Filed under: Mayfair
I completely understand the decision to put Andre Agassi and Jim Courier – two tennis legends in their prime in the mid 90s and multiple grand slam winners – on centre court during the Saturday night session at the Rogers Cup. I understand it – but I vehemently disagree with it.
The fans loved this ‘old timers’ match and were thoroughly riveted by the athleticism of these American icons. But this match should never push the athletes of today to a ‘side’ court in favor of these Hall of Famers from yester-year.
Wow – can these guys still play at a very high level – serving bombs in excess of 200km/hour, ripping forehand winners from extraordinary positions on the court and chasing down balls from different area codes. But that’s not the point – the WTA tour players must take precedence at ALL TIMES when scheduling these matches.
I don’t care if Justin Bieber is playing an exhibition match – the current crop of WTA players must have access to the main court where there are better facilities – most notably access to the all important HAWKEYE which is the deciding factor for all line calls. I can’t tell you how wrong – in my opinion – it is for these jokesters (Agassi and Courier) to have the ability to challenge a call from a linesperson, yet the 4 competitors in the doubles action late Saturday night did not have the same opportunities.
Talk about mishandling some of the top players in the game. The Agassi/Courier match was an exhibition – like wrestling (the outcome looked to be pre-determined – the only thing that matters (for the organizers) was putting on a show for the almost capacity crowd. It was a sideshow – entertaining and hilarious at times, however; they should not have been the main attraction.
The feature of the night was a singles match between Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka – great quality tennis with some unbelievable shot-making. The second half of the night should have been the remaining semi-final in the doubles draw.
Agassi/Courier would have welcomed the opportunity to play on the grand stand court – that’s where they belonged – on a smaller court a good distance away from the main attraction. They had their time almost 20 years ago. Can you imagine next year at the Rogers Cup if Navratilova and Evert are put in a similar situation – do you think the game’s best doubles players on the ATP tour would be relegated to a lesser court in favor of those two female champions. Three words to answer that question.
NOT A CHANCE
The idea – with the American Men who used to entertain us all – is to augment the Women’s game not steal the show!
This is the Rogers Cup for females. End of story.
The fact that the second semi-final – involving top five superstar Victoria Azarenka – was shuffled off to the grand stand court is reprehensible. This is a mistake that hopefully in future situations will be rectified. It sets a terrible precedent for a tour that is considered to be ‘struggling.’
And it’s these kinds of decisions that will only make things worse before they get better.
Written by Michael Emmett
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
When it comes to getting enough nutrients in your diet, one bit of information is pretty clear-cut: Everybody should be eating 5-10 serving of fruit and vegetables daily. This includes a variety of all sorts of fruit and vegetables on the lower GL scale. Yet according to research, fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be dating back 50 years ago. We believe there are several reasons for this. One reason is that crops are growing in given spaces. This will result in a lower nutrient level. The crops are over harvested in the same location. The soil has been depleted of it s nutritional content, ranging from 5 to 40 percent, with similar declines in vitamins and protein levels. Poor farming practices are leading to sick plants, depleted soil, and a need to use higher and higher doses of pesticides and herbicides to ward off what healthy plants would naturally ward off .
The 5 most effective ways of getting maximal nutrients from your fruit and vegetables are:
Go with locally grown. The key to getting more nutrients is eating food that spends less time traveling from the field to your table. The way to accomplish that goal is with locally grown produce, either from your own garden or from a local farmer’s market. “Buy fresh, whole, and locally grown seasonal produce.
Choose frozen. Your natural instinct when eating produce is to think that fresh is always better than frozen. This is not always the case. Sometimes the veggies frozen right after harvest have retained more nutrients than those ‘fresh’ veggies that have taken forever to get to your plate.
Never judge a book by its cover. Big, shiny fruits and vegetables sure look good and grab your attention in the supermarket, but are not always the best choice. The best example I can use is the apple. Understandably, organic apples may be smaller and not quite as pretty, but their pesticide levels are likely to be lower.
Keep them rough. When the time comes to prepare your fruit and vegetables for eating, bigger, rougher pieces of produce may have the nutritional edge over finely chopped and sliced options. “Keep chopping to a minimum. Keep all your fruit and veggies in topper ware containers in the freezer and fridge, covered to prevent loss of any nutrients.
Minimize cooking time. The less fruits and vegetables are cooked, the more nutrients they retain. Try to eat your fruits and vegetables raw whenever possible. When you do cook them, keep the cooking time to a minimum and avoid too much contact with water. Some cooking methods that are quick, with a minimum amount of liquid, will help to preserve nutrients such as, steaming, blanching, and or stir-frying are all great ways to cook vegetables quickly and retain valuable nutrients. Keep veggies crisp — never overcook or boil in water until soggy.”
Written by Jason Ferreira
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
1. Sleep. Excess storage around the midsection is usually as a result of too much cortisol, which is your body’s stress hormone. One of the best ways to bring your cortisol levels under control is to get a good night’s rest. Being well rested will also help you cope with the demands of your workout program and leads to better food choices. They call it “beauty rest” for a reason. Make it a priority to get enough sleep.
2. Use interval training. Long periods of sustained activity (e.g. jogging) teaches your body to hold more fat in those “hard to lose” areas. Short bursts of high-intensity exercise with intermittent periods of active rest have been shown to be helpful in mobilizing fat stores from “stubborn” areas like the belly. Ever seen an elite sprinter with a flabby waist?
3. Experiment with Green tea extract. Green Tea extract is stimulates the metabolism during weight loss phases. Be sure your Green Tea extract is high in EGCG, the most active component. A recommend dosage is 400mg 1-2x per day. Do your research on what dosages are safe and work best for someone of you gender and bodyweight. WARNING: If you suffer from hypertension or diabetes, or any other health concerns, check with your doctor first.
