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.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
25 Random, Yet Sage, Thoughts on Tennis
Here below I have compiled a list of some of my most sage thoughts. Enjoy!
1) If you think you can win, you have have a chance to win. If you think you won't win, you have no chance to win.
2) Without change there can be no improvement
3) Playing with one doubles partner for at least a year is the only proven way to play your best doubles.
4) Doubles and singles tactics are irrelevant if you can't get your serve or return of serve in.
5) You win the vast majority of points due to errors by your opponent. So try to force errors rather than hit winners.
6) Losing and winning are both states of mind
7) If everyone only played with people better than themselves, no one would play with anyone at any time.
8) If you can rationalize losing 45-55% of the points at the baseline and still play a counter punching game from the back of the court, why can't you rationalize that losing 45-49% of the points at net is a great result and keep attacking the net?
9) Respect everyone's game, fear no one's game.
10) Cheating is a display not only of poor sportsmanship, but more importantly, lack of confidence.
11) How you respond to and deal with events on court is more important than the events themselves.
12) A losing strategy is one that cannot win you more than 49.99% of the points.
13) Ball machine practice makes anything more permanent, including bad technique.
14) Power without consistency is like driving 120mph without being able to control the car - it ends badly for you.
15) Your opponents should not have a better idea of your strengths and weaknesses than you do.
16) The server's partner in doubles is more responsible for holding the serve than the server, provided the server is not a double fault machine.
17) The number one reason people don't poach or pick off enough balls is they fear getting passed up the line.
18) The shots you use the least in a match require the most practice.
19) Bad footwork often causes bad technique, but bad technique never causes bad footwork.
20) Decide where you're hitting the ball BEFORE you move to the ball.
21) A low-percentage game will always yield you low-percentage results.
22) Right now, someone is working harder than you, and wants it more than you.
23) Learning from failure is the key to future success.
24) Spin the racquet and choose servers and sides BEFORE you begin to warm up for a match
25) When you do lose, focus you're ire on yourself - in singles and doubles.
11) How you respond to and deal with events on court is more important than the events themselves.
12) A losing strategy is one that cannot win you more than 49.99% of the points.
13) Ball machine practice makes anything more permanent, including bad technique.
14) Power without consistency is like driving 120mph without being able to control the car - it ends badly for you.
15) Your opponents should not have a better idea of your strengths and weaknesses than you do.
16) The server's partner in doubles is more responsible for holding the serve than the server, provided the server is not a double fault machine.
17) The number one reason people don't poach or pick off enough balls is they fear getting passed up the line.
18) The shots you use the least in a match require the most practice.
19) Bad footwork often causes bad technique, but bad technique never causes bad footwork.
20) Decide where you're hitting the ball BEFORE you move to the ball.
21) A low-percentage game will always yield you low-percentage results.
22) Right now, someone is working harder than you, and wants it more than you.
23) Learning from failure is the key to future success.
24) Spin the racquet and choose servers and sides BEFORE you begin to warm up for a match
25) When you do lose, focus you're ire on yourself - in singles and doubles.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Doubles 101 Tactics -The Three Ts
When playing doubles, or taking a doubles lesson, invariably you have heard your pro or partner say "get them (your opponents) out of position." Essentially, they are imploring you to hit the ball somewhere that forces your opponents to move in a way that should open up space for you to exploit on the next shot. But what does this really mean? HOW can you accomplish this?
What will allow you to do what is being asked of you is to target and exploit the three T's on the court. They are the middle T where the service line and center line meet, and the two side T's where the singles line and service line meet. The Bryan Brothers have used this theory of doubles to win a record number of grand slams, and it will help you win vastly more matches. Check out the diagram below
Now you know visually the targets you are trying to exploit. Next is to know which T to exploit and when.
Serve: At a high level, servers will attempt to hit their serves to either the middle T or the side T to get the returner out of position, either moving them outside the alley, or towards the center of the court. This makes the "second shot" during the point self explanatory. If the server serves out wide to the deuce court for example and the returner returns up the line, the server's partner should attack the middle T. If the return goes cross court, and server's partner can pick it off, the ball goes to either the middle T or the side T on the ad court. If the return is low to the server as he comes in to net, he must put the ball back to the side T on the deuce court. If the return is high to the middle of the court and the server has the shot, he should go to the middle T. If the ball is high to the outside cross court toward the alley, the server should volley down the line to the side T on the ad court.
As you can see you are simply moving the ball from T to T, playing the high percentage shot each time.
Return of Serve - Returners should be aiming for the side T cross court. This target should keep the ball away from server's partner and get your partner active in a "drift" (returner's partner poaching the server's first volley or groundstroke). If the server volleys up the line and your partner is there, your partner attacks the middle T. If your partner drifts to pick of the server's cross court volley or groundstroke he attacks either the middle T or the side T that is in the direction he is moving.
