Readers Write

TennisOne,

Has a fresh breeze blown through the TennisOne website? Not that it needed it but, TennisOne has allowed an articulate and precise writer/tennis coach to expand, eventually, a tennis player's experience. Mr. McDowell's articulations are a marvel in the world of expertise in describing how well he understands the process of an inside out forehand at the highly professional level. Now. Now, however, how is the typical TennisOne member to benefit from this information 'Tsunami'? The information is correct in almost every way. The question is, I repeat: How can I use it? It is intriguing how many tennis 'professionals' like to promote an idea, and isn't it so easy and convenient, thinking, perhaps, that the sending of the message is the goal. With such a high falutin' (Hello, Granny Clampett!) stage would it not be befitting of TennisOne to strive to become the number one tennis learning website (dearly paid, I might add) as opposed to the site that raises on pedestals the most articulate 'teachers'?

Sincerely,
Bill Jenkins

Bill,

First of all, thanks for feedback. This is my first contribution to TennisOne and I appreciate the constructive criticism. Likewise, I appreciate your saying that I was "articulate, precise and correct in almost every way." As I put together this piece, I developed almost three times this amount of material -- which I tried to distill down as I put together the final product.

A good portion of this material spoke to exactly what you found to be lacking in my presentation; that is, the nuts and bolts of how I would suggest this great model (Berdych's inside out forehand) be used to help us become better players. I am still in a bit of a quandary as to how best to get this side of the story across -- perhaps a separate piece to which I could refer that lays out my approach to teaching and learning. Perhaps, as notes to the video analysis itself. Anyway, since you asked, let me lay out a few specifics that I will recommend to my students as I expose them to this analysis:

• Take a systematic approach to making changes in your game.
• How do you feel about what I identified as the #1 thing you could do to improve your game: Focus upon preparation and footwork. If you agree this is something from which you could benefit, set up a hitting session or sessions (and then a practice match or matches) exclusively for the purposes of concentrating on these issues. Because trust me, the other parts of your game will suffer. Below are examples of questions players should ask themselves along practice sessions that many of my serious players find beneficial:
  • Are you balanced, focused and ready to move when your opponent hits the ball? If not, forget everything else and make sure you split every time the ball bounces on the other side of the net. Don't jump in the air and land flat footed. Be poised on the balls of the feet and ready to make a unit turn to the right or left as you read the ball (or a reverse pivot, if you are practicing running around your backhand). If you have split too soon, split again to ensure you are ready to GO!
    
  • Do you prep your racquet (use the unit turn) to set the stage for what I have called stroke production backswing, forward swing, contact and extension)? If not, it will probably take some focused effort to break bad habits common at this critical juncture. Simplify and remember that less is definitely more at this stage of the stroke.
  • When do you take your first step toward the ball? Try to move toward the ball before the incoming ball reaches the net. Later see if you can take your first step before the ball reaches the service line.
    
  • Do you watch the flight of your shot as you recover? If not, buy a ticket...oh wait, practice appropriate recovery footwork for different areas of the court until they happen instinctively.

Of course the above changes are largely a matter of discipline and focus; but that is precisely why they are so difficult to master.

• Stroke Production: So you see something you don't do with which you would like to experiment. If so, use a reasonable progression for change:
  • Start with shadow tennis and rehearse the movement and body positions without a ball or an opponent. Do them slowly at first and gradually increase the speed. See how it feels and work to
    find a degree of comfort with the mechanics. The use of a full length mirror or video is a great way to take this step to its logical conclusion. Here one is in the early stages of "learning
    the look" and "finding the feel."
  • Next try the technique with a self tossed ball or have a hitting partner toss you an easy ball to play. Ball machines are excellent at this stage. Once you have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish, repetition with progressively challenging balls will build confidence and help the student "find the feel" of the technical change being implemented. You may wish to consult a coach at this stage to ensure that you are building your stroke efficiently.
    
  • Next try to reproduce this technique with a random ball in a rally situation or while playing practice points or practice matches.
    
  • Finally, add the mental pressure by trying to implement the new approach during competition.
    
  • I know this is time consuming; however, I have found this to be a great way to make meaningful change and "own a new skill."

Okay, you're probably sorry you asked; but I hope this addresses some of your very valid concerns.

Best Regards,
Michael McDowell

TennisOne,

What about Laver winning the Grand Slam and then being forced to not play in Grand Slams as a pro and then winning the Grand Slam again when they let the pros play? How many Grand Slams would he have if he hadn't missed all those prime years? Take five years out of the middle of Federer or Sampras' careers and what would their totals be? I definitely feel all three are three of the greatest, but you have to almost say who is the greatest of his era and go with that.

Mike

Mike,

You certainly have a point. Comparing the eras is very difficult, and a player can only play against the opponents of their time in the conditions of their time.

In terms of dominance, of course, Laver is still hard to beat. People who talk about the lack of depth back in 1969 when ‘the Rocket’ won his second grand slam would do well to consider how many great players Laver had to beat to win those four tournaments. Okay, the first few rounds were hardly much of a trial, but to take home the trophy remained no small feat.

In assessing Laver, it is worth considering his ‘missed’ five years, 1963-7, during which he couldn’t enter amateur tennis tournaments (i.e. the slams). It is true that these were five of his most dominant and formidable years. It is also true that he probably would have won many of these tournaments had they been open. On the flip side, though, he would almost certainly not have won the six majors he accumulated between 1960 and 1962, the year in which he won his first ‘grand slam’. Remember that the best player in the world in 1962 was Ken Rosewall, not Laver. It was only really by 1965 that Laver had the edge against Rosewall, and even then he wasn’t exactly supreme–pros like Hoad and even the aging Pancho Gonzales were genuine rivals for most of this period.

Then, of course, there were great champions like Jack Kramer, Don Budge–the first man to win the ‘grand slam’ and Bill Tilden. Kramer and Budge had only brief amateur careers and totally missed many of their best playing years during WWII.

Perhaps, if anything, it’s possible to say Federer is the greatest player whose career has been entirely within the open era (Sampras has always been my personal favorite, and I think he played unbelievably brilliant tennis, but his results just weren’t as consistent as Federer’s or as good on clay). To think that there was a runaway best or greatest, though, is probably a mistake. Of course, if Federer keeps winning for another ten years I may have to eat those words.

Adam

TennisOne,

Simply can’t apply the ten year rule to tennis. Completely ridiculous. I was a decent street player, probably 3.5. Good backhand, not much of a forehand, pretty decent serve and volley game.Took three years of lessons and some practice to get to about a 4.8 level. Another year would have gotten to 5.0. If someone is a good athlete and picks up a racquet, could easily go from beginner to 5.0 in several years. Your point is well made, but ten years to get to a certain level in tennis is way too much. - Robert

Robert,

Perhaps at 5.0 I set the bar too low in terms of the 10 year rule. As you point out, you were able to get close to it in a relatively few years. The 10 year rule is really for world-class levels of performance skills, and that's probably a 6.5 or 7.0.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

As always, I have read with great interest your thoughts and find many interesting ideas and thoughts as they relate to our junior player development. I do find the mental visualizing interesting but doubt the usefulness on junior development.

