Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Sport: The Australian Disease - sportingaustralia.com

Little Aussie battler

January 29th 2012 14:41
Lleyton Hewitt
Photo: Charlie Whelton

Hail Novak Djokovic, by all means. But hail Lleyton Hewitt while you’re at it.

One of the things that made the 2012 Australian Open fascinating was how thoroughly it exposed Hewitt. All aspects of his personality and ability were on full display.


No longer did anyone have to play the detective to work this complex character out – searching for clues from one tournament and combining it with evidence from another to piece together the Hewitt puzzle.

Different Hewitts had been revealed over the years – Hewitt the winner, Hewitt the loser, Hewitt the strong, Hewitt the weak, Hewitt the hero, Hewitt the villain.

This time, with everything exposed, a full and accurate assessment of Hewitt could be made.

What it showed was that the positives far outweighed the negatives.

First, to his personality. Hewitt haters would recoil at the thought, but the man is no monster. Accusations of racism in that famous US Open match against James Blake were always fanciful. Still, there have been many times in his career in which he has crossed the line from fierce competitor to bad sport. Such ugly incidents, while not excusable, were easily explained as the actions of someone desperate to win.

That is a part of Hewitt, but only a small part. Those who know him have often remarked on how calm and contemplative he becomes when off the court. He showed that once his Australian Open ended with a fourth-round loss to Djokovic. Immediately after, he praised his conqueror – something Hewitt haters might be surprised to learn he has made a habit of throughout his career. In the days following, he leant a friendly and astute presence to the Channel Seven commentary box, again praising Djokovic, while also lauding other stars, like Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, who had gotten the better of him over the years.


The real way to judge a tennis player, though, is by his tennis. What Hewitt has been striving all these years to win are tournaments, not sainthood. How convenient, then, that this year’s Australian Open should have been a microcosm of his career. He played good tennis, he played bad tennis, he overcame injury, he launched fightbacks, he had stirring wins and, ultimately, he lost.

What all the ups and downs confirmed is that Hewitt has only ever been a player of middling talent. That might sound like an insult, but it is actually the greatest compliment he could be paid. Middling talents don’t win grand slams. But he has somehow won two.

Hewitt’s golden run at the turn of the century owed much to good timing – Sampras and Agassi were on the way out and Federer and Nadal had yet to emerge. He was also blessed with the robustness of youth; the continuous injuries that have devastated the second half of his career only arrived after his last grand slam final, the 2005 Australian Open loss to Marat Safin.

Another reason for Hewitt’s success was his skill at working the percentages. He didn’t so much outplay his opponents as outlast them. Keep getting the ball back and eventually the other bloke will make a mistake.

But that approach no longer works. Back then, he was fast enough and determined enough to seemingly chase down every ball, which helped conceal the fact he had a weak serve, a non-existent net game and only above average ground strokes. These days, the mind is willing but the flesh is weak. He can no longer chase all those balls down and his shots seem to be landing further and further inside the service line with every passing year.

The other problem is that his rivals worked him out long ago. They now understand he was the ultimate poker player – all bluff and no cards. Fearful of getting into long rallies with him – because he always seemed to have the skill to win them – they would force shots and lose the point. Eventually, though, it dawned on the rest of the tour that he was winning those rallies through tenacity, not skill. Why fear a player with a non-existent net game and only above average ground strokes? With that realisation, the other players called his bluff. They started bludgeoning shot after shot at him and Hewitt, his fitness and reflexes fading, found it increasingly difficult to get them back.

And so to this year’s Australian Open. Anyone else with Hewitt’s characteristics would have lost in the first round. His ranking was 181. His body was fragile. He had only played four lead-in matches for three losses and a win over China’s Wu Di.

He started with a creditable four-set win over Cedrik-Marcel Stebe. In the second round, he had come from behind to lead Andy Roddick two sets to one when the world number 16 retired. Then came a tough four-set win over rising star Milos Raonic.

That set up his showdown with Djokovic. The Serb blitzed the first two sets and strolled to a 3-0 lead in the first – just what one would expect from a match between someone filled with talent and another person only sprinkled with it.

The stage had been set for one hour of quintessential Hewitt.

He held serve to make it 1-3. A hard-earned break made it 2-3. At 4-4, he summoned all his willpower to overpower Djokovic – not with brilliance, but determination – and somehow break for a 5-4 lead. Serving for the set, he was placed under almighty pressure, before he struggled over the line. Nobody could explain it, but the set was his.

By the time it became 1-1 in the fourth, Hewitt was playing his best tennis in years. He was hitting the ball hard and deep and pushing Djokovic around the court. He had willed himself to this position. A break point arrived. For a fleeting moment, a win over the brilliant Serb seemed possible. Viewers all across Australia would have thought another improbable Hewitt fightback had begun.

But reality hit. Djokovic held serve. He then broke Hewitt. The Australian fought desperately to get back into the match – of course he did – but he couldn’t. He didn’t lack heart; he just lacked talent.

Hewitt had had no right to progress to the fourth round or steal a set off Djokovic – just as he had had no right to win the US Open in 2001 and Wimbledon in 2002, or fight his way to that Australian Open final in 2005.

If the 2012 Australian Open turns out to be the last time we see Hewitt play on local soil, we can say he has left us with fond memories. This was a player who was as inspirational in victory as he was in defeat. He never had the talent of a champion – but for a few glorious years, through sheer self-belief, he conned the tennis world into thinking he was one.
21
Vote
   


Ian Thorpe
Can the sequel ever be as good as the original?

Ian Thorpe, Michael Klim, Libby Trickett and Geoff Huegill will soon find out.

All four have returned to competitive swimming after extended periods out of the water. All four are chasing medals at the London Olympics, 17 months from now.

Thorpe, 28, retired in 2006 and officially returned earlier this month.

He was immediately followed back into the pool by Klim, 33, who retired in 2007.

Trickett, 26, retired in December 2009 and returned in September 2010.

Huegill, 31, retired in 2006 and returned in 2008.

All four have already won Olympic medals – silver for Huegill and gold for the others.

This is the standard by which their comebacks will be judged.

That, at least, will be the attitude of many in the media and public. In the first phase of their careers, the swimmers set benchmarks against which their comebacks can easily be compared. If they fail to hit these targets in London, many will deem them to have failed.

But the swimmers may not be thinking so dispassionately.

There seems to be something pure about their second comings. All four have an intimate understanding of the realities of modern sport. Sport was once about athletes competing on a level playing field and striving to be the best they could be. Modern sport is still about excellence and self-improvement – but it is also about sports science and drugs and endorsements and tabloid media coverage.

In such an environment, it is easy for athletes to lose their innocence. They can take drugs to find an easier path to the top. They can become morally corrupted by fame and fortune. They can prolong their careers when their hearts are no longer in it for the sake of one last big paycheque.

However, the cases of Thorpe, Klim, Trickett and Huegill seem to be different.

Unless they’re superb actors, we can say they have un-retired for the purest of reasons – they love swimming and want to challenge themselves. They want to compete for the same reason children compete – because they find it fun. In embracing their inner child, they have embraced purity itself.

That doesn’t mean they won’t be taking it ultra-seriously. It is impossible to reach the level they reached without having a fierce will to win. Elite swimmers don’t have a life, as the four know all too well. They would not have agreed to a daily grind of waking up at an ungodly hour, pushing their body to the limit at training, watching everything they eat and then going to bed at the same time as toddlers if they weren’t determined to again reach the top.

Winning another Olympic medal, though, will be extraordinarily difficult.

Athletes coming out of retirement find they make great strides initially, but as the law of diminishing returns set in, their progress slows and slows and slows, until it seems no more than a crawl.

For athletes of the calibre of Thorpe, Klim, Trickett and Huegill, it is relatively easy to lose enough flab, build enough endurance and sufficiently refine their techniques to qualify for major events.

But then the law of diminishing returns sets in.

Qualifying for the event is the easy part. Making it from the heat to the semi-final is an even bigger leap. Making it from the semi-final to the final is a bigger leap still. But to then push on from being an also-ran to an Olympic medallist – to being one of the three best swimmers in a world of almost seven billion people – requires the biggest leap of all.

Olympic medallists are not just very fit or even remarkably fit – they are supremely fit. Olympic medallists don’t just have a very good technique or even a remarkable technique – they have a supreme technique.

Reaching such heights requires great talent and even more work. The fitness of an Olympic medallist takes years to build – and a lot less time to destroy. Extended periods removed from elite training can only have a serious effect.

There are also serious consequences for an athlete’s technique. Sports are constantly evolving, which is why athletes are always swimming quicker, leaping higher and throwing further.

A swim is composed of numerous technical components. Swimming would have evolved while the four were in retirement. Some of those components would have been refined; others would have been thrown out and replaced. Mastering each of these complicated components would require many months, if not years.

Of the four, Trickett is the best placed. She is the youngest of the group and had the shortest retirement. However, even her nine months out of the water have put her at a competitive disadvantage.

So for all their talent and experience and hunger, the odds are against Thorpe, Klim, Trickett and Huegill winning medals in London.

If that happens, the members of the media and public who deem medals to be the currency of success will adjudge them failures.

On the other hand, those who hold a more romantic view of sport will probably regard mere qualification for the Olympics as a triumph.

Where the four swimmers sit on this scale is impossible to know.

All one can say is that when it comes to sequels, the most banal logic applies: if you think it’s better than the original, it is.
87
Vote
   


War minus the shooting?

March 2nd 2010 01:02
Cricket in India
Australia, India, security: they’re three words that have been mentioned in the same sentence a lot recently.

If Indian students aren’t being attacked on the streets of Melbourne, Australian athletes are wondering aloud if they ought to compete in India. One could also mention Tennis Australia’s decision to forfeit a Davis Cup tie in Chennai last year, and even the ongoing debate about whether or not it’s safe for Australia to sell uranium to India.

At the moment, the Kookaburras find themselves in New Delhi, having overcome their fears about participating in the Hockey World Cup. Concurrently, Australia’s elite cricketers are weighing up the pros and cons of playing in the upcoming Indian Premier League, in light of threats from the 313 Brigade. As for several hundred other elite athletes, they have a stressful few months ahead of them, because if Delhi actually gets around to building some venues, that’s where the 19th Commonwealth Games will be held.

So should the Australian Cricketers’ Association give its blessing to the IPL, which is scheduled for March 12 to April 25? And should the Australian Commonwealth Games Association do likewise for the Games, which will run from October 3-14?

In answering those questions, two important points need to be made. Firstly, sport and politics should be kept separate. If last year’s attack in Lahore on the Sri Lankan cricket team demonstrated anything, it is that one cannot allow independent security assessments to be airily dismissed by self-interested parties. Australia’s cricketers would remember facing a similar dilemma in 2008, when they ultimately agreed, on the basis of such advice, not to travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy. The Pakistanis reacted angrily, unsubtly suggesting that Ricky Ponting’s men were a bunch of racist cowards, while blithely assuring the world that their security plans were perfect, and that in any case terrorists would never target athletes. Sadly, the Sri Lankans soon learned the hard way that this was vainglorious nonsense.

But that leads on to the second point: if there’s one thing that can be guaranteed, it’s that sport and politics will not be kept separate. The Subcontinental nations are sensitive about race at the best of times, and with the violence emanating out of Melbourne and the politicking over the uranium issue, these are hardly the best of times. Many Indians – even those who abhor the threats made by Bal Thackeray and Shiv Sena – will now be looking suspiciously at Australia, and be unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, IPL Chairman Lalit Modi has taken news of a possible spurning of his competition badly, questioning Ponting’s integrity, threatening dissenters with omission from future tournaments and, in a familiar routine, insisting on the effectiveness of security plans.

Decisions about security must always be made calmly and rationally, but with so much emotion invested in the issue, that is easier said than done. On the one hand, the ACA would be appalled by the thought of terrorists dictating when and where matches can be played, not to mention anxious about keeping the ever more powerful Indians on side. Yet on the other, they would be cognisant of the duty of care they have to their members, while mindful of the legal implications that could result from placing them in harm’s way.

The solution, it seems, is the same as that advocated by Sport: The Australian Disease over the Champions Trophy: to clearly explain the risks and to advise (if necessary) withdrawal, “while leaving the door open to any player who may wish to take part. If [the ACA] advises its players to stay away from [India], it would seem to be ethically and legally absolved of responsibility should any of them ignore the advice and subsequently get hurt.”

And one should not be surprised if exactly that happens. Over the last decade and a half, Australian cricket has exhibited wariness of the Subcontinent, opting out of an important World Cup fixture in Sri Lanka in 1996 as well as several post-September 11 tours of Pakistan. Reports suggest that the ACA is leaning that way again. But this time, the situation would be different, as it would be offering security assessments not to a united group of national representatives, but to a collection of individuals spread across a collection of foreign franchises, some of whom are internationals, some of whom have never been internationals, and some of whom have retired from the international game. Consequently, the urge to solidarity would not be the same, which means that some players may opt to collect their hefty paycheques and damn the risks. But whatever ends up happening, ultimately the IPL is a relatively minor affair, given that it is essentially a commercial transaction between a collection of local individuals and foreign businesses.

The Commonwealth Games, though, is a far more sensitive matter, concerning as it does nation-states. This is not about Ricky Ponting and Lalit Modi; it is about Australia and India, the same two countries that have had some testy discussions of late over Melbourne and uranium. For the ACGA to even consider withdrawing its squad would constitute a serious diplomatic affront to the hosts. The Australian government would be praying that the security situation doesn’t deteriorate, because it would be loathe to have to endorse the shunning of a country that has increasing political clout and with which it has growing economic ties.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the ACGA to present its security advice clearly and soberly, before making it clear to all potential participants that they are free to make whatever decision they wish. Without the lure of prize money, and with the understanding that many of them have Olympic and world championship competitions to look forward to, the Commonwealth athletes might be more inclined to staying at home than their cricketing cousins. While that would be disappointing, they should be allowed to make up their minds without being pressured by their association, their government or India’s. Sport and politics should be kept separate.

Although he was talking about something slightly different, George Orwell could have had Australia and India in mind when he famously declared sport to be “war minus the shooting”. Let us fervently hope that sport finds a way to triumph over politics and terrorism.
229
Vote
   


Less than a month before the Olympics, Australian Story has shed new light on the ‘Lay Down Sally’ incident from the previous games.


[ Click here to read more ]
68
Vote
   


Do you have an opinion that you’re dying to share? Is there an issue that everybody needs to know about? Are you passionate about writing, and about Australian sport? If so, email Sport: The Australian Disease with your suggestion for an article, and you just might be able to publish it (under your own name) on the website!
72
Vote
   


Earlier in the week, Sally Robbins fielded questions from the press, after learning that she had not been selected in the Australian rowing squad for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Predictably, though, the focus was on the dramatic events of four years earlier, when ‘Lay Down Sally’ abruptly stopped rowing towards the end of the women’s eights final at the Athens Olympics. How was it, the journalists wanted to know, that she had collapsed in such spectacular fashion


[ Click here to read more ]
80
Vote
   


Nick Bendel's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Nick Bendel
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]