The AFL signing of rugby league star Israel Folau - let's separate fact from fiction.
Fact 1. This is a masterstroke for the AFL in its bid to stake a claim in western Sydney.
Fact 2. The reported money Folau will make from the switch is money well spent.
Fiction 1. Israel Folau will be a huge star in his new code.
Fiction 2. As a player, he is worth the reported $1 million-plus per annum earnings.
So how does fact and fiction one and two add up the real thing? Well it goes like this.
It's a coup for the AFL because of the positive impact it has on showcasing the code in a league-dominated region. Already it has created massive headlines.
Now, headlines in isolation don't equate to much. But publicity for the AFL is just what is needed for long-term benefits, in encouraging youngsters to grab a Sherrin in favour of the established league and union pathways.
But the fiction part is considerable. As great an athlete as he is, Israel Folau is destined to be little more than an average AFL player - at best. Yes, he can jump and yes, he can catch - or 'mark', as he'll now need to do in AFL. There's much more, however, to AFL than jumping and marking. More also than his yet to be acquired skills of kicking and handpassing.
These things can be learned. What can not be learned is instinct. Understanding a game which is multi-dimensional compared to the forward combat of league. And kicking, marking, handpassing, knocking forward at pace. Disposing of the ball in a split-second to avoid being penalised for holding the ball, rather than the keeping-possession discipline required of the six-tackle game.
Don't get me wrong. Most league stars could be successful on the AFL stage, but only
with a strong grounding in the indigenous game. Like the boys from Wagga Wagga. Paul Kelly (AFL) and Laurie Daley (NRL), like many in the border region, played both games as kids and could have starred in either direction. With time, Slater, Johns, Thurston, Lockyer, Hayne and a host of others could have become household names in the AFL. But only with the background of Kelly and Daley. Not from a starting point in the mid-20s.
Folau's only 21, but he's left it too late from an instinct perspective. At best, he'll become a serviceable AFL player, worth the average going rate of around $300,000 a year for his on-field contributions.
So why is reported contract of around $1.2 million per year money well spent? Purely because of the trailblazing nature of the move.
Folau will go from being a league star to a mere mortal, but worth more than twice his NRL contract due to the long-term recruiting filter system. The money is not about what he will bring to Greater Western Sydney in terms of match stats, but in terms of western Sydney teenagers further down the track.
If a league superstar's switch can have an impact on a handful of other - particularly Polynesian - kids, then the AFL's production line has kicked up another gear.
Other AFL players need to realise this is the nature of the recruiting strategy. In AFL, Folau is no Ablett or Franklin. But in the big picture, he's worth more money than them.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
State of Origin Hyperbole
In a world of sporting cliches, rugby league's State of Origin marketing has outlived its hype.
Every year, every game, we hear the call - State against State, mate against mate. We're told to expect fireworks, we're shown highlights of King Wally and Mark Geyer going toe-to-toe. We're also told NSW will start as favourites.
The concept has proved to be the making of rugby league and remains as one of the great contests on the Australian sporting calendar. As for worldwide attention, I fancy the claims that countries like the United States, China and Russia are glued to their 3D sets is somewhat exagerated.
We are still enthralled by the impending showdowns between the Blues and the Maroons. And yet, as the years roll by, the promotional hype fails to materialise.
The fact is that rarely do State of Origin matches result in an outbreak of football warfare. The game has moved on. Referees and judiciaries are less forgiving than they were even a decade ago.
This shouldn't be seen as a diluting of the contest. But the world has become more civilised, and what was seen as accepted and encouraged violence in sporting battles now raise understandable comparisons with deteriorating community standards.
The unpredictable nature of the outcome of the matches has taken a blow with a four-year dominance by the star-studded Queensland squad. For years the underdogs who collectively played above their individual worthiness, the Maroons now boast the undisputed superstars of rugby league. Slater, Thurston, Inglis, Folau, Lockyer, Smith - six of the biggest names in the sport.