I constantly use the 10,000 hour model when teaching young players. It is most helpful with parents that are expecting the development of their child too quickly. I tell many players that are experiencing disappointing results that the time will come when it all comes together. Usually it starts showing up piece by piece on the practice court and then they will find themselves winning a tournament they could not have imagined. I preach that "the winning will come when it is not important".

Question. I have developed numerous state, southern, and national juniors. Their time on the court is generally only 40% competitive play. Most of the time is spent on situational drills to enhance muscle memory on stressful points. Of course time is spent on stroke development too. I generally do not introduce the slice and drop shot until 13 years old because most juniors are not mature enough to know when to use the slice. In fact, any player missing two slices in a row have conditioning/running to reinforce that it is not a shot for lazy feet.

You feedback would be informative.

Thanks, Randy

Randy,

Thanks your generous comment. It's very interesting about your development model, which obviously has been very successful. In his book, " The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How," Daniel Coyle has a full chapter on the Russian Spartak, a small, run-down tennis school outside of Moscow that has produced more than 20 top twenty players over the last several years. Here they don't even let the young players on a court (much less engage in competitive play) until they've mastered their tennis techniques. From what I've read in the performance literature, the performance experts seem to agree that deliberative practice is a superior developmental tool than competitive play. And that competitive play can even restrict development (performers afraid of failing will stick to what they know). More to all this in a subsequent article.

Congratulations on your program and would love to hear more.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Well if practicing physically improvements =24% and mental rehearsal =23% it would suggest that a routine combining both methods would guarantee some very definite improvements above and beyond if either were done alone. However it is very difficult to convince most ever day players to even consider visualization or mental rehearsal. A friend of mine fellow player in senior tennis some how hit a log jam in trying to improve his game was given a birthday gift of a DVD with relaxing and visual and mental rehearsal and post relaxation suggestions and within a month more or less he became a very much improved player who has continued to get better. And even though other players of the group was informed what he had done they made fun of the idea and regarded it as some kind of new age mumbo jumbo. However the proof is in the pudding I am convinced. Excellent article very good information. - CLB

Hi,

Thanks for your note. Yes, I think most performance experts agree that some form of visualization, done correctly, will enhance development. As to what degree, I haven't seen the data on this. In terms of the story of your friend, I agree that we're all a bit too quick to dismiss ideas that sound strange or out of the norm. But indeed, the proof is in the pudding.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

I think your idea of making tennis a lifetime sport with achievements based on skill not just results is a great idea. You should run with that. Hopefully you have some pull with the USPTR. This would give the teaching pros incentive for continued learning - students would benefit.

It would also help us students to have something else to focus on - something we can control. It gives us the game back. And it becomes something we can achieve even if we start playing after 35 - like I did.

I play doubles and just recently returned to the states to play in a city league. My international friends in Thailand were very fair - we switched up partners a lot and good calls were the mainstay. We argued about other stuff, politics mainly, but the calls were honest.

Since returning to the states I've been assigned one partner. She calls balls out sometimes, and I've even had to over rule her to be fair. You know, over ruling your partner's call regularly does not make a good team..) I could see the skills accomplishment performance measure as a way to bring back player motivation (mine especially) in a culture only interested in results. Here honest results-not calls made in the heat of the moment-could be dependable, measurable, and motivational. There is no medal for honesty, but honesty is still worth more than a ranking.

What do you know? Adding your skills performance measure may just help tennis become a 'character building' social sport. Market it that way, and we'll attract more people to our sport. (That would be so ironic to me since my parents kept us kids all out of tennis because McEnroe was such a temper tantrum prone millionaire spoiled brat. We all laughed at him and ridiculed the sport.) That was in the 70's though. Sampras and Federer are very professional. Still, it would help the sport in the long run if changes were made.

Good Luck!
Kimberly Hofhiens

Hi Kimberly,

Thanks for your thoughtful and encouraging letter. In one of my letter responses, I brought up a tennis program that I didn't know existed when I wrote my editorial: Grips Program (gripsprogram.com). When I looked at their system, it was very much in accordance to the Martial Arts model I suggested. In fact, they've included some levels of off-court testing, where the student must pass tests about the rules of the game and sportsmanship before they proceed to on-court testing. So they've designed their system from the ground up to reinforce the right values, and their different colored grips they award for different skill levels, is exactly the brown belt, black belt model I described. I don't know too much more about Grips, but my hat is off to them. I think it's evidence that there are some better ways to go about organizing the sport that will inculcate the better values--and ironically (because less focus on results-only) better results!

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

What a very interesting article ( Change the Way We Measure, Change the Game) with many, many innovative new ideas. But, in today's USTA League tennis, which seems to be all the USTA cares about because age-group tournament tennis doesn't "grow" the game, more players are interested in playing as low as the can to go to Nationals. Less and less players are striving to get better and move up a 1/2 point or more. Sectional champions here in Florida have players right off a college tennis team playing 4.0! It's all about going to Nationals.

 Would love to see some of your ideas incorporated.

Scott Harrison, Owner

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter….at the risk of sounding showy, I'll quote Einstein about this situation, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  I think we need to rethink these issues about cheating, ranking, learning, at a deeper level. And have some faith that there is something besides the status quo--however deeply entrenched and unmovable it appears. I believe we've institutionalized some negative values (cheating) and some disincentives to learning. People wring their hands about pro athletes using performance enhancing drugs--and quite rightly, label it a form of cheating. But what about the sandbagging you allude to?  And the rest of the cheating going on in the amateur tennis ranks?  As a culture, isn't it clear that we worship results--and will do almost anything to produce them? Ironically, peak performance experts all say the same thing: focus too much on results, and your results will suffer.  The current results-only rating system encourages sandbagging, other forms of cheating, and non-learning. And followed too rigidly, it prevents players, both amateur and professional, from reaching their full potential (why Sampras' story is important).

Let me add one other idea for you and our viewers to ponder.If we look beyond the narrow confines of tennis to other areas of endeavor...let's take the military for example.  There every single person in the military is awarded a "rank" based upon multiple factors, but primarily upon skills and performance. Every service person wears--and with  great pride usually--a stripe or medal signifying their rank to everyone else. Most generally aspire to achieve the next rank. Could tennis use some of the psychology of this...provide insignias, buttons, stripes--that would (like brown and black belts), so that everyone at the club would recognize their achievement?  If it were subtle enough, I think it might be possible. I certainly believe it would be possible in development programs (see my response to Constantine's letter).

Pardon the cliche, but I think tennis needs to think outside the box, and introduce motivations (skills focus and enhancement) and de-motivations (for cheating) from other fields.

