Category: Q & A

“The Body Has No Limits” – Albert Portas (Parts I and II)

ATP Q & A Sitting Across Mertov's Tennis Desk Series No Comments

I spent a couple of weeks in Europe during which I got to chat plenty with Albert Portas, nicknamed the Dropshot King, former top-20 ATP player and the winner of the 2001 Hamburg Masters Series, one of the only two players to ever win a Masters Series tournament as a qualifier to this day. I put together a two-part write-up of my chats with him for Tennis with an Accent.

Prague – July 2019

In Part 1 of my piece entitled “The Body Has No Limits – Albert Portas,” you can find all the details of Albert’s magical run to the title, as well as some fascinating anecdotes from the Spaniard himself.

In Part 2 of “The Body Has No Limits – Albert Portas,” Albert tells the tale of a remarkable three-week period in the spring of 1997 that had a decisive impact in his career. Spoiler: It’s the story of how he played 22 matches (19 singles, 3 doubles) in 20 days, in three different tournaments, two different locations.

Enjoy!

Click here to follow Mertov’s Tennis Desk on Twitter

Conversation with Steve Flink — 2017 International Tennis Hall of Fame Inductee

Q & A Sitting Across Mertov's Tennis Desk Series No Comments

I have been following Steve Flink’s writings ever since my lifelong passion for tennis began in my childhood years, and continued throughout my playing and coaching years. One of the leading journalists and historians in the tennis arena, Flink’s vast knowledge of our sport is second to none. Moreover, Mr. Flink will be inducted on July 22 of this year at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. You can therefore imagine what a great honor it was for me when I got to meet him at the 2016 Wimbledon, the place where his passion for tennis began to take root in the early 1960s. The following day, I had lunch with him during which we chatted, in some detail, about some of the great matches and memorable events in the history of tennis. It was one of the most stimulating conversations I have ever had as a tennis lover, and of course, it helped that those were two of Mr. Flink’s favorite topics to discuss. He did, after all, write two fascinating books (both must-reads for any tennis fan) entitled The Greatest Tennis Matches of the 20th Century (1999) and The Greatest Tennis Matches of All-Time (2012).

In our first chat, we covered a variety of topics such as some of the unforgettable matches in history, the usage of correct terms when discussing historical accomplishments, and the ins and outs of the discussion surrounding the “Greatest of All-time” debate. Below is that chat, only minimally edited for clarification purposes.

Notice: This conversation was also translated into Turkish and initially published in the post-Wimbledon-2016 issue of the magazine Tenis Dunyasi. This is the original English version.

——————–

Thank you for taking the time! Let’s start with where you first caught the “tennis bug.” Can you identify such a moment in your life?

Yes! Right where we are sitting! I was 12 about to turn 13. It was 1965. I had seen a little tennis, I watched the Davis Cup finals for a couple of years in a row in 63 and 64, US vs Australia which was on public broadcasting in the States. I enjoyed watching it but it hadn’t gripped me the way it did later. I mean I was interested in those matches and those guys played, I got to watch Dennis Ralston and I liked him a lot, but it was not until I came out here in 1965 that I caught the bug. My father brought me out here and I was 12, about to turn 13. I came a bunch of times in 65 including the final. But I first came on a cloudy day during the first week and it just [pauses]… just… [shakes his head] completely engulfed me, I guess that would be the word. Then, form that point on, I followed it every day in the newspapers.

Later, I was back in New York, my parents were divorced then. I went to the US Nationals at Forest Hills, which later became the US Open. I went a bunch of times there. My passion grew out of those experiences. The summer of 1965 was the beginning of my passion for tennis.

As someone with a unique insight of a tennis historian on the matter of using correct terms: there are few terms that are often used out of context or incorrectly. For example, when a player wins one of the four elite tournaments, is it correct to say they won a Grand Slam, a Grand Slam event, or a Major? Also, isn’t it incorrect (or unnecessary) to say the “Calendar Year Grand Slam” since the term Grand Slam’s meaning has historically included the completion of that achievement in the same year? Many people, including some of the top players, now say call Majors “Grand Slams” as in for example, saying that Djokovic won a Grand Slam when he won Roland Garros, or that Roger Federer has won “17 Grand Slams.” Along those lines, which is it when the score is 6-6, is it a “tiebreaker” or a “tiebreak”?

Ok, bunch of points to make there. People say – and I even use it sometimes just to make clear and to not have anybody be confused by what the achievement is – “Calendar Year Grand Slam.” In a sense, it’s repetitive, but I think people use that as a clarification means. But obviously the “Grand Slam” is the four Majors in one year. What happened was, players started getting caught saying, way back in the 80s and early 90s, things like “I know next year I am going to win a Grand Slam,” I remember Jennifer Capriati saying this. What she really meant was “a Grand Slam Event.” This is one of the few areas where I disagree with the late Bud Collins. He was a strong believer in that you could absolutely and only call it a Major. I think if you say “Grand Slam Event” or “Grand Slam Championship,” it’s very clear, there is no mistaking it. So, I think these are interchangeable with “Major.” When I write, I use both. Sometimes I call it a Major, sometimes a Grand Slam Event, but the point is that they are both acceptable. I know other historians agree with me that as long as you get that word “event” or “championship” in there, you make the distinction from “Grand Slam” which is only one thing, winning all four Majors in one year. Now, the “Calendar Year” – and I know in some ways it’s a mistake and people claim it is – is added just so people understand, I think, the difference between that and Djokovic winning four straight over two years for example.

