To lob or not to lob? That is the question.
Many players, including myself, utilize the lob more frequently than other players do in their doubles matches. Some frequent commentary regarding our kind are thoughts like "this isn't real tennis," or "this is too slow a pace of match." Usually, comments like this are made when someone is losing to us. To be sure, the lob is a very effective weapon in doubles for many reasons.
Gets you out of trouble
A great defensive lob, with generous height, allows both you and your partner to recover to good defensive positions to cover the court and perhaps play the next ball. Any time you are out of position, strongly consider throwing up a lob so you can get into a more beneficial position. If nothing else you force the other team to have to play one more ball. At the recreational level, that will result in an overhead error frequently.
Allows you to attack the net
A good lob on the return of serve over the server's partner, or a lob over either net player during the course of a point, allows the team that lobbed to attack the net and take away that prime court position from their opponents. It forces your opponents to switch, perhaps positioning them on an uncomfortable side, and out of position. Usually you will see a lob come back - however, if your opponents try to hit a groundstroke, they likely will make an error. Most players switch improperly by simply shifting sides without getting in to a two back defensive position. So when the lob or groundstroke comes back, attack the player in the short court - they're out of position and have less time to react.
Most recreational players can't put an overhead away
People play shots in part because their opponents are not successful in countering those same shots. If your opponents cannot routinely put overheads away, or better yet, make a lot of errors, by all means please keep throwing up the lobs. You have found a weakness in your opponents. The second most important tactic in tennis after reducing your own errors is to make your opponent beat you with their weaknesses. It isn't your fault that your opponents can't hit an overhead. Make them beat you with it. Likely, they cannot.
You cannot compete toe-to-toe with your opponent's groundstrokes
If you are like me, you can't overpower a blanket, much less an opponent with solid groundstrokes. If you are a capable lobber, chuck up lobs rather than trying to compete with what is obviously your weakness. This allows you to hide your weaknesses (your groundstrokes) and accentuates your strengths (lobs), both of which are essential to winning. You will make fewer errors, and likely limit your opponent's ability to utilize their strength.
Your opponents can't run the lobs down due to poor mobility
Yes, mobility is either a strength or a weakness. It is perfectly fine to force the two snails on the other side of the net to beat you with their inability to run fast. Again, this forces your opponents to beat you with a weakness. If only one of your opponents is immobile, be sure to lob their PARTNER, forcing the slow afoot player to run down the lobs. Remember playing matches is not a cooperative effort between you and your opponents, so don't feel bad you're making them play bad.
Keeps good net players honest
If your opponents are strong volleyers and effective at crossing and picking off balls, successful lobs on the return or during the point should help to limit their aggressiveness crossing to pick off your groundstrokes. This will take pressure off your groundstrokes, as a less effective shot will not be picked off, because your opponent is worried about the possibility of a lob. This may also force them to adjust their position a few steps back from the net, allowing you and your partner more space to get balls at their feet, which is a significantly more difficult volley
So throw up more lobs and see your overall game results improve. And if someone complains about your effective style of "slow play" that isn't "real tennis?" Simply reply, in honor of William Shakespeare - "Methinks the lady (gentleman) doth protest too much."
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Reader Suggested Topic - Directional Control on Volleys
Volleying is a skill that has it's foundation in the general sports skill of catching. The volley, more than any other stroke in tennis, requires the player to manipulate their hand in different ways to place the ball despite limited reaction time, and varying heights. Hand dexterity and feel is essential to being a good volleyer.
Before we get into teaching you how to place a forehand and backhand volley, let me emphasize that the correct grip for a volley is a continental grip. This is because with a continental grip, your racquet will precisely mimic your hand. If you use another grip, the racquet face will not mimic your hand, and placing the ball becomes VERY difficult.
Placement of a volley is about making the palm of your hand (and therefore your racquet face) face the target area you wish to target prior to hitting the ball. In order to work on your hand dexterity, eliminate the noise caused with movement of your feet. In the videos below, note that the players are sitting in a chair, which isolates their hands. The players move their hands to catch the ball in front of them, setting their hands where they want the ball to go, then strike the ball. This is critical, as you must decide where to hit the ball prior to moving to and striking the ball.
Forehand Volley (Left-Handed, Right-Handed)
Before we get into teaching you how to place a forehand and backhand volley, let me emphasize that the correct grip for a volley is a continental grip. This is because with a continental grip, your racquet will precisely mimic your hand. If you use another grip, the racquet face will not mimic your hand, and placing the ball becomes VERY difficult.
Placement of a volley is about making the palm of your hand (and therefore your racquet face) face the target area you wish to target prior to hitting the ball. In order to work on your hand dexterity, eliminate the noise caused with movement of your feet. In the videos below, note that the players are sitting in a chair, which isolates their hands. The players move their hands to catch the ball in front of them, setting their hands where they want the ball to go, then strike the ball. This is critical, as you must decide where to hit the ball prior to moving to and striking the ball.
