What do you think?
Rate this book
Break Point: The Inside Story of Modern Tennis
NOW WITH A NEW CHAPTERThis is a special era in the history of tennis. The physicality and skill, as well as the commercial and public interest, have hit levels not seen before. At the heart of the game's growing appeal are four Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Andy Murray. Never in the history of the game have so few players dominated for so long and it is their rivalry that makes this the 'Golden Age of Tennis'.However, in 2013, the dominance of the Big Four came under sustained pressure and a new era beckoned. "Break Point" chronicles how the old guard met the challenge of the hungry young contenders determined to break their stranglehold on the Tour, from the genteel lawns of Wimbledon to the raucous bleachers of Flushing Meadows, and all points in between.
- GenresSportsNonfiction
352 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2014
5 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 28, 2016
A pretty decent book on the state of modern tennis with some very astute observations from great tennis players from all eras. The only issue I had with the book is the insistence of a very British author to include Murray as one the 'big four' of the tennis world. Murray has the same number of grandslams as Warwinka so why isn't he included in the famed list? And why does the it have to the 'big four' when it could easily have been the era of 'big three'?
For me the book focuses far too much on the exploits of Murray which makes it painful reading for any non-British reader.
I found the chapters on the evolution of tennis technique and doping are extremely engaging though
For me the book focuses far too much on the exploits of Murray which makes it painful reading for any non-British reader.
I found the chapters on the evolution of tennis technique and doping are extremely engaging though
January 4, 2019
Frequently diverting, gently meandering; sometimes insightful and sometimes absurd. The cover of my edition describes this as ‘the inside story of modern tennis’, which is fairly generous on a couple of accounts. It’s ‘inside’ only in the sense of chronicling a decent stint amongst the press corps. The people who play this thing on a regular basis only appear as talking heads; they give good quote, but they rarely offer much in the way of privileged insight. As for ‘the story of modern tennis’, this is taken at first to mean the Big Four — but in practice the focus is overwhelmingly on Andy Murray, followed by Federer and Nadal (in that order). You get the feeling this began as an under-nourished book on Murray that got somewhat out of hand. And Djokovic, perhaps unfairly, is neglected.
Opening with Murray’s first Grand Slam at the US Open, before moving on to his first win at Wimbledon, it has the feel of a collection composed in a hurry to build on national hopes of having a tennis star who could truly compete at the highest level. As a book about Murray’s success and the nature of his game, it’s pretty good, though it’s well-padded in a way characteristic of a certain kind of sports writing. It plays for time — in tennis terms, it gets itself into long rallies, but can’t find a way to hit a winner to close the point. There’s a lot of laid-back waffle about how it felt to be in New York that night for the US Open, much of which is perfectly good-natured but not especially informative or atmospheric. Later there’s one particularly risible passage that quotes several lines from Shakespeare to describe not what it does say on the gates above SW19, but what it could say.
It’s also worth mentioning that it hasn’t aged especially well. This is not a huge problem, nor is it worth holding it against the author, and in some ways it’s a benefit — the chapter on the controversy around Marin Cilic and his brief ban for use of unauthorised substances is an especially interesting example of drug controversy in tennis. This kind of thing is rarely written about much elsewhere, and the Cilic case seems to have been entirely forgotten in his career. But elsewhere, it feels odd to encounter debates that are effectively still being waged every day in tennis journalism.
Back then writers were openly questioning the dominance of that handful of players; whether it was ‘good for the sport’, and how long their bodies could possibly hold out, and when we’d see (if ever) a new cadre who could present a meaningful challenge over four or five sets at the highest level. There are passages about Nadal's injuries and Murray's back here that could be directly transposed to the papers today. Federer, meanwhile, is still playing (often very well) at the age of 37. He’s won three more Grand Slams since this was written, I think. And such are the vagaries of the sport that many of the up-and-coming stars cited here are quietly slipped into the lower reaches of the tour circuit — we no longer hear much about players like Dustin Brown these days.
