I have never been a huge fan of bright tennis clothes and in particular 'loud' shoes. I believe it is asking for trouble. When I was a kid I used to practice occasionally in Perth with one of the State's top ranked juniors Damian Hampson who had a few funny habits, one in particular was his dress sense. 'Hampo' basically did not own any dress sense whatsoever but he could play the game remarkably well.
I remember drawing him first round at a State Closed Championship at the Reabold Tennis Club in 1985 and our friendship was put aside for three sets. Despite leading him 6-4, 2-0 I found a way to lose to a higher ranked player who I could match it with for a certain period of time before falling away. Lack of self belief.
Back to Hampo's clothing.
Here was a guy with a ranking inside the State's top three best players yet you wouldn't have picked his tennis talent by looking at him. Hampo would turn up wearing a pair of socks that looked as though he had been gardening in and a pair of worn Dunlop Volley shoes. He would also wear a pair of shorts and a shirt that lacked any colour or style. Hampo in a word was 'untidy'.
I did however like his 'style' that gave the opposition a false sense of security if you did not know his tennis ability. 'Was he here as a tennis player or has he just cruised by on his BMX bike for a look at the tennis' ?! Hampo was a guy who was not interested in dazzling the opposition with his fashion sense, it was all about the game.
It's funny when you see the young players now days walking through the gates for a junior tennis tournament with a bag big enough to sleep in and a pair of shoes that have arrogance written all over them. I was never a fan of that sort of clothing or equipment and even though Hampo 'inspired' me to dress down I suppose I was always going to be a player who was far from interested in dressing to impress.
I vividly recall my first tennis bag, a Donnay brand that was too small to fit my racket in so I would walk out on court with the handle sticking out of the end of it. Along with my less than glamorous way of dressing I would say that I was simply trying to be known as a good tennis player, not a fashion model.
I would always wear my black V neck jumper in the warm up as my hero Mats Wilander did when I first saw him walk out onto court at the Italian Open in 1982. That's the thing that first struck me about Mats, he was not fashion conscious, he was simply letting his racket do the talking. I liked that idea.
I also developed a habit of wearing dark clothes, black shorts and either a brown or black shirt along with black socks complete with a pair of shoes that were not a real popular brand. I felt that if I was to go out on court dressed like my buddy Hampo then perhaps it would give my opponents NOTHING from the initial greeting. Perhaps they would think "this one is going to be easy, he doesn't even wear tennis clothes".
No matter what I was thinking about my dress sense or lack of it I felt comfortable with it and being comfortable right from the start in tennis is the most important thing. People who wear loud gear basically put a lot of pressure on themselves before they even hit a ball. I would recommend to any player of any age to dress down as opposed to up as it puts any perceived pressure back onto the opposition. 'Loud' clothes generally require a game to match.
As I got older I would even turn up to a tournament wearing beach sandals! I would wear them until about ten minutes prior to my first match before changing into my tennis shoes. Why ? Well it wasn't through arrogance, it was more about my mindset that needed to be relaxed before I commenced play.
If I felt as though I was on my way to the beach for a leisurely day of relaxing as opposed to a series of intense matches I would feel a sense of calm as opposed to nerves or anxiety.
Yes I have always done things a little differently however tennis is an individual sport and not one that should be likened to playing 'follow the leader'.
Be your own player and find things that relax you as opposed to raising the level of nerves too high before a match. Be an individual....
** The following chapter is one from my blog that touches on the dress sense of the Europeans we played against in 1991.**
Monday, 30 November 2015
Sunday, 29 November 2015
EUROPE 1991'
In the Spring of 1991 I travelled to Europe with Brett Patten and Peter Gerrans, two highly ranked Western Australian players who I had seen play in a younger age group in numerous junior Perth tournaments. Both of them impressed me. This was around three years after I had given up playing competitive tennis as I believed that there was nothing more I could do in the sport as I had not made the toughest grade.
What I was forgetting back then was that I had not even scratched the surface of reaching my potential as a player. After all how many players at age 18 really know the game and all of the intricacies that go with it ? The issue back then in '86 and '87 however was that there were guys like Wilander, Chang and Becker winning Grand Slams at age 17 so at 18 most of us felt 'washed up' as tennis players if we were not regularly winning events. How the times have changed as the teenage era of winning Slams has disappeared from the radar completely and has been overtaken by a golden era of 'old boys' dominating the sport.
At age 21 however I was fit, hitting a reasonable ball and decided that playing a series of Money tournaments around France had merit. I had gained my desire back and after three years of coaching I felt that my knowledge had improved some what. Now I will go into the details of my European trip in more detail later however I wrote a chapter on my blog that I believe says it all as far as where I was mentally with my tennis even on my second attempt at trying to make some money from the sport.
The feeling of belonging on a tennis court with certain opponents I believe is one of the biggest factors in any level of tennis.
What I was forgetting back then was that I had not even scratched the surface of reaching my potential as a player. After all how many players at age 18 really know the game and all of the intricacies that go with it ? The issue back then in '86 and '87 however was that there were guys like Wilander, Chang and Becker winning Grand Slams at age 17 so at 18 most of us felt 'washed up' as tennis players if we were not regularly winning events. How the times have changed as the teenage era of winning Slams has disappeared from the radar completely and has been overtaken by a golden era of 'old boys' dominating the sport.
At age 21 however I was fit, hitting a reasonable ball and decided that playing a series of Money tournaments around France had merit. I had gained my desire back and after three years of coaching I felt that my knowledge had improved some what. Now I will go into the details of my European trip in more detail later however I wrote a chapter on my blog that I believe says it all as far as where I was mentally with my tennis even on my second attempt at trying to make some money from the sport.
The feeling of belonging on a tennis court with certain opponents I believe is one of the biggest factors in any level of tennis.
'ABOUT THE AUTHOR'
I tried my best to make a career out of the sport of tennis in the 80's but fell well short of the level required. I started playing when I was about 12 years of age, late in any man's language yet I caught up with a lot of other better players through constantly hitting against a wall. In fact I spent so much time against a wall at my parents house in Albany that I wrote a series of chapters about it which I entitled 'The Wall and the court'.
The wall was the garage wall which I would hit against for hours even on a rainy day as it was under cover and the court was one that my parents had built next door on our spare block two years after I started playing. I had it all there for me, everything except a regular practice partner who lived in the same neighbourhood which would have been the icing on the cake.
I used to read the Bjorn Borg biography for inspiration and I would pretend I was playing him when I hit against the wall. Borg inspired me to play. My improvement as a kid was relatively swift as I won a State doubles title in Perth at the age of 15 with my good mate Dale Jones. I remember it vividly as 'Jonesy' would put everything away at the net and I would play 'Borg style' from the back as my volleying was not strong.
At age 16 I played full time tennis at the Coops training facility in Brisbane where Pat Rafter was also a squad member at the same time. I remember the days when Pat would walk through the gates as a young kid who had no height, no weapons, no strengths but a big heart. No one however would have picked that kid to be a future World number 1.
Back then in 1985 I remember the training as though it was yesterday where we would hit many balls and play many challenge matches however if one thing was missing from that program I suppose it would be the mental teaching of the game. By that I mean that there were great coaches who taught us to hit the ball technically correct however we were not taught in enough detail how to either construct a point or how to think our way through situations in a match.
I recall playing not only junior tournaments around Queensland and New South Wales but senior Challenger events known back then as Satellite tournaments and they were tough. I used to watch guys like Fromberg, Stoltenberg, Woodbridge and the likes and it was an education that I will never forget.
Those players even at a very young age all knew how to not only hit a ball technically correct but their thinking was second to none. They could not only hit a ball beautifully but they could almost follow a script from the beginning to end as though it was a well read book.
It got me thinking even back then as to how I could put my shots into a match that I could always hit with no fear in practice drills and practice matches. In a nutshell I knew how to hit a tennis ball however I did not know how to play tennis.
On leaving Coops as an 18 year old with little chance of becoming a professional tennis player I learned the art of coaching through being an assistant at various clubs in Perth, Western Australia. Even at a young age I always wondered how I could teach a kid how to do what I longed to do on a court when I was a teenager trying to fight my way through a brutally tough sport which did not reward mediocrity. I picked up things from guys like Rob Casey who is one of the most experienced and respected tennis coaches in the country on how to teach with substance.
I have been coaching tennis for almost 30 years now and I will often dedicate a lesson with a student to nothing but point play situations and how to think through them. Technical sessions can only do so much. The two however go hand in hand as one is useless without the other.
I am a thinker when I play and I think even more when I teach. It's a shame that I didn't put that sort of emphasis on my own education as a teenager. If ever someone asks me when did I leave school I always answer with the same line "Usually at lunch time to go and play tennis".
No doubt about it I am a tennis 'junkie' who is now dedicated to writing about the sport however I still play a few tournaments here and there to keep my thought process flowing.
I am 47 years of age and I am still learning the art of how to think my way through a tennis match. I believe it's the one thing that we can all improve on to make us more competitive. This book I hope can help all of us with our thoughts when we step onto court in the future.
Tennis, it's all in the mind.......
The wall was the garage wall which I would hit against for hours even on a rainy day as it was under cover and the court was one that my parents had built next door on our spare block two years after I started playing. I had it all there for me, everything except a regular practice partner who lived in the same neighbourhood which would have been the icing on the cake.
I used to read the Bjorn Borg biography for inspiration and I would pretend I was playing him when I hit against the wall. Borg inspired me to play. My improvement as a kid was relatively swift as I won a State doubles title in Perth at the age of 15 with my good mate Dale Jones. I remember it vividly as 'Jonesy' would put everything away at the net and I would play 'Borg style' from the back as my volleying was not strong.
At age 16 I played full time tennis at the Coops training facility in Brisbane where Pat Rafter was also a squad member at the same time. I remember the days when Pat would walk through the gates as a young kid who had no height, no weapons, no strengths but a big heart. No one however would have picked that kid to be a future World number 1.
Back then in 1985 I remember the training as though it was yesterday where we would hit many balls and play many challenge matches however if one thing was missing from that program I suppose it would be the mental teaching of the game. By that I mean that there were great coaches who taught us to hit the ball technically correct however we were not taught in enough detail how to either construct a point or how to think our way through situations in a match.
I recall playing not only junior tournaments around Queensland and New South Wales but senior Challenger events known back then as Satellite tournaments and they were tough. I used to watch guys like Fromberg, Stoltenberg, Woodbridge and the likes and it was an education that I will never forget.
Those players even at a very young age all knew how to not only hit a ball technically correct but their thinking was second to none. They could not only hit a ball beautifully but they could almost follow a script from the beginning to end as though it was a well read book.