Poaching - Almost all poaches attacke either the middle T or the side T to the side you are moving. What determines your shot selection is whether or not you have crossed the center line or not. The middle T should be attacked if you pick off the ball but are still on "your side" of the court. The side T to the side you are moving should be attacked if you are able to cross over the center line to pick off the ball, as volleying to the middle T in this scenario opens up space for your opponent to attack the space you vacated.
Overheads - Overheads should always be hit to the middle T or the side T to the "short side (side where the volleyer is)" if you are on "your side" of the court or the side T in the direction you are moving if you are crossing. If both your opponents are at net or the person in front of you is at the net, then you may hit the overhead to the side T on your half of the court.
Approach Shots - Like the return of serve, approach shots should be hit to the side T cross court if you are engaged in a cross court ground stroke rally. If the rally is down the line (after a switch for example) then your approach shot should attack the side T down the line.
There isn't much tactically to doubles when it gets broken down in this manner. Attack the appropriate T to get your opponents out of position, then attack another to try to finish the point. If you play the high percentage shot each time, you will not only get your opponents in poor positions, you will also reduce your own errors.
I encourage you to apply the theory of the three T's to your game, your match results and ratings will be happier for it.
What will allow you to do what is being asked of you is to target and exploit the three T's on the court. They are the middle T where the service line and center line meet, and the two side T's where the singles line and service line meet. The Bryan Brothers have used this theory of doubles to win a record number of grand slams, and it will help you win vastly more matches. Check out the diagram below
Serve: At a high level, servers will attempt to hit their serves to either the middle T or the side T to get the returner out of position, either moving them outside the alley, or towards the center of the court. This makes the "second shot" during the point self explanatory. If the server serves out wide to the deuce court for example and the returner returns up the line, the server's partner should attack the middle T. If the return goes cross court, and server's partner can pick it off, the ball goes to either the middle T or the side T on the ad court. If the return is low to the server as he comes in to net, he must put the ball back to the side T on the deuce court. If the return is high to the middle of the court and the server has the shot, he should go to the middle T. If the ball is high to the outside cross court toward the alley, the server should volley down the line to the side T on the ad court.
As you can see you are simply moving the ball from T to T, playing the high percentage shot each time.
Return of Serve - Returners should be aiming for the side T cross court. This target should keep the ball away from server's partner and get your partner active in a "drift" (returner's partner poaching the server's first volley or groundstroke). If the server volleys up the line and your partner is there, your partner attacks the middle T. If your partner drifts to pick of the server's cross court volley or groundstroke he attacks either the middle T or the side T that is in the direction he is moving.
Poaching - Almost all poaches attacke either the middle T or the side T to the side you are moving. What determines your shot selection is whether or not you have crossed the center line or not. The middle T should be attacked if you pick off the ball but are still on "your side" of the court. The side T to the side you are moving should be attacked if you are able to cross over the center line to pick off the ball, as volleying to the middle T in this scenario opens up space for your opponent to attack the space you vacated.
Overheads - Overheads should always be hit to the middle T or the side T to the "short side (side where the volleyer is)" if you are on "your side" of the court or the side T in the direction you are moving if you are crossing. If both your opponents are at net or the person in front of you is at the net, then you may hit the overhead to the side T on your half of the court.
Approach Shots - Like the return of serve, approach shots should be hit to the side T cross court if you are engaged in a cross court ground stroke rally. If the rally is down the line (after a switch for example) then your approach shot should attack the side T down the line.
There isn't much tactically to doubles when it gets broken down in this manner. Attack the appropriate T to get your opponents out of position, then attack another to try to finish the point. If you play the high percentage shot each time, you will not only get your opponents in poor positions, you will also reduce your own errors.
I encourage you to apply the theory of the three T's to your game, your match results and ratings will be happier for it.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Giving Thanks - The Most Important Person in My Tennis Development
For most players who achieve even a fairly high level of play, either their mom or dad or their coach would be considered the most important person in their tennis development. After all, some moms and dads spend literally hours a day on court with their children, driving their kids to tournaments, dealing with the aftermath of wins and losses, and helping shape the character of their child. The Coach spends hours a week with the player, guiding and shaping their games into the flower that blossoms before our eyes on the court.
My parents, though supportive of my efforts to play tennis, did not spend hours on the court with me each week. Yes, they drove me to the courts when necessary, took me to tournaments and club matches when necessary. But they didn't stay on the court when I took clinics, or hover around practices, and aside from "mother or father son time" when I was 6 or 7, never took me out on the court to hit balls. During my "formative years" 12-17, I was my own transportation to the swim and racquet club we belonged to. I rode my bike everywhere; to club matches at various clubs within our city, and got rides with other families if the club matches or tournaments were away and my mom couldn't take me. I solely dictated when I played, how I played, and with whom I played, my parents never suggested that I go play. And I played every day of every summer from 6-14, and virtually every day of the year from age 14-18. If I wanted to go play, my parents always let me go. But as far as being INVOLVED in my actual tennis development, neither played a vital role.
