Scoop is at MIAMI OPEN

My stand on OCC is that it’s terrible in conception and practice and every match with OCC should be asterisked in the results.
Typical misguided gimmick on the part of the WTA.
So only GSs matter – out there you have to do it on your own.

Simona’s match was ok from what I saw of it – a lot of routine baseline wallopping but I did catch a nice volley from S – more please.

Simon Briggs in the Telegraph also has a good piece about OCC – he’s against it.
Incident in Miami concerning Muguruza, which I didn’t catch, seems to have sparked all this.

Hearing about his “angles, variety, lobs, pinpoint accuracy” makes me even more anxious to see Nishioka play. That type of player is so much fun to watch. I saw the match on TV and was relieved when he did retire – it seemed like his team urged him to. Let’s hope he can be back playing soon.

Ha ha – yes I registered for Premium and couldn’t get access either – I think it’s a con and I’ve complained 🙂

But I read enough to know where Briggs is going on this and he has mentioned it before. I think he’s basically saying what we all are, those of us who are against it.

When I was catching up with Simona and Cahill I just thought, why on earth waste money on an expensive coach when he tells you stuff you should know after all the years you’ve been playing tennis.
Those things should be sorted out on the practice court.

I confess I was never a fan of Tracy Austin as a player but I think she woud be a good coach. So maybe in the future that could be her role.

Kerber’s serve will never be more than average in speed but she could perhaps work on her placement and variety. It’s been her Achille’s heel many times this year.

The pressure, on and off court, has had a delayed effect on Angie – it’s now she’s feeling it. Often works that way. She got through the first round in Miami ok but not without a tiebreak fist set. I’m crossing my fingers for her.
She hasn’t mentioned it but I’m sure the number one ranking must seem a bit of a poisoned chalice at times.

Will go ahead and listen to Tracy Austin. I’ve begun to think of occ as a way for players to pause the momentum of other players, similar to an untimely unnecessary injury timeout or a racquet smash or an on purpose argument with the chair ump, just to vent or somehow ruffle the opponent. Like Andy Roddick handing his racquet to a ball kid and Younes Al Anayou doing the same during their Australian open epic QF back in 2003 I think, where the two ball kids played a point and Roddick and El Anayou waited. Younes said he enjoyed it but also wondered if it was a ploy, as Roddick seized the moment to win the epic match after the ballkid rally.

That may be OCC too, a strategic ploy like doing a spotshot even if you know you lost the point and the tape won’t change it, you think well better to pull this stunt than to incur a point penalty by smashing my racquet. If you’re the player caught up in the match I’d be surprised they’d say anything other to their coach than hey you’re job is to be a prop right now and I’m going to make you look stupid and I’m paying you anyways so go along with the program and grab my racquet bag when the match is is over!

Scoop, the banana peel idea is interesting, but I have to think that unless you are safely in the top fifteen players with a stable, well paid team that is less likely to pull the rug from under you, big results and fame aren’t welcome. Harrison pointed this out when he reached #43 last time his coach Doyle right? asked for more money and Harrison wasn’t prepared and his coach walked, putting Harrison into a tailspin. For his comeback this time he began to play more dubs, joined world team tennis, played his way through qualies draws into main draws, and began burning a path back to the big leagues. Now the hard court season for Spring is over and isn’t returning until June. And despite Harrison having won his first ever ATP match at what, fifteen or sixteen years old in Houston on red clay, Americans usually aren’t excited about the surface change unless you’re Serena Williams and you own a pair of French Open titles.

To me the deal is this, unless you’re top 32 where you’re a little more protected and don’t square off against a seed in the early rounds of a tournament, you have to keep your level of play up. That’s because in all likelihood you’re going to face off against your mirror image, a player who’s record is comparable and who is also on a decent streak, or a striver breaking through who also has momentum.

That’s the way the tour works. You achieve a major breakthrough only to find yourself up against other versions if yourself with no relief and more demands in your time. Look at Federer: everyone comes to him, he has a stable team who he pays well, and he can basically stay in a cocoon. If you’re Harrison or Puig, you have an X in your back the very next tournament. Winning a tournament means you’re no longer under the radar, and no matter what your plans are they are becoming unglued week by week.

I say this only because it’s exactly what’s happening. Look at Harrison now – he may fall out of the top fifty after working his way back from the outer orbits of the tour. He was a big believer in his game only for its weaker parts to reemerge in the biggest moments, retreating to scrambling behind the baseline. He skipped Delray, which likely would have welcomed him aboard, to head back to a tournament he likes down in Acapulco, only to find himself in qualifying despite breaking the top fifty – and losing to hot player Nishioka in a tough match. Then he faces the king of the challengers in Dzumhur out in Indian Wells, another one of his favorite tournaments, and he entered that match cold given it was a few weeks after he last won. In his third week after winning Memphis he squares off against Fognini. Plays his heart out but same deal, second straight first round exit, leaving him with three straight weeks if exiting either before the tournament began or in the first round of his favorite tournaments.

