I have always been rather mystified at the stance of Tennis Australia ( TA ) and their seemingly one track mind as far as a court surface is concerned for Davis Cup ties in this country. Looking back it seems that the last time a tie in Australia was played on hard court was in fact 2006 in Adelaide when Australia lost to Sweden.
Several years ago my local tennis club was awarded a grant to resurface it's tennis courts however there was one stipulation, they had to be of the same colour as the Australian Open surface. Part of the 'deal' was that if TA helped with the funding then the courts were to look like the home of the national Grand Slam held at the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne. No argument there.
The Australian Open moved away from a grass surface in 1988 when the new centre was put on display for the World to see and for the best players to perform at. My hero Mats Wilander beat Pat Cash in the final in five sets in what was a fitting way to end two weeks of a new Slam at a new venue.
There were possibly many reasons for the Australian Open to move away from the ageing stadium and grass courts of Kooyong but the seating capacity was possibly the greatest factor. Kooyong held just 8,500 whereas the Rod Laver Rena holds almost double that at 15,000. The decision to build a much larger stadium was a smart one no doubt yet the surface still remains somewhat of a talking point.
Why did the new stadium lay a hard court surface rather than simply remain with grass as it had done since 1927 ? Did Tennis Australia finally accept the fact that the Europeans owned a dominance in World tennis due to their home surface of clay and the ability of that surface to produce countless champions ?
Whilst TA were never going to even contemplate a clay surface a hard court was the next obvious choice as a surface Australia's best players both junior and senior could cut their teeth on and become competitive with the rest of the World.
A hard court is an 'evener' as a player can develop an all round game as opposed to grass which is not a surface that can help a player develop ground strokes effectively due to the lower bounce and skidding nature of the ball. Let's face it if a player can win on a hard court he or she has some ability to say the least as there is no advantage on a hard court. It's just you versus your opponent, nothing more, nothing less. If you win on a hard court you really didn't rely on what was under foot, you simply won because you were a better player.
So to the point of this chapter, why are TA so pedantic about clubs around the country painting their courts the same colour as the Rod Laver Arena ? TA do not even practice what they preach. On one hand they are saying that it wants a court surface at small cubs around the country synonymous with it's home Grand Slam. On the other hand they are saying that it isn't really that confident of their players performing on it.
Why don't TA embrace the surface as one that it is proud of and one that should surely be showcased to the World in Davis Cup ties in this country and not just at the Australian Open ?
To me it is very much like the tennis coach who is simply a 'talker' and not a 'walker', you know the do as I say but not as I do type of coach. The one who never shows up to play a club match or a tournament which on many occasions comes from their inability to in fact play the game at all.
If TA endorse the surface yet play on a totally different one when playing the biggest tennis team event in the World what is it saying about it's players ? Do they have no confidence in them to win on a neutral surface ? A grass court looks for an advantage from a big serve or solid volley but not every Australian tennis professional owns both.
Wimbledon is once a year and apart from that no player who is in their right mind would train on grass as the majority of tournaments around the World are on clay and hard courts. Grass is basically a novelty surface so why do the Australian tennis hierarchy choose a surface for Australian players to play Davis Cup on that realistically is of no real advantage to them ?
It may just lay in the old traditional type of sentimental mindset as the players from our past, Laver, Newcombe etc dominated not only here on a grass surface but at Wimbledon. It was a surface that holds many fond memories yet that was many years ago.
Times have changed, the game has changed, time to move on and develop a new tradition that has Australian players winning neutrally with no real advantage and no sentimental influences. Imagine if Australia did in fact hold a Davis Cup tie on a hard court, preferably at the Rod Laver Arena against a nation as mighty as the USA. What would that say to the Tennis World ?
Pretty obvious, WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY ADVANTAGE AS FAR AS COURT SURFACE IS CONCERNED. Bring your best team, we are confident we can beat you on any surface and in particular a NEUTRAL one.
It's time this country embraced what it set out to do in 1988, build and develop a new culture.....
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
'TENNIS OZ CONTRADICTION'
I wrote the following chapter in 2013 regarding coaching providers, Tennis Australia and the ATPCA (Australian Tennis Professional Coaches Association ). I found the letter that was sent to my local tennis club to be nothing short of farcical.
It is not a crime for any sport to be taught by more than one provider of coaching, it's a fact of life, it's called competition. Tennis Australia believe in what they do, the ATPCA believe in their module, therefore we have two organisations in this country who teach people to become tennis coaches.
Neither are proven winners however so it is unethical for either to say that they basically 'own' the sport in this country. That is why I found that letter from TA to be rather distasteful.
Tennis is such a tough sport in regards to success so until TA come up with a school bus full of World tennis champions they really have no right to send letters of little substance to clubs around the country. Every association thinks that theirs' is superior however until that is proven then perhaps it should be kept under wraps.
Toyota I am sure believe that their cars are superior to Mazda's and perhaps that may be a fact but many people are happy driving Mazdas are they not ? Why not let them choose which car to drive without a form of brainwashing from one or the other that really holds no water.
Personally I believe in the ATPCA as do around five thousand other tennis coaches in the country who have been trained by them. That's our choice to belong to their association.
Tennis Coaches from the ATPCA can teach the game just as well as a TA tennis coach because at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The ATPCA has been in existence since 1967 so I would suggest that it has a module that works.
Bernard Tomic as a perfect example of someone who is not exactly happy with the way in which TA runs the sport in this country. Tomic has little time for TA for one reason or another as stated in a press conference Post Wimbledon 2015. Surely as a player he would know a thing or two despite whether you like him or not.
I am not about to slander TA however they should not degrade other coaching associations in this country without a valid reason and examples that prove they have no right to exist.
The following chapter is what I thought of the whole charade;
It is not a crime for any sport to be taught by more than one provider of coaching, it's a fact of life, it's called competition. Tennis Australia believe in what they do, the ATPCA believe in their module, therefore we have two organisations in this country who teach people to become tennis coaches.
Neither are proven winners however so it is unethical for either to say that they basically 'own' the sport in this country. That is why I found that letter from TA to be rather distasteful.
Tennis is such a tough sport in regards to success so until TA come up with a school bus full of World tennis champions they really have no right to send letters of little substance to clubs around the country. Every association thinks that theirs' is superior however until that is proven then perhaps it should be kept under wraps.
Toyota I am sure believe that their cars are superior to Mazda's and perhaps that may be a fact but many people are happy driving Mazdas are they not ? Why not let them choose which car to drive without a form of brainwashing from one or the other that really holds no water.
Personally I believe in the ATPCA as do around five thousand other tennis coaches in the country who have been trained by them. That's our choice to belong to their association.
Tennis Coaches from the ATPCA can teach the game just as well as a TA tennis coach because at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The ATPCA has been in existence since 1967 so I would suggest that it has a module that works.
Bernard Tomic as a perfect example of someone who is not exactly happy with the way in which TA runs the sport in this country. Tomic has little time for TA for one reason or another as stated in a press conference Post Wimbledon 2015. Surely as a player he would know a thing or two despite whether you like him or not.
I am not about to slander TA however they should not degrade other coaching associations in this country without a valid reason and examples that prove they have no right to exist.
The following chapter is what I thought of the whole charade;
Monday, 11 November 2013
'FREEDOM OF CHOICE' (Coaching Providers)
I recently read a rather amusing statement in a newspaper regarding Tennis Australia coaches as opposed to others, namely the ATPCA (Australian Tennis Professional Coaches Association), the association I currently belong to . 'Tennis Australia recommend Tennis Australia qualified coaches ONLY for junior Tennis Programs', etc.
It in fact was not the first time I had read that particular statement, it had been 'given a run' on more than one occasion. I was not quite sure where it was all coming from other than the fact that it had obviously been passed down by the TA hierarchy to it's coaches. To me it was a form of 'preaching' that held little substance because personally I had never belonged to TA as a coach and I had 25 years of coaching experience behind me. Did it really matter what organisation I belonged to as long as I could teach the game ?
Let's put it into perspective ; Woolies recommend their food over Coles , Dan Murphy's Liquor recommend their product over other Liquor providers as does Toyota over Mazda , but they word their sales pitches a little smarter than what was written regarding Tennis Australia vs the ATPCA.
I also saw a letter pinned to my local tennis club's information board that was in fact sent from Tennis Australia. The letter was all about the ATPCA and how they were basically 'infiltrating' tennis in this country by teaching people to become qualified tennis coaches. To me the letter lacked any real substance as what really was the point of it all ? TA had some competition ?!
Happens in all walks of life. If an organisation however is proven and has a win/win ratio of success then surely the public will buy their product. Simple really. To put it into perspective the ATPCA has been educating budding tennis coaches since 1967, so why is it now an issue ?
So back to the newspaper article , this was written by a coach who is aligned to Tennis Australia, where does his point lay ? Nowhere , it is a small minded opinion and lacks any substance or credibility , it is simply a point of view. It is a rather humorous way of trying to degrade other tennis organisations but falls short of doing anything except trying to convince the public that their module works better. So where is the proof and where are the champions ?
Tennis is an egotistical sport without a doubt , you have to have an ego to play it and an even bigger one to teach it , but some people know how to keep their ego's under control . I have plenty of views regarding the game of tennis so I write about it on this site , people can choose to read it or ignore it. I do not publicly state that the ATPCA is in any way a better organisation than Tennis Australia , I simply choose to be with these guys because I believe their direction has substance and is for the good of the game.
Anyone who is prepared to publicly write that their organisation is better than any other's without a detailed description as to why , including the performance win / loss ratio compared to the other's , in my opinion has his or her head firmly stuck up their own ....
There you go, that was my point of view on it all. I am nothing if but brutally honest with my views on this game in this country in particular.
It in fact was not the first time I had read that particular statement, it had been 'given a run' on more than one occasion. I was not quite sure where it was all coming from other than the fact that it had obviously been passed down by the TA hierarchy to it's coaches. To me it was a form of 'preaching' that held little substance because personally I had never belonged to TA as a coach and I had 25 years of coaching experience behind me. Did it really matter what organisation I belonged to as long as I could teach the game ?