It got me thinking even back then as to how I could put my shots into a match that I could always hit with no fear in practice drills and practice matches. In a nutshell I knew how to hit a tennis ball however I did not know how to play tennis.
On leaving Coops as an 18 year old with little chance of becoming a professional tennis player I learned the art of coaching through being an assistant at various clubs in Perth, Western Australia. Even at a young age I always wondered how I could teach a kid how to do what I longed to do on a court when I was a teenager trying to fight my way through a brutally tough sport which did not reward mediocrity. I picked up things from guys like Rob Casey who is one of the most experienced and respected tennis coaches in the country on how to teach with substance.
I have been coaching tennis for almost 30 years now and I will often dedicate a lesson with a student to nothing but point play situations and how to think through them. Technical sessions can only do so much. The two however go hand in hand as one is useless without the other.
I am a thinker when I play and I think even more when I teach. It's a shame that I didn't put that sort of emphasis on my own education as a teenager. If ever someone asks me when did I leave school I always answer with the same line "Usually at lunch time to go and play tennis".
No doubt about it I am a tennis 'junkie' who is now dedicated to writing about the sport however I still play a few tournaments here and there to keep my thought process flowing.
I am 47 years of age and I am still learning the art of how to think my way through a tennis match. I believe it's the one thing that we can all improve on to make us more competitive. This book I hope can help all of us with our thoughts when we step onto court in the future.
Tennis, it's all in the mind.......
Saturday, 28 November 2015
ABOUT THE PERCEPTION CHAPTER
I wrote that chapter regarding perception in May 2015, probably at around 3 am, that's when I usually wake up with an idea or two in my head about tennis. We all perceive tennis differently however what separates an average club player from a tournament player is the confidence in one's own ability to hit a tennis ball. I have hit with many club players and been taken back by their ability to hit a ball, albeit in a 'meaningless' 25 minute set before the buzzer goes off.
"Geez mate you are on fire, are you playing a few competitions this year" ? Ha ha ha no I go to water in competitions, I am 'just a club player'. I don't know how many times I have heard that said on a tennis court but if I had a dollar for every time.....
A couple of seasons ago I played a singles club championship locally against some 'older' players, ones who don't miss too many on club day in doubles matches. Ok I realize that doubles is a whole lot different from singles but these guys were chaffing at the bit to finally have a crack at the one on one format. If your club is anything like most clubs you will probably only play singles once or twice a year.
To cut a long story short the most typical comment I heard all day was " I was just too nervous to play how I usually do ". Most of these guys had played for many more years than I had. So what was the problem with these players and why couldn't they loosen up and play an obscure little club championship that had nothing riding on it except perhaps local bragging rights over a beer at the end of the day ?
Some of those guys could hit the ball with remarkable ability, some less conventional than others of course but they could all hit a ball well. The problem of course was simple, they didn't really know how to play tennis.
The decisions made by those guys lacked a process that I refer to as 'an inability to construct a point' which brings players to their knees in frustration. Have you ever heard a player come out with "I can't believe I just missed that "! ? Well that's a pretty common piece of vocabulary whether it be in a club match or a tournament but it regularly gets some air play. How do you think the great Andre Agassi felt when he owned a sensational game yet couldn't win on a regular basis ? The whole process comes down to instilling some ideas into a player's mind that can help with both the decision making and the positivity of thought.
I wrote the following chapter some time ago however I believe it has merit.
"Geez mate you are on fire, are you playing a few competitions this year" ? Ha ha ha no I go to water in competitions, I am 'just a club player'. I don't know how many times I have heard that said on a tennis court but if I had a dollar for every time.....
A couple of seasons ago I played a singles club championship locally against some 'older' players, ones who don't miss too many on club day in doubles matches. Ok I realize that doubles is a whole lot different from singles but these guys were chaffing at the bit to finally have a crack at the one on one format. If your club is anything like most clubs you will probably only play singles once or twice a year.
To cut a long story short the most typical comment I heard all day was " I was just too nervous to play how I usually do ". Most of these guys had played for many more years than I had. So what was the problem with these players and why couldn't they loosen up and play an obscure little club championship that had nothing riding on it except perhaps local bragging rights over a beer at the end of the day ?
Some of those guys could hit the ball with remarkable ability, some less conventional than others of course but they could all hit a ball well. The problem of course was simple, they didn't really know how to play tennis.
The decisions made by those guys lacked a process that I refer to as 'an inability to construct a point' which brings players to their knees in frustration. Have you ever heard a player come out with "I can't believe I just missed that "! ? Well that's a pretty common piece of vocabulary whether it be in a club match or a tournament but it regularly gets some air play. How do you think the great Andre Agassi felt when he owned a sensational game yet couldn't win on a regular basis ? The whole process comes down to instilling some ideas into a player's mind that can help with both the decision making and the positivity of thought.
I wrote the following chapter some time ago however I believe it has merit.
'60 MINUTES OF FAME'
One of Western Australia's most respected tennis players is a gentleman by the name of Brett Patten, a man who was ranked World Number 1 for the 35-40's age bracket in 2010. 'Patsy' as we like to call him runs a radio show called 'Court Talk' each Sunday morning over the course of each tennis season. Patsy is basically the voice of tennis in WA. I got to know Patsy on a European tour in 1991 where I travelled with him and another West Australian player Peter Gerrans to some rather obscure Money Tournaments around France. More on that later.
Brett invited me to fill in for his big brother Darren or 'Daz' as he is affectionately known by his younger brother on Court Talk in November 2015. We interviewed an Australian Tennis icon by the name of Glenn Busby or 'Buzz' as he is known by many in the Industry. Now Buzz knows his tennis and at the time of the interview was ranked World Number 1 for the age group 55-60. Buzz also is the leading coach at the Kooyong Tennis Centre in Melbourne which sees hundreds of students of all ages walk through the gates each day for tuition.
My one and only question to Buzz was rather simple yet it was rather well received by both him and Patsy as it may just have got a few people thinking about what they are in fact paying for when it comes to lesson time. " Hi Buzz, it's Glenn Thompson here how are you Champ " ? Very well thanks Glenn.
"I was just wondering what emphasis you put on point play in lessons and constructing a point as opposed to simply just teaching a student the technical side" ? That was it, my one and only question of a ten minute plus interview as I did not want to overstay my welcome, after all it was Patsy's show and it was his interview. The response however to that question was surprising to say the least as I received a big thumbs up from Brett as well as this from Buzz.
"It's a great question, it's probably THE most important thing when teaching students the art of playing tennis". Buzz gave some examples which was music to my ears because I had written many chapters on my Blog regarding that very same issue. I have always stated that tennis is a sport that is one of many perceptions however it is not one that is often taught realistically. By that I mean that many inexperienced coaches of the game will not delve into the most important part of the game and that is the THINKING part of tennis, the one where decisions are made.
My blog writing has in the past landed me in hot water with legal threats from certain individuals and tennis clubs which I have accused of 'lack of integrity' and lack of thinking regarding certain issues. My writing however is something that stems from my frustration that has built up over the years that has seen tennis and in particular tennis tuition turn into somewhat of a circus. Tennis indeed is a big business however the teaching side of the game I believe lacks the common sense required for players to become competitive outside of a practice court.
At the risk of enticing more legal action my way I almost liken some coaching programs to asking a Lawyer for help in clearing up an issue ( I speak from personal circumstances ). Many months later the 'problem' is still the same, minus a few thousand dollars of course. So does a good Tennis Coach and good Lawyer fix an issue as best they can or do they drag the problem on to the point that the unsuspecting customer is none the wiser ?
The question to Buzz on Court Talk was simple yet it typifies the sport of tennis now days. It quite possibly is over taught as far as the technical side is concerned but lacks scrutiny as far as the thinking side is concerned. You can only teach a student to hit a tennis ball for so long before they become a little suspicious to the whole process and some will ask the obvious question " So what's next" ?
I have many theories on tennis however I am no World beater, not now and not in my junior days but I can liken my tennis story to many who have also played and coached the game.
This book is dedicated to all of those players who tried to make a living out of it but didn't quite make the grade. It is also dedicated to the coaches of the 'Dionosaur era' who see the game just as I do and who go about their business without the gimmicks and bells and whistles routines.
This book is for the club player, the everyday hacker who perhaps is too frightened to play a tournament for fear of failure and for the player who has perhaps hung up the racket for good because they 'didn't make it'.
I can relate to all of the above because I went through all of those stages with my tennis however I now enjoy the game more than ever and I almost have found peace with it. I hope you can relate some of my theories and experiences to some part of your game.
Glenn Thompson
Brett invited me to fill in for his big brother Darren or 'Daz' as he is affectionately known by his younger brother on Court Talk in November 2015. We interviewed an Australian Tennis icon by the name of Glenn Busby or 'Buzz' as he is known by many in the Industry. Now Buzz knows his tennis and at the time of the interview was ranked World Number 1 for the age group 55-60. Buzz also is the leading coach at the Kooyong Tennis Centre in Melbourne which sees hundreds of students of all ages walk through the gates each day for tuition.
My one and only question to Buzz was rather simple yet it was rather well received by both him and Patsy as it may just have got a few people thinking about what they are in fact paying for when it comes to lesson time. " Hi Buzz, it's Glenn Thompson here how are you Champ " ? Very well thanks Glenn.
"I was just wondering what emphasis you put on point play in lessons and constructing a point as opposed to simply just teaching a student the technical side" ? That was it, my one and only question of a ten minute plus interview as I did not want to overstay my welcome, after all it was Patsy's show and it was his interview. The response however to that question was surprising to say the least as I received a big thumbs up from Brett as well as this from Buzz.
"It's a great question, it's probably THE most important thing when teaching students the art of playing tennis". Buzz gave some examples which was music to my ears because I had written many chapters on my Blog regarding that very same issue. I have always stated that tennis is a sport that is one of many perceptions however it is not one that is often taught realistically. By that I mean that many inexperienced coaches of the game will not delve into the most important part of the game and that is the THINKING part of tennis, the one where decisions are made.
My blog writing has in the past landed me in hot water with legal threats from certain individuals and tennis clubs which I have accused of 'lack of integrity' and lack of thinking regarding certain issues. My writing however is something that stems from my frustration that has built up over the years that has seen tennis and in particular tennis tuition turn into somewhat of a circus. Tennis indeed is a big business however the teaching side of the game I believe lacks the common sense required for players to become competitive outside of a practice court.
At the risk of enticing more legal action my way I almost liken some coaching programs to asking a Lawyer for help in clearing up an issue ( I speak from personal circumstances ). Many months later the 'problem' is still the same, minus a few thousand dollars of course. So does a good Tennis Coach and good Lawyer fix an issue as best they can or do they drag the problem on to the point that the unsuspecting customer is none the wiser ?
