Rafa rises, Novak dips

This week Rafael Nadal broke through to win his first title since August, and his first Masters 1000 title since 2014, when he claimed an astonishing ninth Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters crown. A few years ago it would have been a shock had he not won the event, but the past couple of years have been such a struggle for Nadal by his standards that I get the feeling this victory might give him a much-needed boost as he attempts to revive the Rafa of old…with perhaps a slight twist.

Are we witnessing the emergence of Rafa 2.0?

Nadal's comments after the final indicated how much this win meant to him, presumably much more than many of his previous titles in Monte-Carlo due to the timing. “The victory here confirms that I am better and I am very happy,” Nadal said. “I need to keep going.” A layperson might question how a player with 68 titles, 48 of them on clay, could be overjoyed by claiming yet another trophy. But like all top athletes, Rafa knows that the past is the past and you are only as good as your last performance. Having confidence right here, right now is all that matters…and this event went a long way to restoring Nadal’s.

It’s not so important that he won the title but rather how he won it. He defeated quality opposition under a variety of circumstances. In the the quarter-finals he flattened reigning French Open Champion, Stan Wawrinka in straight sets. In the semi-final against Andy Murray his trademark mental toughness came to the fore, coming back strong in the second set after dropping the first 2-6. In the third set he took control of the match, dictating from the baseline and stepping in to take advantage of Murray’s dip in level. In the final against Monfils he continued to play more aggressively than his opponent. After splitting the first two closely contested sets, Nadal steamrolled Monfils 6-0 in the decider. Surprisingly, 71% of the King of Clay’s shots were hit either inside or within two metres of the baseline compared to just 54% for Monfils. When asked to comment on this Nadal said, “Rafael Nadal of 2016 will not be the same of 2009 or 2008.” Are we witnessing the emergence of Rafa 2.0?

Meanwhile Novak Djokovic experienced a blip on his radar losing in the second round to 55th-ranked Jiri Vesely. It was the Czech player’s first win against a top-10 player, surprising himself as much as anyone else with the win. After the match Djokovic described his level of play as “really, really bad” and indicated he was looking forward to the long break that he will now have to recover “mentally mostly.” Perhaps this is the first sign of a chink in what has been Novak’s bulletproof armour.

It may not be enough to suggest the tables have turned just yet, but the timing of Nadal’s resurgence and Djokovic’s hiccup will certainly attract renewed interest in the performance of the two players for the remainder of the clay court season which culminates with Roland Garros. Right now Novak has got to be wondering whether his best chance to lift the French Open trophy, and join the elite club of career Grand Slam winners, has passed him by.

Tip of the week: Depth over power

It’s clear to most players that if two balls are hit at the same speed the one that lands closer to the baseline will be more effective, and if two balls are hit with the same depth the one with more power will be preferable. But what’s not as obvious is which shot is likely to be more effective if one is short and powerful while the other is deep and slow. Apart from when you’re attempting angled shots, depth is the best bet at all levels of play.

A powerful shot would seem to be more aggressive and hurtful to the opponent. But without depth it is not clear that the opponent will be forced into a defensive shot. In fact, such a shot may allow a well positioned opponent to step inside the court and redirect the power against the “aggressor.” In contrast, a ball hit deep to an opponent (who is positioned behind the baseline) can be high and slow yet virtually guarantees that the opponent will have to remain behind the baseline to return the ball. From here any attempt to hit aggressively will carry a high degree of risk.

Most players, especially juniors, prefer hitting powerful shots with excessive topspin, because they lack the control to send the ball consistently deep. But complete players will feast on these short balls and send their opponents packing. Which player do you want to be? See you on the court!

Equal or equitable pay?

Recently a firestorm erupted over comments made by Ray Moore, tournament director of Indian Wells, one of the largest combined men’s and women’s events. The 69 year old suggested that the WTA “rides the coat-tails of the men” and said that if he were a lady player “I would go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport.” While his comments were extreme and undiplomatic, and led to his resignation shortly after, to dismiss him as sexist and completely out of touch would be a mistake.

Shortly after this, Djokovic was questioned about the principle of equal prize money and found himself in very hot water very quickly when he said “Maybe our men’s tennis world should fight for more because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators.” Being the gentleman that he is, Djokovic also attempted to praise female players for what they have achieved, however his awkward expression only added fuel to the fire for those who took offence to his first statement! Is political correctness that out of control that a guy can’t state an opinion, which has considerable merit, without being castigated?

I am a firm believer in equality, and I want to see more tournaments where men and women play against each other on equal terms - John Cleese

What Djokovic, and many others, are asking for is simply fairness or equity, which to me is a far more worthy pursuit than equality, the buzzword of our generation that no one dares to speak out against. Inequality exists everywhere and often for very good reasons - who thinks a janitor should be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Men and women are different…shocking statement I know! Women shouldn’t expect to be employed as lumberjacks anymore than men should expect to be night nurses. That’s not to say they can't but that people are naturally endowed with skills and attributes that can differ widely from one person to the next. As a society we have accepted that it is fair for people to be compensated according to the value they add to products and services and that it would in fact be unfair to compensate everyone equally. However when we discuss this in the context of men and women all logic seems to go out the window.

