Tennis is based off of an older French game, called "le jeu de paume," which in English means "the game of the hand. In order to improve your game or learn how to play the game from scratch, I highly recommend mastering biting all your strokes "sans raquette," which in English means "without racquet." The reason this is vital to your success is because whatever you are able to do technically with just your hands will simply be repeated once you place your racquet into your hands. Plus you will increase your hand's sensitivity to the stroke in question, which develops better touch and feel. Hand-eye coordination will also be drastically improved.
As a tennis professional, refining technique by having students make technical corrections with just their hands (I use the 10 & under orange balls for this regardless of level) gives students a better understanding of what their body is doing on a given stroke. It is also a sure fire way to get young kids to master the continental grip for volleys, serves, overheads and slices. And, as mentioned in the first paragraph, your student is learning touch and feel because there isn't a racquet to death grip.
Remember, any stroke on the forehand side, overheads and serves are struck with the palm side of the hand. One handed backhand strokes are struck with the knuckle side of the hand, while two handed strokes should be struck with both the palm side of the non-dominant hand and the knuckle side of the dominant hand.
As players improve improve their ability to play tennis with their hands, more and more movement, and more precise targets can be used. You can even play fun mini-tennis games using only your hands.
So bring the game back to its basic core - the hands - and see your game go to the next level and beyond!
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Why You Shouldn't Care That Nick Kyrgios Tanked A Return Game at Wimbledon
In Australian Nick Kyrgios's 4th round tilt vs Frenchman Richard Gasquet, it appears if Kyrgios, down a set and 2-0 at that point, tanks Gasquet's service game. You can watch the video here:
http://media.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/did-nick-kyrgios-tank-a-game-6666297.html
Now, I am not condoning his actions in anyway shape or form. But if you go to the Wimbledon website, and click on his post-match presser, he was getting questions that bordered on the absurd. For example - "Do you feel like you cheated the fans by tanking that game?" Now to be fair to the reporters, the crowd did boo Kyrgios when this transpired.
However, the fans weren't cheated by his performance. In fact, of all people, Roger Federer came to Kyrgios's defense.
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-federer-defends-nick-kyrgios-over-tanking-2015-7
The idea that the fans were somehow cheated by his tanking is preposterous. The game in question lasted less than a minute. Kyrgios lost the set in question, but WON the third set, and fought hard going down in the fourth set. So to suggest the fans were cheated for the entire match is ridiculous. They got their money's worth, and frankly a whole lot more. The fact that that one game happened, gives those fans who watched something to talk about for the next year or two. Now that match is all over the news and those fans were THERE, and saw it first hand. It has become more memorable than it would have been had he NOT tanked.
Again, I'm not condoning his actions in any way, shape, or form. However, it is known that a player like Jimmy Connors, who we all think tried as hard as he could on every single point, was known to sometimes put less effort into a game after the first couple of points (down 30-0 on a return game) when he already had the break. He did it to conserve energy from time to time. He "threw" the game by going for low percentage returns that had little hope of being successful. He just did it in a less obvious way than Kyrgios. We don't chastise Connors, but kill Kyrgios. That's merely because what Kyrgios did "looks" bad. Optics.
Go back if you have 11 hours and watch the Mahut-Isner match that went 70-68 in the fifth. You'll see two tired guys who admitted after the match that if the score in any return game got to 30-0, they threw the remaining points to simply conserve energy so they could focus on holding serve. No one complained that they didn't get their money's worth after seeing 137 straight holds, many at love, with minimal effort being put forth in most of those service games by the returner. Even if half of those games were at love, that 136 tanked points to conserve energy, which equates to 34 games of tanked points, which equals almost 6 6-0 sets. Nobody complained. Kyrgios tanked four points. Not games, points.
Personally, I don't care if anyone tanks a match or a game, unless it's my player I'm coaching. If some professional player decides to tank, because he's irritated at the umpire, or has a bet in on the game for him to lose, or just doesn't want to be there - while I would prefer them to just retire, I take no personal offense if they instead choose to show up and put forth a measly effort. Now, IF that was the only match I paid to see, would i be disappointed? Sure, but that wasn't the case on this day, although I'm sure there were some people who went to his match and his alone. Perhaps some Aussie fans. That's part of the risk associated with buying a ticket to a live sporting event. The result will simply be he will have fewer fans. Free market at work.
We are all worried that somehow Kyrgios's tanking is going to send the worng message to young players that it's ok to tank a point, a game, a match. It has actually done the opposite. Kyrgios looks like a complete buffoon, especially after watching his response to the tanking allegations, and every coach in the world is having a conversation with their students about tanking, and what a bad thing it is to do.
We blow a player's actions way out of proportion out of our own self-importance, all the while neglecting that if there weren't people doing ridiculous things on the court like Kyrgios, we would never feel the need to talk about the behavior in question and ensure that the students we teach and the kids we raise never repeat that mistake.
Kyrgios has a lot of mental work to do to become a great player. The fact he let an umpire's call rattle him to the point of tanking a game speaks to the miles he must travel mentally and emotionally in order to become great. But let's not take it personally. Our lives move on, either with him as a favorite player, or more likely, not.
http://media.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/did-nick-kyrgios-tank-a-game-6666297.html
Now, I am not condoning his actions in anyway shape or form. But if you go to the Wimbledon website, and click on his post-match presser, he was getting questions that bordered on the absurd. For example - "Do you feel like you cheated the fans by tanking that game?" Now to be fair to the reporters, the crowd did boo Kyrgios when this transpired.
However, the fans weren't cheated by his performance. In fact, of all people, Roger Federer came to Kyrgios's defense.