Forehand Volley (Left-handed, Right-handed)
Backhand Volley (Left-handed, Right-handed)
Please note how little each player's hands moved during the "stroke," both before the strike, as well as after the strike. For low volleys, sit Indian-style on the ground. Once you are able to hit 10 in a row to each side of the court, then grab your racquet and use your trusty continental grip for the next progression.
Forehand Volley (Left-Handed, Right-Handed)
Backhand Volley (Left-Handed, Right-Handed)
Please note how little each player's racquet moved during the stroke. If working on low or high volleys, simply adjust the height of the feed. Once you have successfully done this alternating volley drill in the chair 10 times in a row, it is time to see if you can do this standing up, without the use of your feet.
Forehand Volley (Left-Handed, Right Handed)
Backhand Volley (Left-Handed, Right-Handed)
Again, please note how little each player's racquet moves during the stroke. For low and high volleys, simply adjust the height of the feeds. Once you can do this drill for ten balls in a row, you can say have pretty good command of the ball's direction. The next progression would be to repeat the last drill from the service line. If you are primarily a doubles player, you can repeat the same progression from each service box.
Once you master what to do with your hands on the volley, then start adding in the movement element. If anyone would like a future blog on the movement element of volleying, please comment below.
Special thanks to Lenin Mongerie for being the left-handed guest demonstrator, and for feeding me balls for my portion of the demonstration. Thanks to James Perrigan for being the videographer.
Special thanks to Lenin Mongerie for being the left-handed guest demonstrator, and for feeding me balls for my portion of the demonstration. Thanks to James Perrigan for being the videographer.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
2014 Wimbledon Championships Preview- Contenders and Pretenders
Defending Champions: Andy Murray, Marion Bartoli
The Championships begin next Monday, the 23rd of June. Many talented players come to the All-England Club with high hopes, but who is a contender, and who are the pretenders?
Pretenders, Men,
John Isner - Can't return serve, which is vital to winning on grass. If you recall it took him 69 service games in the 5th set to finally break Nicholas Mahut in the 5th set a few years ago. With a track record like that, don't expect him to make it past the 3rd round..
Jo-Willifred Tsonga - Doesn't have the mental game to break through vs the top players. Might give you one good upset in the quarters, but ultimately will fold. Prediction: Quarterfinals
David Ferrer - God bless him, he runs fast, tried hard, and puts everything he has into every shot. Unfortunately that's netted him zero slams, and no finals appearances on any surface other than last year's French Open final. Prediction: Quarterfinals
Andy Murray - Got to the Semis of the French coming off back surgery, got crushed by Nadal, then lost his first grass court match to Radek Stepanek. Not a great start to his pairing with Mauresmo. His back right now is the real issue. I don't think he's 100%. Prediction - Quarterfinals
Roger Federer - Yes, he's won 17 majors, including 7 Wimbledons. Unfortunately for you Fed fans, that was when he could still move like lightening and put his serve on dimes. Now he moves slow, and needs dollar bills for his serve. Last year he lost in the 2nd round to a guy ranked around 120. Father time is undefeated, and he's two sets up on Roger. Prediction: A bad loss in 5 by the Round of 16.
Rafael Nadal - The world number one did as I expected at the French, hoisting his 9th French Open trophy in stunningly easy fashion. Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles and been a Finalist 3 times. He's also lost early 3 times in the tournament. He got destroyed in his tune-up tournament at Halle by Dustin Brown 6-4, 6-1. I don't think that really matters in the end, but I do expect someone to make Nadal feel rushed on the grass, and knock him out. May not happen til the Quarters or Semis, but he won't win this tournament. Prediction: Semi-finals.
Grigor Dimitrov - He won Queen's Club, saving match point against Feliciano Lopez. Not exactly an inspiring victory. Dimitrov is now 13 in world and is the trendy pick to win the Slam. Wishful thinking. Maybe him dating Sharapova has people thinking he is better than he really is. Lots of talent - yes. But his physical fitness and mental game just isn't at the level necessary to win a major. Prediction - Round of 16
Rest of the field - Of the rest of the field, the only person that has recently been to a Wimbledon Final is Tomas Berdych. If he happens to find himself playing Nadal, it's curtains for the Czech. Might get to the Quarters. No one else poses any sort of legitimate threat. Of course the tournament may prove me wrong.
Pretenders, Women
Maria Sharapova - Last time she won the French Open, she went out to Sabine Lisicki in the 4th Round in straight sets. Of the 4 Majors she played after winning the previous major, she only made the finals once, and that was a forgettable 6-1,6-2 defeat to Serena Williams in the 2007 Australian Open final. Anytime you are considering if Sharapova is a contender, you first must determine if you think Serena will be in the final or will end up playing Sharapova in the tournament. Sharapova hasn't defeated Serena since the 2004 Wimbledon Final. Serena has beaten her 15 times in a row. I think Serena is going far, so Sharapova is by default a pretender in this tournament. Prediction: Round of 16 or a loss to Serena at some point.
The rest of the field - Name a player and there are at least 10 reasons they won't win or could lose early in the tournament. But, honestly there is only reason that matters, and it is....
