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.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
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)