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-federer-defends-nick-kyrgios-over-tanking-2015-7
The idea that the fans were somehow cheated by his tanking is preposterous. The game in question lasted less than a minute. Kyrgios lost the set in question, but WON the third set, and fought hard going down in the fourth set. So to suggest the fans were cheated for the entire match is ridiculous. They got their money's worth, and frankly a whole lot more. The fact that that one game happened, gives those fans who watched something to talk about for the next year or two. Now that match is all over the news and those fans were THERE, and saw it first hand. It has become more memorable than it would have been had he NOT tanked.
Again, I'm not condoning his actions in any way, shape, or form. However, it is known that a player like Jimmy Connors, who we all think tried as hard as he could on every single point, was known to sometimes put less effort into a game after the first couple of points (down 30-0 on a return game) when he already had the break. He did it to conserve energy from time to time. He "threw" the game by going for low percentage returns that had little hope of being successful. He just did it in a less obvious way than Kyrgios. We don't chastise Connors, but kill Kyrgios. That's merely because what Kyrgios did "looks" bad. Optics.
Go back if you have 11 hours and watch the Mahut-Isner match that went 70-68 in the fifth. You'll see two tired guys who admitted after the match that if the score in any return game got to 30-0, they threw the remaining points to simply conserve energy so they could focus on holding serve. No one complained that they didn't get their money's worth after seeing 137 straight holds, many at love, with minimal effort being put forth in most of those service games by the returner. Even if half of those games were at love, that 136 tanked points to conserve energy, which equates to 34 games of tanked points, which equals almost 6 6-0 sets. Nobody complained. Kyrgios tanked four points. Not games, points.
Personally, I don't care if anyone tanks a match or a game, unless it's my player I'm coaching. If some professional player decides to tank, because he's irritated at the umpire, or has a bet in on the game for him to lose, or just doesn't want to be there - while I would prefer them to just retire, I take no personal offense if they instead choose to show up and put forth a measly effort. Now, IF that was the only match I paid to see, would i be disappointed? Sure, but that wasn't the case on this day, although I'm sure there were some people who went to his match and his alone. Perhaps some Aussie fans. That's part of the risk associated with buying a ticket to a live sporting event. The result will simply be he will have fewer fans. Free market at work.
We are all worried that somehow Kyrgios's tanking is going to send the worng message to young players that it's ok to tank a point, a game, a match. It has actually done the opposite. Kyrgios looks like a complete buffoon, especially after watching his response to the tanking allegations, and every coach in the world is having a conversation with their students about tanking, and what a bad thing it is to do.
We blow a player's actions way out of proportion out of our own self-importance, all the while neglecting that if there weren't people doing ridiculous things on the court like Kyrgios, we would never feel the need to talk about the behavior in question and ensure that the students we teach and the kids we raise never repeat that mistake.
Kyrgios has a lot of mental work to do to become a great player. The fact he let an umpire's call rattle him to the point of tanking a game speaks to the miles he must travel mentally and emotionally in order to become great. But let's not take it personally. Our lives move on, either with him as a favorite player, or more likely, not.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
How The Tallahassee City Championships Proved Me Right All Along
Vindication. It is a sweet word full of anger, joy, and of course that blissful feeling of knowing you were right all along. Yesterday's City Championships for high school tennis in Tallahassee vindicated yours truly from months, maybe even years, of dissenting opinions on how to handle a player and their decision on whether or not to play high school tennis.
Needless to say my approach to the player in question was not well-received by pros and high school coaches alike. Their opinion - which was often relayed to me in passive aggression, was that as the player's coach, it was my job to promote high school tennis to the player. Others insinuated that I needed to exercise some form of control over the player, and use my relationship with them to "force" the player to play high school tennis. Many believed that I was actively steering the player away from high school tennis, which to some was a form of disrespect to those within the high school tennis coaching circles and to the other players that were playing at the time.
The central disagreement that I had with the other pros and coaches alike, was that ultimately it is the player's decision to decide if high school tennis was a good fit for them. The tact I took with the player in question was one where I simply gave all the information regarding high school tennis, from an unbiased perspective. I gave the player the pros and the cons, and explained to the player how playing high school tennis could help achieve her goals, and how it could hurt those goals as well. I explained cases of players who played high school tennis and went on to play professionally, and also explained how many players that play professional tennis, and even college tennis at a high level, never played high school tennis. We even had an example in Tallahassee of players who didn't play high school tennis and are playing for FSU. I also explained to the player that for me personally, playing high school tennis was very important, but that I also understood why one may feel reluctant to do it at all.
Many of those who disagreed with my position, focused solely on my putting forth of the negatives of playing high school tennis. What they didn't want to understand, or didn't try to understand, was that my goal was not to make the decision for the player. My goal was to allow the player to make an informed decision on their own, where they would weigh their goals, and the pros and the cons, and come to a decision that they would feel comfortable with. Sometimes negatives are only negative as they pertain to someone's goals. If you think about it, I'm sure you can find a negative for anything, including winning the lottery.
Some thought that my approach meant that I felt that the player was "too good" for high school tennis. That was never the case at all. A good coach listens to what the player wants, what they like and what they don't like as far as the game, and then explains to them how the team activity will have parts they like and parts they don't like. That is primarily where the "negatives" come from. The other part that rubbed people the wrong way was my non-answers as to whether or not the player would play at all. My standard answer was always along the lines of "if [the player] decides it's best for [them] then they'll play." I honestly had no clue what the ultimate decision would be.
Some of my peers focused on the life lessons that high school tennis would teach the players. And that that alone was reason enough to "push" the player towards that end. However, if the goal of any coach is to make the player a better person, to lead them to becoming more and more self-sufficient, and to teach the player to take responsibility for their own path in life, then how could I in good conscious "make" the player do something? Rather it was all about the player learning to take responsibility for their own game, to take all the information into consideration, and make the best decision possible. After all, this is a skill that will help the player for the rest of their life.