I try to avoid the term ‘readable’ when describing books, but that’s exactly what this is. There’s some good stuff in here — fine insight into the basic nature of modern tennis, plus memorable and fun anecdotes — on the whole, it’s not unenjoyable. The interview with Mats Wilander is great fun. For casual reading over the sleepy Christmas period, it was fine. But it’s somewhat undermined by its overstuffed premise.
Opening with Murray’s first Grand Slam at the US Open, before moving on to his first win at Wimbledon, it has the feel of a collection composed in a hurry to build on national hopes of having a tennis star who could truly compete at the highest level. As a book about Murray’s success and the nature of his game, it’s pretty good, though it’s well-padded in a way characteristic of a certain kind of sports writing. It plays for time — in tennis terms, it gets itself into long rallies, but can’t find a way to hit a winner to close the point. There’s a lot of laid-back waffle about how it felt to be in New York that night for the US Open, much of which is perfectly good-natured but not especially informative or atmospheric. Later there’s one particularly risible passage that quotes several lines from Shakespeare to describe not what it does say on the gates above SW19, but what it could say.
It’s also worth mentioning that it hasn’t aged especially well. This is not a huge problem, nor is it worth holding it against the author, and in some ways it’s a benefit — the chapter on the controversy around Marin Cilic and his brief ban for use of unauthorised substances is an especially interesting example of drug controversy in tennis. This kind of thing is rarely written about much elsewhere, and the Cilic case seems to have been entirely forgotten in his career. But elsewhere, it feels odd to encounter debates that are effectively still being waged every day in tennis journalism.
Back then writers were openly questioning the dominance of that handful of players; whether it was ‘good for the sport’, and how long their bodies could possibly hold out, and when we’d see (if ever) a new cadre who could present a meaningful challenge over four or five sets at the highest level. There are passages about Nadal's injuries and Murray's back here that could be directly transposed to the papers today. Federer, meanwhile, is still playing (often very well) at the age of 37. He’s won three more Grand Slams since this was written, I think. And such are the vagaries of the sport that many of the up-and-coming stars cited here are quietly slipped into the lower reaches of the tour circuit — we no longer hear much about players like Dustin Brown these days.
I try to avoid the term ‘readable’ when describing books, but that’s exactly what this is. There’s some good stuff in here — fine insight into the basic nature of modern tennis, plus memorable and fun anecdotes — on the whole, it’s not unenjoyable. The interview with Mats Wilander is great fun. For casual reading over the sleepy Christmas period, it was fine. But it’s somewhat undermined by its overstuffed premise.
May 21, 2018
Save for some interviews with significant tennis players of the past, this was a really poor effort, and disappointingly so. I'm not sure what the aim of this book was, the author has his own crisis of what the book is halfway through, and it certainly hasn't stood the test of time (a mammoth 4 and a bit years).
As Mitchell explains halfway through, this started out as a year in the life at the top of tennis, and then he found a new story - the big 4 were on the decline, with a new group of players rising. When you look at Federer's results from that year, you can understand how he reached that conclusion, but it is demonstrably false. Written at the end of 2013, over 4 years later Federer has won the Australian Open in his mid-thirties and the chief complaint is of the dominance of the big 4. Essentially, the premise of his book is a load of nonsense, and the only player to emerge as a genuine challenger is Stan Wawrinka, who Mitchell practically writes off as a 28 year old who has got used to losing (though the final chapter mentions his first slam). The hot prospects he touts in Janowicz, Khachanov and Dimitrov have had mixed success, with only Dimitrov making a reasonable name for himself.