Thanks again for writing,
Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

To a certain extent I agree with measuring a player's rating using the combination of skills and results similar to martial arts.– However, to make this work, the sport may also have to change the way players are pitted against each other.– I have never participated in martial arts much less the competitive side of it so I may be totally off base.– I would have to imagine though that a martial arts competition is divided by the participants skill level (i.e. the color of their belt) and physical characteristic such as weight.– If weight is not taken into consideration, the competition will never be fair.– Just like in boxing, if you pit a light weight against a heavy weight, if both have equal skills, the heavy weight will almost always win.– In tennis, it may not be the weight (in fact that maybe a detriment if the player is too heavy).– It could simply be the height.– Two players of equal skill will not necessarily mean a fair match.– If the other player is taller, the taller player will have an advantage.– A 6'2 Roger Federer will almost always be beaten by a 6'10 Roger Federer.– As good as the argument to use the martial arts rating as the basis for tennis rating, I'm afraid until this flaw is overcome it cannot be used.

Robert Garrucho

Hi Robert,

I think weight is a major factor in boxing, as you describe. However, I don't think I can agree that size is of equal importance in tennis. I believe Rod Laver, whom some consider the best tennis player ever, was around 5 foot, 8 inches. And perhaps a 6'10" Roger Federer would be a 6'2" Roger Federer, but since never going to happen, I don't think we need to change the rating system according to the player's height. Height brings certain advantages for a tennis player (reach, angle into the court on the serve), but it also brings disadvantages (quickness, body/hand/feet coordination). The 6'2" Roger Federer regularly beats all players taller than he is, including a few 6'10" players (Ivo Karlovic for example).

Thanks for contributing,
Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Just wanted to say thanks for a thought-provoking article "Change the Way We Measure, Change the Game." It's a great proposal, and one that I think would resonate with the many players I know. It would be wonderful if this were proposed to the USTA in a more formal way, or perhaps implemented at the local or regional level to start. Please consider passing your suggestion on to your contacts at the USTA and/or USTA Norcal!

Many thanks for great articles and website,
Steve Turnbull

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your letter, and I will keep trying to explore a better approach with the powers that be.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

I have been playing for 40 years, love the game, and have felt that the existing NTRP rating system is far , far from perfect. I read your article and would agree that we need to implement some changes and I like everything you have suggested.

Now, the question is how do you get the USTA to make any change?

Thanks,
Georgia

Hi Georgia,

Thanks for your letter. The first thing to do is start a dialogue….let's see the ideas that flow from that and then how to consolidate them into real change.

Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

I was really intrigued to read Kim Shanley's article advocating changes to the NTRP system, but it came from an entirely different perspective than I expected. Allow me to share mine.

After muddling through an underwhelming JV college tennis experience at a Division III school, I have played on NTRP teams and in NTRP tournaments for the past 10+ years. I have gone to 4.5 Nationals three times with three different teams. I have finished the year ranked #1 in Men's 5.0 Singles for Northern California a handful of times, and won the 5.0 Grand Prix twice.

Not once during the past decade has it ever crossed my mind that the NTRP system suffers as a result of choking. Quite the contrary, in fact. The NTRP system suffers from a chronic case of egregious sandbagging. And it gets worse every year.

Notice how I played on 4.5 teams (when eligible -- my rating has fluctuated between 4.5 to 5.5 over the past several years, which is another problem altogether), while competing in 5.0 tournaments. Why the difference? Because I'm not good enough to do well on 5.0 teams. This, despite winning the 5.0 Grand Prix twice. I might win a 5.0 league match now and then, but I can't compete with the former Div. I college players that fill the rosters of teams at 5.0 Sectionals and Nationals, and now even 4.5s. My most recent visit to the 4.5 team Nationals in 2008 was a total waste: I got destroyed by a former college player with a 120 MPH serve, huge groundstrokes, and pinpoint precision volleys. No choking going on there.

As Shanley observes, cheating certainly is a problem, but the worst kind of cheating takes place off the court: when players under-rate themselves. The martial arts model is intriguing, but I just don't see the USTA having the resources to implement skills evaluations -- and I certainly can't see players embracing the idea. Talented but unscrupulous players will deliberately under perform for any such evaluation -- indeed, that is precisely what I saw happen when the USTA used to require "visual confirmation" of self-ratings.

And the USTA already computes ratings with numerical specificity: not just down to the tenth, but down to the hundredth decimal place. They just don't let you know what your exact number is -- ostensibly to prevent players from deliberately gaming match results to effectuate a desired rating. They do, however, allow ratings appeals -- for a non-refundable $25 fee. But they still don't tell you your "exact" rating; they just tell you whether it is within .05 of your desired rating, in which case you get moved down (no one wants to move up -- contrary to what Shanley seems to think). I've heard of numerous players appealing; never heard of a rating change. So that process has been a nice revenue-generator for the USTA, if totally useless from a player and fairness perspective.

Yes, Shanley is correct that the USTA's NTRP system is broken -- I would go so far as to say it is broken beyond repair. To be sure, it is a worthy goal to give players the opportunity to compete with comparable opponents, and thereby develop skills and build enthusiasm for our great game. But the principal result of the current system has been to encourage the vast majority of league players to cheat by under-rating themselves -- and even to throw games (if not matches) when it serves that end.

Sincerely,
John Dye

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter and analysis. I have also heard from many players that sand-bagging is a significant problem, one more dimension of the cheating issue. And the results of cheating you’re your letter is proof, is demoralization, anger and discouragement. If this happening to you, how many others are affected in the same manner? It's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. There are probably several measures that should be taken to minimize cheating, including more effective and objective ratings and greater sanctions for cheaters. However, beyond changes in administration, I think the fundamental issue has to be tackled: why are people cheating? This brings me back to the problem of a rating system that only focuses and rewards results. I believe a skills rating system would provide a counter-balance to this exaggerated emphasis on results. Not only would it lessen the incentive to cheat, it would lessen the tendency to choke. I think there is choking at all levels of tennis, including the very highest. If you listen to McEnroe announcing on TV, he was reiterated this point dozens of times. 

Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

You should know that the USTA (at least for Northern California) keeps rating to 2 decimal points (example; 4.05) but for some reason elects not to publish such results anymore. I recall that in +/-1995 that the years end rating book included either tenths and/or hundredths. Unfortunately, it is the rating system that also encourages players to “sand bag” so as to dominate at a lower level and a required skills evaluation would only be manipulated as are many matches (or set/games score) or visual rating in the past were. Some players would sacrifice their integrity to keep one’s rating within the players or captains goal category

Eventually the USTA does catch up to these players at regional and national championships. Bottom line is that the current system has enough checks and balances to correctly rate most of the players. And the universal truth is that 80% of the time the higher rated player (even by only 0.2 of a point) will beat a lower rated player – better skills, conditioning and/or completive drive win out. For most of the recreational players fun and enjoyment is paramount –why? Because, most of these players don’t have the innate athletic skills to compete at the higher levels. But that doesn’t stop them from playing against their own peer group and competing on a team, that may rarely win, and yet they still flock to the USTA leagues. Some with determination and drive will improve and strive for that next level, most will be content with just staying active, competent and hopefully “relish” in an occasional win over a better player.