So after the player won the City Championships yesterday, my first thoughts were about how the player made this decision themselves, and how I was right not to force them into anything. I was especially proud that the decision is one they are happy with, and even more proud that they are a more mature, well-rounded person for having to make the decision on their own. And I know in the future , that when it comes to making life decisions, the player will be more than capable of doing it themselves.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Why Winning Is So Hard, and Losing So Easy
The hardest thing to do on the tennis court is win - be it a point, a game, a set, or a match. So much must go right for you, and you must remain focused from the first point to the last. Your preparation leading into the match will predict your success or failure to a large degree. You must believe you can win, and be able to see the finish line at all times, and not doubt yourself once you arrive at the finis line. After all, it's one thing to get to the finish line, and still another to cross it.
Losing is easy. All it takes is a lack of focus, poor preparation, questionable (to be charitable) shot selection, and a love for the low percentage plays. It is aided by low self-esteem, lack of confidence, and believing you have zero chance to win. Self-doubt is something every player struggles with at some point. However, in order to win you must be able to manufacture self-belief and confidence when there is no positive experiential results to hang your hat on.
The bottom line is in order to win you must master EVERY aspect of what it takes to win. In order to lose, all you must do is fail at ONE. In tennis, at level, the margins are so small, all it takes sometimes to determine the winner and loser is one big point. Are you able to do what is necessary to win?
Winning takes an enormous amount of practice. Not only with the technical and tactical aspects of your game, but also with the mental and emotional parts of your game. Are you setting the right kind of goals that allow you to build confidence and trust in your abilities on the court? Are you playing the right kind of practice matches, ones where you know you can win, and ones that will be a serious challenge? If, for example, you play regular practice sets against players who are better than you, and you always lose, you will never learn how to win a match. All you will learn is how to lose, and that you aren't a good enough player to win those types of matches. Yes, your ability to hit the ball will improve, but being a better striker of the ball and winning do not necessarily equate.
What does "manufacturing self-confidence" mean exactly? Simply put it means placing trust in the process. It means believing in the process of actions instead of the results of those actions. It works because it the correct processes that beget the best results. Results, no matter how good we become as players, is very much out of our control. Remember Andy Roddick playing out of his mind in the 2009 Wimbledon Final? It was, according to him, the best match he ever played. He still lost. The fact that there is another person on the other side of the net trying to attain the same results as we are is why we cannot focus ourselves upon the results. The process is the only part of the results equation the we have 100% control over. Our focus should remain there.
Part of the process is making good shot selection decisions. Part of the process is having routines between every point that keep your focus off the previous point and instead focus you on the next one. It is about staying in the present.
Focusing on the result can lead to fear. The fear of losing, the fear of blowing opportunities like crossing the finish line in a match. It leads to nerves getting out of control. Focusing on the process can help mitigate nerves, and calm you down. It keeps you focused on what to do, and leads you to playing your best.
It is hard to focus on the process for an entire match. It takes practice, and lots of it. Everyone is results oriented at the end of the day. This is why coaches get hired and fired with absurd frequency. However, those that do find a way to trust the process will find the best results. It has been proven over and over again, not just in tennis, but in all sports.
Losing is what happens to all but one player in a tournament. 50% of the people in a given match lose. It takes quite a bit of mental and emotional fortitude to continually win every time you're on the court. A small hiccup in one area can cost you a match. A completely focused effort can earn you a win. Most of the time there is a strong correlation between your focus on the process and the level of your play, but even when you play poorly, if you focus on the process, it is very possible you still find a way to win.
Every decision we make, on the practice court and on the match court, directly influences our chances to win or lose. Be sure every part of your preparation builds your confidence, and find a process for matches that works best for you. Then you can turn frequent losing into frequent winning.
Losing is easy. All it takes is a lack of focus, poor preparation, questionable (to be charitable) shot selection, and a love for the low percentage plays. It is aided by low self-esteem, lack of confidence, and believing you have zero chance to win. Self-doubt is something every player struggles with at some point. However, in order to win you must be able to manufacture self-belief and confidence when there is no positive experiential results to hang your hat on.
The bottom line is in order to win you must master EVERY aspect of what it takes to win. In order to lose, all you must do is fail at ONE. In tennis, at level, the margins are so small, all it takes sometimes to determine the winner and loser is one big point. Are you able to do what is necessary to win?
Winning takes an enormous amount of practice. Not only with the technical and tactical aspects of your game, but also with the mental and emotional parts of your game. Are you setting the right kind of goals that allow you to build confidence and trust in your abilities on the court? Are you playing the right kind of practice matches, ones where you know you can win, and ones that will be a serious challenge? If, for example, you play regular practice sets against players who are better than you, and you always lose, you will never learn how to win a match. All you will learn is how to lose, and that you aren't a good enough player to win those types of matches. Yes, your ability to hit the ball will improve, but being a better striker of the ball and winning do not necessarily equate.
What does "manufacturing self-confidence" mean exactly? Simply put it means placing trust in the process. It means believing in the process of actions instead of the results of those actions. It works because it the correct processes that beget the best results. Results, no matter how good we become as players, is very much out of our control. Remember Andy Roddick playing out of his mind in the 2009 Wimbledon Final? It was, according to him, the best match he ever played. He still lost. The fact that there is another person on the other side of the net trying to attain the same results as we are is why we cannot focus ourselves upon the results. The process is the only part of the results equation the we have 100% control over. Our focus should remain there.
Part of the process is making good shot selection decisions. Part of the process is having routines between every point that keep your focus off the previous point and instead focus you on the next one. It is about staying in the present.
