As we get ready for a fantastic week of tennis in two of Canada’s premier cities at the same time; I’m not convinced it is the best way to showcase our wonderful events. I know the pros and cons all to well, and nobody can convince me it is the right thing to do to satisfy our tennis starved fans from coast to coast.
There have been many discussions on the subject over the past year and I guess only time will tell. But call me skeptical – I think it will be over before we know it and we’ll be wishing we had another week. There are far too many good players to see them simultaneously in 7 days of action.
The world’s best players aren’t sold on having both the men’s and women’s events running at the same time in different places. While it’s likely to increase the stature of the events in the media, with news about the game’s stars coming out daily, players like Roger Federer think it may be too much in too short a period.
“Clearly I think it’s a bit unfortunate for Canada to have two big events like this at the very same time…You still have two (tournaments) but they’re the same week, you know? I just think it would be nice if you have them spread out like they have been…Is it good to have them back to back? I don’t know. Or is it good to have one in February or one in September? I don’t know. I guess it’s Tennis Canada who really has to answer that question, not me. But I don’t know, maybe it feels like a bigger tournament to some, I’m not sure.”
The idea is too watch as much as possible – after all, we have world class fields in both venues with so much on the line for many of these superstars. Imagine this scenario for Friday (quarter-final day). The top 8 seeds in both draws advance and we are fortunate enough to see – Sharapova vs. Azarenka, Schiavone vs. Clijsters, Kvitova vs. Zvonareva and Li vs. Wozniacki in Toronto. Meanwhile, the men also play their quarter-finals – and if things go according to plan we may witness – Djokovic vs. Monfils, Federer vs. Almagro, Berdych vs. Nadal and Fish vs.Murray.
These are 8 great match-ups and none of us will see those matches in their entirety (live) and that is a real shame. And for those hoping to tape the matches they missed and watch on TV – well guess what, Rogers Sportsnet (the new broadcaster this year) can’t show everything either.
The tennis fan will have to make many choices and hope they make the best one depending on the circumstances. If the events were combined there would be so many choices that you’d be certain to get a good match most of the time.
As a coach, I love to watch the Canadians play in the first few days of both events. With 15 Canadians scheduled to play, and the new format, I’ll be lucky if I see half of them battle the top players in the world.
When the events were back-to-back most of the Canadians received tons of air time on TSN – now with the format changed and a new broadcaster some of our best players will play in complete anonymity. It simply is not possible to see all of our home grown talent with the current setup.
I have been in the business for over 20 years and many of my friends and colleagues – who are absolute tennis lovers – watch all 4 quarter finals inTorontoand then take the trip toMontreal and watch the quarterfinals at Stade Uniprix one week later. This is a tennis fan’s dream – and unfortunately, the new format has cut the dream in half.
You can’t be in two places at once and that’s why I believe the men and women should both be in Montreal or Toronto. Flip a coin and alternate the sites from year to year. Make this a grand slam event – with a couple of differences – a smaller field, and the men would play best of 3 sets instead of best of 5.
The players love this event – it has always received the highest marks when the competitors have filled out their surveys – put the men and women together and make it like Key Biscayne and they would love it that much more. This formula has always worked for the fans, players, organizers and sponsors. The players – contrary to what the average fan thinks – want to be together. It livens the atmosphere – it makes it more like a grand slam and that is what most of the top ranked players enjoy the most.
The Canadian contingent is especially impressive on the women’s side, where the top 25 women in the world rankings are all slated to take to the court. It’s a field that Kim Clijsters thinks elevates Toronto’s tournament – Clijsters believes this tournament is on par with the grand slams in Melbourne, Paris, London and New York City.
“It’s great to hear that the Top 25 has entered. It only shows how we all look at the tournament. It’s a big tournament leading up to the U.S. Open, obviously. To me, when I’m preparing for the U.S. Open, what I think about first is I want to be ready to play well in Toronto. I enjoy it here. But at the same time, you really want to well there because it’s such a prestigious tournament and it’s built up such a reputation … I definitely schedule it in my program to try and peak there. That’s definitely the first, kind of, big test that you want to do well.”
Quarter final day at the Rogers Cup (or any day for that matter) – whether it’s in TorontoorMontreal– is something to be savored – almost like a fine wine. But now with a smorgasbord of tennis – an all you can eat approach – this will not be possible.
And once again, it’s the fans that will lose out!
Written by Michael Emmett
For those tennis enthusiasts who like to look at the glass half empty instead of half full, it would be easy to trash Women’s Tennis as we get ready for the Rogers Cup in Toronto in a few weeks time. Too much grunting, too many double faults, too much slugging from the baseline, too many robots that all look the same, too many no-name athletes!
But what about the flip side? Pinpoint accuracy from outrageous positions on the court, enormous talent, no fear on nerve wrecking points, relentless attacking tennis that is beautiful to watch and counter-attacking that is bringing the game to a new level!
Those that see the sport in disarray are misguided and looking for something to berate.
In my estimation, they are completely out of line. The game has never been more interesting than it is now. There are multiple players (anybody in the top 40), who can win a major as we get ready for the upcoming North American hard court season.
If you were taking bets for the final major of the season in Flushing Meadows, New York – who would be the favourite: Wozniacki, Clijsters, Zvonareva, Azarenka, Sharapova, Li, Kvitova, Schiavone, Bartoli, Stosur? One could make an argument for any of these players. All of these Top 10 players can win a major championship at this point in their career. The better question is – when all is said and done – will all of these players have a major championship beside their name?
This sport has never been so wide open. And what about the former #1s who have been off the radar for most of the season: Kuznetsova, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Safina. Can they still be counted as potential winners? My guess is yes absolutely, because nobody stands out as the dominant performer in this circle of players.
Then there are the emerging stars like Julia Goerges (2 wins over Wozniacki in the early part of 2011) and Sabine Lisicki (Wimbledon semi-finalist) who have to be considered major threats. What about Cibulkova, Hantuchova and Petrova? We know they have immense talent, but should they be considered threats to the top 10?
So far, I have mentioned 19 players as potential winners in the second half of the 2011 season, and have not mentioned the Williams sisters. That is almost absurd. But it just goes to show you how much talent is out there on the Women’s tour. The depth is, by far, the best it’s ever been. First week matches in the slams can now be barn-burners, like Schiavone and Kuznetsova in the 4th round of the 2010 Aussie Open. The longest match in Women’s history lasted 4 hours and 44 minutes. Not quite Isner/Mahut-like, but considering it was only best of three sets, this is a remarkable achievement for both players. This match was not the boring lob-fest match we used to see in the 70’s and 80’s in women’s tennis. This was a blistering groundstroke affair that had everything right to the final point.
Was there a better story than Li Na winning her first major championship at 29 years of age? Li became the first player from an Asian nation to win a grand slam singles title when she beat last year’s winner Francesca Schiavone in early June at Stade Roland Garros. She was previously runner-up at the Australian Open final in January.
LI Na’s French Open triumph is great for women’s tennis and follows a push to develop the sport in China, which officials now want to replicate in India, WTA tour chief executive Stacey Allaster said.
And who could forget Petra Kvitova; the 4th lefty to win the Ladies championship at Wimbledon in the game’s storied history?