Results matter but, only a player’s personal “self determination” for improvement will motivate him to do so. And, the “self confidence”, time and resources needed for that is unfortunately too difficult for most players to overcome. I don’t think a “black belt” rating system would alter that. Most players know their weaknesses and probably realize if they only practiced more they would improve however they rarely do and opt for a fun social game with friends.

Ken Neumeister (NTRP 4.5 probably 4.1)

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter and analysis. While the USTA may catch up with many cheating sandbaggers if they make it to sectionals or nationals, I'm not sure that's an adequate monitoring system. That stills leaves hundreds of teams and thousands of players affected negatively by sandbagging. The issue of cheating is broader, in my view. It also covers cheating on line calls, etc. As I wrote, I believe the sport needs to look at why players are cheating, and try to institute some changes that minimize the temptation and punish the attempt. In the long run, if the operating "ethic" of players is to ostracize and scorn cheating (rather than wink and laugh about it), I think the game will change for the better.

The books I cite in my article would refute your argument that "most players don't have the innate athletic skills to compete at the higher levels." While most people think that innate talent is a huge and determining factor in whether someone reaches a high performance level, scientific studies of this theory have disproven it. This is the major point in Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World Class Performance from Everybody Else. Scientists have measure the talent levels of beginners in all areas, piano playing, chess, and tennis. And they have found no almost no correlation between talent and high performance achievement. The only factor they've identified is how much "deliberative practice" time if put in by various achievers. 

Under the system of deliberative practice, nearly anyone can achieve world class performance if they put in 10,000 hours (but that is a huge number of hours and requires world class passion and commitment!). I realize that you--as well as most people--may greet these observations with skepticism. All I can say is read the books and then judge the validity of the conclusion. If Colvin and these other researchers are correct, nothing except the commitment to many hours of deliberative practice separates any tennis player from achieving higher levels of performance. Therefore, I think we could institute a system which encourages more deliberative practice--and provides pride and prestige in moving up the skills ladder. This would be good for them, their game, and the sport.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Tennis is a competetive sport with a winner and a loser every time. Why try to change that? The issues of ratings fixation and cheating are personal matters, not fixable by changing administrative processes. Further, trying to differentiate abilities by one tenth point, when we can't do it well at one half point would be sheer folly. Of course this is a good way to stir the pot and perhaps lobby for more income for tennis pros and the USTA.

Dick James

Hi Dick

Thanks for submitting your letter--even if to express your disagreement with my view. To explain those views further....the fact that tennis is a competitive sport, with a winner and loser each time, is something we obviously agree on. However, I think that's just the starting point about trying to improve the state of affairs, that has, in my view, several major problems that I outlined (cheating, non-learning, loss of participation). There are administrative processes and rules in place right now to address rating cheating. The USTA has spotters at year-end tournaments and will disqualify sand-baggers. Of course, there are also rules of conduct, and if a player breaks those rule, like Serena Williams did in the US Open Women's Semifinal, the player can be disqualified. So the current rules about double-checking spotters and making the applications and sanctions under the current Rules of Conduct could be improved (administrative processes) to accomplish some of the goals I outlined. My own feeling is that a results-only (only about winning or losing) increases the proclivity for cheating and inculcates a defensive mentality among players who become more focused on protecting their ratings than improving and truly enjoying the game (fear of losing). If it is the case, which I believe is true, that a 3.9 player (if such a rating existed) will always beat a 3.5 player, than we're really not fulfilling the goal of the system: to have players of similar capability compete. Throw sandbagging into the equation, and the system is really out of kilter from the level playing field that would generate the most fun and true competition (and sportsmanship).

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

We should remember that the NTRP Rating directly affects USTA League players who are only 300,000 of the millions who play tennis.

In the case of the Leagues, I believe the problem is administration. The major conflict seems to be that of differing perceptions.

In non-League play, Bob thinks he's a 4.0, and Phil thinks Bob is a 3.5. For League play, Bob claims to be a 3.5, Phil, from an opposing team, thinks Bob should be a 4.0.

Bob's USTA League record places him at 4.0. Phil, using the USTA NTRP criteria says Bob should be a 3.5. This goes round and round.

To resolve this, I recommend driving the decision making down to the Captain's level. Captains for each flight should sit down before each season to review the USTA Rating for each player. A challenge procedure should be develped at this level. This is different from going to the Section League Director as is currently done in the Middle States Section. The general idea is to drive the decision-making down to the lowest levels. Empowerment is the business management term.

This is not to say that the NTRP ratings only use is for the Leagues. It does give a common language, nationally, for tennis players to speak, and to find a proper niche. Finding the niche, of course, is the challenge of tennis players whenever they find a new location to play. For this, I believe the NTRP ratings is a good, but rough, guide.

Hi Stu,

Thanks for submitting your analysis and ideas. I think your idea of moving down the evaluation of players to the captain's level--and making it more something the players/teams manage themselves--is an excellent idea. I think it would be very healthy for the sport for the players/captains to police themselves, and to drive down decision-making to the lowest level. Excellent. To the area where we disagree....while the NTRP system has a strong impact of league players, I think there is a broader issue involved here. The broader issue includes development of all players, including advanced junior play. That's why I said we have to look at this "results-only" focus, mentality and ethic.

I think most parents would be appalled and take instant action if they found out their kids were cheating in school to achieve a higher grade (results). How is it, then, that there is such a wide-spread laissez-faire about the parents sandbagging and cheating on line calls? Moreover, forgetting about ethics and morality for the moment, and what message we're really sending to our kids, I think it's clear that this results-only, keep-my-rating-all-costs mentality is inhibiting the development of players--as well as their enjoyment of the game. A whole host of performance experts think so; so does Pete Sampras, and I think he knows more than a little about this. So there are some significant issues here beyond the NTRP rating system for the 300,000 USTA players. In regards, to the rough guide that the NTRP system provides....the goal of the system is allow players of equal ability to compete on a level playing field. A player who is truly a 3.9 is not competing on a level playing field with a player that is truly a 3.5 (if you add sand-bagging players into this mix, the uneven playing field gets more uneven). We could have a system where players are rated in increments of .1 ....from there, a system could be developed that put players more on this equal playing field. It would just take some creative thinking. The result, however, should be a level playing field, no cheating, an incentive to improve your game, and a greater enjoyment of the game.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Thanks Kim for the great article. I love the way you use Biblical truth to pinpoint the all too often wrong focus of the golden calf. I have Juniors and Adults under my tutelage and I have attempted to inspire them, especially my own biological children to learn to win well and to lose well… You also nailed it with the attention to our human nature and our predisposition to cheating. So much for the idea of a gentlemen’s game. I guess there is such a thing as a “gentlemen’s club”, even though I have never visited one, cheating is cheating, and we see it all the time!!!

We need a new system and I thank you for getting the ball rolling…wait a minute, didn’t the ball bounce twice?