Focusing on the result can lead to fear. The fear of losing, the fear of blowing opportunities like crossing the finish line in a match. It leads to nerves getting out of control. Focusing on the process can help mitigate nerves, and calm you down. It keeps you focused on what to do, and leads you to playing your best.
It is hard to focus on the process for an entire match. It takes practice, and lots of it. Everyone is results oriented at the end of the day. This is why coaches get hired and fired with absurd frequency. However, those that do find a way to trust the process will find the best results. It has been proven over and over again, not just in tennis, but in all sports.
Losing is what happens to all but one player in a tournament. 50% of the people in a given match lose. It takes quite a bit of mental and emotional fortitude to continually win every time you're on the court. A small hiccup in one area can cost you a match. A completely focused effort can earn you a win. Most of the time there is a strong correlation between your focus on the process and the level of your play, but even when you play poorly, if you focus on the process, it is very possible you still find a way to win.
Every decision we make, on the practice court and on the match court, directly influences our chances to win or lose. Be sure every part of your preparation builds your confidence, and find a process for matches that works best for you. Then you can turn frequent losing into frequent winning.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Focus on Your Responsibilities To Win More Doubles Matches
Doubles mirrors life in many ways. In both there is individual responsibility and also mutual responsibility. One's individual actions has a direct impact on the success of others. Understanding this concept is the key to being successful in doubles.
Let's look at each type of responsibility and what constitutes them.
Individual Responsibility
1) Your court position when the ball is on your side of the court. There is a right and wrong place to be. As an example, when you are up at net, and your partner is back at the baseline, and the ball has been hit to them, you must move to a defensive position near the middle T to protect against a potential poach. If you fail to do this, you leave the middle wide open for your opponent, and your team will more than likely lose the point.
2) Your court position when the ball is on your opponent's side of the court. This will depend on where you begin the point, and if you are up or back. If you are at the net and you fail to attack (move forward) when your partner hits to the baseline player, then you are forgoing opportunities to poach and putting more pressure on your partner to do more to win the point. If you fail to "shade the ball" when you are at net when the ball is on your opponents' side of the court, you open up space for your opponents to hit through for clean winners.
3) Where you serve. When you are serving, it is up to you to put the ball in positions that both accentuate your strengths and maximize your opponents' weaknesses. Failing to get the ball to your opponents' weakness gives them the opportunity to hurt you and your partner with their strengths. This is the one part of the game that you have almost 100% control over.
4)Where you return serve. Although it is entirely possible that the server hits a great serve and puts you into a reactive position where targeting becomes almost impossible, 80-90% of returns are such that you are balanced and have the opportunity to do the right thing. Returning the serve cross court should happen 90-95% of the time. This not only greatly improves your chances of starting the point on your end as it is the high percentage play, it also allows your partner to possibly pick off the next ball.
5)Your court position when you and your partner are at net. You have heard from tennis professionals and tennis commentators that you and your partner should be "attached by a string x feet apart" in order to ensure that you move together. This is works when the ball is on your side of the court only. When the ball is on your opponents' side of the court, the string analogy only works and makes sense if BOTH of you move to your individual correct spots. You wouldn't follow your partner if they go to the wrong spot. Therefore I recommend not focusing attention on where your partner needs to be or where they are at all, and instead ensure YOU are in the right place. This depends on whether or not you are cross court or down the line from the ball, and the effectiveness of the previous ball, just to name a few factors. If you and your partner focus on where you need to correctly be as individuals, you will APPEAR to be moving together.
6)Drifting and Poaching. Drifting is poaching the server's first ball after the serve. Poaching is picking off the return of serve. Both require the attacking player to move at the right time and move in the right path. It also requires the attacker to place the ball to certain areas of the court to ensure your team is in the best position for the next shot.
7) Shot Selection At any time in a doubles match, once you have the opportunity to hit the ball, the responsibility of where to hit the ball falls squarely on your shoulders. Your decision will positively or negatively impact your teams chances. Focusing on the correct locations for the situation will lead to better results, while not thinking or not hitting to the high percentage locations for the situation will lead to poorer results.
Mutual Responsibilty
1) Communication/reading your partner You and your partner before and after every shot must both communicate (verbally and non verbally) where you are moving and also be able to read the other in order to move to the correct locations and hit your next shots. The reason is many "plays" require two or three shot patterns, and you always want to ensure court balance when your team is forced to switch sides. This also includes any signals you and your partner may use.
2) Knowing each others' strengths and weaknesses In order for you and your partner to play at the peak of your abilities, you must not only understand your own strengths and weaknesses, but also understand your partner's strengths and weaknesses. This will allow you to only choose the correct sides to play, but also determine who should serve first, which partner sould return serve on any no-ad points, and also help your strategy (example: if your partner is a great poacher, then serve more up the middle, and return crosscourt every time so you set them up more to use their strength)
3) Knowing your opponents' strengths and weaknesses This is what allows you to force your opponents into what they do poorly, which gives you the best chance to win. Both you and your partner should understand this before the match or be able to determine it after four games.
4) Keeping each other positive/ offering support Both partners should be supportive of their partner after errors, give kudos when they play well, and keep each other pumped up and positive in between points as well as on change overs.
By understanding your individual responsibilities and what both of you are mutually responsible for, you will be better able to do the right thing during each point and during each match, thus improving your chances to win.
Let's look at each type of responsibility and what constitutes them.
Individual Responsibility
1) Your court position when the ball is on your side of the court. There is a right and wrong place to be. As an example, when you are up at net, and your partner is back at the baseline, and the ball has been hit to them, you must move to a defensive position near the middle T to protect against a potential poach. If you fail to do this, you leave the middle wide open for your opponent, and your team will more than likely lose the point.