The question to Buzz on Court Talk was simple yet it typifies the sport of tennis now days. It quite possibly is over taught as far as the technical side is concerned but lacks scrutiny as far as the thinking side is concerned. You can only teach a student to hit a tennis ball for so long before they become a little suspicious to the whole process and some will ask the obvious question " So what's next" ?
I have many theories on tennis however I am no World beater, not now and not in my junior days but I can liken my tennis story to many who have also played and coached the game.
This book is dedicated to all of those players who tried to make a living out of it but didn't quite make the grade. It is also dedicated to the coaches of the 'Dionosaur era' who see the game just as I do and who go about their business without the gimmicks and bells and whistles routines.
This book is for the club player, the everyday hacker who perhaps is too frightened to play a tournament for fear of failure and for the player who has perhaps hung up the racket for good because they 'didn't make it'.
I can relate to all of the above because I went through all of those stages with my tennis however I now enjoy the game more than ever and I almost have found peace with it. I hope you can relate some of my theories and experiences to some part of your game.
Glenn Thompson
A BAGEL OR TWO ( THE MIND )
'A BAGEL OR TWO'
Tennis is a funny sport and some players are a little more ruthless than others when it comes to limiting the opposition to scoring. I remember my first tournament at 12 years of age at the Albany Junior Open and I received a belting even though it was only one set matches until the finals. I did not win a game against the best player in my age division in a first round demolition. I learned from that.
Tennis however is a sport that unless you lack common sense you will only learn from a loss and you will find a way to gain respectability on the score board even if you don't win. Sometimes it comes down to self respect even if your ability is by far outweighed by a much better opponent and plan B or C can often win a few points which can ultimately turn into games.
Take for instance a 6-2, 6-2 loss, on paper it looks like a smashing but 4 games can bring a vanquished player back for another dose of the tough stuff in the next tournament. Those 4 games show heart despite a one sided victory by a player who simply was way too good. Let's look at it in another way; If someone was to say to a player, 'you are no where near this guy's ability but you have nothing to lose', then wouldn't it be an opportunity for someone to hit out and try some things that they wouldn't normally attempt in most matches ?
Perhaps this may be the case with a player who has been taught an A, B or even C game but a player who has only been shown one style can only hope for that to be good enough on the day. 'A' games are every players' dream however in reality most players will need something other than just one train of thought to win a tennis match.
I often wondered what became of the Swede Stefan Eriksson who qualified for the US Open in 1986, the French Open in '86 and '87 and Wimbledon in 1987. Eriksson also won a Challenger event in '87 in France and was runner up to former top ten fellow Swede Jonas Svensson in a Grand Prix event in Cologne, West Germany in 1986. Stefan Eriksson was basically a tennis 'nobody' yet he could play the game, that's obvious.
Yet in his Wimbledon debut in 1987 he drew Swedish legend Stefan Edberg who was one of those ruthless tennis players that I mentioned earlier, a player not interested in winning 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, he wanted the triple bagel. This particular match was the first time for around 40 years that a triple bagel was dished out to a rather unfortunate player who was good enough to qualify for the calendar's most prestigious event.
Stefan Edberg defeated Stefan Eriksson 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in 1987 and it is a record that still stands despite some beltings given to players' since then.
So how did that happen ? At pro level you would imagine that most players would be good enough to at least win a few games against the superstars, it's not really possible to shut a player out of a tennis match, or is it ? I often refer to our own code here in Australia, AFL, our home grown sport which often highlights defensive type skills of certain teams.
Some teams are happy to win with 10 goals as long as their opposition only scores 5 or 6. Other teams go for the ego type of game plan, say 18 goals to 12, they are happy to let through a few just as long as they score more in the end.
I am certain however that even when an AFL team loses they are looking at some positives and if they lose with 18 goals against then 12 goals for will give them some heart and some positives for the following week. An 18 to 6 goal score line obviously will not leave a team or coach for that matter with many positives to look at.
So to my conclusion; A double bagel is unacceptable, that's not even turning up, physically or mentally, 6-2, 6-2 is still a whitewash but it leaves the mind something to work with. A player needs to work with their coach on finding ways to hang in there even after a first set belting. Good players will often lose 6-1, 7-5 or 6-0, 7-6 because they have more than one way of playing tennis.
The sport where you are trying to out hit your opponent isn't necessarily a sport where power will eventually win the day, it may come down to a little finesse as opposed to belting the cover off the ball.
Tennis is all about thinking, if you can't think your way through a match then you may as well take up something that doesn't require thought.
Maybe fishing.......
Tennis however is a sport that unless you lack common sense you will only learn from a loss and you will find a way to gain respectability on the score board even if you don't win. Sometimes it comes down to self respect even if your ability is by far outweighed by a much better opponent and plan B or C can often win a few points which can ultimately turn into games.
Take for instance a 6-2, 6-2 loss, on paper it looks like a smashing but 4 games can bring a vanquished player back for another dose of the tough stuff in the next tournament. Those 4 games show heart despite a one sided victory by a player who simply was way too good. Let's look at it in another way; If someone was to say to a player, 'you are no where near this guy's ability but you have nothing to lose', then wouldn't it be an opportunity for someone to hit out and try some things that they wouldn't normally attempt in most matches ?
Perhaps this may be the case with a player who has been taught an A, B or even C game but a player who has only been shown one style can only hope for that to be good enough on the day. 'A' games are every players' dream however in reality most players will need something other than just one train of thought to win a tennis match.
I often wondered what became of the Swede Stefan Eriksson who qualified for the US Open in 1986, the French Open in '86 and '87 and Wimbledon in 1987. Eriksson also won a Challenger event in '87 in France and was runner up to former top ten fellow Swede Jonas Svensson in a Grand Prix event in Cologne, West Germany in 1986. Stefan Eriksson was basically a tennis 'nobody' yet he could play the game, that's obvious.
Yet in his Wimbledon debut in 1987 he drew Swedish legend Stefan Edberg who was one of those ruthless tennis players that I mentioned earlier, a player not interested in winning 6-2, 6-2, 6-2, he wanted the triple bagel. This particular match was the first time for around 40 years that a triple bagel was dished out to a rather unfortunate player who was good enough to qualify for the calendar's most prestigious event.
Stefan Edberg defeated Stefan Eriksson 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in 1987 and it is a record that still stands despite some beltings given to players' since then.
So how did that happen ? At pro level you would imagine that most players would be good enough to at least win a few games against the superstars, it's not really possible to shut a player out of a tennis match, or is it ? I often refer to our own code here in Australia, AFL, our home grown sport which often highlights defensive type skills of certain teams.
Some teams are happy to win with 10 goals as long as their opposition only scores 5 or 6. Other teams go for the ego type of game plan, say 18 goals to 12, they are happy to let through a few just as long as they score more in the end.
I am certain however that even when an AFL team loses they are looking at some positives and if they lose with 18 goals against then 12 goals for will give them some heart and some positives for the following week. An 18 to 6 goal score line obviously will not leave a team or coach for that matter with many positives to look at.
So to my conclusion; A double bagel is unacceptable, that's not even turning up, physically or mentally, 6-2, 6-2 is still a whitewash but it leaves the mind something to work with. A player needs to work with their coach on finding ways to hang in there even after a first set belting. Good players will often lose 6-1, 7-5 or 6-0, 7-6 because they have more than one way of playing tennis.
The sport where you are trying to out hit your opponent isn't necessarily a sport where power will eventually win the day, it may come down to a little finesse as opposed to belting the cover off the ball.
Tennis is all about thinking, if you can't think your way through a match then you may as well take up something that doesn't require thought.
Maybe fishing.......
HOW GOOD WAS HE ?
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
'HOW GOOD WAS HE' ?
I can always remember the first time I saw Andre Agassi play tennis, he was just 16 years of age and I watched him hit a few balls on a brief sports report. I was rather taken by his ability to hit a forehand as he did when he was so slightly built and I wondered where that sort of power could come from. It wasn't long after that clip that I watched highlights of Agassi and Lendl at Stratton Mountain, the tournament which put Andre on the tennis radar. That was impressive hitting to say the least.
Andre Agassi came along at a time that America needed a tennis idol to look up to because back when Andre first started playing the circuit the two biggest players from the US, McEnroe and Connors were in the twilight of their careers. Neither Mac or Jimbo won a Grand Slam singles title after 1984 but Mac was still a very successful doubles player who won the US Open title with Woodforde in '89 and Wimbledon in '92 with Stich. Andre was a 'required' singles player no doubt about it.
The Las Vegas flash went from a skinny kid with rather loud denim shorts and Def Leppard style hair cut who didn't win much to possibly the most respected and recognizable tennis player on the planet especially after winning Wimbledon in 1992. Every kid wanted to be like Andre due not only to how he played but how he dressed and grew his hair. He was in a word, different. I for one was a fan from the first time I saw him hit those few shots in practice, he owned an aura about him right from the start.
Despite not winning as many Slams as his biggest rival Pete Sampras I always found Agassi's style to be a whole lot more interesting than watching Pistol play because Pete's style was one that I liken to a school yard bully. Big hitting and ugly.
There were many great matches between these two and Andre lost in the final of the US Open on no fewer than three occasions to Pete. The last shattered Andre beyond comprehension as he explained in his book with great detail. Agassi thought he was almost a shoe in for that title as he went in with around 26 straight wins before that title match but Pete always played his best against Andre.
There was however one particular match between these two that for some reason stood out more than the rest to me due mainly to a statistic that can only be described as remarkable.
Now anyone who saw Pete Sampras play will be well aware of his ability to not only close into the net and put away a volley but his serving was the best of his era, it was ridiculous. Pistol owned a bomb that more often than not was unplayable even for a man of Andre Agassi's returning prowess despite Andre's ability to pick the direction better than most.
So to the Lipton Championships in Florida, 1995, two months after Andre had defeated Pete in the final of the Australian Open, his only Grand Slam final win against Pete. At a set up and 2 games all Pistol Pete had 40-0 on Andre's serve, three break points to take a strangle hold on the match and with the way that he had been serving it would have almost been all over had he broken. Agassi though held on by winning five straight points. 3-2 Agassi.
The next service game by Sampras was perhaps one of those mind games that had even the great man himself thinking "If only I had converted one of those break points". Tennis, so easy yet so frustrating in hind sight as the mind goes about tearing strips off one's decision making at crucial times in a match. No points won on serve for Pistol, 4-2 Agassi. NINE straight points.
Same story next game, Andre on a roll, total control of the mind and body, tennis is now real easy, the boxer has his opponent on the ropes, 5-2. THIRTEEN straight points. Andre's Father no doubt proud, a former boxer. What can Pistol do ? He is now getting hammered by a man who senses a knockout punch. Does he offer some resistance or save himself for the third ?