The 21-year-old Czech produced a stunning performance of power tennis to defeat the fancied Russian, Maria Sharapova, 6-3 6-4, grabbing her first grand slam title. Kvitova, is the first player born in the 1990’s to win a grand slam. She appeared to have nerves of steel in her maiden final, by swinging freely and crushing winner after winner past the hapless Sharapova, before achieving victory with an ace on her first match point. Kvitova, is the real deal and she’ll be a threat to win many more major championships if she plays with that much courage in future championships.
Allaster said the open nature of the women’s game made it attractive even if there are no big rivalries like in the men’s. “The standard is much higher. On any given day, anyone in the top 40 can win. We don’t have these 40-minute 6-0 and 6-0 first round matches any more. They are much more competitive, there is much more parity,” she said.
It’s ironic to some extent that Allaster picked anybody inside the top 40 as a potential winner. Our own Canadian female superstar is Rebecca Marino who currently sits at #39 in the latest rankings. Some purists would argue this talented lefty cannot win yet at this level. I would beg to differ. She has all the tools to beat any of these giants. All she needs is a little confidence and she’ll be included in this group of potential winners.
Women’s tennis may also be feeling the effects of age inflation – but this is a good thing. Having teenagers battling for the games top prizes is not healthy in my estimation and the older generation is much better equipped to deal with the pressures of today’s stress. This year, the ages of the four Australian Open semifinalists were as follows: 20 (Wozniacki), 26 (Zvonareva), 27 (Clijsters) and almost 29 (Li Na). Ten years ago, the ages of the semifinalists were 20 (Hingis), 20 (V. Williams), 24 (Capriati) and 24 (Davenport). And twenty years ago the ages were younger still: 17 (Seles), 19 (Fernandez), 19 (Sanchez-Vicario) and Jana Novotna was the senior in the bunch at age 22.
One thing’s for sure: the door of opportunity is wide open for any female player who decides to step through in the second half of this season. As the WTA knows well, the “next big thing” might be right around the corner.
Written By Michael Emmett
It was truly a breathtaking upset. One the tennis community will be talking about for a long long time.
With many big events still on the horizon, tennis has seen its one defining moment in 2011. Nothing will supplant the memory of Roger blowing his first ever 2-set to love lead in a major championship in the quarter-finals at Wimbledon yesterday.
No matter what happens in the remaining matches at Wimbledon, or this year’s US Open or our own Rogers Cup – the loss yesterday from what seemed to be an insurmountable lead will stay with me for as long as I’m a tennis fan. And I hope it’s not the way Roger will be remembered when he finally hangs up his racquet.
The sporting community has a terrible habit of isolating certain events (good or bad) and labeling them to the athletes forever. Bill Buckner’s horrific mistake cost the Red Sox the World Series in 1986 and he will never be able to erase that memory. Jana Novotna had a Hall of Fame career but she is only remembered for blowing a 4-1 third set lead against Steffi Graf.
Fed’s loss to Tsonga is on par with Rafa losing to Soderling at the French Open in 2009. Both results were jaw dropping moments that will be remembered as some of the greatest upsets in tennis history. However, for me the Federer loss is more stunning because he comfortably led two sets to love and looked in complete control 90 minutes into the match. Roger blowing a two sets to love lead just doesn’t happen – he is the greatest front-runner the game has ever seen. Very similar to his good buddy Tiger Woods. El Tigre had never blown a lead entering the final round of a major championship until he was shockingly caught by Y.E. Yang in the PGA championship in 2009.
Absolutely mind-boggling! Almost impossible given the circumstances – here are the factors that made Federer’s loss such a stunning result:
1. Roger was 178-0 when leading 2 sets to love – the odds of a Federer loss to a player ranked well below him (with a 2 set lead) would have been .005%
2. Rogers is a 6-time champion at Wimbledon and was the favourite this year based on his stellar play in Paris leading up to this championship.
3. Grass is supposed to be his favourite surface – although with back-to-back losses in the quarter-finals (last year he lost to Berdych) and the lawns playing like a fast clay court – this may no longer be the case.
4. Roger had massive motivation to win his 7th title and tie the all-time record with Pete Sampras.
5. Roger owns Centre Court at the All-England Club – this court has meant as much to him as Stade Roland Garros has meant to Rafa.
6. Tsonga was on the ropes after playing a horrendous second set tie-break. The commentators, viewers, patrons and players (maybe not Tsonga) had already started talking about a French Open semi-final rematch with Djokovic.
I keep coming back to the fact that Federer was playing so beautifully at the French Open…..how does one explain how lethargically he looked in the last two sets vs. Tsonga on grass – his best surface in the world? I’ve seen him look this way, at times, on clay vs. his nemesis Rafael Nadal. But never before on grass! He looked passive, slow, indifferent, and, at moments resigned.
His serve returns were sitters for Tsonga to tee off on. His first serve percentage dropped drastically. He seemed to lose his will to fight. It’s hard to write – but the greatest player of all-time looked feeble, withdrawn and outclassed in his own backyard. We expected more from the 6-time champion. Yes, Tsonga played great. But if Federer played the way he had been playing in the first 3 matches and maintained his intensity the match would have been over in straight sets. Federer never complained of an injury in his post match press conference – however, mental fatigue seemed to be a major contributor to his unexpected collapse.
It’s worth repeating – for the first time in his entire career; Federer lost a match in which he had won the first two sets. (He had been 178-0). But Tsonga outlasted him 3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Tsonga had a fantastic match – undoubtedly the best of his career. His serve was superb. But, still, no one felt Federer would lose yesterday, especially after winning the first 2 sets.
The big three — Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Federer — have dominated men’s tennis in recent years. They’ve won 25 of the past 26 majors. Across the pond, in Great Britain — exploiting that home-court advantage — they factor in Andy Murray and call them the big four. They all made the semifinals at the French Open, and until Wednesday, they were part of a stately, almost royal procession into Wimbledon’s final four.
Never before have the top 4 players made it to the semi-finals in back-to-back grand slams – all 4 stampeded their way to the semi-finals in Paris and they were one win away from repeating the feat in London – but Tsonga ruined the party and kept that remarkable stat alive for yet one more season. I guess there’s a reason why the top 4 players in the world can’t make it to the semi-finals in consecutive grand slams – because there is so much depth on the ATP tour.
Federer’s 16 Grand Slam singles titles place him ahead of all others, but he clearly is no longer playing at that level. He was playing in his 29th consecutive quarterfinal — a monumental achievement — but he’s lost in three of the past six (two in a row at Wimbledon).
At one point in his career he had made it to 23 consecutive semi-finals in grand slam events – a record that – in my opinion – will never be broken. Federer like Tiger Woods is all about history – winning major championships is all that matters at this point in their respective careers. Tiger has 14 and Roger has 16! The big question is – can either one of these two iconic superstars win another major and shut up the critics who believe they are both finished? I don’t know the answer to this but I do know that it will be fun to keep watching.
Written by Michael Emmett
Over the last few days I’ve been bombarded with emails suggesting I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to prognosticating the end of Roger Federer’s career. This is good news and bad news – I guess. The good news is a sufficient portion of our Mayfair membership is reading the blogs that I spend quite a lot of time writing. The bad news is many of you disagree with my synopsis.