2) Your court position when the ball is on your opponent's side of the court. This will depend on where you begin the point, and if you are up or back. If you are at the net and you fail to attack (move forward) when your partner hits to the baseline player, then you are forgoing opportunities to poach and putting more pressure on your partner to do more to win the point. If you fail to "shade the ball" when you are at net when the ball is on your opponents' side of the court, you open up space for your opponents to hit through for clean winners.
3) Where you serve. When you are serving, it is up to you to put the ball in positions that both accentuate your strengths and maximize your opponents' weaknesses. Failing to get the ball to your opponents' weakness gives them the opportunity to hurt you and your partner with their strengths. This is the one part of the game that you have almost 100% control over.
4)Where you return serve. Although it is entirely possible that the server hits a great serve and puts you into a reactive position where targeting becomes almost impossible, 80-90% of returns are such that you are balanced and have the opportunity to do the right thing. Returning the serve cross court should happen 90-95% of the time. This not only greatly improves your chances of starting the point on your end as it is the high percentage play, it also allows your partner to possibly pick off the next ball.
5)Your court position when you and your partner are at net. You have heard from tennis professionals and tennis commentators that you and your partner should be "attached by a string x feet apart" in order to ensure that you move together. This is works when the ball is on your side of the court only. When the ball is on your opponents' side of the court, the string analogy only works and makes sense if BOTH of you move to your individual correct spots. You wouldn't follow your partner if they go to the wrong spot. Therefore I recommend not focusing attention on where your partner needs to be or where they are at all, and instead ensure YOU are in the right place. This depends on whether or not you are cross court or down the line from the ball, and the effectiveness of the previous ball, just to name a few factors. If you and your partner focus on where you need to correctly be as individuals, you will APPEAR to be moving together.
6)Drifting and Poaching. Drifting is poaching the server's first ball after the serve. Poaching is picking off the return of serve. Both require the attacking player to move at the right time and move in the right path. It also requires the attacker to place the ball to certain areas of the court to ensure your team is in the best position for the next shot.
7) Shot Selection At any time in a doubles match, once you have the opportunity to hit the ball, the responsibility of where to hit the ball falls squarely on your shoulders. Your decision will positively or negatively impact your teams chances. Focusing on the correct locations for the situation will lead to better results, while not thinking or not hitting to the high percentage locations for the situation will lead to poorer results.
Mutual Responsibilty
1) Communication/reading your partner You and your partner before and after every shot must both communicate (verbally and non verbally) where you are moving and also be able to read the other in order to move to the correct locations and hit your next shots. The reason is many "plays" require two or three shot patterns, and you always want to ensure court balance when your team is forced to switch sides. This also includes any signals you and your partner may use.
2) Knowing each others' strengths and weaknesses In order for you and your partner to play at the peak of your abilities, you must not only understand your own strengths and weaknesses, but also understand your partner's strengths and weaknesses. This will allow you to only choose the correct sides to play, but also determine who should serve first, which partner sould return serve on any no-ad points, and also help your strategy (example: if your partner is a great poacher, then serve more up the middle, and return crosscourt every time so you set them up more to use their strength)
3) Knowing your opponents' strengths and weaknesses This is what allows you to force your opponents into what they do poorly, which gives you the best chance to win. Both you and your partner should understand this before the match or be able to determine it after four games.
4) Keeping each other positive/ offering support Both partners should be supportive of their partner after errors, give kudos when they play well, and keep each other pumped up and positive in between points as well as on change overs.
By understanding your individual responsibilities and what both of you are mutually responsible for, you will be better able to do the right thing during each point and during each match, thus improving your chances to win.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Play Doubles Instincitively
Many a recreational doubles player, as well as many collegiate players, bemoan the fact that they should pick off more balls, cross more, be more aggressive with their movement, and move with their partner better. Many a tennis pro will work on poaching - how to poach, where to poach, and even when to begin moving on the poach. Your professional will also do drills with you on switching on lobs, moving together at net as well as various other tactical maneuvers. Yet the same problem remains when you play - you are a statue at the net, you only move between points, not during them. You also still fail to switch correctly on lobs, and still fail to move to the middle when your partner is pulled wide.
Why? You practice these precise movements weekly in your lessons - right? However, there is one aspect of match play that is far different from a lesson. Intensity and pressure. In a lesson, the environment is controlled. You know you are working on poaching - so you try to poach. In essence you are being forced to poach despite perhaps your better judgement. Usually in such lessons, the randomness that naturally occurs in a match is also stripped away to some degree, so your mind can ignore certain shots because they simply aren't allowed.
What each player must work on are their INSTINCTS in order to truly improve there doubles. Instincts can only be developed for match play at a speed of play greater than that of an actual match. Think of your instincts as how you react to situations during points on the court. Many of you reading this have slow, defensive, or passive instincts. This is why you do not move. When you do the lessons on these movements, the points are slower and less intense than match play. Because of this, your instincts never improve, despite the fact your knowledge base has improved conceptually.
If I asked any of you HOW to poach, when to poach, and where to poach, each one of you could verbatim regurgitate everything your coaches have ever told you. Likewise, if I asked where do you need to be on offense or defense on the court in a one-up one-back situation, most of you could easily tell me the answer. Your conceptual knowledge of where to be, what to do, and where to hit is not the problem. Not in the least. Instead, your problem is recognizing when to make a move, making the quick decision at match pace, and then just trusting yourself. That, in a nutshell is what instincts are.
So what is the answer to your poor instincts? How can we get you to tap into all that great knowledge your tennis coaches have been feeding you? The answer? Super fast paced point play with four to five extra balls to keep the points going that also increases the pace of play and raises your intensity level four to five times above what you tap into for one point in a match. Feedback only given between points, and during points only helpful "trouble" commands to help you recognize when your opponent is in trouble. Such drills confuse the brain, and force you to speed up your decision making processes, thus speeding up your reaction to stimuli and improving your instincts.
