The State of American Tennis

It is now February and the first major, the Australian Open, has already passed us by in dramatic fashion.  And so begins a slow period in the ATP and WTA schedules, where minor events predominate and the top-tier players usually take holiday on a sun-drenched coastal shore, either w/ or w/o their s.o.  At this time of the year, the casual tennis fan has absolutely no casual interest in tennis.  American Sports predominate.  Football, Basketball, Hockey.  Tennis is a world sport, even more so than basketball.  In America this means that there is no local team.  And considering there isn't a male American tennis player anywhere near the Top 5, it is hard for tennis to capture the Average American's attention.  Especially when there isn't anyone playing under the red-white-and-blue that stands a chance against one of the Big Three (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer), which essentially means there isn't a single male American tennis player capable of winning a grand slam.  It just will not happen.  For years.  Maybe a decade.  The others are just too good.  

So even though the Sport of Tennis is incredible with current stars that are truly transcendent and playing the game at an unprecedented level, the State of Tennis has seen better days -- in terms of Market Share and what-have-you.  The fact of the matter is: tennis in America is not as popular as it used to be.  That is the State of American Tennis.

World Tennis is better off with an American male near the top.  America, because it is the most gi-normous market in the world, could easily double the popularity of a sport that has more barriers to entry than most (i.e. cost of racquets, tennis lessons, court time).  But America, as a whole, would play more tennis if there was a likable frontman to the operation.  The problem is, players like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are truly transcendent, "once in a generation"-type players.  They are not readily found.  And even a perfect raw diamond can be flawed by the cut.  

America has not produced a male tennis champion since Sampras, and he wasn't all that likable.  Agassi was more likable (to some.  To others he was detestable.) but he never reached the rarified air of Laver, Emerson and Co.  The American Verve of Connors and McEnroe was a wonderful balance against the Scandinavian Coolness of Borg in the late 70s, but neither man could eclipse Borg's 10 Grand Slam titles.  And even though Connors trials as a lone wolf between tours was an intriguing storyline in the earlier 70s, that narrative is too rarely captured in today's game where entourages follow every player in the top 100.  Tennis needs powerful stories. And American Tennis is in a desperate search of its next storyline.  Sports-stories can capture a wide audience, a nation-sized audiences at times, but most nations need a countryman involved.  Right now, Americans feel under-represented.

The current American tennis scene cannot command the same audience of its heyday.  On ESPN a major sports commentator, speaking about tennis only in response to the amazing Australian Open Final between Nadal and Djokovic, could not even pronounce John Isner's name.  John "Is" - "ner" is a Greensboro, NC native and the #3 American tennis player.  The fact that a major sports commentator couldn't pronounce his name says something about American tennis.  Americans aren't in the doldrums, but France, Spain, Switzerland, Serbia, Argentina, and even Great Britain can boast better male players.

[excuse me: I've been very ATP-centric]

So how do we change things?

Right now the USTA is working with different sized courts and an array of different types of tennis balls to help develop more successful younger tennis players.  Known as "10-and-Under Tennis" the program is meant to rival other youth sports by making it easier to get started "playing" the game as opposed to learning "how to" play the game.  I've worked with kids that went through this type of program in France and I was amazed at their imagination and shot-selection.  They seemed to "see" the court differently than a lot of the American kids I'd given lessons.  The "kid-sized" equipment seemed to help them understand the geometry of tennis better.  

But really America isn't lacking in tennis-teaching institutions.  American Tennis's main obstacle is getting kids involved in the game.  The USTA simply hasn't been able to tap into its most athletic citizens, the ones that have the greatest chances of becoming transcendent athletes.  The USTA knows that Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls, the NBA's MVP, is a phenomenal basketball player, but the USTA also knows that if Derrick Rose had been given the opportunity to be a tennis player he could have competed with anyone in the world, including the current best.  Transcendent athletes are just that, transcendent. The question is: how do we get them on the court?

This is the State of American Tennis

DK

Roger v. Rafa: Who should you copy?

It's come to this.  I'm blogging about it.  For the longest time I would hold hushed conversations with friends, quietly disagreeing with some of them, the ones that thought otherwise, the ones that didn't understand.  I would walk away smiling, all the while thinking them foolish to be so fooled.

I haven't changed my mind.  I've just come around to raising my voice.  

So I'll just say it: I don't like Rafael Nadal.

It's not that I hate him.  It's not that I don't respect him as both an athlete and a person.  I simply dislike him as a tennis player, as a strategist, as a practitioner of tennis swings.  [Now as a maestro of mental tenacity...admittedly, he's pretty *%#@! good at competing and quieting his mind during battle.]  

For those that know me they are aware that I tend to note Roger Federer more often than Rafael Nadal.  This is a bias based on the notion that Roger's all-court game, while incredibly difficult to perfect, is more fun to teach than the martial diligence required for the perfecting of Nadal's skill set.

Again I respect Nadal's ability to hit a heavy, heavy, spin ball to all areas of the court--and then to finish of the weak reply with a forehand winner.  But personally I enjoy more nuance and variety, more half-volleys and volleys, more of Federer's guile and craftiness than Nadal's brand of Spartan aggression.  I find the skill set most perfectly employed by Roger Federer is the more practical skill set for the average club tennis player, even if he/she can't employ it so perfectly.