The biggest names for the Blues? Try perhaps Watmough, Gidley, Morris, Kimmorley, Cooper and, of course, Hayne. Only Hayne could be considered anywhere near the elite status of the star Queenslanders. Even without the injured Smith in game one of the 2010 series, the Maroons were too good and more dominant that the 28-24 scoreline suggested.
The simple problem for NSW is this. They can't match the Maroons in terms of personnel and, unlike the era when Queensland had inferior talent, nor can NSW match the Maroons for passion - the vital ingredient that carried past Queensland teams to results that should not have been possible.
So, a message for the promoters. Yes, you still have a great product but let's forget the hype. The game is no longer likely to erupt into some sort of Ultimate Fighting Championship free-for-all (see blog December 21) and gone are the days when the Queensland fibros attempted to bring down the NSW silvertails.
Time has moved on.
Every year, every game, we hear the call - State against State, mate against mate. We're told to expect fireworks, we're shown highlights of King Wally and Mark Geyer going toe-to-toe. We're also told NSW will start as favourites.
The concept has proved to be the making of rugby league and remains as one of the great contests on the Australian sporting calendar. As for worldwide attention, I fancy the claims that countries like the United States, China and Russia are glued to their 3D sets is somewhat exagerated.
We are still enthralled by the impending showdowns between the Blues and the Maroons. And yet, as the years roll by, the promotional hype fails to materialise.
The fact is that rarely do State of Origin matches result in an outbreak of football warfare. The game has moved on. Referees and judiciaries are less forgiving than they were even a decade ago.
This shouldn't be seen as a diluting of the contest. But the world has become more civilised, and what was seen as accepted and encouraged violence in sporting battles now raise understandable comparisons with deteriorating community standards.
The unpredictable nature of the outcome of the matches has taken a blow with a four-year dominance by the star-studded Queensland squad. For years the underdogs who collectively played above their individual worthiness, the Maroons now boast the undisputed superstars of rugby league. Slater, Thurston, Inglis, Folau, Lockyer, Smith - six of the biggest names in the sport.
The biggest names for the Blues? Try perhaps Watmough, Gidley, Morris, Kimmorley, Cooper and, of course, Hayne. Only Hayne could be considered anywhere near the elite status of the star Queenslanders. Even without the injured Smith in game one of the 2010 series, the Maroons were too good and more dominant that the 28-24 scoreline suggested.
The simple problem for NSW is this. They can't match the Maroons in terms of personnel and, unlike the era when Queensland had inferior talent, nor can NSW match the Maroons for passion - the vital ingredient that carried past Queensland teams to results that should not have been possible.
So, a message for the promoters. Yes, you still have a great product but let's forget the hype. The game is no longer likely to erupt into some sort of Ultimate Fighting Championship free-for-all (see blog December 21) and gone are the days when the Queensland fibros attempted to bring down the NSW silvertails.
Time has moved on.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Suite101
Hi. Sorry about the inactivity here on SportChats, but I've been otherwise occupied.
I've just signed up with an online magazine - the address: www.suite101.com
Please check it out. It's a quality publication, which is something of a rarity when it comes to online media. It provides me with the opportunity to write on a range of topics and, in these fledgling days, that is exactly what I have done.
So please, take a peep at suite101 and your favourite writer, yours truly.
Back with more SportChats shortly.
Best wishes,
Mike
I've just signed up with an online magazine - the address: www.suite101.com
Please check it out. It's a quality publication, which is something of a rarity when it comes to online media. It provides me with the opportunity to write on a range of topics and, in these fledgling days, that is exactly what I have done.
So please, take a peep at suite101 and your favourite writer, yours truly.
Back with more SportChats shortly.
Best wishes,
Mike
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
OH CANADA!!! GROAN THE PODIUM
Canada is a nation in the midst of an identity crisis. Not knowing whether to politely and meekly accept second best, or whether to strive for number one -- and the knives are out.