Contenders, Women
Serena Williams. Do you remember the last time Serena lost in the 1st round of the French Open? It happened exactly two years ago, in the 2012 French Open. She was devastated, and promised she would do everything necessary for that not to happen again. What happened next? Serena killed everyone at Wimbledon (the final was 3 sets vs Radwanska but wasn't really that close), won the Gold in the Olympics at Wimbledon, crushing Sharapova in the final, followed that up with a dominating US.Open title, then won the French and Us Open last year. If you throw in the fact that Serena lost that 3 set match to Lisicki in the round of 16 last year, I think she is properly motivated for this event. The smart money would be on Serena to hoist her 6th Wimbledon crown. Prediction: Champion
Sabine Lisicki - She made the Finals last year, and has a history of beating the top players at Wimbledon. Her huge serve, and an aggressive game are a perfect fit for the surface. Without seeing the draw, I predict she again makes the final.
Contenders, Men
Novak Djokovic - Did you know this man has lost his last three major finals? He and Boris Becker cannot be pleased. Luckily for them, Novak has made at least the semis the last 3 years, made two finals winning one. No one moves better than Djokovic, and if he can avoid an incredibly physical, long 5 set match like his match in last year's Semi-finals against Del Potro, I expect Novak to be in the final again, this time with a real chance to win. Prediction: Champion.
Milos Raonic - Huge serve, and an aggressive style always lends itself to winning lots of matches at Wimbledon. He is coming off a surprising quarter-final showing at Roland Garros, in which he proved his return of serve and fitness had seriously improved. It looks like his game is beginning to take the jump to the next level. Since I believe the entire field is pretty weak or at best weaker than normal, this just might be the year for a surprise finalist. Again, without seeing the draw, I predict he makes the Final.
A review of my predictions (pre-draws being released)
Men: Champion - Novak Djokovic, Finalist - Milos Raonic
Women: Champion - Serena Williams, Finalist - Sabine Lisicki
The Championships begin next Monday, the 23rd of June. Many talented players come to the All-England Club with high hopes, but who is a contender, and who are the pretenders?
Pretenders, Men,
John Isner - Can't return serve, which is vital to winning on grass. If you recall it took him 69 service games in the 5th set to finally break Nicholas Mahut in the 5th set a few years ago. With a track record like that, don't expect him to make it past the 3rd round..
Jo-Willifred Tsonga - Doesn't have the mental game to break through vs the top players. Might give you one good upset in the quarters, but ultimately will fold. Prediction: Quarterfinals
David Ferrer - God bless him, he runs fast, tried hard, and puts everything he has into every shot. Unfortunately that's netted him zero slams, and no finals appearances on any surface other than last year's French Open final. Prediction: Quarterfinals
Andy Murray - Got to the Semis of the French coming off back surgery, got crushed by Nadal, then lost his first grass court match to Radek Stepanek. Not a great start to his pairing with Mauresmo. His back right now is the real issue. I don't think he's 100%. Prediction - Quarterfinals
Roger Federer - Yes, he's won 17 majors, including 7 Wimbledons. Unfortunately for you Fed fans, that was when he could still move like lightening and put his serve on dimes. Now he moves slow, and needs dollar bills for his serve. Last year he lost in the 2nd round to a guy ranked around 120. Father time is undefeated, and he's two sets up on Roger. Prediction: A bad loss in 5 by the Round of 16.
Rafael Nadal - The world number one did as I expected at the French, hoisting his 9th French Open trophy in stunningly easy fashion. Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles and been a Finalist 3 times. He's also lost early 3 times in the tournament. He got destroyed in his tune-up tournament at Halle by Dustin Brown 6-4, 6-1. I don't think that really matters in the end, but I do expect someone to make Nadal feel rushed on the grass, and knock him out. May not happen til the Quarters or Semis, but he won't win this tournament. Prediction: Semi-finals.
Grigor Dimitrov - He won Queen's Club, saving match point against Feliciano Lopez. Not exactly an inspiring victory. Dimitrov is now 13 in world and is the trendy pick to win the Slam. Wishful thinking. Maybe him dating Sharapova has people thinking he is better than he really is. Lots of talent - yes. But his physical fitness and mental game just isn't at the level necessary to win a major. Prediction - Round of 16
Rest of the field - Of the rest of the field, the only person that has recently been to a Wimbledon Final is Tomas Berdych. If he happens to find himself playing Nadal, it's curtains for the Czech. Might get to the Quarters. No one else poses any sort of legitimate threat. Of course the tournament may prove me wrong.
Pretenders, Women
Maria Sharapova - Last time she won the French Open, she went out to Sabine Lisicki in the 4th Round in straight sets. Of the 4 Majors she played after winning the previous major, she only made the finals once, and that was a forgettable 6-1,6-2 defeat to Serena Williams in the 2007 Australian Open final. Anytime you are considering if Sharapova is a contender, you first must determine if you think Serena will be in the final or will end up playing Sharapova in the tournament. Sharapova hasn't defeated Serena since the 2004 Wimbledon Final. Serena has beaten her 15 times in a row. I think Serena is going far, so Sharapova is by default a pretender in this tournament. Prediction: Round of 16 or a loss to Serena at some point.