Ok, Mitchell isn't psychic, but so what? The problem is that this book simply isn't very revelatory or revealing. Any casual tennis fan knows the big 4 dominate, and that their relationships with each other are cordial in public. The problem is, Mitchell doesn't have much insider knowledge, or at least, hasn't felt confident enough to publish it. Virtually all comments are from outsiders or official press conferences, which can be interesting in some ways, but mundane or unreliable in most. One particular highlight was an interview with Mats Wilander who gave his balanced views on the modern game, but such insight was rare. This was made most apparent in the case of Marin Cilic, whose drugs test was kept under wraps and journalists could only go on official statements until his test result was revealed much later. You have to be careful about drawing too big a conclusion but this gave the strong impression of a world in which journalists were the people to deliver the official message, and not allowed into the inner sanctum with a wink and nudge.
There were other frequently annoying aspects too, the reports at the start of each chapter bore scant relevance to the text beneath and there was a little too much scoreboard repetition. This is necessary when discussing tennis but sticks out when much of the rest is filler too.
This would have been much better as an interview with Mats Wilander and assorted other features dotted through the year in the paper Mitchell writes for, because it's not a book. There's not an awful lot of tennis writing save the odd biography, and perhaps tennis is a game to be watched, not written about.
As Mitchell explains halfway through, this started out as a year in the life at the top of tennis, and then he found a new story - the big 4 were on the decline, with a new group of players rising. When you look at Federer's results from that year, you can understand how he reached that conclusion, but it is demonstrably false. Written at the end of 2013, over 4 years later Federer has won the Australian Open in his mid-thirties and the chief complaint is of the dominance of the big 4. Essentially, the premise of his book is a load of nonsense, and the only player to emerge as a genuine challenger is Stan Wawrinka, who Mitchell practically writes off as a 28 year old who has got used to losing (though the final chapter mentions his first slam). The hot prospects he touts in Janowicz, Khachanov and Dimitrov have had mixed success, with only Dimitrov making a reasonable name for himself.
Ok, Mitchell isn't psychic, but so what? The problem is that this book simply isn't very revelatory or revealing. Any casual tennis fan knows the big 4 dominate, and that their relationships with each other are cordial in public. The problem is, Mitchell doesn't have much insider knowledge, or at least, hasn't felt confident enough to publish it. Virtually all comments are from outsiders or official press conferences, which can be interesting in some ways, but mundane or unreliable in most. One particular highlight was an interview with Mats Wilander who gave his balanced views on the modern game, but such insight was rare. This was made most apparent in the case of Marin Cilic, whose drugs test was kept under wraps and journalists could only go on official statements until his test result was revealed much later. You have to be careful about drawing too big a conclusion but this gave the strong impression of a world in which journalists were the people to deliver the official message, and not allowed into the inner sanctum with a wink and nudge.
There were other frequently annoying aspects too, the reports at the start of each chapter bore scant relevance to the text beneath and there was a little too much scoreboard repetition. This is necessary when discussing tennis but sticks out when much of the rest is filler too.
This would have been much better as an interview with Mats Wilander and assorted other features dotted through the year in the paper Mitchell writes for, because it's not a book. There's not an awful lot of tennis writing save the odd biography, and perhaps tennis is a game to be watched, not written about.
July 23, 2022
The book is well written, the only way in which it can deserve its one (compulsory) star.
The title is a misnomer on a couple of counts: it is not a story of modern tennis, it is a spotty look at the 2013 season in men's tennis (and then 2014 is given a cursory glance in the last chapter). It is also not a look at tennis as a whole, but focuses almost exclusively on a certain Andy Murray; which is fine but it is not the book I thought I was buying. This allows the book to ignore various compelling storylines that occurred during the book's woefully short timeframe. The stories that are covered are chosen in a slapdash manner (Brian Baker is a fine tennis player, but should have nowhere near the focus he is given in a book of this title).
And the truly cardinal sin, this book is littered with errors (sometimes grammatical/spelling), the most glaring of which are around easily google-able results, dates, scorelines, and names.
If it weren't for my crippling completism, I'd never have gone beyond the end of the first chapter.
