Welcome back to Net Talk. This is our section for tennis comment and analysis. As well as commenting on the latest issues in the game, I'll include links to things such as our regular betting tips. But I also want you to contribute. I'm happy to publish some of your comments and answer, if I can, any questions you may have about all things tennis. The email address is: tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.
Suggestions are also welcome. The page will be regularly updated, so don't forget to check back soon.
Andy Schooler
IS DOPING STANCE SOFTENING? - posted July 21
Last week's decision to allow Richard Gasquet to resume his career has, predictably, proved controversial.
Despite testing positive for coacine back in March, the Frenchman is free to play again after just two and a half months on the sidelines.
According to the World Anti-Doping Agency code, to which tennis is signed up, the penalty for such a first-time doping offence is a two-year ban.
Yet Gasquet and his legal team successfully argued to reduce the suspension - and immediately sparked an argument about the principle of 'strict liability' at the centre of the WADA code.
Essentially strict liability is a hardline rule which says if you are found with substance X in your body, you alone are responsible - and you'll be banned for two years if it's your first offence. A second offence and it's life.
But the Gasquet verdict is just the latest in a line of decisions which suggest the hardline stance in the doping fight is gradually being softened - and one which will rile those who back what others would describe as harsh penalties.
In the Gasquet case, it appears a more liberal view was taken, as opposed to a harsher, right-wing one.
In it, Gasquet said he had been contaminated by kissing a woman at a nightclub. Despite there being no direct evidence, the independent anti-doping panel which ruled on his case accepted that explanation. The quantity of the drug involved was found to be as small as a grain of salt.
Personally it seems harsh in the extreme to even suggest a player should be banned for two years as a result of this, yet I also see the argument for strict liability.
However, the panel did rule that Gasquet "was at fault in exposing himself to the risk of such contamination". Crucially, though, this fault was "not significant", it said.
This allowed the panel to reduce the ban from two years to one. However, it went further by saying the case had "exceptional" circumstances.
Quoting a decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sport - sport's highest court - regarding another tennis player, Mariano Puerta, which said "any sanction must be just and proportionate", the panel cut the ban again.
Puerta, it should be remembered, was initially banned for eight years (it was his second drug offence) after accidentally drinking what turned out to be his wife's medication. CAS later reduced the ban to two years.
The Gasquet panel said: "We accept the player's submission that if we were to impose a one-year period of ineligibility, applying the rules rigidly, we would be penalising a person whom the rule was not intended to catch.
"Standing back and looking at the totality of the evidence, we have reached the conclusion that a very serious injustice and infringement of the player's right to practise his profession would be done if we were to impose a one-year period of ineligibilty."
Instead, the panel immediately ended Gasquet's provisional suspension, meaning he had served a ban of two months and 15 days. He can now play again.
The game's governing body, the International Tennis Federation, was not happy.
It had wanted a harsher penalty imposed, saying the panel risked "opening the floodgates" in the doping battle and could destroy the 'strict liability' principle.
However, the panel, made up of a leading lawyer and two medical experts, did not agree.
Quoting the CAS ruling on Puerta which rejected the notion that "it is necessary for there to be undeserving victims in the war against doping", the Gasquet panel added: "We do not accept the ITF's contention that by declining to ban the player for one year in this case, we would be undermining the integrity of the (ITF's anti-doping) Programme, 'opening the floodgates' for others or destroying the principle of strict liabilty which underpins the (WADA) Code.
"We are not exercising a discretion to disapply the provisions of the Programme. We are fulfillng our obligation to apply 'the overarching principle of justice and proportionality on which all systems of law, and the WADC itself, is based' (another example of case law which came from the Puerta ruling)."
The athlete Justin Gatlin is another to have used the "exceptional circumstances" argument to reduce a doping ban and you can bet Gasquet will not be the last sporting figure to do so.
Just as sentences in a criminal court split people down the middle, so it is in sport's fight against drugs.