These emails coincided nicely with Federer’s stunning 4-set win over Novak Djokovic on Friday – theorizing that I am crazy to indicate that Federer might actually retire at the end of this year. Well, after watching most of his last two matches I haven’t changed my mind. The only thing that might make Fed play another year (2012) – which I failed to acknowledge in my previous blog – is the 2012 Olympic Games in London– playing on his favourite surface (grass)!
Federer played spectacular tennis and really could have beaten Nadal Sunday at Roland Garros. It was the second best match these two have ever contested – the first would have to be the epic 2008 Wimbledon Final won by Nadal in 5 stirring sets. Nadal now holds a 17-8 lifetime advantage in their head-to-head meetings. And clearly, for those that watched this scintillating match, Federer had several chances to make history with a result that would have shocked the tennis world. A few points in the crucial moments could have turned this match in Roger’s favour.
In one of my latest columns I made a strong argument that Federer (almost 30 years old) could not beat Nadal and Djokovic in back-to-back matches. I said, if the conditions were perfect, he could beat one of the two (Nadal or Djokovic) on any given day but not consecutively.
Well, guess what – I WAS RIGHT.
I also said that Fed’s backhand would break down against Nadal. The top player in the world would continually hit penetrating high rising balls that would force Federer to hit at eye level – and this has always caused problems for the 16-time grand slam winner.
Again, I was right!
Federer’s backhand was as good as I’ve ever seen it and for that reason he came very close to winning. But in the end – it was also the shot that let him down in the critical moments. The first set drop shot is the first one that comes to mind.
So for all of you that were quick to jump on me the second Federer beat Djokovic – remember one thing – he didn’t win the tournament. He ended a marvelous streak by Djokovic and lost in another final to his main rival. Nadal is now 6-2 against Federer in grand slam finals. As good as Federer has been in his career – he’s definitely not in the same league as Nadal. I’m sure I will get grief from this line too – but how can we even compare the two. Nadal has dominated Federer and it’s just going to get worse if Roger keeps playing.
The Mallorcan Magician looks like a good bet to surpass Fed’s total of 16 slams – Nadal’s 10th major championship on Sunday puts him ahead of Fed’s pace by about 10 months. If Nadal can win either Wimbledon or the US Open – tournaments he won last year – he will be significantly ahead of Federer and the talk of greatest ever would continue to escalate like never before.
It was the first ever meeting between two champions who have held all 4 majors at some point in their career. And the rivalry – in my opionion – is the greatest in tennis history. And the numbers would back my argument up (the 8 matchups greatly surpasses any of the other great rivalries in the history of the game) – never has a rivalry (Agassi vs. Sampras, Borg vs. McEnroe, Lendl vs. Wilander, Connors vs. McEnroe) produced such fantastic tennis – yesterday was extraordinary. I hope we see a repeat in 4 weeks on grass at Wimbledon
Roger had a terrific tournament. But terrific wasn’t good enough. He blew a 5-2 first set lead after playing flawless tennis for 7 games. He had a set point with Nadal serving at 30-40 in that eighth game where he tried an ill-advised drop shot to the far sideline. He had multiple chances to win the second set and played a poor tie-break. Going down 2 sets to love against a guy as good is Nadal is a recipe for disaster.
But nonetheless, Roger continued to fight. The up-hill climb was going to be like scalingMount Everest. And he had a ray of hope early in the 4th set playing awe-inspiring tennis.
The biggest stage of the match occurred after he courageously won the 3rd set with some brilliant tennis – he clearly had Nadal on the ropes – especially after battling back from a 4-2 deficit. Nadal could feel the pendulum changing and the momentum shifting – and Federer seemed be back in perfect form. The first 3 points of the 4th set all went to Federer and one could only hope – if you wanted to see a fifth set – that he’d be able to capitalize and break Nadal’s serve in the pivotal first game of the set. But, as we all know, it didn’t happen. This, then, would be the final twist. Nadal erased two break points with groundstroke winners, and the third with an ace at 120 mph. A service winner at 114 mph followed. Then Federer shanked a backhand off his frame and into the stands.
“Very important for me, no?” Nadal would say later. “That was a big turning point of the match, in my opinion.”
That made it 1-0, and Federer held to 1-1. But that was it. Nadal didn’t lose another game as the sun finally broke through the gray clouds, bathing the court in light. An appropriate conclusion for Nadal, who seemed to be getting better as the match wore on.
Federer had so many chances in this match – more chances than in any of his previous 17 losses to his arch rival – but at the end of the day it was too many unforced errors and not enough success on the big points. Federer, who turns 30 in August, has never beaten Nadal at Roland Garros in five tries, four of them in the finals.
Coming into the tournament, Nadal had lost four straight finals to Djokovic. For that reason, he admitted, he came into Roland Garros with less confidence than ever.
In the eight Grand Slam singles finals between the Swiss and the Spaniard, Nadal has now won six.
The biggest question I have after such a great match is simple:
How can Federer be the greatest of all time, his skeptics (and this includes me) wonder, if he isn’t the best player of his generation? Nadal has owned Federer winning 68 percent of their matches. All of the greatest players up for consideration – Sampras, Borg, Laver – have dominated the players in their generation.
Rafa looks like he’s good for another three or four more years and maybe more!! Especially if he is close to the magic number of 16! Seven slams over the next 4 years seems very realistic. The only question mark at this point is a guy name NOLE. What will his dominating presence do to the history books?
Here’s a thought: What if Nadal is the best player of his generation and, at the age of 25, building a résumé that one day will be considered the greatest ever?
The numbers suggest it is now possible.
Nadal’s resume looks as good as anybody’s at this middle point of his career.
•Nadal Won his 10th major title, leaving him only six behind Federer’s all-time-leading total.
• Nadal Earned his sixth championship at Roland Garros in seven years, tying him with Bjorn Borg (1974-75 and 1978 to 1981). The talented Swede won his six titles in a span of eight years.
•Nadal Is the second-youngest man in history to win his 10th Grand Slam singles title. At 25 years, 2 days, Rafa is nearly a year behind Borg — but he retired from the sport a year later at the age of 25. Perhaps more interestingly, in the ongoing arms race for supremacy, Rafa beat Federer to No. 10 by 171 days. That means he can open up some more ground atWimbledonand the U.S. Open, tournaments where he’ll be expected to win.
So in summary, Roger had a great tournament and looked better than ever – but with Djokovic and Nadal on the horizon – another grand slam looks bleak. If he serves well,Wimbledonwill be a tournament he can definitely win – but the baseline bombers will find a way to take him down on the new and slower grass. The tennis landscape has changed – and unfortunately for Roger he is at the end of the rope.
Written by Michael Emmett
One of my biggest issues with sportscasters, newspaper writers and columnists is their use of the word “choke.”
Too many times an analyst will say an athlete choked, when in fact they all they did was fail at the task at hand. Failing is not choking, and the two terms should not be intertwined. It really is amazing me to me how many times the word choke is used in the sports vernacular; and it is equally amazing how many times the announcer is wrong in choosing that particular word.
