Post by Annie on Jun 13, 2005 19:50:06 GMT 3
"Simple" Interview from Tennis + Magazine (Russia)
Marat Safin: " Understand the simple things!.. "
20th November 2002
PART TWO
Recently in " Tennis + " well-known journalist Eugene Scott said on the eve of the US Open that he was convinced Sampras would never again win any tournament at this level. And after Sampras' US Open 2002 win, Scott admitted, it was awkward for him, but he was very glad that he'd been mistaken...
- Tell me, who in general has the right to predict something, if the question is about the best tennis player of all time?
Pete, he's not just some upstart, appearing from goodness knows where... He's been playing for so many years. He's achieved so much and nevertheless he can still play so well. Why do other commentators try to almost force him out of tennis? How is it possible to talk such nonsense, to repeat over and over that he is losing his reputation? If a person likes to play, and it gives him pleasure, then why can't he stay in tennis? Yes, he runs more against younger players, but it's not always necessary for him - he always, for some reason, has time to hit the ball...
- In general, a man at 35 years of age is a person in the prime of life. And Pete, Andre, as well as our Yevgeny, are not yet 35. And I saw with my own eyes at the US Open, ten, twelve years ago as Jimmy Connors reached a semifinal. And he was 39.
- Generally, tennis has changed since then. It has reached higher speeds. But Sampras has lived in the tennis world since he was six, and now Pete is 31, which means he has played for 25 years. And now suddenly he's going to leave? Where? What will he do instead?.. Go to the cinema? Yes, I think depression will start. We are all engaged in tennis for so many years, that the game has become our life... How many hours do you think we spend on courts? Today I arrived at the stadium at 12noon - I had training, and then I went home at 12 midnight... It's our work. Our life.
- Now in Russian tennis, Marat, there are two main concerns: whether Zhenya will retire and why there is no constant coach for Safin? "The coach Marat trusts would be a different version of Safin himself" said Alexander Metreveli. Surely you've heard about this comment?
- Well where shall I start?.. About Zhenya I can say one thing: I understand, that he would like to finish on a high note, he desperately wants to win the Davis Cup and to leave beautifully, with all the prizes. He can long for it, surely?..
- And why doesn't he care about winning the US Open and Wimbledon? He still hasn't won these tournaments.
- To each his own. One man would like to win the championships of a gas station, another would like to win the US Open, and someone else dreams of the Davis Cup..
- I heard this information yesterday: Lleyton Hewitt said: " Now there begins a new era when Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and Federer will be the ones competing. But whether we will be on that same level of rivalry which was between Sampras and Agassi for so many years, I am not sure ".
- It was a different level of tennis back then. Only the top ten were really a threat, yes?.. The other players were, roughly speaking, just for scenery, some kind of background for the leaders. I don't want to offend anybody ok? - But Agassi, Sampras, Willander, Sanchez, Bruguera, Muster... they out of the top ten won all the tournaments, basically. For the others to reach the quarterfinals, up to the semi-finals in Melbourne and Paris, Wimbledon and New York, was pretty rare. They, certainly, won some tournaments, but insignificant, minor ones. Now players in the top 30, top 50 in the world can play just as well.
- I always remember Ivan Lendl who lost to Smith from the Bahamas who was 150th in the rankings.
- Well, who doesn't have bad days?! Accidents are inevitable.
- Marat, have you forgotten I also asked a question about you?
- Many think - I'm not pointing the finger at your magazine, - that I should live in their version of 'correct'. Everybody has their own ideas, but nobody actually knows how to live perfectly. What does it mean "to live correctly "? Despite this, everyone thinks that I've built an incorrect life, because I don't live like them. How many times have I heard people say that I should spend more time on court, more hours should be spent training, training, training, playing tournaments, training even more, winning titles more often. Yes, a coach is necessary. But for what? To raise the level of your game, and only that. And also, to change a persons life. The coach should help on court, should adjust match techniques, and be ready to support the player psychologically...
However, sometimes it is necessary to be pushed or simply to talk things through. For the tennis player anything bad, any problems, with your family, for example, can make playing difficult. We are also human, you see? At times it is necessary to understand the psychology of the tennis player, to be able to tell why his tennis is not going well. Sometimes, the coach needs to just adjust simple things in your game, like improving your swing from the right, or your impact on the left. Everyone knows this. But this is not the first step, it's the last! First of all, the coach needs to understand the psychology of the player, his character, to see how he thinks, and only then, having understood all of that, is it possible to train him. For this reason, I've once again invited Volkov back. We've been familiar with each other for a long time, a couple of years ago we trained together. He understands me, my character, knows what I like, how I feel, what I want, what I care about, my priorities, he understands my tennis. He doesn't talk about tactics, and about the perception of the game. He talks about what makes pleasant tennis: attacking on court, often we talk about who's gone out of the draw, how my game has improved since last year or my action on the baseline, where it's also possible to attack decently. He compares my game since last year and tells me what is more useful for me: whether to just use my power, or use more tactical tennis.