That hurts. He hasn’t had a stretch like this since July last year. And so quickly! And the reason it matters is that he enters a part of the season he has never mastered, and beyond that the grass, where he should do well but where habits like baseline scrambling aren’t optimal strategies.

So as much as I appreciate the banana peel idea here Scoop especially in such a tough sport, I gotta say the tour grind is a place where yesterday’s victory cant overcome tomorrow’s match. Winning a tournament is past tense a day after the team dinner to celebrate. It’s not like basketball where a team can work over the summer and regroup for next year, it’s a place where if you win a tournament it’s great but your opponent is already planning to stick a fork in it when you play the next tournament

There’s only a few exceptions to this, such as winning matches in the locker room, your opponent being too scared of you, or you being more familiar with playing on certain courts such as an outer court or stadium court, where you have more options. That knowledge is useful for sure and can benefit a player.

But otherwise this is a gladiator sport and yesterday’s win doesn’t matter for tomorrow’s match.

I think Harrison’s going to be fine by the way. Only that the only thing that cures losing is winning. I hope for his sake that he plays dubs during the clay season and actually looks at it as a learning opportunity. Us players haven’t done awful on the clay in recent years, but nor have they done well.

Radwanska 0-6 3-6 to Lucic-Baroni. Where does she go from here ?

DY beats Pouille again! Tellin ya DY is on a mission this year to grab a title. All the USA men’s players are.

Fognini is a nice guy but on court hes a madman. Hes actually well liked by many players if you go to his IG. But he also has enemies. A court attendant said Fognini irked him at practice as the guy had to get something and ran by the fence backcourt a few times and Fog said Is this the last time youre gonna do that? Like a jerk. Then later that day he saw Fog giving transportation a hassle saying he was supposed to be here… Fog is not one to bite his tongue but he is a straight shooter no nonsense guy. After he beat Souza i asked about Facing Murray and he was like, Why are you asking me that now after the match if the day? I explained the book and he did give a cliche reply at least

Amazingly, FLO and VSCO two of the most stable lefties on tour, behind Kerberizer. Mostly because they are supervets and have mastered the subtleties of lefty tennis, when to pound it when to finesse etc.

Just saw the clips from Konta and Sasnovich. I didn’t enjoy it and found myself pulling for Sasnovich when she was feeling more confident. She has a mean ground game but no volley! Konta was not exciting – she hits a beautiful backhand but a happy to be here forehand, as in it’s like an advanced rally shot with very little flexibility. Sasnovich had a lot more versatile forehand.

In watching Kerber she really does have some great angles on her shots when she’s working the ball. She must have been playing it too safe during the last few months, she should be able to make players twist their ankles the way she moves the ball.

Like Tiafoe yet Federer is a quick study so once he zoned in on a few things he seemed to hit every shot Tiafoe did, just a little better. Over a course of a match that stretches a small lead into a big one. And that’s the maestro for you these days, possibly better than he was in 2007.
Tiafoe has great disguise in his shots, I love that! If he improves what he’s already doing he will be one of the fan favorites and will make some memorable runs. He is a lot more fun to watch than any young player today. From any country. He most reminds me of Nadal actually in terms of his speed and unpredictability.

Hand the man a bandana.

His backhand also looks good these days, he’s really turned it into a shot.

Re Konta – I just can’t work up much enthusiasm for her, although she’s a trier with some good results. No variety.
Presumably she’ll head the GB Fed Cup effort in Roumania next month but I would expect Simona to see her off. I wonder what kind of court will be awaiting the Brits 🙂

The men’s game keeps throwing up these good young guys with imaginative games – can’t see that happening on the women’s side unless I’ve missed someone. Mainly you just know what you’re going to see.

Hartt –
I did finally get to read the rest of Brigg’s article (after I complained) and he did go on to say that from the WTA point of view things are probably going to get worse because that Simon person (who sounds an idiot) wants to bring coaches more into the match and make suggestions from the sidelines. I can’t think of anything more stupid and distracting.

And we all know what it’s really about – trying to divert attention from the fact that apart from a very few players (one of whom is nearing retirement) the women’s circuit is pretty boring and likely to remain so and just kept afloat by astute merchandising and selling women for their glamour and/or sex appeal.

Many people advocate for shorter matches. They got their wish with doubles. Thankfully they have kept the singles tour as is and only switched up to tiebreakers versus win by two games for the final set for some tournaments that weren’t in sync.

To me a shorter match is an awful idea. If they want a tour that’s meaningful maybe they can stabilize coaching or something. Or improve locker rooms around the world to prop up draws. Or raise salary for challenger players so that more talented players can get a mild boost and have a little more cushioning in the money department instead of relying on deep pocketed investors (who are either helpful or not, but who often aren’t giving out of the pureness of their interests aka they want to get paid too).

There are many ways to improve the tour, such as bringing in more fans with cheaper seats, deals for schools, like kids day at the French open.

And then there are awful ways. Such as perpetuating lipstick brochures, meddling with a scoring system, considering best of three set matches for early matches at slams, going to no add scoring etc.

They can always quicken the courts 🙂 that would force players to develop a volley.