Shawn

Hi Shawn,

Thanks for your letter and encouraging comments. I do think we should rethink what's going on at a deeper level. We should take the knowledge and conclusions of performance experts who all conclude that a results-only focus detrimental to achieving the best athletic performance, creating undue pressure (and hence choking). And of course a results-only focus will lead to cheating, and other forms of unsportsmanlike behavior. No rule change, as I said, will completely eliminate these negative behaviors, but rule changes and a different development system (and ethic) can greatly reduce them. We just need to, to use another tennis pun, think outside the box.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Fantastic article....

Excellent suggestions. I recently got bumped up from 4.0 (record, 17-4) to 4.5 (record, 1-8)... Perhaps I'm not 4.0, but not sure I'm 4.5... Maybe 4.2, 4.3???

Excellent referencing the cheating in usta matches... My experience is that it is more rampant than anyone realizes. In my job, I study human behavior closely, and my sense oftentimes is, the opponent (sometimes my own doubles partner!) will cheat to 'get revenge' for a bad call, or for their single minded goal of "just winning at all costs."

Honestly, I miss the days of a friendly, EQUAL match where I'm enjoying hitting with a friend, and although it 'was' competitive, it was also about learning and growing as a player, even a person....

Thanks for the great article.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your letter and encouraging comments. Your experience of being bumped too far up the rating system, and then being forced to play players that are clearly a level above you, is one of the reasons I believe a new system should rate players in .1 increments. The goal is to create a level playing field....and as your experience clearly demonstrates....a level playing field is NOT what we have. I don't know exactly how much cheating is going on between sandbagging and bad line calls, but I'm certain that it's too much, way too much.

Some people are saying that tennis is just about winning and losing, and why try to change the game? But the current rules of tennis and the tennis code show, that even now, we say there are more important things (sportsmanship for one) than winning. Hence, Serena Williams being defaulted from here US Open Semifinals match. So the game is more, much more, than about winning and losing, and about holding a certain rating. I believe that that mentality is responsible for several negative factors, as I outlined. Changes in the way we measure, the way we organize the sport, can make a difference, both in terms of player development (across the board) and in terms of enjoyment of the game--which is what you described at the end of your letter. Results count. Competition counts. Ratings count. All I'm saying is that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of making those values and those measures, supreme.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Thank you for recognizing what I believe is obvious to most everyone who enjoys playing tennis. The current USTA rating system even though ostensibly based on results, is often inaccurate, often subjective, often lacking in objective measurement criteria, and discouraging to talented players who are developing their skills. The system creates a rigid and often superficial hierarchy that discourages the ‘better” players from playing those with lower ratings. It has created a rigid caste system, in my view. I hope you will continue to express your views on this issue and I hope other will listen. Conrad Varner, Wilmington, NC.

Conrad

Hi Conrad,

Thanks for sending in your letter and your encouraging comments. Your comment about the "caste" system is, I'm afraid, too often accurate. I know that in the clubs I've played out, players with a much higher rating often did not even to socialize, much less play tennis, with players who were ranked much lower. So you can add "caste system" to my list of things I think could be changed or improved upon.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

I'm a part-time USPTA, and I've been working for two years now with a 14-year-old boy who wants to become a great player. There is a certain amount of practice and a certain number of matches that are required -- just experience really -- before a kid can relax on the court and play his best. I think it's a combination of having the skills ingrained so thoroughly that you don't have to think about them, together with focusing on process rather than results, as you pointed out.

You are also right on when you say the attempt to make tennis always "fun" and "easy" is misguided. Learning skills, whether they be music or video games or martial arts, takes concentration and hard work. The fun starts after you've mastered the skill.

Thanks for these extremely insightful pieces.

Breck

Hi Breck,

Thanks for your letter and comments. Read Pete Sampras' book "Mind of a Champion," and you'll see Pete completely endorses your approach. Arguing against fun in this country is tantamount to treason. Again, I think we need to rethink things, as Einstein said, at a deeper level than the one that got us here. "Fun" is definitely one of those. Our Senior Editor Dave Smith deserves the most credit for exposing the hollow nature of our obsession with fun in tennis. It's no fun to play defensively, crippled with anxiety about losing and a drop in your ratings. It's no fun to play for years and know that you not only haven't been improving, but are probably playing at a lower level (beyond age-related reasons). On the other hand, there's great satisfaction, even joy, when you feel you're mastering a difficult skill. And great joy in beating someone in a fair athletic contest where sportsmanship is displayed by everyone. Can we start to think and discuss these things at a deeper level, taking advantage of the body of knowledge delivered on our doorstep by dozens of performance experts and our best athletes? I think we can--we just need to get off our self-satisfied .....(whatever you want here).

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

Doug King commenting on Nadal-Federer Wimbledon Match

From the very first point it was clear that this Wimbledon final was going to be no repeat of the French massacre. Both players came with their games, their bodies, and their spirits intact. Federer seemed himself again back on the grass. He was at home and back on track, with only his own compass to guide him. Nadal was fit and brimming with confidence from his heroic string of victories, like an unstoppable tsunami force. Federer's game is based upon tranquility, emptiness, and a letting go of anything mortal. He goes into a space channeling the spirits of the greats; Laver, Borg, and Sampras - even donning the threads of a bygone era. He removes himself from his play to let an inner rhythm and energy flow like a dance. His strength is his elusiveness, his rejection of anything mortal. Nadal's game is built on his unwavering faith in himself. He wears this belief for all to see by revealing not only his inner strength but making a clear statement to all that he is his own man, beholden to no one and cut from his own cloth. From his iconoclastic attire to his imposing physique Nadal makes this statement with truly convincing confidence, quietly, humbly and without boastfulness, and this makes his statement only more resounding. "I am a warrior to be taken seriously." Federer's reply, like an Aikido master, is neither to fear him nor fight him but to dance with him. Both players are bound together with a common love and dedication for what they do and a mutual respect for how they do it.

The match was umpired more by nature than by a chair. The players played the game as it was meant to be played and the appointed judges seemed to get in the way more than they assisted in the rhythm of the match. Mother nature intervened on behalf of the spectators to occasionally give them time to catch a much needed breath and finally in the fifth set it stopped the play as if to decree that the match would be halted at that point because everything had been said. But begrudgingly yet determinedly things marched on. After a nearly five hour battle of chasing Borg's ghost, Federer finally had run out of lives. His rhythm wavered and he slipped. Nadal somehow hung on and in the end was left clutching the victory.

Afterwards there was a sense not of a win or a loss but of a passage - a passage of a mantle from one great champion to another. It was not handed over without struggle and not without pathos, but through the ferocious battle Nadal proved that he was a deserving champion, ready and worthy of the crown and all that it stands for.

Doug King, Senior Writer, TennisOne

Jim McLennan commenting on Nadal-Federer Wimbledon Match

Over the years I have been riveted by the final matches between McEnroe-Borg, McEnroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, and more. In each case as the matches drew longer, and closer, the outcome would rest on just the slightest shot barely in or barely out. But the investment on my part, when pulling for one or the other player often left me drained. There is nothing else that compares to the engagement that a thrilling tennis match creates in me, and hopefully in you. To that end, this match achieved yet a higher level of brilliance, from the two closely fought opening sets where Federer was unable to convert on nearly one dozen break point opportunities, to the two electric tiebreakers where Federer pulled even, setting the stage for a glorious fifth set. Nadal, threading the needle with unbelievable passing shots was countered by Federer's pinpoint inside out forehand winners.