I never had a coach who was responsible for my tennis development. Yes, I had team coaches, both at our swim and racquet club, and at our high school. While great people, none of them were coaches in the sense of doing things that could help improve your game technically, tactically, emotionally, or physically. I never took a private lesson growing up. In fact the first lesson I ever took was at age 22 with nothing specific in mind. The second and last private lesson I took was to learn how to hit a one handed slice at age 24 so I could pass the USPTA exam. I had the occasion to take two indoor high performance clinics sessions - One 8 week session at age 14 and another at age 17 that was cut short by an MCL tear. About 5 times I went to a weekend High Performance clinic with the best players in our area, but I can't say they had a profound impact on my tennis. None of those clinics or teams had a radical effect on my tennis development, other than to give me the opportunity to compete against different players than I normally played against.
I learned how to play primarily from watching matches on TV and then spending hours upon hours on the court trying to somehow replicate what I saw. Some of this time involved me hitting against the wall at our swim and tennis club, and some of it involved me taking two cans of tennis balls with me to the courts and serving for an hour. I did these things frequently.
However, there was also a person with whom I played tennis with four to five times a week for almost 6 years. I met him when I was 11 and he was 10. We met at the swim and racquet club as part of our club team. Perhaps ironically, our older brothers were doubles partners for one year and during that season won the District high school championship and represented our high school at the state championships. Like our brothers, Ken and Paul, respectively, Steve Soliday and I won the district doubles title two years in a row and represented the same high school two years in a row at the state championships.
Not only were Steve and I tennis practice partners, we were best friends. His mother was essentially a second mother to me, as I spent a lot of time at his house. We played tennis probably 320 days out of 365 together for 5-6 years. Many times we would play for 3-4 hours at once. It was my time on the court with Steve that I developed my game. My father used to ask me "Can't you find someone else to play with?" Perhaps, but he was always willing and available. Reliable. That was important to me.
As kids, through high school, we would read Tennis Magazine (wen it was actually interesting) and try out some of their games and drills. The "ultimate game of touch" was a favorite. We would play best 3 of five sets, thus pushing ourselves physically and mentally. We did a lot of "pepper" or quick volleys, we both liked playing the net. These games are responsible for what at one point were very good hands and pretty good volleying skills for me.
Steve was always a good returner of serve, so it forced me to improve both my first and second serve. As a younger player, I was more of a "pusher" and Steve was a more aggressive player. I would get the better of him just because of consistency. When Steve would beat me, and this happened five or six times during those 5-6 years, I would get so irritated that I lost to him, that I would make some radical change so it wouldn't happen again. One in particular I remember, was he beat me at an indoor tournament when I was 15. Straight sets. Was only the second time he'd ever beaten me. The fallout from that match was severe. I can remember my father saying to me when I got home (I rode my bike to the tournament) "How are you losing to Steve?" Since I had no coach, I to come up with a solution. In my mind, if he could beat me once, he could beat me again, and I did not want that to happen.
So after a few months of closer matches which I was again winning, but now in three sets instead of two, I decided that I needed to follow my heart and start serving and volleying, at least on the first serve. I would also start attacking the net on second serves. Soon I was again beating him as I had been prior to the indoor loss. My game had improved.
Even though I got the better of our matches growing up, he was the standard by which I measured my game. I knew that he could beat people I had no chance of beating, because his game was always "bigger" than my game. The guys he struggled with, the guys he would lose to but "should" have been beating, I would always beat those players. But he had wins against players I went 0-for against. Even then, I knew his ceiling was higher than mine. At that time, all that was important to me was staying one step ahead.
He was more natural athlete, the more gifted player. I was the workhorse. To stay ahead of him I played and practiced perhaps twice as much as he did. If that ever was to stop (which it did) by virtue of me not practicing or he practicing more, I knew he would overtake me. That's how much respect I had for him and his game. You can just see things when you play someone alnost every day for that long a period of time.
Eventually he would overtake me. He smartly left FSU and played four years of college tennis at Salisbury university. Once that happened, he would either beat me or I would somehow get lucky and split sets. Wins for me were no longer part of the dynamic. But he was still the measuring stick by which I would judge my own success.
So fast forward to 2014. I move to Charlotte to take a tennis teaching job, and Steve is living in Charlotte. He invites me to play in a 12 person doubles "league" on Wednesday nights. Knowing that he is playing at a higher level than me now, my sole goal in this league is to somehow play well enough to move "up" within the group in order to play on his court, and then to win one set of doubles AGAINST him. He STILL is the measuring stick of my tennis at age 40. Some things are just hardwired in your psyche. Pretty unbelievable when I sit back and think about it.
