Readers Write

TennisOne,

Boy, have I had it with Serena Williams! She's becoming the epitome of the "Ugly American" on court.

I have a suggestion regarding her fine (and subsequent fines). I read that she was fined $2,000 for her disrespectful outburst against the umpire in the U.S. Open Singles final. Rather than having the fine allocated as a flat fee, I think it would be more appropriate that the fine be a percentage of the prize money the player receives based on his/her results at the end of the tournament. For example, if a first-round loser creates a fuss during his/her match, then the fine would be, say, 50% of his/her winnings. And if Serena makes a fuss during the finals (or on her way to the finals), the fine would equal 50% of her winnings (in this case, 50% of the finalist's winnings, or about $500,000. I'll bet THAT would shut her up -- or at the very least teach her a lesson. For Serena, winning approximately $1 million, a $2,000 fine is mere chump change.

Irritatedly,
Paul D. Cain

Paul,

Thanks for sharing your views and punishment proposal. Like the progressive income tax, your progressive punishment fine proposal would likely be favored by either the right or left -- but I'm not sure which. If someone gets fined $100,000 for an offense in the final, while another person gets fined $5,000 for an identical offense in the first round, the former player might find that unfair, and the latter player might also.

Serena revealed she's suffered from depression and has had 120 therapy sessions. She may be a manic-depressive. She went to sleep unnecessarily late, at 4:30 a.m. the night before the final. Her problems may be as much psychological as ethical, though I concede her remarks often indicate she doesn't seem to know right from wrong.

If you get a chance, read the book, Tennis Confidential -- I believe you would enjoy it greatly.

Best wishes,
Paul

TennisOne,

Anticipating all the obligatory hate mail directed at Serena Williams for her outburst at this year's US Open, I would like to comment on calls that were not made in the Women's Doubles final and then pose some questions.

Liezel Huber foot faulted practically every time she served from the deuce court throughout the entire match. Who knows. She probably was doing it for the entire tournament.

For the record, a person is not allowed to set up with any part of his/her body crossing the center hash mark and then correcting it during the delivery of the serve. Yet she did so time after time without comment from any of the on-site officials.

How important, really, are foot faults in the overall enforcement of the Rules of Tennis? If it is important, why did the entire officiating crew fall asleep during the Women's Doubles final? If it isn't important, why was Serena Williams singled out at a critical moment in her 2010 match?

Come to think of it, how many times in Leyton Hewitt's career did he inadvertently (or otherwise) shout out one of his "C'mon's" a split second early during a critical point? Again, without an officiating reprimand.

Or what about the protestations about distraction/hindrance of virtually every woman on the pro tour regarding the outrageous grunting of Monica Seles during her rise to prominence?

When are the Rules of Tennis enforced?
Scott Harris

Scott,

Thanks for sharing your interesting and variegated views.

What matters most here is that each rule be applied properly in those cases where it should be applied.

Second, two wrongs never make a right.

If you read my essay in Tennis Life Magazine last year -- "The Foot Fault That Freaked Out Serena" -- you know that I condemned foot faults committed by Serena or anyone else. I have been a baseline judge and on occasion have called foot faults on players.

I hope you get a chance to read Tennis Confidential which analyzes many of The Great Issues of Tennis.

It will be interesting to see if in 2012 there is a movement to 1) stop stalling by some players and 2) grunting, screaming and shrieking by some players.

Best wishes,
Paul

TennisOne,

On today’s piece (Not Just For Cows), it seems to me the main way the games have become more similar on all surfaces is that no one plays a serve-and-volleys style anymore. I’ve wondered why this is for some time – particularly on the women’s side when a few years back all the other players (e.g. even greats like Hingis with excellent net games) were obviously grappling to adjust to the new level of power groundstrokes ushered in by the Williams sisters. Is the main reason simply that racket technology has made the return of serve faster and better?

Thanks,
Mark

Hi Mark,

I think the improvements in both racket and string technology tend to favor the baseliner over the serve volleyer by helping returns and passes to dip over the net with pace. Along with the greater strength and conditioning of the average player today, which helps them to hit powerful shots on the stretch, and the slower balls and courts at traditionally fast-playing events like Wimbledon, this makes it an uphill struggle for anyone to attempt to pursue a serve and volley style, when it would be so much easier to play from the baseline like everyone else.

We’ll probably see serve and volley in singles mostly as a surprise tactic, unless conditions change again. Personally, I think this is a bit of shame, as I used to enjoy the classic serve volley vs. baseliner duels of the past.

Best wishes,
Adam

TennisOne,

I read the article "Not Just For Cows" and found it very interesting. I feel that the a couple of very substantial factors have led to the success players have had at both Wimbledon and the French Open were never mentioned. Those factors being, the change in the court conditions, and the different balls used on each surface.

Since 2002 the ITF has approved three different types of balls; the standard or type 2 ball; the faster type 1 ball; and the larger, slower type 3 ball. It is my understanding that the French uses the faster type 1 ball, and Wimbledon uses the larger, slower type 3 ball. In addition, I have heard it mentioned often by television commentators that the red clay courts at Roland Garros dry more quickly and as a result play faster than in the past. It doesn't even take a commentator to point out the fact that the grass courts at Wimbledon play slower and bounce higher and truer than in years past. I believe both these initiatives were an intentional effort on the part of the ITF, ATP and the Grand Slam tournaments themselves, to bring more parity to the game. Today's players have adapted to, and made the most of these changes. A secondary result has been that it has created a more homogenous style of tennis. 

Gone are the serve-and-volley, chip and charge, hard charging specialists who would often have career highlight results at Wimbledon and no where else. Gone also are the dirt devils who would spin a serve in, then retreat to 10 feet behind the baseline to rally moonballs until their opponent collapsed. I can't even envision finals like Alberto Costa/Juan Carlos Ferrero, Ferrero/Martin Verkerk, or my favorite Gaston Gaudio/Guillermo Coria (I'm Argentine), in today's French Open.

 I would argue that, as great as he is, Roger Federer would not have reached  the final five out of the last six years. Even more surprising is Robin Soderling, a big hitting, aggressive player by all measures, would be a finalist two years running. By the same token, I believe Andy Roddick could have won several Wimbledon titles on the faster, lower bouncing grass courts. His missile launcher serve would have yielded him so many more aces and serve winners that he would have been very difficult to stop in years where he served very well at Wimbledon. Big servers often reached the late rounds at Wimbledon, almost exclusively on the weight of their serve. As examples I would submit one time Grand Slam winners such as Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek, and Goran Ivanisevic.

Whether these changes and their resulting consequences have been good for the game or not are debatable and probably a matter of taste. It is probably better for the tour that well known, top players, consistently reach the late rounds of both the French Open and Wimbledon, with less improbable upsets like Kevin Curren defeating John McEnroe, Krajicek taking out Sampras, or Peter Doohan beating Boris Becker in a grass court classic, all at Wimbledon. Likewise we'll probably not see 17 year old ball machines with Ferrari engines like Michael Chang and Mats Wilander, coming from nowhere to win the French Open title.

In my opinion though, the greatest loss for the game brought by these changes is the lack of variety in the game now. For the most part, all professional players today are power baseliners. It is the style of play that is best suited for today's not-too-fast, not-too-slow surfaces, and the game leveling variety of balls. Gone is the incentive to learn a good slice approach shot that will barely rise off the court on Wimbledon's grass. Gone is the well worn path from baseline to net that was etched into the courts at Wimbledon by the end of the fortnight, the result of repeated serve-and-volley advances by most players, including the loopy swinging Swede, Bjorn Borg. Why would you take the chance at mid career to learn to chip a return, come forward and put away a solid volley like Ivan Lendl did in order to try to capture a Wimbledon title? Poor Lendl played in the wrong age. His wonderful aggressive baseline game would have made him the perfect player for today's professional tour. He might well have captured at least one of the elusive Wimbledon titles he so wanted. It's no wonder that the great majority of top players today grew up playing on clay courts. The tactics and physicality required to win on clay, are well suited for all of today's middle-of-the-road surfaces. Add to that, faster, harder balls that allow even the shortest of male professionals to pop first serves of 120 mph and you've got a situation where players like David Ferrer are top ten players despite approaching the net more times to switch sides of the court, than to hit a volley.

Thanks for the great website and thought provoking articles.
George Schuldberg

Dear George,

I couldn’t agree with you more that the various changes in conditions which have taken place over the last ten or so years have been instrumental in the decline of both the serve volley and grinding styles.

I also agree that it’s a shame that there is less variety as a result (particularly in the women’s game, where, since the retirement of Mauresmo, only the Williams sisters seem to throw in many serve volleys, and even then only at Wimbledon*).

Balls and courts aside, I’ve always felt that modern rackets and strings have also been more to the benefit of baseliners (offensive and defensive) than serve-volleyers, as I think they help them to make both returns and passes dip hard at the net player’s feet, even on the stretch.

I wonder –and I admit I don’t come at this from a coaching perspective –whether modern rackets and strings are responsible for the greater pace of shot in the game today directly, either because they’re more efficient or because they enable players to hit the ball has hard as they can with greater margin for error than in the past, or indirectly, because players have grown up with these rackets. It seems to me that 1980s and to an extent 1990s professionals grew up with wooden rackets, and were coached techniques that were optimal for those rackets, and then had to adapt their games to modern composites, whereas today’s players have had the optimal technique for light, large composite rackets drilled into them from an early age.

Perhaps part of the reason serve and volley has died out is that juniors:
1) like the rest of us, don’t see it much on the professional tour; and 2) owing to the various changes already discussed, find it too difficult to execute serve and volley with any success when they are developing their game, and so elect to focus on baseline play instead.

If conditions stay the same, I think it would take someone both of enormous natural talent and dogged determination to become a top serve-volleyer today. It would be so much easier for them to become a talented baseliner or all-court player instead, or indeed to specialise in doubles.

Who knows, the AELTC may yet decide to use those faster Type 1 balls at Wimbledon! It would be interesting to see which players would benefit the most from such a change.

Thanks again for your email.

Best wishes,
Adam Gale

*Also Schiavone and Stosur at the French (!), which reinforces what you’ve said about the faster conditions there.

TennisOne,

Just to let you know I appreciate very much your (Dave Smith) insightful articles about the two handed forehand. I am 45 years old and have played tennis since I was fifteen. I would say I am a solid 4.5 and when I am "on" a 5.0 player. However I have always been held back back the lack of confidence on my one handed forehand. For several years I have tried many things to "find" my forehand, to discover how it's supposed to feel without thinking about it. I have your book tennis mastery and just read an article where you talk Bartoli's and Shuai's strokes.

I have in the past tried to hit with two hands but have given in to comments from friends that I am wasting my time, etc. There certainly is a social stigma that can inhibit it's more widespread use if you let it bother you but have decided to give it a try for one month without giving in. I will let you know what I discover.

One thing I will say though is that I will try to hit with my dominant on top (for a right-hander right hand on top) so in essence two backhands. I find this stroke will give me the alternative to let go with left hand if I am certain I can whip the ball. also I am curious to see how this evolves since I am originally a left hander that was forced to write with his right hand early on. I heard Nadal is right handed and one day just went one handed…but on his left side. Maybe I will be the opposite.

Anyway hopefully you find this email encouraging that there are many of us out there who appreciate the research you have put into this. I know Pancho Segura is proud!

Back to you soon with my findings,
Alfredo

Alfred,

Thank you for your note, your experiences, and your kind words regarding my articles and books!

I certainly understand the social (and even professional!) stigma of the two-handed forehand. There is so much ignorance out there!

There is also nothing wrong with your two-handed grip. (As I mentioned in my book there are three variations, and certainly Gene Mayer was not a bad player with the grip configuration you are more comfortable using.)

One thing for sure, your exploration of the two-handed forehand will in all likelihood, allow you to discover something new about your conventional forehand that may indeed solve some of the issues you might be struggling with.

I wish you well in your continued pursuit of excellence and in your acquisition of even more effective strokes and skills!

Best wishes,
Dave Smith
Senior Editor, TennisOne.com

TennisOne

From one classicist to another, thanks for a great perspective on the modern, rotational game and its holy grail of racquet head speed versus the older, more traditional technique of step and hit through the ball. I couldn't agree more that today's prevalence of falling backwards while stroking the ball forwards leads to club players mimicking the worst part of a valid, though more extreme technique.

I do think it worth noting that del Potro's grips are neither western on the forehand side, nor recreating a lefty's forehand on the backhand side. They're much more traditional. Fully exploiting those grips and today's racquets (which came first?) means loads of topspin, and the falling back motion is an accommodation; falling backwards adds another method, another lever if you will, for whipping the racquet up against the back of the ball.

It's not that del Potro couldn't  fall backwards, but it wouldn't give him any real advantage. The fact that his strokes are much flatter than many other pros is directly related to his grips and the swing path difference they necessitate.

Though I never met Tom Stow I know enough about him (and know a few of his students) to feel confident in saying that he'd maintain that falling backwards as a means of ensuring sufficient topspin mitigates against playing well at the net, as well. The potential half step forward (or more) you lose when your groundies have you falling away from the net mean you'll have such a tough time moving up on short balls that success at the net is much tougher. All of which means, of course, that you'll do it less often and lose a real tactical advantage.

Thanks again,
Skip Schwarzman

Skip,

Thanks for the note. Watching him practice has re-energized my teaching as so many of the kids play the ball off either foot (or sometimes neither) – and this balance thing is just so darn important.

Last night I watched Fed and Nadal in Eugene – and with all their pace and racquet speed, I marvel that Delpo overpowered both of them.

Jim

TennisOne,

I think your analysis (Adam Gale) of Djokovic's future prospects is spot-on. He finally seems to have adjusted to his new racquet (the adoption of which was terribly-timed, and set his progress back 12 to 18 months). Equally important, he no longer waffles and buckles when the going gets tough. If anything, his focus and ferocity increase, as demonstrated by his U.S. Open comeback vs. Federer. It is now the "Big Three" – Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

As for Murray, however, his problems are deeply-rooted in his psyche and will not be easy to solve. Lendl is not an apt comparison. Lendl didn't surround himself with a sycophantic entourage, wasn't followed around the world by his mother, and didn't have the unrealistic expectations of an empire weighing on his shoulders. Murray has tremendous physical and tactical tools, but he has no Plan B. If Plan A is not working, he basically pouts and self-destructs. He needs a no-nonsense coach to work with him to develop toughness and resourcefulness. Think of what Brad Gilbert did for Agassi, and later for Roddick. Murray also needs to tell mom and the entourage to stay home. Clearly they are not helping him in the big matches – his furtive glances and verbal barbs in their direction provide ample evidence.

Best,
John

Hi John,

Thanks for your e-mail. I agree with you, in the sense that Murray does seem have a psychological barrier of sorts to cross, and probably isn’t helping himself in the way he lets his frustrations get the better of him when things aren’t going well.

I wonder, though, whether it’s just a case of winning that first one. He’s had some big wins against top players in the slams after all, notably against Nadal at the US in ’08 and Australia last year, although these were clearly matches where Plan A was working nicely.

I think Murray does have a Plan B – a defensive game that borders on passive at times. His problem perhaps is that Plan B will probably not be enough against the top 3, who can all execute attack and defense excellently, at the same time. It appears to be the case that when he has been in these big matches against the top guys, and they are executing well, he just can’t find his Plan A.

I’m not sure whether that’s pressure or nerves or mindset or luck…but then Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all demonstrated the ability to bring their A-games for the big matches, and Nadal for one has permanently added strong offence to what used to be a fundamentally defensive game…I guess you make your own luck! It’ll be interesting to see, but I reckon he only has a couple of years within which to overcome this issue and sort himself out. Otherwise the pressure in his own head may well become too much.

All the best,
Adam

TennisOne,

I read the article quickly on 10 reasons to volley with continental grip. Some of the best backhand volleyers in the game had their grip pretty far over (toward backhand), most notably Tony Trabert, and that was in an era when players could really volley (as opposed to today where players come in to finish a point, except for maybe Stepanek) and had to because much more tennis was on grass.

Not that I disagree with the conclusion that continental is better because it is, due mostly to the difficulty of changing grips quickly. I changed as much as time would allow. If I had a sitter, I would try to move it over but these are subtleties that one picks up after a long road.

Bottom line, I think the continental is compromise grip. All I have time for.

Thanks,
HB

HB,
 
As I mentioned in my article, there are many exceptions to this "rule" and Trabert could be considered one of them. Ironically, during the same time period that you mentioned Trabert, we can look at a number of top players of the day who all used a continental grip almost exclusively without much change. A short era later, we would see McEnroe emerge as one of the best volley players along with Edberg…and both used continental grips.
 
Which does bring me to suggest that today, many players can volley with the best of those from an era ago. However the balls they have to volley at the net today are a far different animal than what players at the beginning of the "modern" era had to face. Spin, speed, player quickness all create the need to hit better volleys today or face the onslaught of a rocket passing shot with more RPM's of spin than anyone saw a generation or two ago.
 
But, the bottom line is, as you said, the continental is indeed the foundation for players who can volley well. It is almost without exception what we see  top club, college, junior, and pros using. However, as I mentioned, with the exception of swinging topspin volleys, higher contact points, etc., where we do indeed see a few of these 'continental grip foundation' skilled players making slight grip changes for such situational volleys.
 
I appreciate your writing in and sharing your thoughts!
 
Best wishes,
David W. Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

This (Tips to Mastery) is one of the best articles I have ever read on tennis, from playing it to teaching it. It's ironic, because recently I had an epiphany on the game that dealt with the natural ebb & flow of the game. It's  the adjustments one has to make to be successful, and the acceptance that it's these adjustments, the recognition of them and the ability to make them, and the understanding one takes from the process, that enables the player to truly understand tennis.

Doug, I loved your analogy of the 15 speed bike. In fact, I would say that it's these gears, say a 5 speed manual transmission in a car, that every player has to understand and okay within. That's tennis. One doesn't start in 3rd and randomly 'choose' to shift to 5th at his/ her own whim. It's gradual. Ever-changing. And like any good driver will tell you, depends on the traffic, the day and obviously the car ;-)

As a pro for several years who gas worked players at all levels, I think that is the biggest 'tip' not taught. That to play tennis and to play tennis well, is to understand tennis. Bad days are part of it. Figure out how to win on a bad day. You will have a mental lapse. How do you get back on track? What process do you use and does it work for you? You may have been "hitting" well that day, but "playing" average, even awful, and in fact, (pardon the pun ;-) you missed the point. In a lot of ways,  tennis is as simple as driving: you get better the more you do it; but you improve by understanding the situations, the weightier matters of the tips, not the actual driving of the car itself.

Thank you for your insightful look at the game, the courage to look beyond the obvious and all that you and other contributing authors do at TennisOne.

Torrey Hawkins
Director
Windward Tennis Academy

Torrey,

I would like to start by saying that your students are lucky to have found a teacher like yourself.

I have often spoken of the game as being built on a "wave" principle. Everything is self-contained and yet constantly shifting and changing in fluid rhythms. It is both soft and relenting and yet persistent and powerful. In a way it embodies the idea of paradox. It is both fluid,constantly changing in form and character, and yet totally structured and consistent, always following the same patterns.

To me the game turns more and more in this direction of paradox. And as you put so well, we must learn to embrace and be comfortable with this paradox. This often takes time as we tend to favor "positions" and more concrete views of things – "tips" if you will.

Thank you so much for your response and your generous comments. They are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Doug

TennisOne,

As with all of Doug's work, this is brilliant.  We are blessed with many knowledgeable and committed online tennis teachers - McLennan, Counts, and many others.  No one, however,  understands, captures and transmits knowledge of contemporary tennis techniques with Doug's wisdom. 

The only point I would take speculative issue with in this piece, is the idea of professionals having dug deep beneath the surface of instruction to master their skills.  For every Ted Williams, who was famous for constantly analyzing batting technique and putting this analysis to work, there are at least a  thousand world class athletes who have been blessed with brains wired in such a way as to naturally approach their activities in ways that Doug discusses.  I base this on professional tennis player interviews, "tips" columns they write, and the almost invariably wrong-headed commentary they make regarding technique during tennis broadcasts.

John

John,

First I must say I am humbled by your comments. Many sincere thanks.

Secondly I had to laugh upon reading your observation regarding so many tennis pros (as well as other professional athletes), because you are so right. I would surmise that perhaps with very few exceptions, these pro players have learned the game from such an early age that their "understanding" of the game is rooted in a rather youthful and definitely physical world. These kids are learning to hit dipping passing shots before they can recite the alphabet. At these tender ages their understanding of the game is developed more through imitation, feel, and repetition. By the time they are twelve they have put in thousands of hours of concentrated practice. At this age many of their "struggles" with the nuances of the game are less of a mental construct as much as they are physical and emotional.

In many cases these insulated athletes never learn to interpret the game or articulate it through language or mental constructs. I find their attempts to explain the game to others often comes off as inaccurate and insipid and their phrases are full of platitudes and gross generalizations. Rarely do they reveal anything that is of much insight.

Yet within their world of professional athletes they have a dialogue and a repartee that is lively, clever, and nuanced, and indeed, quite articulate. In the locker room, or over a poker table, and on courtside with their clan, they can be a Shakespeare, while in front of a microphone or on the keyboard they can be a buffoon. Still you have players like Federer and Roddick who are quite well spoken and articulate and others who are less comfortable with language but nonetheless possess wit and insight, and others who are simply not that articulate on any level off of the court.

The one thing they all have in common is that they have put in an incredible amount of time into honing their skills on the tennis court and they share a common understanding of the dedication and hard work that goes into mastering the craft. For me to lump the way that each player relates to the game or interprets that process of learning the game into a common experience is narrow minded on my part and I stand corrected.

Thanks for your thoughts and your generous comments. They are greatly appreciated.

Doug

TennisOne,

I agree, support, understand and admire the way you break down the serve and "jump" in your article "To Jump or Not to Jump?" The only adjustment I would make is your advice about "No Man's Land" ("NML"). As a teacher I find that new players tend to avoid "NML" as a general rule they've heard countless times on television or read in magazines. Some will even avoid going to the net, for fear of going through "NML." Or possibly "NML" is one excuse not to go?

I find that my students free up a bit when "NML" is described as a place that one must go through to get where they want to go (the net?). I even advocate taking ground-strokes and volleys in this area as a practice. To maybe practice another angle, half volley or a shorter stroke? The theory is, if you can volley from "NML," then I believe the volley a few feet farther becomes that much easier. And the bonus? They seem less encumbered by the "rules" and the proverbial "don'ts." One student has even started calling that area "Oz," a magical place he may want to go and explore. He seems looser. And isn't that what we want as teachers, tennis players and humans?

Kevin West 

Kevin,
 
Thank you for a great post with excellent comments. I agree (and teach) as you do. I only used the term in the article as a common identifiable area that most people can understand since most, as you have mentioned, have been 'conditioned' by the remarks of pros, television commentators, and the like. Of course, many people will associate NML as an area to avoid, (based on such remarks), which is simply not true as you pointed out.  
 
I agree 100% that players need to not only NOT fear the NML area but, in fact, learn to execute shots from this area to take advantage of situations, instead of avoiding the area as a general rule.
 
I think that the bottom line is the idea of camping out in NML as so many beginners tend to do, that such advice is perpetuated.
 
Thanks again for the comments and the spot-on advice you offer,  
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

Letters in response to Kim's Shanley's "The Quirky Side" newsletter.

TennisOne,

First, you nailed it on rituals, second Sharapova GAVE AWAY the match with double faults (got to feel sorry for her coach, all the time he must spend on that, but serve has Improved much lately!) because if you double fault there is NO chance to win the point and she went BIG again!, underhand (kidding) might be better. Certainly the other PRO can jump all over a weak second serve but as a 4.0 hacker I can spin in 99 out of 100 seconds so I can go big on the first and back power down if its long on the next one, at least there is a chance to win the point. If I double once a day in three sets it’s a lot and I still prevail 75% of the time. So I don't have to worry because the second is going in because it’s just a deep spin or if the opponent is great a low slice that is hard to blast for the returner but there is little risk in it. Why Shara can't just slice low at a match-losing point is amazing bad. Most have some brief ritual, even I have a little loose racquet swing before the toss.  

Skip

Hi Skip,

Yes, all the work on service routines and mental toughness, and seemingly poorer results, that’s the irony. Why some of the women haven’t been able to master a safe second serve, so they don’t have to worry so much about the first, I don’t understand either. Yes, we all need some rituals, but aren’t some of the women over-doing it? Thanks for your comment.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

I enjoyed your article on the topic.

Mr. Bhalla would do himself and his work a great service by deepening his research on Mental Toughness Training.  He should re-read in-depth all of Dr. Jim Loehr's books and underline all references to The Challenge Response.  While Mr. Bhalla is correct in pointing out that "Western" approaches focused on achievement do create tension, there's no escape out of the Challenge in a competitive situation.  Not acknowledging that anthropologically sports are a sublimation of "the chase" or "hunting behavior" for survival would be as wrong as assuming that there's an "Eastern" way that allows people to compete better.  Question: How many Asian players can you find at the top of the rankings, especially those who might acknowledge that Eastern or "Holistic" mental training got them there?

The Challenge Response is a normal, physiological response to pressure that implies "loving the fight" to access a state of "flow" or "The Ideal Performance State."  No one teaches players to do this.  The perception of Pressure does and their bodies respond accordingly.  What Dr. Loehr has done is deconstruct the process by which you can learn, enhance or improve how to coordinate the physical and emotional responses to attain and sustain such state. 

It amazes me how people continue to make Pressure the core issue in competition rather than the response to it.  Training in any form is nothing but a way to increase capacity, skillfulness and versatility to respond to as many challenges as the game requires.  "Not feeling pressure" is not the goal: Loving it and winning regardless is.

Thank you,
Carlos

Hi Carlos,

First, let me say I enjoyed your letter and you opened up several avenues of discussion I thought were very interesting. I invite you to submit a piece to TennisOne, as you seem well informed on these areas. So thank you.

Secondly, my (hopefully) lighthearted piece I don’t think I did full justice to either Dr. Loehr’s body of work, or Happy Bhalla’s. And Happy can certainly represent himself and his views quite fine at this own. However, since I cited his work, I don’t want to leave the mistaken impression that Happy Bhalla thinks the goal of training is not to feel pressure. Rather, to see from a different perspective, one where results and winning don’t inhibit access to the peak athletic performance state.

You say that Dr. Loehr’s Challenge Response approach also trains athletes to access the flow and the zone. Fair enough. And that body of work deserves a much fuller treatment. At the same time, you didn’t address my central point of skepticism: why are all these athletes trained (seemingly) in the Loehr’ system breaking down mentally? They are certainly not anywhere near the “flow” when serving under pressure. Could it be that too much conscious ritualization of these processes to meet challenges is actually counter-producive? So, some rituals good, too much ritual bad? I don’t know the answer, just observing what I see and raising the question.

I think we’re in agreement that “loving” the challenge (pressure) is something of the ideal athletic state. How we prepare ourselves to get there, well, let’s talk some more. Thanks again for your thoughtful letter.

Best,
Kim

Carlo Responds to Kim's response.

Kim,

Key word:  "Seemingly" (Which players are we talking about here?  Who falls into the "seemingly" category?)
Answer #1: It would be interesting to address the existing research on players formally and systematically trained in Dr. Loehr's approach. Just by talking to Jim and reading his books, anyone will discover that the success stories abound and that especially world-class players from 1985 onwards credit Loehr with a radical shift in how they can achieve and sustain peak performance.  It's not about the rituals: the rituals ensure the physical and energy management.  It's far more complex yet integrated than that...

Answer #2: Peak performance is the result of a constellation of factors that starts with recognizing what constitutes the Ideal Performance State, how to attain it and how to sustain it on cue, under pressure. If you look at the world rankings, anyone beyond #12 is an inconsistent competitor regardless of gender.  What could be the reasons?  Here are a few: Players change coaches and training methods frequently.  They don't adhere to a systematic approach or perhaps they are too rigid (they don't make stress/recovery waves in their training schedule properly, a key factor in periodization training).  On the mental side, very few players have the discipline of Federer, Nadal, Henin or Clijsters to stay within their Ideal Performance State physiology and behavior under pressure, regardless of the score. Those who break through once or twice, might still not understand what it takes to sustain that high positive emotion they achieved once or twice.

Answer #3: Any coach can teach Dr. Loehr's in-between-time routines and create some pressure drills.  Yet, unless they understand and apply Sport Science principles throughouth the yearly planning of their players, they certainly have no clue about what will make and break their players. Mediocrity will rule because training implies desire, understanding, sense of purpose, intentional dedication to the task, repetition to perfect and a sense of joy as a result of becoming "Best Under Pressure."  As I explained before, "not breaking down" is the end result of the entire training process, not just the behavioral learning of "acting the behavior you want to feel."  The sequence goes "Think > Feel > Act" yet the best competitors can also "Act how they want to Feel > Shift their Thinking" - This is at the core of "Flow" or the IPS and it doesn't happen by wishing it does.  It happens as a result of a well-integrated training plan that covers all fundamentals.  You won't find many coaches or players in tennis that can do this well. (Amazing, isn't it?  Check it out, research it... The tennis world needs a good shake up)  And that's why we have the Tennis we have...

All the best,

Carlos Salum

TennisOne,

This is a great topic…and definitely good points made about the poor results which follow the rigid routines or ceremonies.  The other problem that stems from this is the slowness of play that results.

 I still cannot figure out why Nadal gets 30 to 35 seconds between serves and sometimes longer to go through his routine.  Federer, Roddick, and Murray to name a few get it done in about 20 seconds 90% of the time.  I don’t know why the players and their coaches have not picked up on this and complained enough to make the officials do their job.  It must be very aggravating waiting an extra 5, 10, or 15 seconds for the server to serve. 

In Nadal’s case I could be wrong, but it does go back to Loehr; he seems to need extra time to be able to organize his serve mentally.  It would be great to see if he can come up with some of the serves he hits if were forced to serve in 20 or 25 seconds.  I have my doubts.  The so “greatest match in history” , Wimbledon 2008 final, lasted 30 minutes longer than it should have and ended in the dark,  for the sole reason that Nadal takes more time than anyone to serve.

 While you are bringing up Jim Loehr, the fist pump punctuated with the ever present “come on” has progressed way beyond obnoxious at junior tournaments.  This all detracts from the game and does not seem to be helping us to develop better players.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi Dave,

I agree that slowness of play detracts from the enjoyment of the game. I also agree that Nadal (and some other players) have benefited from the time-rule not being enforced. And I also agree with your thrust of your question why his opponents (and their coaches) have not raised this issue more strenuously. Prior to the NBA basketball championship, do you think Lakers coach Phil Jackson would hesitated to inform the league if the Boston Celtics committed a foul each and every time they went down the court? Don’t get me wrong, I love Rafael Nadal, his passion, his courage, his will to fight. But shouldn’t tennis (and its stars) have the respect for the sport—not to mention their own best interest at heart—to see that basic rules are enforced?

And as to fist-pumping, yes, I concur that that’s being over-done. You see some players giving a double-pump with a vociferous “come-on” after the first point in the match! Come-on, lay-off the come-ons until, well, at least you’ve won your first game.

Thanks for your letter, appreciated. Kim

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Very entertaining article,,,,,and good timing,,,,I couldn't believe Bartoli's routine.   She has to be the Queen of Quirks,,,I passed her walking around the women's event in Charleston ,,,might have been in 09,,,she had either a full tennis ball,,or one cut in half,,,taped to the bottom of her tennis shoes,,while she was walking around the grounds.  I think she had it taped to the front,,or under the ball of her foot (pun intended).

What a convoluted service stance and routine!!    

In my humble 4.5 player opinion,,,most of them that get the yips,,,,decelerate the racquet head,,trying to "guide it" in,,,,and none of them appear able to put much spin on their serve,,,so their margin for error is less,,,hence the guide.

thx,
Will

Hi Will,

Yes, I had heard about Bartoli walking around with tennis balls taped to her feet. This is one more reason to induct Bartoli into the Quirky Hall of Fame. And I didn’t even describe her actual service routine, which you rightly (and perhaps kindly) call “convoluted.”

Certainly the women having problems with their serve aren’t able to impart enough controllable spin and introduce enough margin of error on their serves. And I agree that many are trying to guide their serves. Which again speaks of too much conscious interference in an action which should be primarily unconscious and automatic. Much more to be said on all this. Thanks for your note, appreciated.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Kim, as concerns your article on "The Quirky Side", these repetitive routines do nothing but delay the inevitable-a first serve at 30-40, or even 40-30. These routines don't eliminate the apprehension we all feel at break point or match point. All of us must step up there and think about what is required to deliver an effective serve, one that will not give your opponent an offensive return. The women pros seem to be trained on having some routine that will neutralize this panic. In my opinion, this routine does not neutralize panic but increases the apprehension. In my opinion, the answer is to hit a good second serve as your first serve. I do this all the time in my doubles matches. It seems to work in the majority of critical points! At least it gives you a chance to hold or win.

Tom

Hi Tom,

In my wise-acrey (is that a word?) approach, I hope I provided a somewhat balanced view of routines. I do see their value, and I have some of my own, as do almost everyone. But after thinking about all this for a while, and observing the women here in Cinci all week, my point was that over-ritualization, over-concentration and focus on rituals, “seems” to be counter-productive all too frequently. Watching the men playing all day yesterday in Cinci (at the same Mason,OH venue the women played in), the men display none of the rigid, robotic routinization of preparing for the serve as the women do, and they seem much more into the flow of the game, with fewer (to my eye) signs of the service yips.

I think your advice about hitting second serve as your first serve is good advice in pressure situations. But I also think it depends on the level your playing. On the tour, you need weapons to hurt your opponents, and you can't continously forsake the use of those weapons for fear they will misfire.

Thanks for your note.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

That was the funniest article I have ever read on tennis. I loved the description of Marion Bartoli's service routine! I howled with laughter and cried all the way through it! It was pretty funny.

And as for the routines, I can relate. I have developed my own quirky routine. And, if i make it through the whole thing, my serve often goes in, and my opponents are so bored and flat-footed that it's often a service not returned;)

Phenomenol good writing. Loved it!!!
Kim

Hi Kim,

Sometimes we lose our objectivity in watching anything repeatedly. Now we just take it as normal that the #1 player in the world picks at his bottom between each point. And we don't see that an awful lot of players seem to be following a mechanical, near Charlie Chaplin routine, that ironically or comically doesn't seem to be doing an awful lot of good. Thanks for the comment, appreciated.

Best, (this) Kim