You guessed it, another break to love, 6-2 Agassi, SEVENTEEN straight points. Outrageous. Andre won the next two points before Pete finally broke the drought that had Andre Agassi take NINETEEN straight points in a row to come back from the jaws of defeat.
For history's sake Andre Agassi took the match in a third set tie breaker seven points to three, perhaps justice for a remarkable run of points that may never be repeated at a standard so remarkably high. Even the best players in the World can be 'zoned' out by another but it is a rarity if a player even loses two love games in a row such is the standard of the elite of World tennis.
This match was a ripper, worth a look. It shows what confidence and a change of mind set can do for a player especially when they are perhaps within a point or two of defeat. After almost losing, think about it, what have you really got to lose ?
Tennis, it's all in the head..........
Andre Agassi came along at a time that America needed a tennis idol to look up to because back when Andre first started playing the circuit the two biggest players from the US, McEnroe and Connors were in the twilight of their careers. Neither Mac or Jimbo won a Grand Slam singles title after 1984 but Mac was still a very successful doubles player who won the US Open title with Woodforde in '89 and Wimbledon in '92 with Stich. Andre was a 'required' singles player no doubt about it.
The Las Vegas flash went from a skinny kid with rather loud denim shorts and Def Leppard style hair cut who didn't win much to possibly the most respected and recognizable tennis player on the planet especially after winning Wimbledon in 1992. Every kid wanted to be like Andre due not only to how he played but how he dressed and grew his hair. He was in a word, different. I for one was a fan from the first time I saw him hit those few shots in practice, he owned an aura about him right from the start.
Despite not winning as many Slams as his biggest rival Pete Sampras I always found Agassi's style to be a whole lot more interesting than watching Pistol play because Pete's style was one that I liken to a school yard bully. Big hitting and ugly.
There were many great matches between these two and Andre lost in the final of the US Open on no fewer than three occasions to Pete. The last shattered Andre beyond comprehension as he explained in his book with great detail. Agassi thought he was almost a shoe in for that title as he went in with around 26 straight wins before that title match but Pete always played his best against Andre.
There was however one particular match between these two that for some reason stood out more than the rest to me due mainly to a statistic that can only be described as remarkable.
Now anyone who saw Pete Sampras play will be well aware of his ability to not only close into the net and put away a volley but his serving was the best of his era, it was ridiculous. Pistol owned a bomb that more often than not was unplayable even for a man of Andre Agassi's returning prowess despite Andre's ability to pick the direction better than most.
So to the Lipton Championships in Florida, 1995, two months after Andre had defeated Pete in the final of the Australian Open, his only Grand Slam final win against Pete. At a set up and 2 games all Pistol Pete had 40-0 on Andre's serve, three break points to take a strangle hold on the match and with the way that he had been serving it would have almost been all over had he broken. Agassi though held on by winning five straight points. 3-2 Agassi.
The next service game by Sampras was perhaps one of those mind games that had even the great man himself thinking "If only I had converted one of those break points". Tennis, so easy yet so frustrating in hind sight as the mind goes about tearing strips off one's decision making at crucial times in a match. No points won on serve for Pistol, 4-2 Agassi. NINE straight points.
Same story next game, Andre on a roll, total control of the mind and body, tennis is now real easy, the boxer has his opponent on the ropes, 5-2. THIRTEEN straight points. Andre's Father no doubt proud, a former boxer. What can Pistol do ? He is now getting hammered by a man who senses a knockout punch. Does he offer some resistance or save himself for the third ?
You guessed it, another break to love, 6-2 Agassi, SEVENTEEN straight points. Outrageous. Andre won the next two points before Pete finally broke the drought that had Andre Agassi take NINETEEN straight points in a row to come back from the jaws of defeat.
For history's sake Andre Agassi took the match in a third set tie breaker seven points to three, perhaps justice for a remarkable run of points that may never be repeated at a standard so remarkably high. Even the best players in the World can be 'zoned' out by another but it is a rarity if a player even loses two love games in a row such is the standard of the elite of World tennis.
This match was a ripper, worth a look. It shows what confidence and a change of mind set can do for a player especially when they are perhaps within a point or two of defeat. After almost losing, think about it, what have you really got to lose ?
Tennis, it's all in the head..........
ANYONE CAN HIT A BALL
Sunday, 2 August 2015
'ANYONE CAN HIT A BALL'
| I had a great week last week hitting with a kid who I believe is a very talented young tennis player who typifies the young breed of tennis player now days. The biggest factor however I find with all these kids is their lack of knowledge on how to actually play tennis as opposed to their very refined hitting skills. Katelyn hits the ball beautifully off both sides and possesses a serve that had me envious of the easy nature of her action. I have not seen a kid of her age hit the ball that well for many years and I take my hat off to her coach who has worked on her superb technique. The next step for Katelyn however has to be her on court decision making as you can only get away with a good technique for so long before opponents start testing factors beyond that. I have seen many tennis players who can hit the ball well but lack the ability to either construct a point or test their opponent beyond having a rally. In saying that I do believe that you have to start somewhere just like you do when you first pick up a racket and hit against the wall. What's the first thing you do ? You hit it so it can come back to you, that in itself works the technique. When you get a little more refined with your shots you start moving the ball around, testing yourself, testing your mind, becoming adventurous. So surely that's what should be on every students' agenda when it comes to tennis improvement but even more perhaps from the person teaching them the game. I wonder how many new students of the game are actually being taught how to play tennis as opposed to simply being taught how to hit a ball. The two should surely go hand in hand. The thing I enjoy most about hitting with new students of the sport is the challenge of putting ideas into the mind more so than actually breaking a shot down into 4 or 5 different parts that can become rather monotonous. Sometimes a session can be better spent with two tennis balls and structured point play rather than a basket of balls and a lecture on how much more I know about the game than a young kid. I remember a session I once had in Perth when I thought I knew it all as a 15 year old, one of the greatest lessons I ever learned from a man who knew the game better than most. He taught me more how to play a point than how to hit a ball. I wish young Katelyn all the best with her tennis and send her a big thank you for hitting the old bloke back into some form. A pleasure also to be hitting at my old local tennis club. I used to ride ten kilometres several times a week to hit there with as many opponents as I possibly could to gain some variety. Tough sport tennis but can be made easier if we get taught how to play from the start rather than how to just hit it. Anyone can hit a tennis ball, not many can play tennis........... |
BUYING PERSPECTIVE (EUROPEAN LEARNING CURVE )
'BUYING PERSPECTIVE'
It was to be ten years after the European tour of 1991 when I heard a quote from an all time legend of the game that got me thinking. When Andre Agassi told Yevgeny Kafelnikov to go take his prize money and buy some perspective it made a lot of sense.
Every tournament entry was buying me perspective, perhaps 80 French francs from memory. Twenty dollars is a pretty cheap way to do a self assessment on your own ability as a tennis player. Some will refuse to accept the finer details of a defeat because it is perhaps a sign of personal weakness, maybe technical, perhaps mental. Many excuses are given for some losses, 'I got ripped off , I had a bad hamstring, My racket was strung too tight, I had an off day'.
My perception of a loss is simple, my opponent was better on the day, end of argument. I have often heard the term 'I got cheated' but that to me is a cop out because if you are hitting that many balls on the lines and your opponent keeps calling them out then the equation is simple. Your tactics are all wrong, who taught you to try to hit a line on a tennis court ? Surely that's not smart tennis. If you are playing someone who has trouble calling the lines then keep the ball well in play, how will you get cheated then ?
In Europe I learned that there were so many tennis players who weren't perhaps even 'tennis players' but guys who had real jobs and just used the sport as an outlet. After all if all of those 'tennis players' who we saw relied on the sport for a living then the majority would be lined up at the unemployment office in between tournaments asking for hand outs.
Brett however was a rarity, he won more money on our tour than he in fact took with him, that was totally outrageous but that's who Brett was, a player who defied the odds on that circuit. He was probably only one of a handful of players who could say that they funded their trip completely by winning more than losing.
We saw players on that tour who were ranked just outside of the European top 30 players, guys who had rankings of -30, -15, -4/6 ( Brett's ranking) then 0, 1/6, 2/6, 4/6, 15, 15/1, 15/2 etc. It was fascinating to watch all standards play at those tournaments and in particular on the clay courts as they were like watching poetry in motion. I don't believe it's possible to describe and do it justice but the ability of some of those players who were never going to be good enough to break through to the top level was intimidating to watch.
I often hear of juniors who apparently have 'what it takes' to become a tennis professional but I take those predictions with a pinch of salt. Watching guys play who were ranked even as 'low' as 2/6 or 4/6 could hit a savage ball, they just lacked that polish to take themselves to the minus figures with their rankings.
So what do all the numbers read ? They give you a place in a tournament, a place to start, not unlike a seeding and it gives the tournament committee a place in the draw to put you. That's what was silly about the St Maxime tournament where my ranking of 0 was the highest of any other player ! There was no way in the tennis World that I deserved that ranking after what I witnessed in that first few weeks in Europe but at least it gave me a start . After St Maxime my ranking was corrected and rightly so.
It's one thing to be more than competitive in drills and practice points against someone of Brett's ranking and ability but it's another to take the game up to them in a match. The European Money Tournament will give a player all the perspective they need for around twenty bucks per competition.
Now that's a cheap way of finding out who you really are as a player.....
Every tournament entry was buying me perspective, perhaps 80 French francs from memory. Twenty dollars is a pretty cheap way to do a self assessment on your own ability as a tennis player. Some will refuse to accept the finer details of a defeat because it is perhaps a sign of personal weakness, maybe technical, perhaps mental. Many excuses are given for some losses, 'I got ripped off , I had a bad hamstring, My racket was strung too tight, I had an off day'.
My perception of a loss is simple, my opponent was better on the day, end of argument. I have often heard the term 'I got cheated' but that to me is a cop out because if you are hitting that many balls on the lines and your opponent keeps calling them out then the equation is simple. Your tactics are all wrong, who taught you to try to hit a line on a tennis court ? Surely that's not smart tennis. If you are playing someone who has trouble calling the lines then keep the ball well in play, how will you get cheated then ?
In Europe I learned that there were so many tennis players who weren't perhaps even 'tennis players' but guys who had real jobs and just used the sport as an outlet. After all if all of those 'tennis players' who we saw relied on the sport for a living then the majority would be lined up at the unemployment office in between tournaments asking for hand outs.
Brett however was a rarity, he won more money on our tour than he in fact took with him, that was totally outrageous but that's who Brett was, a player who defied the odds on that circuit. He was probably only one of a handful of players who could say that they funded their trip completely by winning more than losing.