So without a doubt, the most important person in my own tennis development is Steve Soliday. I doubt he knows that, but it is the truth. Without him being such a big part of my life, I'm not sure I'd even be a tennis teaching professional. That's how important he was to my tennis. So this Thanksgiving, I'm giving much thanks to having him as a friend and tennis partner. Happy Thanksgiving. .
My parents, though supportive of my efforts to play tennis, did not spend hours on the court with me each week. Yes, they drove me to the courts when necessary, took me to tournaments and club matches when necessary. But they didn't stay on the court when I took clinics, or hover around practices, and aside from "mother or father son time" when I was 6 or 7, never took me out on the court to hit balls. During my "formative years" 12-17, I was my own transportation to the swim and racquet club we belonged to. I rode my bike everywhere; to club matches at various clubs within our city, and got rides with other families if the club matches or tournaments were away and my mom couldn't take me. I solely dictated when I played, how I played, and with whom I played, my parents never suggested that I go play. And I played every day of every summer from 6-14, and virtually every day of the year from age 14-18. If I wanted to go play, my parents always let me go. But as far as being INVOLVED in my actual tennis development, neither played a vital role.
I never had a coach who was responsible for my tennis development. Yes, I had team coaches, both at our swim and racquet club, and at our high school. While great people, none of them were coaches in the sense of doing things that could help improve your game technically, tactically, emotionally, or physically. I never took a private lesson growing up. In fact the first lesson I ever took was at age 22 with nothing specific in mind. The second and last private lesson I took was to learn how to hit a one handed slice at age 24 so I could pass the USPTA exam. I had the occasion to take two indoor high performance clinics sessions - One 8 week session at age 14 and another at age 17 that was cut short by an MCL tear. About 5 times I went to a weekend High Performance clinic with the best players in our area, but I can't say they had a profound impact on my tennis. None of those clinics or teams had a radical effect on my tennis development, other than to give me the opportunity to compete against different players than I normally played against.
I learned how to play primarily from watching matches on TV and then spending hours upon hours on the court trying to somehow replicate what I saw. Some of this time involved me hitting against the wall at our swim and tennis club, and some of it involved me taking two cans of tennis balls with me to the courts and serving for an hour. I did these things frequently.
However, there was also a person with whom I played tennis with four to five times a week for almost 6 years. I met him when I was 11 and he was 10. We met at the swim and racquet club as part of our club team. Perhaps ironically, our older brothers were doubles partners for one year and during that season won the District high school championship and represented our high school at the state championships. Like our brothers, Ken and Paul, respectively, Steve Soliday and I won the district doubles title two years in a row and represented the same high school two years in a row at the state championships.
Not only were Steve and I tennis practice partners, we were best friends. His mother was essentially a second mother to me, as I spent a lot of time at his house. We played tennis probably 320 days out of 365 together for 5-6 years. Many times we would play for 3-4 hours at once. It was my time on the court with Steve that I developed my game. My father used to ask me "Can't you find someone else to play with?" Perhaps, but he was always willing and available. Reliable. That was important to me.
As kids, through high school, we would read Tennis Magazine (wen it was actually interesting) and try out some of their games and drills. The "ultimate game of touch" was a favorite. We would play best 3 of five sets, thus pushing ourselves physically and mentally. We did a lot of "pepper" or quick volleys, we both liked playing the net. These games are responsible for what at one point were very good hands and pretty good volleying skills for me.
Steve was always a good returner of serve, so it forced me to improve both my first and second serve. As a younger player, I was more of a "pusher" and Steve was a more aggressive player. I would get the better of him just because of consistency. When Steve would beat me, and this happened five or six times during those 5-6 years, I would get so irritated that I lost to him, that I would make some radical change so it wouldn't happen again. One in particular I remember, was he beat me at an indoor tournament when I was 15. Straight sets. Was only the second time he'd ever beaten me. The fallout from that match was severe. I can remember my father saying to me when I got home (I rode my bike to the tournament) "How are you losing to Steve?" Since I had no coach, I to come up with a solution. In my mind, if he could beat me once, he could beat me again, and I did not want that to happen.
So after a few months of closer matches which I was again winning, but now in three sets instead of two, I decided that I needed to follow my heart and start serving and volleying, at least on the first serve. I would also start attacking the net on second serves. Soon I was again beating him as I had been prior to the indoor loss. My game had improved.
Even though I got the better of our matches growing up, he was the standard by which I measured my game. I knew that he could beat people I had no chance of beating, because his game was always "bigger" than my game. The guys he struggled with, the guys he would lose to but "should" have been beating, I would always beat those players. But he had wins against players I went 0-for against. Even then, I knew his ceiling was higher than mine. At that time, all that was important to me was staying one step ahead.