I try to be a bit more flexible about these terms, but Bud became very adamant about that, not in the early years, but let’s say, by the last 20 years of his life. He was more and more adamant as the years went by, and I respected him greatly on it, but it reminded me of his feeling about “tiebreak” vs “tiebreaker.” Again, I don’t agree, I think either of them is fine. There is no confusion in the public’s mind. What happened was, and Bud was absolutely right about this, “tiebreaker” was initially what Jimmy Van Alen, the inventor of the tiebreaker, named it. From the time that it was first used at the Majors in 1970, that is how we referred to it. Then, somewhere along the lines, I would say in the late-80s or early-90s, certainly by mid-90s, people from the ITF and other tennis-governing bodies adopted the term “tiebreak.” I did not have a problem with that. I thought “ok, that’s fine, there is not a big difference.” I would use either one personally, I don’t see how there could be any confusion between the two. But again, Bud felt very strongly about it, I respectfully disagreed with him. These were probably the only two things I ever disagreed with him in all the years that I knew him. “Tiebreak” or “tiebreaker,” either is fine.

Speaking of Bud Collins, is there a special dialogue that makes you say “yes, that was Bud Collins” or an anecdote with him that you particularly remember?

Wow, that’s tough! There were so many experiences with him. I think of his humor, his wit. I am not sure if a single one stands out, but one amusing story that makes me think of him was when I had to play tennis against him. He would always put a lot of pressure on you, he would chip and charge a lot, get to the net. He was much better player than he led on by the way. Ground strokes were not that great, but he volleyed beautifully and had a good kick serve. He was tough to play against. So I would start to press on my ground strokes, but I also would start double-faulting. We played a bunch of times, many times over here in England. One particular time, when I began pressing and double-faulting again, he said to me “Steve, just like Hazel Wightman** always said, you can’t double-fault when you get your first serve in.” I thought that summed him up. It was actually good valuable advice, his way of saying “get more first serves in and you won’t fall into that trap.” But only he could say it in such an amusing way.

** “Mrs. Wightie” (1886-1974) was an American tennis player who won 17 Major titles in singles and doubles in the early 1900s.

A second story was when I used to work with him behind the scenes as a statistician. Later, I actually started doing on-air with him in Madison Square Garden during the Virginia Slims Championships. Couple of years after we started, I did a telecast for ESPN. I was a color commentator. He sent me a very nice, thoughtful note in which he said “I watched your telecast from Memphis. You were very good; I was proud of you. Collini.” It was so nice of him to say that because it was not my telecast after all. “Collini” was how he liked to refer to himself. I am trying bring across his humor and his kindness, and I think those two stories epitomize that.

Is it true that in the early 20th century, women played five sets at Wimbledon, and that the committee back then decided to have women three sets because they felt their bodies were more suited for shorter on-court battles?

U.S. did it too. 1902 may have been the cut-off point. They just felt that it was unnecessary and it became the common currency to get away from that and get back to best-of-three. There was a little experimentation with it in the earlier days, it’s true. Just to tie that in, I don’t accept the argument that some people connect it with the ATP Tour or men’s tennis. Advocates of men’s tennis say “to have equal prize money, women are going to have to play best-of-five.” I think that’s foolish.

As a historian of the game, what are few things that you believe have lost their importance, unjustly perhaps, over the years? In other words, what should never be forgotten by the tennis world?

I think the main thing is to remember the efforts of those pioneers, the players that turned pro, particularly in the 1950s, up to 1968 when Open tennis arrived to the scene. All the great players would be signed to play pro. Jack Kramer played the pro tour himself and eventually became a promoter. They would get signed up after they won Wimbledon or the US Nationals, then they would go into the wilderness. They would lose the chance to play the Majors. Obviously, we know that Rod Laver couldn’t play the Majors until 1968, after his first Grand Slam in 1962. Ken Rosewall was gone much longer than that. Lew Hoad barely played in them. So, I think the record keeping is a bit distorted when we just look at the Majors and how many of them a player has won. Some of these great players lost out on the chance to win Majors. Pancho Gonzales, for almost 20 years, from 1949 to 1968. Imagine what he could have done, particularly on grass with his game. He was such a great serve-and-volleyer, he would have won a bundle of Majors, and it didn’t happen. Jack Kramer would have won so many more than the three he got in the amateur years. He said he wanted to write a book called “we were robbed.” To me, that is the thing that is too easily forgotten.

Do you believe the “Greatest of all Times” argument or discussion has its valid place in the world of tennis? Of course, none of us can settle it, but is it a healthy discussion?