We saw players on that tour who were ranked just outside of the European top 30 players, guys who had rankings of -30, -15, -4/6 ( Brett's ranking) then 0, 1/6, 2/6, 4/6, 15, 15/1, 15/2 etc. It was fascinating to watch all standards play at those tournaments and in particular on the clay courts as they were like watching poetry in motion. I don't believe it's possible to describe and do it justice but the ability of some of those players who were never going to be good enough to break through to the top level was intimidating to watch.
I often hear of juniors who apparently have 'what it takes' to become a tennis professional but I take those predictions with a pinch of salt. Watching guys play who were ranked even as 'low' as 2/6 or 4/6 could hit a savage ball, they just lacked that polish to take themselves to the minus figures with their rankings.
So what do all the numbers read ? They give you a place in a tournament, a place to start, not unlike a seeding and it gives the tournament committee a place in the draw to put you. That's what was silly about the St Maxime tournament where my ranking of 0 was the highest of any other player ! There was no way in the tennis World that I deserved that ranking after what I witnessed in that first few weeks in Europe but at least it gave me a start . After St Maxime my ranking was corrected and rightly so.
It's one thing to be more than competitive in drills and practice points against someone of Brett's ranking and ability but it's another to take the game up to them in a match. The European Money Tournament will give a player all the perspective they need for around twenty bucks per competition.
Now that's a cheap way of finding out who you really are as a player.....
FIND A WAY (EUROPEANG LEARNING CURVE )
Competing in European Money Tournaments was an eye opener in many ways but playing for a few dollars can definitely spice things up. The events offered prize money that was not life changing but depending on how far you went into the tournament it could help with expenses. It could pay for fuel and food to another town or city plus pay for a good night out, even more.
From memory Brett picked up 4,000 French francs at a tournament in which he was the champion, around a thousand Australian dollars as was the currency difference back in 1991. I remember losing my first match in one particular tournament and picked up around 400 francs for it. Part of me felt bad for taking the money, the other part of me was grateful for an extra hundred bucks to help with travel.
One thing I witnessed in Europe was the fight that some players took into each match, as though their life depended on it. Pete once played and beat a 'mature aged' Frenchman who we chatted to before the match. He actually relied on winning a few rounds each tournament for his income he told us. Pete sent him to his next tournament hungry.
I went into many matches with high aspirations and walked off court completely mentally frustrated, particularly after a score of say 6-3, 6-4 to the opposition. Those type of matches were deflating as there was never much in them, a few points here and there decided the outcome. In a nutshell it was just a case of better thinking at the crucial moments by my opponents. All part of the education that tennis offers each player and I told myself to remain positive.
I learned that tennis is a sport that you have to find a way to win, a way to out play your opponent, a sport that requires more brains than shot making ability, a sport that requires a calm head when in crisis. Tennis is a tough sport where if you are fragile minded, a fact that was never more evident than when I was playing in Europe, tests you a person, not just as a tennis player.
I also learned a valuable lesson in tennis and that is you have to be able to beat the opposition, not rely on them to lose.
FEELING OF BELONGING (EUROPEAN LEARNING CURVE )
'A FEELING OF BELONGING'
Friday, 26 June 2015
The issue of trying to compete with talented European tennis players may just be the same problem that the players ranked 200 plus have with higher ranked players, a feeling of belonging. Some tennis players can beat up on guys their own standard or less but when it comes to making an impression on a player with many more credentials it may just seem too high a hurdle to clear.
I never once felt as though I belonged on court with the European players because it was their turf with their crowds with their own families and friends to support them. Was I to totally ignore all of that and have no respect whatsoever for the whole situation and simply go about my business like a programmed robot ?
Well that's what I was supposed to do but not once did I feel comfortable trying. In fact most of my matches involved a belting in the first set before self pride would kick in and a few games were won in the second set to at least get my French francs' worth out of the entry fee.
So what was the problem ? Was I a pacifist of the sport of tennis who was just happy to take in the surrounds, experience the culture and hand an opponent a match like a postman hands a customer a letter ? Where was my practice form which oozed confidence and a state of mind that if transferred to a match would surely be enough to be more than competitive ?
Was I experiencing what Mats Wilander said all those years ago when asked about his personal thoughts on his chances of winning a major against the likes of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl ?Wilander played down his chances initially, a sign of respect for the players and the sport. What's wrong with that ?
Was I simply in awe of the sport and the opponents presented to me ? Most probably.
Every standard of tennis has a testing period, a time to either match it with the players around you or a time to be brutally honest with yourself and work on some issues. Only the strongest players both technically and mentally can keep breaking through the packs as they have that sense of belonging that requires an enormous amount of self belief. Not every player owns that.
Watching Brett in particular against the Europeans was like watching a gate crasher at a party who was not interested in putting on the party hat and playing pass the parcel. He was there for one reason and there were no sentiment involved in his play or his mental approach.
You probably notice I speak highly of Brett but that is probably due to his presence on a tennis court, he's 6 feet 4", that's a large presence. Peter also had some great results and owned self confidence but it was not in the form of Brett's but that may have had a lot to do with the fact that Pete was half a foot shorter than Brett.
Sometimes in a tennis match a call may not go your way and owning a bit of height can often work in your favour, almost like a bloke at a pub who gets beer spilled on him. "Hey mate you won't do that again will you ey"? Height can be of advantage in more ways than one in tennis.
Not every tennis player owns height, not every player owns technical or mental prowess and not every player owns an ability to believe in themselves when they are up against many factors in a tennis match. In 1991 I had the opportunity to self assess, the chance to finally put myself in the most uncomfortable tennis environment I could.
In fact it was not unlike Bear Grylls when he challenges himself in the wilderness. Bear doesn't go down to the local nature strip to test himself, he finds the most challenging of jungles to fight his way out of.
That's how a tennis player's maturity is often tested, it's the density of wilderness that he can fight his way out of that will define him as a player.
I never once felt as though I belonged on court with the European players because it was their turf with their crowds with their own families and friends to support them. Was I to totally ignore all of that and have no respect whatsoever for the whole situation and simply go about my business like a programmed robot ?
Well that's what I was supposed to do but not once did I feel comfortable trying. In fact most of my matches involved a belting in the first set before self pride would kick in and a few games were won in the second set to at least get my French francs' worth out of the entry fee.
So what was the problem ? Was I a pacifist of the sport of tennis who was just happy to take in the surrounds, experience the culture and hand an opponent a match like a postman hands a customer a letter ? Where was my practice form which oozed confidence and a state of mind that if transferred to a match would surely be enough to be more than competitive ?
Was I experiencing what Mats Wilander said all those years ago when asked about his personal thoughts on his chances of winning a major against the likes of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl ?Wilander played down his chances initially, a sign of respect for the players and the sport. What's wrong with that ?
Was I simply in awe of the sport and the opponents presented to me ? Most probably.
Every standard of tennis has a testing period, a time to either match it with the players around you or a time to be brutally honest with yourself and work on some issues. Only the strongest players both technically and mentally can keep breaking through the packs as they have that sense of belonging that requires an enormous amount of self belief. Not every player owns that.
Watching Brett in particular against the Europeans was like watching a gate crasher at a party who was not interested in putting on the party hat and playing pass the parcel. He was there for one reason and there were no sentiment involved in his play or his mental approach.
You probably notice I speak highly of Brett but that is probably due to his presence on a tennis court, he's 6 feet 4", that's a large presence. Peter also had some great results and owned self confidence but it was not in the form of Brett's but that may have had a lot to do with the fact that Pete was half a foot shorter than Brett.
Sometimes in a tennis match a call may not go your way and owning a bit of height can often work in your favour, almost like a bloke at a pub who gets beer spilled on him. "Hey mate you won't do that again will you ey"? Height can be of advantage in more ways than one in tennis.
Not every tennis player owns height, not every player owns technical or mental prowess and not every player owns an ability to believe in themselves when they are up against many factors in a tennis match. In 1991 I had the opportunity to self assess, the chance to finally put myself in the most uncomfortable tennis environment I could.
In fact it was not unlike Bear Grylls when he challenges himself in the wilderness. Bear doesn't go down to the local nature strip to test himself, he finds the most challenging of jungles to fight his way out of.
That's how a tennis player's maturity is often tested, it's the density of wilderness that he can fight his way out of that will define him as a player.
SERVE AND RETURN (TACTICS )
'SERVE AND RETURN'
The old adage 'you are only as good as your second serve' is as true as the sun will come up in the morning, there are too many statistics to back up the fact. If you take the time to scroll through some facts and figures of tennis matches rather than just read the scores then you will notice an alarming trend in the game.
Because many players use the first delivery as basically a 'free swing' it is often hit with such pace that unless a player guesses correctly the return will come back without a great deal of interest on it. That is of course unless the returner has an exceptional ability to get the serve back no matter what the speed of delivery is.
With ground strokes being as big as they are now days a mid court service return will be treated with no respect and more often than not hit for a winner or a commanding approach shot to set up an easy volley.
A tennis player who does not spend the time to practice the return of serve is like a cricket player going into bat without a helmet, it's called lack of preparation. Many players are not interested in service return practice because it's not one of the more glamorous training routines and it's frustrating. Yet it separates the good from the average.
I have mentioned before in an older chapter how a young Andre Agassi practiced his return of serve for his Davis Cup match against Boris Becker who owned possibly the World's biggest serve when he was at his peak. Agassi moved his team mates up to the service line to hit serves at him which gave him almost no time to respond, but it quickened his eye. Routines like that are proven, it's thinking outside of the square and it spices up the same old ho hum training drills.
The return of serve has seen some brilliant exponents, Andre Agassi could possibly have been the best because he took on guys like Becker, Sampras, McEnroe, Ivanisevic and Edberg. That was an era of servers who delivered the ball with unbelievable power and Andre Agassi knocked it straight back at them or past them, more often than not. It's why he won every Slam.
Fast forwarding to some statistics of this year's French Open it is blatantly obvious that the best returners are the most successful, particularly in doubles. It has to be precise as the net player is constantly moving. Keeping one eye on the guy at the net and the other on the ball is a tough assignment yet if you watch the top exponents of the two on two format it is made to look easy.
One of the teams I am tipping to win the Mens dubs in Paris this year Dodig and Melo just squeaked past Peya and Soares by the score of 6-3, 7-6 with the tie breaker going to 10-8. Here was the difference;
Dodig and Melo won just 12 of 46 returning points or 26 per cent but it was just enough to scrape over the line as their opponents won less, 9 of 42 or 21 per cent. The biggest difference it seems however is the lack of unforced errors in that pivotal second set, they made just ONE unforced error. I find that statistic totally outrageous.