Four years ago, Canada finished fourth on the medal count at the Winter Olympics in Turin. Not bad, you might think, for a country of 30 million people, competing against Winter Olympic superpowers such as Russia, Germany, the United States, Norway, Finland and Austria.
But, with the prospect of hosting the Vancouver Games looming, the Canadians wanted more. After-all, host countries traditionally salivate at the prospect of bulging medal tallies when their turn in the spotlight arrives.
So it was decided, no more Mr Nice Guy. Powerbrokers got together and created a campaign entitled 'Own the Podium', a statement of intent to finish not fourth, nor third or second on the medal tally. But to finish number one.
And that's where the problem started.
Much is said and written about Australia's jingoistic approach to sport. And the conviction with which Australia chases victory. But nothing can be compared to the approach by the Canadians in Vancouver.
Now don't get me wrong. First, I like Canadians immensely and, second, I believe they have done a wonderful job at hosting Vancouver 2010.
Further, I am of the opinion they have been the victim of much ill-founded criticism by some insufferables in the international media corps. On that point, the only valid criticism to be levelled at VANOC, the Vancouver Olympic Organising Committee, should be the fencing of the cauldron and the opportunistic punt taken on using the geographically-appealing but climatically-suspect Cypress Mountain as a venue. Otherwise, this has been a fantastic Olympic Games serviced by wonderfully friendly and helpful locals.
The Canadian athletes, however, have found themselves the unwitting subjects of a Cypress Mountain full of pressure. Own the Podium has become a monster for the athletes. The progress of the medal count has been the subject of front page reporting virtually on a daily basis. Gradually, Canada has fallen behind schedule and, as each day passes, the level of navel-gazing has become more intense.
Athletes have, in the eyes of the media and the expectant nation, 'failed'. They've wept in front of cameras and apologised for letting their country down. Newspaper and television reports have switched standpoints on a daily basis. From, 'what went wrong with Canada?' to 'athletes have no need to apologise' in a matter of hours.
Can't they see it? The officials and supporters invented this concept, the media reported it, and accepted it as gospel. How can they, in one breath ask why Canadian athletes are failing to achieve and, then in the next, say it really doesn't matter... who's counting anyway? That Own the Podium is to blame. Well excuse me, but who has run with Own the Podium??
Believe me, this is unlike anything Australia has conjured up in the past. With one exception. With hope and fingers crossed, Australia willed Cathy Freeman to her unforgettable 400 metres gold medal win in Sydney 2000. Here, however, it's across the board -- every Canadian athlete is carrying a target.
Interestingly, Australia has rated a mention in this whole process. Canadian athletes, it was claimed, were too content with second best. They wanted the Australian model, to win against all odds.
But you can't help but get the feeling that there's been a bit of bravado in implementing the program. In aspiring to take on and beat the world, the Canadian media and community at large has usurped the notional home-ground advantage. Rather than being bouyed by local support, many Canadian athletes have felt burdened by the expectations.
For all the good intentions, this all points to immaturity and a sense of an identity crisis on the part of the host nation.
Canada is trying to be something its not. Rather than competing at their best and letting the results take care of themselves, they've engaged in chest-thumping followed by apologies.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and applaud the successes that come their way. They're likeable folk. They deserve it. They just have to learn how to aspire without crucifying their athletes.
Four years ago, Canada finished fourth on the medal count at the Winter Olympics in Turin. Not bad, you might think, for a country of 30 million people, competing against Winter Olympic superpowers such as Russia, Germany, the United States, Norway, Finland and Austria.
But, with the prospect of hosting the Vancouver Games looming, the Canadians wanted more. After-all, host countries traditionally salivate at the prospect of bulging medal tallies when their turn in the spotlight arrives.
So it was decided, no more Mr Nice Guy. Powerbrokers got together and created a campaign entitled 'Own the Podium', a statement of intent to finish not fourth, nor third or second on the medal tally. But to finish number one.
And that's where the problem started.