Let's put it into perspective ; Woolies recommend their food over Coles , Dan Murphy's Liquor recommend their product over other Liquor providers as does Toyota over Mazda , but they word their sales pitches a little smarter than what was written regarding Tennis Australia vs the ATPCA.
I also saw a letter pinned to my local tennis club's information board that was in fact sent from Tennis Australia. The letter was all about the ATPCA and how they were basically 'infiltrating' tennis in this country by teaching people to become qualified tennis coaches. To me the letter lacked any real substance as what really was the point of it all ? TA had some competition ?!
Happens in all walks of life. If an organisation however is proven and has a win/win ratio of success then surely the public will buy their product. Simple really. To put it into perspective the ATPCA has been educating budding tennis coaches since 1967, so why is it now an issue ?
So back to the newspaper article , this was written by a coach who is aligned to Tennis Australia, where does his point lay ? Nowhere , it is a small minded opinion and lacks any substance or credibility , it is simply a point of view. It is a rather humorous way of trying to degrade other tennis organisations but falls short of doing anything except trying to convince the public that their module works better. So where is the proof and where are the champions ?
Tennis is an egotistical sport without a doubt , you have to have an ego to play it and an even bigger one to teach it , but some people know how to keep their ego's under control . I have plenty of views regarding the game of tennis so I write about it on this site , people can choose to read it or ignore it. I do not publicly state that the ATPCA is in any way a better organisation than Tennis Australia , I simply choose to be with these guys because I believe their direction has substance and is for the good of the game.
Anyone who is prepared to publicly write that their organisation is better than any other's without a detailed description as to why , including the performance win / loss ratio compared to the other's , in my opinion has his or her head firmly stuck up their own ....
There you go, that was my point of view on it all. I am nothing if but brutally honest with my views on this game in this country in particular.
'WALK THE WALK (DON'T SPREAD YOURSELF TOO THIN)
* A big congratulations to Brad Rundle of Katanning for taking out this year's Albany Open Men's A Grade Doubles championship with Stewart Witham. Brad epitomises what a seasoned tennis coach can do in regards to showing his pupils how to play the game. It's one thing to 'talk' it, another to 'walk' it.*
It's one thing to walk the walk as a tennis coach however winning a club championship 17 years straight is spreading yourself a little too thin. ( I heard that story from someone many years ago and it got me thinking ).
I am all for showing students of the game how to play and proving that you aren't just a talker however it can be taken a little too far.
If you have won a local championship that many times everyone knows you can play tennis, that's obvious and people will not forget how many times you won it but don't forget a very important factor. By not playing every single tournament locally it can freshen the entire tennis fraternity up and it can also bring some other players on.
When I was a kid there was only ONE person winning tennis tournaments locally and after a while it became rather predictable as it was really just down to who could pick up a runners up trophy.
When that player left the local scene it freshened things up and became almost a race to see who could get to where he was. It strengthened the local scene, not weakened it as players strived to be the new bench mark of the region.
As a tennis coach you have a certain 'requirement' to support a local or regional tennis tournament, not just turn up at tennis lessons, take the money and run, so to speak. The tennis fraternity of any region loves to see tennis coaches play as it is great for the opposition to learn from people who teach it. Let's face it, most tennis coaches should know how to play the game at a reasonably high competitive level and by a tennis coach playing a tournament it helps to raise the profile and credibility of a tennis tournament. Let's though remember one important thing.
It's not a tennis coach's 'requirement' to own the local or regional tennis scene as far as tournament results are concerned because as the chapter's title suggests, you are in danger of spreading yourself way too thin. A tennis coach in particular needs to play it smart and by that I mean that it is important for the tennis community to see a coach support a competition but not every one, in every year, in every possible location.
'Tall Poppy Syndrome' can definitely come into play in the event of someone trying to monopolise not only the coaching side of things but the tournament scene also. Predictability in local tennis tournaments is no fun for anyone just for the sake of an ego boost.
Tennis fraternities in all regions are aware of who can play tennis and who simply just 'talks a good game' so playing it smart is imperative if you are also making money from teaching it. Limit your tournaments but support them also, find a happy medium.
The big thing I believe about tennis coaches playing tournaments is that it also reinforces a coach's thought process. A coach who regularly plays is always asking the same question of themselves as they are of their students and that I believe is a huge factor in the whole teaching side of the game. Put yourself in your students' shoes.
If a tennis coach hangs up his racket for good it should be for the right reasons, perhaps age, perhaps injury but it should never be through fear of losing, that's a cop out.
If a tennis coach is physically able to play then there is no good reason why they should not strengthen a local tournament by entering it even if it is with a 'B' Grade partner. A tennis coach is not expected to win every event but they have an obligation to bring players on and simply by playing it inspires others to do the same.
Smart tennis coaches know how to work this whole situation, there is an art to many aspects of the game, this is just another.
Play while you can, you are a long time retired. Show your students that you can play it, not just talk it........
It's one thing to walk the walk as a tennis coach however winning a club championship 17 years straight is spreading yourself a little too thin. ( I heard that story from someone many years ago and it got me thinking ).
I am all for showing students of the game how to play and proving that you aren't just a talker however it can be taken a little too far.
If you have won a local championship that many times everyone knows you can play tennis, that's obvious and people will not forget how many times you won it but don't forget a very important factor. By not playing every single tournament locally it can freshen the entire tennis fraternity up and it can also bring some other players on.
When I was a kid there was only ONE person winning tennis tournaments locally and after a while it became rather predictable as it was really just down to who could pick up a runners up trophy.
When that player left the local scene it freshened things up and became almost a race to see who could get to where he was. It strengthened the local scene, not weakened it as players strived to be the new bench mark of the region.
As a tennis coach you have a certain 'requirement' to support a local or regional tennis tournament, not just turn up at tennis lessons, take the money and run, so to speak. The tennis fraternity of any region loves to see tennis coaches play as it is great for the opposition to learn from people who teach it. Let's face it, most tennis coaches should know how to play the game at a reasonably high competitive level and by a tennis coach playing a tournament it helps to raise the profile and credibility of a tennis tournament. Let's though remember one important thing.
It's not a tennis coach's 'requirement' to own the local or regional tennis scene as far as tournament results are concerned because as the chapter's title suggests, you are in danger of spreading yourself way too thin. A tennis coach in particular needs to play it smart and by that I mean that it is important for the tennis community to see a coach support a competition but not every one, in every year, in every possible location.
'Tall Poppy Syndrome' can definitely come into play in the event of someone trying to monopolise not only the coaching side of things but the tournament scene also. Predictability in local tennis tournaments is no fun for anyone just for the sake of an ego boost.
Tennis fraternities in all regions are aware of who can play tennis and who simply just 'talks a good game' so playing it smart is imperative if you are also making money from teaching it. Limit your tournaments but support them also, find a happy medium.
The big thing I believe about tennis coaches playing tournaments is that it also reinforces a coach's thought process. A coach who regularly plays is always asking the same question of themselves as they are of their students and that I believe is a huge factor in the whole teaching side of the game. Put yourself in your students' shoes.
If a tennis coach hangs up his racket for good it should be for the right reasons, perhaps age, perhaps injury but it should never be through fear of losing, that's a cop out.
If a tennis coach is physically able to play then there is no good reason why they should not strengthen a local tournament by entering it even if it is with a 'B' Grade partner. A tennis coach is not expected to win every event but they have an obligation to bring players on and simply by playing it inspires others to do the same.
Smart tennis coaches know how to work this whole situation, there is an art to many aspects of the game, this is just another.
Play while you can, you are a long time retired. Show your students that you can play it, not just talk it........
Sunday, 27 December 2015
STATE OF MIND
'STATE OF MIND'
The state of mind of either a player or coach of tennis can determine a lot of factors as far as what will be brought to the table when it's time to hit a ball. Kids thrive off the enthusiasm of a tennis coach and most times will react in a positive manner, but not all the time.
I was asked to have a look at a kid last season who was from 'elsewhere' who I had heard about , but not convinced he was a future star. I didn't go into the lesson with anything but an open mind , by the time I left I had a very different opinion. I was asked by the kid's father to give an 'honest evaluation' of his ability and after 35 minutes he got just that .
"I'm not interested in being on the same court as your son , he has no interest being on the same court as me, he knows it all , or so he thinks. Keep your money for the 35 minutes, my free advice is get him to fix his attitude".
Now this wasn't the happiest 35 minutes of my life as for a start I didn't enjoy the kid's attitude and I also refused any payment , but I was trying to make a point, so I did as best I could. If I had continued the lesson and taken their money , said "well done buddy you are a star in the making" then I would have being lying to them and myself. If I explain to a kid that a high forehand follow through will give a higher arc to the ball over the net and he refuses to even try this then my view is simple , he knows it all. I will always demonstrate a shot that I teach to the best of my ability as a visual for a kid is the best way for them to pick the game up, I pride myself on it.
Have you ever noticed the first ball at least that you hit for a kid in a demonstration he will watch where the ball actually goes in the court. I always say "trust me buddy this shot is going into the court, WATCH THE WAY I ACTUALLY HIT IT", in a polite but firm way of course. No one ever learnt anything by watching where the ball bounces , they need to learn how it is hit. So in this particular case I gave an example of how a ball hit with spin over the net with an arc that gives my opponent no comfort whatsoever is way harder to get back than a net skimming ball that has no margin for error. This kid was not interested, so in the end neither was I.
This wasn't the first lesson I had cut short , I have done it on numerous occasions when I believed that the parent is wasting their money and my time. Do I get the same pupils back? Most times no, though on one occasion yes and the attitude was better, that's all I ask. I am not a 'babysitter' I am a teacher of the game of tennis , there is a difference.