Oh sure, it’s a very good discussion. Of course, everybody has to try to be fair. I mean, ESPN recently did something that the Tennis Channel had done 4 or 5 years ago, which is to try to combine the men and the women in this discussion. I had my qualms with that idea because I don’t know how you combine or compare men’s and women’s games. But leaving that aside, the notion of the greatest male or female players of all the time, yes I think it’s a very healthy discussion. Again, there has to be some fairness toward the prior years, to Suzanne Lenglen and Bill Tilden in the 1920s, Alice Marble in the 1930s, and other great players like Don Budge who was the first to win the Grand Slam. They are too easily forgotten and you have to project them into modern times by asking what if they had the same diet, rackets, training abilities. I have always felt that if you took those great players in prior years, and they were taught now, they would be great in any year. So, I think that is the only problem in this discussion. It’s a little too loaded toward the modern generation and not enough respect payed to Tilden, Lenglen, Helen Moody and other great players of the first half of the 20th century.

Even today, sometimes for example, Laver or Bjorn Borg don’t get much respect in men’s tennis because people are emotionally tied to today’s players like Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer.

That’s true, they don’t, Borg and Laver get lost. Already, and I mean already, it’s hard to believe, Pete Sampras! I mean, when he left the game, many of us thought he was the best of all times, and again, he gets too quickly forgotten in that discussion. Frankly, I would add that if you put all of them together on the court with their playing styles, and settle it that way, Sampras would be the one that would come out on top, except on clay. On any medium-to-fast courts, hard or grass courts, I would take him to beat Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and any others, because of the nature of his game. The combination of the serve with the attacking game, the big forehand, and his temperament would make him come out on top. Of course, that’s just my opinion. There was a bunch of us who participated in a Tennis Magazine imaginary tournament with the great players of all time. It was one set on clay, one set on hard, and the deciding set would be on grass. Sampras ended up winning that imaginary event defeating Nadal and Federer. We had Djokovic losing to Borg. It came down to the grass court set at the end.

I am just throwing out my view here, but to get back to the original question, yes, it’s a very healthy discussion. Nobody is right, it’s all judgmental, but it promotes tennis and that’s a good thing.

If you had to mention the top three greatest matches that you have ever seen in your life time, what would they be? [Reminder: Flink wrote the book The Greatest Tennis Matches of All-Time, published in 2012]

Well, I wrote a book on the greatest tennis matches of all times so that one comes naturally to me. Nadal vs Federer in 2008, I still believe, was the best that we have ever seen. The quality was so high on all five sets. Couple of 6-4 sets to Nadal, two tiebreakers to Federer, and then a 9-7 in the fifth. The thrill factor, the two best players in the world for the third straight year in the final of Wimbledon, pushing each other to the hill, all played into it. Then, there was the fact that it was a pretty miserably cool day at Wimbledon, yet they lit the place up and withstood all the rain delays. That match stands out to me the most.

Two other men’s matches stand out in different ways. The 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and John McEnroe was one. I didn’t think I would ever see that match surpassed until Federer and Nadal came along. The other one that is high in my list is the Laver vs Rosewall match in Dallas in 1972, which went to a fifth-set tiebreaker. They were two men who were both slightly past their primes, but it was like they turned the clock back on that day. The Agassi vs Sampras in the 2001 US Open quarterfinals was a similar case in that they were both past their prime but played a phenomenal match. These are the ones that I would mention.

To throw another match out there, what about the 1984 French Open, when Ivan Lendl came back to John McEnroe in five sets?

That one was a great match but I didn’t put it quite up there with some of the others because for two sets McEnroe was just way superior, then Lendl came back and McEnroe got perturbed and upset, the crowd went against him. It maintained a nice quality until the end, but it was dramatic more than anything else. I still didn’t feel the quality was up there with some of the others I mentioned, but it was a pivotal moment in McEnroe’s career, as well as Lendl’s.

Let’s take that match as an example for the next question, or the Federer – Nadal one, or even a match like Fabio Fognini vs Nadal last year at the US Open where one player won the first two sets and the other came back to turn the match into a memorable one. Interjecting that notion into the discussion about perhaps bringing men’s matches down to two-out-of-three set format, would we miss out on the possibility of classics like these matches?

Well, you are right. But I also think, instead, we would get three-set epics. You would have matches that end 7-5 6-7 7-6 that still went three hours. A part of this argument that makes me realize that I may be in the minority. Some of us who are “die-hards,” we can actually sit and watch an entire five-set match with no problem, but I don’t think the typical spectator stays necessarily with a five-set match the way they stay with a three-set match. That would be the argument for the best-of-three format, you may keep the fans more immersed from beginning to end and it’s still a fair test. Having said that, I don’t think the top players are ever going to want to agree to this, because they will feel that there is a better chance that they will get picked off. They would lose an advantage in that they have a better chance to come back in five-set format. So, I don’t think that will ever happen.

My biggest qualm is the fifth-set tiebreak. I am a big believer that it should be used and the US Open is the only Major that does it. I am very baffled by that. We had the famous Isner -Mahut match ending 70-68 in the fifth set, 11 hours and 5 minutes. It ruined them for the rest of the year.

Would you be fine with playing two-out-of-three up to a certain point and switch to the five-set format in the later rounds?

