Why you shouldn't listen to Virginia Wade. Part One: Drama queens and rain breaks.

Tennis has its fair shares of commentators and pundits: from ex-pro's to top coaches. Former players make the transition towards sports-commentary with wildly different degrees of success. Some offer a unique insight into what's happening on court and enrich the viewing experience, some are awkward and struggle to provide any real knowledge.

And then there's Virginia Wade.

At the French Open this year, an entirely unremarkable situation played out in the second-round. A top ten player looked injured playing a lower-ranked top 100 player. He required some treatment at 6-1 4-2 down and then went on to win the match, recovering from his injury. 

Miss.Wade happened to be commentating on this match and provided us with her opinion on what was happening.

“I have tremendous sympathy that his back is bad but I’ve more sympathy for the other guy as, honestly, you cannot play against someone who is being such a drama queen.
“I don’t think it is intentional, actually, but he feels so sorry for himself, he has no control over the fact he is not really acting in an adult way.

The player was, of course Andy Murray. A man every ex-British number 1 has an opinion on. The injury was a back spasm. Unable to move unhindered in the first, with some manipulation and application of topical gel he regained full mobility and came back to win.As someone who frequently suffers from back spasms both on and off the tennis court, I can relate with how Murray felt. In fact earlier this year I was teaching in Indonesia and had to be stretchered of court with a back spasm- I was completely immobile. After treatment I was fine to be on court the next day- depending on severity they can strike quickly and subside just as fast.

However here Virginia demonstrates a complete lack of understanding regarding the state of the tennis tour. The overwhelming majority- say 90-95%- of players on the pro tour are playing injured to a certain extent. Male or female, these players bodies take an absolute pounding like no other sport. A lot of pro players will have undergone an arduous schedule of up to 20 hours a week including physical conditioning, training and tournaments from the age of ten. At the age of 18 most are on the tour playing on a circuit which covers 11 months of the year. By the time this athletes are 24-25 their bodies have already done a huge amount of mileage. Physical treatment on court for a back spasm is normal in today's game.

The tour wasn't like this in 1977, back in the Wade's heyday. Played at a far slower pace, at a time of closed stance forehands and wooden racquets. The players weren't as strong, didn't train as hard or play for as long as the game of today. This isn't an attack on old-school tennis, I'm very certain the likes of Wade, King, Evert, Connors (My favourite player of all time) and their ilk would be top-players today, given access to the same training regimes, equipment and knowledge. Although their games would look very different. Wade in 1977- her golden year at Wimbledon- played 45 matches. Last year Vera Zvonareva played 78 matches, Caroline Wozniacki 80 and Rafael Nadal 84.Even Roger Federer- noted for minimizing his schedule on tour- has played 4 more more matches already this year than Wade played in the duration of 77 and we are only 7 months through 2012.

Being a former top-player from another era doesn't qualify you necessarily to commentate on todays game. In the same way being an excellent player doesn't mean you will be an intelligent coach for example. The best commentators have moved with the developing game and understand the nuances of professional play in 2012. Miss Wade is not one of them, her casting aspersions on Murray's sportsmanship regarding his treatment and subsequent recovery is at best idiotic and unprofessional and at worst malicious.

His opponent- Jarrko Nieminen, a hardened pro, was not put off by the delay nor did he think it was intentional from Murray. After the match he said:“I don’t think he was acting. It looked like he could hardly walk. It looked pretty bad what he had. It’s not often that somebody looks that bad and can keep going. I still didn’t think that he would give up but it didn’t look good.”

And lets be honest, what does Murray have to gain from going a set and 4-1 down vs a player he has no history in struggling with? In whose mind does that makes sense? Virginia saying that Nieminen 'can't play against someone who is being such a drama queen' is actually wildly incorrect. I bet Jarrko would love Murray to throw away a set and a break every time they meet! Part of being a strong competitor is dealing with these breaks in rhythm and concentration, and there is no reason to assume it affected Nieminen in this match.

After the Wimbledon 2012 Men's Final, the Daily Mail ran an article analysing the match, three experts were asked how the roof closing affected the subsequent play. Well two experts and Virginia Wade:

GILBERT: Yes. Federer averaged five miles per hour more on his serve under the roof. 

He played more aggressively and did a great job of then coming into the net more, playing attacking tennis. 

WADE: I don't think the roof changed the game - it's just an excuse some people use. 

The momentum of the match had already changed by then. If anything you could have argued that Federer's momentum would have been disrupted by the rain break. 

HENMAN: Yes. It was probably as good a time as you could have a rain delay, with it being one set all, but under the roof Federer's ball-striking and timing was just immaculate. 

His third and fourth sets were faultless.

Tim Henman and Brad Gilbert were specific and objective in their commentary. Gilbert referencing statistics and Henman referring to Federer's improved striking under the roof. 

Virginia meanwhile simply mentions 'excuses', and the argument that Federer's momentum could have been broken. Yes it could of been affected but that didn't happen! And the roof didn't change the game? Really? If you couldn't see how much Federer improved in the indoor conditions then you seriously can't be commentating or writing about tennis. We already have concrete statistics in the form of the 5mph increase in the average first-serve speed from Fed. 

When a change of conditions occur on a tennis court, subsequent play is affected. Common sense right? Now the people who say that Federer played better under the roof aren't saying: 'Oh Federer only won because the roof closed, its not fair- he cheated.' (and if they are they are idiots!). Conditions change on a tennis court; balls can get slower, it can get windy, the crowd can switch allegiance from player to player and now -with the new roofs at the slams- matches can switch from outdoors to indoors. Tennis is a game of variables, and dealing with those variables is as much of a skill as any.

So congratulations to Federer who has the skill-set to improve his game in the indoor conditions. This win wasn't the fault of the roof, and without the rain delay and closure I still believe the momentum had switched towards Federer at the end of the second, but momentum can change multiple times in the course of a five-set match. Besides there is a big difference between a shift in momentum and adding 5mph to your first serve!To say that the roof didn't change the match is utterly ridiculous, even had Murray won in 5 sets the roof still would have changed the dynamics of the match.

Rant over for now, but if you happen to switch on BBC to watch some tennis and here Wade in the commentary booth- do yourself a favour and switch to Eurosport.

In part two- Wade's undermining comments on the WTA circuit:"they’re racket-wielding robots."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2170621/Wimbledon-2012-Expert-view-final.html#ixzz20OBJTuZb