Additionally, the use of this word (choke), ad nauseam, is just as annoying as the so-called experts putting the athlete on a pedestal and calling them heroic or courageous when they perform in clutch situations. Give me a break!
The definition of the word choke, in the Webster’s dictionary, is this; to have trouble in breathing, swallowing, or speaking. When an athlete is struggling with one of these issues, then “choking” is clearly happening. But keep in mind, this rarely happens to an experienced athlete who has been in front of the microscope his/her entire career.
Only a few times, in recent memory, can I remember an athlete truly choking – where they perform much below their average ability, and subsequently don’t succeed. I will get to the “real” chokers in a minute, but first let’s talk about some of the better athletes and their chance to win majors in the past few years.
For example:
- Did Roger Federer choke when he lost the US Open final to Juan Martin Del Potro in 2009? Definitely not! Federer didn’t play up to his usual standards, but he never really found his form during the entire 2-week event. However, to label his loss as a “choke” is incorrect. Those that choose to use these words don’t understand sports and shouldn’t be talking or writing about them.
- Did Tiger Woods choke when he lost his first ever final round lead of a major championship in August ‘09 at the PGA championship? How is it possible that Tiger fired a final round 75, and his nearest rival – Y.E. Yang – beat him by 5 strokes en route to his first ever major? In order for this to happen, Tiger Woods must have choked! Right? No – Wrong! He had a bad day! Not one putt dropped in, but he most definitely did not choke, and to say such a thing is absolutely wrong!! Choking is standing over a 2-foot putt and missing the hole by 3 inches!
- If a golfer misses an 8-foot putt to win the tournament (like 59-year old Tom Watson did at Turnberry in the 2009 British Open), then he must have choked! The headlines in some major newspapers across the country the next day read “Watson Chokes Away Chance to Make History.” Is this for real? The guy played lights out golf all week and missed a tricky bending putt on the 72nd hole on a green with spike marks galore – yet the journalists who cover the sport are summarizing the final putt as a choke! The average professional golfer makes 8 footers 25 percent of the time. Did Watson choke on his quest to become the oldest golfer ever to win a major? The answer, without a doubt, is a resounding NO! He didn’t succeed, but he didn’t choke, and the two terms should never be mentioned in the same breath.
- When the Buffalo Bills blew an 18-point lead in the 4th quarter over the Cincinnati Bengals in the middle of the NFL season, many pundits labeled this as a major choke. How can 11 guys all choke at once? Choking – and it is rarer than you think – is much more apparent in individual sports. If a game comes down to the final play (Bills fans remember Scott Norwood missing a 40 yard field goal that would have won them the Super Bowl), then it can be classified a choke. But again –Norwood’s miss was exactly that – a miss, not a choke. Hitting a 40 yard field goal is not a guarantee and fans need to understand that if the probability of making that kick is only 75 percent, then you can’t call it a choke if it isn’t successful. Missing and choking are not synonyms and should never be mistaken for one another.
In my estimation, when an analyst describes a failure as a choke, they are only correct about 10 percent of the time.
Don’t get me wrong – athletes definitely do choke – but the frequency is much less than you think. Here are examples of some classic chokes over the years.
- Scott Hoch missed an 18 inch putt to win the Masters in 1989
- Jana Novotna at the 1993WimbledonFinal. Novotna led Steffi Graf 6-7, 6-1, 4-1 and 40-30 in the sixth game of the deciding set. But Novotna double faulted and arguably the greatest disintegration in aWimbledonfinal had begun.
- Greg Norman at the 1996 Masters. Normanshot a 78 and blew a 6-stroke lead to eventual champion Nick Faldo.
- Rory McIlroy at the 2011 Masters. McIlroy started the day at -12 and finished the day at -4, 10 shots out of the lead. McIlroy’s final round of 80 was one of the worst final round displays in golf history.
- Jean Van de Velde in the 1999 British Open
- Dan Janssen in the 1992 Olympics.
- Bill Buckner in the 1986 World Series
- Curtis Strange in the 1995 Ryder Cup
- John McEnroe in the 1984 French Open
- Houston Oilers in the 1992 NFL playoffs – blowing a 35-7 lead midway through the third quarter.
Is choking the same as panicking? From my perspective and experience I can understand how the two terms could be misconstrued – but the two are on opposite sides of the stratosphere. In my opinion, these terms are black and white.
“Choking” sounds like a vague and all-encompassing term and is not understood by very many of the so-called experts, yet it describes a very specific kind of failure. You cannot perform anywhere near your normal standards when you are CHOKING! Under conditions of stress, the explicit system takes over, according to the author of BOUNCE, Matthew Syed. That’s what it means to choke. Panic, in this sense is the opposite of choking. Choking is about thinking too much – panic is about thinking too little. Choking is about loss of instinct – panic is reversion to instinct. They may look the same, but they are worlds apart.
I just hope the broadcasters and writers in the sports industry take as much time to research this key phrase as I just did. If not, it will continue to be overused and misrepresented in the world of sports, and this would be a real shame!
Written by Michael Emmett
The writing is on the wall. Roger Federer’s days of winning grand slams are finished. Yes, it has become very apparent that the sweet swinging Swiss Superstar will never win another major in his storied career. And as a result, the 16-time grand slam champion will retire after this year’s US open.
This is not official – this is pure conjecture on my part. But when it happens you can say you heard it here first! Unfortunately, the signs are there – Federer is just not good enough to beat his two main rivals in the same tournament in a best of five environment. He can’t win the ‘free’ points like he used to and that means too much slugging from the baseline which ultimately means defeat against the luminaries of today’s game.
Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are too good – as they reach the pinnacle of their respective careers – and if both advance as they should in any tournament – Federer (ranked #3 in the world) would have to beat one of them in the semi-finals and then follow that up and beat the other one in the final – assuming they both take care of business. This is too much to ask for a man on the downside (way down) of his career.
He could scrape out a win – if the conditions are perfect – over one of the two giants. However, the key word is ‘could’ and the likeliness is remote. But it is inconceivable or nearly impossible (in my opinion) that he can beat both of them back-to-back in a major event. And for this reason the greatest player of our generation will call it quits after the final slam of the year in Flushing Meadows, New York.
So far, half way through 2011 he is a combined 0-5 against Djokovic and Nadal – winning just 2 of the 13 sets played. Numbers that suggest he might never beat these guys again. Coincidentally, Federer’s last win over one of these 2 big-shots came last November in London at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals when Fed beat Djokovic in straight sets– Djokovic’s last loss on the ATP tour! That loss (by Djokovic) has led to an undefeated mark halfway through the 2011 season – good enough to get “The Djoker” on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
And most would agree that you can throw Andy Murray into that mix. Federer just can’t handle the relentless power off the ground from these baseline bombers. Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are winning the majority of the baseline rallies against Fed and it is crystal clear that Roger needs a bigger serve if he is going to compete on even terms against these guys on a regular basis – and at this late stage of his brilliant career this is a long-shot at best. A serve that would be equal to a Milos Raonic – this kind of weapon would sure stem the tide!