Dodig and Melo won 71 per cent of their first service points but their second serve performance was even more brilliant, 89 per cent. That's not BIG serving, that's SMART serving. So is a kick serve more effective in doubles ? You do the sums on that one. Sometimes the slower higher kick is harder to get on top of as a returner particularly if the returner is not tall.
The above examples are just a few statistics from one set of the French open this year. Imagine if you did the sums on all matches according to the height and returning ability of all players and crunched the numbers.
I believe it would be fascinating to say the least, correct me if I am wrong. The best servers in the French Open are out, Isner, Querrey, Karlovic and Cilic, the best returners however are still in. There has got to be more merit in being a top returner than a top server.....
Just a theory........
Because many players use the first delivery as basically a 'free swing' it is often hit with such pace that unless a player guesses correctly the return will come back without a great deal of interest on it. That is of course unless the returner has an exceptional ability to get the serve back no matter what the speed of delivery is.
With ground strokes being as big as they are now days a mid court service return will be treated with no respect and more often than not hit for a winner or a commanding approach shot to set up an easy volley.
A tennis player who does not spend the time to practice the return of serve is like a cricket player going into bat without a helmet, it's called lack of preparation. Many players are not interested in service return practice because it's not one of the more glamorous training routines and it's frustrating. Yet it separates the good from the average.
I have mentioned before in an older chapter how a young Andre Agassi practiced his return of serve for his Davis Cup match against Boris Becker who owned possibly the World's biggest serve when he was at his peak. Agassi moved his team mates up to the service line to hit serves at him which gave him almost no time to respond, but it quickened his eye. Routines like that are proven, it's thinking outside of the square and it spices up the same old ho hum training drills.
The return of serve has seen some brilliant exponents, Andre Agassi could possibly have been the best because he took on guys like Becker, Sampras, McEnroe, Ivanisevic and Edberg. That was an era of servers who delivered the ball with unbelievable power and Andre Agassi knocked it straight back at them or past them, more often than not. It's why he won every Slam.
Fast forwarding to some statistics of this year's French Open it is blatantly obvious that the best returners are the most successful, particularly in doubles. It has to be precise as the net player is constantly moving. Keeping one eye on the guy at the net and the other on the ball is a tough assignment yet if you watch the top exponents of the two on two format it is made to look easy.
One of the teams I am tipping to win the Mens dubs in Paris this year Dodig and Melo just squeaked past Peya and Soares by the score of 6-3, 7-6 with the tie breaker going to 10-8. Here was the difference;
Dodig and Melo won just 12 of 46 returning points or 26 per cent but it was just enough to scrape over the line as their opponents won less, 9 of 42 or 21 per cent. The biggest difference it seems however is the lack of unforced errors in that pivotal second set, they made just ONE unforced error. I find that statistic totally outrageous.
Dodig and Melo won 71 per cent of their first service points but their second serve performance was even more brilliant, 89 per cent. That's not BIG serving, that's SMART serving. So is a kick serve more effective in doubles ? You do the sums on that one. Sometimes the slower higher kick is harder to get on top of as a returner particularly if the returner is not tall.
The above examples are just a few statistics from one set of the French open this year. Imagine if you did the sums on all matches according to the height and returning ability of all players and crunched the numbers.
I believe it would be fascinating to say the least, correct me if I am wrong. The best servers in the French Open are out, Isner, Querrey, Karlovic and Cilic, the best returners however are still in. There has got to be more merit in being a top returner than a top server.....
Just a theory........
PERCEPTION ( THE MIND )
Tuesday, 12 May 2015
'PERCEPTION'
Perception is the process by which stimulation of the senses is translated into meaningful experience.
Perception is the process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting and organizing sensory information. Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the World we create a model of how the World works.... (New World Encyclopedia).
Fascinating isn't it as to how we all grasp hold of something that we feel comfortable with but really it is up for debate as to whether or not what we are holding is in fact something that is worth holding.
I have always felt that with a sport such as tennis there are in fact way too many perceptions of what is correct, hence the discrepancy from club to club, coach to coach, player to player, pro to pro. So who is correct ?
I have often spoke fondly of Gilbert's perception of the game and how he took an almost waste of talent in Agassi to the best player in the World. I have and always will speak fondly of the Swedes of the 70's and 80's and how they had a perception of the sport that looking back on was rather simple to implement yet hard to sustain.
I remember just a couple of weeks back when an AFL Coach talked about his players and their dominance for three quarters and their failure in the last 25 minutes to sustain that level of dominance, despite their win. He spoke of that initial level being almost an 'impossibility' to sustain for the entire match. I find that interesting. The coach gave them a plan that was perceived as 'fool proof' and they stuck to it for as long as their minds could cope with it. Why did it change ?
I believe it has a lot to do with the nature of sport and how coaching can instill some ideas yet it cannot guarantee success, a common problem that is tough to find answers for. A tennis coach can work all they like with a student yet they cannot teach them how to play tennis without simulated play in practice. I have seen countless lessons that are a total waste of time except for the 'cardio' workout that could have been so much more yet the coach failed to teach the vital ingredient, perception.
You can rabbit on all you like as a coach, in fact you can talk yourself blue in the face but if you are any sort of 'mentor' of the game then you will have a way of teaching that does not require anything else but a view on the game that actually makes sense.
Technique is useless without tactics and tactics are useless without technique so if a player lacks in one of these areas then why would you be teaching anything but the one that lacks progress ?
I have seen countless kids who's perception of tennis was simply to out hit their opponent where having a rally was not on their agenda. My way of dealing with that type of player was simple "Hey Champ have you somewhere else you need to be"?! So where did that type of perception begin ? Possibly by watching a player in the 'zone' who felt he could regularly hit a one dollar coin on either side of the court and who owned no fear whatsoever in regards to winning or losing. That's tough to teach.
My earliest perceptions of tennis were in fact to look for the opponent and actually hit it back to them ! Borg did it in the 70's against Vilas and Lendl to such a crazy extent that some of their rallies would be regularly 50, 60, 70 shots, particularly on the clay.
Jonny Mac's perception was to break the rhythm of a player like Borg, never allow the same shot to be played twice, don't be a 'practice partner' who keeps the ball in the comfort zone that ultimately builds confidence and improves technique.
Perception in tennis quite possibly is the one thing that prevents a good player from becoming a very, very good player but unfortunately a lot of the time it keeps getting back to the person who everyone relies on that little bit too much. That person is the one who owns the piece of paper which states that they are 'untouchable' as far as knowledge is concerned.
Tennis I believe is a sport that requires a mind that thinks for itself and one that does not need a constant earful of information on a regular basis. Good tennis coaches are hard to find and I think it comes down to the individual player more than anything else. The best players are the best thinkers.
It's a sport that needs feel, not unlike a surfer who knows when to stand up on the board when the wave is about to peak. It's a sport which requires instinct and an ability to understand a situation, like a boxer needing to duck a right hook.
Tennis is a sport that without perception is like a famous quote from Edward de Bono....
"Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic"
A thinking man's game is tennis but it's all how you perceive the task in front of you.......
Perception is the process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting and organizing sensory information. Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the World we create a model of how the World works.... (New World Encyclopedia).
Fascinating isn't it as to how we all grasp hold of something that we feel comfortable with but really it is up for debate as to whether or not what we are holding is in fact something that is worth holding.
I have always felt that with a sport such as tennis there are in fact way too many perceptions of what is correct, hence the discrepancy from club to club, coach to coach, player to player, pro to pro. So who is correct ?
I have often spoke fondly of Gilbert's perception of the game and how he took an almost waste of talent in Agassi to the best player in the World. I have and always will speak fondly of the Swedes of the 70's and 80's and how they had a perception of the sport that looking back on was rather simple to implement yet hard to sustain.
I remember just a couple of weeks back when an AFL Coach talked about his players and their dominance for three quarters and their failure in the last 25 minutes to sustain that level of dominance, despite their win. He spoke of that initial level being almost an 'impossibility' to sustain for the entire match. I find that interesting. The coach gave them a plan that was perceived as 'fool proof' and they stuck to it for as long as their minds could cope with it. Why did it change ?
I believe it has a lot to do with the nature of sport and how coaching can instill some ideas yet it cannot guarantee success, a common problem that is tough to find answers for. A tennis coach can work all they like with a student yet they cannot teach them how to play tennis without simulated play in practice. I have seen countless lessons that are a total waste of time except for the 'cardio' workout that could have been so much more yet the coach failed to teach the vital ingredient, perception.
You can rabbit on all you like as a coach, in fact you can talk yourself blue in the face but if you are any sort of 'mentor' of the game then you will have a way of teaching that does not require anything else but a view on the game that actually makes sense.
Technique is useless without tactics and tactics are useless without technique so if a player lacks in one of these areas then why would you be teaching anything but the one that lacks progress ?
I have seen countless kids who's perception of tennis was simply to out hit their opponent where having a rally was not on their agenda. My way of dealing with that type of player was simple "Hey Champ have you somewhere else you need to be"?! So where did that type of perception begin ? Possibly by watching a player in the 'zone' who felt he could regularly hit a one dollar coin on either side of the court and who owned no fear whatsoever in regards to winning or losing. That's tough to teach.
My earliest perceptions of tennis were in fact to look for the opponent and actually hit it back to them ! Borg did it in the 70's against Vilas and Lendl to such a crazy extent that some of their rallies would be regularly 50, 60, 70 shots, particularly on the clay.
Jonny Mac's perception was to break the rhythm of a player like Borg, never allow the same shot to be played twice, don't be a 'practice partner' who keeps the ball in the comfort zone that ultimately builds confidence and improves technique.
Perception in tennis quite possibly is the one thing that prevents a good player from becoming a very, very good player but unfortunately a lot of the time it keeps getting back to the person who everyone relies on that little bit too much. That person is the one who owns the piece of paper which states that they are 'untouchable' as far as knowledge is concerned.
Tennis I believe is a sport that requires a mind that thinks for itself and one that does not need a constant earful of information on a regular basis. Good tennis coaches are hard to find and I think it comes down to the individual player more than anything else. The best players are the best thinkers.
It's a sport that needs feel, not unlike a surfer who knows when to stand up on the board when the wave is about to peak. It's a sport which requires instinct and an ability to understand a situation, like a boxer needing to duck a right hook.
Tennis is a sport that without perception is like a famous quote from Edward de Bono....
"Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic"
A thinking man's game is tennis but it's all how you perceive the task in front of you.......
SELF DOUBT
Saturday, 11 April 2015
'SELF DOUBT'
Possibly the largest issue in tennis is the mind game that is played out inside the head as a match unfolds, at times a totally different match as the one actually taking place on court. I once saw a video of Mats Wilander talking about just that, he spoke so blatantly honestly about what can happen to the thought process cogs inside the brain during play. From a player who reached the pinnacle of his sport it was fascinating to listen to, a rare insight.