No, that was tested in the 1970s in the French and the US Open, I didn’t like it. I don’t like the idea of suddenly changing the rules when you get to the later rounds. I feel like they are going to stick with the best-of-five format, but the tiebreak should absolutely be used in every set. You put somebody who has been in one of those extra-long matches, and they have a bad disadvantage. Federer suggested the other day that maybe it should be tried at 12-12, I don’t even think that makes sense. Just play it at the same time you play it in any other set at 6-6, and settle it there. It’s better for the fans, and frankly, it puts the players under added pressure, and that is not bad thing for them either. If you haven’t been able to establish a service break lead after 12 games in the set, a tiebreak is perfectly fair to both of them.

——————–

Note: Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter. This week: Live, on-site updates from the ATP Istanbul Open

Interview with Denis Istomin “Part 2″ – Wimbledon 2nd Round

ATP Majors Players Q & A No Comments

Side note: I named this “Part 2” because I previously interviewed Denis Istomin after his 5-set, first-round upset win over the 20th-seeded Kevin Anderson on Monday. I would highly recommend that you read that interview first in case you missed it (especially for background information on Istomin), by clicking here before you move on to read this one.

Yesterday, Istomin defeated Nicolas Almagro 6-4 7-6 6-2 to reach the third round at Wimbledon.

DI1

He was nice enough to take the time and talk to me about his pre-match preparation and the details of his win against the former top-10 player from Spain. Here is what he had to say.

Congratulations Denis!
Thank you very much.

You played a big hitter today. Almagro hits big from the baseline, big first serve, and has a game founded on power. Going into the match, did you want to keep the points long in the beginning and force him into mistakes early in the match, or did you perhaps plan to start aggressively yourself in order not to allow him to settle into his game?

I wanted to keep him hitting the ball. He has the kind of game where he wants to hit as hard as he can and it’s tough to play like that all the time. If you get four or five balls back, he wants to go even for more. He could start missing, so I tried to play in that way today. But at the same time, I was serving well, so I decided to be aggressive if I get a chance. I mean, I have a good record against him [6-0 now] so that also worked for me. But today, the first two sets were really tough. I was lucky that I broke him back at 5-6 in the second and won the tiebreaker. In the third set, his game went down, it was 3-0 in like five minutes.

You seemed to accelerate your forehand down-the-line a lot this match. Was that a particular part of your game plan? You usually like to hit out your forehand when you are on the run but it seemed that you paid particular attention to attempting down-the-line winners with your forehand.

Yes, but that is the style of game anyway. I feel I can hit down-the-line very good on the forehand and backhand. Many players know that I can be dangerous on the forehand. I knew that if I run so far out of the court, I will not have time to come back, so I hit my forehand full power. If not, I have to run to the other side and it’s a problem. I mean, I am not a short guy who can run fast, I need to protect the part of the court that I can cover. I don’t need to be playing a style where I run and cover the court like… I don’t know… like Djokovic or someone.

In the first set, you won your only break point, and the set at 5-4 up, with an excellent running passing shot.

Almagro can't reach Istomin's forehand, cross-court passing shot on set point.
Almagro can’t reach Istomin’s cross-court forehand passing shot on set point.

But the second set was more complicated. You had break points at 4-3, didn’t break, then you led 0-30 at 5-4 up, did not put it away. Then, you lost your serve at 5-6 but you were able to break back and win the second set. Can you elaborate on that?

Yeah, it’s tennis and it happens. If you lose such game against Isner and Karlovic it would hurt more because you know that it will be difficult to break back. But with guys who don’t serve as strong, you still have a chance so you keep playing in the same way you have until then and hope you break back. In that 5-6 game, I went up 0-40 and he still came back to deuce but I was finally able to break back. It was a very tough set. Even if I lost that set, I would have felt ok. He played good and deserved to win the set. He held his serve at 4-3 and 5-4 even though he was down in the game.

Are you physically feeling good?

Yeah, today I felt good. I had two days of rest which helped a lot. I play tomorrow again [vs David Goffin] so I am lucky I won in three sets and not 4 or 5. So I kept some energy for tomorrow [smiles].

For fans who may be curious about what players do between matches, what have you done since the end of your match vs Anderson?

After that long match, I showered, had something to eat, got a massage. I tried to sleep early that night but it was tough. It’s not easy to fall asleep after such a long match. It was around midnight when I finally fell asleep I think. The next day, I practiced 40 minutes, maybe even less, just to feel the ball and that was it. Yesterday, I did the same, preparing for the scheduled match. But then we sat all day waiting to see if we will go on the court or not, because of the rain. When it cancelled we went home. I tried to sleep earlier last night too. I did the same this morning, warming up this morning.

On Monday, when we talked you called your season “terrible.” Has that changed?

No, now it changed a little bit [laughs] but it’s still not great [laughs again].

Thank you, and again, good luck tomorrow!
Thank you!

Denis thanks the spectators after his win.
Istomin thanks the spectators after his win

Note: Denis will face the 11th-seeded David Goffin of Belgium on Friday afternoon. It’s the third match scheduled on Court 3. I hope to talk to him again following that match.