The real problem is not Fed’s serve. And it’s also not the forehand – this shot is still regarded as one of the best in the game. It’s the backhand! The big 3 all have better backhands – Fed’s backhand has improved considerably in the last 3 years but it’s still a weak shot compared to the heavyweights in the game. Unfortunately for Federer – Rafa, Djoker and Murray are so confident in a baseline exchange – they know they’ll eventually ware out Federer because he just can’t generate the power or precision to put pressure on them. Federer usually succumbs with a weak backhand slice or an over-hit backhand drive because of the continuing, relentless pressure.
The patterns are similar week-in-and-week-out, the guys are doing the same thing continuously and Federer has no ammunition to counter-attack. Now lesser lights (players ranked outside the top-10) are catching on and following the same sequences – sooner or later Federer will find himself struggling to make the semi-finals of major events if things continue to spiral in a downward fashion.
Federer’s ranking can only go one way – and that is down. His good friend Tiger Woods has found his ranking outside of the top-10 for the first time in 14 years and if Roger isn’t careful he will be outside the top 5 before year’s end. These two have often been compared, and in certain aspects, their careers have mirrored one another. For Roger’s sake let’s hope the parallels come to an end!
Even Federer’s best attribute – his movement – has deserted him to some degree in the past 6 months. Other players are moving around the court with similar ease (Fed used to make other players look slow but that is no longer the case) and Federer seems to be a step slower than he was a few years back. Without his rabbit like speed the Swiss maestro is never going to beat a guy like Djokovic who is on top of the world with his sky high confidence.
Federer is not the kind of player who will stick around if he believes he can’t win. And even though he would’ve liked to get a few more majors on his resume – he is smart enough to know that NOW is the best time to exit the game that has made him famous. His legacy is set and he will be the grand slam wins leader for many years to come. With Djokovic firing on all cylinders – this has to be considered good news for Federer as it will be increasingly more difficult for Nadal to reach the lofty numbers set by Federer.
He has the numbers to be recognized as the greatest player of all time – he has won all 4 majors – something only 7 players have ever accomplished. Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career. He had a streak of 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals appearances (that ended at last year’s Australian Open) – a record that – in my opinion – will never be broken. He has more than enough cash for him and his family and I believe he feels it’s time to start enjoying the fruits of his hard work over the past 13 years.
Secretly, he would never admit to this, Federer wanted to win more grand slams (male or female) than anybody on the planet. So this meant he would have to catch Margaret Court (24), Steffi Graf (22), Helen Wills Moody (19), and Navratilova and Evert (both with 18) to be recognized as the world leader in Grand slam victories. And for a while there it seemed possible. But the emergence of Nadal and now Djokovic – and this is more a pipe dream than anything.
Roger was outstanding during his incredible 13-year run and may go down as the greatest player of all-time; but the once unbeatable tennis genius is not that anymore. Let’s hope he realizes this and exits the game on cue at the US Open – watching history for the past decade has been intriguing to say the least. It’s a shame it will soon come to an end – but as we know – all good things must come to an end. Let’s just hope Roger understands when the end has come!
Written by Michael Emmett
It’s time for the tennis world to recognize the best tennis player in the world is no longer Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer. That honor goes to Novak Djokovic.
The Serb has won 37 straight matches to start the 2011 campaign and will likely break John Mcenroe’s all time record of 42 matches (for Men) when the French Open begins in a week. A semi-final appearance is all it will take to tie this record that some thought would never be touched.
Also within grasp is the #1 ranking – Nadal is holding on by a thread and it’s just a matter of time before Djokovic adds this to his resume. With a 37- match winning streak in tow, 4 wins over Nadal in the last 8 weeks (all in Masters 1000 Finals) and an Australian Open to boot – how is this guy not ranked #1? At this point, the young Serb looks unbeatable even on Nadal’s favourite surface. Sunday’s 6-4, 6-4 demolition of Nadal – even after blowing 3 straight match points in the final game – looked routine. Djokovic has only lost 9 sets six months into the season. Can you say Mind-boggling?
But for me the most impressive thing is he has beaten Nadal – the greatest clay court player ever – in back-to-back weeks inMadridandRomewithout dropping a set. Djokovic has now become the first player to beat Nadal on clay twice in the same year, a feat that comes exactly a week before the French Open begins. A third victory in 3 weeks on Stade Roland Garros would be the icing on the cake for Djokovic – the significance would be gigantic – a first French open title, the number one ranking, and a win streak that may never be topped on the ATP tour. As a tennis fan, I can’t wait to see if history will be made.
Based on the last 2 weeks is it possible to make Nadal the favourite inParis? Does the fact that it is Nadal’s favourite court in the world play a factor? Does the fact that it is best of five make a difference? Or is Djokovic too good for even Nadal.
Based on what I’ve seen the last 2 Sunday’s I would be hard pressed to bet on Nadal inParisif the two were to meet up in the Final. Djokovic is hitting the ball so cleanly, so penetrating with pin-point accuracy. He is playing with supreme confidence and has no fear even in the most nerve wrecking moments. I’m not sure Nadal has the game to handle the onslaught – his heavy topspin groundstrokes are sitting up a bit and Djokovic is feasting on them like a hanging curve ball to Jose Bautista.
If Djokovic continues this trend the Grand Slam may be what we are talking about in a few weeks. Not surprisingly, Nadal has said, “the guy is on fire – he is playing too good for me at the moment.”
Groundstrokes that are travelling at 170km/hour within inches of the line on a consistent basis are the main recipe to his unbelievable success. Djokovic is hitting bullets into the corners that are crossing the net by mere inches – putting enormous pressure on his opponents. If he keeps this up for the majority of his matches he may not lose for quite some time. At times, he seems to be toying with his Spanish rival – and who could have ever imagined we’d be talking like this about the clay court maestro – Rafa Nadal?
How does Djokovic’s season compare to other men and women who have undefeated streaks at the start of the tennis season?
|
Year |
Player |
Streak |
| 1987 | Steffi Graf | 45 |
| 1984 | John McEnroe | 42 |
| 1997 | Martina Hingis | 37 |
| 1978 | Martina Navratilova | 37 |
| 2011 | Novak Djokovic | 37 |
| 1983 | Navratilova | 36 |
In 1984, John McEnroe made one memorable season as he accomplished the best single season record among men with an 82-3 (96.5%) mark. More than half of those wins came before a single but significant loss. He won eight titles in his first eight events that year. He was 42-0 before losing in the French Open final to Ivan Lendl. McEnroe was up two sets to love and a service break before he lost to Ivan Lendl in 5 dramatic sets. This was Lendl’s first Grand Slam after losing in the previous four finals he reached and McEnroes’s most crushing defeat. A loss that still haunts him today!
The third best season start belongs to Bjorn Borg, McEnroe’s rival. Borg won his first six tournaments in 1980 season, collecting 33 wins before he lost in the Nations Cup semifinals. It must be noted that these streaks of Borg and McEnroe came at a period when the Australian Open was staged at year-end in December and the first Grand Slam of the year was still the French Open in late May.
This makes Djokovic’s current run even more special as it is the longest season-opening streak to date that spans a Grand Slam. Keep in mind, Djokovic won inMelbournewithout dropping a set. Guillermo Vilas holds the Open era record for longest winning streak at 46 matches, established in 1977, however, this was not at the beginning of the season – and all of Vilas’ matches were won on clay.
