a player too - but as a player, even a great player can have a coach do that stuff for him, so it isn't really necessary.

Also, great champions are always supremely talented. It might be hard for them to teach/coach players that AREN'T supremely talented, or are talented in a different way. Imagine Pete Sampras as a coach - "oh, it's breakpoint, all you have to do is hit an ace!" ...Sampras doesn't have the experience of NOT having a giant weapon to rely on, how is he going to be able to teach someone how to correctly play at the big moments when he himself could always just go for a winner and feel that he could make it?

About Amelie Mauresmo - it's just home-town pressure.

3) When a player's serve goes awry, they need to go back to what they're COMFORTABLE hitting. Which means the serve that they hit the most, in practice. I agree that, if you're getting tentative, suddenly going for a slow serve (which is probably a serve you haven't really practiced much, you don't have a good groove for, and so on) is just going to make the serve stay awry. (I speak from experience, too - my serve sometimes goes awry, and if I try to compensate by "slowing it down", that just makes me get more tentative. The only way to get it back on track is to go with normal-speed, but just aim at the middle of the box to give myself margin for error).

I think it really depends on the player. They have to do something they're comfortable doing and gives them margin for error. I would guess that for most players, that would be a normal-speed serve, with a little bit more spin than usual, and aimed further from the edges of the box than usual.

4) Agree 100% on the shotspot. IMO it should be used the same way that marks on clay are used - up to the chair umpire, who will generally check when the players ask (but not if the thinks it's frivolous.)

5) No comment on the age rule.

1. Umpire checking the mark is a good thing. Linesmen cannot be sharp 100% of the time and as it shows, they're wrong sometimes.

2. Top players don't always mean good coaches, it's a total different thing to be a top player and to explain or guide someone else to being the same.
As for Amelie...too much pressure probably plays a part, but the clay can also be it. People expect too much of her here. Why should it be so easy for her to win when there's so much competition?

3. I believe it's a myth. Look at Dementieva. This is what she used to do. Nowadays, she choses for speed on her second serve (as much as possible) instead of the slow, predictable serve, that will get a killer return.
A lot of the time, a slow second serve is just as well a double fault.

4. I'm not sure about the shotspot. I guess she has a point, but I'm not loving it yet. For me it takes away some of the magic of the game. Can't quite explain it.

5. As for the age rule... there are always exeptions to the rule. So I'm not quite sure what to think of it.

1. I think the chair-umpires should keep on doing it. He/she has a good view all over the court, better than a linesman. He can of course ask the opinion from a linesman, but the chair-umpire should make the final decision, just as it is now.

2. Some old-sporters are good coaches, some are not. YOu don't necessarely need a past as top-sporter to make a good coach. And being an ex-top-sporter doesn't make you immediately a great coach.
A sporter just needs a coach that fits him well, someone who knows how to train the sporter, mentally and physsically.
About Mauresmo... I don't think she was choking, and I don't think it is to blame on Yannick Noah either. They made some great results together. I think it's a form of fear of faillure.. afraid to mess it up in front of your homecrowd, knowing a whole nation is expecting you to win. The pressure must be enormous.

3. I don't know, honestly. I think you should stick to a service you feel comfortable with. It's proven you can win tournaments with a crappy service.. look at Dementieva, look at Andre Agassi.

4. Testing it first is a good thing, then you know if something need to be improved, if it works ok. I'd rather see to kick the technology out of the tennis-stadium. What I like about sports (in general, tennis, football, volley, etc) that there's a human aspect in it. The sporters make mistakes, so do the refs. That's what I would miss if technology make it to the tennis-court.. the discussion whether the ref was wrong or right, etc.

5. it's good there is an age rule. If you're 15, 16, you should be protected. Because a) your body is still growing.. it would be no good if you play with a body that is still developping so many tournament. It would only do much damage to your body. b)as a 15, 16 year old you should also need to finish high-school and have some sort of normal teen-age-life. c)it also rules out that you're burnt out by the age of 20.
It's a good thing, imo.

2. i wasnt blaming yannick noah for anything, hes not her coach this year. i was using him as an example of a past champion employed as a coach .

i know that :) I just tried to say that probably the only reason that Mauresmo failed this year on RG is because of the pressure.
Sorry if it came out wrong!