As a coach I believe we are responsible for the actions of our pupils on a court whether it be at practice or in a tournament so etiquette and state of mind need to be taught to pupils . I remember telling my students before they played a tournament " If I see you guys misbehaving or hanging off the back of a fence as the 'peanut gallery' I will give you a week off from your training . If you guys are doing stuff that puts the spotlight on you for all the wrong reasons then the spotlight will then be put rather brightly on me as your coach.
I was asked to have a look at a kid last season who was from 'elsewhere' who I had heard about , but not convinced he was a future star. I didn't go into the lesson with anything but an open mind , by the time I left I had a very different opinion. I was asked by the kid's father to give an 'honest evaluation' of his ability and after 35 minutes he got just that .
"I'm not interested in being on the same court as your son , he has no interest being on the same court as me, he knows it all , or so he thinks. Keep your money for the 35 minutes, my free advice is get him to fix his attitude".
Now this wasn't the happiest 35 minutes of my life as for a start I didn't enjoy the kid's attitude and I also refused any payment , but I was trying to make a point, so I did as best I could. If I had continued the lesson and taken their money , said "well done buddy you are a star in the making" then I would have being lying to them and myself. If I explain to a kid that a high forehand follow through will give a higher arc to the ball over the net and he refuses to even try this then my view is simple , he knows it all. I will always demonstrate a shot that I teach to the best of my ability as a visual for a kid is the best way for them to pick the game up, I pride myself on it.
Have you ever noticed the first ball at least that you hit for a kid in a demonstration he will watch where the ball actually goes in the court. I always say "trust me buddy this shot is going into the court, WATCH THE WAY I ACTUALLY HIT IT", in a polite but firm way of course. No one ever learnt anything by watching where the ball bounces , they need to learn how it is hit. So in this particular case I gave an example of how a ball hit with spin over the net with an arc that gives my opponent no comfort whatsoever is way harder to get back than a net skimming ball that has no margin for error. This kid was not interested, so in the end neither was I.
This wasn't the first lesson I had cut short , I have done it on numerous occasions when I believed that the parent is wasting their money and my time. Do I get the same pupils back? Most times no, though on one occasion yes and the attitude was better, that's all I ask. I am not a 'babysitter' I am a teacher of the game of tennis , there is a difference.
As a coach I believe we are responsible for the actions of our pupils on a court whether it be at practice or in a tournament so etiquette and state of mind need to be taught to pupils . I remember telling my students before they played a tournament " If I see you guys misbehaving or hanging off the back of a fence as the 'peanut gallery' I will give you a week off from your training . If you guys are doing stuff that puts the spotlight on you for all the wrong reasons then the spotlight will then be put rather brightly on me as your coach.
I am not interested in bad publicity". Nine times out of ten they respected my wishes.
My hard nosed approach to my pupils probably came from the coaches that I had when I was a kid , they were hard but fair on me , I respected that and implemented it in my own coaching, it's a stance I won't be changing.
My hard nosed approach to my pupils probably came from the coaches that I had when I was a kid , they were hard but fair on me , I respected that and implemented it in my own coaching, it's a stance I won't be changing.
'ANXIETY AND FEAR OF FAILURE' 9
I wrote the following chapter quite some time ago however I did not post it on my Blog. Some things I felt should be left to go straight into a book. Chronic anxiety plagued me throughout my junior days on court and prevented me from playing how I knew I could play.
Fear of failure went along with the anxiety issue though I am certain I am no Robinson Crusoe there...
Fear of failure went along with the anxiety issue though I am certain I am no Robinson Crusoe there...
'ANXIETY AND A FEAR OF FAILURE'
ANXIETY ( A feeling of worry, nervousness or unease about something with an uncertain outcome)
This is a real issue in sportspeople of any age but it may be the difference as to whether a kid who plays tennis can take their game to the required level to achieve success. As a tennis coach I have seen many things on a tennis court that I shake my head at in disbelief then nod my head in acknowledgement that this was in fact my biggest issue when I played the game as a teenager.
I recall some days barely being able to hold my racket or move without feeling as though my legs were lead weights and my stomach constantly turned. So what is it with tennis and anxiety?
It may have a lot to do with the pressure that has been put on the child by parents, friends or even by the child themselves as they strive for a goal , a personal goal. There are no other people to blame for a loss when all is said and done, it's that horrible feeling of 'I failed, I should have won , how could I lose that? or I am pathetic', it's just that sort of game.
I firmly believe that anxiety in my adult life stemmed from my days of junior tennis that had me at times feeling so nervous that I could not perform the way that either I knew I could or knew I should be, a feeling of helplessness. Hours spent practicing the game usually accounted for nothing as some days I would give a shadow of the person that I knew I could deliver on a tennis court. After some matches I literally hated myself and I would hate the game too. So why didn't I give up? The challenge.
Tennis is a sport that is really only a mental battle if you are fit , because let's face it , if you are technically sound , fit and have no physical defects then playing tennis should really just be about putting the ball in play and out thinking your opponent. Pretty simple really, so why isn't it?
Fear of failure in a one on one sport can over ride your ability to perform at the level you know you have when you hit against a ball machine, on club days, against a mate, or even perhaps against the kids you teach, so why is this ?
You will never beat a ball machine so you have nothing to lose, there is no point trying to beat it so you just try to not embarrass yourself, it's a pride thing. If the machine spits out 50 balls in a sequence of side to side hitting then and you get 50 back into play well you didn't technically beat it but you matched it, you feel good about this.
If you have a hit against fellow club players on a Saturday afternoon then there is no real pressure and you swing freely , with no fear , some of your shots will be quite remarkable but you have these shots , you just aren't prepared to release them in a tournament for fear of missing . If you play against either your mates or the students you teach then chances are you will be better than them so in a sometimes egotistical way you inadvertently 'show off' your skills , again , with no fear of missing.
So when we take on a machine or our mates or our students there is no anxiety, no fear of failure , no tight muscles , no nervousness , we are in complete control of both the situation and our ability to play the game of tennis. However when we are thrust into the spotlight in a tennis tournament against an opponent who has two arms, two legs , just the same as us , for some reason things change.
Being nervous at the start of a match in particular can cost you the match , even if after a weak first set you come back in the second and play the way you want to and know you can play. How many times have you read a score line of 6-1, 7-6 ? That's typical of a player who really 'didn't turn up' in the first set but by the time he had lost the first set , the anxiety had gone and he was able to play his natural game.
The great Boris Becker used to have a funny habit at the start of matches, he would cough, just small coughs that resembled someone who had a slight tickle in the throat, it would be gone by the third game once the adrenalin had kicked in . I wonder if Boris would ever admit to this ? I remember it vividly. Even the great Champions of tennis get anxiety but they know how to shut it out in time for them to perform at their best and that's what makes them champions.
A large crowd has a lot to do with a player's anxiety level , I know it did with me , I felt as though the 'World' was watching and assessing and picking apart my every shot and every move, I felt claustrophobic, but there was no where to hide. When I first started teaching tennis as an 18 year old I used to make a habit of getting to the venue first and taking my group to the end court , as far away as I could from the parents , I also used to play well in a tournament on an outside court . As soon as I was within earshot or spectator view for coaching or playing then I would talk quietly to the kids or play conservatively , I had a chronic fear of failure.
To this day my anxiety before a game of tennis is still there but it is much more controlled , I feel in charge now of my emotions and I am not trying for anything else but self pride and gaining respect. When I teach I welcome parents court side as I am in complete control of my lessons and my way of expressing myself, I just wish I had that ability when I was younger.
Anxiety prevents a good player from becoming great, prevents an average player from becoming good and it prevented myself from enjoying tennis more when I was younger. My latter life anxiety could perhaps be traced back to my junior playing days , something that at least I can now help my current students with as they pursue the game of tennis.
This is a real issue in sportspeople of any age but it may be the difference as to whether a kid who plays tennis can take their game to the required level to achieve success. As a tennis coach I have seen many things on a tennis court that I shake my head at in disbelief then nod my head in acknowledgement that this was in fact my biggest issue when I played the game as a teenager.
I recall some days barely being able to hold my racket or move without feeling as though my legs were lead weights and my stomach constantly turned. So what is it with tennis and anxiety?
It may have a lot to do with the pressure that has been put on the child by parents, friends or even by the child themselves as they strive for a goal , a personal goal. There are no other people to blame for a loss when all is said and done, it's that horrible feeling of 'I failed, I should have won , how could I lose that? or I am pathetic', it's just that sort of game.
I firmly believe that anxiety in my adult life stemmed from my days of junior tennis that had me at times feeling so nervous that I could not perform the way that either I knew I could or knew I should be, a feeling of helplessness. Hours spent practicing the game usually accounted for nothing as some days I would give a shadow of the person that I knew I could deliver on a tennis court. After some matches I literally hated myself and I would hate the game too. So why didn't I give up? The challenge.
Tennis is a sport that is really only a mental battle if you are fit , because let's face it , if you are technically sound , fit and have no physical defects then playing tennis should really just be about putting the ball in play and out thinking your opponent. Pretty simple really, so why isn't it?
Fear of failure in a one on one sport can over ride your ability to perform at the level you know you have when you hit against a ball machine, on club days, against a mate, or even perhaps against the kids you teach, so why is this ?
You will never beat a ball machine so you have nothing to lose, there is no point trying to beat it so you just try to not embarrass yourself, it's a pride thing. If the machine spits out 50 balls in a sequence of side to side hitting then and you get 50 back into play well you didn't technically beat it but you matched it, you feel good about this.
If you have a hit against fellow club players on a Saturday afternoon then there is no real pressure and you swing freely , with no fear , some of your shots will be quite remarkable but you have these shots , you just aren't prepared to release them in a tournament for fear of missing . If you play against either your mates or the students you teach then chances are you will be better than them so in a sometimes egotistical way you inadvertently 'show off' your skills , again , with no fear of missing.
So when we take on a machine or our mates or our students there is no anxiety, no fear of failure , no tight muscles , no nervousness , we are in complete control of both the situation and our ability to play the game of tennis. However when we are thrust into the spotlight in a tennis tournament against an opponent who has two arms, two legs , just the same as us , for some reason things change.