He was more natural athlete, the more gifted player. I was the workhorse. To stay ahead of him I played and practiced perhaps twice as much as he did. If that ever was to stop (which it did) by virtue of me not practicing or he practicing more, I knew he would overtake me. That's how much respect I had for him and his game. You can just see things when you play someone alnost every day for that long a period of time.
Eventually he would overtake me. He smartly left FSU and played four years of college tennis at Salisbury university. Once that happened, he would either beat me or I would somehow get lucky and split sets. Wins for me were no longer part of the dynamic. But he was still the measuring stick by which I would judge my own success.
So fast forward to 2014. I move to Charlotte to take a tennis teaching job, and Steve is living in Charlotte. He invites me to play in a 12 person doubles "league" on Wednesday nights. Knowing that he is playing at a higher level than me now, my sole goal in this league is to somehow play well enough to move "up" within the group in order to play on his court, and then to win one set of doubles AGAINST him. He STILL is the measuring stick of my tennis at age 40. Some things are just hardwired in your psyche. Pretty unbelievable when I sit back and think about it.
So without a doubt, the most important person in my own tennis development is Steve Soliday. I doubt he knows that, but it is the truth. Without him being such a big part of my life, I'm not sure I'd even be a tennis teaching professional. That's how important he was to my tennis. So this Thanksgiving, I'm giving much thanks to having him as a friend and tennis partner. Happy Thanksgiving. .
Monday, November 17, 2014
Improve Your Match Play By Changing How You Play Practice Matches
Regardless of what type of player you are - junior player, USTA league player, ladies' league doubles player, or recreational player - you can improve your play substantially by using your practice matches to improve some aspect of your game.
What is a practice match? Any match whose result makes no difference to you or you and your partner whatsoever. In other words, your overriding goal is not winning the match. This is an important distinction for one reason - when you mentally choose to focus on winning - you stop focusing on improving, and instead just do what "feels right." You resort to your normal habits. If you can make improvement the overriding goal, and put winning on the back burner, then you can use match play to your advantage.
Players who always focus on winning in every match never improve their level of play.
So what to work on? That is up to you. You can choose something technical, tactical, or mental/emotional. Let's tackle them one at a time, and give you some suggestions for each.
Technical - Regardless of what you are working on, your goal is the production of the correct technique on every point. This means you attempt the proper technique every opportunity you have. You do not waver from this approach, even if you are making errors. The purpose is to get better at the new technique, not win the match. The only way to make new technique "match tough," is to force yourself to use in in matches. Plus, when you are learning new technique, if you resort beck to your "old" technique in order to win, you are making it more difficult to learn the new technique. You would actually set yourself back. Remember, it's OK to lose a match, and it's ok to make errors while you are learning a new technique. If you play doubles, it will suffice for you to be upfront with your partner that you are going to be practicing a new technique. This way, your partner's expectations for winning are lowered, and you might even convince them to work on something also. If you are able to win or at least play well using the new technique, just think about the confidence that will give you.
Tactical - My personal term for this is called "playing with restrictions." Essentially you force yourself to do certain patterns of play, no matter the outcome. As an example, imagine you want to improve hitting your return of serve and attacking the net - "chipping and charging" so to speak. Well, you would attempt this tactic on every service point, and force yourself to get to the net. If you blow three returns in a row, or dump the volley in the net three times in a row, the fourth point you chip and charge again. No conscience. You are there to work on your game. Even if your long term goal is not to use this tactic on every point, you are certainly going to get comfortable doing the tactic under match conditions. In this case, you are playing the practice match with your "B or C" game, and improving it. This will only serve to improve the effectiveness of your "A" game by giving you more options and variety. If you start winning practice matches with your B or C game, you will know your overall game improved tremendously.
Mental/Emotional - This part of your game needs to be practiced to perfect as well. Whether you are working on routines between points, or working on breathing out wen your opponent strikes the ball and when you strike the ball, or working on staying calm through adversity, you must practice them to improve them. Like the technical and tactical items, you must force yourself to practice them no matter the result or outcome of the point/match. If you are working on a set routine between every point, then this is your focus for the match - not where your return serve, not how you serve, not the success or failure of your volleys. Only the routines matter.
As you can tell, focusing on something in your matches rather than the outcome takes great mental focus and attention. That alone will improve your ability to focus in a match that DOES count.
Improvement can happen in lessons, in the gym, or in matches. No matter the venue, you must be attentive toward what you are trying to improve. Most professional and top level junior players target certain events so they have their peak performance occur at those events. As an example, Pete Sampras would use non majors to work on his game. Hence a reason he only won 64 tournaments in his illustrious career that saw him win 14 majors. But it is instructive that one of the greatest players of all time didn't make winning every event his priority. Instead, his goal was winning one or more of four tournaments a year.