Both men served well, but Roger's nine aces in the fifth set helped him to cruise through some service games, and escape some tricky situations late in the set. At the end of the day, Nadal's consistent play overcame Roger's brilliance. Roger misfired on a forehand approach to drop serve at 7all, and lost the match and the championship on yet another forehand error.

As always, the match statistics tell the story. In the fifth and final set Roger had 23 winners and 16 unforced errors, a swing of 7 to the good, while Rafa stroked 19 winners compared with 7 unforced errors, a swing of 12 to the good. Federer simply had to beat Nadal, and his bold serving and aggressive forehands attempted to do just that. But in the end the amazing defensive foundation of the Nadal game, error free, breathtaking court coverage, and fierce concentration ruled the day. Nadal, ever modest and self effacing, was not willing to accept the mantle in the post match interview, but he is truly the new Number One.
Jim McLennan, TennisOne Editor

TennisOne,

Has anyone considered the physicality of Nadal’s game and how much of a toll it takes on his body?  To play every match in predominately one corner of the court and almost running around his backhand for every point, I believe, will make his dominance of the game short lived.  He is already suffering from some physical problems and even if he takes over the #1 spot, I don’t believe that it will be a long-lasting dynasty.  That is why I am so impressed with Federer, even though he may not win another major.  His accomplishments over the number of years he has been #1 will be hard to overcome.  I truly do not think Nadal will be the one to do it.  Let me know what you think

Brenda H. Neurell

Brenda,
 
Your comments and thoughts resonate with me and many others. One of the keys to Fed's success is his longevity, a result of balance, rhythm, and relatively relaxed swing mechanics...all contributing to few injuries as well as high percentage of wins.
 
I believe that today's power game, the sheer exertion of strength, and the repetition of such movements over time is the main contributor to current injuries incurred by both ATP and WTA players. Obviously, when a player overplays one shot, as in your correct observation of Nadal's use of his forehand, they increase the prospect of hurting a particular body part. Hips are the new injury in today's game, but, I suspect knees, ankles, and other joints are going to pay the price for the style of today's game too. 
 
Whether or not Nadal succumbs to such injuries, or if he will have a lasting presence in the top of today's game, only time will tell. But, chances are your comments and subsequent assertion, may prove to be correct.
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

Doug King, in his article entitled The Secret To Controlled Power, suggests the whip concept is not a good concept in describing an action in tennis. He says "the energy never leaves the big parts" while demonstrating a shadow serve. I would like to comment.

1. Roger Federer Slow Motion entitled video available on Youtube clearly shows the current top player executing forehands with an entirely motionless upper body from impact to almost full follow through on forehands 1, 4, 5, and 6. Other shots show a rotation of the upper body during and after the impact.

2. As a player myself I experienced an explosive forehand on two occasions that deserve being written about because, if anything, they occurred under quite unusual circumstances. A. Perhaps the best match I ever played was when I almost defaulted due to severe stomach pain shortly before the match. I ended up playing and, having to isolate my abdominals form heavy usage, I stroked the ball cleanly, powerfully and precisely. B. After a hernia operation I was in no condition to exert abdominal strength so again, isolating this muscle group from heavy exertion I enjoyed nearly unparalleled success in ball control on the forehand side.

Furthermore, on no occasion when I flex my abdominals do I achieve a productive forehand. Any intense, sustained muscular tension in the trunk (Upper, lower, oblique abs, back, pectorals, shoulder,...) during the execution of 'my' forehand hinders the acceleration and path of the racket. Indeed, once after experiencing yet another frustrating forehand I thought to myself: 'It feels like I just shoved a fridge.' Finally, I like the word 'quiet' in describing my trunk muscles during a well executed shot in tennis including my serve.

Thanks for the energy given in providing this provocative site for tennis people,

Bill Jenkins

Hi Bill;

I think your reply is quite interesting from a couple of fronts. First of all, I don’t think that what you have described in your experience is necessarily in conflict with what I am trying to state. You say two very revealing comments about your play, in my opinion; one is that you avoided “muscular exertion” and two you said you like the word “quiet” in describing the feeling in the body. When we get the body into the shot properly it is done in a very “fluid” way, without obvious exertion. It is done through proper shape, timing, and rhythm and it is controlled more out of the feet and it should not be a “muscular exertion” as you describe it. This is one reason I prefer the Wave Model because of the direct association of the fluid nature of the movement – nothing stiff or “solid”.

Secondly, you say that the slo-motion video of Federer shows no upper body motion from impact to total follow through. I do not have the specific video to refer to but my guess is that you would see Federer’s shoulder making a definite rotation through the hit and the follow through. This is part of the “big muscle” group. A true whip would send the energy into the final segment of the chain – which would be the wrist and this is also not happening in the video that you are citing (I have never seen anything close to that with Federer – unless it is a total off center hit that causes the wrist to break).

Another thing to look at on the videos is the way that the shirt flies around the body. This is a very good indicator of how the body is shifting to create movement of the attachments (see below where I talk about the hula hoop).

I think that we are always stumbling over “words” and our definitions of terms and this is no exception. These terms become familiar in a general sense and sometimes they lose more literal translation - and other times we develop our own personal interpretations and angles on them. I don’t object to the Kinetic Chain model depending upon one’s interpretation of the model but more because I feel it too often conjures up a “whip” image, and the whip is not a good reference. I prefer the Kinetic Wave idea because I feel it more closely represents the way that the body and the arms and hands work together – in a very fluid, dynamic, and integrated way. I don’t think that either of these models is perfect but I have rather strongly stated my preference because I feel we are so “firmly entrenched” in the Kinetic Chain ideology.

I hope that you will read my upcoming pieces that breakdown the Wave Model in more specifics. I think you will find that there is quite a bit of commonality with what you describe – especially my description of how the body and arms work like a “hula hoop”. (The arms form the hoop and the body rotates to move the arms). This body rotation is very fluid and rhythmic and is not “continuous” in the sense that it is constantly the “dominant” movement - the body shifts and then stops and then shifts again in a rhythmic progression with a hula hoop.)

Thanks for taking the time to write. I think that as we share our experiences and feedback we arrive at much better understanding of what we are experiencing and of what we have in common.

Regards,
Doug

TennisOne,

My son just turned 8 and has had a strong one-hand backhand (top and underspin), big forehand, good footwork, good form on serve for a year or so. Loves to approach and volley. He just seems to mimic Federer's form.
Despite this he still loses to some grinders and chippers and obviously older kids who are just really good. He'd obviously do better in 10's tournaments if he'd been working on a two-hand backhand (high balls are hard for 8 year old one-handers) and staying back for the last two years, but that's maybe not best for the long term.