Such "lessons" should be 60 to 90 minutes long. You will get exhausted. The side benefit to such workouts is your physical fitness will improve tremendously. Long points will no longer be making you tired.
After at least one to two months do such lessons, you should see an improvement in your attempts and successes poaching, as well as you ability to move to the correct location on the court for each potential situation. All because you sped up your reactions and decision making time. The result will be better overall play, fewer errors, and more wins.
Why? You practice these precise movements weekly in your lessons - right? However, there is one aspect of match play that is far different from a lesson. Intensity and pressure. In a lesson, the environment is controlled. You know you are working on poaching - so you try to poach. In essence you are being forced to poach despite perhaps your better judgement. Usually in such lessons, the randomness that naturally occurs in a match is also stripped away to some degree, so your mind can ignore certain shots because they simply aren't allowed.
What each player must work on are their INSTINCTS in order to truly improve there doubles. Instincts can only be developed for match play at a speed of play greater than that of an actual match. Think of your instincts as how you react to situations during points on the court. Many of you reading this have slow, defensive, or passive instincts. This is why you do not move. When you do the lessons on these movements, the points are slower and less intense than match play. Because of this, your instincts never improve, despite the fact your knowledge base has improved conceptually.
If I asked any of you HOW to poach, when to poach, and where to poach, each one of you could verbatim regurgitate everything your coaches have ever told you. Likewise, if I asked where do you need to be on offense or defense on the court in a one-up one-back situation, most of you could easily tell me the answer. Your conceptual knowledge of where to be, what to do, and where to hit is not the problem. Not in the least. Instead, your problem is recognizing when to make a move, making the quick decision at match pace, and then just trusting yourself. That, in a nutshell is what instincts are.
So what is the answer to your poor instincts? How can we get you to tap into all that great knowledge your tennis coaches have been feeding you? The answer? Super fast paced point play with four to five extra balls to keep the points going that also increases the pace of play and raises your intensity level four to five times above what you tap into for one point in a match. Feedback only given between points, and during points only helpful "trouble" commands to help you recognize when your opponent is in trouble. Such drills confuse the brain, and force you to speed up your decision making processes, thus speeding up your reaction to stimuli and improving your instincts.
Such "lessons" should be 60 to 90 minutes long. You will get exhausted. The side benefit to such workouts is your physical fitness will improve tremendously. Long points will no longer be making you tired.
After at least one to two months do such lessons, you should see an improvement in your attempts and successes poaching, as well as you ability to move to the correct location on the court for each potential situation. All because you sped up your reactions and decision making time. The result will be better overall play, fewer errors, and more wins.
Monday, January 5, 2015
The State of Tennis Commentary on Television
Televised professional tennis, quite possibly, has the worst commentators of any professional sport on television. One thing that is appalling is the lack of insight into the technique that each player utilizes. This is true, despite the fact that each telecast has former players and professional coaches (usually people who are both) bloviating about the matches in incoherent rants.
The majority of the viewing public are tennis hacks - recreational players whose technique is best described as "far from professional." While it sometimes is instructive to explain why Nadal pounds the Federer backhand, once it has been stated (and is stated in every match they play) the routine viewer has no use for such analysis. They know what Nadal does to Federer too.
When the telecasts attempt to go into the technique of each player, we are given generalities rather than specifics. Things like "He keeps his head still," "look at the acceleration," or "great little steps." All this is fine and good, unless someone is actually trying to understand WHAT makes the professional technique so good and so efficient. In that regard we learn nothing for the commentators. There is no discussion of the elements of each stroke that make them so powerful and efficient.
I believe most viewers want to know how to hit a forehand like Federer, a two handed backhand like Novak's, a one handed backhand like Wawrinka, a serve like Isner, a volley like.. ok so maybe some archive footage of Mcenroe, Edberg, and Rafter should be included. The same should be done during women's matches. But you understand my point. Viewers want to emulate their favorite players and improve. Since most people are visual learners, getting some breakdowns of professional technique during a broadcast would be extremely beneficial.
Considering the broadcast time of a tennis match - sometimes 5 hours during a 3 out of 5 Grand Slam match, surely there is time to fill with better technical discussion.
So what is the solution? Add a developmental coach to the broadcast team, whose sole role is to discuss modern tennis technique using slow motion video of the players at hand. The addition of such a coach to the team would give the instruction real credit. In general players are terrible instructors, which is why we get such lame discussions of technique on current telecasts. The people who know what is going on are the best developmental coaches in the world. Find those with limited egos who won't make the discussions excuses to bash others. What is needed is someone who truly wants people to understand what exactly is going on on the court.
Technique is not an agenda either. In the past we've seen ESPN get bamboozled by the USTA to shill for 10 and under tennis, by virtue of ESPN's relationship with Patrick McEnroe. Good technique can be developed with any type of ball, so in discussing technique, pathways should be excluded from the discussion.. Fundamentals, rather than style should be emphasized - so while Nadal's lasso forehand is pretty cool looking and works for him, restrict the conversation to what he does fundamentally correct. After all, it is because he has great fundamentals that he can hit his forehand with that flair and be successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 70s and through the 80s and early 90s, Tony Trabert was the analyst for CBS's telecast of the US Open. Not only was he excellent in his discussions of the tactical and mental side of the game, he would give you great technical breakdowns in language anyone could understand. He was the last of the great analysts.