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter for frequent, live updates from the grounds.

Interview with Denis Istomin – Wimbledon 1st round

ATP Majors Players Q & A Sitting Across Mertov's Tennis Desk Series No Comments

Denis Istomin, the 103rd-ranked player from Uzbekistan (highest: 33 in 2012), defeated the 20th-seed Kevin Anderson 4-6 6-7(13) 6-4 7-6(2) 6-3 in the first round of Wimbledon. It was a thrilling come back by a player who has gone through his own trials and tribulations throughout his career. He has had to deal with numerous injuries and was severely injured in a car accident on his way to a junior tournament when he was 14 years old, one that resulted in a broken leg and required 80 stitches and a three-and-a-half-month-long stay in a hospital for recovery.

He is also coached by his mother – considered an “unusual arrangement” in a world dominated by male coaches – who got him back on the court two years after his accident. I thought it would be a good idea to give this background information before showing the interview below, because I did not want Denis to have to talk about these topics again. I am sure he has had to answer hundreds of question about them, although, as you will notice, he seems “pretty cool” about it.

Denis 1

Below is my chat with the soft-spoken, polite 29-year-old Istomin, following his thrilling win vs Anderson. He will face Nicolas Almagro in the second round.

You had 7 set points, yet you lost the 2nd set 15-13 in the tiebreaker to go down two sets to nothing. You were up 6-3 and the first three set points in a row, and the point at 6-4 was the longest rally of the match. Yet, you still managed to come back and win in 5 sets. I am curious, how quickly did you recover mentally after that second-set tiebreaker?

From 6-3 to 6-6 in the tiebreaker, I think he had a good serve. Then, yes, the next point was a Iong rally and I missed the down-the-line backhand a bit long. Then at 6-5, after this kind of point, you know, it’s tough to serve well because you are still tired from the last point. He also hit a good, aggressive return and got back to 6-6. After that, he served unbelievable the rest of the tiebreaker, I had no chances to put the set away although it was a long tiebreaker. When I lost that and went down 2-0 in sets, I took the points one by one, and hoped that I can make a break somewhere. I got lucky but I managed to get a break in the third set. But it changed the game completely. I started to play better, more aggressive, with the momentum. It continued and I played very well in the fourth set tiebreaker. I also think he got tired after the fourth set as well. I could see that and I just waited for my chance to break again.

I thought for a little while that he was getting tired toward the end of the second set, but he played another three sets after that.

Well, it’s a three-out-of-five-set match anyway, but he is good on this surface and he served very, very well. But I had more chances to break later for sure. For example, in the first two sets, I had maybe two or three break points, but then I started to return well and I had more and more chances. Third set, I also changed my tactic a little bit. I began hitting drop shots to make him run a little bit, maybe that had an effect on him as well.

Istomin at the moment of victory
Istomin at the moment of victory

Your peers and coaches who know you seem to admire your work ethic. Is that important to you or does it make you proud?

[smiles] Well, I mean.. I just do my job. I try to do it the best I can. It’s my life, that’s my charisma and character I would say. I try to do my best and work in the best way I can. After my car accident, I had some trouble with my body, you know, a lot of problems with my body. A lot of injuries. Every season, I had something. I try to not think about it and just work.

You have been playing Majors for a long time and have done your best at Wimbledon and US Open, reaching 4th round in both. You have had a tough season so far too. Are you perhaps looking at this Wimbledon and think that it may be a good opportunity for you to recover and find your best game again?

I have a terrible season this year…

[I interrupt briefly, smiling] I did not want to use the word “terrible” in the question…

[Laughs] No, no, it was terrible, terrible… Let’s be honest, it’s been a terrible season. I lost a lot of matches. I had crazy injuries and illnesses, losses came one after another. But ok… It happened. You are human and these things happen. You just have to work around it and it’s going to be better. I just try to keep playing, you know? This kind of match can change a season as well, so I am looking forward to playing better and better.

Does Wimbledon hold a special place for you compared to the other three Majors?

The grass, in general, is my favorite surface. And of course, Wimbledon has a nice atmosphere and I really like it here. All Slams are strong you know, and you have to be at 100%. Finally, I am at 100%.. I hope [chuckles]. In Paris, against Juan Monaco, I strained my ankle after five games [Monaco won in four sets], but in the end I finished a five-set match today so it looks good.

What is one question that you wished you never heard again in your interviews and press conferences?

[smiles] I am not really like this, questions don’t really bother me too much. If someone wants to know what happened somewhere or if I slept well, I mean, that is a question too. They [media] are doing their jobs as well so, for me, it’s ok. If you ask me hundred times, like everybody did to me before, “how’s working with your mom?” every time I like to answer and say “I’m doing really great.”

Thank you for taking the time.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

(Edit: Click here to read my next chat with Istomin three days later, after 2nd-round win.)

Click here to follow MT-Desk on Twitter for frequent, live updates from the grounds.

Sitting Across MT-Desk: Bastian Gründler with PACIFIC

Q & A Sitting Across Mertov's Tennis Desk Series No Comments

Recently I caught up with an old friend, Bastian Gründler from Germany, whom I have known since his years of playing college tennis in the U.S.A. He grew up playing tennis in Germany before moving to the U.S. to play college tennis for the University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB) – his brother Philipp played for the UCLA team that won the 2004-05 NCAA Championships. He went on to get his Sports Science diploma from London Metropolitan University in England. He continued to play tennis and went on to win in 2010, the British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS) UK Individuals Singles & Doubles Championships, as well as the Team Competition with his university team.

He now works for PACIFIC – a German Tennis goods manufacturer. The company was the Official ATP-Partner for Strings, Grips and Stringing Machine in the years 2007-2012. Having acquired Fischer Racquet Division in 2009, PACIFIC today is a full-range supplier and one of the major players in the string and racket industry.

I have often intended to do Q & A article with faces in the industry, and I believed holding one with Bastian would be a perfect start to the “Sitting Across Mertov’s Tennis Desk” series.

Bastian, for starters, can you please provide a brief background of PACIFIC?

BG: PACIFIC Entermark GmbH started as a distribution company for various sports goods, founded in the early 70’s. Our own PACIFIC brand has grown stronger over the years, due to high quality production & innovative products. With the quality label ‘Made in Germany’ – PACIFIC manufactured the 1st electronic Stringing Machine in the 1980’s. The company was famous for their own Natural Gut production, equipping world’s best player such as for example John McEnroe. As much as the company has grown, it still remains 100% family-owned, with its headquarters located in Stuttgart, Germany. Even with all the revolutionary developments, you still see the best players relying on traditional products! A great number of today’s Top 100 players, actually more than 60 out top 100 players, prefer ‘Hybrid Stringing’ – a mixture of Natural Gut strings combined with synthetic materials. Gut strings provide elasticity and power factor, while synthetic strings provide control & accuracy factor.

What is your area of responsibility with PACIFIC?

Bastian Grundler & Florian Mayer - At a tournament signing sessionBG: I have been with PACIFIC for 4 years now, and I am working within two divisions at PACIFIC. One the one hand I work with the Int. Sales department where all efforts are combined, providing our worldwide sales partners with everything PACIFIC’s got to offer. On the other, I am responsible of the division of ‘Global Brand & Player Services on ATP / WTA & ITF Tour’. Together with Tom Parry, our Player Services Director, I am looking after all our sponsored players (see picture with the current ATP #30 Florian Mayer during a signing session), as well as scouting upcoming talents and potential future champions. Furthermore, PACIFIC works closely with more than 250 coaches worldwide, because one of our central concerns is to educate tennis players, improve their ‘material knowledge, more importantly, instill the importance of the service factor in tennis.

Can you further elaborate on this aspect that you refer to as the service factor?

BG: By saying ‘service factor’ I am underlining the importance of serving and educating the
customer with an in-depth knowledge of the full range of products that we have to offer. The company has been holding material & service seminars all around the globe throughout the last +40 years educating sales partners, industry and also consumers on fundamentals. The company’s foundation in manufacturing Strings & Grips provided ground for such seminars, demonstrating the actual function of Accessories to the racket itself. Without a motor, no car could move an inch. Without Strings, a racket cannot be used to perform, therefore the Strings are often called ‘the engine of the Racket’.
At PACIFIC, we provide our players with best materials & advice. My job is to interact with Players, and also deliver my advice and services onto our global distribution network, retail partners and Tennis specialist stores. It’s a well-functioning combination of Sponsoring, Marketing and – obviously what’s most important for any company – Sales.

PACIFIC is one of the top companies in the industry competing for the world market for hard goods, especially rackets. Where do you see PACIFIC’s current status and in what ways can PACIFIC hold an advantage over its competitors?

BG: A large portion of the tennis market for hard goods, especially rackets, is held by Babolat, Head, and Wilson. However, PACIFIC has become a strong contender for the number 4 position and we plan to aim even higher. Traditional brand names are fading, and loosing share to current major players. It’s important to develop & grow key markets, but also invest on your foundation. PACIFIC products are recently available in +80 countries through active distribution network.
PACIFIC’s product range provides high quality performance products in all segments, being full-range supplier (except shoes). There are many companies out there, that produce 1 or 2 good products in just 1 category, may it be ‘Racket’ or ‘Grips’, while PACIFIC is growing as a strong performer in all product categories.

Bastian, this all sounds interesting in the scope of the industry’s ins and outs, but how does it help the consumers in the general population, in other words, your everyday tennis players in the clubs and tennis fans who picked up the game?

BG: Let’s give the example of a great champion and work our way to all tennis players. Just like Roger Federer did when switching to a new frame, every tennis player, regardless of their level, should ask themselves the following question: “What is the best product(s) for my individual performance?” A couple of years ago, I was at a tournament in Switzerland. In the evening, I was walking by some local courts when I noticed a senior player who looked to be about 80 years old. It was obvious that he was barely able to hold on to his ‘preferred’ racket. It turned out that he chose Federer’s heavyweight, small head-sized racket to play, and I can assure you that he was not enjoying his Sunday evening performance. So, I walked up to the court and asked him who on earth recommended that frame to him. He responded that he went up to a Tennis retail store to buy the World #1’s racket, because that racket ‘must obviously be the best one on the market’.