I should probably stress that Rafael Nadal is completely capable of making mid-court volleys, low slice returns, half-volleys, and multiple other "Doubles"-shots.  After all, he has won multiple doubles titles.  What I want to draw attention to is the fact that he rarely employs these shots during his singles matches (i.e. the matches that make it onto television).  Therefore, I've found that players who focus on Nadal most often focus on his forehand and its spinning helicopter finish.  

Of course Nadal's most popular or widely-viewd matches usually occur when Nadal is playing Federer.  Most tennis fans know that Nadal likes to repeatedly hit heavy topspin forehands high to Federer's one-handed backhand, thereby fatiguing Federer over the course of a long match.  This has been a very successful strategy, allowing Nadal to win 18 of the 27 matches they have played.  Because the high backhand is a tiny crack in the Federer facade, Nadal's constant pressure, like water, if allowed enough time, always breaks through the crack.

Nadal's success at beating Federer, a player often cited as the "greatest of all time," leads others to want to copy his game.  However, it might not be obvious to all observers that the game plan Nadal uses to defeat Roger Federer does not require one to develop a full arsenal of tennis shots.  If you were to copy Nadal's game from the more widely viewed matches against Federer (And remember you are not the World Class Athlete that Rafael Nadal is) and then try to play like at the club, I'm sure you would have moderate success at winning points, if you are able to keep it up.  When you hit the heavy, fast spin in over and over and over, you win.  You wear the other player down.  But then there are the other times when you wear down before your opponent does.  And then the subsequent times when you miss early trying to go for a little more.

In my experience, the players I see that attempt to copy Nadal and his ballistic, heavy spin groundstrokes tend to have a one-dimensional quality.  Now if their one-dimensional quality is really, really good, (i.e. they move very well as well as hitting the ball very hard) they will usually win since they have a big weapon.  However, if a one-dimensional player runs into an opponent that can resist their weapon, the one-dimensional player cannot change strategies or find a different way to beat the opponent.  

Again I should reiterate: Nadal is not one-dimensional.  In his earlier days on tour he was more one-dimensional than he currently is, but he still has abundant skills in almost all areas of the game.  Strategically, however, he rarely looks to use these skills when playing Roger Federer because he doesn't have to.  Nadal has found the key to beating Federer, and being a champion competitor, he has stuck to his game plan and executed two out of every three times they've played (and 80% of the time in majors).

Federer, meanwhile, uses more variety during a match -- sometimes to his own detriment.  And while I won't argue on behalf of Federer's strategic prowess in his Nadal matches, his skill set and its subsequent strategic use has significantly more practical applications for the average tennis player's game.  There is great benefit in knowing how to half-volley a ball from the service line or how to hit a "friendly" groundstroke of varying pace with little spin so as to make it easier to rally with someone.  The "Nadal" groundstroke is often difficult to hit in a "friendly" way.  Nadal can do it.  He can probably hit a "friendly" shot with lots and lots of spin, but he's Rafa Nadal.  He beats Federer 67% of the time.

So, yes, Nadal's game is seemingly "better" than Roger Federer's game in the sense that Nadal beats Federer.  But in terms of who you (the average club tennis player) should copy, it is the humble opinion of this narrator that Roger Federer's all-court prowess and multifaceted array of shots is more complimentary to club play.

"Club play" could mean a number of things.  I like to think that a good "club" player may be able to play 5.0 singles/doubles and regularly serve 100+ mph.  But a good "club" player may just as well be a 56 year-old that serves in the 70s and plays a solid 4.0.  However, the 17 year-old kid who doesn't practice all that much so he doesn't volley well and can't really bunt the ball back and forth with a continental grip, is not a good "club" player, even if he can knock the cover off the tennis ball, hit his serve 120 and smacks the ball with heavy topspin from all areas of the court.  

A good "club player" can maintain a rally with a large scale of tennis players using aggressive, neutral or defensive strokes and a variation of swing speeds.  Because the kamikaze play of the 17 year-old above prohibits a rally with the majority of club players, the kamikaze kid is not a club player.  [And the kamikaze kid could probably care less.]

I believe Federer's game is more in the spirit of the club player.  His comprehensive ability to half-volley, slice, and approach the net off of his serve and short balls is instructive, to say the least.  Watching Federer is like watching any great practitioner of art: you learn things you didn't think could be.  It's like listening to music and hearing new notes.  Seeing a painting and suddenly "things" appear in a new light.  Watching Federer play is like seeing what tennis CAN be.

DK

Lesson # 0009743: Hunting the Wobbly Flamingo

In the previous lesson we discussed the strange wildlife one can see on a tennis court.  Most specifically we talked about the species known to all tennis aficionados as, the Wobbly Flamingo.  

The "flamingo" appears whenever a tennis player balances on one leg while tipping over to hit a tennis shot.  