His partner in those tennis broadcasts was Pat Summerall, a former NFL kicker for the New York Giants, and well known as John Madden's broadcast partner for NFL games. What made Summerall such a good anchor for the telecasts was he never insinuated that he knew anything about tennis. He allowed Trabert to teach us what was going on. Sure, Summerall would get excited about a great shot, and had a great respect for the abilities of the players, but he never pretended to know what was going on in a player's head, ala Chris Fowler. Today, the ESPN broadcasts are sad attempts to manufacture some sort of drama, where the broadcasts of Summerall and Trabert allowed the drama to unfold on its own - therefore you were drawn into it.
Tennis as a television product is much worse today than it was in the days of Trabert and Summerall. Part of that may well be that society's attention span is significantly less today than it was in the past. If you believe that is true, and therefore the length of a tennis match is part of the problem with the current product, then you must also admit that the sports' own efforts to lengthen points by slowing down the court surfaces is also a factor in its demise as a product. However, the way it is being covered on television by ESPN is a cog that is sorely in need of radical change.
Tabloid tennis coverage is the mantra of the day. Make drama, and viewers will watch. The problem with this idea is it diminishes the actual drama that occurs on the court. Not every match has drama, nor is every match must see television, but I believe if you constantly try to create and manufacture drama where none exists, then when there is an actual dramatic tennis match, it diminishes its impact. It's along the lines of the girl who cried wolf. Eventually the viewer simply tunes you out. That's what has happened to ESPN's tennis coverage.
If I were in charge of ESPN tennis telecasts, I would let Fowler go. Next to go would be Brad Gilbert, Chris Evert, Patrick McEnroe, Jim Courier, and Pam Shriver. I would keep Mary Joe Fernandez, and Darren Cahill. Even though they used to be great commentators, John McEnroe and Cliff Drysdale have got to go.
I would attempt to hire Mike Breen of ABC and ESPN's NBA coverage as my #1 anchor for matches. Initially I would put him with Darren Cahill. The third person on the team would be a developmental coach (male or female). In the studio, I would hire Mike Greenberg & Sage Steele since Greenberg used to play tennis and has a true love for the sport, and Steele is a great anchor on NBA countdown. They would go solo, alternating during the day. Initially at least, for the reboot, I would see if Frank Deford from Sports Illustrated is available to do retrospectives on current and former players, as well as the game itself. This would mean replacing Tom Rinaldi, who is too melodramatic in my opinion. Lastly, Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post would do all in studio interviews, as she used to cover the tour and is very good at what she does. Gone would be discussing matches with former players in studio. The match commentators and analysts would take care of that.
The approach would be streamlined, and the hires would be an attempt to make coverage less in your face, instead accentuating the on court product.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final piece of the puzzle will be to come to terms with the fact that no one in this country cares about sub-standard American professional tennis players. If we had a plethora of top ranked players who had a legitimate chance to win a major, then showing Americans over other great players would make sense. Today, Serena Williams is the only player that should get such treatment from ESPN. All other featured match decisions should be based on three questions for each tour (ATP & WTA).
ATP
1) Is Roger Federer playing? Show live
2) Is Rafael Nadal playing? Show live
3) Is Novak Djokovic playing? Show live
WTA
1) Is Serena Williams playing? Show live
2) Is Maria Sharapova playing? Show live
3) Is Eugenie Bouchard playing? Show live
All other decisions should be based on either the highest ranked player that is on court, or the best match-up, determined by lowest combined ranking or seeding.
These are the players people want to see. On scale, no one cares about Sloane Stephens, or John Isner, or anyone else from the American camp. The American fan likes champions, winners. No longer should ESPN forbid the viewers from seeing one of the six players mentioned as must see TV in order to give us Sloane Stephens or John Isner. If and when an American breaks through and plays a match that is already going to be featured, like a semi-final or final, then they get their moment in the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, ESPN needs to forbid its analysts from propping up American players as great, when in fact they are mediocre on the tour (Save for Serena), Coverage should be realistic and not hopeful. You can discuss a country's hopes for a player, but the commentators shouldn't be actively rooting for someone, or explaining to us why so and so is going to be a top 10 player, when they have zero results to justify it. Let that kind of thing play itself out on court - there is no need to embellish the truth with fiction.
At the end of the day, we all want Americans to do well, but America doesn't prefer to watch mediocre Americans that will be out of a tournament by the 3rd round over the top players in the world. And we aren't naive enough not to be able to tell that a player has zero shot of becoming a grand slam champion. So please stop patronizing us.
Better television coverage of tennis requires a complete reboot of the television product by ESPN. Hopefully, they are having discussions, but I think we're going to get the same old tired garbage again this year.
The majority of the viewing public are tennis hacks - recreational players whose technique is best described as "far from professional." While it sometimes is instructive to explain why Nadal pounds the Federer backhand, once it has been stated (and is stated in every match they play) the routine viewer has no use for such analysis. They know what Nadal does to Federer too.
When the telecasts attempt to go into the technique of each player, we are given generalities rather than specifics. Things like "He keeps his head still," "look at the acceleration," or "great little steps." All this is fine and good, unless someone is actually trying to understand WHAT makes the professional technique so good and so efficient. In that regard we learn nothing for the commentators. There is no discussion of the elements of each stroke that make them so powerful and efficient.
I believe most viewers want to know how to hit a forehand like Federer, a two handed backhand like Novak's, a one handed backhand like Wawrinka, a serve like Isner, a volley like.. ok so maybe some archive footage of Mcenroe, Edberg, and Rafter should be included. The same should be done during women's matches. But you understand my point. Viewers want to emulate their favorite players and improve. Since most people are visual learners, getting some breakdowns of professional technique during a broadcast would be extremely beneficial.
Considering the broadcast time of a tennis match - sometimes 5 hours during a 3 out of 5 Grand Slam match, surely there is time to fill with better technical discussion.