4. Do AM cardio workouts. I like the mornings for burning belly fat because of the elevated growth hormone levels you experience upon waking. The time of day doesn’t matter, just how recently you woke up. Don’t eat before the workout. Eat a complete breakfast when you’re done. Try combining this with #’s 2 and 3.
5. Choose anti-inflammatory foods. Too much inflammation in the body can interrupt hormones which are important for regulating metabolism and burning belly fat. People with excess belly fat tend to have more inflammation. A leading cause of inflammation in the body is Glycation. Gylcation occurs when there is a high amount of sugar in the blood and causes the binding of sugar molecules to protein molecules. The Gylcation of proteins causes decreased biological activity of proteins and has been linked to premature aging, altered vision, Kidney disease, joint pain and arthritis. Bit of a vicious cycle. Replace red meat with fish, 2-3 times per week, cut down on starches and grains (replace with sweet potatoes or yams), get plenty of green veggies, nuts, mixed berries, and a extra virgin olive oil; you will begin to see a difference in the fitting of your clothing.
Written by Jason Ferreira (Mayfair East’s Fitness Manager)
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
Filed under: Mayfair
I’ve had a good amount of experience with goal achievement, having been actively setting goals 5 years ago. I’ve experienced setbacks and successes in my goal pursuits. I work with clients who are not getting results with their fitness programs, and who want to see a positive turn around. This has given me a lot of insight, on what keeps people from success.
At the end of the day, it boils down to a few key reasons. A few key questions, I feel you should be asking your self;
1. Do you Procrastinate or keep putting things off? Talk about how you want to do something but you don’t act on it. You procrastinate on taking action because the situation that you are currently in is not hard enough for you. However, the times when it does feel like the right thing to do it is often too late. My advice is to start taking action.
2. Do you underestimate your goals? Achieving a goal is about getting from point A to B. From point A, you create an action plan that gets you to point B. To get this stage, is not all ways straight forward. You have to visually see what plan B looks like. Almost all the time, people fail because they underestimate what it takes to achieve those particular goals. What should you do then? Over-commit your resources and review your progress constantly. Adjust your plan of action and adapt accordingly.
3. Do you spend more time defending your problems than taking action? Complaining how you are not getting results is not going to get you any where. When people try to give you suggestions, do not spend your time justifying why their suggestions will not work, try brainstorming new ways, on how it could work. Defending your self does not mean that you will always solve the problem. “Create solutions”. Then act on them. You will be happier.
4. Are you too enclosed in your own world? Sometimes you must venture out beyond your normal routine. When you’re circling around the same issues, talking to the same people all the time, you will begin to stagnate after a while. Open yourself up – take active steps to grow. Get to know more people – surround yourself with people who are driven, positive and focused. Get new, refreshing perspectives. Read new Books, attend life improving seminars- Tony Robbins, from his latest book, Unlimited power.
5. Are you working smart? If you are doing the same thing over and over again and have realized that you are not getting the results you looking for, then it is time for a change. If you apply brute strength to your goals, without strategizing how you will apply this strength more effectively, you are not getting what you want. See how you can do this in a different, smarter, an even more effective way. Look at your peers who have achieved the same results before, and learn from them.
6. Is fear holding you back? Do you avoid taking action because some of the things you find intimidate you. Delaying the process, is something you much rather do. Unfortunately, this strategy will not get you any where. Results come to people who pay their dues, not people who avoid the work. Being scared isn’t going to get you want you want face the fear and do it anyway.
7. Do you become easily distracted? You get distracted by things thrown in your way. Your attention gets diverted from your goals. Your ability to stay focused is instrumental to achieving your results. Be clear of what you want and stick to it. Don’t let anything (or anyone) distract you. These are the obstacles the universe sends your way to see how serious you are about getting what you want.
8. Are you to much of a perfectionist? If you are a neurotic perfectionist, you blow the situation out of proportion and create this mental image that’s so complicated. Things are usually simpler than you think – be conscious when you are adding unnecessarily complications for yourself.
9. Are you giving up too easily? If you give up too easily or just give up even before you get any where. This is the point that differentiates those who deserve the goal and those who are just taking a casual stab at it. I’ve a client who has a habit of giving up in his goals early on. He realized soon that there’s no “easy” way out, and all goals have their own set of obstacles to be overcome. Persevere, press on, and it’s a matter of time before you reap the fruits of your labor.
10. Are you losing sight of your goals? Do not settle for less. You will not do your self any favors with that attitude. You are just neglecting what you physically need to do –this isn’t who you are meant to be. You have to first reconnect with your inner desires. Think about, what are your biggest hopes and dreams for your future? What is the future you want to create for yourself? This is your fuel for success.
Until then, keep fit and don’t quit. Signing off from Mayfair East, Jason Ferreira
You’ve probably heard that yoga is good for you. Maybe you have even tried yoga and discovered that it makes you feel better. But what are the specific health benefits you can expect to enjoy from doing yoga regularly?
Why it’s essential: Studies show that yoga significantly improves flexibility, balance, and muscular strength and endurance, giving you the ability to exercise longer. Yoga may also help control physiological variables such as blood pressure, respiration and heart rate, and speed up your metabolic rate to help you maintain a healthy weight. There are a number of different styles and types of yoga you can practice. If stress reduction is your goal, a restorative yoga class is good. If you want a tough workout, I recommend either Ashtanga or a fusion fitness class.
Technique and tips: Each yoga posture involves a different focus for the body. The standing postures build strength of the legs and core as well as flexibility of the lower body—especially the hamstrings, hip flexors and adductors (inner thighs). Forward bends, back bends and twists work.
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
A Fitness, Tennis, Squash & Sports Blog by Mayfair Clubs 