Getting back to tennis, how should we define fairness when it comes to the distribution of prize money? Surely how much money players generate through ticket sales and television rights, in other words demand for their product should be a key factor. The WTA would have us believe that their players are equal, that they do the same job and therefore produce an equally valuable product. Quite simply they don’t. Otherwise why have two separate tours that cater specifically to their players and market themselves independently?

If we take the position that women ought to be compensated beyond the value they provide in their profession to make up for past discrimination then that is a separate debate that is certainly worth having. However, the WTA is not asking for that, they want their players to be treated “equally.” So why is it that men play best of five sets in Grand Slam tournaments while women are happy to play best of three? John Cleese commented on Twitter, “I am a firm believer in equality, and I want to see more tournaments where men and women play against each other on equal terms.” It may be a tongue in cheek comment, but it highlights the fact that men and women are not and never will be physically equal, so who are we trying to fool?

At the end of the day the market (fans) dictate the value of the tennis they watch, and in my opinion the compensation players receive should be directly related to this. Novak was absolutely correct - men’s matches at combined events are currently far more popular than women’s and therefore generate more revenue. The price mechanism has a knack for creating equilibrium, but since it is seen as “unequal" to price tickets lower for the women’s matches, the results is they have less spectators. The fact that women’s tennis has been more popular than men’s at certain times in the past is not a legitimate reason to say, “Let’s just keep ticket prices and player compensation the same across the board because it all evens out in the end." More market related ticket prices and player compensation would help the less popular tour of the day fill stadiums while more fairly rewarding the stars of the day.

Sharapova's huge mistake

Last week Maria Sharapova announced that she had tested positive for the recently banned substance meldonium at the Australian Open in January. She claims she was unaware of the drug becoming banned as of 1st January and has been taking the drug for the past 10 years due a variety of health issues including an irregular EKG and an indication of diabetes. She faces a ban of up to four years which, if handed down by the anti-doping committee, would almost certainly mean the end of the soon-to-be 29 year old’s playing career. Does she deserve to have the book thrown at her?

WADA may not have done enough to communicate the changes to athletes

A lot hinges on whether her lawyer can prove that she has indeed been taking the drug for medical purposes and not for performance enhancement. If she’s telling the truth then one would assume that this shouldn’t be difficult as there should be plenty of medical records to refer to. Her public announcement admitting that the result of the test was correct, without waiting for the adjudication process to be completed and without requesting that her B sample be tested, was a smart move that can only help sway the outcome in her favour.

The other key to receiving a reduced ban from the game will be Sharapova showing that she was unaware of the drug being added to the banned list as, even if she fails to prove that her reasons for using the drug were innocent, the maximum penalty for unintentionally using a prohibited drug is two years. The drug, originally developed in Latvia to improve blood flow for heart patients, was added to the list due to evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance. Surprisingly, dozens of athletes have already been caught using it since the start of the year. It seems absurd that so many athletes would risk harsh penalties if they were all aware of the drug becoming prohibited, for it would only be a matter of time before they were caught. Therefore, the implication that WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) may not have done enough to communicate the changes to athletes could help Sharapova’s case.

That said, Sharapova admitted to receiving an email from WADA on 22nd December with a link to prohibited items for 2016, which she says she failed to look at, so it would be naive to think she will walk away unscathed. In fact, regardless of the length of her suspension, she has already been punished financially in a way that few other athletes can, having lost lucrative endorsement deals with Nike, Porsche and Tag Heuer who all severed ties with the megastar upon hearing the news. So whether she incomprehensibly risked her career and flouted the ban, or simply couldn’t be bothered clicking a few links to receive crucial information, this “huge mistake” will haunt Sharapova for many years to come.

Tip of the week: Dealing with a body shot

One of the main reasons why most players don't like being at the net is the fear of being hit by the ball and feeling that there's nothing they can do about it.

There are two keys to being able to deal with a body shot. The first is always having a good ready position at the net. It is essential that you're front-on to the net, have your knees bent, weight on the balls of your feet and that you're doing mini split-steps constantly when expecting your opponent to strike, especially from nearby. It seems counterintuitive to lean forward in this situation but you're far more likely to get hit if you're standing up straight which prevents you from being able to twist your upper body and lean to the side without losing balance.

The other key is using the continental grip so that you can fend balls off your body, primarily with backhand volleys. Using a frying-pan forehand grip may help you defend your face but that's about it! Only a proper grip will allow you to counteract shots aimed at your chest, waist, knees and feet. Yes, it is tough to get used to but the time and effort invested will pay off when you become fearless at the net. See you on the court!