The rest of the field - Name a player and there are at least 10 reasons they won't win or could lose early in the tournament. But, honestly there is only reason that matters, and it is....
Contenders, Women
Serena Williams. Do you remember the last time Serena lost in the 1st round of the French Open? It happened exactly two years ago, in the 2012 French Open. She was devastated, and promised she would do everything necessary for that not to happen again. What happened next? Serena killed everyone at Wimbledon (the final was 3 sets vs Radwanska but wasn't really that close), won the Gold in the Olympics at Wimbledon, crushing Sharapova in the final, followed that up with a dominating US.Open title, then won the French and Us Open last year. If you throw in the fact that Serena lost that 3 set match to Lisicki in the round of 16 last year, I think she is properly motivated for this event. The smart money would be on Serena to hoist her 6th Wimbledon crown. Prediction: Champion
Sabine Lisicki - She made the Finals last year, and has a history of beating the top players at Wimbledon. Her huge serve, and an aggressive game are a perfect fit for the surface. Without seeing the draw, I predict she again makes the final.
Contenders, Men
Novak Djokovic - Did you know this man has lost his last three major finals? He and Boris Becker cannot be pleased. Luckily for them, Novak has made at least the semis the last 3 years, made two finals winning one. No one moves better than Djokovic, and if he can avoid an incredibly physical, long 5 set match like his match in last year's Semi-finals against Del Potro, I expect Novak to be in the final again, this time with a real chance to win. Prediction: Champion.
Milos Raonic - Huge serve, and an aggressive style always lends itself to winning lots of matches at Wimbledon. He is coming off a surprising quarter-final showing at Roland Garros, in which he proved his return of serve and fitness had seriously improved. It looks like his game is beginning to take the jump to the next level. Since I believe the entire field is pretty weak or at best weaker than normal, this just might be the year for a surprise finalist. Again, without seeing the draw, I predict he makes the Final.
A review of my predictions (pre-draws being released)
Men: Champion - Novak Djokovic, Finalist - Milos Raonic
Women: Champion - Serena Williams, Finalist - Sabine Lisicki
Sunday, June 15, 2014
The Number One Complaint Among Adult League Doubles Players
In talking to many league players, both male and female of various levels, the one common complaint that those that play doubles have is that they rarely, if ever, play with the same partner. As a teaching professional who coaches various league players, I can tell you I second their frustration.
Doubles is a TEAM game. A good team practices together, and plays matches together. There should be an exclusivity to the pairing. To play your best individually in a doubles match, you must be able to anticipate your partner's shots in order to be in the best possible position for the opponents' reply. If you are constantly playing with different people, you never gain that knowledge and feel for the game that is essential to being in the right place at the right time.
Look no further than the professional tour. The two best teams right now are the Bryan brothers on the men's side, and Sara Errani/Roberta Vinci on the women's side. The players are exclusive to the other, and have been playing together for years. This is the secret to doubles success. There are other great doubles players on tour - Leander Paes as an example. Every two years or so he changes partners, and his results go south. Once he's played with his new partner for a year, you consistently see him making Grand Slam finals and winning them. Continuity is essential to success.
Too often in league play, one player will play doubles matches with three or four different partners. Even two is one too many. Having been a league captain before, I know how difficult it is to ensure you have the requisite number of players, much less keeping partners together. The last time I did captain, I told everyone that they would play with the same partner throughout the season. The "subs" were also paired together. This way everyone could be assured of whom they were playing with, and could practice as much as they were able to with that partner. In addition, if my partner could not play, I took myself out of the line-up, and put a "Sub" team in.
With adult league, there are five courts of matches, which means you have 8 players playing each night. Your team should have a minimum of four subs, which you partner together into two teams. The subs should also be available for singles if necessary.
Tennis is a game that requires rhythm in order for a player to play well. The more you play with a partner, the more you get a good rhythm off of what they are doing on the court. You also get a feel for how to emotionally and mentally deal with your partner. You learn what to say and when, and what not to say and when. A personal example: I played doubles with my Assistant Pro at William and Mary for 4 years. The one tournament we entered, we won. During that time, I played five other tournament, and lost in the finals of 3 and lost earlier in the other two. I had a different partner that I never practiced with at those events. With my regular partner, I understood that he didn't like me talking to him between points at all. He wanted all tactical discussions to be mediated on changeovers. I also got a great feel for playing two-back on returns with him, and got used to the fact he did not serve and volley. I knew every shot he had, what he would attempt and what shots he would try in given situations. I have never played better doubles than I did playing with him. He was unorthodox at our level, but our familiarity with each other's games brought out the best in each other.
In layman's terms, if I don't know what my partner is going to do, I must play more conservatively, cross less, and play tentative until such time I figure their game out. The process of figuring someone's game out takes time - minimum one year for total comfort. It certainly cannot be done within the confines of one match on a Wednesday night.