The Wobbly Flamingo can inhabit all levels of tennis, but the sightings become more and more rare the higher the level of tennis.  This is because the better tennis players stalk the Wobbly Flamingo.  They seek to feed on its less powerful shots.  Wisely, these skillful hunters hide in the thickets of No Man's Land whenever they force their opponents on a long run.  These hunters are always looking to venture forward anytime they see a hint of the Wobbly Flamingo.  

Of course the better tennis player also knows how to pull the Wobbly Flamingo out of hiding by hitting firm shots to the corners and sidelines, forcing the Wobbly Flamingo to appear as soon as your opponent's balance becomes compromised. 

Less-skilled Wobbly Flamingo hunters will get their opponent on the run, force them into a Flamingo posture, and then allow the Wobbly Flamingo's feeble effort to bounce somewhere around the service line.  Of course this allows the strange bird to collect his or her self and prepare for the next shot, making it that much more difficult to finish the point.  

So when hunting the Wobbly Flamingo, remember to keep firing your split steps.  The split steps will keep you ready so that when the opportunity to move in on a Mid-Court Ball comes, you'll have your feet underneath you and you'll be ready to take the ball out of the air with a punch (or swinging) volley.  

Learn how to recognize your opportunities, position yourself forward of the baseline in No Man's Land, and then take your shot.  At first it might be hard to consistently stalk the Wobbly Flamingo, but the more you look for it across the net, and the more willing you are to take a risk coming forward, the sooner you'll be carving up the Wobbly Flamingo's wobbly groundstrokes with some tasty volley winners.  

Lesson #0009742: Beware the Wobbly Flamingo!!!

Let's talk about "Baby Steps."   

When coming to net everyone wants to make sure that he/she is balanced and ready to make sharp movements to the ball.  By taking "baby steps" you avoid over-reaching and losing your balance.  This is a good thing. 

However, even if you are balanced (and in a good position at net) if your opponent is also balanced and in a good position, your advantage is minimal or non-existent.  

So this is a two-fold issue.  If you are the net player you want to hit a shot that puts your opponent off balance, but if you're the baseline player you want to make sure you can get to the ball and stay balanced. 

My advice to both: Beware the Wobbly Flamingo!!!  

The Wobbly Flamingo is a common wildlife sighting at all tennis clubs, but rarely is the Wobbly Flamingo a graceful animal.  Instead of not-lazy footwork the Wobbly Flamingo (or Tea Pot) tips over to the side and lifts one leg off the ground.  He/she then hopes and prays and stretches their racquet for the wayward ball.

This is not an ideal tennis shot.   

As to be expected, there are many Flamingo spottings at the net and baseline, however, the vast majority of all Wobbly Flamingo sightings take place in No Man's Land.  

To avoid the Wobbly Flamingo work on keeping a wider base (or stance), especially when at net.  The Flamingo (or Tea Pot) may allow you to stretch and make one shot, but the real problem comes up when you are trying to hit the next shot. 


Because the Wobbly Flamingo Footwork makes you unbalanced, recovering for the next shot is more difficult.


There are a lot of different footwork drills to help limit the Wobbly Flamingo populations but perhaps one of the easiest activities is a simple game of shadow tennis.   Like a boxer reacting to movements of his shadow, try playing and moving on the tennis court without a ball.  Move to the spots that you think you'll need to cover.  Work on the steps.  Repeat.  Repeat again.  Practice moving everywhere.  Memorize the court.  And then do it again.  Again again. But avoid lingering in No Man's Land for too long!  That's the home of Wobbly Flamingos and all sorts of other strange wild life.

Lesson #000013774: Moving Up from 3.0 to 3.5

A 3.0 player is "a fairly consistent tennis player when faced with medium-paced shots, but is still not comfortable with ALL strokes ... lacks direction, depth, and/or power on most shots but is perfectly capable of the occassional Hit-or-Miss miracle shot ... most common formation in doubles is one-up and one-back ... still working on transitional play."  

Of course all tennis players are working on transitional play because most tennis players lack either depth, direction, or power to their shots.  So if you're a 3.0 player you're probably wondering: Where's the plateau?  How much better do I have to get at X, Y, Z in order to be a true 3.5?  Do I need more X, more Y, or more Z?  What if I can't do X?  Why can't I do Y like a tennis pro?  And what if I hate, I mean really hate Z?  (The variable, not the Tennis Director)  Well...it's complicated.  But in an effort to provide concise advice (in the aphoristic tradition) let's start with: 


#1  Get comfortable with the mid-court ball.  

Dare to hit away from the center of the court, and if you hit it well, be ready *and willing* to volley the next shot.

#2  Plug-up leaky strokes.  

If X sprays two unforced errors every other game, then practice X.  If there is only one stroke costing you points, then it is a simple fix.

#3  Increase your radius at net.  

Make a conscious effort to widen your stance, bend your knees, and blanket an entire area.  Become a bigger Net Monster.  Transform yourself into a larger impediment to your ground-stroking opponent.  Your volleys don't necessarily need to be crisper or more precise, but your wall, the area you can cover, must expand.

Dedicate some time to these things in your practices and/or matches and soon enough you'll be on the next plateau wondering how to get to 4.0.