Being nervous at the start of a match in particular can cost you the match , even if after a weak first set you come back in the second and play the way you want to and know you can play. How many times have you read a score line of 6-1, 7-6 ? That's typical of a player who really 'didn't turn up' in the first set but by the time he had lost the first set , the anxiety had gone and he was able to play his natural game.
The great Boris Becker used to have a funny habit at the start of matches, he would cough, just small coughs that resembled someone who had a slight tickle in the throat, it would be gone by the third game once the adrenalin had kicked in . I wonder if Boris would ever admit to this ? I remember it vividly. Even the great Champions of tennis get anxiety but they know how to shut it out in time for them to perform at their best and that's what makes them champions.
A large crowd has a lot to do with a player's anxiety level , I know it did with me , I felt as though the 'World' was watching and assessing and picking apart my every shot and every move, I felt claustrophobic, but there was no where to hide. When I first started teaching tennis as an 18 year old I used to make a habit of getting to the venue first and taking my group to the end court , as far away as I could from the parents , I also used to play well in a tournament on an outside court . As soon as I was within earshot or spectator view for coaching or playing then I would talk quietly to the kids or play conservatively , I had a chronic fear of failure.
To this day my anxiety before a game of tennis is still there but it is much more controlled , I feel in charge now of my emotions and I am not trying for anything else but self pride and gaining respect. When I teach I welcome parents court side as I am in complete control of my lessons and my way of expressing myself, I just wish I had that ability when I was younger.
Anxiety prevents a good player from becoming great, prevents an average player from becoming good and it prevented myself from enjoying tennis more when I was younger. My latter life anxiety could perhaps be traced back to my junior playing days , something that at least I can now help my current students with as they pursue the game of tennis.
UGLY PARENT SYNDROME 8 ( A COACHING VIEW )
I wrote this chapter around the same time as the 'Posse'. There were two things that really disappointed me about junior tennis and in fact still do at some Senior tournaments though it is on a much smaller scale. Ugly Parent Syndrome is alive and well, unfortunately.
UGLY PARENT SYNDROME
UGLY PARENT SYNDROME
Tough subject this one but why not tackle it head on ? This is the situation in life that is rather embarrassing in junior sport yet it rears it's ugly head regularly , especially in Tennis , so why is this ? Easy one to answer ; Tennis is the game , as is golf , that parents who didn't perhaps 'make it' either in life or their preferred sport , can finally have 'bragging rights' that has their surname written all over it .(Team Sports unless you are a standout, don't quite have the same effect).
I often wonder whether the name has anything to do with sport , personally I wasn't 'gifted' in my choice of first or last names , Sweden's Joachim Johanssen was always going to be a tennis professional , if he failed at that , racing car driving would've been his other option . Back to the headline; There needs to be an 'Odd's Book' given to each and every parent who's child takes up the game of Tennis with the headline 'One in A million'......
When I trained full time for nearly two years in Queensland I saw a thing or two regarding talent and when I toured Europe in '91 I saw it on an even bigger scale , it was outrageous , as Redfoo would say 'Ridiculous'. (He's a singer with weird lyrics).
The art of Tennis is just that ,an art , maybe the toughest individual sport in the world that requires the player to be not only technically brilliant , but mentally and physically brilliant at the same time . As a coach of the sport you see many examples of 'my kid has what it takes , I want you to make her a champion' , that's a big call. It's like 'Santa Claus' , what are the chances??
When I trained full time for nearly two years in Queensland I saw a thing or two regarding talent and when I toured Europe in '91 I saw it on an even bigger scale , it was outrageous , as Redfoo would say 'Ridiculous'. (He's a singer with weird lyrics).
The art of Tennis is just that ,an art , maybe the toughest individual sport in the world that requires the player to be not only technically brilliant , but mentally and physically brilliant at the same time . As a coach of the sport you see many examples of 'my kid has what it takes , I want you to make her a champion' , that's a big call. It's like 'Santa Claus' , what are the chances??
Nick Bollettieri trained Andre Agassi , Brad Gilbert made Andre a Champion with his tactical mind and views on the game , Andre's Father though was the person who taught him to play .
So if there is a Tennis Coach out there who can do all of these things with a budding junior talent of the game of Tennis then I would love to meet him . Each 'Coach' knows his limitations , some have a talent in certain areas of the game yet lack in others , having the talent to do all of the above is a 'gift'. Rafa's Uncle Tony may just be this man but let's put Rafa into perspective. Carlos Moya took a young 14-15 year old Rafa under his wing and hit with him regularly which took his game to an unbelievably high level , Uncle Tony reaped the benefits of Moya's tuition .
More than one element is responsible for a future Champion of the game , 'real coaches' are aware of this fact and have a realistic view on the whole process . The other side of the coin is 'ugly parents' who sit behind the court watching their child play and offer the occasional remark to the unlucky opponent trying to upset them enough to 'give in' to their 'prodigy' . 'Come on buddy that was inside the line ' or 'if you call a close one out again....
Ugly Parent syndrome is in all aspects of junior sport however tennis seems to breed them more than most. Why ? It's the reward factor I believe as a tennis champion as a son or daughter is a parents' talking point like no other and some will go to extreme measures to help their kids win.
We have probably all seen 'that' parent walk through the gate at a junior tennis tournament with their child and cringe because you just know that this person is not someone who sets a great example as far as ethics are concerned. That same parent will sit behind their child's court and offer advice, discreetly of course and not all the time to their own 'prodigy'.
Ugly parent syndrome will always be part of tennis, fact of life and nature of the sport however we can only hope that the child rises above it all. We can only hope that the child creates their own destiny in life, one that does not have their 'ugly parent' written all over it.
'THE POSSE' 7 ( A COACHING VIEW )
Trying to remember all of the things that either worked, didn't work or affected me in some way as a junior tennis player has been an exercise in patience and diligence but some still shine brighter than others. Have you ever been to a tennis tournament and been disappointed by the behaviour of not only some kids but parents also ?
I wrote the following chapter one day when I was reliving a memory from my early days on court and one that will stick with me forever I believe. It involves 'that' group of kids that many of us were either intimidated by or just plain disappointed with due to their ways of intimidating others. A fact of life at junior tennis yet many turn a blind eye to it through either ignorance or fear of upsetting someone. A shame as someone should let them know that being a 'boofhead' at a junior tennis tournament is un cool.
I wrote the following chapter one day when I was reliving a memory from my early days on court and one that will stick with me forever I believe. It involves 'that' group of kids that many of us were either intimidated by or just plain disappointed with due to their ways of intimidating others. A fact of life at junior tennis yet many turn a blind eye to it through either ignorance or fear of upsetting someone. A shame as someone should let them know that being a 'boofhead' at a junior tennis tournament is un cool.
'POSSE' (A group of people who are together for a particular purpose)
My most vivid memories of junior tennis both here in Albany , Western Australia, Perth and then Queensland was in fact the 'posse' type nature of the sport. There were kids who waltzed around the grounds of the venue as though they were 'God's gift' to the game of tennis and they did back then what they still do now, they form the 'peanut gallery'.
My most vivid memories of junior tennis both here in Albany , Western Australia, Perth and then Queensland was in fact the 'posse' type nature of the sport. There were kids who waltzed around the grounds of the venue as though they were 'God's gift' to the game of tennis and they did back then what they still do now, they form the 'peanut gallery'.
I have literally seen kids hanging off fences , like monkeys in a zoo , doing their best to put the spotlight on themselves, letting the rest of the Tournament's competitors know that they are 'in the house'. Groups of kids hang at the back of the courts and continually ask their buddy for the score and they do their best to put their mate's opponent's off their game's by offering words of 'advice' as to what they should be doing next or asking them ' why did you call that out mate? It was on the line', among other things.
I once had a parent phone me in disgust at the behaviour of a 'posse' in a tournament played at a small country venue. Her son had come off the court in tears after a loss that should never have happened, he lead comfortably by a set and a break , then the posse turned up , put him off his game. He lost the second and third sets with barely a whimper, his game went to pieces, totally put off by the intimidating nature of the group of kids behind his court.
A kid who is of a timid nature will go to water in this situation, a tough kid will use the situation to fire themselves up but it should never really be put on the table in the first place. As I have gotten much older in the game I have used this type of thing to get myself pumped up. The 'posse' is still a part of the game of tennis at my age in tournaments , but obviously not as pronounced as it is at a junior level. There are always pockets of the audience that are either from the same club or town or group of friends that sit and watch your every move, but luckily they don't hang off the fence anymore, that would look just plain silly.
I recently played a local tournament and had around 5 or so kids watching my match , two of them I used to teach. One asked me the score, I told him what it was ,I even told him I wished I had 'his younger legs' as I struggled with a kid less than half my age. As you get older it's sometimes fun to talk with some spectators, it can change the intense mood of the match and loosen up the tight joints, not so in juniors, it's a 'life or death' situation.
When I was 13 I played in the Albany Junior Open , it was my first tournament and perhaps only a year since I had taken up the game of tennis, I had high aspirations, just not ability to match. I got hammered by a kid who was twice my strength and ability, I didn't win a game, then came the ultimate insult.
I walked up to the Scoreboard to see when my next match was and there he was, 'Mr Tennis' the kid who had just belted me 6-0, complete with his 'posse'. One of his 'henchmen' mentioned my name ,I think he was playing me in a doubles match. 'Mr Tennis' came back with 'you will be right, he's weak'.
I once had a parent phone me in disgust at the behaviour of a 'posse' in a tournament played at a small country venue. Her son had come off the court in tears after a loss that should never have happened, he lead comfortably by a set and a break , then the posse turned up , put him off his game. He lost the second and third sets with barely a whimper, his game went to pieces, totally put off by the intimidating nature of the group of kids behind his court.