I encourage all the captains out there to put their teams together early, determine partners well before the season begins, and then keep doubles partner's together at all times. Your teams will be more successful because of it.
Doubles is a TEAM game. A good team practices together, and plays matches together. There should be an exclusivity to the pairing. To play your best individually in a doubles match, you must be able to anticipate your partner's shots in order to be in the best possible position for the opponents' reply. If you are constantly playing with different people, you never gain that knowledge and feel for the game that is essential to being in the right place at the right time.
Look no further than the professional tour. The two best teams right now are the Bryan brothers on the men's side, and Sara Errani/Roberta Vinci on the women's side. The players are exclusive to the other, and have been playing together for years. This is the secret to doubles success. There are other great doubles players on tour - Leander Paes as an example. Every two years or so he changes partners, and his results go south. Once he's played with his new partner for a year, you consistently see him making Grand Slam finals and winning them. Continuity is essential to success.
Too often in league play, one player will play doubles matches with three or four different partners. Even two is one too many. Having been a league captain before, I know how difficult it is to ensure you have the requisite number of players, much less keeping partners together. The last time I did captain, I told everyone that they would play with the same partner throughout the season. The "subs" were also paired together. This way everyone could be assured of whom they were playing with, and could practice as much as they were able to with that partner. In addition, if my partner could not play, I took myself out of the line-up, and put a "Sub" team in.
With adult league, there are five courts of matches, which means you have 8 players playing each night. Your team should have a minimum of four subs, which you partner together into two teams. The subs should also be available for singles if necessary.
Tennis is a game that requires rhythm in order for a player to play well. The more you play with a partner, the more you get a good rhythm off of what they are doing on the court. You also get a feel for how to emotionally and mentally deal with your partner. You learn what to say and when, and what not to say and when. A personal example: I played doubles with my Assistant Pro at William and Mary for 4 years. The one tournament we entered, we won. During that time, I played five other tournament, and lost in the finals of 3 and lost earlier in the other two. I had a different partner that I never practiced with at those events. With my regular partner, I understood that he didn't like me talking to him between points at all. He wanted all tactical discussions to be mediated on changeovers. I also got a great feel for playing two-back on returns with him, and got used to the fact he did not serve and volley. I knew every shot he had, what he would attempt and what shots he would try in given situations. I have never played better doubles than I did playing with him. He was unorthodox at our level, but our familiarity with each other's games brought out the best in each other.
In layman's terms, if I don't know what my partner is going to do, I must play more conservatively, cross less, and play tentative until such time I figure their game out. The process of figuring someone's game out takes time - minimum one year for total comfort. It certainly cannot be done within the confines of one match on a Wednesday night.
I encourage all the captains out there to put their teams together early, determine partners well before the season begins, and then keep doubles partner's together at all times. Your teams will be more successful because of it.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The Only Tactics that Really Matter - USTA League Observations (3.5 Women)
A few nights ago I watched a very competitive 3.5 women's doubles match at Forestmeadows. From time to time I will watch a match, or at least a part thereof, in order to see what tactics the players are utilizing - if any. I also watch it to either confirm or debunk my own belief that the adventuresome "advanced" tactics learned in lessons at any level of recreational tennis are unnecessary because too often the point does not get started by both teams, or an unforced error is made.
The set I watched ended with a 6-4 score. The deuce court returner for the winning team hit the same exact return of serve cross court EVERY single time to virtually the same target on the court. Every time it seemed she came into the net. It seemed like she only volleyed to the "short" side (the side where the opposing server's partner is in the front-court if the server remains at the baseline) when she got a ball above the net. There was zero deviation from this pattern during the time I was watching. When the same player was serving, she stayed back mostly and was content to just hit cross court and keep the ball in play. Her strokes were by no means overpowering - in fact one might say they had very little pace at all.
The ad court player for the winning team played within their own capabilities, never hitting an aggressive shot - instead ensuring that the point continued. She wasn't going to make an error (she did make a few but it wasn't because of attempting to be a hero), content with allowing her opponent to supply the errors. Her weapon was consistency and patience. Although sometimes this patience and consistency resulted in poor shot selection - the poor shot selection never really resulted in an unforced error. When this player served, she stayed back and was content to do whatever it took to keep the ball in play - mostly cross court, with an occasional lob.
Conversely, the deuce court returner for the losing team played over aggressive, especially on big points. In doubles, cross court is the high percentage return. Down the line is a more aggressive return, but always results in more errors - it is a low percentage shot. Low percentage shots should only be attempted if the likely negative outcome will not impact your ability to win or lose the game or set. At 3-4 deuce, the possible negative outcome of missing the return by going down the line severely impacts your team's ability to win that game and the set. Conversely going down the line at 5-1 0-30 has virtually no negative consequence if you miss that return. During the set, I counted five missed down the line returns by the deuce player to only one successful return.