One thing in particular stuck in my mind as far as what Mats was talking about and I believe it to be a huge issue while playing tennis. 'I'm serving for the set against the number 5 seed, I need this first point, If I don't win it I will be down 0-15, that's just one point away from 0-30, then I'm in trouble, I'm looking at a break back then we are on even terms again, this first point is crucial'.
That wasn't word for word from Mats Wilander but I am sure you get the point, so to speak. How do you think you would play that first service point that you have made so crucial inside your own head and do you think you are in danger of double faulting ? Nothing worse than a double, it's a sign that you are tight, a sign that your thoughts are not free, a sign that perhaps your technique is not as good as you thought it was.
I am sure Australia's Bernard Tomic could vouch for that feeling where just over a week ago he lead Thomas Berdych by a set and 4-0 only to lose. How did that happen ? Well at 0-4 Thomas Berdych knew he was almost gone but he won his own serve and had a red hot go at Tomic's next service game, he didn't have much to lose, why play safe ? For the Czech to break back to 2-4 it was a huge momentum shift and it was enough to put the self doubt into the Aussie's game.
So when Thomas won his next serve the pressure was right back on Tomic to somehow put the disappointment out of his head regarding his previous service game. Do you think that Wilander's theory on self doubt well and truly came into play in that particular game that Tomic had to win for his own confidence to be restored ?
I have seen countless tennis matches that have a score line of say 1-6, 7-6, 6-2 or 0-6, 7-5, 6-3 with my favourite of all time being Mats Wilander's effort in 1982 to win the French Open against Vilas. The score of 1-6, 7-6, 6-0, 6-4 shows a huge momentum shift from the first set that Guillermo Vilas dominated and it shows the second set to be one of a player just hanging in, weathering the storm.
The third set is typical of two mind sets, one being of a shattered player who's game plan was now being worked out by his opposition. In this particular case a set point went begging that was perhaps a point that would have almost secured the title. The opposing mind set is one of a player who took all that was thrown at him for two sets but weathered the storm, a new sense of freedom evident with no fear that eventually earned him the title.
Many players who lose a close second set after easily winning the first set are mentally crushed hence the typically one sided third set, even in Grand Slams you will often see a score line like that of the French Open final of '82. Perhaps it is the fragile mental state of some players who are happy to own a lead but not so happy to be challenged that ultimately hands them more losses than wins.
The players who can forget the ramifications of the score (as mentioned in my last chapter regarding Andre Agassi) and the many mind games that go hand in hand with each point played are players who own a unique brain.
Even Andre Agassi writes openly in his book regarding his wayward thought processes, something that was definitely not evident when I first saw him play in 1988 as an 18 year old. Does the mind start to waver as you get older perhaps ? Mats Wilander's revealing thoughts on the game are not unlike Agassi's with both champions showing an almost human side to a sport that at times seems to be played by robots without any fear of consequence.
The players who adopt a no fear attitude if technically correct will ultimately become successful at any level played due to a free flowing style. It's the players who are constantly concerned about what may happen as the score board continues to tick over who perhaps never realize their full potential. I have seen guys ranked 500 in the World practice at tournaments both in Europe and Australia who you would swear were the next 'big thing' but practice form is deceiving.
If every player could take their fearless practice form into a tennis tournament then it would be a sight to behold, the game would become a circus of ridiculous talent. It's what though makes the game unique, only the smart players make a living out of it.
It's all very well to be a good tennis coach, good luck with the 'brain teaching' that goes with it...........
One thing in particular stuck in my mind as far as what Mats was talking about and I believe it to be a huge issue while playing tennis. 'I'm serving for the set against the number 5 seed, I need this first point, If I don't win it I will be down 0-15, that's just one point away from 0-30, then I'm in trouble, I'm looking at a break back then we are on even terms again, this first point is crucial'.
That wasn't word for word from Mats Wilander but I am sure you get the point, so to speak. How do you think you would play that first service point that you have made so crucial inside your own head and do you think you are in danger of double faulting ? Nothing worse than a double, it's a sign that you are tight, a sign that your thoughts are not free, a sign that perhaps your technique is not as good as you thought it was.
I am sure Australia's Bernard Tomic could vouch for that feeling where just over a week ago he lead Thomas Berdych by a set and 4-0 only to lose. How did that happen ? Well at 0-4 Thomas Berdych knew he was almost gone but he won his own serve and had a red hot go at Tomic's next service game, he didn't have much to lose, why play safe ? For the Czech to break back to 2-4 it was a huge momentum shift and it was enough to put the self doubt into the Aussie's game.
So when Thomas won his next serve the pressure was right back on Tomic to somehow put the disappointment out of his head regarding his previous service game. Do you think that Wilander's theory on self doubt well and truly came into play in that particular game that Tomic had to win for his own confidence to be restored ?
I have seen countless tennis matches that have a score line of say 1-6, 7-6, 6-2 or 0-6, 7-5, 6-3 with my favourite of all time being Mats Wilander's effort in 1982 to win the French Open against Vilas. The score of 1-6, 7-6, 6-0, 6-4 shows a huge momentum shift from the first set that Guillermo Vilas dominated and it shows the second set to be one of a player just hanging in, weathering the storm.
The third set is typical of two mind sets, one being of a shattered player who's game plan was now being worked out by his opposition. In this particular case a set point went begging that was perhaps a point that would have almost secured the title. The opposing mind set is one of a player who took all that was thrown at him for two sets but weathered the storm, a new sense of freedom evident with no fear that eventually earned him the title.
Many players who lose a close second set after easily winning the first set are mentally crushed hence the typically one sided third set, even in Grand Slams you will often see a score line like that of the French Open final of '82. Perhaps it is the fragile mental state of some players who are happy to own a lead but not so happy to be challenged that ultimately hands them more losses than wins.
The players who can forget the ramifications of the score (as mentioned in my last chapter regarding Andre Agassi) and the many mind games that go hand in hand with each point played are players who own a unique brain.
Even Andre Agassi writes openly in his book regarding his wayward thought processes, something that was definitely not evident when I first saw him play in 1988 as an 18 year old. Does the mind start to waver as you get older perhaps ? Mats Wilander's revealing thoughts on the game are not unlike Agassi's with both champions showing an almost human side to a sport that at times seems to be played by robots without any fear of consequence.
The players who adopt a no fear attitude if technically correct will ultimately become successful at any level played due to a free flowing style. It's the players who are constantly concerned about what may happen as the score board continues to tick over who perhaps never realize their full potential. I have seen guys ranked 500 in the World practice at tournaments both in Europe and Australia who you would swear were the next 'big thing' but practice form is deceiving.
If every player could take their fearless practice form into a tennis tournament then it would be a sight to behold, the game would become a circus of ridiculous talent. It's what though makes the game unique, only the smart players make a living out of it.
It's all very well to be a good tennis coach, good luck with the 'brain teaching' that goes with it...........
TEN BUCKS
Posted by Glenn Thompson No comments: 
'JUST TEN BUCKS'
If I had only ever lost ten bucks on my very regular trips to the punting shop all those years ago when my life was not going so well then I would have looked upon each trip as a 'win' of epic proportions. You can't beat 'the house', but when you are looking at ways to give your life a boost then it seemed worth a shot.
Now if each time you walked out onto a tennis court to teach juniors the finer points of the game and you only lost ten bucks then to most tennis coaches this would be depressing, not so for myself. In fact because of what had happened at my old tennis club and all of the politics that went with it I was more than happy to lose ten bucks as long as the session went well.
I had given up well and truly on making any money from coaching quite some time earlier so all I was really looking for was that boost that improvement from youngsters could give you. If it cost me ten bucks or made me ten I really couldn't have cared, it was just an outlet for me, a hobby that gave me a positive vibe.
I have spoken openly about the game that I only ever made $50 from once and $40 from twice, the rest of the time I made peanuts on one hour private sessions, my lack of business sense evident. The $50 session I had was with a high flying US Businessman by the name of John Ford who asked for a lesson at the Observation City Resort in Scarborough where I was coaching in the early 90's. He in fact tipped me $25, I was only charging $25 for the hour. Many people told me to put up the price, I wasn't interested, $25 was good money back then as I think my 'real job' delivering bakery goods was paying me around $15 an hour.
The other two lessons where I made some good money were the two I had with the lead actress of a mini series filmed here in Albany, Briony Williams who played 'Lockie Leonard's' mother in the series of that name. Lockie Leonard has developed a cult following here in Albany, or 'Angelus' as our town is called in the series. Many scenes were shot around town that stopped traffic and pedestrians, all well received by the locals.
The tennis scene in the series was overseen by my good self and I still felt bad a long time afterwards that I charged that much to show Briony how to play, it was my pleasure to do it. In fact I only charged that much because I was prompted by someone 'in the know' to charge that figure as apparently the surfing coaching was being charged at $50 per hour, just a rumour.
So it was of no surprise that when I shifted my coaching to another local tennis club I did the sums as I always have done and came up with a 'bright' idea. Let's get some good local juniors to act as hitting partners for our better kids on one given day of the week and pay them for their services at a rate that was a lot better than Hungry Jacks could offer as a burger maker.
Now their job was not to teach a kid the game because I was aware of teenagers trying to impart knowledge, it doesn't really work well, they simply do not own the knowledge. Their job was simply to keep the ball in play, I asked for consistency, not flair and definitely no showing off, they were to be 'brick walls', nothing more, nothing less.
This idea worked beautifully for a while and as I explained I was only losing around ten bucks a session after court hire and wages so I was pretty happy with the whole scene. It folded when a letter was sent to the local Tennis Association that apparently complained about my 'workshops' because of Insurance issues etc plus the usual politics that go along with someone using their initiative.
The same thing happened when I offered cut price sessions at a private venue in 'Angelus' and my local town council got in touch with me and gave me the 'once over'. For someone who wasn't making any money out of tennis I sure was high on the list of people who were targeted for something that I am still not sure to this day what to describe as.
I would like to call it initiative but others would call it 'cutting their turf '. Either way it was something that upset some locals.
I have been accused of many things by many people but I could never be called greedy, I simply don't know how to be greedy in tennis. I wouldn't know how to make money out of the game if it were spelled out to me by a professor wearing a white coat and an intimidating pair of spectacles.
One day I will cover every aspect of this game, I said that just recently as I felt I had covered just about everything but my mind is still like a tin of worms and little things keep the worms wriggling. I still have many chapters to go it seems, my apologies in advance.........