A kid who is of a timid nature will go to water in this situation, a tough kid will use the situation to fire themselves up but it should never really be put on the table in the first place. As I have gotten much older in the game I have used this type of thing to get myself pumped up. The 'posse' is still a part of the game of tennis at my age in tournaments , but obviously not as pronounced as it is at a junior level. There are always pockets of the audience that are either from the same club or town or group of friends that sit and watch your every move, but luckily they don't hang off the fence anymore, that would look just plain silly.
I recently played a local tournament and had around 5 or so kids watching my match , two of them I used to teach. One asked me the score, I told him what it was ,I even told him I wished I had 'his younger legs' as I struggled with a kid less than half my age. As you get older it's sometimes fun to talk with some spectators, it can change the intense mood of the match and loosen up the tight joints, not so in juniors, it's a 'life or death' situation.
When I was 13 I played in the Albany Junior Open , it was my first tournament and perhaps only a year since I had taken up the game of tennis, I had high aspirations, just not ability to match. I got hammered by a kid who was twice my strength and ability, I didn't win a game, then came the ultimate insult.
I walked up to the Scoreboard to see when my next match was and there he was, 'Mr Tennis' the kid who had just belted me 6-0, complete with his 'posse'. One of his 'henchmen' mentioned my name ,I think he was playing me in a doubles match. 'Mr Tennis' came back with 'you will be right, he's weak'.
That shattered my confidence, I not only got hammered but I was known to the 'posse' as weak, it was a tournament and lesson in life that I will never forget. I vowed to get better, promised myself that I would never be called 'weak' again, it drove my improvement.
The next year I still remember to this day as possibly the most satisfying moment of my junior playing days, I got my revenge. 'Mr Tennis' came to the tournament but played in a higher age bracket, I didn't have to face him but who did I meet first round in my age group ? His brother. This was my match, it's what I had hit for on the garage wall for 3-4 hours some days in the lead up to the Albany Junior Open of 1983. I didn't miss many balls that match in a 6-3 win, and I made a point of following my opponent to the area where his brother was . 'Did you win'? No. 'You lost to Thompson'? Yes.
Hey 'Mr Tennis' you are an egotistical prick, and I didn't think much of either the way you conducted yourself or the way you thought your 'posse' owned the tournament 12 months earlier. If I ever get really good at this game I will use you as an example of how not to act at a tennis tournament, have a nice day'. No I didn't say it out loud but I wanted to. From an early age I was out to gain respect and in a sport as tough as tennis that's a big thing.
The next year I still remember to this day as possibly the most satisfying moment of my junior playing days, I got my revenge. 'Mr Tennis' came to the tournament but played in a higher age bracket, I didn't have to face him but who did I meet first round in my age group ? His brother. This was my match, it's what I had hit for on the garage wall for 3-4 hours some days in the lead up to the Albany Junior Open of 1983. I didn't miss many balls that match in a 6-3 win, and I made a point of following my opponent to the area where his brother was . 'Did you win'? No. 'You lost to Thompson'? Yes.
Hey 'Mr Tennis' you are an egotistical prick, and I didn't think much of either the way you conducted yourself or the way you thought your 'posse' owned the tournament 12 months earlier. If I ever get really good at this game I will use you as an example of how not to act at a tennis tournament, have a nice day'. No I didn't say it out loud but I wanted to. From an early age I was out to gain respect and in a sport as tough as tennis that's a big thing.
I went on to win the 14's age group that particular year and I learnt a lot about the game. I told myself never to get too big for my boots , a vanquished opponent one year could quite easily be your conqueror the next, nature of the sport.
Saturday, 26 December 2015
' OBSESSED' 2 ( A HERO )
I didn't pick up a tennis racket until I was 12 and this came possibly from my Grandpa giving my sister the Bjorn Borg biography for Christmas one year. Amanda probably only read it once, I read it maybe 50 times as it gave me inspiration to play the game. There were no Ipods, Ipads, X Boxes or otherwise to take our minds off becoming 'superstars' in our chosen sports.
The hours I spent hitting against the garage wall was time in 'the Zone', a place that no one could bother me. I took a leaf out of Borg's book and gave myself a goal against the wall, after all I was never going to beat a brick wall. Borg used to tell himself that if he hit a certain amount of shots in a row then it was a point to him, I liked that method right from the start, consistency.
My house as a kid had a rather unique style of brick work and I spent hours chipping away at the wall from just above the chalked net line until it was completely smooth. The garage wall was perfectly manicured to hit tennis balls against after I had finished as I was also the 'Groundsman'.
I recall the 'devastation' of 'Borgie' retiring when my tennis was just beginning and being shattered as I was a kid who looked to his hero for guidance. I would ask many questions of Borgie as I hit the ball into submission against a wall that if could talk would have begged for mercy. I don't know if I ever received the answers that I was looking for but I kept asking them anyhow. After all I was on 'court' with 'Borgie' and that time to me was priceless.
In my young and silly mind there was only one thing to do, I had to, I mean I just HAD to become a Professional Tennis Player so I could grow my hair long like Bjorn and one day have him watch me play on television. It all made so much sense to a 12 year old kid but now I would have to do it all without the great man. He had simply hit too many tennis balls in his time against his garage wall, Connors, Mac and Vitas. His body and mind were tired.
It was ok, I understood, it was time though to find another hero, one who would answer my many questions against the wall in the garage. I needed one who looked and played just like 'Borgie' and they weren't easy to find.
Lucky for me a 17 year old kid by the name of Mats Wilander from Sweden had just made the Semi's of the Italian Open. Maybe he could fill the void that my retired hero had left and inspire me to become the tennis professional I had set out to be from day one on that garage wall.
Every kid needs a hero......
Monday, 7 December 2015
'THE MATCH' ( TACTICS )
Do you remember the 1988 US Open Mens Singles final between my favourite player Mats Wilander and the ultimate 'baseline bully' Ivan Lendl ? Now there is a match where one baseliner took himself out of his comfort zone to throw out the rhythm of a player who thrived off the ball being hit back to him with the same spin.
I always use this match as an example for my students as a lesson in a change of game plan that paid dividends as there was so much riding on the title, the number 1 World ranking. Wilander had lost the 1987 final to Lendl however the match lasted nearly five hours and was only four sets and Mats saw two set points go begging in the third. That match was predominantly played from the back of the court by Lendl but I believe that Mats had made enough entries to the net in that match to see a pattern that could help with his future matches with Lendl.
The Czech did not like to be rushed into hitting a winner, he liked to play a point in his own time and he liked to return topspin. He was one of the few that could push Borg on clay as he took the champion Swede to the fifth set at Roland Garos in 1980.
The marathon five set victory by Mats in 1988 was a lesson to all competitors who usually play a 'reactive' style of game as opposed to a 'proactive' style. The previous year was one where Mats was a point away from a two sets to one lead as Borg was against Connors in 1978 ?? The similarities were enormous between the two Swedes as they both could have held the US open title by 1987 if they had both secured one of their set points in the third and most pivotal set. There are many heartbreaking stories though in tennis where one point could have changed tennis history.
The win by Wilander in '88 will go down as a victory for 'David' as opposed to another win by 'Goliath' who was expected to dominate once again. I can only imagine how much that defeat hurt Mats in '87 and I can also imagine just how hard he practiced that sliced backhand which he basically perfected by the time the '88 US Open final commenced. It has often been said that a player will always learn more from a loss than a win and without a doubt the final in '88 proved this theory correct.
Did Mats practice against a heavy hitter prior to that title match in New York and did he work on nullifying the effect of topspin with slice ? Hitting a sliced backhand as opposed to the two hander did two things, it saved energy and it kept the ball low out of Lendl's hitting zone. Was Mats going to turn into a big server over night do you think or was he going to work on a smarter tactic ? Would he work on making a baseline heavy weight stretch both low and wide for a passing shot as well as a low skidding ball to keep in play during a rally ?
I don't remember how many backhands Lendl missed during a rally in that match as the slice from the Swede was brutally low to a player who wanted the ball higher into his hitting zone.
We can all learn something from that match that some liken to the 'dinosaur era' of tennis yet it remains my all time favourite tactical match of all time .
Why ? Because it was outrageously clever from a player who at just 17 years of age won the French Open Mens Singles title using heavy topspin off both sides.
Is it ever too late to learn a new tactic in the sport of tennis ?
I always use this match as an example for my students as a lesson in a change of game plan that paid dividends as there was so much riding on the title, the number 1 World ranking. Wilander had lost the 1987 final to Lendl however the match lasted nearly five hours and was only four sets and Mats saw two set points go begging in the third. That match was predominantly played from the back of the court by Lendl but I believe that Mats had made enough entries to the net in that match to see a pattern that could help with his future matches with Lendl.
The Czech did not like to be rushed into hitting a winner, he liked to play a point in his own time and he liked to return topspin. He was one of the few that could push Borg on clay as he took the champion Swede to the fifth set at Roland Garos in 1980.
The marathon five set victory by Mats in 1988 was a lesson to all competitors who usually play a 'reactive' style of game as opposed to a 'proactive' style. The previous year was one where Mats was a point away from a two sets to one lead as Borg was against Connors in 1978 ?? The similarities were enormous between the two Swedes as they both could have held the US open title by 1987 if they had both secured one of their set points in the third and most pivotal set. There are many heartbreaking stories though in tennis where one point could have changed tennis history.
The win by Wilander in '88 will go down as a victory for 'David' as opposed to another win by 'Goliath' who was expected to dominate once again. I can only imagine how much that defeat hurt Mats in '87 and I can also imagine just how hard he practiced that sliced backhand which he basically perfected by the time the '88 US Open final commenced. It has often been said that a player will always learn more from a loss than a win and without a doubt the final in '88 proved this theory correct.
Did Mats practice against a heavy hitter prior to that title match in New York and did he work on nullifying the effect of topspin with slice ? Hitting a sliced backhand as opposed to the two hander did two things, it saved energy and it kept the ball low out of Lendl's hitting zone. Was Mats going to turn into a big server over night do you think or was he going to work on a smarter tactic ? Would he work on making a baseline heavy weight stretch both low and wide for a passing shot as well as a low skidding ball to keep in play during a rally ?