- I've read so much about your split with Chesnokov...
- Let's skip this topic, alright?..
Generally, year by year and month by month I have no-one, nothing. It happens to everyone... For me, this year started... well, let's say, it was awkward. On the one hand, at the beginning of the season I reached the final in Australia. On the other, it was very insulting for me that I lost, even though many still think I didn't even try. Strange, that I would give up on my birthday, eh? But I knew I could lose. I was nervous, very nervous. I understood that if I didn't give my best at full force I can 'receive elementary' [
]. Johansson, though not much is said about him, is a class player. He's beaten Sampras, Agassi, and repeatedly beaten Kafelnikov. He can play well, and on those days he was in excellent form. But for me, every match in Melbourne was a struggle, not everyone had the same tragedy I went though - on the surface it seemed easier for others. Remember my match with Sampras, the third set was won on a tie-break, the fourth was also on tie-break. When I had the rain delay with Haas, we'd hardly left the court, and there were already three tie-breaks played.
When I was on court against Johansson and he took the first set, the struggle was almost decided, but I broke in the second and then fell down...
I understood, that he was changing me, that I conceded on all parameters, well I conceded in everything, understand? I tried to stay hopeful, I thought 'you never know what can happen', I waited and waited and waited, but I couldn't wait long enough&ldots;.. I simply felt that my game didn't develop. It was such a tragedy. That awful feeling. And defeat from Federer in Hamburg! After that, I simply shutdown.
Generally, there's a new theme for me to concentrate on: the transition to another covering, like hardcourt, for example, which takes two - three weeks to adjust, and no less. It is hard for me to re-adjust on different types of courts. On that day, at the Hamburg final, I simply didn't know what to do, where to run...
I was flat-out. And others thought... there are moments, when you are not in the best form, you're in a bad state of health...
I lost to Federer in the Davis Cup. Then I couldn't play strongly either, I was in bad condition. And the public didn't believe in me, they whistled and demanded that I played better. And what if that's impossible today? On the whole, it's very uncomfortable for me to act infront of an audience: there's excessive excitement, the pressure can hold you down... They wait for a victory from only you. Probably, it's natural. But I can see you want me to win! At home, it is especially insulting, when people say terrible things about you.
You try your best, you want to justify the expectations of fans... But it doesn't always turn out for the best... And someone 'decides', that you didn't want to win, it wasn't because you were too tried... But you see it's nonsense! Who would "tank' a match in Davis Cup? There is no such tennis player.
Another thing you condemn me for. Let's discuss how many rackets I have broken... And what is so terrible about that? I'll admit I have broken rackets, and I have to pay a penalty. Is it fair? No! People come to watch the tennis and want to see an interesting, tough battle, they want to see a show.
But what do the spectators remember? What do the children remember? Unless it is interesting for them to watch two robots move on court and beat out a constant rhythm on the ball. No, children remember things like Rosset [] heading the ball, bouncing it off his leg, throwing rackets and catching it behind his back. It is beautiful to see!.. Once McEnroe broke rackets, mucked about on court, yes? And he has let out bad language [] What, are we a bad example to the spectators? No, it is a game! Someone has put a ball in motion from one side of the court, and the other person hits it back! We simply try to make tennis more emotional, more beautiful, more vivid. If there are no emotions on court, for the spectators, the majority of the match is simply boring to watch. For example, on court, Enqvist and Norman are both class players, but they're not exciting! The boom, boom, boom, boom, ball returned, ball returned further. It's just a game of statues. No emotions or anything. And the same for Agassi and Sampras! Andre just lets it go if the umpire says 'out'.
Tennis is full of emotions! I love watching Rios or Arazi. He's only top 50, but go and watch him. He simply loves it, adores it, because he has an animal instinct, a feeling for the ball, a virtuosity, - he shows emotion, he throws rackets and balls, he shouts, and it is wonderful. Many will tell you that it's not right, that it is nonsense. But I think players like Arazi are enjoyable. And tennis should involve spectators. You see, it is a show.
P.S. Certainly, it's a show. But not just a show. It's a sport, a competition, constantly finding out who is who in tennis? And we are sincerely glad, that our interviewee, the constant hero of " Tennis + ", again has reminded us of a brilliant victory in the "Masters Series", Paris and that his opportunities and prospects are inexhaustible.
By Oleg Spassky
Translated by Ruth
IF YOU WISH TO POST THESE INTERVIEWS ELSE WHERE PLEASE INCLUDE CREDIT FOR ALL TRANSLATORS MENTIONED AND THE GUYFROMRUSSIA URL FOR THE INTERVIEW THANK YOU!!
Marat Safin: " Understand the simple things!.. "
20th November 2002
PART TWO
Recently in " Tennis + " well-known journalist Eugene Scott said on the eve of the US Open that he was convinced Sampras would never again win any tournament at this level. And after Sampras' US Open 2002 win, Scott admitted, it was awkward for him, but he was very glad that he'd been mistaken...
- Tell me, who in general has the right to predict something, if the question is about the best tennis player of all time?
Pete, he's not just some upstart, appearing from goodness knows where... He's been playing for so many years. He's achieved so much and nevertheless he can still play so well. Why do other commentators try to almost force him out of tennis? How is it possible to talk such nonsense, to repeat over and over that he is losing his reputation? If a person likes to play, and it gives him pleasure, then why can't he stay in tennis? Yes, he runs more against younger players, but it's not always necessary for him - he always, for some reason, has time to hit the ball...
- In general, a man at 35 years of age is a person in the prime of life. And Pete, Andre, as well as our Yevgeny, are not yet 35. And I saw with my own eyes at the US Open, ten, twelve years ago as Jimmy Connors reached a semifinal. And he was 39.
- Generally, tennis has changed since then. It has reached higher speeds. But Sampras has lived in the tennis world since he was six, and now Pete is 31, which means he has played for 25 years. And now suddenly he's going to leave? Where? What will he do instead?.. Go to the cinema? Yes, I think depression will start. We are all engaged in tennis for so many years, that the game has become our life... How many hours do you think we spend on courts? Today I arrived at the stadium at 12noon - I had training, and then I went home at 12 midnight... It's our work. Our life.
- Now in Russian tennis, Marat, there are two main concerns: whether Zhenya will retire and why there is no constant coach for Safin? "The coach Marat trusts would be a different version of Safin himself" said Alexander Metreveli. Surely you've heard about this comment?
- Well where shall I start?.. About Zhenya I can say one thing: I understand, that he would like to finish on a high note, he desperately wants to win the Davis Cup and to leave beautifully, with all the prizes. He can long for it, surely?..
- And why doesn't he care about winning the US Open and Wimbledon? He still hasn't won these tournaments.
- To each his own. One man would like to win the championships of a gas station, another would like to win the US Open, and someone else dreams of the Davis Cup..
- I heard this information yesterday: Lleyton Hewitt said: " Now there begins a new era when Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and Federer will be the ones competing. But whether we will be on that same level of rivalry which was between Sampras and Agassi for so many years, I am not sure ".
- It was a different level of tennis back then. Only the top ten were really a threat, yes?.. The other players were, roughly speaking, just for scenery, some kind of background for the leaders. I don't want to offend anybody ok? - But Agassi, Sampras, Willander, Sanchez, Bruguera, Muster... they out of the top ten won all the tournaments, basically. For the others to reach the quarterfinals, up to the semi-finals in Melbourne and Paris, Wimbledon and New York, was pretty rare. They, certainly, won some tournaments, but insignificant, minor ones. Now players in the top 30, top 50 in the world can play just as well.
- I always remember Ivan Lendl who lost to Smith from the Bahamas who was 150th in the rankings.
- Well, who doesn't have bad days?! Accidents are inevitable.
- Marat, have you forgotten I also asked a question about you?
- Many think - I'm not pointing the finger at your magazine, - that I should live in their version of 'correct'. Everybody has their own ideas, but nobody actually knows how to live perfectly. What does it mean "to live correctly "? Despite this, everyone thinks that I've built an incorrect life, because I don't live like them. How many times have I heard people say that I should spend more time on court, more hours should be spent training, training, training, playing tournaments, training even more, winning titles more often. Yes, a coach is necessary. But for what? To raise the level of your game, and only that. And also, to change a persons life. The coach should help on court, should adjust match techniques, and be ready to support the player psychologically...
However, sometimes it is necessary to be pushed or simply to talk things through. For the tennis player anything bad, any problems, with your family, for example, can make playing difficult. We are also human, you see? At times it is necessary to understand the psychology of the tennis player, to be able to tell why his tennis is not going well. Sometimes, the coach needs to just adjust simple things in your game, like improving your swing from the right, or your impact on the left. Everyone knows this. But this is not the first step, it's the last! First of all, the coach needs to understand the psychology of the player, his character, to see how he thinks, and only then, having understood all of that, is it possible to train him. For this reason, I've once again invited Volkov back. We've been familiar with each other for a long time, a couple of years ago we trained together. He understands me, my character, knows what I like, how I feel, what I want, what I care about, my priorities, he understands my tennis. He doesn't talk about tactics, and about the perception of the game. He talks about what makes pleasant tennis: attacking on court, often we talk about who's gone out of the draw, how my game has improved since last year or my action on the baseline, where it's also possible to attack decently. He compares my game since last year and tells me what is more useful for me: whether to just use my power, or use more tactical tennis.
- I've read so much about your split with Chesnokov...
- Let's skip this topic, alright?..
Generally, year by year and month by month I have no-one, nothing. It happens to everyone... For me, this year started... well, let's say, it was awkward. On the one hand, at the beginning of the season I reached the final in Australia. On the other, it was very insulting for me that I lost, even though many still think I didn't even try. Strange, that I would give up on my birthday, eh? But I knew I could lose. I was nervous, very nervous. I understood that if I didn't give my best at full force I can 'receive elementary' [
]. Johansson, though not much is said about him, is a class player. He's beaten Sampras, Agassi, and repeatedly beaten Kafelnikov. He can play well, and on those days he was in excellent form. But for me, every match in Melbourne was a struggle, not everyone had the same tragedy I went though - on the surface it seemed easier for others. Remember my match with Sampras, the third set was won on a tie-break, the fourth was also on tie-break. When I had the rain delay with Haas, we'd hardly left the court, and there were already three tie-breaks played.When I was on court against Johansson and he took the first set, the struggle was almost decided, but I broke in the second and then fell down...
I understood, that he was changing me, that I conceded on all parameters, well I conceded in everything, understand? I tried to stay hopeful, I thought 'you never know what can happen', I waited and waited and waited, but I couldn't wait long enough&ldots;.. I simply felt that my game didn't develop. It was such a tragedy. That awful feeling. And defeat from Federer in Hamburg! After that, I simply shutdown.
Generally, there's a new theme for me to concentrate on: the transition to another covering, like hardcourt, for example, which takes two - three weeks to adjust, and no less. It is hard for me to re-adjust on different types of courts. On that day, at the Hamburg final, I simply didn't know what to do, where to run...
I was flat-out. And others thought... there are moments, when you are not in the best form, you're in a bad state of health...
I lost to Federer in the Davis Cup. Then I couldn't play strongly either, I was in bad condition. And the public didn't believe in me, they whistled and demanded that I played better. And what if that's impossible today? On the whole, it's very uncomfortable for me to act infront of an audience: there's excessive excitement, the pressure can hold you down... They wait for a victory from only you. Probably, it's natural. But I can see you want me to win! At home, it is especially insulting, when people say terrible things about you.
You try your best, you want to justify the expectations of fans... But it doesn't always turn out for the best... And someone 'decides', that you didn't want to win, it wasn't because you were too tried... But you see it's nonsense! Who would "tank' a match in Davis Cup? There is no such tennis player.
Another thing you condemn me for. Let's discuss how many rackets I have broken... And what is so terrible about that? I'll admit I have broken rackets, and I have to pay a penalty. Is it fair? No! People come to watch the tennis and want to see an interesting, tough battle, they want to see a show.
But what do the spectators remember? What do the children remember? Unless it is interesting for them to watch two robots move on court and beat out a constant rhythm on the ball. No, children remember things like Rosset [
] heading the ball, bouncing it off his leg, throwing rackets and catching it behind his back. It is beautiful to see!.. Once McEnroe broke rackets, mucked about on court, yes? And he has let out bad language [] What, are we a bad example to the spectators? No, it is a game! Someone has put a ball in motion from one side of the court, and the other person hits it back! We simply try to make tennis more emotional, more beautiful, more vivid. If there are no emotions on court, for the spectators, the majority of the match is simply boring to watch. For example, on court, Enqvist and Norman are both class players, but they're not exciting! The boom, boom, boom, boom, ball returned, ball returned further. It's just a game of statues. No emotions or anything. And the same for Agassi and Sampras! Andre just lets it go if the umpire says 'out'.Tennis is full of emotions! I love watching Rios or Arazi. He's only top 50, but go and watch him. He simply loves it, adores it, because he has an animal instinct, a feeling for the ball, a virtuosity, - he shows emotion, he throws rackets and balls, he shouts, and it is wonderful. Many will tell you that it's not right, that it is nonsense. But I think players like Arazi are enjoyable. And tennis should involve spectators. You see, it is a show.
P.S. Certainly, it's a show. But not just a show. It's a sport, a competition, constantly finding out who is who in tennis? And we are sincerely glad, that our interviewee, the constant hero of " Tennis + ", again has reminded us of a brilliant victory in the "Masters Series", Paris and that his opportunities and prospects are inexhaustible.
By Oleg Spassky
Translated by Ruth
IF YOU WISH TO POST THESE INTERVIEWS ELSE WHERE PLEASE INCLUDE CREDIT FOR ALL TRANSLATORS MENTIONED AND THE GUYFROMRUSSIA URL FOR THE INTERVIEW THANK YOU!!