What would you recommend for tournament play for the next few years in an attempt to balance learning competitive skills with not getting discouraged or abandoning the more "mature" game. I think that he could have a pretty good ranking in his age group, for what it's worth, with the game he has, but I don't want him to feel tempted to do the things that might make him only one of the best 10's/12's players. His coach is totally committed to developing a top teen/adult player, but it's not clear what to do now with competitive play.

As much as we can rationalize a loss to a grinder because we know that guy probably won't be around in five years, it's hard for an 8-10 year old to understand that.

By the way, we are starting a Progressive Tennis program in our town. I think that is a partial solution to the competition problem, if the USTA embraces it, because an 8 or 9 year old with better fundamentals might have the advantage on a 3/4 court--like the 13 year old with good fundamentals on a full court. Then it would be more like youth baseball where the kids with the best fundamentals always rise to the top.

Gerry Gollin
Redlands, CA

Gerry,
 
I can understand you and your son's frustration in his loses to those grinders who simply stay in the point. It is only normal. However, he is only going to get better in both his only effectiveness as well as becoming more consistent in his more prolific play. This is the hardest part for any youngster--and their parents--to not succumb to the short-term success of playing a more simplistic baseline game or more conservative and generally passive game, one lacking in the dynamics your son is just beginning to explore, employ and master.
 
My only advice is to tell your son that he will have the "last laugh" and ultimately dominate players...provided he continues to work hard, study, practice and pursue tennis in the right objective and mind set!
 
Of course, focusing some of his practice in learning to be patient, setting up points with the right sequence of shots, learning to combine prolific shots with shots that are indeed more defensive to stay in a point until he can create an offensive sequence is also part of the "big picture" too!
 
One area to focus on is outright hustle and movement drills...training him to fight for the ball in every rally, get the ball back one more time, and then always try to finish a hard fought rally with him closing in or finishing with a strong put-away... creating the mind set that such put-aways are oftentimes the result of a patient, difficult or challenging responses.
 
There are no promises for any of us. But, there is a logical and sequential formula that produces high level players. Such a pattern (which you seem to be following well!), gives every student the opportunity to reach their potential...and discover just what that potential is. Playing defensive, rudimentary tennis just to win matches at 8 or 9 years of age is sort of like keeping the training wheels on a bike even as you know how to ride without them!
 
Tell your son for me that I believe in him and what he is doing. And I look forward to hearing about his future and his ultimate satisfaction of knowing he is on the right track!
 
Best of luck!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

I thought that your article regarding the Australian Open was great. One thing I think (and perhaps you'll agree) is that the Williams' don't really have the heart anymore because perhaps they think that they've done all that they wanted to do. They've broken records, won all slam, won the olympics. won playing doubles and mixed doubles, represented the US in Fed cup. Maybe they feel that they don't have anything else to prove. they are already in the record books.

I was very disappointed at their performance and the "assumption" that they can just kick it in gear at the drop of a dime and win. Serena's match with Jankovic was horrid. she looked like she just wanted to get off the court and be some place else. Maybe, we've taken for granted that the put it together at the last minute works. i don't know. it was such a disappointing tournament for US players in general..but definitely with the Williams sisters. I was really looking forward to a rematch with serena and sharapova.

Side note: why was everyone so surprised that Sharapova beat the pants off of Davenport. Davenport had no winning record against sharapova, she hasn't been playing that much especially in a tournament of this grand stage. i knew she wasn't going to beat Sharapova. Way too much hype over that match. Hats off to sharapova, she really set out to prove herself this year.

interested in knowing your thoughts.
Cheers,
Valerie

Valerie,

Your comments are great. It's always funny to me about this notion of a player proving him or herself. What exactly does that mean? Some might think that one proves oneself effectively merely by walking the earth. I think, though, that Serena and Venus rode the wave of desire very strong through '03 -- and then saw that, invariably, there's a lot of competition out there, that they themselves had raised the bar. But I also think that neither likes tennis too much, that at heart they were forced to play by their father. So be it. They're superb champions, and maybe, for all the talk about what they could have been, they are who they are.

Thanks again for your wise thoughts.

Joel Drucker

TennisOne,

Great article by Joel regarding the lack of interest in Davis Cup! We recently have had our best Americans playing (Roddick, Blake, Ginepri, Fish, the Bryans), an issue we complained about several years ago. I don't think it is star power necessarily but at the heart of the issue is an overall lack of coverage of all Davis Cup activity that exist.

For instance, if you are in the USA, you do not see the spectacle that is Davis Cup unless the U.S. is playing. There is so much wonderful tennis with incredible drama being played but we only are interested in our country's efforts. Even tape-delayed, showing some of these other matches would help create excitement and show others in the U.S. how big a deal Davis Cup is around the world.

We are also limited in the tennis that we see during that weekend. You may only see televised, if you get to see it at all, selectively picked matches with the more popular Andy Roddick and not the entire first or third day matches. That makes the Davis Cup appear to have the same one-on-one nature of normal matches and does not create the proper perspective for the team competition. Although you hear U.S.A, you only SEE Roddick win, Roddick lose.

I understand that there have been a lot of big deals with the Tennis Channel to cover Davis Cup and the ladies' Fed Cup. What people need to understand is that the Tennis Channel is not offered in all areas and many avid tennis fans do not and can not get it in their homes. The more universal ESPN that is received by many more people no longer offers Davis Cup coverage. The more we have attempted to make tennis more mainstream, the more these efforts have pushed it away from viewers. There is a better chance I could watch on the Golf Channel a live golf tournament in Indonesia than I can turn on the television and watch Davis Cup. That is pretty sad. We ask why we are losing our best athletes to other sports - a lack of seeing tennis consistently is part and parcel to the problem. People just don't see enough of high quality tennis and until the Tennis Channel is carried on television much like the Golf Channel, improvement in this area will be very slow.

The solution - keep tennis in front of the public before, during and after Davis Cup and make it easy for the everyday person to find. Don't make our sport only about the majors and some selective Masters events. Design Davis Cup weekend television "events" where U.S. matches are broadcast more globally on normal cable channels and matches for other countries can be viewed on more limited stations such as the Tennis Channel.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment!
Joseph Allen
Athens, GA

Joseph,

Great comments. Very thoughtful and much-appreciated.

Best,
Joel Drucker

Joel,

The reason is simple; tennis is not a team sport! You either get it done on your own or you don't. Davis Cup Tennis is Team Rambo.

There is no Davis Cup "team", there is an assembly of individual willing? stars who participate when their schedules permit. Tennis is about the capital i. This is the same reason why doubles is dying.

I write this from the perspective of a professional conditioning coach with clients that compete is several team sports and individual sports including tennis. I have one tennis athlete that historically was extremely successful with doubles and the minute the athlete's singles got strong, doubles became a rare chore.

This has been the attitude of every tennis player I have worked with for the past 18 years. I have never read a young tennis player's written goals and found Davis Cup or the Olympics mentioned. It is always the Singles Grand Slams and personal singles rankings. If they are a hot junior they don't even fantasize wanting to play for a top "college team". A college team is their fall back if they are not good enough.