I don't remember how many backhands Lendl missed during a rally in that match as the slice from the Swede was brutally low to a player who wanted the ball higher into his hitting zone.
We can all learn something from that match that some liken to the 'dinosaur era' of tennis yet it remains my all time favourite tactical match of all time .
Why ? Because it was outrageously clever from a player who at just 17 years of age won the French Open Mens Singles title using heavy topspin off both sides.
Is it ever too late to learn a new tactic in the sport of tennis ?
Saturday, 5 December 2015
'IMPLIMENTING A GAME PLAN' ( COACHING THEORY )
I firmly believe that in tennis when a student is being taught how to hit a tennis ball they should also be taught what to do with it. Sounds pretty simple really however how many times have you witnessed a coach just teaching someone how to hit a ball with no emphasis being put on what to do with it ? My theory is simple.
If a player is old enough to take in the information then it should be taught right from lesson one and not the final lesson of an eight week term of lessons as a novelty. Sure if a child is of age 6 to 10 with technique flaws then it is way too early to be trying to implement a strategy as that sort of talk will go in one ear and out the other. That sort of age is all about having some fun and learning to hit a ball technically correct.
If a student of say 12 and over is showing all the signs of being mature enough to accept some information regarding tactical play then it should be a part of every lesson, no doubt at all. If a kid of age 16 can belt the cover off a tennis ball with technical brilliance yet be beaten by another who lacks the same prowess to hit yet can find ways to outsmart the glamour player then to me that is a win for the mind. The lesser credentialed player I believe is being taught how to play tennis and not just to hit a tennis ball.
I have always marvelled at the way some players can find a way to win against others who look better, play their shots smoother and who look far flashier and as one of my earlier chapters suggests maybe the less glamorous way of looking has merit. No pressure. So how does a player who looks like a hacker and plays like one beat a 'glamour 'opponent ? The answer may just lay with the hacker's ability to put the ball out of the comfort zone of their opponent.
Now I do apologise for putting in an example of an obscure event at an obscure location with an even more obscure player who no one has ever heard of but I believe in relevance when writing examples. I was lucky enough to play a 17 year old kid from the City at my local singles championship the year I turned 41.
I say 'lucky' because in my home town we do not get the chance very often to play guys who regularly hit against the best city players so I took the opportunity as a challenge and nothing less. After all if you teach the game and have done for many years then surely you know how to play, right ?
When our match commenced I found myself down 1-4 within 15 minutes just hitting aimlessly with no plan, no idea on what I should be doing and no confidence. Admittedly I had not played a tough singles match for a while so perhaps I was just a little slow to kick the mind into gear.
I was however questioning whether my play was like that of a student and whether I really could implement what I had been teaching for years, a game plan of substance. I do remember however what someone had told me before the match commenced regarding my opponent. They told me "I have seen this kid play, his shots are big but he doesn't like the ball anywhere but in the slot, the hitting zone. Keep getting 'em back, doesn't matter how, just get 'em back, you will frustrate him'.
Within thirty minutes I had won seven straight games to take a set lead and be up a break in the second. How did that happen ? Mind over matter.
At 1-4 I wasn't playing my usual game which was to hit it high from my forehand and slice my backhand low, I was probably trying to outhit the kid who hit every ball with a power that I was almost in awe of. What I did from that stage in the first set was tell myself for a start to not play his game and to forget hitting winners, just make the kid play more balls. I also started hitting him short balls from my backhand to his backhand which he hated as it made him come to the net and he hated volleying.
When he came in I either lobbed him as his approaches weren't great or I made a point of hitting a ball at his feet on the first shot with little pace. More often than not he missed that initial volley but if he didn't well he made my second shot rather simple. Whilst his shots were more glamorous he had no plan B and his A game fell apart as soon as he was made to do something different.
I won that particular match 6-4, 6-4 but from that deficit in the first I in fact won 11 games to his 4 so that in itself is a huge swing in a match that was heading initially towards a thumping. Remember when a kid learns technique the ball is more often than not placed in the same spot over and over again so that the shot can be refined to almost perfection. This however has it's pitfalls. It's one thing to say hit against a ball machine or have a coach put the ball in the same spot, it's another to try to get the opponent to do the same in a match.
Did this kid not get taught to play tennis as well as how to hit a ball ? Luckily for me I believe this was the case. I honestly believe though that many years of coaching put me in good shape to play guys who simply went out with one aim in mind and that was to blow the opposition away with winner after winner. My philosophy in tennis however was to keep the ball away from an opponent's strength and that is the hitting zone from the knees to the hips which when you think about it is a rather small area.
Some players however regularly get the ball there more often than not so why is this ? They are playing against a 'ball machine' or a 'coach's feed'. In other words their opponent has no idea on how to take them out of their comfort zone and will continue to hit them shots with a comfortable height.
I look at a player like Rafael Nadal and how he has been almost unbeatable on clay for ten years and that's where my theory comes into play. Look at his forehand and how high the ball is hit over the net and how high the ball is bouncing to his opponent. Imagine trying to constantly hit that ball on the rise before it bounced up around your ears ? It would exhaust you both physically and mentally.
Rafa is a player who I often refer to when teaching a player how to upset an opponent's rhythm as he is the perfect example. Not every player can hit with that much spin however any player can learn to hit a high ball and it can pay handsome dividends. High balls and low balls as well as slow balls are the glamour player's least favourite shot to deal with so why isn't it regularly seen at say a junior State championship ? I believe that it is not being taught.
Tennis is an ego driven sport, a macho one on one sport that I liken to boxing. If a player wins at tennis it is a personal victory that strokes one's ego but hitting slow balls, sliced balls and high balls is perhaps not seen as 'cool' now days.
So to my point. If a slower type of play can win against a quicker macho type of game that has ego written all over it then surely it can be slotted in as an 'option' for a player of any standard at any level. This is as opposed to just going out there with one style, to blast your opponent into oblivion that is seen regularly at many levels.
Have you ever watched the French Open ? Now there is a tournament where the ball is hit with height and spin more than power as the clay does not really reward a big hitting style unless of course your name is Stan. A Spaniard by the name of Rafa has won in nine times through looping the ball back at that rather uncomfortable height that I mentioned before.
Is a plan B or even C being taught by coaches around the World or is just one style being taught that is deemed as 'good enough' ? A player needs more than one speed to hit the ball at and more than one height to clear the net with. A smart player will mix it up and the smart players are the most successful. Tennis rewards a clever mind....
If a player is old enough to take in the information then it should be taught right from lesson one and not the final lesson of an eight week term of lessons as a novelty. Sure if a child is of age 6 to 10 with technique flaws then it is way too early to be trying to implement a strategy as that sort of talk will go in one ear and out the other. That sort of age is all about having some fun and learning to hit a ball technically correct.
If a student of say 12 and over is showing all the signs of being mature enough to accept some information regarding tactical play then it should be a part of every lesson, no doubt at all. If a kid of age 16 can belt the cover off a tennis ball with technical brilliance yet be beaten by another who lacks the same prowess to hit yet can find ways to outsmart the glamour player then to me that is a win for the mind. The lesser credentialed player I believe is being taught how to play tennis and not just to hit a tennis ball.
I have always marvelled at the way some players can find a way to win against others who look better, play their shots smoother and who look far flashier and as one of my earlier chapters suggests maybe the less glamorous way of looking has merit. No pressure. So how does a player who looks like a hacker and plays like one beat a 'glamour 'opponent ? The answer may just lay with the hacker's ability to put the ball out of the comfort zone of their opponent.
Now I do apologise for putting in an example of an obscure event at an obscure location with an even more obscure player who no one has ever heard of but I believe in relevance when writing examples. I was lucky enough to play a 17 year old kid from the City at my local singles championship the year I turned 41.
I say 'lucky' because in my home town we do not get the chance very often to play guys who regularly hit against the best city players so I took the opportunity as a challenge and nothing less. After all if you teach the game and have done for many years then surely you know how to play, right ?
When our match commenced I found myself down 1-4 within 15 minutes just hitting aimlessly with no plan, no idea on what I should be doing and no confidence. Admittedly I had not played a tough singles match for a while so perhaps I was just a little slow to kick the mind into gear.
I was however questioning whether my play was like that of a student and whether I really could implement what I had been teaching for years, a game plan of substance. I do remember however what someone had told me before the match commenced regarding my opponent. They told me "I have seen this kid play, his shots are big but he doesn't like the ball anywhere but in the slot, the hitting zone. Keep getting 'em back, doesn't matter how, just get 'em back, you will frustrate him'.
Within thirty minutes I had won seven straight games to take a set lead and be up a break in the second. How did that happen ? Mind over matter.
At 1-4 I wasn't playing my usual game which was to hit it high from my forehand and slice my backhand low, I was probably trying to outhit the kid who hit every ball with a power that I was almost in awe of. What I did from that stage in the first set was tell myself for a start to not play his game and to forget hitting winners, just make the kid play more balls. I also started hitting him short balls from my backhand to his backhand which he hated as it made him come to the net and he hated volleying.
When he came in I either lobbed him as his approaches weren't great or I made a point of hitting a ball at his feet on the first shot with little pace. More often than not he missed that initial volley but if he didn't well he made my second shot rather simple. Whilst his shots were more glamorous he had no plan B and his A game fell apart as soon as he was made to do something different.
I won that particular match 6-4, 6-4 but from that deficit in the first I in fact won 11 games to his 4 so that in itself is a huge swing in a match that was heading initially towards a thumping. Remember when a kid learns technique the ball is more often than not placed in the same spot over and over again so that the shot can be refined to almost perfection. This however has it's pitfalls. It's one thing to say hit against a ball machine or have a coach put the ball in the same spot, it's another to try to get the opponent to do the same in a match.