The title is a misnomer on a couple of counts: it is not a story of modern tennis, it is a spotty look at the 2013 season in men's tennis (and then 2014 is given a cursory glance in the last chapter). It is also not a look at tennis as a whole, but focuses almost exclusively on a certain Andy Murray; which is fine but it is not the book I thought I was buying. This allows the book to ignore various compelling storylines that occurred during the book's woefully short timeframe. The stories that are covered are chosen in a slapdash manner (Brian Baker is a fine tennis player, but should have nowhere near the focus he is given in a book of this title).
And the truly cardinal sin, this book is littered with errors (sometimes grammatical/spelling), the most glaring of which are around easily google-able results, dates, scorelines, and names.
If it weren't for my crippling completism, I'd never have gone beyond the end of the first chapter.
November 28, 2020
Not a bad read. I learned a wee bit from the book. I think more than a little poetic licence was used by Mr Mitchell when putting Murray in the same bracket as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal - a fleeting glance at the list of most Grand Slam titles won clearly didn't stop the author from indulging his fantasy! Disclaimer: Murray is a better player than I am or will ever be and I have a lot of respect for his achievements. I am still looking for a book that provides a comprehensive overview of the Slams in the Open era.
July 28, 2024
This book simply is not what it claims to be. 90% of it is the author writing about Andy Murray and how he is as good of the rest of the “Big Four” (with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). With all due respect to Andy Murray, he is not in a tier with these three. This book completely lacks insight into the behind-the-scenes business of modern tennis, despite the preview indicating it does. And the author takes pot shots at every country and nationality that isn’t British, especially the countries that host the other majors.
May 14, 2020
Poor. Claims to be 'the inside story of modern tennis. It isn't. Women's tennis is not mentioned. It tells the story of the mens' 2013 season mostly from the Murray/Federer point of view. Lots of it is repetitive, a lot if it is dull. None of it is very insightful.
July 18, 2024
This is a really enjoyable tennis book that details the Big Four (and a few of their "challengers") on the ATP tour in the early to mid-2010s.
The Murray-focused passages are particularly strong, and I enjoyed the parallels that Mitchell drew between boxing and tennis.
The Murray-focused passages are particularly strong, and I enjoyed the parallels that Mitchell drew between boxing and tennis.
September 12, 2021
Very Murray centric. Concentrates solely on the men’s game and predicts the end of an era about seven years too early!
November 12, 2016
I love tennis but I didn't love this book. I felt it was all over the place going from one topic to another from talking about one player then another, without a real story behind it. Felt like just a random bunch of thoughts from the journalist's point of view. Kept talking about the big 4 and whether they are on the decline. A tennis fan does not really care about the big picture, or what a journalist thinks, but cares more about the technical and mental side of the player's point of view. At one point he even suggested that it is wrong of players to shut journalists out... I do not feel I have learned anything by reading this book, apart from the circumstances surrounding doping scandals of some players, which was the most interesting part.
July 24, 2015
I was disappointed - too much emphasis on Andy Murray! However, some of the analysis and comments on other players - the Big 3 of the men - was interesting and the general appraisal of the game as it has become ditto. The game is so much more athletic and physical than even 20 years ago - tennis players are like gladiators and the whole sport has a Roman feel. Not, IMO (I'm not H), to its advantage or to ours, as spectators. Very little net-play; almost no serve-volley; just endless bashing from the baseline. The finesse and subtlety has gone. Sorry - this is more of a vent than a review! Others may well get a lot more out of this book.
January 30, 2015
I do enjoy tennis books and Kevin has written an interesting and thought-provoking book about the game and particularly the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray foursome. There is a lot about Murray in here, I like much of what he has written. Parts are slightly long-winded but it is a must for all tennis fans.
January 2, 2016
I love tennis but I must admit I expected more of this book. It says it's about "The Big Four" but I think focus is too much on Andy Murray and not so much about the other three guys. I really liked some parts, for example where Mats Wilander talks about the game and some other insights of the game. But I wish Mitchell would talk more about Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
June 1, 2015
As a tennis geek I couldn't put it down. Plus it has the best insight in to Andy Murray I've seen - far better than Muzz's own post Wimbledon victory book
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews