' 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......

'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 ?

'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....

'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.

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.
 

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. 

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.....