Davis cup competition is a moderately entertaining sideshow.

G

G,

Those are all great points. From knowing Australians, I've seen others who value tennis as a team sport, but you're so right in seeing how much of a disconnect the team process is with tennis in our individual-based nation. I wish it were different, but that would take a lot of work and collaboration.

Thanks for your keen thoughts.

Joel Drucker

TennisOne,

I enjoyed the Roddick/Santoro article.

As a Teaching Pro for the past 30 years and Director of Tennis at St Ives CC in Duluth Ga. I was referring to many American Players both Pro's and Juniors as what makes a complete player.

It's amazing to me how many Junior's/Pro's change coaches and academies with a drop of a hat.

What I see is wrong with the maturity level of American players is that most can not think for themselves.

I admire Federer as he is one example that he can change his game based on the player he is playing against.

Example: Andy Roddick can hire the greatest Coaches in the world, but if he can not think for himself on the Court he will never rise to the number 1 position. His coach can offer suggestions on what happened in the a particular match, the problem arises as he will have a different opponent in his next match. Players that consistently win have solid fundamentals and can think for themselves.

I find that most Americans that are affluent want instant gratification and expect instant results. Every tennis match that is played both singles and doubles require a problem solving mind as an opponent is trying to keep you from succeeding. Those that can think for themselves will succeed in every aspect of life.

Thanks and I have enjoyed your articles.
Creig Matthieson/USPTA

Creig,

Many thanks for your note and comments regarding American tennis and my article on Santoro/Roddick.

I agree wholeheartedly with your ascertains about many players going out and not learning how to think for themselves on a tennis court (and, as you mentioned, in life situations!). So often, we as teaching professionals must remember that if we spoon feed our students, they will seldom learn to 'spoon feed' themselves. I see this often.
 
As teaching professionals, we must remember to ask our students many questions and ask them to respond to many situations instead of "telling" them what to know or do. Experience certainly plays into this picture. Yet, as you also mentioned, affluent people are very used to having things 'given' to them to the point that if they don't get what they want immediately, they will often go on to someone else or something else when the challenging aspects of anything get too challenging.
 
I appreciate your insights and sharing them with us here at TennisOne.

Best wishes to you and your students!
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

Dave Smith's feature for the newsletter was spot on! Too bad I read it after I missed that easy sitter this Sunday.

I was bumped up to 3.5 in December. I almost never know what to do with an easy ball. As you know, it’s either underhit or overhit it. I couldn’t decide what to do. I never expect the easy ball, so when I get one, I have nothing in mind. It takes a second to get your bearings. I got a ball right to my backhand volley on the doubles court; my opponent was deep in the center of the court. So I tried to figure if I should drop the ball close to the net or short somehow or hit it deep. I didn’t trust myself to keep it short enough, so I opted for the deep corner of the alley. Needless to say, it was about 2 feet deep of my target!

I almost always miff up an easy ball. I think most people just aren’t expecting one, and they get caught while they’re in the midst of some other scheme!

I read your book, Tennis Mastery, and I’ve worked on my technique. Stroke production is part of the game, and the “thinking” part seems to come a little more slowly. Are you working on another book for us club/park players? I’m going to try hit a “normal” speed stroke the next time I get a sitter. But I’m already anxious that it won’t be good enough and I’ll have missed an opportunity to put the ball away. (My partner will think the same….there’s that anxiety you talked about.) Oh, and how about taking one’s eyes off the ball to look at the target, as if that ever helped anyone!

(Down at the park, I’ve played with 14-year-olds, 86 year-olds, and everyone in between. Tennis really is the sport of a lifetime (good thing—‘cause it looks like I’ll need every last minute!) ; )

Thanks Dave!
Maria

Maria,

Thanks for a great note! Let me assure you that if you work on placing the "put away" yet approach the shot with a calm mindset, you will end up with a more relaxed stroke, one that is not full of as much trepidation as trying to kill the ball...or, the other extreme, dinking it out of fear of missing it. Remember that even if your opponent gets this ball that the odds are they will either make an error, hit another easy ball for you to put away, or simply hit another ball to sustain the rally. Either way, your are way ahead than if you overhit the easy ball and missed, or dinked the ball over for them to attack you on.
 
Yes, the "thinking" part of the game...or the mental part, which includes both strategic smarts as well as maintaining composure, takes a lot longer and usually requires experience which, of course, takes time too!
 
My new book, COACHING MASTERY, (a book focused more on the coaching and teaching aspect of developing successful tennis teams and programs...as well as a blueprint for tennis parents!), is due out in late November. While it does not specifically address all the needs of a club or recreational player, it will provide drills and ideas on how to take players from a beginner level to them reaching their most potential.
 
You are so right about tennis being a "Lifetime" sport...and one that certainly can see a broad range of ages competing together. My goal is to help players enjoy that 'lifetime' of tennis to the fullest as well as giving them the opportunity to play at the highest level their potential will allow them!
 
Good luck on that next "sitter"!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

The last time the masters tournament was held in Houston, I was fortunate enough to attend. The final was Lleyton Hewitt vs Roger Federer on a rainy day. The match was held up for hours as the sky opened up and the players agreed to a best of 3 set format. Since the match had been delayed by the rain all afternoon the match began under the lights.The rain held off for most of the first set but a light drizzle began and play was halted to wait it out.

I am a photographer so of course I brought my camera. While I waited for play to begin again I took the time to review some of the pictures I had taken. (digital Nikons and long lenses) While Lleyton's hands and racquet were sharp at 1/350 th of a second, Roger's were not. It took a higher shutter speed to stop the motion of his hands and racquet. Had it not been a night match I would have been at a higher shutter speed from the beginning and probably not noticed the difference. For photo quality reasons I was attempting to use the lowest possible ISO (400), but when I saw that it was not possible to stop all the motion at these settings I had to make adjustments.

So the point of all this is that I agree with the statement that Roger Federer's normal shot has enough weight that he doesn't need to over hit to draw an error. That puts quite a burden on the rest of the ATP players, since many of them only come up with that pace on a put away shot.

Nice article, Thanks,

Brian

Brian,
 
You lend some empirical evidence in the discussion of Federer's superior stroke production. I'm sure there are several pros who can generate similar racquet head speeds, yet, Roger's consistency in this aspect is one of the elements that truly makes him the front runner in any given match or tournament.
 
Thanks for sharing your findings!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

Mr. King’s article titled “Relax the Arm and Use the Wrist for Proper Acceleration” is yet another excellent article in a long line of such articles he has written. He really has a gift for describing the processes of stroke production in a manner that can be taken to the court and applied. His articles have led to a tangible improvement in my game in a very short timeframe. I have played tennis for forty years and had about given up on the idea I could improve my game. I have a renewed vigor for the game directly as a result of Mr. King’s excellent articles.   

Sincerely,
Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the nice comments. I am glad you are finding the articles helpful to your game. After forty year of playing we are probably not going to get quicker or more agile but it is fun to find new ways that may help us still improve.

Thanks again for writing and reading,
Doug