Which view is correct will, as always, remain subjective.
The Gasquet ruling, and indeed other doping panel decisions in tennis, are published in full on the ITF's website and make for an interesting read.
We'd like your views on the Gasquet verdict. Has justice been served, as the player himself says? Or should the strict liability rule be enforced more rigorously? Email your feedback to: tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.
SERENA'S WILL TO WIN NEVER SATED - posted July 15
For those of you who didn't know, new Wimbledon champion Serena Williams once played a cameo role in the American TV drama, ER.
Williams played a mother whose children had been caught up in the aftermath of a plane crash.
Carrying her daughter in her arms, she rushed for help. No sooner had she found it than she wanted to head back to the burning building in which her son had last been seen.
The heroic nature of the character she played is unlikely to have been co-incidental.
The hero theme is one which Serena regularly mentions - and, in tennis terms, certainly lives up to.
Anyone who saw a BBC interview during the Championships would have discovered she wants to star in a "superhero" film after hertennis career is finally over.
And in her winner's press conference immediately following the final, she spoke of how she told herself to "try to do something like a hero" during the contest against sister Venus.
Whether you consider Serena's route from the crime-riddled streets of south-central LA to 11-time Grand Slam singles champion, heroic or not it's certainly some story.
But, just like the comic books teach you, special powers - or in her case special talent - have to be used correctly.
I don't think that many people out there would claim that Serena has the most natural talent on the WTA Tour.
But what she does have is an incredible will to win - one second to none in this pundit's opinion.
Rarely do you see the level of determination in any sporting arena that Serena possesses.
Many have criticised her over the years for not giving tennis her full attention - the ER cameo just one stick with which to beat her - but once on court, Williams will not give an inch.
It really is a never-say-die attitude she has and a remarkable statistic shows just what rewards her mental approach has reaped over the years.
No less than three times has Williams come from match point down in a Grand Slam tournament before going on to win the title, the latest example coming at this year's Wimbledon where Elena Dementieva played the match of her life against her but still lost.
No other player has even done this twice in the Open era.
The will to win should be held up as a shining example for aspiring players not only in tennis, but sport as a whole.
To hammer home the point, show them Williams' Grand Slam record too.
She's now onto 11 singles titles (and don't forget the nine doubles ones and two mixed) putting her seventh on the all-time list and just one behind the legendary Billie Jean King.
The title of Wonder Woman may already have been claimed.
Instead Serena will just have to settle for being known as the best player of her generation.
We want to know your views on Serena Williams. Do you agree with Andy? Is she the best player of her generation? Send us your comments to: tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.
YOUR FEEDBACK: WTA RANKINGS - posted July 13
Here's some of your feedback and suggestions in the wake of my article on Dinara Safina and her position as world number one. The full article is published below.
It's nice to read an article that doesn't blame Safina for her turning up and doing well at non-Grand Slam events. Serena's comments, as they often are, were classless. The ranking system is fine as is.
Pat Acacia
I agree with Andy. If Serena wants to be world number one she should show the commitment of the likes of Safina and play in more tournaments. I am sick of the way people measure players by their Grand Slam performance. OK, getting a Grand Slam is brilliant but to many players are not given the credit they deserve until they get a Grand Slam, or in the case of many British fans until they have won Wimbledon!
Donna Barker
To prevent players to pile up numerous tournaments, it's enough to cap the number contributions for points, and keep only, say, the 16 top ones in the last 12 months. And to encourage players to play more events, it would suffice to give a greater weight on the contributions, say between 10 and 16, ranked in decreasing order. The computations would hardly be more complex, and that should do it.
Jean-lin Journe
STANDING UP FOR SAFINA - posted July 8
Serena Williams' victory at Wimbledon means she is now the owner of three of the four Grand Slam trophies, yet still she has to play second fiddle in the world rankings.
If was a fact brought up in the wake of her 11th Grand Slam singles triumph in SW19 and that was hardly the first time commentators and pundits had criticised the WTA's ranking system over the course of the Wimbledon fortnight.
While the reigning number one, Dinara Safina, hardly did her case much good with her feeble collapse to Williams' sister Venus in the semi-finals at Wimbledon, she is there for a reason.
OK, she remains Slam-less - thatseemed to be the biggest cause for concern among those critical of the system at the All England Club - but I for one am more than happy to leap to the defence of the Russian, who certainly seemed to get a raw deal from the media over the past few weeks.
What often weren't discussed on TV commentaries and in newspaper columns were the details behind the ranking system. The general criticism which seemed to be levelled at the WTA was 'it's obvious you have the wrong player as your number one, why?'
I certainly remember BBC commentator David Mercer, in the wake of Safina's semi-final surrender, stressing how the Grand Slam are the pinnacles of his sport.
But that view is already well reflected in the ranking system - there are twice the amount of points on offer at a Grand Slam event than there are at the next highest level of tournament (Premier Mandatory) on the WTA Tour.
Perhaps David wants to increase this to three or four-fold - and he would have a point - but think what that would do to the rest of the tour. Wouldn't it just make the events outside the Slams all rather meaningless?
The Williams sisters are masters at turning up at the big events and performing, but they have been criticised in the past for not supporting the tour as a whole. Were such a points change to be introduced, surely even more of the top players would not show up in places such as Indian Wells, Tokyo and Moscow - and that's before you start to mention the lower-tier events in far-flung places across the globe such as Tashkent and Bogota.
OK, the really big stars such as the Williamses would not suffer, but certainly players lower down the scale would - the reason tennis is the best-paid female sport is not just down to the four Grand Slams. It is the fact that people across the world get to see the players compete on a regular basis. TV companies pay big money to tap into its popularity by showing the tournaments. However, the big bucks becomes small bucks if the top players play less and less.
Essentially the reason Safina is currently top of the pile is that her commitment and level of performance on the tour as a whole is better.
Her Grand Slam results may not have brought the three trophies Williams has collected, but they have hardly been shabby. Two finals (both lost) and two semis in the last 12 months.
Where she has picked up the extra few points currently keeping her above Williams is elsewhere - four other finals, two of which have been won. Serena has reached just one other final on the tour this season. Her claycourt results were once again pretty poor.
Another argument being bandied around was that a Grand Slam winner should earn significantly more points than those getting knocked out in the semis. Again, that already happens. Serena picked up 2,000 points for winning the final; Safina took 900 for her run to the last four.
Personally, I don't see a great deal wrong with the ranking system.
Were you to get players playing just a handful of big events and doing well enough to top the pile, you'd soon have the anti-argument that the rankings did not reward the likes of Safina.
No system is perfect and it's easy to see the current one being tweaked, but it's not the disaster some people have been trying to make out.
Should Serena Williams be ranked as world number one? And what changes would you make to the ranking system to improve it? Send us your comments to: tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.
YOUR FEEDBACK: ROGER FEDERER - posted July 7
Thanks for all your feedback on the great man, Roger Federer. Ithought I'd publish some more following Sunday's thrilling Wimbledon final which saw the Swiss break Pete Sampras' all-time record for Grand Slam singles titles. He's now on 15 and I'd expect more to come. I take the points about how he has struggled against Nadal in terms of head-to-head record (although the majority of those losses have come on clay), but I'm not the only one who expected the Spaniard's knees to give up on him - and it has to be pretty worrying that at just 23 he's already nursing such problems. Longevity and staying fit are certainly two aspects of greatness and while I'd love to see Nadal come storming back - the Australian Open final with Federer just six months ago was an all-time classic and a match I'd love to see unfold again - I'm worried he may never be the same again. Any way, here's more of the feedback and stay posted in the coming days for a look back at some of the issues raised during a memorable fortnight in SW19.
You know, it makes me sick to hear people say that Federer's record is tarnished because Nadal did not play. So what? Injuries happen. Steffi Graf would have won about a third of her Grand Slams if Monica Seles was not injured, as Seles was killing Graf on all surfaces when Seles was stabbed. So what? Yes, Sampras had to play against Agassi, but for most of Agassi's career he was unmotivated or did not show up, as in most Wimbledons because he did to want to wear white. For this, Sampras was only 20-14 against Agassi. Nadal is never unmotivated. Sampras played plenty of mediocre people in Grand Slam finals, like Cedric Pioline in the US Open, or Todd Martin and Carlos Moya at the Australian. On the other hand, Federer played and beat in Grand Slams Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Kuerten (at the French), Chang and Safin, all of whom won Grand Slams and some who were number one. In other matches he had to play Slam champions Moya, Rafter and Kafelnikov. Sampras only got to the semi-finals of the French once, and never had to play the greatest of all time at any surface, like Nadal is with clay. The following immortals have a lifetime winning record against Sampras, and none of them is better than Nadal and some are not better than Olivier Rochus: Cristo Van Rensburg, Max Mirnyi, Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek, Sergi Brugera, Michael Stich, and the unforgettable Derrick Rostagno. There is always 'what if?', but if I could fly I'd be in Switzerland right now. However, I can't.
Michael Friedman
Roger Federer is not the greatest player of all time. Rafa Nadal has shown himself to be clearly a better player: 5-2 in Slam finals over Federer and 13-7 over Federer lifetime. That is categoric proof. Federer could also learn from Nadal about grace in defeat and in victory. Blubbing in Melbourne, complaining about the dark in Wimbledon '08 and bragging about his own qualities year round as well as this weekend reveal an egotistic and conceited nature. Ads for Rolex watches and private jets don't help either.
Phil Coates
I disagree with you saying Federer is the greatest tennis player. Nadal has a winning record against Federer in the Grand Slams and is a better player and would have beaten Federer if he didn't hurt his knees. Pete Sampras had that magical serve and in the mid-90s he was the greatest tennis player I ever saw. Simply the best, Pete Sampras.
Eric Ford
Nadal is the best tennis player. He plays every ball and fights for every point. Fed is a graceful player and one of the best. After a rest and taking care of family problems he will be back better and stronger than ever. I never watched tennis until I saw Nadal play - he just is the best. As for the press and others, they should speakkindly and not make statements about Nadal that are hurtful. Just because he loves his family life, simple as it may be, they need to stop the jabbering.
Mary Grigsby
No doubting that Roger Federer is a freak (in the nicest sense) of an athlete. Setting aside his Grand Slam victories, the statistic of being in the last 20 or 21 Grand Slam semi-finals alone places him on a level of his own - he deserves all the accolades laid at his feet, but let us not forget that he has been beaten in five Grand Slam finals on different surfaces by one man, Rafa Nadal, who in turn has only lost twice in Grand Slam finals to Mr Federer. What a cruel blow for the tennis world that the two aforementioned will not be facing each other on a tennis court in the near future - the magical spark, provided by these two players, has, we hope, only temporarily been lost.
Heather McKenzie
Federer is the best no matter what they can say. He will retire being world number one, no-one will play like him. He is a man of dignity and has respect of others and has taught all other tennis players the good behaviour in the playground. Well done Federer. Keep up the good work.
Clementine Solwandle
Have to agree with everything you say regarding Federer. I've always enjoyed tennis but, in the last 4/5 years I've become an addict, all thanks to Federer. His movement is the best I've ever seen and the comparison between him and Sampras is a no-brainer. Sure, Sampras would have gien him a game but Pete relied on his serve and we've seen over the years how Federer has dealt with Roddick's serve, so in my opinion Federer is head and shoulders above anyone who has played the game.
Darren Lake
E-mail Article 
Print-Friendly
Subscribe to RSS Feed 
Post to del.icio.us
Facebook