Did this kid not get taught to play tennis as well as how to hit a ball ? Luckily for me I believe this was the case. I honestly believe though that many years of coaching put me in good shape to play guys who simply went out with one aim in mind and that was to blow the opposition away with winner after winner. My philosophy in tennis however was to keep the ball away from an opponent's strength and that is the hitting zone from the knees to the hips which when you think about it is a rather small area.
Some players however regularly get the ball there more often than not so why is this ? They are playing against a 'ball machine' or a 'coach's feed'. In other words their opponent has no idea on how to take them out of their comfort zone and will continue to hit them shots with a comfortable height.
I look at a player like Rafael Nadal and how he has been almost unbeatable on clay for ten years and that's where my theory comes into play. Look at his forehand and how high the ball is hit over the net and how high the ball is bouncing to his opponent. Imagine trying to constantly hit that ball on the rise before it bounced up around your ears ? It would exhaust you both physically and mentally.
Rafa is a player who I often refer to when teaching a player how to upset an opponent's rhythm as he is the perfect example. Not every player can hit with that much spin however any player can learn to hit a high ball and it can pay handsome dividends. High balls and low balls as well as slow balls are the glamour player's least favourite shot to deal with so why isn't it regularly seen at say a junior State championship ? I believe that it is not being taught.
Tennis is an ego driven sport, a macho one on one sport that I liken to boxing. If a player wins at tennis it is a personal victory that strokes one's ego but hitting slow balls, sliced balls and high balls is perhaps not seen as 'cool' now days.
So to my point. If a slower type of play can win against a quicker macho type of game that has ego written all over it then surely it can be slotted in as an 'option' for a player of any standard at any level. This is as opposed to just going out there with one style, to blast your opponent into oblivion that is seen regularly at many levels.
Have you ever watched the French Open ? Now there is a tournament where the ball is hit with height and spin more than power as the clay does not really reward a big hitting style unless of course your name is Stan. A Spaniard by the name of Rafa has won in nine times through looping the ball back at that rather uncomfortable height that I mentioned before.
Is a plan B or even C being taught by coaches around the World or is just one style being taught that is deemed as 'good enough' ? A player needs more than one speed to hit the ball at and more than one height to clear the net with. A smart player will mix it up and the smart players are the most successful. Tennis rewards a clever mind....
'MEANINGFUL PRACTICE' ( COACHING THEORY )
I have always been a believer in practicing what will most certainly happen in a match and as a coach I have always been big on drills that simulate match play situations. There is a Youtube video that I shared on my site that is from TPA Tennis.com featuring Tom Allsop and quite frankly it is brilliant. The first drill is a service square routine that is played out with a volley grip, no topspin. Now this type of drill is brilliant for doubles because the two on two format requires a bit of touch and not just power. This is my point. If players want to improve at doubles then it is an absolute necessity to work on situations that occur in a match.
Sounds simple yet I have seen kids practice prior to a doubles tournament and simply hit straight up and down ! Surely if another two kids cannot be found for the practice session then halve the court and work on cross court situations that occur during a doubles match.
Possibly one of my most worn drills would have to be the approach shot drill that brings even the most seasoned baseliner into the net to finish the point. The thing about the net approach is simple, it asks an opponent the question, one that requires a good answer.
Baseline players love rhythm but hate to be rushed and that's where smart approaches can often make the difference in a match between two baseliners. The other thing to remember is that baseliners hate to be brought to the net so that's where a shot such as the sliced backhand can come into play. Short sliced backhands can often confuse a baseline 'robot' who wants the ball deep so even the best ground stroke players will battle with a short ball particularly to their two handed backhand.
I have seen older more experienced players carve up young baseliners with slice and short balls as many kids don't really practice coming to the net unless they are shaking hands. That to me is a tactic that should be worked on by players of all ages as it throws out any rhythm that baseliners thrive off. I can honestly say that I have never seen two kids practice where one works on touch and the other works on trying to counter act it.
I only see kids working on thumping groundstrokes back and forth which is fine if they are about to play a baseliner in a tournament. So what if they turn up and find that their opponent is a touch player with regular net advances as well as someone who likes to bring their opponent in ?
There are many ways to practice at tennis but I have always liked to set up courts particularly with my advanced students and give them match play situations. On court one I may have one up and one back where the net player feeds a ball to the baseliner and they both work on trying to win the point but not on the first ball. I like the idea of a bit of cat and mouse first such as no player can hit a winner until the third or fourth shot so it can help with patience and consistency.
On the next court I may set two players up where a baseliner feeds the ball short to their opponent and works on passing shots while the other works on a first volley. Again I like the idea of no first ball winners in this drill as getting an opponent to actually hit a volley as opposed to trying to blast a winner off the first ball I believe has merit. How many times do you see it happen ? A player comes in and the opponent goes for the almighty blinding winner first up, usually to miss. Making a net rusher play a first volley always puts doubt into their mind because it creates a feeling of having to do more and more with their approaches. That can cause errors.
On court three I may look at cross court play which allows players to work on their angles. Court four would be a rally court, straight up and down the middle, just an exercise in out rallying the opponent. That type of court set up is always good for consistency. Court five I would be looking at a drill such as the one I mentioned earlier at the start of the chapter with a volley grip and just a touch shot workout in the service squares.
On the final court I would set up a serve and return drill, something that I believe is not practiced enough. Practicing returning is not deemed as something that most kids would describe as fun yet it is possibly one of the most important aspects of tennis. That would be my six court 'Meaningful Practice' session with a rotation of around 15 to 20 minutes per court. Different drills would apply to practicing for a doubles tournament but it is fairly simple to 'tweak' all of the above singles drills and make them into a two on two format.
If players are not working on things in practice that will in fact occur in a match then how on earth are they expected to make the right decision when faced with that scenario during a tournament ? Meaningful practice is the difference usually between a good ball striker and one that can think their way through a match. There are many great ball strikers out there but not enough smart tennis players who become highly successful at the sport. It begins in practice.
Sounds simple yet I have seen kids practice prior to a doubles tournament and simply hit straight up and down ! Surely if another two kids cannot be found for the practice session then halve the court and work on cross court situations that occur during a doubles match.
Possibly one of my most worn drills would have to be the approach shot drill that brings even the most seasoned baseliner into the net to finish the point. The thing about the net approach is simple, it asks an opponent the question, one that requires a good answer.
Baseline players love rhythm but hate to be rushed and that's where smart approaches can often make the difference in a match between two baseliners. The other thing to remember is that baseliners hate to be brought to the net so that's where a shot such as the sliced backhand can come into play. Short sliced backhands can often confuse a baseline 'robot' who wants the ball deep so even the best ground stroke players will battle with a short ball particularly to their two handed backhand.
I have seen older more experienced players carve up young baseliners with slice and short balls as many kids don't really practice coming to the net unless they are shaking hands. That to me is a tactic that should be worked on by players of all ages as it throws out any rhythm that baseliners thrive off. I can honestly say that I have never seen two kids practice where one works on touch and the other works on trying to counter act it.
I only see kids working on thumping groundstrokes back and forth which is fine if they are about to play a baseliner in a tournament. So what if they turn up and find that their opponent is a touch player with regular net advances as well as someone who likes to bring their opponent in ?
There are many ways to practice at tennis but I have always liked to set up courts particularly with my advanced students and give them match play situations. On court one I may have one up and one back where the net player feeds a ball to the baseliner and they both work on trying to win the point but not on the first ball. I like the idea of a bit of cat and mouse first such as no player can hit a winner until the third or fourth shot so it can help with patience and consistency.
On the next court I may set two players up where a baseliner feeds the ball short to their opponent and works on passing shots while the other works on a first volley. Again I like the idea of no first ball winners in this drill as getting an opponent to actually hit a volley as opposed to trying to blast a winner off the first ball I believe has merit. How many times do you see it happen ? A player comes in and the opponent goes for the almighty blinding winner first up, usually to miss. Making a net rusher play a first volley always puts doubt into their mind because it creates a feeling of having to do more and more with their approaches. That can cause errors.
On court three I may look at cross court play which allows players to work on their angles. Court four would be a rally court, straight up and down the middle, just an exercise in out rallying the opponent. That type of court set up is always good for consistency. Court five I would be looking at a drill such as the one I mentioned earlier at the start of the chapter with a volley grip and just a touch shot workout in the service squares.
On the final court I would set up a serve and return drill, something that I believe is not practiced enough. Practicing returning is not deemed as something that most kids would describe as fun yet it is possibly one of the most important aspects of tennis. That would be my six court 'Meaningful Practice' session with a rotation of around 15 to 20 minutes per court. Different drills would apply to practicing for a doubles tournament but it is fairly simple to 'tweak' all of the above singles drills and make them into a two on two format.
If players are not working on things in practice that will in fact occur in a match then how on earth are they expected to make the right decision when faced with that scenario during a tournament ? Meaningful practice is the difference usually between a good ball striker and one that can think their way through a match. There are many great ball strikers out there but not enough smart tennis players who become highly successful at the sport. It begins in practice.
Friday, 4 December 2015
SELF DOUBT ( THE MIND )
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. It went something like this. '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 being broken back then we are on even terms again, this first point is crucial'.
That wasn't word for word from Mats but I am sure you get the picture. 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 he lead Thomas Berdych by a set and 4-0 only to lose in a tournament in 2015. 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 so 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.
Players who adopt a no fear attitude if technically correct often become successful at any level played due to a free flowing style that owns no fear. 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.
I suppose it's what makes coaching so tough as we have all seen students hit fearlessly in practice however they cannot replicate that sort of hitting in a match. So how do you teach a student to play with no fear ? I believe it starts on a practice court but it also takes a good coach and a switched on student to implement 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. It went something like this. '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 being broken back then we are on even terms again, this first point is crucial'.
That wasn't word for word from Mats but I am sure you get the picture. 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 he lead Thomas Berdych by a set and 4-0 only to lose in a tournament in 2015. 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 so 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.
Players who adopt a no fear attitude if technically correct often become successful at any level played due to a free flowing style that owns no fear. 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.