We are just as capable as Pete Sampras to not only target certain events/matches to play our best and focus on winning, but also use other matches and events as practice to help us improve enough to play our absolute best at the targeted events. So next time you're playing a practice match, practice something, it will help you win later.
What is a practice match? Any match whose result makes no difference to you or you and your partner whatsoever. In other words, your overriding goal is not winning the match. This is an important distinction for one reason - when you mentally choose to focus on winning - you stop focusing on improving, and instead just do what "feels right." You resort to your normal habits. If you can make improvement the overriding goal, and put winning on the back burner, then you can use match play to your advantage.
Players who always focus on winning in every match never improve their level of play.
So what to work on? That is up to you. You can choose something technical, tactical, or mental/emotional. Let's tackle them one at a time, and give you some suggestions for each.
Technical - Regardless of what you are working on, your goal is the production of the correct technique on every point. This means you attempt the proper technique every opportunity you have. You do not waver from this approach, even if you are making errors. The purpose is to get better at the new technique, not win the match. The only way to make new technique "match tough," is to force yourself to use in in matches. Plus, when you are learning new technique, if you resort beck to your "old" technique in order to win, you are making it more difficult to learn the new technique. You would actually set yourself back. Remember, it's OK to lose a match, and it's ok to make errors while you are learning a new technique. If you play doubles, it will suffice for you to be upfront with your partner that you are going to be practicing a new technique. This way, your partner's expectations for winning are lowered, and you might even convince them to work on something also. If you are able to win or at least play well using the new technique, just think about the confidence that will give you.
Tactical - My personal term for this is called "playing with restrictions." Essentially you force yourself to do certain patterns of play, no matter the outcome. As an example, imagine you want to improve hitting your return of serve and attacking the net - "chipping and charging" so to speak. Well, you would attempt this tactic on every service point, and force yourself to get to the net. If you blow three returns in a row, or dump the volley in the net three times in a row, the fourth point you chip and charge again. No conscience. You are there to work on your game. Even if your long term goal is not to use this tactic on every point, you are certainly going to get comfortable doing the tactic under match conditions. In this case, you are playing the practice match with your "B or C" game, and improving it. This will only serve to improve the effectiveness of your "A" game by giving you more options and variety. If you start winning practice matches with your B or C game, you will know your overall game improved tremendously.
Mental/Emotional - This part of your game needs to be practiced to perfect as well. Whether you are working on routines between points, or working on breathing out wen your opponent strikes the ball and when you strike the ball, or working on staying calm through adversity, you must practice them to improve them. Like the technical and tactical items, you must force yourself to practice them no matter the result or outcome of the point/match. If you are working on a set routine between every point, then this is your focus for the match - not where your return serve, not how you serve, not the success or failure of your volleys. Only the routines matter.
As you can tell, focusing on something in your matches rather than the outcome takes great mental focus and attention. That alone will improve your ability to focus in a match that DOES count.
Improvement can happen in lessons, in the gym, or in matches. No matter the venue, you must be attentive toward what you are trying to improve. Most professional and top level junior players target certain events so they have their peak performance occur at those events. As an example, Pete Sampras would use non majors to work on his game. Hence a reason he only won 64 tournaments in his illustrious career that saw him win 14 majors. But it is instructive that one of the greatest players of all time didn't make winning every event his priority. Instead, his goal was winning one or more of four tournaments a year.
We are just as capable as Pete Sampras to not only target certain events/matches to play our best and focus on winning, but also use other matches and events as practice to help us improve enough to play our absolute best at the targeted events. So next time you're playing a practice match, practice something, it will help you win later.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Playing Against Players Above Your Level
We've all been in this situation. You're engaged in a match against players that are clearly above your level. You probably realized this during the warm up, or you knew before you played that you had virtually no chance to win. It is a tough mental hurdle to overcome for sure. It's also an almost impossible task to ask you to try to win the match.
So, what can you do? How can you attempt to make the match competitive, or at least comport yourself in the best possible way - playing to your best capabilities?
First let's talk about the mental side of this. You can only control a few things on the court - what you try to do with your shot selection and movement after each shot. The serve is the only time you have complete control of your own shot. You also have control over your court positioning at the beginning of every point. Where players immediately put themselves in a deeper hole is by thinking about everything that is out of their control. That the other team is at a higher level is a fact, and you can't change it. You can't control when they ace you, or blast return winners, or hit majestic overheads. You can't control the fact that their slice is difficult for you to return or that you can't handle their pace from the back of the court.
When you play players your own level, you might be the most consistent player from the back of the court, but against players above your level, your stroke inefficiencies come out due to the speed of the ball and quality of the shot that forces you to move into uncomfortable positions. So engaging said players in groundstroke to groundstroke cross court rallies in a one up one back set is a recipe for a quick match.
Chances are, because your opponents are at a higher level, they will move more at the net, poach more, and generally be more aggressive and successful wit that aggression. So being in the "hot seat" is likely not where you want to be.