This win in Rome for the 24-year-old Serb was extraordinary for so many reasons. I for one, counted him out after a lengthy semi-final win over Andy Murray (6-1, 3-6, 7-6) – a match that lasted just over 3 hours and ended after midnight local time. I felt that the exhaustion Djokovic was feeling was too much for the Serb to overcome in such a short time-frame. But a 2-hour rain delay before his match with the top seed was a blessing in disguise for the 7 time champion in 2011. Being back on sea-level was also a major factor in my eyes – but the slower courts inRomeseemed to favour Djokovic.
Djokovic attributed his win inMadridpartly to the altitude and faster conditions. The conditions at the Foro Italico are more similar to those inParis, perhaps making this victory more telling. Fast courts, slow courts, clay, grass, rain delays, altitude, 3-set marathons – none of this seems to matter – Djokovic has Nadal’s number and for that matter he has everybody’s number.
If there is a better story out there in the world of sports can somebody let me know. In my estimation this is the greatest achievement in sports in quite some time. And the story is just getting started. It should be a wild ride all-the-way toNew Yorkin September.
Written by Michael Emmett
The world of golf and tennis has always been dominated by Americans. But never before has it been so apparent that the rest of the world is taking over these two marquee sports.
Case in point, the highest ranked American male tennis player is Mardy Fish – currently #11 on the ledger – Fish had a great tournament in Miami a few weeks back making the Semi Finals before getting crushed by eventual champion and world number 2 Novak Djokovic. Fish is ranked outside of the top-10 and doesn’t have a big upside to his game. The chance of Fish moving up the rankings would be the same chance as Federer winning another French title.
On the other hand, Andy Roddick seems to be stagnating of late with his tennis and another Slam for the former US Open champion – let alone a rankings jump into the top 10 seems remote at best. Roddick is 13th in the latest ATP world rankings.
It is even more depressing on the Women’s side of things if you are an American Tennis fan. Serena Williams is the top ranked American tennis player at #10 – this is really no surprise to anybody. The shocking thing is Williams may not be involved in a competitive match for at least 6 months (or more) due to a string of injuries. Serena hasn’t played a match since last Wimbledon (early July) and may miss the entire year. Next is her big sister Venus – VW is ranked #15 and also is on the injured list. After these two future Hall of Famers – and who knows if they will ever be back on the courts again – and if they do return who knows for how long – it’s slim pickings. Bethanie Mattek-Sands is the next highest ranked American tennis player at #41. This is cause for concern if you are an American tennis enthusiast. Where are the Tracey Austin’s, Chris Evert’s, and Jennifer Capriati’s of the world? What is happening to American tennis? Never before has there been reason to panic – but now it seems to have hit rock bottom!! With Serena on the sidelines – her top-10 ranking will disappear in the coming weeks – and Americans will be shut out of the top 10 in both the men and women rankings. Something that would have seemed impossible a few years back!
On the Canadian docket – things are so much brighter with Milos Raonic and Rebecca Marino – both have the potential to be in the top 30 by year’s end!!
The American perspective is a little rosier in Women’s golf. 3 players ranked in the top 10 is not bad – but it’s not what it used to be. Back in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s we were used to seeing 8 out of the top10 being American. Now the sport is dominated by Koreans. Cristie kerr, Michelle Wie and Paula Creamer have great games and could be number 1 at any time, but the depth is gone, and most of the top 50 players in the world live in Asian speaking countries and train in the American South.
Men’s golf is really in trouble in my estimation. But you wouldn’t know it based on the latest rankings – it’s just not looking good down the road. Currently the Americans have 4 players ranked in the top 10. Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods, Steve Stricker and Matt Kuchar – except for Kuchar these guys are getting long in the tooth. The Americans seem to lose every Ryder Cup – a trophy they used to dominate. Let’s see what happens when they play the International field for the President’s Cup later this year in Australia. When we talk about up-and-comers there are no Americans in the discussions. Golf has never been more global and it’s obvious that the Americans have no super-stars on the horizon.
The first guy that is making people’s jaw drop is a 20 year Japanese player. Ryo Ishikawa first made people take notice because of his golf. He won his first Japan Golf Tour event as a 15-year-old amateur, won the money title at 17 and last year became the first player to shoot 58 on a major tour. Yes, a 58 in a tour event. The guy has a swing that resembles Sam Snead, Ben Hogan and Tom Watson all put together. It is poetry with a golf club.
His latest eye-opening feat brought attention to his heart. Wanting to do his part to help victims of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated his native Japan, Ishikawa decided to donate his entire tournament earnings this year – plus a bonus for every birdie he makes – toward relief efforts. I can’t imagine Tiger Woods in a similar light!
Then there is Rory McIlroy – forget his collapse last Sunday at Augusta. This guy is for real and he’s going to win double digit majors. On 2 May, 2010 McIlroy recorded his first PGA Tour win after shooting 62 in the final round of the Quail Hollow Championship. The round set a new course record, and concluded with six consecutive scores of three. He became the first player since Tiger Woods to win a PGA Tour event prior to his 21st birthday. Being able to conquer a course as tough as Quail Hollow suggests this guy is one of the best golfers on the planet and if he wins a few majors in the next 3 years nobody should be surprised.
So that covers Ishikawa and McIlroy – but what about Matteo Manassero?? They guy just won a European tour event Sunday in Malaysia – beating out McIlroy – and he’s not even 18 yet. This stuff is Hollywood material!! Kids this young aren’t supposed to win their club championship yet alone a star-studded European tour event. He collected $415,000.00 dollars in the process. He will move in to the top 35 with his second European tour victory and will now gain access to all top flighted events on the world tour.
His second victory makes him the third youngest player on the major world tours to record multiple victories. The youngest three are: Ryo Ishikawa (Japan Golf Tour, aged 17 years and 46 days); Chinnarat Phadungsil (Asian Tour, aged 17 years and 293 days) and Matteo Manassero (European Tour, aged 17 years and 363 days).
These guys all have one thing in common – they are off the charts good and not American!!
What about team England – Lee Westwood (2nd), Luke Donald (3rd) and Paul Casey (7th)? These guys just seem to be getting better and better and the likelihood is strong that one of these bombers will win a major – maybe as soon as the up-coming US Open at Congressional.
Then there are the young guns from South Africa – can Scharl Schwartzel or Louis Oosthuizen win another major before the season’s finished? They own 2 of the last 3 majors. What about other South Africans – Tim Clarke, Ernie Els or Retief Goosen? This country is oozing with talent and it’s just a matter of time before we see another rookie with a perfect swing stun the golfing community as Schwartzel did last week at Augusta.
And we haven’t even mentioned the trio of Australian golfers who will likely challenge for another major this coming season – Adam Scott (17th), Jason Day (24th) or Geoff Ogilvy (29th).
All this is bad news for Tiger Woods and co. There are too many great players for these guys to win on a consistent basis.
The days of American golfers and tennis players dominating their respective tours are finished. And in my opinion, we’ll never see that kind of domination again.