Much is said and written about Australia's jingoistic approach to sport. And the conviction with which Australia chases victory. But nothing can be compared to the approach by the Canadians in Vancouver.
Now don't get me wrong. First, I like Canadians immensely and, second, I believe they have done a wonderful job at hosting Vancouver 2010.
Further, I am of the opinion they have been the victim of much ill-founded criticism by some insufferables in the international media corps. On that point, the only valid criticism to be levelled at VANOC, the Vancouver Olympic Organising Committee, should be the fencing of the cauldron and the opportunistic punt taken on using the geographically-appealing but climatically-suspect Cypress Mountain as a venue. Otherwise, this has been a fantastic Olympic Games serviced by wonderfully friendly and helpful locals.
The Canadian athletes, however, have found themselves the unwitting subjects of a Cypress Mountain full of pressure. Own the Podium has become a monster for the athletes. The progress of the medal count has been the subject of front page reporting virtually on a daily basis. Gradually, Canada has fallen behind schedule and, as each day passes, the level of navel-gazing has become more intense.
Athletes have, in the eyes of the media and the expectant nation, 'failed'. They've wept in front of cameras and apologised for letting their country down. Newspaper and television reports have switched standpoints on a daily basis. From, 'what went wrong with Canada?' to 'athletes have no need to apologise' in a matter of hours.
Can't they see it? The officials and supporters invented this concept, the media reported it, and accepted it as gospel. How can they, in one breath ask why Canadian athletes are failing to achieve and, then in the next, say it really doesn't matter... who's counting anyway? That Own the Podium is to blame. Well excuse me, but who has run with Own the Podium??
Believe me, this is unlike anything Australia has conjured up in the past. With one exception. With hope and fingers crossed, Australia willed Cathy Freeman to her unforgettable 400 metres gold medal win in Sydney 2000. Here, however, it's across the board -- every Canadian athlete is carrying a target.
Interestingly, Australia has rated a mention in this whole process. Canadian athletes, it was claimed, were too content with second best. They wanted the Australian model, to win against all odds.
But you can't help but get the feeling that there's been a bit of bravado in implementing the program. In aspiring to take on and beat the world, the Canadian media and community at large has usurped the notional home-ground advantage. Rather than being bouyed by local support, many Canadian athletes have felt burdened by the expectations.
For all the good intentions, this all points to immaturity and a sense of an identity crisis on the part of the host nation.
Canada is trying to be something its not. Rather than competing at their best and letting the results take care of themselves, they've engaged in chest-thumping followed by apologies.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and applaud the successes that come their way. They're likeable folk. They deserve it. They just have to learn how to aspire without crucifying their athletes.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
SEPP'S 2022 GIFT TO AUSTRALIA
Australia's soccer administrators are in an embarrassing flap over Sepp Blatter's latest redesigning of world football protocol.
The FIFA boss took Australia by surprise earlier this week when he declared that the race for the right to stage the 2018 World Cup was likely to become a closed shop affair. Closed shop as far as non-European countries are concerned, that is.
These are the words that sent shockwaves through Football Federation Australia.
"From what I've discussed with the president of UEFA, Michel Platini, in the last few days in Moscow is that only a European candidate will be evaluated for the 2018 World Cup," Blatter said.
"There is a movement at the moment among the various candidates that in the end it would be a good solution ... if the candidates for 2018 would only be those from Europe.
"It's not been finally decided but it's the idea, also to make the work of FIFA easier and especially that of the executive committee."
Yes, we're sure it seems like a good solution... for European bidders. And, as Blatter pointed out, it would make the work of FIFA easier. Well, we're pleased about that, but the pleasure would have been far greater had this been preordained when bids were invited in the first place.
However, let's pause for a moment and take a big, deep breath. While relocating the goalposts in flight is an unsportsmanlike manoeuvre, the new rules may in fact be beneficial to Australia in the long term.
For starters, let's look at the bidding nations for 2018. Australia, Belgium/Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Portugal/Spain, Russia, United States. For 2022, it's the same again plus Qatar and South Korea.