So here are some tactical considerations if you find yourself outgunned and over-matched -
Get to net - Hit the return and come in (unless you give them a short lob), serve, and hit the next ball and come in. Lob the net player and get in. Just don't engage in a losing crosscourt groundstroke rally. This tactic assumes you can handle the pace of their groundstrokes with your volley. If you or your partner simply cannot, you may have to choose the next tactic on the list. Getting to the net eliminates your weakness (groundstrokes) from being an element of the match. Now, you get to see who the better team is at net. Chances are, you will still lose the match simply because the other team is better all around, but perhaps this tactic will win you a few more points. Consider this, if your success rate (points won) at the net is 45% and your success rate at the baseline hitting groundstrokes is 20%, which position will make the match more competitive? Always do what wins the highest percentage of points.
Play two - back - This is smart if the opposing team has really great serves that you might be able to get a racquet on, but can't consistently control the direction of the return. Playing both back against big servers saves your partner from getting obliterated in the "hot seat." It also may relax you just enough to start directing the return with more confidence, knowing you aren't setting up your partner to get another tennis ball tattoo. In addition, if you cannot control your volley because you are being overpowered by the groundstrokes of your opponent, this tactic will allow you to get a few more balls back, lengthening the points. Remember, the longer the point, the better chance they might make an error. Of course, don't get upset when they start hit short angles and dropshots on you.
Lob - A lot - Lobbing will eliminate two potential strengths from your opponent - their groundstrokes and their volleying. They may still beat you with good overheads, but at least you did something to take away their strengths. For you and your partner, you effectively slow the game down to a more manageable pace. You just might frustrate the other team enough into losing it mentally and making boatloads of errors. Or you might lose every point after they hit their first overhead. Wouldn't you like to find out? If choosing this strategy, I would play both back on their serve AND yours.
Gamesmanship - Nothing gets a player out of the "zone" like having to think about what it is they're doing to play so well. On the changeover, ask the other players "Man you're serving great today, what are you doing on your serve that makes it so precise?" Or something like "I wish I had volleys like yours, what are you doing that makes them so good?" These comments are benign really, but you may just get them to start thinking about how they hit the ball, which can be disastrous during a match. You may just start seeing a few more errors creep into their game, or more first serves being missed. People tend to frown upon "gamesmanship," but when framed as a compliment to your opponent, it usually goes undetected.
Gamesmanship #2 - Take extra time between every point. Put your hand up like you're not ready to receive serve before every point. Take extra time before you serve each point. If the team is going to kill you, make them stay out there as long as possible. The better players will usually want to play fast. Don't let them dictate the pace of the match between points. You dictate to them! Don't give them what they want, give them what you want. This slowed down pace of play may get them out their rhythm, or frustrate them just enough to get you a few more points and maybe even a few more games. A lot of this can be done by simply meeting with your partner before every point. After you meet, still put your hand up like you're not ready if the other team is serving.
You may try one or all of these in your match and still get blown out. If that's the case, you had no chance to win, but at least you tried to do something different to make their life more difficult and yours a little more livable. Sometimes that's all you can do.
So, what can you do? How can you attempt to make the match competitive, or at least comport yourself in the best possible way - playing to your best capabilities?
First let's talk about the mental side of this. You can only control a few things on the court - what you try to do with your shot selection and movement after each shot. The serve is the only time you have complete control of your own shot. You also have control over your court positioning at the beginning of every point. Where players immediately put themselves in a deeper hole is by thinking about everything that is out of their control. That the other team is at a higher level is a fact, and you can't change it. You can't control when they ace you, or blast return winners, or hit majestic overheads. You can't control the fact that their slice is difficult for you to return or that you can't handle their pace from the back of the court.
When you play players your own level, you might be the most consistent player from the back of the court, but against players above your level, your stroke inefficiencies come out due to the speed of the ball and quality of the shot that forces you to move into uncomfortable positions. So engaging said players in groundstroke to groundstroke cross court rallies in a one up one back set is a recipe for a quick match.
Chances are, because your opponents are at a higher level, they will move more at the net, poach more, and generally be more aggressive and successful wit that aggression. So being in the "hot seat" is likely not where you want to be.
So here are some tactical considerations if you find yourself outgunned and over-matched -
Get to net - Hit the return and come in (unless you give them a short lob), serve, and hit the next ball and come in. Lob the net player and get in. Just don't engage in a losing crosscourt groundstroke rally. This tactic assumes you can handle the pace of their groundstrokes with your volley. If you or your partner simply cannot, you may have to choose the next tactic on the list. Getting to the net eliminates your weakness (groundstrokes) from being an element of the match. Now, you get to see who the better team is at net. Chances are, you will still lose the match simply because the other team is better all around, but perhaps this tactic will win you a few more points. Consider this, if your success rate (points won) at the net is 45% and your success rate at the baseline hitting groundstrokes is 20%, which position will make the match more competitive? Always do what wins the highest percentage of points.