If I was the commissioner of the entire sports world I would implement some major rules changes that would make the games we love more enjoyable. There are so many ridiculous rules in so many sports – I’m really not sure where to start. But I don’t think anyone would argue with my first selection.
1. The Single Point in the CFL needs to go. How is it possible that a team can be rewarded for missing a field goal? The ‘rouge’ as it’s known amongst CFL aficionados might be the silliest rule in all of sports. You miss a kick wide right or wide left – and that’s it – the other team should instantly be awarded possession of the ball – there should be no scoring allowed – not even a single point!! But the CFL – trying to be different than all other football leagues world wide – stands by this wacky rule and says it makes there game unique. And if you agree with this one – check out the last one!
2. Time between pitches in a baseball game. Once the ball is returned to the pitcher, he has 15 seconds to make the next pitch or it is automatically ruled a ball. The batter cannot step out of the batter’s box at any time during the at bat.
3. Redefine offsides in soccer. In basketball there is nothing prettier than a backdoor cut that ends in a dunk or a layup. But when the same thing happens in soccer – like USA’s Clint Dempsey’s controversial disallowed goal in the recent World Cup last summer in South Africa against Algeria – its offsides. So here is my recommendation: once a team gains possession inside the 18-yard box, there is no offsides. Playmakers like Lionel Messi would become offensive dazzling magicians like Wayne Gretzky used to be with the puck and defenders would be forced to defend, rather than hold their line and pray that an assistant ref’s flag saves them from embarrassment!
4. NCAA Football Playoff. NCAA division 1 football will adopt a 16-team playoff that will feature 8 automatic qualifiers and 8 at-large teams with the championship game to be played at a pre-determined venue.
5. Golfers shouldn’t suffer because of the wind! Sometimes I think the powers that be in the world of golf had too many pints on the 19th hole veranda as they made up the rules of the hallowed game! Golf’s rule book is filled with nitpicking that outsiders find silly – a stroke penalty if you accidentally drop your ball and it moves your marker, for example – but that purists defend to their grave. However, even hardened purists have to concede the following: if the wind moves your ball after you’ve addressed it, you MOST DEFINITELY shouldn’t be penalized a stroke. But according to the Royal and Ancient rules of golf – it is a one stroke penalty. Upon further review – this might be the dumbest rule of all – time to bury this one in a sand trap!
6. Icing the kicker in football. If the defensive team calls a timeout with less than 10 seconds remaining on the play clock during a field goal attempt, that team will be assessed a five-yard penalty.
7. Hawkeye Challenge System in Tennis! Okay this is a double edged sword. It’s the best invention in my estimation this century – not only for tennis – but for the entire sports world. My issue is simple – it needs to be on every court at every tournament. Can you imagine an NFL game where the fans were told – “sorry – your team is out of playoff contention and we are not going to replay any controversial calls in this game?” This would never happen and it shouldn’t be happening on the ATP tour or the WTA tour. It is unacceptable that these tours only have it for the big name players who are constantly on the “show” courts.
8. Hockey needs to make 4 major improvements. First, ban all head shots. Despite the recent ban on blindside hits, there has been no decrease in NHL concussions. Sydney Crosby has been out far too long and the game is suffering as a result. Second, institute no-touch icing. Eliminating headlong races for the first touch curbs colossal, end-board collisions between full-bore defenseman and forwards. And thirdly, ditch the trapezoid. What were they thinking a few years back when they came up with this one? If goaltenders can play the puck anywhere and not just directly behind the net, the D-men have to do less back-to-the-action puck retrieval, and thus are targets of fewer blindside hits. And finally, expand the ice surface. Increasing the playing area to international dimensions (200 feet x 100 feet as opposed to 200 x 85) enhances the value of skilled players. But it also makes lumbering enforcers obsolete. Guys incapable of contributing with their gloves on will be soon out of the league.
9. Baseball field dimensions. All baseball fields in both the American and National league will have the same dimensions across the board.
10. Contraction in the NHL. There are too many teams in the current NHL. Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hamilton all are granted expansion franchises while most of the Southern teams in the NHL are let go.
11. Bring Replay to Soccer. It is shocking to me that this MAJOR sport world-wide is so far behind the times. There were multiple examples at the World Cup of officiating errors that could have been rectified with instant replay. The fact that this sport is so reluctant to modernize itself tells me they think they have a perfect game – and from all accounts the players, managers, owners and fans are outraged that a system has yet to be put in place. If all the other MAJOR sports have come to the realization that replay is needed – why are the suits that make these decisions in soccer so stubborn on such an obvious way to improve their game?
12. Hold the World Cup Every 3 Years. South Africa 2010 reminded us that the planet’s biggest sporting event gets bigger every four years. Which is exactly why it should happen every three?
13. Hitting a golf ball out of a divot in the middle of the fairway. Okay, let’s start by saying I’m definitely not a golf purist. If I whack a ball with pin-point accuracy straight down the middle of the fairway and end up in a divot – you can be damned sure I’m not hitting it from there. Unless of course I’m playing in a tournament and I don’t want to incur the one stroke penalty. Golf has more questionable rules than all sports put together – but this may take the cake. You can’t penalize somebody for a perfect shot! I can’t be that far off with this opinion – the greatest golfer of all time – Jack Nicklaus – agrees wholeheartedly with my take on this silly rule!
14. Decide, once and for all, what is a catch in the NFL. Does anybody remember Lions wideout Calvin Johnson hauling in an apparent game-winning TD pass in week one of the NFL season? Here is a brief synopsis of what happened in case you forgot – Johnson made the catch, fell to the ground, and started to get up – but as he was getting up he flicked the ball away – he let go of the ball on purpose as he thought he had possession for more than enough time. The refs ruled it incomplete, saying Johnson failed to maintain possession through the entire process of the catch. Entire process??? Is this a joke?? As soon as a ball carrier breaks the plane of the goal line – even by one millimeter – his team gets six points. Can you say double standard? The same rules should apply to both the breaking of the goal-line play and a receiver making an acrobatic catch! This was a huge injustice that should be fixed immediately.
15. Get rid of the “let” in tennis. Most tennis people would think I’ve lost my marbles on this one – but I truly believe it would make the game more exciting. If the ball hits the net and dribbles over on shot 1 (the serve) or shot 10 (groundstroke, volley or overhead) the same rules should apply. So either play a “let” for all shots or zero shots but don’t do it just on the serve. This doesn’t make sense – singling out the serve seems to be nonsensical – purists believe this is right but they are steadfast on this rule because this is the way it’s always been done.
16. Adopt an NFL-like replay system in major league baseball. Managers will be granted two replays per game and one additional replay if the game goes extra innings.
17. Limit basketball teams to two timeouts a game. Some basketball games can take upward of 15 minutes with 45 seconds remaining on the clock. The game needs to be continuous, and with what seems like unlimited timeouts, the games length in the dying seconds of close games can be a major turnoff for the casual fan.
18. Length of the baseball season. The season will be reduced to 140 games and the playoffs will get started in early September.