So what is the solution? Add a developmental coach to the broadcast team, whose sole role is to discuss modern tennis technique using slow motion video of the players at hand. The addition of such a coach to the team would give the instruction real credit. In general players are terrible instructors, which is why we get such lame discussions of technique on current telecasts. The people who know what is going on are the best developmental coaches in the world. Find those with limited egos who won't make the discussions excuses to bash others. What is needed is someone who truly wants people to understand what exactly is going on on the court.
Technique is not an agenda either. In the past we've seen ESPN get bamboozled by the USTA to shill for 10 and under tennis, by virtue of ESPN's relationship with Patrick McEnroe. Good technique can be developed with any type of ball, so in discussing technique, pathways should be excluded from the discussion.. Fundamentals, rather than style should be emphasized - so while Nadal's lasso forehand is pretty cool looking and works for him, restrict the conversation to what he does fundamentally correct. After all, it is because he has great fundamentals that he can hit his forehand with that flair and be successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 70s and through the 80s and early 90s, Tony Trabert was the analyst for CBS's telecast of the US Open. Not only was he excellent in his discussions of the tactical and mental side of the game, he would give you great technical breakdowns in language anyone could understand. He was the last of the great analysts.
His partner in those tennis broadcasts was Pat Summerall, a former NFL kicker for the New York Giants, and well known as John Madden's broadcast partner for NFL games. What made Summerall such a good anchor for the telecasts was he never insinuated that he knew anything about tennis. He allowed Trabert to teach us what was going on. Sure, Summerall would get excited about a great shot, and had a great respect for the abilities of the players, but he never pretended to know what was going on in a player's head, ala Chris Fowler. Today, the ESPN broadcasts are sad attempts to manufacture some sort of drama, where the broadcasts of Summerall and Trabert allowed the drama to unfold on its own - therefore you were drawn into it.
Tennis as a television product is much worse today than it was in the days of Trabert and Summerall. Part of that may well be that society's attention span is significantly less today than it was in the past. If you believe that is true, and therefore the length of a tennis match is part of the problem with the current product, then you must also admit that the sports' own efforts to lengthen points by slowing down the court surfaces is also a factor in its demise as a product. However, the way it is being covered on television by ESPN is a cog that is sorely in need of radical change.
Tabloid tennis coverage is the mantra of the day. Make drama, and viewers will watch. The problem with this idea is it diminishes the actual drama that occurs on the court. Not every match has drama, nor is every match must see television, but I believe if you constantly try to create and manufacture drama where none exists, then when there is an actual dramatic tennis match, it diminishes its impact. It's along the lines of the girl who cried wolf. Eventually the viewer simply tunes you out. That's what has happened to ESPN's tennis coverage.
If I were in charge of ESPN tennis telecasts, I would let Fowler go. Next to go would be Brad Gilbert, Chris Evert, Patrick McEnroe, Jim Courier, and Pam Shriver. I would keep Mary Joe Fernandez, and Darren Cahill. Even though they used to be great commentators, John McEnroe and Cliff Drysdale have got to go.
I would attempt to hire Mike Breen of ABC and ESPN's NBA coverage as my #1 anchor for matches. Initially I would put him with Darren Cahill. The third person on the team would be a developmental coach (male or female). In the studio, I would hire Mike Greenberg & Sage Steele since Greenberg used to play tennis and has a true love for the sport, and Steele is a great anchor on NBA countdown. They would go solo, alternating during the day. Initially at least, for the reboot, I would see if Frank Deford from Sports Illustrated is available to do retrospectives on current and former players, as well as the game itself. This would mean replacing Tom Rinaldi, who is too melodramatic in my opinion. Lastly, Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post would do all in studio interviews, as she used to cover the tour and is very good at what she does. Gone would be discussing matches with former players in studio. The match commentators and analysts would take care of that.
The approach would be streamlined, and the hires would be an attempt to make coverage less in your face, instead accentuating the on court product.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final piece of the puzzle will be to come to terms with the fact that no one in this country cares about sub-standard American professional tennis players. If we had a plethora of top ranked players who had a legitimate chance to win a major, then showing Americans over other great players would make sense. Today, Serena Williams is the only player that should get such treatment from ESPN. All other featured match decisions should be based on three questions for each tour (ATP & WTA).
ATP
1) Is Roger Federer playing? Show live
2) Is Rafael Nadal playing? Show live
3) Is Novak Djokovic playing? Show live
WTA
1) Is Serena Williams playing? Show live
2) Is Maria Sharapova playing? Show live
3) Is Eugenie Bouchard playing? Show live
All other decisions should be based on either the highest ranked player that is on court, or the best match-up, determined by lowest combined ranking or seeding.
These are the players people want to see. On scale, no one cares about Sloane Stephens, or John Isner, or anyone else from the American camp. The American fan likes champions, winners. No longer should ESPN forbid the viewers from seeing one of the six players mentioned as must see TV in order to give us Sloane Stephens or John Isner. If and when an American breaks through and plays a match that is already going to be featured, like a semi-final or final, then they get their moment in the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, ESPN needs to forbid its analysts from propping up American players as great, when in fact they are mediocre on the tour (Save for Serena), Coverage should be realistic and not hopeful. You can discuss a country's hopes for a player, but the commentators shouldn't be actively rooting for someone, or explaining to us why so and so is going to be a top 10 player, when they have zero results to justify it. Let that kind of thing play itself out on court - there is no need to embellish the truth with fiction.
At the end of the day, we all want Americans to do well, but America doesn't prefer to watch mediocre Americans that will be out of a tournament by the 3rd round over the top players in the world. And we aren't naive enough not to be able to tell that a player has zero shot of becoming a grand slam champion. So please stop patronizing us.
Better television coverage of tennis requires a complete reboot of the television product by ESPN. Hopefully, they are having discussions, but I think we're going to get the same old tired garbage again this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