The ad court player for the losing team was more consistent making the returns. However, after two or three balls in a row, the player would become over aggressive and lose patience, as did the deuce court player after 2-3 balls in a row. Some of these errors were of a movement/ technical nature, especially on the volleys, but all the groundstroke errors were purely shot selection errors - lack of playing the percentages and being patient.
My take away from the match was this:
1) The winning team proved they were patient enough to make the other team hit a minimum of 5 balls when they were engaged in a groundstroke rally
2) The winning team made an extremely high percentage of return of serves, and no double faults, while the losing team missed 10 returns and had 4-5 double faults in the set I watched.
3) The winning team only attempted shots they were capable of making, especially under pressure, the losing team went outside their capabilities as players.
So my belief that the tactical lessons that are being taken by players at the recreational level are unnecessary for the most part was confirmed. The only useful tactics necessary to win are as follows:
1) There are no tactics if you cannot start the point on the serve or the return of serve
2) Consistency is the most important factor and weapon in order to win
3) Knowing your limits as a player and playing within them leads to positive results
Notice that poaching was not listed as essential. Neither was attacking the net, nor was attacking the short side of the court. While these are tactics, and useful to learn, if you are not proficient enough to win more than 51% of the points using that tactic, or any other tactic, or you are not capable of getting the point into those situations, you need to leave it in the bag and stick with what actually works for you.
The most essential "tactic" in tennis is knowing what you are capable of doing when you are on the court, and sticking to it no matter the situation. A teaching professional should be able to tell you what you are proficient at or how you can become more proficient in order to win.
1) You must be able to hit 5 balls in a row in a groundstroke rally live ball under match conditions- singles and doubles.Whether this requires better shot selection, less pace, slicing, or more topspin is individual to the player. Each player must figure out what is necessary for them to hit 5 balls in a row under match conditions. If you are unsure, ask a teaching professional whose opinion you value.
2) You must be proficient enough with the serve to limit the number of double faults per match to 2 or less. This may mean taking pace off the first serve, spinning in the first serve, or taking pace off the second serve - again this is individual to the player.
3) You must be proficient enough on the return to start at least 85-90% of the points on your side (each side for singles) Again this may mean changing your position, being less aggressive, hitting more cross court, slicing the returns, just blocking it back - again, individual to the player.
4) Before you expand out to more adventuresome tactics, you must master 1-3 above.
Remember it is OK if your opponent hits a winner. It is NOT OK if you make an unforced error, especially if your shot selection was poor. The overwhelming majority of points are determined not by winners, but by unforced errors. Limit your own and you will win more matches, guaranteed.
The set I watched ended with a 6-4 score. The deuce court returner for the winning team hit the same exact return of serve cross court EVERY single time to virtually the same target on the court. Every time it seemed she came into the net. It seemed like she only volleyed to the "short" side (the side where the opposing server's partner is in the front-court if the server remains at the baseline) when she got a ball above the net. There was zero deviation from this pattern during the time I was watching. When the same player was serving, she stayed back mostly and was content to just hit cross court and keep the ball in play. Her strokes were by no means overpowering - in fact one might say they had very little pace at all.
The ad court player for the winning team played within their own capabilities, never hitting an aggressive shot - instead ensuring that the point continued. She wasn't going to make an error (she did make a few but it wasn't because of attempting to be a hero), content with allowing her opponent to supply the errors. Her weapon was consistency and patience. Although sometimes this patience and consistency resulted in poor shot selection - the poor shot selection never really resulted in an unforced error. When this player served, she stayed back and was content to do whatever it took to keep the ball in play - mostly cross court, with an occasional lob.
Conversely, the deuce court returner for the losing team played over aggressive, especially on big points. In doubles, cross court is the high percentage return. Down the line is a more aggressive return, but always results in more errors - it is a low percentage shot. Low percentage shots should only be attempted if the likely negative outcome will not impact your ability to win or lose the game or set. At 3-4 deuce, the possible negative outcome of missing the return by going down the line severely impacts your team's ability to win that game and the set. Conversely going down the line at 5-1 0-30 has virtually no negative consequence if you miss that return. During the set, I counted five missed down the line returns by the deuce player to only one successful return.
The ad court player for the losing team was more consistent making the returns. However, after two or three balls in a row, the player would become over aggressive and lose patience, as did the deuce court player after 2-3 balls in a row. Some of these errors were of a movement/ technical nature, especially on the volleys, but all the groundstroke errors were purely shot selection errors - lack of playing the percentages and being patient.
My take away from the match was this:
1) The winning team proved they were patient enough to make the other team hit a minimum of 5 balls when they were engaged in a groundstroke rally
2) The winning team made an extremely high percentage of return of serves, and no double faults, while the losing team missed 10 returns and had 4-5 double faults in the set I watched.
3) The winning team only attempted shots they were capable of making, especially under pressure, the losing team went outside their capabilities as players.