19. Standardize the college games with their professional counterparts. For example, in college football the receiver needs to only have one foot in bounds to have possession of the ball – in the NFL it’s two feet. The uprights for a field goal attempt or extra point are 3 feet wider for college kickers. In college basketball the 3-point line is 20’9” in the NBA it’s 23’9”. The shot clock in college is 35 seconds and 24 seconds in the NBA. A backcourt violation in the NBA is called in 8 seconds, but in college they have 10 seconds. The fans and players alike would like these numbers to be the same – why make the rules complicated – some of these kids will go on to the next level – would it not make sense to standardize these rules across the board?
20. Don’t rely on the eye to judge field goals or extra points. It’s a fact that when a kick sails directly above one leg of a goalpost it’s a miss. But when a kick is as high as 20 feet over the uprights, it’s difficult for the ref standing below the post to tell for sure. So I hereby lobby for a motion detector or laser beams or some other newfangled 21st century technology – something that shoots straight up from each post. When a ball crosses its stream, a sound would ring out through the stadium or a light would flash on the scoreboard, indication a miss with surety.
21. Copy the NFL. The CFL should go to the NFL rules. That means 4 downs and a smaller field. The NFL game is much better – but the CFL rules makers will never let this happen. They are proud of their game – but in truth the NFL rules make more sense and their game is far superior to the lowly CFL!
Written By Michael Emmett
There was the eye-catching comeback of a Tiger.
The stirring revival from a crew from Down Under!
The excruciating collapse of a kid!
5 straight birdies on the back-nine by a former Major Champion!
And in the end, the championship crowning of a son of a South African chicken farmer named Charl Schwartzel!
Excuse my ignorance but who the heck is Charl Schwartzel? – and once again excuse my obtuseness – but how in God’s earth can a guy who looks like a shoe salesman win the most coveted golf event on the planet?
As the sun set on the luscious greenery at Augusta National Golf Club after the conclusion of the 75th Masters, amazed patrons struggled to take deep breaths. They had nothing left. It was a gut-wrenching day to be sure!
The world’s best golfers had just spent the afternoon delivering breathtaking shot after breathtaking shot. Nations united on a leader board – Antarctica was the only continent without a birdie-making ambassador in the chase – that was so jumbled and changed so often that it had a dizzying effect on its operators.
Fifty years to the day after South African Gary Player became the first international golfer to take home one of the famed green jackets, his similarly built countryman Charl Schwartzel (a super lightweight at 5-11, 140 pounds) out dueled the big hitters in what was one of the most exciting back nines in the tournament’s history. At different times throughout the proceedings 8 guys had their names atop the leaderboard for the 5 hour roller-coaster.
Days like Sunday are why the Masters is the best event in sports.
The Olympics come but every two years. Occasionally, a Super Bowl delivers last-minute drama. Every few years, a World Series is competitive. The NBA Finals sometimes has its moments. Every now and then, college football’s appointed finalists live up to the season-long debate. And the recent display at Reliant Stadium in Houston notwithstanding, teams in NCAA championship basketball games have been known to make a shot or two.
But time after time, year after year, the Masters delivers. It can’t get much better than this year’s edition. With so many players in and out and back in again, it had one of the more entertaining back nines Augusta has seen.
Sure, it was a Masters Sunday when you needed a defibrillator next to the couch, but in the end, what did we wind up with?
We got a green jacket being hung on the bony shoulders of 140-pound 26-year old and who knows if we’ll ever see HIM again. He seems like a work in progress. Even his first name is unfinished. Can you say “Louis Oosthuizen”??
This is the 10th different winner in the past 10 majors. It’s like golf is running some kind of contest. Hey, you. You just won the Masters. And I would bet on Congressional Country Club making it 11 for 11.
Tiger, please come back. The game misses you. Golf is so much better when Tiger is in contention – and he is so close to getting his game back – back to where it used to be!
When the final twosome reached the 12th hole, five players were tied at the top, and 10 were within two strokes of the lead. In all, eight players had at least a share of the lead at some point during the final round.
“Sometimes I would look at (the scoreboard) and not register what I saw,” the stunned winner said.
Schwartzel, a spell checker’s nightmare (Charl might be short a couple of letters, but it isn’t short for anything), earned the win with a magnificent final-round 66 – the best closing round in a victory since Nick Faldo’s 65 in 1989 – and a 14-under-par 274 total that beat Australians Jason Day and Adam Scott by two strokes.
Schwartzel began the day with a chip-in for birdie on the first hole and then holed out from 114 yards for eagle on No. 3 to move into a tie with third-round leader Rory McIlroy, who started the final 18 holes with a four-shot advantage.
Tiger Woods joined Schwartzel in challenging conventional wisdom that the tournament doesn’t really begin until the back nine Sunday by posting a brilliant 5-under-par 31 on the front, highlighted by an eagle at No. 8. It was the first time in a long time we had seen the Woods of old making noise on the leader board in the fourth round of a tournament.
There was a buzz that was so apparent I could feel it through my television – I felt the need to tell someone I was about the witness history. Tiger was down by 7 shots and he erased that deficit in fewer than 9 holes. Surely he would shoot 4 under on the “easy” back nine and win this tournament going away. Tiger had never won a major when he trailed by even ONE shot – but yesterday he was going to win while overcoming a 7-shot deficit. Or so I thought!
But then something weird, and normal, happened. The tournament really began. As you knew it would.
The winning story is typically the most compelling, and Schwartzel wowed with a birdie-birdie-birdie-birdie finish.
Schwartzel was first to ever finish with 4 straight birdies on the final day to win the trophy.
Not Rory’s day
But on this day, the sustained drama of the final round and even the roars accompanying a roaring Tiger were dimmed by the lack of roars for Rors.
Poor Rory McIlroy. The precocious 21-year-old Irishman teed off Sunday for what many expected to be his coronation as the game’s brightest young star. But instead of becoming the tournament’s second-youngest winner (behind Woods), he suffered through a difficult day, enduring a humiliation that this lovely but occasionally cruel game has bestowed upon golfers of all ages and skill.
McIlroy’s drive at the 10th found bark and didn’t bite, banging off a tree and settling between cottages that were not in Bobby Jones’ imagination as a possible launch spot for a second shot on that hole. It became almost unbearable to watch.
McIlroy, who led after each of the first three rounds, posted a triple bogey on the hole, a bogey on the 11th and a four-putt double bogey on the 12th. He finished with an 8-over-par 80, 10 shots off the pace.
“I was leading this golf tournament with nine holes to go, and I just unraveled,” McIlroy said.
Many will describe McIlroy’s experience as a teachable moment. But does anybody really need to go through what he went through – matching the highest final-round score of any 54-hole leader in tournament history – to learn something?
We witness the best in sport when accomplishment matches skill. The experts say McIlroy has the best swing in the game. He has the makings of a star player, a star personality. In this day, not all stars are champions. On this day, the young star didn’t take the championship.
But though he stumbled off the course with his shirt ruffled and his black mop of hair strewn about, he took his defeat like a champion.
It is a good bet that soon on some extraordinary day at Augusta National, at this tournament that doesn’t began until the back nine Sunday; McIlroy will have his championship day.
And it probably will be the best sporting event that year. Again.
A Fitness, Tennis, Squash & Sports Blog by Mayfair Clubs 