Play two - back - This is smart if the opposing team has really great serves that you might be able to get a racquet on, but can't consistently control the direction of the return. Playing both back against big servers saves your partner from getting obliterated in the "hot seat." It also may relax you just enough to start directing the return with more confidence, knowing you aren't setting up your partner to get another tennis ball tattoo. In addition, if you cannot control your volley because you are being overpowered by the groundstrokes of your opponent, this tactic will allow you to get a few more balls back, lengthening the points. Remember, the longer the point, the better chance they might make an error. Of course, don't get upset when they start hit short angles and dropshots on you.
Lob - A lot - Lobbing will eliminate two potential strengths from your opponent - their groundstrokes and their volleying. They may still beat you with good overheads, but at least you did something to take away their strengths. For you and your partner, you effectively slow the game down to a more manageable pace. You just might frustrate the other team enough into losing it mentally and making boatloads of errors. Or you might lose every point after they hit their first overhead. Wouldn't you like to find out? If choosing this strategy, I would play both back on their serve AND yours.
Gamesmanship - Nothing gets a player out of the "zone" like having to think about what it is they're doing to play so well. On the changeover, ask the other players "Man you're serving great today, what are you doing on your serve that makes it so precise?" Or something like "I wish I had volleys like yours, what are you doing that makes them so good?" These comments are benign really, but you may just get them to start thinking about how they hit the ball, which can be disastrous during a match. You may just start seeing a few more errors creep into their game, or more first serves being missed. People tend to frown upon "gamesmanship," but when framed as a compliment to your opponent, it usually goes undetected.
Gamesmanship #2 - Take extra time between every point. Put your hand up like you're not ready to receive serve before every point. Take extra time before you serve each point. If the team is going to kill you, make them stay out there as long as possible. The better players will usually want to play fast. Don't let them dictate the pace of the match between points. You dictate to them! Don't give them what they want, give them what you want. This slowed down pace of play may get them out their rhythm, or frustrate them just enough to get you a few more points and maybe even a few more games. A lot of this can be done by simply meeting with your partner before every point. After you meet, still put your hand up like you're not ready if the other team is serving.
You may try one or all of these in your match and still get blown out. If that's the case, you had no chance to win, but at least you tried to do something different to make their life more difficult and yours a little more livable. Sometimes that's all you can do.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Trouble - What to do in doubles when you're opponent is in trouble
In doubles, "trouble" as it pertains to your opponent, means anytime they are off balance, stretching, or retreating. It also means anytime the net player has a ball at their feet or at least very low in relation to the net. In these circumstances, your opponent's ability to accurately control the direction and intent of their shot is limited at best. What does this mean for you?
If you are playing at net, and are down the line from the ball, it means attack! Close the net (move forward) immediately upon seeing your opponent's in trouble, before they strike the ball. Look to cross and take the next ball wherever it may go. This is your team's offensive opportunity to end the point now!
By not attacking, you allow your opponents to recover and get back into the point. This lengthens the point, and increases your chance of losing the point. Attacking when your opponent is in trouble increases the odds of you winning the point.
Here are a few examples of players "in trouble:"
In the above photograph, David Ferrer is on the full stretch to the forehand side. He is about to hit a squash shot of some kind, with a continental grip, which is not his normal forehand grip. This is important, because anytime a player, especially a recreational player, switches their grip to hit a ball back, this means they are in trouble. In the above picture Ferrer is also "in trouble" because e is on the full stretch and will be off balance after this shot.
In the above photograph, Agnieszka Radwanska is about to hit a forehand slice from a slightly stretched out open stance position. This is her "in trouble." Again, this is not her normal forehand by any stretch of the imagination. In single she might get away with this shot, but in doubles, if you recognize the trouble, this shot is easy pickings for a net player.
In the above photograph, the player is fully stretched out to the backhand side, and the racquet and arm create a 180 degree angle. He is "in trouble." In other words, there is no L to create stability. This will be a weak reply. Your net partner, if they recognize this poor position before they strike the ball, will easily pick this off.
Learn to recognize when your opponent is in trouble, and attack, and your poaching rate of success will go up astronomically!
If you are playing at net, and are down the line from the ball, it means attack! Close the net (move forward) immediately upon seeing your opponent's in trouble, before they strike the ball. Look to cross and take the next ball wherever it may go. This is your team's offensive opportunity to end the point now!
By not attacking, you allow your opponents to recover and get back into the point. This lengthens the point, and increases your chance of losing the point. Attacking when your opponent is in trouble increases the odds of you winning the point.
Here are a few examples of players "in trouble:"
Learn to recognize when your opponent is in trouble, and attack, and your poaching rate of success will go up astronomically!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