Here again it is my job to combine multiple perspectives such as understanding the player’s mind in connection with the game’s different facets, analyzing market trends, providing feedback for today’s world’s best athletes, as well as the consumers. I need to respond to the demands of the professional players as well as the Swiss senior club player. I follow closely the requirements of products, and I seek answers to questions such as how to match products to the individual player’s ability and how to enhance performance and while maximizing the joy of playing tennis. What does the player require from his/her product? What are the deciding factors for tennis players & consumers when choosing one brand’s product over another? My job is to not only answer these questions but bring in different perspectives and angles to various individuals according to their abilities.

During the 2012 London Tour Finals, PACIFIC Tour Coach Robert Davis (long-time Coach of Aisam Qureshi) held a Kids Clinic (see picture below) instructing young Tennis learners how to mount a grip band. It starts with the simple things.

Klinik

It seems that racket and string technologies have evolved tremendously. Companies are always introducing new models, different technologies with flashy names. I can’t even count all the different names given to the various stringing materials. How do you keep up with all this?

BG: Actually, the shape of tennis rackets has practically not changed throughout the last 50 years, while materials absolutely did! Back in the days, rackets were wooden, heavy, and not comparable at all to today’s high-tech frames. Then came along a racket made from aluminum, then another from carbon, and yet another from graphite. Eventually, the manufacturing process was industrialized because the technology side became too important for the business. In 2009/10, PACIFIC acquired Fischer Racket Division, a company who has equipped Slam winners such as Michael Stich or Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Starting the company’s first own racket production in 2010, PACIFIC and Asa.Tec, a research and development company specializing in raw materials, pioneered in utilizing basaltic fibers during the process of racket manufacturing. In a highly complex process, Volcanic rock is melted and extruded in the form of continuous fiber which is then strategically positioned in PACIFIC tennis rackets, providing enhanced comfort and precise feedback. In short, you asked me how I keep up with all the developments. We are part of the innovations and actively involved in the developments, thus it our job to know everything inside and out.

Considering all your interaction with the players, have you seen any players express strange concerns, or make unusual demands with regards to their equipment?

BG: Absolutely. There is this one top-female contender, who does not want her Grips being touched and prepared for the match by anyone other than her coach! There are several Tour players out there who do not want ANYONE to touch their match rackets other than their trusted personnel or entourage.

Roger Federer was one of the first players to consequently change frames before every ball change because his preferred string tension drops during match play. Today’s tour players are very sensitive with their materials, and I mean this in a positive sense. Same with coaches, physical experts and trainers; with regards to material, no stone is left unturned in order to enhance performance. Material experts and specialists are brought in to tweak here & there in order to figure out little advantages for the player.

Bastian thanks for your time. We will keep in touch. Any last word to the readers?

BG: Thanks for your time, and my best advice to the readers: pay attention to details when you get your equipment, and try at least a few varieties before settling on one.

The US vs. Serbia Davis Cup Tie Aftermath: A Closer Look with Jim Moortgat

ATP Q & A No Comments

It’s done. The unthinkable happened. No, I don’t mean that it’s unthinkable that Serbia led by the world’s number one player Novak Djokovic would defeat U.S.A led by number 20 Sam Querrey and number 23 John Isner in Davis Cup, but that the world’s number one ranked doubles team Bob and Mike Bryan twins would lose on Saturday to a doubles tandem composed of Nenad Zimonjic, and some guy named Ilija Bozoljac (many pundits nicknamed him “Bozo”) who is ranked number 1150 in the ATP doubles rankings, and a mere 335 in singles! But anyone who has watched the matches over the weekend and who has read about it is aware of the headline tidbits. So, let’s go beyond the doubles upset or the retrospective obvious.

I caught up with Jim Moortgat, an old friend who currently runs a tennis academy in Boise, Idaho where the tie took place. He resides in Boise, thus he attended the Davis Cup weekend and was in charge of the ball kids. Jim is a well-known figure amongst tennis coaches and circles at the national level. Since the late 1970s, Jim has been involved in tennis as a competitor for a few years, and since then as a coach at many levels, including a successful career as a college coach, and a 5-year stint with the USTA Player Development Program. Tennis is an essential component of his life, and coaching is his passion. I asked him to reflect on what happened during the weekend, and below is what he had to say.

Jim what was the most striking memory of this Davis Cup tie for you?

JM: What struck me most actually happened before the weekend, and it has to do with Novak Djokovic. But before I get to that, let me add this: we live in a soft culture in the USA, and when you add the tennis arena into it, it becomes even a softer culture. There are no other sports where the player “drives the bus” so to speak. Everything revolves around what the player wants, the player tells the coach what he wants to work on, the coach is the player’s employee in a sense, and the coach can’t “bench” the player for bad play as is the case in many sports. American professional tennis players subscribe fully to this notion.