The World Cup has been staged 18 times since 1930, and on 9 occasions it's been hosted in Europe. That's a 50 percent strike rate. This year it's in South Africa and in 2014 it will be in Brazil. That will be the first time consecutive World Cups have been contested outside of Europe and, with Korea and Japan joint hosting in 2002, that makes it three out of four away from the sport's biggest region.
Naturally, with or without a proclamation from Sepp Blatter, the 2018 host country would be in Europe, either Russia, England, Portugal/Spain or Belgium/Netherlands.
That would then clear the way for a non-European Cup of 2022 where Australia's candidature would be assessed against Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, the United States, Qatar and South Korea. And quite frankly, despite the huge disadvantage of the Antipodean time zone, there's not too much to frighten Australia in that lot.
For starters, Japan and South Korea hosted in 2002. The US hosted in 1994 and Mexico has hosted twice before, in 1970 and 1986. No country has been awarded the honour of hosting the world's biggest event three times.
So, on that basis, it would seem Australia's biggest rivals would be Indonesia and oil-rich Qatar.
Australia enjoys a healthy reputation for staging major international events such as the 2000 Olympics, the rugby World Cup, Melbourne's Formula One Grand Prix and the Australian Open tennis. Soccer remains a sport in its infancy but, with successive qualifications to the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, FIFA member nations are aware Australia and its new presence in Asia has much to offer the development of the code.
In fact, there's a strong case to be mounted that Australia, without the might of the European threat, would emerge from a rank outsider to outright favourite for 2022 should Sepp Blatter's new decree be pushed through.
So far from taking umbrage at Blatter and his FIFA executive, Australia should quietly hope the goalposts are shifted, providing a clear passage directly to the Cup finals in 12 years' time.
The FIFA boss took Australia by surprise earlier this week when he declared that the race for the right to stage the 2018 World Cup was likely to become a closed shop affair. Closed shop as far as non-European countries are concerned, that is.
These are the words that sent shockwaves through Football Federation Australia.
"From what I've discussed with the president of UEFA, Michel Platini, in the last few days in Moscow is that only a European candidate will be evaluated for the 2018 World Cup," Blatter said.
"There is a movement at the moment among the various candidates that in the end it would be a good solution ... if the candidates for 2018 would only be those from Europe.
"It's not been finally decided but it's the idea, also to make the work of FIFA easier and especially that of the executive committee."
Yes, we're sure it seems like a good solution... for European bidders. And, as Blatter pointed out, it would make the work of FIFA easier. Well, we're pleased about that, but the pleasure would have been far greater had this been preordained when bids were invited in the first place.
However, let's pause for a moment and take a big, deep breath. While relocating the goalposts in flight is an unsportsmanlike manoeuvre, the new rules may in fact be beneficial to Australia in the long term.
For starters, let's look at the bidding nations for 2018. Australia, Belgium/Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Portugal/Spain, Russia, United States. For 2022, it's the same again plus Qatar and South Korea.
The World Cup has been staged 18 times since 1930, and on 9 occasions it's been hosted in Europe. That's a 50 percent strike rate. This year it's in South Africa and in 2014 it will be in Brazil. That will be the first time consecutive World Cups have been contested outside of Europe and, with Korea and Japan joint hosting in 2002, that makes it three out of four away from the sport's biggest region.
Naturally, with or without a proclamation from Sepp Blatter, the 2018 host country would be in Europe, either Russia, England, Portugal/Spain or Belgium/Netherlands.
That would then clear the way for a non-European Cup of 2022 where Australia's candidature would be assessed against Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, the United States, Qatar and South Korea. And quite frankly, despite the huge disadvantage of the Antipodean time zone, there's not too much to frighten Australia in that lot.
For starters, Japan and South Korea hosted in 2002. The US hosted in 1994 and Mexico has hosted twice before, in 1970 and 1986. No country has been awarded the honour of hosting the world's biggest event three times.