So my belief that the tactical lessons that are being taken by players at the recreational level are unnecessary for the most part was confirmed. The only useful tactics necessary to win are as follows:
1) There are no tactics if you cannot start the point on the serve or the return of serve
2) Consistency is the most important factor and weapon in order to win
3) Knowing your limits as a player and playing within them leads to positive results
Notice that poaching was not listed as essential. Neither was attacking the net, nor was attacking the short side of the court. While these are tactics, and useful to learn, if you are not proficient enough to win more than 51% of the points using that tactic, or any other tactic, or you are not capable of getting the point into those situations, you need to leave it in the bag and stick with what actually works for you.
The most essential "tactic" in tennis is knowing what you are capable of doing when you are on the court, and sticking to it no matter the situation. A teaching professional should be able to tell you what you are proficient at or how you can become more proficient in order to win.
1) You must be able to hit 5 balls in a row in a groundstroke rally live ball under match conditions- singles and doubles.Whether this requires better shot selection, less pace, slicing, or more topspin is individual to the player. Each player must figure out what is necessary for them to hit 5 balls in a row under match conditions. If you are unsure, ask a teaching professional whose opinion you value.
2) You must be proficient enough with the serve to limit the number of double faults per match to 2 or less. This may mean taking pace off the first serve, spinning in the first serve, or taking pace off the second serve - again this is individual to the player.
3) You must be proficient enough on the return to start at least 85-90% of the points on your side (each side for singles) Again this may mean changing your position, being less aggressive, hitting more cross court, slicing the returns, just blocking it back - again, individual to the player.
4) Before you expand out to more adventuresome tactics, you must master 1-3 above.
Remember it is OK if your opponent hits a winner. It is NOT OK if you make an unforced error, especially if your shot selection was poor. The overwhelming majority of points are determined not by winners, but by unforced errors. Limit your own and you will win more matches, guaranteed.
Monday, June 9, 2014
To Opine is Divine - Coached by a Woman to Conquer Men?
Yesterday Andy Murray, the defending Wimbledon Champion, announced that he was hiring Amelie Mauresmo as his coach - at least through Wimbledon. Socially speaking, it was a groundbreaking hire. There are no non-parental female head coaches on the tour coaching men.
The idea of a woman coaching a man or boy is culturally considered taboo. I need no other proof than the reality that there are zero female head NCAA basketball coaches, zero NCAA female head men's tennis coaches in the top 60, and very few female head boys coaches in high school. However, the cultural belief that a woman cannot possibly coach a boy is misguided not only because gender makes no difference, but because it flows from the misguided belief that "in order to coach it, you must have done it (at that level)."
Coaching involves three core processes, none of which deal with actually performing a given task: 1) The ability to understand what must be done. This can be done by reading, watching, and using your brain. 2) The ability to communicate what must be done and how to do it. Again the ability to demonstrate is not needed for this. 3) The ability to develop a good working relationship with the student/ player. This mostly concerns a good personality match.
Richard Williams coached Venus and Serena - No tennis experience. Jimmy Connors was coached by his mother through age 21 - She clearly never played men's tennis at any level, although she was a very accomplished player. George Seifert won two Super Bowls as Head Coach of the San Fransisco 49ers - never played a down of professional football. Joe Gibbs won 3 with the Redskins - never played a down of professional football. Success at anything is about preparation, organization, and delivery.
As an aside, I highly recommend reading this SI article from 1978, about Jimmy Connors being raised and coached by his mother and grandmother.
Can Amelie take Murray's game to next level? What obstacles does she face?
Naysayers will say that Amelie will struggle with tactics, as the tactics in women's tennis differ significantly from the women's game. In women's tennis, because the players are less physical, slower, not as fleet as foot, and have much weaker serves, the game is about the first strike, and putting your opponent immediately on the defensive. In men's tennis, the game is very physically demanding, the serves are much stronger, and defense is a priority. Working the point and patience is more necessary. Mauresmo's detractors will say because she never did it, she won't be able to help him.
Luckily for Mauresmo, experience doing something isn't necessary to coach it. Nick Bolleterri - never played professional tennis - he did alright.
In fact, women are just as qualified to coach men as their male counterparts are to coach women. Yet the latter is widely accepted while the former is taboo. Perhaps men think having a female coach makes them appear weak - that if they don't have someone screaming at them with a testosterone induced rant, that they just can't raise their level to meet the demands. It makes zero rational sense.
What players of both sexes need is a plan with goals, a way to track the plan, and a smooth professional delivery. These things are gender neutral.
I personally hope Mauresmo is successful. She did coach Marion Bartoli to last year's Wimbledon title. The spotlight will be focused on her - win OR lose for Murray. It is an unfortunate reality. If she succeeds, more women will get the opportunity. If she does not succeed, the tired old false statements about coaching will receive a new injection of life, to the detriment of everyone. For his part, I also hope Murray keeps her on after Wimbledon to give her a true shot to prove herself.
The idea of a woman coaching a man or boy is culturally considered taboo. I need no other proof than the reality that there are zero female head NCAA basketball coaches, zero NCAA female head men's tennis coaches in the top 60, and very few female head boys coaches in high school. However, the cultural belief that a woman cannot possibly coach a boy is misguided not only because gender makes no difference, but because it flows from the misguided belief that "in order to coach it, you must have done it (at that level)."