Then, you have a player like Novak Djokovic, head and shoulders above the rest of the players involved in the weekend. He is the earliest one to come to Boise to get used to the altitude. In Miami the week before, he stayed in the tournament longer than Isner, and lost in the same round as Querrey. Yet he gets to the site days before any Americans and starts training Monday night. He wants to run EVERY stadium stair here at Boise State stadium. To have access to the stadium, one has to get special clearance, and get the security personnel to open the doors. He actually takes the trouble to arrange all that, just so he can get in his necessary workout. I see this, and I am wondering what the American players are doing on Monday night wherever they are, but they are definitely not in Boise. Novak is out the next morning for practice again. If you want to be like everyone else than do what everyone else is doing. If you want to be #1 in the world, than be an outlier! That is the lesson to learn from Novak’s pre-weekend preparation. His training is very different from the Americans, both outside the top 20. We have a guy like Jim Courier at the helm who used to outwork everybody in his days, and yet there is not one American guy who works as hard as the other top guys.

That brings me to my next question: with all due respect and in all fairness to Jim Courier, how much influence the Davis Cup Captain has in the development of American players? To what end does the buck stop with him for this weekend’s loss?

JM: I am not sure how much of the blame/credit can be placed on the Captain. If there is blame, it certainly does not lie with Courier alone. Courier has the players for less than a week. He could demand that they come a bit earlier, but again, that goes back to what I was saying previously. The players drive the bus. Jay Berger is the head responsible of USTA Player Development program. Technically, he is Courier’s boss. All coaches in the program should demand more from the players, and in my opinion, they simply do not. When Courier was a player, the knock on him was that he did not have “enough talent”, similar to Ivan Lendl when he played. Yet, both of these guys rose to number one and overachieved through sheer determination, will, and pure hard work. Since 1968, this is the first time we have never had a player in the top 20. Perhaps we need to realize that “working hard” is also a talent, perhaps the most essential one. The buck stops with the governing body.

It seemed that the American’s hopes of defeating the Serbs rested on winning the doubles point. It was a massive upset win for the Serbs. What do you make of that?

JM: This relates a bit to the previous question’s comments, but before I get there, let me tell you a quick story. There are very few people that I really look up to with their tennis knowledge and the guy that shared the first-hand knowledge of this story was a friend of mine named Steve Smith from Tampa, Florida. Steve told me that long time ago, when Gabriela Sabatini was number two player in the world, she asked Jack Kramer to evaluate her game. Kramer bluntly told her that her serve was terrible and that she did not know how to play the court. He added that he would not help her because he felt that it would take a year of adjustments to add those aspects to her game. Sabatini replied that she was number two player in the world, so she must be doing something right. Kramer said that rankings had nothing to do with it, either you can or not. The implication was that she could either rest on her ranking based on a comparison to the players below her, or take the extra step.

Now, why do I bring this up? Because there are very few coaches, hardly any, who are willing to do what Kramer did, i.e. demand the best player to do something ‘more’ regardless of how well they do many other things compared to the players below them. They feel like leaving them alone on certain things is the safest way to go. Jim Courier fell into this trap during doubles. His team may well be the world’s best doubles team but on Saturday, the best doubles player on the court was Nenad (Zimonjic), and the second best one was his partner Bozoljac. Why? Because our team made them play well. Mike and Bob kept serving to Bozoljac’s backhand and he was on fire with the returns. In a crucial point in the first set, the Americans served to his backhand he once again hit a scorching backhand return winner. You would think that Jim Courier would notice that, but yet, they kept serving to his backhand and through his returns, Bozoljac’s confidence soared and he started serving and stroking the ball in a zone. Then comes late fifth set, and once again on a crucial point, another serve to the backhand and another return winner. When you are on the bench, even if you coach the number one team in the world, you have to demand more, still strive for perfection. That includes sometimes that the coach demand his team to do something out of their Plan A but one that will make the opponent uncomfortable and take them out of their zone. Courier and the Bryans never did that. As a result, their opponents who, under normal conditions, are not as skilled as the Bryans in doubles, found their perfect rythm and overachieved.

Any last thoughts?

JM: Yes, there is one more area where they overachieved, or we underachieved, depending on one’s perspective. The Serbians wanted it more than us. Their awareness of what a Davis Cup tie means was tremendous. On the bench, they had 18-20 people, always invested emotionally in the match, vocal and enthusiastic, creating extra energy for their players on crucial points. Djokovic was eating inside when the second set tiebreaker began, and he ran to the bench with his food to encourage and cheer his teammates because he knew how primordial that tiebreaker was to the outcome of the tie. The Serbians sure as heck knew who they were playing against and what was needed. In contrast, our bench was subdued for the most part, except on few important games and the extension of the fifth set tiebreaker, and we never had more than 10 people on our bench who were far less vocal than their counterparts. The tie was held at an 11,000+ seat arena. There were around 100 Serbians in the crowd, yet several times in the match, it felt like we were playing an away game. Our approach to Davis Cup paled in comparison to how the Serbs approached it.

© Mertov's Tennis Desk / 2014-2018 / All Rights Reserved / Powered by WordPress

MENU

Navigation