So, on that basis, it would seem Australia's biggest rivals would be Indonesia and oil-rich Qatar.
Australia enjoys a healthy reputation for staging major international events such as the 2000 Olympics, the rugby World Cup, Melbourne's Formula One Grand Prix and the Australian Open tennis. Soccer remains a sport in its infancy but, with successive qualifications to the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, FIFA member nations are aware Australia and its new presence in Asia has much to offer the development of the code.
In fact, there's a strong case to be mounted that Australia, without the might of the European threat, would emerge from a rank outsider to outright favourite for 2022 should Sepp Blatter's new decree be pushed through.
So far from taking umbrage at Blatter and his FIFA executive, Australia should quietly hope the goalposts are shifted, providing a clear passage directly to the Cup finals in 12 years' time.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
UNEARTHED: THE PROBLEM WITH AUSTRALIAN TENNIS
For over 20 years, Australian tennis has undergone its annual period of introspection over the last fortnight of January.
As local hopes come and go equally quickly during the first week of the Australian Open, the perennial question is raised: what has gone wrong with Australian tennis?
For a country with such a proud Davis Cup history, and the producer of a string of Grand Slam champions in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the dearth of current stars in the decades since has been sorrowful and soul-destroying.
Not since Mark Edmondson in 1976 and Chris O'Neil in 1978 scored unlikely victories
have Australians claimed the singles crowns at their home Grand Slam. Since then, of course, Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Pat Cash, Pat Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt have won
other Grand Slam titles and proudly carried the hopes of their nation to Kooyong and, in the years since 1988, Melbourne Park. Despite their heroics, however, the home trophy cabinet has been bare.
So again, we pose that question, what's wrong with Australian tennis?
Well, there are many reasons, including the well documented increase in popularity of the sport on a global basis, reaching out to far more countries and players than in the past, and the growth and popularity of competing sports in our own backyard.
But one reason not generally flagged is this: real estate. We are often told that Australia has the most expensive real estate in the country, and now it's having an adverse impact on sport.
Despite the vastness of the Australian continent, around 90% of our 22 million inhabitants are urban dwellers, and most of us live in cities on the south-eastern seaboard. Our cities are being stretched to breaking point, and the price of land has increased accordingly.
So what's all this to do with tennis? Well, let's add squash into the equation as well.
Baby boomers growing up in the tennis golden years will remember the lay of the land. Quarter-acre blocks, hills hoists, footy ovals, cricket pitches... and, yes, tennis and squash courts.
It was a way of life for the kids of the 60s. Find a tennis court, have a hit. Since then, some footy ovals and cricket pitches have become victims to the developers and bulldozers, but our cities are still generally well served in catering for those team sports.
For tennis and squash, however, it's a different story. Most have made way for housing or, perhaps, general community facilities. How many squash courts can you think of in your area? Or tennis courts for that matter?
You see, both tennis and squash are somewhat exclusive sports, not in elitist terms but, by their very nature, in providing opportunities for mass participation. A tennis court caters for a maximum of four players at any one time, with occupation generally for an hour or more.
As a consequence, court operators promote coaching clinics to increase revenue, and
members rightfully assume their time and territory as well. It all means the old days of rolling along to a perhaps net bedraggled, surface eroding, but nonetheless vacant, tennis court and having a hit for fun, is an activity of the past.
Like much of society in 2010, securing a tennis court is a more organised and structured chore than the carefree ways that encouraged the participation, and ultimate development, of names like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Court and Goolagong.
Not all kids want structure in their down time. As well intentioned as Tennis Australia and various development programs may be, not all kids want to spend their time at coaching clinics. Initially at least, most of them just want to go an have fun over their summer holidays, whether that's by a swimming pool, at the beach, on their bikes or... on a tennis court.
So, the simplistic answer is this. Turn back the clock. Provide more community tennis facilities for kids to develop an interest in the game and include it in their fun time. From there, the serious contenders will become apparent. That's the time for coaching clinics and tennis camps.