Coaching involves three core processes, none of which deal with actually performing a given task: 1) The ability to understand what must be done. This can be done by reading, watching, and using your brain. 2) The ability to communicate what must be done and how to do it. Again the ability to demonstrate is not needed for this. 3) The ability to develop a good working relationship with the student/ player. This mostly concerns a good personality match.
Richard Williams coached Venus and Serena - No tennis experience. Jimmy Connors was coached by his mother through age 21 - She clearly never played men's tennis at any level, although she was a very accomplished player. George Seifert won two Super Bowls as Head Coach of the San Fransisco 49ers - never played a down of professional football. Joe Gibbs won 3 with the Redskins - never played a down of professional football. Success at anything is about preparation, organization, and delivery.
As an aside, I highly recommend reading this SI article from 1978, about Jimmy Connors being raised and coached by his mother and grandmother.
Can Amelie take Murray's game to next level? What obstacles does she face?
Naysayers will say that Amelie will struggle with tactics, as the tactics in women's tennis differ significantly from the women's game. In women's tennis, because the players are less physical, slower, not as fleet as foot, and have much weaker serves, the game is about the first strike, and putting your opponent immediately on the defensive. In men's tennis, the game is very physically demanding, the serves are much stronger, and defense is a priority. Working the point and patience is more necessary. Mauresmo's detractors will say because she never did it, she won't be able to help him.
Luckily for Mauresmo, experience doing something isn't necessary to coach it. Nick Bolleterri - never played professional tennis - he did alright.
In fact, women are just as qualified to coach men as their male counterparts are to coach women. Yet the latter is widely accepted while the former is taboo. Perhaps men think having a female coach makes them appear weak - that if they don't have someone screaming at them with a testosterone induced rant, that they just can't raise their level to meet the demands. It makes zero rational sense.
What players of both sexes need is a plan with goals, a way to track the plan, and a smooth professional delivery. These things are gender neutral.
I personally hope Mauresmo is successful. She did coach Marion Bartoli to last year's Wimbledon title. The spotlight will be focused on her - win OR lose for Murray. It is an unfortunate reality. If she succeeds, more women will get the opportunity. If she does not succeed, the tired old false statements about coaching will receive a new injection of life, to the detriment of everyone. For his part, I also hope Murray keeps her on after Wimbledon to give her a true shot to prove herself.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Handling Deep Balls That Force You To Move Backwards
A common error for most recreational and inexperienced junior players is running backwards for balls that force them to retreat towards the fence behind the baseline in order to play them. The reason that running back for the ball is improper, is the movement pattern cause the player to hit from an off-balanced, uncoordinated position, usually resulting in some sort of mishit or unforced error. Another effect of running backwards when retreating is falling off-balance after the shot, making the player's recovery to the middle take more time and be less balanced, both of which will negatively affect the next shot.
The proper movement pattern for retreating is shuffling. Utilizing this movement pattern allows the player to ensure playing the ball from a balanced position, as you will play the ball off your back foot - the foot that is leading you to the ball. Hitting with the foot closest to the direction you are moving assures the most balanced position.
In the video below, please note how guest contributor, Lenin Mongerie, is moving to hit the balls that are forcing him to retreat. Every step in this hand fed drill is a shuffle step. It is a Spanish System drill that specifically targets the "backwards V," the retreating forehand and retreating backhand.
The other benefit of this movement pattern, is that you are able to maintain proper balance, and ensure a proper balanced recovery. In the above video, Lenin is able to maintain his footwork pattern and be quick in his recovery back to the middle of the court.
An immediate result to implementing this pattern of movement into your game will be an increase in your consistency. Especially at the recreational level, if a player can return five balls back to their opponent, that player will win the majority of the points against that opponent.
For advanced players, both adult and juniors, this movement pattern allows you to load your back leg in order to explode up into the ball, thus giving you more pace and spin on your reply.
The next blog will discuss how to move forward to balls that force you to move forward within the middle third of the court.
The proper movement pattern for retreating is shuffling. Utilizing this movement pattern allows the player to ensure playing the ball from a balanced position, as you will play the ball off your back foot - the foot that is leading you to the ball. Hitting with the foot closest to the direction you are moving assures the most balanced position.
In the video below, please note how guest contributor, Lenin Mongerie, is moving to hit the balls that are forcing him to retreat. Every step in this hand fed drill is a shuffle step. It is a Spanish System drill that specifically targets the "backwards V," the retreating forehand and retreating backhand.
An immediate result to implementing this pattern of movement into your game will be an increase in your consistency. Especially at the recreational level, if a player can return five balls back to their opponent, that player will win the majority of the points against that opponent.
For advanced players, both adult and juniors, this movement pattern allows you to load your back leg in order to explode up into the ball, thus giving you more pace and spin on your reply.
The next blog will discuss how to move forward to balls that force you to move forward within the middle third of the court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