Catherine and Dan are looking more right by the day on the wta’s many robotic players. I’ve seen it on the men’s tour as well – sometimes there are two guys playing, same style, and it’s not much fun. I don’t understand how we got here. I’ve seen coaches that teach Federer’s tricks (they’ve been in style since well before Federer hit the tour – sneaky drop shots, rushing the net on the serve etc), drop volleys, baseline drop shots, super angles. All of this has been part of tennis’ repertoire as shots available for players to test out and use. Some of the Spanish players, such as the Sanchez family, learned all of them (how Emilio never made much of a mark I’ll never know, perhaps simply didn’t have it in him).

Bad coaching I guess. Playing it safe mantras. Just play your game instructions, even if that underdeveloped game then gets perpetuated. I’ve seen more varied junior games in the early 1990s then I see today sometimes.

I say all this after watching only clips, and maybe I’m missing something. Whoever is coaching Karo Pliskova is doing a good job, because Pliskova can so a lot more than Davenport like shots from the baseline, she’s a lot more complete in terms of her breadth of shot and what she’s able to do. I’m familiar with her last opponent as well, Ms. Putinseva, who belongs to the break racquets every week club. Ms. Putinseva wields a very limited game built around compact strokes, but who is also content with hitting from the baseline and camping out there.

So, another complaint from me on people perpetuating very limited, very boring, yet somehow effective games. Don’t get me wrong, I understand how sick consistency, as in deadly consistency, wins matches, many of them. We’ve talked about Djokovic the robot. Murray the robot. Sometimes about how much fun it is to watch a player shut Murray down and send his I’m too consistent for you game back to the UK.

But Murray can volley well, one of the best doubles players when he plays. He can hit all sorts of stab drop shots and he can draw on a complete game.

I can’t say this for some of the wta top 40. And in 2017, it’s unacceptable. No matter if some players like Putinseva are so young. Sure she is, I’ve seen her. And I’ve also seen competitive juniors from the early 1990s with a more comprehensive game who never made the pros, in a different era.

If the wta is having a problem filling seats, even if it has an extraordinary final like last weeks matchup with Kuznetsova and Vesnina playing tennis at a whole other level, it should look less at things like the scoring system than at the building blocks such as style and variety and the teaching.

Because this baseline monotony will kill the sport.

Yes, I should get back to watching Youtube clips. That is what I did before I discovered the streams.

We all seem to agree that a baseline game, to the exclusion of other aspects of tennis, is boring. Why are so many players, both women and men, allergic to the net? This is where I think Andrew’s mantra that they should play more doubles makes a lot of sense. It is likely one reason Ka. Pliskova will venture to the net and be successful there.

Maybe Roger playing an attacking style, and even a player like Mischa Zverev with his serve-and-volley, will have an impact, at least on the younger players.

Watching 17-year-old Denis Shapovalov last night I was struck by how often he finished points at the net with a solid volley. Many youngsters serve very well, so going to the net should be a sensible option for them.

Simona can volley ! – I saw her v Osaka 🙂 Why doesn’t Cahill earn his crust and make her do it more ?

People have been predicting the demise of women’s tennis through sheer baseline boredom for years and it’s still struggling on. What else is there to watch ?
(well, plenty and maybe that accounts for empty stands).
I can predict what’s his name Simon arguing that it’s a ‘feminine’ way of playing tennis and avoids all that masculine aggression at the net and in addition sells more lipstick.

Cahill could easily coax a volley from Halep. He’s an Aussie who sported a true to life grasscourt volley. I don’t get Cahill. Is Cahill unleashed? Has he turned into a whatever the player wants they get guy? Does he have no clue about women’s tennis? Is he actually a mediocre coach that piggybacked on the skill of Hewitt and Agassi, bound to win more slams based on their champions pedigree and always burning desire?

If he’s a hit the ball harder coach, maybe he’s carved out a sweet deal and is good at that. Bolletieri is an excellent salesman so too Macci. But remember those guys get good players to come to THEM, their games already well formed, and at the academies get a ridiculous amount of competition and a lot of hitting partners <- the hitting partners matter, as they hardwire skills into the player through practice.

Don't believe me, notice Sharapova and Serena Williams have full time hitting partners on tour, male college players (NCAA all Americans with some challenger experience), guys with a lot of skill who hot a harder ball than all but the top ten wta players – or just about as hard as those players, comparable.

The academy will make a player better at what the players already do, e.g. "play my game". But they do NOT teach new skills. New strategies. Or anything like it. They don't scout opponents. Develop new combinations. Promote idiosyncratic ways of winning matches. Or anything like it. They are the academy and it's even a different goal: Make the tour.

That's it. So once a player makes the tour the academy's like, our job is to keep you there. That's it!

I think Cahill does basically what Simona wants and feels comfortable with. He’s been with her for over a year now and the results should be there.

I don’t buy this idea of Simona as a sweet little pixie faced striver everyone loves etc. I suspect she’s not like that at all which is probably one reason she’s had so many coaches in her short life.

Also may be one reason she’ll come through in the end and win something, Cahill or no.