Now if each time you walked out onto a tennis court to teach juniors the finer points of the game and you only lost ten bucks then to most tennis coaches this would be depressing, not so for myself. In fact because of what had happened at my old tennis club and all of the politics that went with it I was more than happy to lose ten bucks as long as the session went well.
I had given up well and truly on making any money from coaching quite some time earlier so all I was really looking for was that boost that improvement from youngsters could give you. If it cost me ten bucks or made me ten I really couldn't have cared, it was just an outlet for me, a hobby that gave me a positive vibe.
I have spoken openly about the game that I only ever made $50 from once and $40 from twice, the rest of the time I made peanuts on one hour private sessions, my lack of business sense evident. The $50 session I had was with a high flying US Businessman by the name of John Ford who asked for a lesson at the Observation City Resort in Scarborough where I was coaching in the early 90's. He in fact tipped me $25, I was only charging $25 for the hour. Many people told me to put up the price, I wasn't interested, $25 was good money back then as I think my 'real job' delivering bakery goods was paying me around $15 an hour.
The other two lessons where I made some good money were the two I had with the lead actress of a mini series filmed here in Albany, Briony Williams who played 'Lockie Leonard's' mother in the series of that name. Lockie Leonard has developed a cult following here in Albany, or 'Angelus' as our town is called in the series. Many scenes were shot around town that stopped traffic and pedestrians, all well received by the locals.
The tennis scene in the series was overseen by my good self and I still felt bad a long time afterwards that I charged that much to show Briony how to play, it was my pleasure to do it. In fact I only charged that much because I was prompted by someone 'in the know' to charge that figure as apparently the surfing coaching was being charged at $50 per hour, just a rumour.
So it was of no surprise that when I shifted my coaching to another local tennis club I did the sums as I always have done and came up with a 'bright' idea. Let's get some good local juniors to act as hitting partners for our better kids on one given day of the week and pay them for their services at a rate that was a lot better than Hungry Jacks could offer as a burger maker.
Now their job was not to teach a kid the game because I was aware of teenagers trying to impart knowledge, it doesn't really work well, they simply do not own the knowledge. Their job was simply to keep the ball in play, I asked for consistency, not flair and definitely no showing off, they were to be 'brick walls', nothing more, nothing less.
This idea worked beautifully for a while and as I explained I was only losing around ten bucks a session after court hire and wages so I was pretty happy with the whole scene. It folded when a letter was sent to the local Tennis Association that apparently complained about my 'workshops' because of Insurance issues etc plus the usual politics that go along with someone using their initiative.
The same thing happened when I offered cut price sessions at a private venue in 'Angelus' and my local town council got in touch with me and gave me the 'once over'. For someone who wasn't making any money out of tennis I sure was high on the list of people who were targeted for something that I am still not sure to this day what to describe as.
I would like to call it initiative but others would call it 'cutting their turf '. Either way it was something that upset some locals.
I have been accused of many things by many people but I could never be called greedy, I simply don't know how to be greedy in tennis. I wouldn't know how to make money out of the game if it were spelled out to me by a professor wearing a white coat and an intimidating pair of spectacles.
One day I will cover every aspect of this game, I said that just recently as I felt I had covered just about everything but my mind is still like a tin of worms and little things keep the worms wriggling. I still have many chapters to go it seems, my apologies in advance.........
STRUCTURE (TACTICS )
Posted by Glenn Thompson No comments:
Saturday, 25 April 2015
'STRUCTURE'
It's no secret that my influences from tennis stem from the late 70's and early 80's, even through to perhaps 1990, after that well I really didn't care too much, the game changed. From the Swedish domination of Borg, Wilander, Edberg etc to the emergence of Agassi in '88 the game saw some classic matches and some real characters, players who left a lasting impression.
I remember some matches vividly where some players had styles that almost resembled robots like Lendl, even Borg, two players who sat on the baseline and simply waited for the opposition to miss or 'commit suicide' by coming to the net. These guys owned a structured game that took an amazing amount of discipline to implement day in, day out, it's why they became so successful. They didn't really own a Plan B, they had such a good Plan A that not too many players could infiltrate so they stuck with what they knew best. Fascinating to watch a player that good.
I have been meaning to read the Brad Gilbert book titled 'Winning Ugly', a book about 'Mental warfare in the game of Tennis' however I have not had the pleasure so far. I have though read some snippets of it and it typifies the sort of player Gilbert was, a genius. The man who took Andre Agassi from almost a waste of talent to the World's best player had a unique style of his own that could only be described as 'unconventional'.
Brad Gilbert would dish the best players up all sorts of things like short sliced balls, high looping topspin balls, balls with no pace and he would also mix the play up with net advances just to dispel the theory that he was perhaps a baseliner. In other words Gilbert gave his opponents 'nothing'. The American had a nasty habit of almost 'poking' balls back into court with just a breath of wind on them especially from his backhand and then ripping the next ball past his incoming opponent.
Brad Gilbert had an uncanny knack of almost lulling opponents into a false sense of security not unlike the great Czech Miloslav Mecir who could also put an opponent to sleep then wake them rather rudely. How Andre Agassi found Brad Gilbert was nothing short of a master stroke but it worked to perfection, two contrasting players, a genius with no weapons and a player with many weapons who was no genius.
The win by Gilbert at the 1987 US Open against Boris Becker in the round of 16 will go down as one of the all time great upsets in New York as Gilbert was seeded 13, Becker 4. What made the win even more remarkable was that Becker won the first two sets, he was all over Gilbert but the unconventional American had a structure to his game that was all about self discipline, just as Borg's and Lendl's was.
With winnings of over five and a half million dollars, a highest ranking of 4 in singles and an intelligence that attracted a player of Andre Agassi's standard it is no wonder that Brad Gilbert was destined for success in coaching when he finished playing professionally in 1995.
In fact in 1992 just two years before he started helping Agassi he belted his future student 6-1, 6-2 in Paris when Andre was ranked 8 in the World, perhaps a match that stuck in Agassi's mind regarding talents versus brains.
Some days when I see kids play the game it seems to be all about the ego and how to out hit an opponent who is playing big shots, much of it lacks thought. If you have ever seen Gilbert play it surely will remind you that tennis can still be won now days without the glamour if certain structures are put into play from the outset.
Watching the AFL matches each weekend it is noticeable that the best sides have a discipline about them that at times seems ridiculously effective. When these teams are on song it is almost like they have an extra man or two on the field and it has opposition coaches scratching their heads at ways to break the structure.
It is one thing to offer a style of play by a coach but it is another totally different thing for a player or team to implement it. So it begs the question once again.
As a coach of a sport are you teaching tactics just as much as you are teaching technique or are you simply hoping that when they come up against another good player they will simply have a better day than their opponent ? When two juniors come up against one another with no game plan but similar styles then who will win ? It's a raffle, correct me if I am wrong.
If however a player has certain structures in place and can implement a Plan B as well as a preferred Plan A then they will go a long way to winning against a player who doesn't own the ability to keep thinking when in trouble.
Brad Gilbert had no weapons, no glamour and no obvious physical advantages yet he beat players in the Top 10 on 27 different occasions. How is that possible ?
Well I believe that his book is one of the best sellers of all time, it may just hold some secrets as to how we can all become a little more successful in the sport of tennis.......
I remember some matches vividly where some players had styles that almost resembled robots like Lendl, even Borg, two players who sat on the baseline and simply waited for the opposition to miss or 'commit suicide' by coming to the net. These guys owned a structured game that took an amazing amount of discipline to implement day in, day out, it's why they became so successful. They didn't really own a Plan B, they had such a good Plan A that not too many players could infiltrate so they stuck with what they knew best. Fascinating to watch a player that good.
I have been meaning to read the Brad Gilbert book titled 'Winning Ugly', a book about 'Mental warfare in the game of Tennis' however I have not had the pleasure so far. I have though read some snippets of it and it typifies the sort of player Gilbert was, a genius. The man who took Andre Agassi from almost a waste of talent to the World's best player had a unique style of his own that could only be described as 'unconventional'.
Brad Gilbert would dish the best players up all sorts of things like short sliced balls, high looping topspin balls, balls with no pace and he would also mix the play up with net advances just to dispel the theory that he was perhaps a baseliner. In other words Gilbert gave his opponents 'nothing'. The American had a nasty habit of almost 'poking' balls back into court with just a breath of wind on them especially from his backhand and then ripping the next ball past his incoming opponent.
Brad Gilbert had an uncanny knack of almost lulling opponents into a false sense of security not unlike the great Czech Miloslav Mecir who could also put an opponent to sleep then wake them rather rudely. How Andre Agassi found Brad Gilbert was nothing short of a master stroke but it worked to perfection, two contrasting players, a genius with no weapons and a player with many weapons who was no genius.
The win by Gilbert at the 1987 US Open against Boris Becker in the round of 16 will go down as one of the all time great upsets in New York as Gilbert was seeded 13, Becker 4. What made the win even more remarkable was that Becker won the first two sets, he was all over Gilbert but the unconventional American had a structure to his game that was all about self discipline, just as Borg's and Lendl's was.
With winnings of over five and a half million dollars, a highest ranking of 4 in singles and an intelligence that attracted a player of Andre Agassi's standard it is no wonder that Brad Gilbert was destined for success in coaching when he finished playing professionally in 1995.
In fact in 1992 just two years before he started helping Agassi he belted his future student 6-1, 6-2 in Paris when Andre was ranked 8 in the World, perhaps a match that stuck in Agassi's mind regarding talents versus brains.
Some days when I see kids play the game it seems to be all about the ego and how to out hit an opponent who is playing big shots, much of it lacks thought. If you have ever seen Gilbert play it surely will remind you that tennis can still be won now days without the glamour if certain structures are put into play from the outset.
Watching the AFL matches each weekend it is noticeable that the best sides have a discipline about them that at times seems ridiculously effective. When these teams are on song it is almost like they have an extra man or two on the field and it has opposition coaches scratching their heads at ways to break the structure.
It is one thing to offer a style of play by a coach but it is another totally different thing for a player or team to implement it. So it begs the question once again.
As a coach of a sport are you teaching tactics just as much as you are teaching technique or are you simply hoping that when they come up against another good player they will simply have a better day than their opponent ? When two juniors come up against one another with no game plan but similar styles then who will win ? It's a raffle, correct me if I am wrong.
If however a player has certain structures in place and can implement a Plan B as well as a preferred Plan A then they will go a long way to winning against a player who doesn't own the ability to keep thinking when in trouble.
Brad Gilbert had no weapons, no glamour and no obvious physical advantages yet he beat players in the Top 10 on 27 different occasions. How is that possible ?
Well I believe that his book is one of the best sellers of all time, it may just hold some secrets as to how we can all become a little more successful in the sport of tennis.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)