With real estate values the way they are, it's easier said than done.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
BERNARD'S BABY BABBLE
Even in defeat, young Bernard Tomic did a lot right on the court during the second round of his Australian Open match with Marin Cilic.
This 17 year old precocious talent looked the number 14 seed squarely in the eye, taking two sets off the 14th seeded Croatian before losing in five, 6-7 6-3 4-66-2 6-4. A great sign for the future and Tomic should take plenty of confidence on his busy sojourn around the international circuit in 2010.
But that's where the good stuff ended. Off the court and into the media interview room, and Tomicitis struck again. Take it away Bernard.
"To finish at this time, it's tough. You know, look, I have no excuses, but I think if I'd have played during the day, which I requested, it could have been all changed. I think I should have won," Tomic said.
"But I'm proud of the way I played. It's difficult for me, I had the same problem last year.
"After 1am, 2am, for a 17-year-old to go out and play, it's difficult. For the people I requested to play during the day, and it didn't happen, I think it's ridiculous."
Point one. Please don't tell us there are no excuses, only to add he would have won with different scheduling. That's an excuse.
Point two. The scheduling may have its pitfalls -- many critics attest to that -- but it is the same for both players at both ends of the court. So, tick to that point. But the moment Tomic said, 'for a 17-year-old...' he was in credibility trouble.
Age should have nothing to do with scheduling for Grand Slam tennis. If he's good enough to compete, he competes under the same circumstances as every other player. To expect organisers to schedule matches according to sleep requirements of particular players is a ridiculous and immature notion.
International tennis is a tough game. There's much to learn for young players and it's not just about serving, receiving, backhands, forehands, volleys and overhead smashes. It's also about mental toughness and, to a degree, how to engage the public relations battle.
Team Tomic is on track with the on-court elements of tennis education. Unfortunately, much work is required when it comes to talking about the game.
Incidentally, this is not a 'bag Tomic blog', despite successive posts critical of his persona. It's exciting for Australian tennis to watch his emergence. We can only cross our fingers and pray that he doesn't continue to shoot himself in the foot.
This 17 year old precocious talent looked the number 14 seed squarely in the eye, taking two sets off the 14th seeded Croatian before losing in five, 6-7 6-3 4-66-2 6-4. A great sign for the future and Tomic should take plenty of confidence on his busy sojourn around the international circuit in 2010.
But that's where the good stuff ended. Off the court and into the media interview room, and Tomicitis struck again. Take it away Bernard.
"To finish at this time, it's tough. You know, look, I have no excuses, but I think if I'd have played during the day, which I requested, it could have been all changed. I think I should have won," Tomic said.
"But I'm proud of the way I played. It's difficult for me, I had the same problem last year.
"After 1am, 2am, for a 17-year-old to go out and play, it's difficult. For the people I requested to play during the day, and it didn't happen, I think it's ridiculous."
Point one. Please don't tell us there are no excuses, only to add he would have won with different scheduling. That's an excuse.
Point two. The scheduling may have its pitfalls -- many critics attest to that -- but it is the same for both players at both ends of the court. So, tick to that point. But the moment Tomic said, 'for a 17-year-old...' he was in credibility trouble.
Age should have nothing to do with scheduling for Grand Slam tennis. If he's good enough to compete, he competes under the same circumstances as every other player. To expect organisers to schedule matches according to sleep requirements of particular players is a ridiculous and immature notion.
International tennis is a tough game. There's much to learn for young players and it's not just about serving, receiving, backhands, forehands, volleys and overhead smashes. It's also about mental toughness and, to a degree, how to engage the public relations battle.
Team Tomic is on track with the on-court elements of tennis education. Unfortunately, much work is required when it comes to talking about the game.
Incidentally, this is not a 'bag Tomic blog', despite successive posts critical of his persona. It's exciting for Australian tennis to watch his emergence. We can only cross our fingers and pray that he doesn't continue to shoot himself in the foot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