I suppose it's what makes coaching so tough as we have all seen students hit fearlessly in practice however they cannot replicate that sort of hitting in a match. So how do you teach a student to play with no fear ? I believe it starts on a practice court but it also takes a good coach and a switched on student to implement it.
PHILOSOPHY ( EUROPEAN LEARNING CURVE )
Sunday, 21 June 2015
'PHILOSOPHY'
The to Europe in 1991 taught me to be philosophical not only about tennis but also life in general. I believed that back then and even now life could quite possibly be like a tennis match that was not necessarily following the script I had written in my head. I wanted to get somewhere but there were many factors in the way of the desired result.
I once asked my Dad a rather silly question when I was a kid regarding tennis professionals and why they were so good. I wanted to know why a pro could simply walk onto court and play so much better than the rest of us. He may have looked the same as an every day person, two arms, two legs, a vocabulary and a smile. How did that player deliver an ability to hit a tennis ball to perfection ?
I believe the answer from Dad was simple, "It's programmed into the brain after hitting so many balls in practice. It's like turning on the light switch in the middle of the night with your eyes barely open, it's built into the memory bank". Good answer Dad.
Some have an ability to do it almost to perfection whereas others find it a constant mental and technical battle.
The one thing that frustrated me more than anything else however was the form that I could deliver in practice but not in a match. In Europe I probably won more points than I lost against my touring buddies Brett and Pete on the practice court and in drills I was almost unbeatable, I hit with freedom.
When I practiced I had a sense of invincibility, a sense of no fear that gave me confidence about my game and about life, it was a positive feeling. If I could have taken that no fear attitude into my matches, well maybe I would have won more than I had lost.
In Europe I learned that tennis was all about thinking and it required a smart mind to beat guys who would refuse to be beaten by shots alone. They asked you many questions but the most common of all was "Hey Aussie your shots are ok but how is your mind, can you out think me"? ( Not out loud of course but that's the feeling you got at times ).That was the biggest issue in Europe, how to out think players who won matches more with their minds than anything else.
I always believe that you cannot go into a tennis match and expect your opponent to lose, you have to find a way to win. If you gain the occasional win by your opponents handing you a match then take it as a bonus, it won't happen very often. Most times you will be asked many questions and you will need to find many answers.
Playing against red hot Europeans on clay is an education I would recommend to any budding young tennis player who has aspirations to take their game to the next level.
It will help put the game into perspective and it will toughen the mind, something most tennis players need to improve. Tennis is all about educating the mind and the body to react without thinking too much about it.
Some have an ability to do it almost to perfection whereas others find it a constant mental and technical battle.
The one thing that frustrated me more than anything else however was the form that I could deliver in practice but not in a match. In Europe I probably won more points than I lost against my touring buddies Brett and Pete on the practice court and in drills I was almost unbeatable, I hit with freedom.
When I practiced I had a sense of invincibility, a sense of no fear that gave me confidence about my game and about life, it was a positive feeling. If I could have taken that no fear attitude into my matches, well maybe I would have won more than I had lost.
In Europe I learned that tennis was all about thinking and it required a smart mind to beat guys who would refuse to be beaten by shots alone. They asked you many questions but the most common of all was "Hey Aussie your shots are ok but how is your mind, can you out think me"? ( Not out loud of course but that's the feeling you got at times ).That was the biggest issue in Europe, how to out think players who won matches more with their minds than anything else.
I always believe that you cannot go into a tennis match and expect your opponent to lose, you have to find a way to win. If you gain the occasional win by your opponents handing you a match then take it as a bonus, it won't happen very often. Most times you will be asked many questions and you will need to find many answers.
Playing against red hot Europeans on clay is an education I would recommend to any budding young tennis player who has aspirations to take their game to the next level.
It will help put the game into perspective and it will toughen the mind, something most tennis players need to improve. Tennis is all about educating the mind and the body to react without thinking too much about it.
Thursday, 3 December 2015
THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR ( TACTICS )
Monday, 28 July 2014
'THE INTIMIDATION FACTOR'
I remember some time ago a conversation I had with a kid and a parent regarding intimidation from other kids at tennis tournaments, it happens regularly. Players of all ages walk around behind the courts as if they are 'rock stars' complete with dazzling clothes and foot wear. These players often stop to watch or in some cases put the opposition off their game, particularly the higher ranked players. It is natural for the lesser credentialed tennis player to be intimidated by the ones who are looked upon as the bench marks and who are usually the players left at the end of a tournament.
I touched briefly on the 'intimidation factor' in my last chapter regarding Europe and the tournament scene because I believe it's a huge factor in tennis. Some players are intimidated by different things and different types of opposition, I recall some moments both here and in Europe.
When I entered Roland Garros in Paris in 1991 that to me was an eye opener of epic proportions as the enormity of the centre court stadium is one that hits you with a dose of reality. I imagined what it would be like playing in front of that many people and the effect that it would have on me. What sort of person would you really have to be to play fearless tennis in front of 15,000 spectators who are watching your every move ? It's one thing to play in front of 50 people at your local tournament but in front of thousands ? That's intimidating.
I remember walking past some players at Roland Garros who were there for the same reason as I was, to gain paper work to allow us to play the tournament circuit that involved prize money. The money was not life changing but it was a big help to get to the next tournament. Some of the players I saw were possibly the untidiest tennis players I had ever seen, there was no such thing back then as 'dressing to intimidate'.
I see kids now days walk onto a court at the local junior competition with racket bags big enough to sleep in and shoes worth $200, maybe a racket worth $300 - $400, that's a big investment at a young age. It is however all 'part' of the game now days that seems to thrive on looks and image. If you turn up to play in a pair of Dunlop volley shoes and a $50 racket you will more often than not gain the attention of that group of players I mentioned at the start of this chapter. They are intimidating at a junior level.
I usually found the guys who turned up to play with a beard , long hair, older rackets and shoes to be the players who could really play the game of tennis. Why? Because they relied on nothing except ability. Polite players too were the ones to look out for , these guys knew their capabilities and they oozed confidence. They knew they would be in the last 4 in a few days time, their opponents until then were simply 'practice partners'. Arrogant players were not as good , they relied on their surly attitudes to try and gain an edge, their tennis though was not as confident.
When I used to play junior tournaments in both Queensland and Perth I was sometimes overawed with the occasion initially or the opponent but I usually settled well and played a competitive brand of tennis. Trying to do it in Europe however was a totally different equation as the last chapter also suggested, it was like an AFL side trying to win regularly away from home, tough assignment.
So to my initial paragraph and the conversation I had with the junior and the parent, I simply gave some examples as best I could. I told them I now days enjoy playing in front of people who would rather I lose, I actually pick them out and use them as a spur. If tennis tournaments were full of spectators wanting you to win all the time where would the fun be in that ??
So the obvious question came back " How do you know some of them want you to lose "? I said "Well at your age you don't have to worry too much about it , at my age though in a sport such as tennis some of us have a difference of opinion, nature of the game. As a kid however you have a chance to walk past that group of boof heads at the end of your match and give them a smile that says "Thanks for the support , I play better in front of you guys, hopefully I will see you all next match" (under your breath of course).
That's how you deal with 'rock stars' and their 'fan club', simply beat them, they won't bother you too much after that even if you do play with a $50 racket.....
I touched briefly on the 'intimidation factor' in my last chapter regarding Europe and the tournament scene because I believe it's a huge factor in tennis. Some players are intimidated by different things and different types of opposition, I recall some moments both here and in Europe.
When I entered Roland Garros in Paris in 1991 that to me was an eye opener of epic proportions as the enormity of the centre court stadium is one that hits you with a dose of reality. I imagined what it would be like playing in front of that many people and the effect that it would have on me. What sort of person would you really have to be to play fearless tennis in front of 15,000 spectators who are watching your every move ? It's one thing to play in front of 50 people at your local tournament but in front of thousands ? That's intimidating.
I remember walking past some players at Roland Garros who were there for the same reason as I was, to gain paper work to allow us to play the tournament circuit that involved prize money. The money was not life changing but it was a big help to get to the next tournament. Some of the players I saw were possibly the untidiest tennis players I had ever seen, there was no such thing back then as 'dressing to intimidate'.
I see kids now days walk onto a court at the local junior competition with racket bags big enough to sleep in and shoes worth $200, maybe a racket worth $300 - $400, that's a big investment at a young age. It is however all 'part' of the game now days that seems to thrive on looks and image. If you turn up to play in a pair of Dunlop volley shoes and a $50 racket you will more often than not gain the attention of that group of players I mentioned at the start of this chapter. They are intimidating at a junior level.
I usually found the guys who turned up to play with a beard , long hair, older rackets and shoes to be the players who could really play the game of tennis. Why? Because they relied on nothing except ability. Polite players too were the ones to look out for , these guys knew their capabilities and they oozed confidence. They knew they would be in the last 4 in a few days time, their opponents until then were simply 'practice partners'. Arrogant players were not as good , they relied on their surly attitudes to try and gain an edge, their tennis though was not as confident.
When I used to play junior tournaments in both Queensland and Perth I was sometimes overawed with the occasion initially or the opponent but I usually settled well and played a competitive brand of tennis. Trying to do it in Europe however was a totally different equation as the last chapter also suggested, it was like an AFL side trying to win regularly away from home, tough assignment.
So to my initial paragraph and the conversation I had with the junior and the parent, I simply gave some examples as best I could. I told them I now days enjoy playing in front of people who would rather I lose, I actually pick them out and use them as a spur. If tennis tournaments were full of spectators wanting you to win all the time where would the fun be in that ??
So the obvious question came back " How do you know some of them want you to lose "? I said "Well at your age you don't have to worry too much about it , at my age though in a sport such as tennis some of us have a difference of opinion, nature of the game. As a kid however you have a chance to walk past that group of boof heads at the end of your match and give them a smile that says "Thanks for the support , I play better in front of you guys, hopefully I will see you all next match" (under your breath of course).
That's how you deal with 'rock stars' and their 'fan club', simply beat them, they won't bother you too much after that even if you do play with a $50 racket.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)